Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Who is going to defend Pamela Geller from defamatory claims - not defamed Melanie Phillips

Bear with me for a minute as this is a little complicated (about an article refering to another article referring to a third article) but this is important.

Melanie Phllips has posted an interesting article here.

In it she praises an article at Harry's Place written by "Alan A" .

The Harry's Place article defends Melanie against the inference that she is as an anti-Muslim bigot that was made in an article about her (at Left Foot Forward) titled "Melanie Phillips is inspiration behind Tea Party anti-Muslim leader" (the "anti-Muslim leader" referred to is Pamela Geller).

Melanie's own article praises the Harry's Place article for defending her. However, there is a very strong irony about what Melanie has written, in that she is praising an article which actually defames Pamela Geller in the same way (only more openly and viciously) than the original article defamed both Melanie and Pamela. In fact Alan A states that Pamela Geller is a "lunatic bigot".


  • The first article infers (rather than states openly) that both Melanie and Pamela are anti-Muslim bigots, without offering a shred of evidence against either.
  • The second article claims Melanie is not an anti-Muslim bigot but states openly that Pamela is an anti-Muslim bigot, without offering a shred of evidence against her.
  • The third article (Melanie's) praises the second article for coming to her defence, while ignoring the fact that the second article had made a far more openly offensive claim.

So who is going to defend Pamela Geller against the cumulative claims against her? The irony, sadly, is that it is not going to be Melanie Phillips.

The problem is that the stock response of any 'liberal' to people who are prepared to stand up to the threat of Islamism (as opposed to Muslims) is that they are 'bigots' or 'racists'. Just as there is no evidence that Melanie is a bigot or racist, nor is there any evidence that Pamela Geller is. In fact, the demonising of Pamela Geller by the main stream media is no different from its demonising of Israel. It all boils down to a combination of anti-semitism and dhimittude.

The other irony about Alan A's article on Harry's Place is that it begins with the words "I expect that Left Foot Forward will get into trouble for this [referring to the original] article." So the entire thrust of Alan A's article is that even implying that somebody is an anti-Muslim bigot without providing evidence is a serious offense. Yet, his own article explicitly calls somebody a lunatic bigot without providing evidence. You just could not make this stuff up.

Update 30 June 2013: This (old) post has been getting a lot of hits because of the fall out from the Geller/Spencer UK ban and Melani Phillips response. Please also see latest update on that ban here.


Anonymous said...

Very good analysis.

I support critically:

Pamela Geller,

Melanie Phillips, and

English Defence League.

Anonymous said...

You need to understand that there are many people opposed to violent jihad that are not going to support the anti-Islam views of Pamela Geller and her efforts to defy freedom of religion and worship in the USA.

You also need to understand that there are many people opposed to violent jihad that are not going to support the vulgar, violent views of the English Defence League. This is a group who use bricks and smoke bombs on police, that put police officers in the hospital, that recently attacked the right-wing Sky News van and reporters.

Certainly Pamela Geller has the freedom to support the EDL. But there will be many many people opposed to violent jihad that completely disagree and object to this.

Most recently the Jewish Chronicle has shown a video of EDL protesters attacking a Leicester restaurant, terrorizing people inside

This was also reported by the Leicester news confirming the terrorist attack on the restaurant was done by EDL supporters.

Pamela Geller could have used her latest posting to distance herself from EDL terrorism. Once again, she consciously choose not to.

But lets be clear, Pamela Geller invited the EDL to her 9/11 SIOA protest, publicly defended that, has repeatedly supported the EDL over the years, stating "If I lived in England, I would surely be active in the EDL Jewish division."

I can imagine that perhaps Melanie Phillips does not want to have anything to DO with that type of thinking.

Anonymous said...

To the previous commenter:

The same people calling Pamela Geller a racist bigot were doing so long before the EDL even existed and certainly long before Geller said she was happy to support them in their resistance to Islamisation of the UK. So it turns out that the EDL is just a convenient new stick to hit Geller with.

Also, regarding the Jewish Chronicle and the EDL you should look at this:

Anonymous said...

To previous commenter that believes that all those disagreeing with Geller have called her a bigot for a long time.

In fact, the real issue is that Ms. Geller has gone from controversial to out the window extreme. That is her freedom and her choice to do so.

SIOA's attacking religious freedom in the USA is a "suicide bomb" for the anti-jihad movement and those concerned about violent jihad.

It has basically destroyed that shared concern among diverse groups and from the explosion, left a twisted, mean-spirited anti-Islam movement. I have seen people promoting and praising violence, just like the jihadists.

