Simon Sheppard jailed for nine months in latest ‘opinion crime’

Simon Sheppard (right!), author, publisher and Yorkshireman, whose principled defiance of the race relations industry led to his imprisonment after a notorious extradition from the USA.

Yorkshire-based author Simon Sheppard was jailed yesterday for the latest in a series of ‘opinion crimes’.

A judge at York Crown Court sentenced Mr Sheppard to nine months imprisonment after a jury convicted him of using “racially aggravated words” to a Sky engineer fitting a satellite dish to the next door flat in Selby, North Yorkshire.

The words were not aimed at the engineer, but referred to Mr Sheppard’s complaints against his black neighbour. The jury acquitted Mr Sheppard of waging what the prosecution had called “a two-year racial harassment campaign”.

Mr Sheppard is perhaps best known for his attempt in 2008 to claim political asylum in the USA after an earlier conviction under Britain’s infamous race laws. Neither that nor this week’s conviction would have amounted to criminal offences in the USA, where Mr Sheppard’s alleged ‘criminal’ conduct would be covered by the Constitution’s protection of free speech.

 

Lewisham East parliamentary by-election: the end of civic nationalism?

David Kurten, former UKIP leadership candidate humiliated in Lewisham by-election

Yesterday’s parliamentary by-election in the SE London constituency of Lewisham East was another tragi-comic episode in the slow death of the United Kingdom Independence Party.

Under the leadership of Nigel Farage, UKIP won more votes and seats than any other party at the 2014 European Parliamentary elections, ending up with 24 MEPs, though never gaining more than two MPs in the House of Commons. The party was primarily responsible for forcing then Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron to concede a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, resulting in the historic Brexit vote of 2016.

But that was the beginning of the end for UKIP. Structural problems and ideological confusion (already analysed in several issues of H&D well before 2016) were never properly addressed even under Farage’s leadership, and since his departure immediately after the referendum the party has been scarred by factional infighting and incompetent leadership.

Yesterday was merely the latest demonstration of UKIP’s desperate state. Their by-election candidate was one of their highest profile and most experienced performers, half-caste London Assembly member David Kurten, but he finished a poor sixth with only 380 votes (1.7%), behind not only the big three parties and the Greens, but also behind the Women’s Equality Party!

Tess Culnane – polled more votes in a single Lewisham ward than UKIP managed yesterday across the entire seven-ward constituency of Lewisham East

To put this into context, H&D readers should remember that in 2002 BNP local election candidates Barry Roberts and Tess Culnane polled more votes in a single ward of Lewisham East than Mr Kurten managed yesterday across the entire constituency (which contains seven wards)!

The only good news for UKIP is that Kurten finished ahead of his former colleague Anne Marie Waters. She had been UKIP candidate for this constituency at the 2015 General Election, polling a very creditable 3,886 votes (9.1%) in what were admittedly far better times nationwide for the party. After an acrimonious leadership election last year, Ms Waters quit and with the help of former BNP and EDL activists created a breakaway party called the For Britain Movement.

Yesterday Ms Waters finished a poor seventh, with only 266 votes (1.2%). Her only excuse is that Labour called the by-election very quickly after the resignation of the previous MP, so Ms Waters and her campaign team (which included former East London BNP election guru Eddy Butler) had very little time. Yet it must be admitted that the Liberal Democrats also had very little time, yet they succeeded in building a serious bandwagon and advancing to second place: having lost their deposit twelve months ago with only 4.4%, the Lib Dems polled 24.6% yesterday.

