English Democrats campaign to end politically correct Policing

The English Democrats Party are standing four candidates (so far) in this May’s Police Commissioner elections – in Essex, Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire and West Mercia – and three candidates (so far) for the Mayoral elections (which also includes Police Commissionerships).

Party activists have been out and about in these constituencies distributing leaflets in preparation for those elections.

The chairman of the English Democrats Robin Tilbrook always leads from the front and is standing as the party’s Police Commissioner candidate in his local area – Essex.

The party’s other candidates are David Dickason for Lincolnshire; Antonio Daniel Vitiello for Bedfordshire; and Henry Curteis for West Mercia.

The party’s Mayoral candidates are Stephen Morris for Greater Manchester; David Allen for South Yorkshire and Thérèse Hirst for West Yorkshire.

The English Democrats will also be standing a number of local council candidates up and down the country. Full details of these will be published after nominations close at the end of March.
H&D readers wishing to help the English Democrats in any of the constituencies they are contesting can contact the party by writing to: The English Democrats, Queries Green, Willingale, Essex, SS2 5QF.

Or Telephone 0207 242 1066 or 01277 896000

Or Email – Enquiries@EnglishDemocrats.Party

Check out the party’s website at – www.englishdemocrats.party

Chairman of the English Democrats, Robin Tilbrook speaking at a Traditional Britain Group event in 2023

The great historian David Irving is seriously ill

Readers will have heard rumours for some months that the great historian David Irving is seriously ill. This morning a statement from his family confirmed the sad news that Mr Irving now requires 24-hour nursing care and is no longer able to continue the work that has transformed our understanding of 20th century history.

David Irving, who will be 86 next month, published his first book The Destruction of Dresden in 1963. In this and many subsequent works – based on the groundbreaking study of archival documents as well as interviews with central participants in the events of the Second World War, and access to private letters and diaries – he earned both the wrath of ‘official’ propagandists and the gratitude of readers worldwide.

In this essay from 2022 our assistant editor Peter Rushton showed how the MI6-linked propaganda agency IRD worked with the Churchill family in efforts to discredit David Irving’s work during the late 1960s and 1970s. They employed the same agent who more than three decades earlier had concocted a campaign of lies against Adolf Hitler during the future Führer‘s election campaigns!

David Irving’s family are appealing for help from his many readers worldwide, so as to ensure that he is able to live with the dignity he deserves at this difficult time of his life, and that his life’s work is preserved for future generations.

Please click here for details of how you can help this great historian and his family.

H&D Issue 118 published

The new issue (#118) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is out now. The 28-page, March – April 2024 issue, has as its lead:

Will nationalists ever start to win elections again? – Alec Suchi says yes – but you’ve got to be in it to win it!

Issue 118

March – April 2024

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • Right to Reply – Community Politics – The Route We Must Take – by Kenny Smith
  • On the front line in Madrid – by Isabel Peralta
  • Book Review – Spies: The Epic Intelligence War between East and West – by Calder Walton – reviewed by Peter Rushton
  • Elections – You’ve got to be in it to win it! – by Alec Suchi
  • The Battle of Lewisham – a stroll down Memory Lane – by Paul Ballard
  • At the 2023 Traditional Britain Group Conference – and the TBG Christmas Social – by Tony Paulsen
  • Book Review – Anglophobia – The Unrecognised Hated – by Harry Richardson and Frank Salter – Part I of a review by Ian Freeman
  • Patriotic Alternative 2023 Conference report – by John Rose
  • From the Other Side of the Pond – by Kenneth Schmidt
  • Two full pages of readers’ letters
  • Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton
  • Movie Review – Napoleon – reviewed by Mark Cotterill

If you would like a sample copy of this issue, please send just £7.00 or $15.00 to H&D, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, England, UK – or if you would like to subscribe please go to – http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/publications/journal/ – for full details or email – heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com

Issue 118 of H&D magazine delayed, but will be out tomorrow

A message from H&D Editor Mark Cotterill

Sincere apologies for there being no January-February issue of Heritage and Destiny magazine. This was mainly due to your editor being out of action for the best part of January having gone down with a bad dose of the dreaded lurgi – maybe Covid or some other similar disease, whatever it was – and I still don’t know as there was no chance of seeing a NHS doctor, and the nearest private doctor was in Manchester – it almost finished me off. The keyword being “almost” as I’m still here!

However, loyal subscribers should fear not as although the January-February issue has been cancelled, we have now published issue #118, which will now be the March-April 2024 issue, so your subscriptions will still run for six issues, but just be extended by two months. In all fairness to the H&D team, this is the first time in over twenty years that we have failed to get an issue of the magazine out on time, so not too bad a run.

Issue 118 is now back from the printers (we collected it this afternoon) and is now at H&D Towers in Preston, ready to be posted out tomorrow/Tuesday. So please bear with us a few more days, as your copy of Britain’s best nationalist magazine will be dropping on your doormats very soon.

As the famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said (in 1888), “Out of life’s school of war – what doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.” Although, this sentence has been misquoted many times, I still think it is very relevant in our situation, as in my humble opinion, it nevertheless accurately portrays the picture of resilience and affirmation for overcoming adversity, which H&D does.

Homeland Party registration accepted by Electoral Commission

The UK has a new nationalist political party following yesterday’s decision by the Electoral Commission to accept the registration of the Homeland Party.

A previous attempt to register the Homeland Party had been turned down, which meant that the party’s name could not appear on ballot papers. Several Homeland Party members serve on parish/community councils, the lowest tier of local government, without a party label. But while it is common for non-partisan councillors to serve at that level, registration with the Commission was necessary if the party was to make serious progress.

Welcoming the decision, a Homeland Party press release stated that their party is dedicated to bringing about democratic change, which is often obstructed by the old gang parties; we will never shy away from enacting the will of the people. We are proud to be the first party in the country to call for a binding referendum on immigration, an idea that is gaining traction across Europe. We are calling for proportional representation and for more power to be devolved to a local level.

Our plans are centred around the needs of the people we serve. From community care to the environment, economy, and much-needed political reform, the Homeland Party will work tirelessly to build a future for our children rooted in fairness and justice.

H&D editor Mark Cotterill (above left) more than a decade ago with Kenny Smith in Glasgow Green, soon after Kenny’s departure from the BNP. Kenny Smith is now chairman of the Homeland Party.

