Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.^[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, disability^[3], nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,^[4] or other characteristic.^[5] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.^[6][7][8]

International[link]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".^[9] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.^[10] On May 3, 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.^[11] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.^[12]

Australia[link]

Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.

Belgium[link]

The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of July 30, 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.

The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on March 23, 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.

Brazil[link]

In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".^[13] In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentine police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared—the users have re-created the same sites on United States' domains. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crack down these sites, but the FBI denied, stating that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.^{[citation needed]}

Canada[link]

In Canada, advocating genocide^[14] or inciting hatred^[15] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

Chile[link]

Article 31 of the "Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo" (statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due to their race, sex, religion or nationality".^[16] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered through the internet.^[17] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are motivated by discriminatory hatred.

Council of Europe[link]

The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.

Croatia[link]

Croatian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes anyone "who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community".^[18]

Denmark[link]

Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threatens (trues), insults (forhånes) or degrades (nedværdiges) a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.^[19]

Finland[link]

There has been considerable debate over the definition of "hate speech" (vihapuhe) in the Finnish language.^[20][21]

If "hate speech" is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide).^[22]

Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements "hate speech" can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians, including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term "hate speech" problematic because of the lack of an easy definition.^[21]

France[link]

France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).^[23]

Germany[link]

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("Sedition") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

Iceland[link]

In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years. (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

India[link]

India prohibits any manner of expression which someone might consider insulting to his religion or which for whatever reason might disturb public tranquility.^{[dubious – discuss]} Under article 19(2) of the constitution of India certain reasonable restrictions have been imposed on the right of freedom of speech and expression such as sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency and morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.^{[citation needed]}

Ireland[link]

In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i), however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State".^[24] The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."^[25][26]

Jordan[link]

In 2006, two Jordanian newspaper editors were jailed for two months after being found guilty of "attacking religious sentiment." The editors had reprinted cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.^[27]

Netherlands[link]

The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:

• Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.^[28]
• Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.^[29]

In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.^[30] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.^[31]

New Zealand[link]

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Norway[link]

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.^[32]

Poland[link]

The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.^[33]

Serbia[link]

The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech^{[citation needed]}. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.^[34]

Singapore[link]

Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.

South Africa[link]

In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

1. be hurtful;
2. be harmful or to incite harm;
3. promote or propagate hatred.^[35]

The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")^[36] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.^[37]

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubulu iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)," a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.^[38]

Sweden[link]

Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.^[39][40] The crime doesn't prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.^[41]. There are constiutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.^[42].

The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,^[43] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.^[44][42]

Switzerland[link]

In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g. the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.^[45]

Thailand[link]

In Thailand hate speech (การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง) is formally prohibited in civil and criminal statutes, but state machinery and society as a whole generally do little to prevent it or prosecute parties promoting or engaging in hate speech. While the Thai State offers recourse in the courts to obtain satisfaction after the fact, Thai authorities, NGOs and others generally offer little or no protection in preventing hate speech. The country's strict defamation laws are more designed to protect reputations and the institution of the monarchy and not to protect individuals or groups in freely exercising legitimate rights.

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, several statutes protect several categories of persons from hate speech. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.^{[46] [47][48][49][50][51][52]} Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches, does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.^{[citation needed]}

United States[link]

In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).^[53] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.^{[54][55][56][57]}

The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."^[58] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.^[59] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.^[60]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.^[61][62]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.^[63] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.^[64] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.^[65]

NTIA report[link]

In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate "hotlines" are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA's research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.^[66] A list of commenters is appended. 285 footnotes

In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.” This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech. According to NTIA hate speech is:

• Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
• Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.