Anne Marie Waters on the by-election campaign trail with former BNP election guru Eddy Butler (third left, back row) and an activist team including several former BNP officials and councillors, whose help could not save Ms Waters from a crushing defeat.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Lib Dem message (almost entirely focused on pro-Remain voters) resonated strongly with a certain section of the Lewisham electorate. We know that there is a different section of the Lewisham electorate who respond to nationalist issues, including immigration and law and order, but the Islam-obsessed campaigns of Kurten and Waters failed to resonate similarly among those voters. This was despite Ms Waters’ ally ‘Tommy Robinson’, founder of the EDL, getting himself jailed during the campaign and creating worldwide publicity. Proof yet again that there is a big difference between Facebook likes, or turning out screaming mobs in Whitehall, and the serious grown-up politics of winning votes.

It probably didn’t help that Lewisham is an odd place to bang on about Muslims: the area has many immigration-related problems, but relatively few of the large non-White population here are Muslims.

The third civic nationalist candidate, Massimo DiMambro of the new Democrats & Veterans party, was always going to be overshadowed by the far higher profile and better financed campaigns of Kurten and Walters: he managed only 67 votes (0.3%).

However the Democrats & Veterans party, which is much less Islam-obsessed than either UKIP or For Britain, but takes a strong line on immigration and other nationalist issues, seems to be having more success than Ms Waters’ party in building a network of branches nationwide.

The best bet is that UKIP-style civic nationalism is dying, but when the dust settles Democrats & Veterans might be the one viable civic nationalist party still capable of making a challenge (at least for local council seats).

 

Do we now have a Holocaust Denial law? Confusion reigns after Chabloz ruling

Jewish boxer confronts free speech defender outside Chabloz trial

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism.  It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges.  The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.  H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators.  As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood.  Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

Elie Wiesel (left) pro-Israel propagandist and High Priest of Holocaustianity, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

Columnist Christopher Hitchens dismissed Elie Wiesel in grossly offensive terms: Judge Zani refused to explain when and how such attacks become criminalised

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt.  Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

Holocaust fantasist Irene Zisblatt: the latest court judgment implies we must treat her lies with respect.

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.”  As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny.  As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs.  It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Gideon Falter (third from right) with colleagues from CAA and other Jewish organisations including Shomrim, meeting the Police & Crime Commissioner of Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case?  In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial.  This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.”  Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews.  Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago.  Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of.  Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

CAA Patron Sir Eric Pickles, seen here with Prime Minister Theresa May, called within hours of the Chabloz judgment for a new law criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

Pickles, honorary patron of the CAA, told the BBC’s Martin Bashir that although he had previously opposed such a law, the Chabloz case had convinced him that there should be longer sentences for ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade.  A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof.  Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”.  The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Watch this space…

Anti-fascist gangster paedophile jailed

(left to right) Red Action activist Denis Clifford; IRA-linked gangster Paddy Logan, shot dead in 1999; ‘anti-fascist’ and gangland assassin Dessie Noonan, stabbed to death in 2005; and Searchlight’s Manchester boss Steve Tilzey.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Noonan family were the spearhead of an ‘anti-fascist’ reign of terror in Lancashire’s twin cities Manchester and Salford. Their power crumbled after 1999, when Noonan associate Paddy Logan (who had taken part in the gang’s brutal attack on Ulster Loyalists in the Rusholme district) was shot dead at his home in Withington.

Today the era of Noonan anti-fascism finally ended in disgrace, when the last head of the family – 54-year-old Dominic Noonan – was jailed for 11 years after being convicted of multiple paedophile offences.  One of Noonan’s victims was a ten-year-old boy.

Dominic Noonan’s brother Dessie (stabbed to death in 2005) was one of Britain’s most feared gangland assassins, responsible for more than twenty gangland murders, and was used by militant anti-fascists to threaten political opponents including BNP organisers. Believing that he was protected by his family’s notorious reputation for violence, Dominic Noonan thought none of his young victims would ever dare to testify against him.

Passing sentence today, Judge Martin Rudland told Noonan that following his first paedophile offence against a boy from a children’s home in 1981 he had “gained more confidence as your criminal lifestyle developed and your reputation and influence over others in that regard began to grow. It was in those circumstances that you abused (your second victim), aged 16 or 17, who you simply picked off the street for sexual gratification to use and discard at will and giving him a beating on the way. By then you were in your late 20s with your confidence gathering pace and not in the least fearful of brazen offending.”

