Pipes and Geller both see Islamic radicalism as a threat, but the reason Pipes is tolerated and Geller is not may lie primarily in semantics and tone.
Regrettably, in matters of culture and religion, political correctness circumscribes the right to freedom of expression. Muslim practice and precept may be criticized, if it is couched in language that is neither offensive nor blunt.
The Jewish Board of Rabbis seemed to reprimand Geller for her language, stating she uses language intended to “shock and ridicule.” Yet her vehemence may simply reflect the strength of her feelings.
Pipes and Geller are equally aware of the threat of Islamic extremism. They touch upon the same issues. They stress the importance of mobilizing peaceful Muslims to defend our Western values, societies and communities.
The same message certainly needs to be heard in different ways, from fiery speakers no less than from conciliatory ones.
Once again, the spectre of “tone” raises its head, as it did in Mark Steyn’s HRC battle.
The other factor is that Geller is female, and we still cannot tolerate uppity females, no matter what we tell ourselves.