Sentence reduced on NA activist Laurence Burns

Today at the Court of Appeal in London a serious injustice was partly remedied when young National Action activist Laurence Burns had 18 months cut from his prison sentence.

Last year at Cambridge Crown Court, Laurence was savagely sentenced to four years in prison for offences against our notorious Race Laws.  Three years of this sentence related to posts on Facebook, and one year to a speech Laurence had given outside the U.S. Embassy in Grosvenor Square, London.

Today a panel of judges (Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice Phillips and Mr Justice Garnham) allowed Laurence’s appeal against sentence, which was cut from four years to two-and-a-half years, in a success for Laurence’s defence team: barrister Adrian Davies and solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins.

The Appeal Court agreed that the original sentence had been “manifestly excessive”.

Meanwhile 22-year-old Jack Renshaw is remanded in custody at HMP Preston, with a trial date set for January 2nd next year.  Mr Renshaw, formerly a student at Manchester Metropolitan University, faces two “racial hatred” charges in connection with speeches last year at nationalist events in Blackpool and Yorkshire. We can make no further comment on Mr Renshaw’s case at this time for legal reasons.

Jailed demonstrators released after Newcastle march

Well over a hundred nationalists representing several different groups united in Newcastle city centre on Saturday afternoon for the White Man March – asserting that the defence of our culture and our race is about far more than the EU-obsessed or Islam-obsessed agendas that have been so widely promoted.

Among the speakers was H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton: see video below.

While some groups such as the EDL seem proud to display Israeli flags – mocking the sacrifice of those British troops who died fighting against Zionist criminality and oppression more than 60 years ago – the White Man March signalled our rejection of that poisonous influence.

In doing so, demonstrators incurred the wrath of our politically correct police force: several arrests followed the burning of an Israeli flag – which is not a criminal offence in this country.

As police and their political masters struggled to conjure criminal charges, six nationalist comrades from England, Wales and Poland were detained overnight.  The authorities released them (as they were legally obliged in the absence of a superintendent’s authority) after 24 hours.

The photograph below shows the released activists, whose clothes were retained by the police as ‘evidence’ (in reality of course just another form of petty official harassment) – hence the grey clothing issued by their jailers.

They must report back to the police station on May 26th after further ‘enquiries’ – in fact meaning further political consultations to try to manufacture ‘criminal’ charges.

H&D will report further on these matters when it is legally possible to do so.

Demonstrators released after 24 hours in custody after the White Man March in Newcastle, where they are ‘accused’ in connection with burning an Israeli flag – not in itself an offence in the UK.

Doug Christie – The Battling Barrister

Douglas Christie, the courageous Canadian lawyer known as the “battling barrister”, died on March 11th a month before his 67th birthday.  He was perhaps best known for his vigour and tenacity in defending the Canadian-German publisher Ernst Zündel during more than a decade of legal persecution.  His client had been accused in a 1983 “human rights” tribunal and at criminal trials in 1985 and 1988 of “spreading false news”, a legal concept drawn from mediaeval England but applied in this case to Mr Zündel’s publication of the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?, which questioned the orthodox historical account of the deliberate murder of Jews in homicidal gas chambers.

Doug Christie (centre) with his wife and fellow lawyer Keltie Zubko (left) and their most famous client, German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zundel, outside the Zundel appeal hearing in September 1989.

At the end of the second Zündel trial in 1988 Doug Christie insisted that the courts had no business dictating versions of history, which “by definition, is always an opinion.”  In effect this argument eventually prevailed.  Although Ernst Zündel was convicted and his first appeal failed, the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately agreed with Mr Christie, ruling that S.181 (the law of “spreading false news”) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled the “greatest danger of S.181 lies in the undefined phrase ‘injury or mischief to a public interest’, which is capable of almost infinite extension.”

Imre Finta

In May 1990 Mr Christie successfully defended the retired Hungarian policeman Imre Finta in Canada’s first ever “war crimes” trial – a prosecution which in his closing speech to the jury he described as “a futile and unjustified exercise”, pointing out that “it’s the practice of states that win wars to judge those who lose them.”  Describing the war crimes law as a “convoluted and diabolically twisted piece of legislation”, he urged the jury to send a message to governments around the world that “the war is over”.  The jury agreed; sadly governments did not, and have continued to intensify legal restrictions on freedom of historical and scientific enquiry.