“You were clearly determined to seek sexual gratification where and when you wanted it, and as a means of pursuing that end, and other objectives no doubt, you surrounded yourself with teenage boys. You gave them food, drink, drugs, occasional employment, and a sense of being part of your entourage.

“Inevitably the type of teenager who was drawn to such a life was either the criminally inclined or the vulnerable in search of stability, attention and perhaps some excitement.

“In their eyes you seemed to provide all three. The true picture is however, one of manipulation and grooming behaviour to provide you with an easy avenue for sexual misconduct.”

The truth is that organised ‘anti-fascist’ and Irish Republican terror gangs benefited from their association with Noonan and his criminal family, and undoubtedly helped draw young victims into his entourage.  H&D has reported on aspects of the Noonan scandal many times over the past fifteen years.  We salute the courage of those honest police officers and brave witnesses who helped bring this monster to justice.

Fallen gang boss and ‘anti-fascist’ Dominic Noonan in his latest police mugshot, as he prepared to face trial for monstrous paedophile crimes.

See our earlier articles including:

Anti-fascist gangster and the 2011 riots

The EDL and “anti-fascists”: hypocrisy and gangsterism

Anti-fascist gangster arrested

Live by the MAC-10, die by the MAC-10

Corbyn is right: the war on terror isn’t working – but we should also drain the swamp

Corbyn - War on Terror speech

Amid predictable fake outrage from his Conservative opponents, Jeremy Corbyn – no friend of H&D! – has dared to tell the truth.  As election campaigning resumed today (following several days hiatus due to the terrorist bombing of a Manchester concert hall) the Labour leader said: “We must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism.”

It seems likely that the Manchester atrocity was carried out by a suicide bomber of Libyan origin, linked to that country’s version of Islamic State. If so, then it emanates from a truly Orwellian swamp. British governments once allied themselves with the earlier local version of IS – the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – in terrorist and assassination plots against that country’s former dictator Col. Gaddafi.

Then under Tony Blair we changed tack, and delivered our former Islamist allies to Libyan torturers collaborating in a worldwide ‘war on terror’.  Sir Mark Allen (former MI6 counterterrorism director) might still face criminal charges over his role in the kidnapping and torture of LIFG leader Abdul Hakim Belhaj, though the relevant ministers including Jack Straw have typically dodged their responsibility.

In 2011 under David Cameron there was another policy lurch: Libya’s Islamists (or at least some of them) became our allies again in the campaign to oust Gaddafi.  And now in the resultant post-Gaddafi chaos they are back to being the enemy.

David Shayler - Libya plot

All this would be mad enough: what makes it really crazy is that among the 57 varieties of alien immigrant thronging British cities are a large community of Libyans with personal and family ties to these very characters who were sometimes our allies, while at other times consigned to the torture chamber.

Foreign and defence policy has never had much space for morality.  One response to the slaughter of British children in Manchester (the opposite of Corbyn’s policy) might be to carry out a reciprocal slaughter in Libya, targeting the extended families and support networks of IS.

But – setting moral questions entirely aside – H&D readers should recognise that such a policy (whether aiming at deterrence or merely revenge) requires precisely targeted and pitiless brutality. In their prime the likes of Gaddafi or Syria’s Hafez al-Assad were capable of that – hence their regimes survived.  Does anyone really believe that Britain has the will (let alone the local knowledge) to follow such a policy to its logical conclusion, to take whatever the terrorists throw back at us and throw back more of the same, until eventually we supposedly crush them?

It’s not going to happen.

Aftermath of the IRA's Manchester bomb in 1996. This bomb's materials were supplied by Col. Gaddafi, sworn enemy of this week's Manchester terrorists.

