Toronto Star runs article by Muslim lawyer calling for Pamela Geller to be banned from Canada

Is anyone from our side ever given an opportunity to respond to this sharia propaganda? Ever?

“Mademoiselle anti-Muslim Hate.” That’s a new one. The defamers and destroyers spend so much of their time thinking of new ways to smear those who are fighting for freedom.

Faisal Kutty, who I have previously exposed and who has numerous ties to groups linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, here claims that Hitler’s fondness for Islam is an “alternative fact.” Well, here is what Hitler himself said: “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.” (Hitler’s Table Talk 1941–1944, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, Enigma Books, 2000, p. 667.)

He claims I defended Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, which is an outright lie. Kutty also claims that Breivik praised me. This, too, is false. He mentions me exactly once in his thousand-page rant. Doesn’t the Toronto Star employ any fact-checkers? Or are its editors so bent on keeping me out of Canada that any lie will do?

The freedom of speech is under attack everywhere in the West. Muslim saboteurs such as Faisal Kutty are trying to stigmatize and marginalize any criticism of Islam and jihad. Will Canada adopt the sharia blasphemy restrictions he is slyly pushing? Or will it stand for freedom?

“Should Pamela Geller be allowed to speak in Toronto?,” by Faisal Kutty, Toronto Star, December 15, 2017 (thanks to George):

“Hitler was inspired by Islam,” according to Pamela Geller. As if this “alternative fact” was not outrageous enough, the woman dubbed by hate researchers as “the world’s top Islamophobe,” also told The New York Times that when Muslims “pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.”

Mademoiselle anti-Muslim Hate has been invited by the Jewish Defence League of Canada (one of whose members was arrested for a hate inspired assault in Washington, D.C earlier this year) to affirm their views at the Canadian Christian College in Toronto. The event on Monday will also feature Canada’s own hate prophet “Rebel Commander” Ezra Levant.

Geller was banned from the U.K. in 2013 and some groups are calling on Ottawa to do the same. Canada has in the past barred for hate, national security and public safety reasons. National security poses its own constitutional and political concerns, while public safety is a double-edged sword. If we censor to prevent opponents from using violence, then what message are we sending to those (both on the right and the left) who wish to shut down contrary views?

Her defenders are quick to use free speech, but some appear to be selective. In fact, a few years ago, her host the JDL, successfully called on Ottawa to ban British MP George Galloway. The open letter urged the government to do “everything possible to keep this hater away.”

While other supporters minimize the hate she fuels.

The key is to strike a balance that protects expression, but also safeguard communitarian values — such as preventing social unrest, promoting societal inclusiveness, and upholding anti-harassment and anti-discrimination.

Limitations to speech may be based on the harm principle or the offence principle.

The former was advocated by John Stuart Mill, who argued for the fullest liberty in expression but nonetheless acknowledged that it can be limited to “prevent harm to others.”

Given the subjectivity as to what may be considered offensive, they conceded that a number of factors must be considered in weighing offence, including: “the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and the general interest of the community at large.”

Geller has a long track record of hate and is a darling of the alt-right with more than 1.2 million fans on Facebook, many of whom are at her beck and call to harass and intimidate especially on social media.

Freedom of expression is alive and well in Canada, but there is no carte blanche. We have libel laws and censorship of various forms in keeping with “community standards.” Moreover, criminal and human rights legislation also restricts speech in the interest of protecting minorities and maintaining harmony.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code proscribes statements that incite or promote hate. Convictions have been fewand far between because of the requirement of specific intent and consent of the Attorney General, but it has withstood constitutional challenges.

Subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”

The second and more relevant offence is set out in subsection 319(2) which makes it an offence to “communicate statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group …” The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Keegstra that wilful blindness (“knew or strongly suspected”) as to the consequences of the statements is sufficient.

Geller has made a profession out of vilifying and demonizing Muslims. She believes a Muslim dangerous per se. In fact, after a broad swath of Muslims protested her “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in 2015, she told the press that this was “your everyday, run of the mill moderates praising mind-numbing savagery.”

She has defended the 2011 actions of Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people, some as young as 14, as targeting future leaders who were allowing Muslim rapists into the country. Not surprisingly, the alt-right terrorist praised her in his Manifesto.

Geller is not the champion of free speech. Her hate has moved from the realm of expressive activity to promoting harm, harassment, and possibly even violence. She is actually sacrificing many other values and principles we cherish at the altar of free speech.