The UK now has two active political parties which could be termed “racial nationalist” – the British Democrats and now the Homeland Party.

The British National Party remains registered but has long since ceased to carry out any political activity, while the National Front still exists but on a much smaller basis than in the past, fighting only very occasional elections.

The UK’s largest racial nationalist organisation, Patriotic Alternative, is still not registered as a political party despite several attempts to do so. Certain disagreements last spring led to the formation of the Homeland Party by a group of former PA officials including Kenny Smith, Homeland’s chairman, who has been a nationalist activist since his BNP days in the 1990s and 2000s.

In addition to PA, several racial nationalist groups remain active outside the electoral arena, including some very longstanding organisations such as British Movement and the League of St George.

H&D is of course independent of any one party or group. We hope to play our part in the essential task of obtaining ideological and strategic clarity for our movement, and avoiding the pitfalls of personality clashes and opportunism that have bedevilled our cause for decades.

Sam Melia convicted in latest abuse of UK race laws

Sam Melia with his wife Laura, who is presently expecting their second child

Yesterday afternoon Sam Melia, Yorkshire regional organiser of Patriotic Alternative, was convicted at Leeds Crown Court on two charges relating to racial nationalist stickers distributed via the Telegram social media platform. He will return to court for sentencing on 1st March.

One charge was under the UK’s notorious laws against “inciting racial hatred”, a concept which the courts now seem to interpret very widely. Legal sources have confirmed to H&D that the stickers for which Sam was convicted would not in the past have been expected to warrant prosecution.

The other charge was of “encouraging racially aggravated criminal damage”. This is again a cynical abuse of UK law by the authorities. Older readers will remember that similar ploys began to be used in the 1990s against the British National Party (then led by John Tyndall). BNP officials were in those days summonsed by local councils holding them responsible for removing stickers from public property such as lampposts and bus shelters, even though other stickers (including “anti-racist” political ones) are commonly displayed in such places.

As racial nationalists we shall need to consider our options very carefully in the light of the apparent determination of police and prosecutors to act as enforcers of an ever more restrictive political orthodoxy.

Sam’s wife Laura Towler (above right) at an H&D event with fellow speakers Dr Jim Lewthwaite, Keith Axon, Peter Rushton and Isabel Peralta.

For now, we are sure that all of our readers will join the H&D team in sending our best wishes to Sam and his wife Laura (PA’s deputy leader) who are presently expecting their second child.

H&D is not part of any political party or group, and we realise that while some readers are PA members, others have had (and continue to have) differences with PA.

Nevertheless, we are confident that all readers will recognise that the prosecution of Sam Melia is an attack not only on PA but on the rights of all British racial nationalists.

Now is not the time for factional debate. Now is the time for total solidarity with our comrades Sam and Laura.

PA have set up a fundraiser to allow the Melia family a holiday before what seems almost certain to be a custodial sentence.

Judge Tom Bayliss has already threatened Sam that “if you start making your views publicly on this [sic], it will not go well for you.” So we must make clear that the views we have posted about this trial on the H&D website or elsewhere are our own words, not Sam’s.

Another disturbing feature of the case (which is typical of several recent political cases) is that police and prosecutors have tried to imply that holding pro-fascist or national socialist political views, or having certain opinions about political history, is itself illegal.

It is not illegal in the UK to take a positive view of Sir Oswald Mosley or Adolf Hitler. It is not illegal in the UK to be a fascist or a national socialist. We note that the “experts” of the Crown Prosecution Service cannot even spell Mosley’s name, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by anything.

John Wright 1954-2023

I received an email this morning from H&D‘s lawyer: “Mark – Some sad news: our friend John Wright died on Thursday 21st December. He suffered a fall at his flat followed, it seems, by a major brain haemorrhage. John was in any event suffering from advanced dementia and had little recollection of his own life’s history or present circumstances, the second of which was a blessing in some ways.”

John Wright was 69 years old, and died in his native South London, where he had lived all his life. A true Londoner, and one of the few White British Londoners left in that part of the capital today.

Born in Brixton, Lambeth, in 1954 to an English mother and Northern Irish father, John moved to the neighbouring borough Southwark, after the rest of his family moved up to the Northeast of England in the 1970s.

John Wright (above left) with Kristin Duke (and her baby Chloe) and Mark Cotterill, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, 1998.

For a good chunk of his adult working life, John worked for the Daily Telegraph newspaper in their advertising department (where he picked up the nickname Bristow, after the cartoon character, who some claimed he resembled!). First, he worked at the Telegraph‘s Fleet Street offices, and then moved over to their new offices at Docklands, Canary Wharf, in 1987 (where I visited him a couple of times).

Always interested in politics, John joined the National Front in June 1979, after watching their TV General Election broadcast the previous month. The TV broadcast (as well as election leaflets) brought the NF over 10,000 enquiries, of which it is estimated that 200-300 joined.

However, those were not good days for the NF, and they encountered a number of splits in the coming year, with the party breaking up into three or four different factions. John stayed loyal to the official NF, at the time led by their Chairman Andrew Brons with Richard Verrall as his deputy. However, the party was really run by the NF’s national activities organiser Martin Webster, from their Great Eastern Street HQ at Excalibur House, in Tower Hamlets – London’s East End.

John stood as an NF candidate a number of times at both local and national level, including one of the famous four GLC by-elections in 1984, where he contested Lewisham West, polling 266 votes (1.7%). He also helped in many other elections when he was not a candidate himself, including the infamous Vauxhall by-election of 1988, when there were two NF candidates! John supported the Flag NF candidate Ted Budden, and personally addressed thousands of envelopes for Ted’s election address.

John was very interested in community politics (which we have covered in recent issues of H&D) and he (with a handful of other activists) build up one the NF’s most successful paper rounds in Lambeth in the early-mid 1980s, where he and others sold NF News and Nationalism Today door to door to White people in Lambeth branch’s target wards.

When the NF Cadre/Flag split in 1985/86 happened, John like most of the activists in Lambeth Branch did not support either side, he just walked away. Their local organiser Mick Turner, who had backed the Griffin/Harrington faction, was left with very few members and almost no activists. The NF as we knew it then was dead, never really to recover again.