Aftermath of the IRA’s Manchester bomb in 1996. This bomb’s materials were supplied by Col. Gaddafi, sworn enemy of this week’s Manchester terrorists.

So we are left with the logic of Corbyn’s alternative. Some form of new deal with the Islamic world. We can only hope this would be less hypocritical then the deal with an earlier generation of bombers who targeted Manchester.  Among this week’s many tragic ironies is that the bomb that devastated Manchester city centre in 1996, planted just a few yards away from the scene of this week’s carnage, was the work of IRA godfathers armed by Col. Gaddafi, the bitter enemy of this week’s suicide bomber and his family.

No one was ever charged over that 1996 Manchester bombing – except a journalist and a police officer who dared to name the main suspect, the IRA’s Declan McCann (then of Crossmaglen, Co Armagh). McCann was spared arrest for political reasons and has since moved south to Castleblayney, Co Monaghan: he owns a property empire with his brother John. His IRA commanders went on to form part of Northern Ireland’s government and shake hands with the Queen.

 

Corbyn of course has his own dishonourable record of IRA apologetics. And though his approach to today’s failed war on terror makes sense, there’s one aspect that Corbyn and his ilk will never admit. Alongside a reassessment of foreign policy must come a draining of the multi-ethnic swamp. We should return the teeming non-British masses of our towns and cities back to their countries of origin.

[spacer height=”20px”]UPDATE: On tonight’s Channel 4 News, Theresa May’s Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon fell into a well-laid journalistic trap when he condemned what he thought were Jeremy Corbyn’s words about the war on terror, only to find they were the words of his senior Cabinet colleague, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson!  A more sympathetic journalist in The Spectator had earlier today offered the Tories some wise strategic advice on how to handle this issue: they failed to take it – and as another Spectator columnist Rod Liddle puts it, this is turning into the worst Tory election campaign on record.

UKIP’s rabbi candidate exposed in bizarre scandal

UKIP's Rabbi Shneur Odze (right) canvassing for the party with then leader Nigel Farage.

UKIP’s Rabbi Shneur Odze (right) canvassing for the party with then leader Nigel Farage.

Regular H&D readers will remember the name Shneur Odze.  He’s the rabbi from the fanatically pro-Zionist Lubavitcher sect who has long been influential in UKIP, and is contesting this week’s Greater Manchester mayoral election for Paul Nuttall’s rapidly fading party.

Previous scandals involving Rabbi Odze have included the following:[spacer height=”20px”]

  1. More than a decade ago while serving as a Tory councillor in Hackney, he was censured and suspended from the council for three months for a serious ‘breach of trust’.
  2. At the start of the mayoral campaign a month ago, he was targeted by Liberal Democrat opponents for his politically incorrect (and religiously motivated) refusal to shake women’s hands.
  3. Just a fortnight ago, the national press reported that Rabbi Odze had burned a copy of the New Testament outside his synagogue.

[spacer height=”20px”]Now comes what must surely be the fatal blow to Rabbi Odze’s political career.  The Mail on Sunday reports that UKIP’s rabbi has been conducting an affair with a young woman he met via a “bondage and sadomasochism website”, where the rabbi had posed as a Roman Catholic priest.

Full bizarre details of this scandal are described on the Mail on Sunday website.

Shneur Odze (right) with successive UKIP leaders Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall (left)

Shneur Odze (right) with successive UKIP leaders Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall (left)

Yet the most shocking aspect is that UKIP has been so desperate to acquire its own ‘Court Jew’, so keen for insurance against accusations of ‘racism’ or links to the BNP/NF, that it has tolerated any amount of disreputable behaviour from Odze, which would surely have led to the dismissal of any other candidate. In February 2014 Dr Fred McGlade resigned as UKIP’s North West regional organiser because the party leadership had refused to back his view that it was inappropriate for Odze to be a candidate.

