Pamela Geller and I wrote this in PJ Media about the latest attempt to silence all opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression:

What to do when confronted with bad news? Kill the messenger, of course. The report broke last Friday that in Britain, Muslim rape gangs were “ignored by police for fear of stoking racial tensions.” One police inspector explained: “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to come out.” “Asian” is British media code for “Muslim”; for years, those who called attention to this rape gang activity were vilified as “far-right extremists.” So now that it has come out that the “far-right extremists” were unfairly derided and were, in fact, right all along, an even newer report has called for the forcible silencing of those tarred with this label.

The UK’s Independent reported Monday that the new report from the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), which in the past enjoyed an unearned reputation as a conservative group, claims that “ministers’ failure to ban far-right extremist groups is undermining the fight against online propaganda.” The report charges that “posts by non-proscribed groups may not be properly monitored or taken down by social media companies.”

Nikita Malik, director of the HJS’s Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, complains about “the lack of far-right groups subject to proscription in the UK, when compared to Islamist groups,” and says that “the government will need to keep this situation under review in a fast-moving online world, where offending causes real and significant harm.”

There are several problems with this. First is that it continues the left’s practice of equating words with deeds, while discounting actual violence from hard-left groups such as Antifa. In reality, whatever “real and significant harm” results from “offending” online, none of it could possibly be as “real and significant” as actual wounds inflicted by genuine thugs, and the preponderance of those in the political realm are on the left these days.

“The report, which was commissioned by Facebook, proposed a ‘harm classification system’ to improve consistency across different kinds of extremism.” How will this “real and significant harm” be classified? Lowest level is feeling annoyed, highest level is being moved to tears? And what if someone lashes out online at the perpetrator of the online harm – is the “harm” negated? It’s ridiculous.

The second problem with the HJS analysis is that it continues the practice of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the U.S., of tarring with the “far-right extremist” label people who are not neo-Nazis or Klansmen, and whose only crime is to oppose jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. The report, says the Independent, “also named extremists, such as anti-Islam figures Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who had been prevented from entering Britain because of extremist concerns but are allowed to remain on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.”

What makes us “extremists”? The Independent doesn’t bother to explain; after all these years of defamation, it takes the label for granted. In reality, all our work has been in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and individual rights. We have never advocated, called for, or condoned any violence. What makes us “far-right extremists” in the eyes of the HJS and the Independent is the fact that years ago, leftist and Islamic supremacist groups began to tar anyone and everyone who dared to speak about the motivating ideology behind jihad terror with that label, and their campaign, in this careless and credulous age, has been remarkably successful.

There is much more. Read the rest here.