Mr Christie’s first landmark case was in 1983 when Jim Keegstra, a schoolteacher in Alberta, several hundred miles from Mr Christie’s home province of British Columbia, was dismissed from his job and charged under Canada’s “hate crime” legislation for expressing his opinions about Jewish history and the Holocaust.  Keegstra was a devout Christian and a former activist in the Social Credit Party, once a powerful force in Canadian politics.  Doug Christie argued in Keegstra’s defence that his client was expressing legitimate religious views.  One did not have to agree with those views, and some Jews might find them offensive – just as Keegstra might find Judaism offensive.  However the Canadian constitution was intended to protect religious and political freedom, so “hate crimes” seeking to criminalise certain views should be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Keegstra trial began on the precise 60th anniversary of the most famous attempt to criminalise opinion in the American courts, the so-called “monkey trial” of 1925, when Tennessee science teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for attempting to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Keegstra was in a sense the modern Scopes, accused of perpetrating the modern heresy of “anti-semitism”.

Defending Keegstra in his 1987 appeal, Mr Christie argued that as part of his Christian outlook his client believed that a group of Jews (including Zionists) had been “seeking economic and political opportunism in the guise of religion,” and that “Mr Keegstra said this was wrong, contrary to Christ and contrary to all men.”

Consequently Mr Christie argued that the “hate speech” law used to convict Mr Keegstra was an unconstitutional infringement of basic freedoms.   The Appeal Court agreed and quashed the conviction, but eventually the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to reinstate the judgment.  The argument in the Supreme Court was of fundamental worldwide importance: did the social “benefit” of curbing extremism and promoting tolerance outweigh the constitutional evil of restricting free speech? This restriction would not apply solely to those few people prosecuted but also, in the words of the dissenting Supreme Court judgment which backed Doug Christie, “those individuals not caught may find their expression restricted by the fear of running afoul of a vague and subjective law.”

Eventually the Supreme Court of Canada found against Keegstra, but their December 1990 judgment was only by the narrowest margin of four justices to three.  The dissenting judges endorsed Mr Christie’s arguments, writing:  “…our commitment to the marketplace of ideas precludes us from presuming that those who promote hatred will be successful in fomenting it among the majority of Canadians.  Moreover, freedom of expression is an individual liberty of such importance that it can be overridden only by an extraordinarily weighty public goal.”

Soon after this Keegstra judgment Doug Christie began representing Malcolm Ross, another schoolteacher dismissed for “anti-semitism”, and again managed to win in the appeal courts, only to face ultimate defeat in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In these and other landmark cases, Doug Christie was a valiant champion of the public interest in objective law and unimpeded scholarship.

The A.K. Chesterton Trust provided a great service to friends of freedom around the world by transferring to DVD a video recording made in 1994 of an address by Doug Christie to an invited audience at Liss Forest, Hampshire.

Mr Christie was in the UK to represent the redoubtable patriot Lady Birdwood, who was being prosecuted under Britain’s notoriously oppressive race laws for daring to publish a pamphlet entitled The Longest Hatred.  The octogenarian Lady Birdwood was convicted of “inciting racial hatred” and given a three month suspended prison sentence.

Doug Christie visiting Arbroath Abbey in 2002

Doug Christie makes clear in the DVD his belief that the prosecution of Jane Birdwood was but one facet of a worldwide campaign against free research and the free expression of opinion.  He argued that the forces supporting, for example, the French Revolution used a supposed commitment to “individualism” to break up the traditional authority of Christendom.  These same forces having achieved power now oppose individualism in the name of their own dominant ideology. Anyone standing in the way of that dominant ideology must be demonised and crushed by the full force of the law.  Courageously and sustained by his traditional Catholic faith, Mr Christie stood up for the victims of this process in trials and civil actions across Canada and the United Kingdom.

He argues that today’s New World Order “has every bit as much intention of destroying Truth as Communism did in a more visible and brutal way,” and believes that it is the most honourable course to fight for the right to tell the truth.

Doug Christie’s most celebrated case was in defence of the German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel.  At the instigation of Jewish activist Sabina Citron, Zündel was twice prosecuted in the Canadian courts for “hate crimes” in 1985 and 1988, before his conviction was finally overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992.  His supposed crime of reporting “false news”, which dates back to the attempts of English kings and barons in the 13th century to suppress public criticism, was ruled unconstitutional.

In this DVD Doug Christie does not speak in detail about the Zündel case, as at that point in April 1994 he believed that Zündel had won and the story had ended with “Ernst Zündel a free man in Canada today.”  Sadly this optimism proved unfounded.  Having failed in their own courts, the Canadian authorities took action via their Human Rights Commission during the late 1990s.  Even after he moved to the USA and married a US citizen, Zündel was subjected to a judicial kidnapping near his Tennessee home in 2003 and deported to Canada, where a “national security” loophole was exploited to deport him to Germany in 2005.  He was imprisoned in Germany from 2005 to 2010.

Despite this eventual outcome, Doug Christie and Ernst Zündel will go down in history for pinning down “Holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg.  Asked by Doug Christie during the 1985 trial whether he could name a single scientific report that substantiated the use of any homicidal gas chamber during the Third Reich, Prof. Hilberg replied “I am at a loss.”