Indeed UKIP continues to indulge the rabbi.  A party spokesman told the Mail‘s reporter: “This is a personal matter for Mr Odze. He has broken no law, and therefore we have no comment to make.”

As with other Christian Zionists and Friends of Israel, the truly masochistic aspect of this whole saga is UKIP’s persistent and degrading surrender to any and every outrage committed by even the most marginal and perverted representatives of Zionist Jewry.

 

‘Liberal’ thought police crush local democracy in Bradford

David Ward with former Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

David Ward with former Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

Former MP David Ward has been banned by the national leadership of the Liberal Democrats from contesting his old constituency Bradford East at the General Election on June 8th.

Ward was defeated by Labour in 2015: two years earlier he had served a three-month suspension from the Lib Dems for anti-Zionist comments including calling Israel an “apartheid state”.  He had posted on Twitter in July 2013: “Am I wrong or are am I right? At long last the Zionists are losing the battle – how long can the apartheid State of Israel last?”

Responding to that suspension, Ward had been defiant: “I will not apologise for describing the state of Israel as an apartheid state. I don’t know how you can describe it as anything else. I am genuinely quite shocked at the reaction to the kind of thing many people say.”

Earlier this week the local Lib Dem branch in Bradford East selected Ward as their candidate for this year’s election, but responding to complaints from ultra-Zionist Tory rivals such as Theresa May and Sir Eric Pickles, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said today: “I believe in a politics that is open, tolerant and united. David Ward is unfit to represent the party and I have sacked him. …I am fully aware of the comments David Ward has made in the past and I find them deeply offensive, wrong and antisemitic.”

This latest move indicates a complete Lib Dem surrender to profoundly illiberal political correctness, following their suspension of Luton Lib Dem candidate Ashuk Ahmed yesterday.  Ahmed had made a series of anti-Zionist Facebook posts in 2014, including the statement: “Zionists control half the world, we are the other half. So let’s make a lot more noise.”

Is Tim Farron blind in one eye? How else can we explain his insistence on disciplining pro-Palestinian members of his own party, but his failure to condemn a rival party leader – Theresa May – for her blatant support of Zionist terrorism during a speech in 2015.  Mrs May (then Home Secretary) praised commemoration of Yom Hazikaron, the day on which “We remember the sacrifice of those who fought to achieve and protect that independence.” This means most notably those Zionist terrorists who died fighting against British forces and Arab civilians during 1945-48, and includes those who were executed for atrocities such as the murder of Lord Moyne and his driver Lance Corporal Arthur Fuller.

 

Election politics – Pakistani style!

Footage of a dinner held to support Labour candidate Afzal Khan has been reported to police.

Footage of a dinner held to support Labour candidate Afzal Khan has been reported to police.

Regular H&D readers will be familiar with the electoral saga of Manchester Gorton, where veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman died on February 26th causing a parliamentary by-election which was abandoned at the 11th hour when Prime Minister Theresa May called a General Election.

The local Labour Party had been bitterly divided between ethnic powerbrokers from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities (indigenous Mancunians don’t get much of a look-in these days).  Pakistani machine boss and solicitor Afzal Khan duly became the Labour candidate.

Today Mr Khan has been reported to police for alleged ‘treating‘ – an electoral malpractice involving provision of free food, drink or other gifts to voters.  If convicted, offenders can be disbarred from Parliament, fined or imprisoned.

According to today’s Daily Mail, Mr Khan is at the centre of “claims he bribed voters with a lavish dinner… Footage of the dinner posted online shows dozens of guests sat around tables laid with plates and folded napkins in wine glasses, as well as ‘Vote Labour’ leaflets.  A ‘Vote Afzal Khan’ banner is on display at the front of the room.”

The police complaint has been brought by the Liberal Democrats, who hope to gain the seat from Labour.  Also seeking to exploit Labour’s embarrassment is former MP George Galloway.