However, John stayed interested in nationalism and although not a member of any party kept up with all the happenings on the nationalist scene. I first met him in 1985 when he travelled down to Devon to attend the wedding of another former Lambeth branch member Mark Spong who had moved to Plymouth a few years earlier to attend Plymouth Poly – now that’s another story for another day…

John, along with Dave Moon (who sadly died a few years ago) and his long-standing friend Ray Heath stayed in Torquay (where I was living at the time) over the weekend of the wedding, and we all met up for the first time then, on Mark’s stag night. It was a proper stag night in those days – held the day before the wedding, not like the stag dos of day which are held a week or so earlier!

The wedding, which was held the next day in Plymouth, brought together many nationalists from the London area, including H&D‘s future lawyer. And as they say, we all kept in touch from that day onwards. All due to Mark Spong getting married in Devon!

With the bulk of the nationalist movement (outside the BNP) on its knees by the early 1990s, John was one of the original ten founders of Right NOW! magazine, along with me. We built the magazine up from scratch until it had a subscription base of over a thousand and a circulation of over 2,000. Sadly, Derrick Turner decided to close the magazine down in 2006 – which John (and I) thought was a big mistake – but there you go.

Throughout the mid to late 1980s and early to mid-1990s, I kept in touch with John, and stayed over at his flat in the Elephant and Castle, just off the Old Kent Road in South London, dozens of times, when I was up in London, for NF or Right NOW! events, and when my football team Wolves played in London.

John was a massive Millwall FC supporter, and would attend most “Wall” home games at their ground, The Den. He would stand on the Dock Side, AKA the “Halfway Line”, come rain or shine. I attended a couple of matches with him at The Den, against my team Wolves, but also an end of season thriller against Newcastle United in 1993, who were managed at the time by Kevin Keegan. There must have been at least 10,000 Geordies at The Den that day. The game was a sell-out, and the atmosphere was electric!

John also came down to Devon from time to time where he used to stay at his friend Ray’s house in Abottskerswell, just outside of Torquay. We always used to met up for a few beers and a meal when he was in the area.

In my final week before I moved over to live in the States in July 1995, we had a farewell drink at the famous Orange Brewery Pub (which was once frequented by GK Chesterton no less!) in Victoria, in central London. In fact, the Orange Brewery was always one of our regular drinking spots when I visited London.

Normally after a Saturday night’s drinking, we would all end up at the Pimlico Tandoori, one of the area’s finest Indian restaurants. John was a creature of habit and would normally have the Butter Chicken, with pilau rice, onion bhajis and a keema naan bread.

On the Sunday lunchtime, after a full English breakfast in the morning, we would head over to the Surprise Pub, near “Little Portugal”, just north of Brixton, where we would meet up with Ray for an afternoon session, before returning to John’s flat at the Elephant and Castle for a Sunday roast. I remember everything on the plate was laid out neatly, not a pea out of place! Good days – and good meals!

John came over and visited me in the States in 1998, when I lived in Vienna, Northern Virginia (just outside Washington DC). I can remember the expression on his face when he landed at Washington Dulles Airport, after an eight-hour flight from London Heathrow. He was in desperate need of a fag (cigarette), after being denied a smoke during the Atlantic crossing, and the first thing he did when we got out of the airport was “light one up”.

During that holiday, we flew down to Daytona Beach, on Florida’s east coast, where he hired a car and we drove down the coast to New Smyrna Beach (where we stayed in a beach front condo for a few days, kindly lent to us by the former Council of Conservative Citizens leader Gordon Baum). We were joined there by Kristin Duke (David’s younger daughter) and her half-brother Derek Black (Don Black’s son). That sure was an interesting few days to say the least!

John did not realise how hot Florida would be in August and did not really bring any suitable clothes! So, Kristin took him out to the local mall and kitted him out in some shorts and T-shirts, clothing more suitable for Florida’s tropical climate.

I remember while we were there the Yanks launched a rocket into space from Cape Canaveral – an hour south down that east coast. We drove out of town, and with thousands of others watched it go into outer space. Some sight, I can tell you.

When that holiday was over, we drove north back up to Daytona Beach, where we returned the hire car, and met up with Don Black who drove us up to Charleston, South Carolina, where the CofCC was having their biennial convention. We stayed there for the weekend, and after the convention was over, we drove back to Northern Virginia with Zack (who at the time ran the CofCC’s youth section and lived very close to me in northern VA).

When my mother died in February 2002, I flew back to England for the funeral with Kristin Duke. We landed at Heathrow early morning, then made our way to Paddington. John kindly took time off to meet us there and show Kristin around all the tourist sites in the capital that Yanks love: Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Tower of London, etc. Before ending up at a traditional London pub for lunch. John also met us back in London, a few days later in Millbank, near the River Thames, just before we flew back to the States, for a farewell drink with all the usual suspects.

In later years, John would go over to Benidorm in Spain with his good friend Dave Moon, also a former Lambeth NF activist, for a few weeks in the sunshine every now and then. He would also do the Dover to Calais “booze and fag” run every few months, so he could stock up on tobacco, beer, spirits and his beloved bars of chocolate!

The last time I saw John, was at an H&D subscribers’ meet-up at the historic Royal Oak pub in South London, maybe six or seven years ago. He was on fine form that day, but sadly not long after that he would start going downhill.

I will miss John, he was a good guy, one of those in the movement who normally did not have a bad word to say about anybody. He was a creature of habit and just got on with his life and did almost the same things and went to almost the same places every week – but that was his way, and what he enjoyed. He was a nationalist until the end.

Mark Cotterill, Editor – Heritage and Destiny

Don’t forget the nationalist political prisoners

While most of us will be celebrating Christmas and/or Yuletide and New Year in a week or so, with our families or friends (or maybe just down the pub as some of the H&D team will doing!), please spare a moment or two to remember the nationalist political prisoners, who have been locked up in jails up and down the country for no more than expressing an opinion different to that of the ruling liberal-left elite.

Please make the time to send them a card and/or letter of support, and let them know that you will be thinking of them this time of year.

Two H&D subscribers, Vincent Reynouard and James Allchurch are among those who will be spending this Christmas in jail this year, which will be a lonely and depressing time for them as they are isolated or separated from loved ones and  family. 