Doug Christie points out in this DVD that Ernst Zündel had to spend more than a million dollars to win his victories for free speech, but he argues that the many small and large donations to Zündel’s cause were contributions to the vital cause of building a “bulwark of freedom”: we must not wait “until the enemy is within our gates” but must support the defence of freedom wherever in the world the frontier happens to be at any moment: “We have a cause that transcends national boundaries.”

Outside the courtroom Doug Christie was active in attempting to redraw those national boundaries.  He believes that out of the failure of multiculturalism “smaller nations will emerge; better nations, true to themselves.”  In 1980 he founded the Western Canada Concept, a party that campaigned for the secession from Canada of its western provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2005 he formed the Western Bloc Party with similar objectives: candidates have included former schoolteacher Paul Fromm, who alongside Doug Christie and others organised the Canadian Free Speech League and promoted events by international free speech activists including Lady Michèle Renouf.

Towards the end of the 1994 DVD Doug Christie asks his audience: “Are we criminals that we must hide in a basement?”  It is thanks to the courage and commitment of activists such as this brave Canadian lawyer that at least some of our traditional freedoms and values survive in 2012.

The Most Hateful Quote of 2009

Thanks to Colonel Buckshot for highlighting this one…  The full top ten are posted over at James Edwards – the Political Cesspool

BLOGOSPHERE, 02 Jan 2010:

It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white.
Quote from: Newsweek, Sept. 14, 2009

Read Colonel Buckshot [external link]

Read The Top Ten Most Hateful Quotes of 2009 [external link]

‘British soldiers are going to hell’

With thanks to the National Front weekly e-news bulletin for first publicising this story.

DAILY EXPRESS, 1 Nov 2009: A RADICAL Muslim cleric has sparked outrage by claiming Britain’s war dead have been sent to hell.

Sheikh Anjem Choudary, the leader of Islam4UK, also dismissed the two world wars as having no purpose.

As the country prepares for Remembrance Day, the British-born former law student delivered a hate-filled rant insulting the memory of the millions who laid down their lives in the name of freedom.

He said: “We have a different understanding of wars.

“The wars which are fought for nationalism, tribalism and land, I feel, need to be condemned. When we fight, it’s to please God or to defend our honour, not land. We are not allowed to feel sorry for any non-Muslim nation.

“Those nationalistic wars served no purpose and we cannot praise any of those who were involved in them.

“Anything that happens to those non-Muslims is a punishment from God. As a Muslim I have to believe they died and went to hell fire.” His comments were attacked yesterday by ex-soldiers and veterans’ groups.

Read full article [external link]

How to complain to the BBC

Dear Nationalists,

If you haven’t read the article about the disgraceful comments made by Jo Brand on BBC Five Live recently, then please do so here:

Jo Brand: ‘you can’t be racist towards white people’

Then please consider making a complaint to the BBC about her comments here:

Make a complaint to the BBC

Phone: 03700 100 222*
Textphone: 03700 100 212*
Email: Send your complaint using this form
Write: BBC Complaints,
PO Box 1922
Glasgow
G2 3WT

*UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training.

You can also contact Five Live on Twitter at @bbc5live.

Thank you,

EFP Webmaster

Jo Brand: ‘you can’t be racist towards white people’

“[Y]ou can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them,” says ‘comedienne’ Jo Brand.

Not very funny, Jo. You seem to be thinking that ordinary white people in their own country are politically more powerful than other ethnic groupings. They are not!

TELEGRAPH BLOGS, 14Oct09: The ever-excellent Biased BBC notes that Jo Brand has been explaining the meaning of racism on Radio Five Live:

Jo Brand: My personal opinion is that you can’t be racist towards white people. You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.

Phil Williams: Don’t you think racism is just being derogatory about a race, regardless of the colour?

Jo Brand: No I don’t. I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.

Read full article [external link]

NPD letter to immigrant politicians tells them to ‘go home’

THE LOCAL, Germany, 22Sep09: Just days before Germany’s election, the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) have sent racist letters to politicians of multicultural background declaring they should leave the country, daily Der Tagesspiegel reported on Tuesday.

The two-page letters, formulated as “proclamations,” were sent to politicians’ home addresses and were meant to inform them of the “details of their trip home,” the paper reported.

The right-wing extremist NPD confirmed it sent the letters over the weekend, and while there was no return address, the party’s Berlin leader Jörg Hähnel is thought to be responsible for them. Berlin public prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation into the letters for incitement of hatred.

According to Hähnel, more letters will soon arrive at the homes of other politicians with immigrant heritage. They are meant to sound official, informing recipients of how “foreigners will be returned to their homelands” based on a “five-point plan” that they should immediately undertake.

Read full article [external link]

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter