Blaming Pamela Geller

From: powerlineblog.com,  by: John Hinderaker,  on: May 5, 2015,  see the article HERE.

05-04-15_Pamela_Geller_Draw_Muhammad_Garland_Texas_Terrorism_Free_Speech_Interview_05-04-15In the wake of an attempt to murder Pamela Geller and those who attended her “draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, Texas, lots of commentators are blaming the intended victim. The Washington Post, usually more sensible in such matters, joined in this morning with an article by its “social change reporter,” Sandhya Somashekhar, headlined: “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.” In response to which, Geller herself tweeted: “WaPo: JFK offers no apology after Lee Harvey Oswald shoots him in the head: It is unimaginable.” (Via Twitchy.)

The Post’s article begins:

Pamela Geller, the woman behind the Texas cartoon contest attacked by two gunmen late Sunday, knew what she was doing when she staged the controversial event featuring irreverent depictions of the prophet Muhammad in Garland, Tex.

I actually agree that Pamela knows what she is doing, but the reporter’s point seems to be that she had it–murder–coming.

If the contest was intended as bait, it worked. Police say two men drove 1,000 miles from Phoenix, shot at a police car outside the event and were quickly killed by one of the hired guards. The shooting has been condemned by Muslim leaders, and Geller, too, has come under fire for staging an event many viewed as purposely provocative.

So Geller provoked her own attempted murder by “baiting” radical Muslims. The article goes on to quote the Southern Poverty Law Center as though it were a respectable organization rather than a radical group that has itself incited others to violence. Then we have this:

In an interview with The Washington Post, Geller said she and her fellow organizers were “prepared for violence” this past weekend. In tweets immediately after the shooting, Geller appeared almost gleeful that she had been right.

In describing Geller, Somashekhar writes:

And last month, she drew headlines and an unsuccessful lawsuit for sponsoring an ad campaign that featured a quote her organization credited to the Palestinian militant group Hamas: “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah.”

Credited rightly or wrongly? The reporter’s locution makes it sound as though the quote is suspect, but it isn’t. Here it is, in a Hamas propaganda video:

The reporter gives the last word to CAIR. The entire import of the Post story is that Pamela Geller went looking for trouble, and it is mostly her own fault that two gunmen tried to kill her. Not a harsh word is spoken about the would-be murderers or their ideology.

This is one of many instances of the press blaming the victim, Ms. Geller, for the terrorist attack against her event. There was a time when one might have expected America’s news media to come down on the side of freedom of speech, but those days are, for the most part, gone. Andy McCarthy writes that criticisms of Geller miss the point:

[A]s I argue in Islam and Free Speech, it will not do to blame the messenger for the violence. The shooting last night was not caused by the free-speech event any more than the Charlie Hebdo murders were caused by derogatory caricatures, or the rioting after a Danish newspaper’s publication of anti-Islam cartoons was caused by the newspaper. The violence is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology and its law that incites Muslims to kill those they judge to have disparaged Islam. …

The threat to liberty in this instance is sharia blasphemy law. A bloc of Muslim-majority countries, with the assistance of the Obama administration (led by the U.S. State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton), is trying to use international law to impose Islam’s repressive law to make it illegal to subject Islam to negative criticism. No sensible person favors obnoxious expression or gratuitous insult. But as I contend in the pamphlet, there is a big difference between saying “I object to this illustration of insensitivity and bad taste” and saying “I believe that what repulses me should be against the law.” …

It would be easy, in our preening gentility, to look down our noses at a Mohammed cartoon contest. But we’d better understand the scope of the threat the contest was meant to raise our attention to — a threat triggered by ideology, not cartoons. There is in our midst an Islamist movement that wants to suppress not only insults to Islam but all critical examination of Islam. That movement is delighted to leverage the atmosphere of intimidation created by violent jihadists, and it counts the current United States government among its allies.