James Allchurch (AKA Sven Longshanks) was jailed for two years and four months, and Vincent has been held on remand for over 14 months fighting a deportation order back to France, where the French authorities wish to jail him for holocaust revisionism. These two men have dedicated large parts of their adult lives to nationalist and revisionist activism and had the courage to speak out against the corrupt liberal-left establishment.

James Costello

Although not an H&D subscriber James Costello (AKA James Mac) attended every H&D annual meeting during the past ten years, and is a good friend of the H&D team. He was jailed for five years for thought crimes, even though he had a clean record with no previous offences – even minor ones.

All three of these brave men will be spending their Christmas in a prison cell – not for violent crimes, not for harming others, but for saying things that the liberal-left state deems to be offensive.

However, you can help them by letting them know that they are not alone! Please make the time to send them a card and/or letter of support, and let them know that you will be thinking of them this time of year and that they know that they haven’t been forgotten – that despite being incarcerated, there are many people thinking of them and wishing them well.

If you are sending a card or a letter you will need their name, prisoner number and address. If you wish to send money as a gift, the prison service no longer accepts cash: you have do this online via the government website, and you will need the prisoner’s date of birth as well as the name and prisoner number.

Alternatively, Patriotic Alternative have set up GiveSendGo fundraisers for Allchurch and Costello. The links to these can be found below. All of the details you need for each prisoner are below.

Vincent’s legal situation has been covered fully in H&D magazine and further updates on his appeal will appear in future issues, and on our website and at the Real History blog www.realhistory.info which is mirrored at www.jailingopinions.com/realhistory

A Christmas message from Vincent Reynouard

The H&D team have sent all three of these prisoners cards and we were pleased to receive a nice drawing back from Vincent today – see above.

NAME: Vincent REYNOUARD,
PRISONER NUMBER: 160071
DATE OF BIRTH: 18.02.1969
ADDRESS: HMP Edinburgh, 33 Stenhouse Road, Edinburgh, EH11 3LN. 

NAME: James Allchurch
PRISONER NUMBER: A5903EY
DATE OF BIRTH: 28.12.1971
ADDRESS: HMP Berwyn, Bridge Road, Wrexham Ind. Est., Wrexham, LL13 9QE.

NAME: James Costello
PRISONER NUMBER: A3561FA
DATE OF BIRTH: 08.01.1985
ADDRESS: HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road, Liverpool, L9 3DF

To send a prisoner money:

https://www.gov.uk/send-prisoner-money

GiveSendGo James Costello: https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportCostello

GiveSendGo James Allchurch: https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportSven

Please note, to send money to a prisoner using the above government link you must be on their approved contact list. An alternative way in which you can send them money if you don’t want to use their GiveSendGo is by sending cash to Patriotic Alternative,  PO Box 275, Pudsey, West Yorkshire, LS28 0FQ.  Don’t forget to mention whom you would like your money to go to.

Sending a Christmas card and/or letter will only take you a few minutes and costs very little, but a small act like this makes a huge difference to someone who has had their freedoms taken away.

Let’s hope the response to this campaign is so overwhelming that both Vincent Reynouard, James Allchurch and James Costello can decorate their cells with cards, and despite spending Christmas in a jail cell, that we can bring them some festive cheer and let them know that a huge number of people care about their plight.

Revolutionary praxis: the strategy of street protest

During recent days British and European nationalists have had to choose when and how to engage in street protests. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton offers this introduction to the strategy of street protest in 2023Este artículo también está disponible en traducción al español.

Isabel Peralta on the frontline of the barricades in central Madrid this weekend

Spain is rapidly becoming ungovernable as patriots (including our European correspondent Isabel Peralta) take to the streets in protest against the squalid and treacherous amnesty deal offered to Catalan subversives by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Meanwhile in London, the career criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known as ‘Tommy Robinson’ – is attempting another political comeback as leader of counter-protests against supporters of Palestine. And in Paris, the main opposition leader Marine Le Pen, past and future presidential candidate for the nationalist party Rassemblement National (formerly the French National Front) has marched on a pro-Israel demonstration.

What factors should be borne in mind by racial nationalists when deciding whether to adopt a strategy of street protests?

First and foremost, we should focus our minds on the protest’s objective. This might seem obvious – but sadly in 2023 many nationalists are only too keen to put on their marching boots merely in order to “do something”, because they are frustrated by the evident crises of European society and the apparent inability of nationalist parties to mount a serious political challenge (following, for example, the collapse of the BNP into a mere fundraising channel for its corrupt and indolent leaders).

Taking the three examples above, the most obvious case is the Parisian demonstration which was solely and blatantly intended as a rally for Israel. Marine Le Pen’s stance was welcomed by none other than Serge Klarsfeld, the leading French “anti-nazi” now aged 88 who has longstanding ties to Israeli intelligence. Klarsfeld told the conservative newspaper Le Figaro: “when I see a big party of the far right abandon anti-semitism and negationism and move towards our Republican values, naturally I rejoice.”

Marine Le Pen with two of her leading allies, Jordan Bardella and Sébastian Chenu, joined a cross-party march in Paris on Sunday against ‘anti-semitism’ and in defence of Israel.

H&D readers will understand that I’m not rejoicing. But neither am I surprised. This weekend is merely the culmination of a longstanding relationship between the Le Pen dynasty and Israeli intelligence services, who have at last succeeded in taking over both of the main political parties of the French “far right”.

Tommy Robinson’s call for British patriots to descend on London and oppose pro-Palestinian demonstrators was only slightly more complicated. Robinson came to prominence in 2009 as leader of the English Defence League (EDL) with an explicitly anti-Muslim agenda. Though it was avowedly “anti-racist” and had numerous non-White activists, the EDL grew just as the BNP was starting to implode, and it attracted many people who would once have been BNP supporters.

Though he has been discredited several times in the past decade, Robinson is heavily promoted by the media and is still viewed by some sincere nationalists as a leader of something that vaguely resembles our patriotic cause. He is especially popular with football gangs and others who are (often for honourable reasons) eager to confront the enemies of White Europe on the streets.

But the objective of last Saturday’s call to action in London was obviously fraudulent, as both H&D and Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett were quick to point out.