Hate speech in media[link]

In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC)^[67], a not for profit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).^[68] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January, 2009.^[69][70]

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

• False facts
• Flawed argumentation
• Divisive language
• Dehumanizing metaphors

In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.^[71] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

See also[link]

• Allport's scale
• Anti-LGBT slogans
• Ethnic joke
• Freedom of speech
• Gay bashing
• Gregory Stanton's 8 Stages of Genocide
• Hate crime
• Hate mail
• Holocaust denial
• Ethnic intolerance (disambiguation)
• Personal attack
• Political correctness
• Race baiting
• Racism
• Volksverhetzung

References[link]

External links[link]

• Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety
• From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education
• Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses
• The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes
• "Striking the right balance" by Agnès Callamard Article 19
• Hate speech, a factsheet by the European Court of Human Rights, 2012
• Recommendation No. R (97) 20 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1997

v t e Racism History of racism Racial Equality Proposal · Civil rights movement · The Holocaust · Racism by country · Apartheid in South Africa Racist ideologies Aryanism · Black supremacy · Kahanism · Malay supremacy · Nazism · Neo-Nazism · White supremacy Acts of racism Crime of apartheid · Hate speech · Institutional racism · Interminority racism · Racial segregation · Racist music · Scientific racism · Slavery · State racism Racial violence Ethnic cleansing · Genocide · Hate crime · Lynching · Race war Racism against groups Anti-Arabism · Anti-Armenianism · Anti-German sentiment · Anti-Irish racism · Anti-Italianism · Anti-Japanese sentiment · Anti-Korean sentiment · Anti-Mexican sentiment · Anti-Pakistan sentiment · Anti-Polish sentiment · Antisemitism · Racial antisemitism · Anti-Turkism · Anti-Ukrainian sentiment · Antiziganism · Francophobia · Hispanophobia · Indophobia · Lusophobia · Russophobia · Sinophobia · Anti-Slavism Racist groups Heathen Front · Kach and Kahane Chai · Ku Klux Klan · National Party of South Africa · New Black Panther Party · Nation of Islam · SPLC list Anti-racist groups and movements Anti-Defamation League · Anti-Fascist Action · Anti-racism · Civil rights movement · Diversity/Multiculturalism · Fighting Discrimination/Human Rights First · National Association for the Advancement of Colored People · Searchlight · Southern Poverty Law Center

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Its citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since August 2011. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2011. It needs to be updated. Tagged since August 2011.

Akbaruddin Owaisi
Member of the AP Legislative Assembly
Incumbent
Assumed office 1999
Preceded by	Amanullah Khan
Constituency	Chandrayan Gutta Hyderabad
Personal details
Born	(1971-06-14) June 14, 1971 (age 41) Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Political party	All India Majlis-e Ittihad al-Muslimin
Children	2
Residence	Hyderabad
Religion	Sunni Islam
As of September 16, 2006

Akbaruddin Owaisi (born 14 June 1971) is an Indian politician and a MLA.^[1] He belongs to All India Majlis-e Ittihad al-Muslimin and is its floor leader in Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

Early life[link]

Akbaruddin Owaisi was born in Hyderabad to Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi on 14 June 1971. His elder brother is Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament representing Hyderabad constituency. Akbaruddin Owaisi discontinued his MBBS study midway to help his father, Late Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi retain the Chandrayangutta assembly constituency by winning the elections in 1999. Akbaruddin was first elected to the state Assembly in 1999 and served as a deputy to his elder brother Asaduddin Owaisi, who was leading the MIM in the House. In 2004, Akbaruddin became the floor leader of MIM in the Assembly upon Asaduddin’s election to Lok Sabha from Hyderabad. He was relected in 2009 and now leads the seven-member MIM in the House. Akbaruddin has been very vocal about the land mafia grabbing Wakf properties in the assembly Akbaruddin survived an attempt on his life in april 2011 when a 12 member team of land mafia attacked him ,he was shot thrice and recived multiple stabs but managed to survive ,the whole episode was recorded on camera and made Akbaruddin a survival hero. Akbaruddin owaisi is also the managing director of Owaisi hospital which was setup by his late father Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi for the welfare of the poor .