The sad reality is that free speech has never been particularly popular. Now, as always, it is incumbent on those who would be free to stand up for the freedom of others.

~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, somebody gets it. Several times since the event I’ve heard American talking heads wailing and gnashing their teeth over Geller’s “provocative” event. “If only she hadn’t ‘invited’ the ire of those deranged muslims,” everyone would have been safer and there wouldn’t have been an issue. Even the Mayor of Garland said as much. While that’s true, let’s just suppose that henceforth we all refrain from saying or writing anything that might be considered as “blasphemous” by the militant Islamists. Where has our First Amendment gone? Won’t we have allowed the militant Islamists to “amend” our First Amendment? Should our freedom of speech be modified by adding “except when it offends a muslim”?

I call BULLSHIT on that. We have a First Amendment that guarantees our freedom to speak – not only sweet nothings, but nasty offensive language as well. If they don’t like it – they are welcome to leave, but we cannot – we MUST NOT alter our constitutionally guaranteed rights to please those who would bend our way of life to fit their seventh or eighth century writings. Sharia and our Constitution, our rule of law, cannot peacefully coexist – one must take precedent and in the United States that is our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Garnet92

 

 

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Blaming Pamela Geller

  1. carolinmd says:

    The very fact that Islam has proclaimed that to depict any image of Mohammed to be blasphemous of their religion, put them above the fray in their demand that this is their law and must be obeyed. Unfortunately, the good people of America including Franklin Graham take this to mean that we all must be compliant to the law of Islam so as to not offend them. Wrong…only

    • Garnet92 says:

      They (obviously) believe that we can be easily intimidated – and some of us can, but the REAL Americans will not let these 7th century savages dictate how this country operates.

      I’m all for Pamela Geller continuing to hold these events until they finally realize that we’re not going to back down and try to influence us in some other way. We may need to dispatch a few more of their martyrs to collect their virgin goats, but we have a lot of ammo – more ammo than they have idiots willing to commit suicide.

  2. Kathy says:

    Good question, Garnet – if we all refrain from anything blasphemous to the muslims, what next? We diminish our 1A, but that won’t stop the demands coming. Next, they’ll demand we stop eating pork, or that all women must wear head cover, or, on and on, the demands never stop.

    There’s a really simple lesson here the muslims need to accept. Free speech means you take the bad with the good. Being offended is not justification for killing, and our laws rule here, not theirs.

    Very disappointed to see so many in the media blame Geller and not take a stand for free speech. They fail to see that very same free speech gave them the right to blast her.

    • Garnet92 says:

      We simply can’t establish the precedent that our Constitution is so flimsy that threats can cause us to ignore it and kowtow to those applying the intimidation. You’re right, the problem is theirs – they must accept the American way or accept being viewed as a loony political faction which has no impact on our way of life (inconsequential).

  3. CW says:

    You’re absolutely right, Garnet.

    As would be expected, the hypocrisy and double standards are thick in the air right now. The event sponsored by Geller was held in a private venue. No one was forced to be exposed to it who didn’t want to be. Contrast that with the offensive free speech that liberals stand up for: public desecrations of the American flag; offensive, anti-Christian “art” placed in our museums at our expense; anti-American college professors spewing their nonsense at our universities and at our expense; ugly protests at the funerals of our soldiers.

    What makes Geller’s event important and above the level of the typical nonsense we see is the very idea that Islamic tyrants tell we can’t do it upon threat of violence. This MUST be tested and challenged, lest it become the standard by virtue of our failure to ever push back. I confess that it took me a few minutes to see it that way but after listening to Ms. Geller the truth sunk in.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Spot on CW, we MUST ignore their threats and intimidation and carry on. To do otherwise, is to surrender to their demands and watch our Republic wither and die. I applaud Ms. Geller’s intention to continue to hold her events and I hope that we’re as successful in dispatching some more fanatical loons to an early demise.