One of the key basis for holding diverse individuals together against violent jihad was not just security self-interest, but was shared identity in defending human rights including religious freedom and worship. When someone attacks that, in what has now become the anti-Islam movement, and that is a different argument altogether.

Today's anti-Islam movement is not just defying Bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.; the anti-Islam movement is about demonizing every mosque in the US and around the world. Moreover, it is not just demonizing it, her SIOA seeks activism to prevent building mosques and some SIOA supporters seek to criminalize Islam. This is about those who were once against Islamic extremists becoming extremists themselves.

That is why such support of the vulgar speaking, violent EDL fits in with such an anti-Islam extremist movement. EDL terrorism in the support of anti-Islam is OK to some in the anti-Islam movement.

Things have gone from anti-Jihad researchers who helped inform the police to anti-Islam extremists who now physically attack the police. And still, the anti-Islam adherents don't think there is anything wrong.

The problem is that movement is rapidly becoming more and more like those it claims it is seeks to fight.

It is very sad that anti-Islam extremists cannot see that they are becoming the mirror image of Islamic extremists.

You would think some of the EDL violence against police, violence against public, violence against restaurants, even suspicion in bomb plots, might wake some up. But apparently not.

It is a cruel joke that the anti-Islam extremists have to become the very thing that they claim to be fighting. When they do that - who do you think WINS?

It is so sad, because there is a very real problem out there with Islamic extremists, and this is setting us back years, perhaps decades.

Anonymous said...

To the commenter that thinks EDL is being used an "excuse" to criticize Pamela Geller.

No, it is Pamela Geller and the "anti-jihad" movement that has changed. It has gone from being "anti-jihad" to virulently anti-Islam.

It has gone from defying Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood in security and ideology, to openly demonizing all Muslims and all sects of Islam. It has gone from challenging extremists to seeking to defy freedom of religion and worship of Muslims.

Anti-Islam extremists are rapidly becoming just like the Islamic extremists that they claim to fight. This is where the EDL fits in as an example.

Where once the anti-jihad movement helped inform the police, now the anti-Islam movement physically attacks the police. This is what such anti-Islam extremists have brought us to, undermining our support for human rights, and now even undermining our support for law and order - throwing bricks at police officers, at citizens, at restaurants.

When will the anti-Islam movement see that IT is what has changed - as it seeks to become the mirror image of the Islamic extremists it seeks to fight, using the same tactics and even the same terrorism.

Anonymous said...

OK lets ignore the Jewish Chronicle - why don't you just look at the video on YouTube for yourself?

And see the Leicester news report:
"Before they were rounded up by police a group of EDL supporters attacked the Big John's fast food restaurant, in Humberstone Road. Usman Ali, area manager for the chain, said: 'They smashed four windows and came inside the shop and frightened our customers.' Witness Imtiaz Noor Mohammed, 21, of North Evington, said: 'I was with friends getting something to eat.' 'People saw them coming and someone locked the door. They smashed some windows and one of the EDL people kicked the door open and stood there threatening people.'"

Anonymous said...

It is known that some UAF supporters have violent and intimidatory tendencies.

Anonymous said...

I like Pamela personally and respect her cajones, but she's never had the least bit of nuance in terms of analysis. And she only has one tone of voice, outrage -- it's always you're for us, and if you're not for us 100%, your against us. Remember the time she attacked Bernard Lewis for not being anti-jihad enough. She used the same tone of voice against him as she did against Al Qaeda. This is more of the same.

Carrying the fight to Melanie Phillips, of all people -- whose articles she used to read and praise -- how absurd.

Let's not split into factions -- it's idiotic on our part. Are we going to have a purity test for anti-jihadis now? 100% loyalty or your on the other side. -- Just absurd.

Anonymous said...

Reading two responses to each other here - I have a suggestion that all sides need to think about. Pro-Jihad is Pro-Islam ! Why are we daily told it is a peaceful religion? It is a neutral religion when it is not on Jihad. I mean come on - now Time Magazine shows a picture of a Buddhist Monk and calls him a terrorist? Please Please study the primary sources of the peoples that were colonized by Islam when it spread both East and West out of Arabia. You can not be Anti-Jihad and Pro-Islam any more than you can be Pro-Napalm and Anti-War!!

Anonymous said...

I think the problem with M/s Geller and Mr Spencer, they now read the Quran far more than they read the Bible and act more like the followers of Mohammed than Jesus.

They're insane reaction to M/s Phillips parting company with them over the EDL but otherwise defending them to the hilt and lauding the scholarship of Mr Spencer is that of two people steeped in hatred and intolerance.

*Non of the previous 'Anonymous's' above!

(Absolutely fascinating exchanges by the way)