References[link]

Pamela Geller
Pamela Geller
Born	(1958-06-14) June 14, 1958 (age 54)[1] Long Island, New York, U.S.[2]
Residence	Upper East Side, New York, New York, U.S.[1]
Other names	Pamela Oshry
Citizenship	United States
Alma mater	Hofstra University; left before completing degree[1]
Occupation	Blogger, author, political activist, commentator, former newspaper editor
Organization	Co-founder of Freedom Defense Initiative, and Stop Islamization of America
Known for	Opposition to Park51 community center and mosque
Notable work(s)	The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, with Robert Spencer[3]
Influenced by	Ayn Rand, Bat Ye'or, and Ibn Warraq[1]
Home town	Hewlett Harbor, Long Island, New York[1]
Board member of	Executive Director of the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)[4]
Religion	Jewish
Spouse	Michael Oshry (divorced)[1]
Children	4
Parents	Reuben ("Ruby") and Lillian Geller[1]
Website
Atlas Shrugs

Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958)^[5] is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator.^[1] She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country.

Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America,^[6] an organization which is labeled as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League^[7] and the Southern Poverty Law Center.^[8][9] Geller and Spencer also co-authored the book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America.^[3]

Personal life[link]

Early life[link]

Geller, born to Jewish parents Reuben ("Ruby") and Lillian Geller, is the third of four sisters.^[1][10][11] Growing up in Hewlett Harbor, Long Island, New York, she assisted in her father's business, where she learned to speak fluent Spanish.^[1][10] Two of her sisters became doctors, and the third became a teacher.^[1]

Geller attended Lynbrook High School and Hofstra University, though she left before completing her degree.^[1]

Marriage[link]

She was married to Michael Oshry from 1990 until the couple divorced in 2007, and is the single mother of four children.^[1]

Career[link]

Geller spent most of the 1980s working at the New York Daily News, first as a financial analyst and then in the advertising and marketing areas.^[12] She then became the associate publisher and top-ranking business executive of The New York Observer for five years, from 1989 through 1994, when she quit to stay home with her four daughters.^[1][13][14]

In January 2010 she co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative organization (FDI) with Robert Spencer.^[15][16][17] Spencer is a blogger and author of articles and books relating to Islam and Islamic terrorism, and the founder of Jihad Watch.^[1]

Geller denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that it is "a slanderous slur and it's unfair".^[18][19][20] She said:

the ground zero mosque ... To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims.^[21]

In an interview, Geller said "I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam."^[21]

Geller has also lent her support to a number of other political causes. She has strongly defended former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević,^[18] denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps in the 1990s,^[22] said that black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites,^[23] and expressed support for the far right English Defence League.^[18][24]

In 2008, Geller co-wrote an editorial for Arutz Sheva expressing her distaste for fellow Jews who are not politically conservative:

It galls me that the Jews I fight for are self-destructive, suicidal even. Here in America (and the world over), Israel's real friends are in the Republican Party and yet over 80% of American Jews are Democrats. I don't get it. The conventional wisdom on the Left is that Israel is an oppressor and her actions are worse than the world's most depraved and dangerous regimes. Chomsky, Finkelstein, Soros – these men are the killers.^[25]

She encouraged Israel to "stand loud and proud. Give up nothing. Turn over not a pebble. For every rocket fired, drop a MOAB. Take back Gaza. Secure Judea and Samaria. Stop buying Haaretz. Throw leftists bums out."^[25]

She was an official blogger at the Republican National Convention of 2008.^[26]

She co-authored a book with Spencer, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, with a foreword by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton, which was published in July 2010.^[3] The book criticizes the Obama administration's treatment of the free-market system, freedom of speech, and foreign policy.