A wide range of reactionaries including Tory newspapers and then Home Secretary Suella Braverman (an Indian married to a Jew) amplified Robinson’s false claim that the Cenotaph was threatened by pro-Palestinian marchers (mainly of alien origin). The fact is that Saturday’s march for Gaza was never going to threaten the Cenotaph, or even pass down Whitehall.

Crook and fake ‘patriot’ Tommy Robinson (second right) displays his true loyalties with this disgusting hybrid flag before last Saturday’s shambolic anti-Palestinian protest in London

In other words the central objective of Robinson’s rallying cry was fraudulent. Its objective was primarily to embed British nationalists (a tiny, fragmented and downmarket version of Marine Le Pen’s party) as explicit allies of Zionism. And secondly to divide, misdirect and discredit those patriots who might otherwise contribute to building a genuine racial nationalist challenge to our treacherous political elite.

Robinson’s motley crew managed to be both ‘bad optics’ for nationalism, and to represent a counter-productive, fundamentally flawed ideology. As was once said by a French analyst (and misattributed to the statesman Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.

By contrast the central objective of the continuing demonstrations in Madrid is entirely valid: to oppose the break-up of Spain. This national betrayal is a cynical deal by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, leader of Spain’s fake ‘socialist’ party PSOE. As Isabel Peralta explained in issue 116 of H&D two months ago, Spain’s party political circus resulted in an inconclusive parliamentary election. To obtain a majority in Madrid’s parliament (the Cortes), Sánchez must cut deals not only with his main allies on the extreme left, but with an assortment of Basque and Catalan regionalist/separatist parties.

Among these is the hardline Catalan separatist party Junts, whose leaders have been fugitives from Spanish justice for several years. They were convicted of sedition and other crimes after they set up an illegal ‘referendum’ as part of an unconstitutional effort to secede from Spain. And despite being politically conservative in other respects, their anti-Spanish conspiracy won the support of the usual international gallery of anti-European subversives, including the ‘Scottish’ Pakistani lawyer Aamer Anwar, who began his political career as a Marxist vandal smashing the Rudolf Hess memorial stone near Glasgow.

Sánchez has offered an amnesty to Junts for its leaders’ crimes. The Prime Minister himself is deliberately subverting both the Spanish constitution and the rule of law, merely in order to obtain a parliamentary majority to sustain himself in office. The situation is in some ways similar to Britain in 1913-14, when the Conservative leader Bonar Law denounced a pact with Irish ‘Nationalists’ designed to keep Liberal Prime Minister Asquith in office:
“We do not recognise the Liberal cabinet as the constitutional government of a free people. We regard them as a revolutionary committee which has entered by fraud upon despotic power.”

Anti-government protesters last night chant at Madrid police: “It’s 10 o’clock: go ahead and tear gas us again!”

In response to the outrageous amnesty deal, Spanish patriots have turned out for the past ten nights in central Madrid, confronting massed ranks of armed police outside the headquarters of the ruling PSOE. Elderly Madrid residents alongside football gangs; conservatives, civic nationalists, Falangists, and national socialists; all these and more have packed the streets of their capital city, and the authority of the Sánchez government is crumbling.

Therefore, in the case of the Madrid demonstrations – in stark contrast to Paris and London – the objective of the street protests is clearly valid and worth supporting. In fact it is the duty of racial nationalists to take a leading role in such protests, even if they are organised by conservative reactionaries with whom we have little else in common.

So the second question becomes, how does a particular street protest contribute to promoting our ideology and advancing our broader political project?

Turning again briefly to last Saturday’s shambles in London, we can easily see that (even setting aside the fundamentally fraudulent prospectus of ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his fellow Zionist propagandists) there was nothing to be gained for racial nationalists from participating in such an event.

There was no possibility of advancing racial nationalist ideas, and the entire charade was simply leading many otherwise sincere patriots down a political cul-de-sac.

In Madrid by contrast the situation calls for serious strategic planning as well as courage. It’s obvious that the leaders of the anti-Sánchez demonstrations are reactionaries – principally from the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Vox and the conservative Partido Popular. Therefore by participating, there is always a risk that racial nationalists are simply acting as footsoldiers for the benefit of our enemies.

For there can be no doubt that the reactionary ‘right-wing’ is our enemy. In some ways a more deadly enemy than the subversive ‘left’.

Tucker Carlson, the American broadcaster and leading international spokesman for the reactionary right, with Vox leader Santiago Abascal at last night’s Madrid protest. The task for racial nationalists is to separate ourselves from the Abascal-Carlson reactionary agenda, even while standing on the front line in broadly-based demonstrations.

But it’s a risk well worth taking. Not only because it is our duty to be on the front line when our nation is under attack (whether as British and Ulster patriots confronting the IRA and its sympathisers, or as Spanish patriots confronting their Basque or Catalan equivalents), but because by demonstrating our commitment – our fanatical devotion to race and nation – we can begin to awaken even those of our compatriots who previously had a limited ideological perspective.

Moreover the self-evident bankruptcy of Spain’s 1978 ‘democratic’ constitution now means that events are moving rapidly, and the potential for radicalisation is greater than anywhere else in Western Europe.

It is, however, essential for racial nationalists to achieve the delicate balance of both participating in a broadly-based protest, but also maintaining our distinct message.

This can best be achieved by:
(a) continuing a barrage of online propaganda focused on our core ideology, and relating it to the rapidly developing confrontation on the streets:
and (b) ensuring that our militants are displaying placards and banners that reflect our message, not the reactionary message.

This means, for example, that whether in Madrid, Paris or London we should never carry placards or post online propaganda that puts our case in religious rather than racial terms.

Of course at various points in our struggle we shall have allies who think primarily in religious terms – which means that in Madrid our allies will often be devout Catholics, whereas in Belfast or Glasgow our allies will often be militant Protestants.

But our fight against the undermining of Western civilization and the betrayal of our nations and our race is not a fight against Islam, any more than it is a fight for or against the Pope. It makes absolutely no difference to us whether a non-European immigrant is Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Marxist/Atheist. We resist the non-European invasion in the name of racial preservation and true European renaissance – not in the name of any God or Gods.

To adopt an Islam-obsessed agenda is the worst kind of surrender to reactionary politics. Whether or not in particular cases it also serves the Zionist agenda, it simply has no part in an ideologically coherent racial nationalist struggle.