  4. Saltwater says:

    My 2¢. For those who objected to the Draw Mohammad contest:

    The event incited them to drive 1000 miles with intentions of slaughter.
    Yes, it did. And, your point? They were already of a mindset to cause as much mayhem as possible in pursuit of religious zealotry. The Garland event only sparked them into acting impulsively, without proper planning, only to be put down like rabid dogs in a Texas parking lot.
    I submit that was far better than waiting for them to surface, fully equipped with an executable plan, at a Phoenix mall, schoolyard, or sporting event to inflict dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of casualties upon the community. Full disclosure: I live in the Phoenix metro area, and am happy they are gone from here.

    But how could such a contest promote the cause of freedom against ISIS and the like?
    The simple answer, it worked. It worked in that it drew out two savages for disposition, rendering them no longer threats to that freedom we revere. That is a win in my book.
    We are dealing with adherents to a 7th century ideology that commands we submit or die. There is no negotiating point, or diplomatic lollipop, we can offer which will deter them in their quest for domination. The only thing that will stop them, is stopping them — permanently.

    “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill ’em right back!” ~ Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly)

    • Garnet92 says:

      Well, one thing that the Garland episode shows is that apparently there weren’t any fanatical suicidal idiots closer than 1,000 miles away. That’s encouraging to those of us in Texas – or maybe there were others but they didn’t want any part of our Texas justice for muslim terrorists. I understand Salty, I think that we’re all glad that they’re gone – period.

      As much as I don’t believe that Ms. Geller expected the outcome (two DRT fanatics), I think that she did expect protestors. Either they were warned away, or they didn’t think the event warranted massive demonstrations. In any event, only two protestors showed up and shortly thereafter assumed ambient temperature.

  5. Uriel says:

    The problem with bullies is that the more we give in, the more they expect us to give in. To castigate Pam Geller for this is the path of subservience to these barbarians. So next, will they say don’t talk about us or write about us or we will kill you? Whether the art contest was well received or not such contests and exhibits happen all the time with works some may not think appropriate yet no one is issuing death threats. Part of being a democracy is the ability to speak freely within reasonable social bounds.(or not if a rogue)

  6. Garnet92 says:

    Agreed Uriel – we simply cannot accept their terms on this (or any other) issue. They are trying to influence our way of life to align more closely to sharia law. There’s no way that any real American can accept their demands to overturn our Constitution and kneel to their will – it ain’t gonna happen.

  7. Grouchy says:

    Just a couple of things, that pop in twixt my three working brain cells:
    ANY objective discussion or critique (NOT necessarily criticism) islam and muslims take as a blasphemous assault on their pedagogue, pedophile prophet, and on the ideology itself. The only statements permissible under the “laws of islam” are those favorable to islam. Anything else is deemed blasphemy, and the penalty for that is torture and death.

    The other thing that strikes me is this: allah has to be defended, as he/she/it is totally incapable (By evidence) of defending himself. The G-D of the Judeo-Christian Ethic and Religion has more than once interceded on His own behalf, and on the behalf of those who believe in Him. I, myself, am a beneficiary of such intercession.

    “Ire of deranged muslims’ states the situation perfectly, as there is evidence of (now) almost 15 CENTURIES of inbreeding in the various tribes and countries beholden to the islamic ideology.

    I have a feeling that the full force of that insanity will soon make itself felt, and those who are not prepared for the assault will rue the day they ignored the warnings~!

  8. tannngl says:

    Glad you posted this, Garnet.
    Pamela Geller has Constitutional rights supporting her actions and her voice.
    And she’s right! If we remain silent with no cartoons, no criticism of Islam or it’s prophet, we invite MORE violence. Only strength standing for our rights in the US will stop these animals.

    Oh, and one more thing. Why do all the talking heads hate Pam Geller enough to say she deserves to be shot for her actions and voice? Even FOX talking heads like FOX and friend and one of the after noon shows. Why? Did you ever think about Pam Geller’s ethnicity?
    She’s Jewish…