She is also a contributor to the conservative magazine, Human Events.^[27]

Stop Islamization of America and Park51[link]

Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America.^[6] In May 2010, they began a strong campaign against the proposed Park51 Islamic community center and mosque, which Geller has referred to as the "Ground Zero Mega Mosque".^[28][29] She says that Park51 is viewed by Muslims as a "triumphal" monument built on "conquered land". She also appeared on a number of cable news shows speaking out against the proposed Islamic community center and mosque.^[12]

Geller has also advocated against Islam elsewhere. She argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed because it was built on the same site as Judaism's former First and Second Temples.^[30] Geller also published an article defending Radovan Karadžic, indicted for genocide and other war crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats during the Siege of Sarajevo and Srebrenica Massacre; the article argued that the Muslims were not murdered but committed suicide to embarrass their enemies.^[31] In addition, Stop Islamization of America has sponsored ads which carry messages such as "Fatwa on Your Head?" and "Leaving Islam?" in several cities including New York City and Miami, pointing readers to a website called RefugefromIslam.com.^[12][32] Geller said the ads were meant to provide resources for Muslims who were afraid to leave the religion.^[32]

Geller first blogged in Atlas Shrugs about the proposed New York mosque in reaction to coverage in The New York Times on December 8, 2009.^[33][34] On December 21, she again blogged on the subject, referring to it as "Mosque at Ground Zero" and calling it "a stab in the eye".^[35] Geller next blogged about the building on May 24, 2010, when she reported on a self-selected reader poll connected with a report in the New York Daily News, urging her readers to vote in it. This is when she first used the phrase "Mega Mosque at Ground Zero".^[36][37]

Commenting on the controversy, Geller said,

I'm not leading the charge against the Islamic center near Ground Zero. The majority of Americans – 70% – find this deeply insulting, offensive. To call it anti-Muslim is a gross misrepresentation and to say that I'm responsible for all this emotion, again a gross misrepresentation.^[18]

When asked in an August 17, 2010, interview on CNN whether she agreed "that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were practicing a perverted form of Islam, and that is not what is going to be practiced at this mosque", she responded "I will say that the Muslim terrorists were practicing pure Islam, original Islam."^[38]

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, criticized Geller, stating:

People say don't give her too much credit, she's a fringe character, but she is a fringe character who every day is on CNN, Fox, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. She is the driving force behind the Islamic center campaign. I would say that she is the queen of the Muslim bashers, I see her rise and the rise of these anti-Islam hate groups going hand in hand.^[12]

Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America, concurred with Hooper, remarking that "she's been instrumental, she has whipped up hatred in the right-wing blogosphere and now that's spilled out into the wider community"^[12] while Andrew C. McCarthy, writing in the conservative^[39] magazine the National Review criticized Hooper's opinion on the matter, citing his controversial comments about Islamism and the United States.^[40] Media Matters further suggested that "Geller's history of outrageous, inflammatory and false claims, particularly when it comes to issues related to Islam, demonstrate that she cannot be expected to make accurate statements and should not be rewarded with a platform on national television."^[41]

Both SIOA and FDI have been designated as hate groups by the Anti-defamation league^[42] and the Southern Poverty Law Center^[43]. Geller dismissed the SPLC as an "uber left" organization.^[44]

[edit] Atlas Shrugs blog

The name of Geller's website and blog Atlas Shrugs is a reference to novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.^[1][18] Geller calls Rand "the greatest philosopher in human history". She says her blog and its purpose are "clearly defined by Rand's philosophy".^[45] The blog concentrates on what Geller perceives to be a violent threat to the United States by Islamist extremists and liberal politicians.^[46]

As of October 2010, the blog was receiving 150,000 unique visitors a month.^[1]

In 2006, when thousands of Muslims worldwide protested – sometimes violently – over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper,^{[1][47][48][49][50]} Geller posted the cartoons on her blog,^[1][51] and its hits increased dramatically to tens of thousands.^[1]

NPR reported that in 2008, for Atlas Shrugs, she examined lists of contributions given to Barack Obama's campaign. Others, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, then did the same.^[52] Contributors with the names "Es Ech", "Doodad Pro", and similar names turned up, and a conservative activist said he donated to Barack Obama using the name Osama bin Laden.^[52]

In November 2008, she captured a conversation by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on video, and posted it on YouTube.^[53] In it, after prefacing his remarks by saying he had "no personal knowledge" of the matter and his statement was merely his "guess", he went on to say that Obama "didn’t have the political courage to want to make the statement of walking out" of Trinity United Church of Christ when he realized that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was "a nut" and "lunatic," because "you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district."^[53][54][55] After Geller released the video, Nadler said: "I made a thoughtless comment yesterday which does not reflect the way I feel about Barack Obama."^[54][55]