It is only by maintaining a coherent ideological line that we can obtain any political advantage from these street confrontations. We should never forget that ours is a war of ideas, not a mere street skirmish for adolescents. The battles on the streets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

Which brings us to a final topic for today’s analysis. Having addressed strategy, what about tactics? What methods are justifiable in pursuit of our objectives?

The simple answer to that is that any and every method is justifiable, provided it is necessary and properly focused.

In mainland Britain all talk of political violence is (in all conceivable present circumstances) utterly counter-productive and should be rejected by serious racial nationalists, irrespective of moral and legal considerations. Whereas in Northern Ireland there have been times in the very recent past where violence was not only necessary, but was the duty of every decent patriot in the struggle against a vile and murderous foe – the IRA and its proxies and splinters.

In Madrid the treacherous and subversive actions of the Prime Minister have crossed the line at which resistance – even violent resistance – becomes not only an option but a duty.

So the central question for nationalists is not whether violence is philosophically justified, but at what point it becomes both necessary and practically achievable. That’s a decision that can only be taken on a day-to-day basis by those involved. But again the imperative for our movement’s leaders is to maintain a sense of the broader objective. The adrenalin of battle needs to be tempered by strategic focus. We are in politics to achieve a national revolution, not to obtain the short term satisfaction that can be gained either by electing a councillor or vandalising our enemies’ premises.

Isabel Peralta and a comrade from the new national socialist youth group Sección de Asalto salute the crowds last week outside the PSOE headquarters. With the traditional salute of the 1930s Falangists, Isabel and her comrades seek to radicalise these demonstrations and revive the best elements of the legacy of Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and the martyrs of 1936, not the reactionary legacy of the Franco regime.

And that national revolution will be achieved by consistent commitment and serious thinking, not by the mentality prevalent on the internet by which extravagant claims are made one day, only to be forgotten the next, in pursuit of the next ‘click-bait’, the next ‘likes’, the next ‘followers’.

The type of followers we need are people who will both read a book, and spend hours putting themselves on the line in a street confrontation. As my old comrade Jonathan Bowden put it, we need a return of Lord Byron’s ideal concept: the cultured thug.

Further articles on this site and in H&D will examine the ideology that will sustain and motivate these cultured thugs: the revolutionary praxis of the 2020s.

Scottish justice or “due deference” to French-Zionist lobby? The Reynouard case hangs in the balance [report now translated into four languages!]

On 21st September, a Scottish Crown prosecutor asked an Edinburgh court to show “due deference to France” and extradite a man who is accused of no crime under Scottish law. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton reports from the court. This article and related material also appears at Peter’s Real History blog and now also in Spanish by clicking on this link. Also now available in German translation at this link and in French translation at Vincent’s own blog. And Vincent’s open letter to President Macron is now also available in German translation for the first time.

The revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard was appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for a full hearing of his extradition case. This was almost exactly ten months after his arrest in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther, where Vincent had been working quietly as a private tutor and completing his most important historical revisionist work concerning the so-called “massacre” at Oradour.

He was arrested in a raid by Scottish police, working with Scotland Yard detectives, at the request of French prosecutors who wish to jail him for revisionist videos concerning both Oradour and the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.

None of these revisionist works contravenes Scottish or English law, but the UK authorities were heavily lobbied by the Jewish charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and by the ultra-Zionist peer Lord Austin (formerly Ian Austin MP).

The sheer absurdity of this situation – the criminalisation of a scholar – was brought home to me by two incidents (one trivial, one serious) at the Edinburgh Court while waiting for Vincent’s case to be heard.

A sticker for the Edinburgh branch of the St Pauli supporters’ club was displayed in the lavatory at the Court. Supporters of St Pauli (a football club based in Hamburg) are notorious worldwide for their violent ‘anti-fascism’ and Marxism. It is impossible to imagine that a sticker promoting any violent ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ group (from, for example, supporters of a club such as Lazio, Chelsea, Millwall or Oldham) would have been allowed to remain on display at a court!

The other incident was more serious. Vincent’s case was being heard in a courtroom that specialises in extradition, which of course meant that more than two hours were taken up (before Vincent’s case began) by a long procession of procedural, pre-trial discussions of a range of unconnected defendants, including alleged gangsters from Eastern Europe.

Terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy appeared at the same extradition court a few minutes before Vincent – illustrating the absurdity by which revisionist scholars and advocates of national socialism (none of whose conduct is criminal in the UK) have been put on a par with some of the world’s most dangerous murderers.

By far the most serious of these procedural discussions involved a defendant appearing by video link. This was the notorious ‘Real IRA’ terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy (aka Anton Duffy), who in 2015 was jailed for 17 years for conspiracy to murder two ex-UDA members (Johnny Adair and Sam ‘Skelly’ McCrory) exiled in Scotland after their expulsion from the UDA.

Duffy is still serving this sentence in a top-security Scottish jail, but he is also now wanted by police and prosecutors in the Irish Republic, to face charges of murdering Denis Donaldson, an MI5 agent inside the IRA, who was killed in 2006. This is why Duffy was appearing on the same day as Vincent, in the Edinburgh extradition court.

H&D cannot yet comment on the latest specific charges – but it is beyond dispute (based on earlier convictions and years of police and MI5 covert surveillance) that Duffy is one of the UK’s most dangerous terrorists. Extradition procedures are designed for those accused of actual crimes: yet this week in Edinburgh (and in fact for the past ten months) Vincent Reynouard – a scholar, not a criminal – has been subjected to these same procedures.

As we have also seen with persistent abuse of the Terrorism Act by the UK authorities, those who simply seek to tell the truth about European history are persecuted by UK authorities who choose to follow the instructions of shadowy international lobbyists rather than UK law.

Nevertheless, there are reasons to be optimistic about Vincent’s case. He was very ably represented by his solicitor Paul Dunne and advocate Fred Mackintosh KC (who also practices as a barrister in England). It should of course be emphasised that Vincent’s defence is (rightly and properly) based on legal arguments, not on his historical and political views per se. As in any other such case, it should not be inferred that either Mr Dunne or Mr Mackintosh is in any way sympathetic to Vincent’s opinions, or indeed that either of them have any views or expertise on historical or political matters. They are experts on extradition law, not on historical revisionism or national socialism.

