Pamela on theÂ Dailycaller
I have received initial feedback from Post to say that they do not expect that there would be any reaction from the US Administration to these exclusions.
We do have concerns with some of the reasoning in the sub, particularly citing pro-Israeli views and. [sic] Pro-Israeli views (and also support for waterboarding) apply to a large number of Americans, including former Presidents. If, for instance, Geller and Spencer were to request details of their exclusion under FOI/DPA or other mechanism, that being pro-Israeli is cited as a reason may be problematic and they could argue publically that their exclusion is on the basis of their support for Israel.
I may get further advice from Post later tonight which I will send to you first thing in the morning. Meanwhile, we advise removing references to being pro-Israel from the main body of the sub as this is not grounds for exclusion.
The “sub” is the “Subject Profile” – one was drawn up on each of us. There is no way to tell how much about our being pro-Israel was removed, but mine still says, “She strongly supports Israel and is an ardent Zionist.” And also: “Pamela Geller’s outspoken support for Israel may also attract pro-Palestinian groups to attend, further complicating the policing operation on the ground and making it harder to keep opposing groups apart.”
So now we know the real reason why we were banned.
The documents say that I “worked with” the English Defence League. No, I supported their campaign to stop Sharia in London and to oppose Islamic supremacism, while always being wary of some of the elements within the group. Two of their leaders spoke at one of our conferences â€” but “work together” is overstating matters. Anyway, EDL leader Tommy Robinson has now jumped ship and rushed to condemn his former friends and allies. I didn’t hurry to condemn him, but gave him ample opportunity to clarify his new position; unfortunately, it is clear now that he is a traitor and a liar. I understand that he faces jail time for tax-related crimes, but to throw the EDL in its entirety and every other brave counter-jihadist under the bus makes him the worst kind of turncoat.
The move to ban us, meanwhile, was a massive operation. This was not three guys sitting in a room saying, “I don’t like the way Geller looks and Spencer’s beard is annoying me.” At the first whisper of a rumor by some “hooligans” that Robert Spencer and I might be speaking at a freedom demo in the UK, numerous British government and law enforcement agencies sprung into action. Although Robert Spencer and I had not decided to go and speak in the UK until June, various government agencies began working to ban us as early as February.
There are numerous documents from the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT): that’s right, we were banned with the collusion of the office of counterterrorism. These are supposed to be legitimate government organizations and they are just tools of nefarious forces. How is the UK government preventing a terror attack on the UK, which is the objective of the OSCT? By banning counterterror activists. Why is the OSCT spending enormous sums of a bankrupt nation investigating “characters” who oppose terror, as they supposedly do?
One of the other among a multitude of agencies investigating our case was a Casework and Operations Red Team for Special Cases. That’s right: the Home Secretary employed a Red Team on our case. Red Teams are designed to devise new strategies and approaches to deal with a threat. Now I ask you: is spending their time and money on human rights activists like Robert Spencer and me going to constitute a new strategy for effectively fighting the jihad terror threat against Britain? Is destroying the last bulwark, the last line of defense, the best way to proceed? What next? Is the Home Secretary going to strap on a bomb vest?