The blog was among the first on November 5, 2009, to declare the belief that the Fort Hood shooting was a "Muslim terror attack."^[46] Geller later noted that the recent Pentagon report into the Fort Hood shooting did not mention possible religious motivations behind the attack, and argued that self-imposed censorship is hurting U.S. understanding of the wars it is engaged in.^[56] She said: "When nowhere in that document was Islam or Jihad mentioned, then Houston, we have a problem. People need to understand what is the motivation."^[56]

Controversial postings on Atlas Shrugs include:^[57][58] accusations that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan cited German socialists who supported Nazi ideology in her Princeton thesis (accompanied by a mock-up photograph of her in a Nazi uniform),^[1][59] a video suggesting that some Muslims have sex with goats, a doctored photo showing President Obama urinating on an American flag^[12] and false claims that Obama's mother was involved in pornography and that Obama "was involved with a crack whore in his youth".^[60][61]

During an RT Television News interview, reporter Lauren Lister repeatedly questioned Geller's statement that she is not anti-Muslim, at one point calling attention to Geller's having posted a drawing of Muhammad on her blog with the face of a pig superimposed over his own. Geller responded by saying "I don't know where it is in America that you can't make jokes or make fun."^[62]

Geller has written "that Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world".^[63]

The blog has been criticized by progressive Media Matters for America,^[41][64] and called "extreme" by Chris McGreal of The Guardian.^[18] Conversely, it has been praised by Caroline Glick, managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, who hailed the blog's coverage of Muslim "honor killings" and called her "an intrepid blogger".^[65][66]

Claims[link]

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2012)

Birther views[link]

Geller has made multiple postings on her blog promoting birtherism, the belief that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and that his birth certificate is a forgery.^[67] Even after the president released his long form birth certificate, she continued to post that it was a forgery, despite objections from some of her own readers.^[68] She then opined that, because his father was not divorced from his first wife when he married Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama is disqualified for the presidency, stating that "illegitimate children had different rights ... in 1789" and the Framers would not have intended for one to become president.^[69] Geller's blog has also featured a post which, inter alia, suggested that the president is the "love child" of Malcolm X, though Geller later said this was by another author and that she herself does not believe that Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did.^[12][70]

Other views[link]

Geller was described by The Observer as the "darling of the Tea Party's growing anti-Islamic wing". She has advocated an alliance between the Tea Party Movement and the English Defence League (EDL), saying: "I share the EDL's goals ... We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west."^[71] In June 2011, Geller wrote that she was withdrawing her support for the EDL, citing "neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group" and the resignation of its Jewish Division leader, Roberta Moore.^[72]

American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who frequently writes about topics relating to Israel and the Middle East, has described Geller as a "bigoted blogger" and said she supported South African white supremacist Eugène Terre'Blanche.^[73] Geller describes Terreblanche as the "leader of the noxious and hateful neo-Nazi Afrikaner Resistance Movement". She maintains there is a genocide underway in South Africa that includes innocent whites that are not "racist monsters like Eugene Terreblanche". ^[74]

Geller has also stated her belief that the Muslim Brotherhood has "corrupted and compromised" the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).^[75]

Works[link]

Books[link]

• The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America, Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer, foreword by (former) Ambassador John R. Bolton, (Simon & Schuster, July 2010) ISBN 978-1-4391-8930-6
• Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, Pamela Geller, (WND Books, September 6, 2011) ISBN 978-1-936488-36-0

Articles[link]

• "Why There Shouldn’t Be a Mosque at Ground Zero", Pamela Geller, Human Events, September 4, 2010
• "Ground Zero Imam is No Moderate", Pamela Geller, Human Events, August 24, 2010
• "Free Speech Wins A Narrow Victory In New York", Pamela Geller, Fox News, August 12, 2010

See also[link]

• Rifqa Bary
• Stop Islamisation of Europe
• Geert Wilders

References[link]