Due to Vincent having already spent ten months in jail (for something that isn’t even a crime in the UK!) the initial French warrant has been discharged.

This initial warrant was based on his having already been convicted and sentenced (in his absence) by a Parisian court. But he is no longer extraditable on those grounds, because that sentence has (in effect) already been served in Scotland, while Vincent awaited this extradition hearing.

Having dealt with the discharge of the first warrant, Mr Mackintosh proceeded to address the second.

Since it involves new charges (rather than a prior conviction) the ‘ticklist’ of the old European Arrest Warrant (now operating in revised form post-Brexit) doesn’t apply. Mr Mackintosh therefore pointed out that the traditional extradition principle of “dual criminality” operates in this case.

In other words, the Edinburgh Court must be satisfied that the conduct of which Vincent is accused would potentially be criminal in Scotland as well as in France.

The judge should (Mr Mackintosh continued) draw inferences as to Vincent’s “intent”, by looking at his overall conduct, and by studying the entire transcripts of his videos, not merely accepting the prosecutors’ interpretation of certain phrases taken out of context.

He highlighted one video, on which the prosecutors had based a large part of their case, and emphasised that the judge should study the full translated transcript carefully. This was a video published on 22nd February 2020, whose title translates as “The Jewish Problem – what solution?”

Vincent’s counsel did not dispute that his videos contain what has been termed “Holocaust denial”, that some of them address the “Jewish problem”, and that one in particular “denies” the historicity of the “Oradour massacre”.

But Mr Mackintosh’s central argument as to why Vincent should not be extradited began with a judgment in 2015 by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland.

The relevant aspect of this judgment (which involved a Turkish political activist accused of “denying” the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War), is that the European Court spelled out the very different laws among European states regarding “denial” of genocide.

Among those European countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court noted:
“there are now essentially four types of regimes in this domain, in terms of scope of the offence of genocide denial: (a) States, such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania, that only criminalise the denial of the Holocaust or more generally of Nazi crimes (Romania in addition criminalises the Nazi extermination of the Roma, and Greece criminalises, on top of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes, the denial of genocides recognised by an international court or its own Parliament); (b) States, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, that criminalise the denial of Nazi and communist crimes; (c) States, such as Andorra, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland, that criminalise the denial of any genocide (Lithuania in addition specifically criminalises denial of Soviet and Nazi crimes vis-à-vis the Lithuanians, but Cyprus only criminalises the denial of genocides recognised as such by a competent court); and (d) States, such as Finland, Italy, Spain (following the 2007 judgment of its Constitutional Court cited in paragraph 96 above), the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian States, that do not have special provisions criminalising such conduct.”

The European Court was clear, Mr Mackintosh said, that the UK had not chosen to make any form of “Holocaust denial” a specific criminal offence.

He added that in Vincent Reynouard’s case, the prosecution therefore had to satisfy the Scottish court that Vincent’s conduct (as alleged in the extradition warrant) met the test either for a S.127 Communications Act offence, or a breach of the peace (a common law offence).

The question of what behaviour can constitute a “breach of the peace” under Scottish law has been revised several times during recent decades – and is a matter on which Mr Mackintosh has special expertise, having for example written an article for Scottish Legal News on this very topic.

Such conduct must be serious enough to “cause alarm to ordinary people”, and it must “threaten serious disturbance to the community”. The relevant judgment was delivered in 2014 by Lady Clark of Calton, and Mr Mackintosh said that Lady Clark had reminded the lower courts that “for conduct to be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm there has to be something further than annoyance and distress”.

Mr Mackintosh explained that the test of whether conduct “threatens serious disturbance in the community” necessarily involves considering the full context. He quoted several cases in Scottish courts involving racial and sectarian abuse at football matches, where a crucial element was that this abuse had been directed at (or delivered in close proximity to) rival supporters, in the incendiary context of a football match attended by supporters of opposing teams.

In a 1981 case against communist activist Mike Duffield, the Sheriff Court had ruled that shouting pro-IRA slogans while selling the Marxist newspaper Fight Racism Fight Imperialism and the pro-IRA newspaper Hands off Ireland was a breach of the peace, despite this being carried out at the stadium of Glasgow Celtic, where many fans hold similar views.

And on the other side of politics, there had been a breach of the peace case involving a National Front activist selling the Young NF paper Bulldog outside the Hearts stadium in Edinburgh.

But in all these cases – and especially bearing in mind recent clarifications of the law in Scotland – it was essential to assess the wider context of the words used – in Vincent’s case, words used in videos broadcast online.

There were eight such videos referred to by French prosecutors in the present warrant. The first related specifically to Oradour. The second, third and fourth presented detailed arguments as to why (in Vincent’s considered opinion) there had been no homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, explaining that conventional ‘Holocaust’ history is based on specious evidence. The fifth and sixth discussed the “Jewish problem” or “what to do about the Jews”. And the seventh and eighth returned to the topic of Auschwitz, the ‘gas chambers’, and broader ‘Holocaust’ themes.

Mr Mackintosh emphasised that in the case of six of these eight videos, Vincent Reynouard had not been calling for any form of action. None of the content potentially qualified as personal abuse, and none of it could be seen as “threatening”. The videos amounted to a historical critique – which might well be controversial, but not illegal in Scotland.

In the case of videos 5 and 6, Vincent was responding to a correspondent. The prosecution had chosen to isolate certain phrases out of context, but Mr Mackintosh said that once seen in context it was clear that Vincent was stating his opposition to any policy of “exterminating” the Jews.

The test that the court had to apply was not whether “reasonable people” would reject Vincent’s views, but whether these views threatened “serious disturbance to society”. Were the court to accept the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to ruling that discussion of controversial arguments regarding the ‘Holocaust’ had become a crime in the UK. Mr Mackintosh said it was open to Parliaments in London and Edinburgh to make ‘Holocaust denial’ a crime, but they had (so far) chosen not to do so.

Therefore to be criminal, Vincent’s words would have to cross a further line, a further evidential test, in order to be regarded as a “breach of the peace”.

Mr Mackintosh then turned to the alternative test, S.127 of the Communications Act. For Vincent’s videos to be considered criminal in this context, they would have to be not merely offensive, but “grossly offensive”.

Prosecutors had rested much of their argument on the precedent of the Chabloz case, as tried in the London courts during recent years – not a binding precedent, but, they argued, very much a “persuasive” precedent in this case. [Chabloz has in recent years been excluded from British revisionist circles, due to her treacherous and malicious conduct in betraying Robert Faurisson’s final meeting to the ‘anti-fascist’ publication ‘Hope not Hate’. But her earlier actions have, as we predicted at the time, served as a precedent to threaten the liberty of Vincent Reynouard.]

On appeal, Chabloz’s conduct had been found to go beyond satire, having crossed the legal line into deliberate, malicious abuse. By contrast, Mr Mackintosh argued, the judge in the present case would find (if he examined the full transcripts of Vincent’s videos) that his arguments – even when highly controversial – were delivered as a calm, academic analysis, not as crude anti-semitic abuse in the Chabloz style.

Mr Mackintosh referred to the leading S.127 case in relation to interpretation of what is “grossly offensive”, namely the Collins case, and the judgment of Lord Bingham.

This had made clear that what is “grossly offensive” has to be assessed in the context of the standards of an “open, just, multiracial society” – a contemporary context that is “reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist”.

In other words, Mr Mackintosh emphasised, the words complained of had to cause gross offence, not simply “to people who care about the Holocaust” and who, for whatever reasons, hold different views to Vincent, but to broader society.

Were ‘Holocaust denial’ or disputing the historicity of Oradour to be deemed criminal per se, the question would necessarily arise – what about the Amritsar massacre, what about the Armenian genocide, and many other controversial historical subjects?

Mr Mackintosh concluded his argument by addressing the question of proportionality. An extradition court is required to consider whether the alleged offence is sufficiently severe to attract a custodial sentence. For example, recent instructions to the lower courts had emphasised that defendants should not be extradited for minor public order offences.

He noted that even in the Chabloz case – where the defendant had been convicted for gross offensiveness which was of a very different character to Vincent’s videos – this had not led to custodial sentences.

It would therefore, Mr Mackintosh argued, be both wrong in law and disproportionate for the Edinburgh Court to extradite Vincent Reynouard to France.

In his argument, the prosecutor (Advocate depute Paul Harvey) insisted that Vincent’s videos did pass the evidential test for the Court to regard his conduct as either (or both) a breach of the peace, and/or “grossly offensive” under S.127.

He invited the judge to consider Vincent’s words in one of the video transcripts, where he had stated that “there is a Jewish problem”, and that in his analysis of this problem he would “go further” than Adolf Hitler. “Naturally, the Jews exploit the situation: to dominate, even to subjugate us.”

Mr Harvey described these words as “the most appalling anti-semitism”, and asked the judge to view all of the videos complained of in the French warrant, in the light of this “anti-semitism”.

Questioned by the judge on this point, Mr Harvey said that (in the prosecutors’ submission) each video should be looked at as a separate breach of the peace offence, but should also be interpreted overall as a “course of conduct” by Vincent.

The mere fact that the UK had no special provision criminalising “Holocaust denial” did not in itself absolve the defendant. When expressed in the terms used by Vincent, Mr Harvey insisted that “Holocaust denial” could be interpreted as criminal under UK as well as French law.

Quoting the case of Rangers fan William Kilpatrick, who had posted on Facebook endorsing the sending of “bombs and bombs” to Celtic manager Neil Lennon, Mr Harvey argued that under Scottish law, intending or inciting a specific action was not necessarily relevant to whether certain words were a “breach of the peace”.

Mr Harvey maintained that some of Vincent’s words in the video could reasonably have led to his being charged with a breach of the peace under Scottish law, because they were calculated to provoke a disturbance of public order.

In fact, he argued that Vincent’s words were potentially a more serious crime than breach of the peace in a football stadium: because they could be viewed online at any time, anywhere in Scotland. Incitement to specific criminal action did not, the prosecution argued, have to be proven.

Mr Harvey added that Vincent’s “crimes” had to be looked at in the context of the very different cultural context in France, and the more serious risk of “anti-semitism being incited”. While the words Vincent used could, Mr Harvey argued, be prosecutable even in Scotland, the Court should take account of the fact that in a French context, they were even more serious.

Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor rejected the defence argument that Vincent’s words were calm, academic discourse. He said they were comparable to the Chabloz case, where it had been established that once a clearly anti-semitic motive had been established, espousal of “Holocaust denial” was ipso facto grossly offensive.

Mr Harvey accepted that (under UK law) not every instance of “Holocaust denial” was criminal, but he maintained that in the cases of both Chabloz and Vincent Reynouard, denying the “Holocaust” did amount to “gross offensiveness”, and therefore contravened S.127.

The prosecutor said the judge would need to apply the proportionality test very carefully. Unlike, for example, a drugs or theft case, Vincent’s criminal conduct was highly context-specific, where the appropriate sentence might differ enormously between Scotland and France. The judge should therefore “respect and give due weight” to French circumstances involving their history, and even present day “racial relations”, which meant that a French court “is justified in taking a severe approach to this”.

Given Vincent’s long and repeated record of “criminal conduct”, Mr Harvey concluded that a custodial sentence in France was not only possible but highly likely: “I urge you to show due deference to France and their different traditions.”

In a brief reply concluding the hearing, Vincent’s counsel Fred Mackintosh said that if the judge accepted the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to saying that any “racist” statement on Facebook or YouTube, regardless of context, would be a breach of the peace. He urged the judge to reject this argument and to recognise that “Holocaust denial” when expressed in Vincent’s terms, is not a crime in Scotland – neither a breach of the peace, nor grossly offensive.

The judge said that he aimed to have read all relevant material and considered the arguments fully, in time to pass judgment on 12th October.

Clearly, the Vincent Reynouard case has become a vitally important test of whether historical revisionism will be criminalised in the UK via a ‘back door’ route, without any honest and open discussion in Parliament.

We shall make a further assessment of the broader context soon. But it should be recognised by all concerned that there will be no surrender of the basic principles involved. In the UK, Spain and Canada, European traditions of free historical inquiry are under attack. We shall defend those traditions, by any and every method that proves necessary.

[UPDATE: On 12th October the Edinburgh judge Sheriff Dickson ruled that Vincent should be extradited to France. For a report on this extraordinary judgement, click here. Vincent remains in Edinburgh Prison, pending an appeal in January 2024.]

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers