Here is an excellent summation of this whole sorry episode: "Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Banned from Britain," by Jonathon Narvey for The Propagandist, June 26:
"…it (Islam) is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western Society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown."
Ignore the ungrammatical nature of the awful transcription for the moment (The sheer laziness of the UK government, which might have taken the time to punctuate this blurb, or perhaps find a paragraph from one of Robert Spencer's bestselling books, isn't the worst part, of course). The gist is clear.
The important question here: do you agree with it? Does the Koran mandate warfare against Infidels? Is Sharia -- the law where thieves' hands are chopped off; that women must find four witnesses in the event that they are raped, or they will charged with immorality crimes; or that converts from Islam to Christianity are to be jailed -- compatible with Western society? Do you think the media and government are generally unwilling to remind the public that jihad terrorism is inspired by Islam?
Really? You believe that? Well, hopefully you haven't told anyone your vile views, or you can forget about that vacation in London you were planning with the family.
If you're a jihadist already in Britain, the government will fund your jihad activities. The authorities will stand alongside Islamic organizations who routinely host jihadist hate preachers in order to condemn a wave of hate against Muslims that has actually never occurred. But if you criticize this kind of thing and try to point out the inconvenient fact that jihad naturally is inspired by core Islamic texts and teachings -- well, you're not welcome in Britain. This is what has happened to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
The pair were coming to Britain in the wake of the jihadist murder of the soldier, Lee Rigby, to show solidarity with those who believe in freedom for all from the threat of theocratic fascism -- something that all Britons ought to support. Not the Home Office, apparently. No, their speeches and writings were judged to result in some or all of the following violations:
foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.
seek to provoke others to terrorist acts.
foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts.
foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Neither speaker has ever justified terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs -- they've criticized jihadist terror. They certainly haven't provoked others to terrorist acts, unless the Home Office feels that merely talking about jihad terrorists in any context is enough to spur jihadists to action (Essentially, the "you shouldn't have said something to provoke your husband into beating you" line of argument).
The UK government is essentially saying that making reasonable, informed statements about the connection between Islam and jihad will create terror.
This is it. This is the day Britain surrendered. The family of Lee Rigby and the victims of the 7/7 bombings and other acts of jihad terror ought to feel ashamed of their country right now.