Shame on the NatPo For Running a WaPo Hit Piece on Pam Geller

It's the pinnacle of laziness for the National Post to carry a WaPo article about Pamela Geller and the Charlie-Hebdo-that-wasn't-'cuz-Texas-security-packs-heat situation. Surely the NatPo couldn't have assigned its own reporter the story. But noooo! Instead we have WaPo scribbler Lindsey Bever beavering away at the accepted mainstream narrative about Geller--that she's a Hatey McHaterson:

Islamization, she has said, is not something that will happen overnight. “It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip,” she told The New York Times in 2010 as she fought against the so-called ground zero mosque. “The mosque-ing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day. . . . These demands are a way of imposing Islam on a secular society.” 

Such wild rhetoric prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to add her to its list of “hate groups” leaders, calling her the “anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.” “She’s relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims,” the center said.

The mosque-ing of the workplace? That's crazy talk!

As for being relentlessly shrill and coarse, the far-left SPLC is nothing if not that. The Center, which, pace the "poverty" in its name is immensely wealthy in a Bill Clinton Foundation/Scrooge McDuck kind of way, and which is rich, too, when it comes to ignorance about Islam, is quick to affix the label "hater" to anyone on the right with whom it disagrees. It would sooner tolerate the intolerance written into Islam and the theology that gives rise to global jihad and Islamic supremacism than it would the likes of Pamela Geller, a warrior for freedom who is neither shrill nor coarse, and whose claims are, in fact, the opposite of preposterous.

I expect to see such character assassination in the WaPo, not in the ostensibly conservative (or conservative-ish) NatPo.

Update: Anthony Furey, a columnist for NatPo rival the Toronto Sun, writes:

It’s also completely wrong to label the Garland drawing competition as provocative, which many out there are doing. The Boston Globe has a piece online titled “Pamela Geller, organizer of Muhammad cartoon contest, has history of provocation." 

If you know Geller’s work, it’s fair to say she is rather provocative. But so what? It’s pretty sad that some people can be provoked by something as benign as a cartoon contest. 

We don’t have an obligation to not be provocative. This is especially true when someone’s barometer for offence is so low that almost anything can provoke them. It’s too limiting.

Limiting for us. Devotees of sharia, on the other hand, welcome such limitations.