Afzal Khan, boss of Gorton's most powerful ethnic voting machine

Afzal Khan, boss of Gorton’s most powerful ethnic voting machine

One irony of course is that Mr Khan is himself a solicitor, so one might expect him to be familiar with electoral law, and even assuming he did not organise the dinner himself one might imagine he would have urged supporters to stay clearly on the right side of the ‘treating’ regulations.

A Liberal Democrat activist commented: “In my (admittedly limited) experience there is such an enormous expectation that candidates from some communities will host rallies with food provided that an agent from outside that community will be looked on with astonishment if he tries to explain that this can’t be done as it is an election offence.  The problem is that because nothing is ever done there is no back up for an agent trying to stay within the law.  A high profile case would probably be helpful in clarifying matters.”

In other words some “British Asian” communities expect to break the law with impunity.

 

UKIP’s political correctness backfires as Jewish candidate burns bible

A Bible set alight by UKIP candidate Rabbi Shneur Odze, who posted the image online

A Bible set alight by UKIP candidate Rabbi Shneur Odze, who posted the image online

Shneur Odze was supposed to be UKIP’s ace card against opponents who suggested the party was “racist” or had any connection to the NF or BNP.

After all, Shneur Odze is not only a UKIP activist but a rabbi from the ultra-orthodox Jewish sect Chabad Lubavitch (which unlike some other ultra-orthodox groups is extremely pro-Zionist).

So it was no surprise to see UKIP select Rabbi Odze as the party’s candidate for the new “super-mayoral” election in Greater Manchester, covering a vast region with a population around 2.75 million.

The wheels started to come off the Odze campaign when as H&D reported last month, the Liberal Democrats played the race card by drawing attention to the Rabbi’s religious objection to shaking hands with women.

Then real disaster struck this week after Rabbi Odze publicly burned a Bible.

Shneur Odze (right) with successive UKIP leaders Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall (left)

Shneur Odze (right) with successive UKIP leaders Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall (left)

This incident stemmed from long-running hostility between Chabad Lubavitch and so-called “Messianic Jews”, i.e. people who were born Jews but converted to Christianity, and now seek to proselytise their new faith among Jewry.

Whatever one thinks of these tactics – placing a Hebrew-language New Testament inside a synagogue – it was no doubt unwise for Rabbi Odze to respond by publicly burning a Bible. Can one imagine UKIP tolerating a Muslim candidate who burned a Bible, or anyone of any faith who burned a Jewish text or artefact?

But of course UKIP’s leadership (like the rest of the political establishment) has long taken the view that certain groups qualify for “special treatment”.

Pakistani machine boss wins Labour selection

Will former mayor Afzal Khan – seen here at a St George's Day event in 2006 – be able to rely on backing from ethnic rivals in his bid to be Gorton MP?

Will former mayor Afzal Khan – seen here at a St George’s Day event in 2006 – be able to rely on backing from ethnic rivals in his bid to be Gorton MP?

Afzal Khan, boss of a powerful Pakistani machine in Manchester politics, won a bitter selection contest last night to become Labour candidate in Manchester Gorton, one of the party’s safest seats.

As we reported earlier, the three main candidates were Khan, his Bangladeshi rival Luthfur Rahman, and Yasmine Dar (a local councillor backed by the far-left Momentum faction who previously supported Sam Wheeler, a young white Labour activist excluded from the all-Asian Labour shortlist).

The ethnic basis of the contest was revealed when Rahman (who had topped the first ballot with 163 votes) was eliminated at the penultimate stage.  The majority of his voters (101) made no choice between the two Pakistani candidates remaining: once the Bangladeshi candidate was eliminated, they weren’t interested.

The final vote went 235 to Khan and 203 to Rahman.

Now the big question in the by-election (which will be held on May 4th) is whether disillusioned Bangladeshis and other rivals of Khan will rally behind George Galloway, who has a long history of exploiting Labour’s ethnic conflicts (e.g. when he won the Bradford West by-election in 2012).

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter