Death of the ‘Zionic woman’

Lady Falkender, whose death was announced yesterday

Marcia Williams (later Lady Falkender) was once the most powerful woman in Britain. As political secretary to Harold Wilson – Prime Minister from 1964-70 and 1974-76 – she exercised influence in Downing Street to an extent few other such staff members have ever approached.

The precise nature of her relationship with Wilson remained a mystery, and as late as 2007 she sued the BBC for claims in a drama-documentary that she and the PM had been lovers.

Most notoriously she was held responsible for the inclusion of several disreputable businessmen in Wilson’s final honours list at the time of his resignation in 1976. This became known as the “lavender list” because it was drawn up on Falkender’s personal notepaper.

Almost all of the disreputable names on this list were wealthy Jews, but Falkender’s obituaries this weekend delicately avoided the subject of Jews and Israel – even though during the 1970s this connection was so notorious that satirical magazine Private Eye labelled Falkender “the Zionic woman”.

Heritage and Destiny readers will learn much more later this year about the web of Zionist connections in Harold Wilson’s Downing Street – a web of organised crime, money laundering and (eventually) murder.

Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:
“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances

Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:
“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:
“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:
“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.
“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.”

The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset”

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.”

On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards.
“Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991.

Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day.

A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that:
“The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991

Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature.

The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law.

The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Neville Nagler

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter



Prime Minister May blunders in attacking ‘anti-semitism’

Prime Minister Theresa May, alongside Sir Eric Pickles (chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) declares “I am a Jew”

Prime Minister Theresa May – whose devotion to the interests of the Zionist state is well known – predictably attacked her Labour rival Jeremy Corbyn in her conference speech this week.

Less predictable was the PM’s crass blunder in attempting to contrast Corbyn with his most illustrious predecessor Clement Attlee, who was Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951.

Mrs May said this week: “Would Clement Attlee, Churchill’s trusted deputy during the Second World War, have told British Jews they didn’t know the meaning of anti-Semitism?”

Someone on her staff should have told Mrs May a few basic historical facts.

Clement Attlee (along with his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin) didn’t just criticise Zionism and its fellow-travellers among Anglo-Jewry – they were at war with them!

Future Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir featured on a ‘Wanted’ poster during a British anti-terrorist campaign ordered by Prime Minister Clement Attlee

Attlee and Bevin (in response to a remorseless Jewish terrorist campaign against British military and civilian targets) ordered the destruction of Jewish refugee ships attempting to ferry illegal immigrants to Palestine. In 1946 British troops acting on Attlee’s orders raided the headquarters of the Jewish Agency and other Zionist offices. Many of Israel’s postwar political leaders were imprisoned or interned on Attlee’s orders.

Labour minister Gerald Kaufman (who was Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Foreign Secretary during the 1980s) accused Attlee of “ingrained anti-Semitism”. According to a diary entry by Attlee’s cabinet colleague Hugh Dalton, he rejected two Jewish Labour MPs for promotion because “they both belonged to the Chosen People, and he didn’t think he wanted any more of them“.

Perhaps David Aaronovitch writing in this week’s Jewish Chronicle is correct to observe that “the Jewish community’s stand against anti-semitism has actually increased it”?

It certainly doesn’t seem to have educated Prime Minister May, one of that community’s closest allies.

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

NB: For unfathomable reasons, YouTube has suspended access to this video: this decision is presently under appeal. However courtesy of Nationalist Sentinel the video can be downloaded by clicking on the link below:

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

 

Britain’s political establishment plans to impose a ‘Holocaust memorial’ on Victoria Tower Gardens, a Royal Park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Conservationists and local residents are objecting.

In a new YouTube video Richard Edmonds reports from Westminster on this controversy, and quotes Israeli author Miko Peled on the failure of Zionism and the oppression of Palestine – which is legitimated by ‘Holocaust memorials’ such as that proposed for this site.

 

Corbyn and the uses of ‘anti-fascism’

The cover of Red Action’s journal boasts of RA/AFA leader Patrick Hayes terrorist role

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

So H&D readers will have been surprised to see an article yesterday by the Sunday Times‘ star reporter Andrew Gilligan, belatedly drawing attention to the real terrorists of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ and its core group ‘Red Action’.

AFA’s magazine Fighting Talk frequently advertised its violent tactics

None of the information will be news to our readers, since we have reported aspects of this story several times over the years. The best mainstream investigation remains a BBC programme broadcast almost five years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn was a particularly close friend of IRA / Sinn Fein during the 1980s, as was his then-ally Ken Livingstone. As we reported, Livingstone’s ties to the IRA almost led to his assassination by London-based Ulster Loyalists in 1993.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

(left to right) Ken Livingstone, Sinn Fein – IRA godfather Gerry Adams, and Jeremy Corbyn in London, 1983

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

Andrew Gilligan, author of yesterday’s Sunday Times exposé of ‘anti-fascist’ terrorism, seen (above right) accepting an award from former Prime Minister David Cameron

Call for Jewish Labour MPs to split from party after Corbyn ‘antisemitism’ row

 

In H&D Issue 84 we speculated as to how far the Jewish lobby in the UK would be prepared to push their disagreement with Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Now we know.

Earlier this week the senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge (née Oppenheimer), who is probably best known to H&D readers for defeating Nick Griffin in her Barking constituency at the 2010 General Election, confronted her party leader at the entrance to the House of Commons and called him an “antisemite” and a “racist”. Several press reports stated that Dame Margaret had added an Anglo-Saxon epithet.

A day later, Blairite backbencher John Woodcock resigned from the Labour Party: he will now sit as an independent MP.

Both Dame Margaret and Mr Woodcock were responding to the Labour leadership’s refusal to adopt the full “working definition” of “antisemitism” devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Quite rightly, Corbyn and his allies felt that the IHRA’s definition demonised a wide range of anti-Zionism as “antisemitism”.

Senior Labour backbencher Dame Margaret Hodge launched a four-letter tirade at her leader Jeremy Corbyn this week, accusing him of ‘antisemitism’

The IHRA is the new name for the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research set up in 1998 on the initiative of then Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. This Task Force was behind the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, which issued infamous “Guidelines” for teachers in 2000, stating that schools had a responsibility to combat “Holocaust denial” and that in doing so: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers … or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

This anti-debate, anti-rational organisation now presumes to dictate not only to schools but to the leadership of political parties!

Today’s latest move is the boldest yet: the Jewish Chronicle has the chutzpah to demand in its front page article that Jewish Labour MPs should break away from the party en masse and create a separate parliamentary group.

Two of the Jewish Labour MPs whom the JC is asking to break away from the Party are Ruth Smeeth (above left) and Luciana Berger (above right)

H&D understands that (depending on one’s definition of Jewish) there are eight Jewish Labour MPs: Luciana Berger (Liverpool Wavertree); Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside); Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East); Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking); Ivan Lewis (Bury South); Ed Miliband (Doncaster North); Ruth Smeeth (Stoke North); Alex Sobel (Leeds North West). One or two of these would be most unlikely to associate with any breakaway, but it’s easy to imagine non-Jews such as Mr Woodcock, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and John Mann getting on board.

The JC are however playing a dangerous game in asking MPs to put their Jewish identity (or their non-Jewish Zionism) ahead of their other presumed political loyalties. If Corbyn were eventually to be succeeded by a Zionist, would we see calls for Muslim Labour MPs to stage a similar breakaway? (Incidentally there are now twelve Muslim Labour MPs – the first time in history that the Parliamentary Labour Party has had more Muslims than Jews – but only one of them has ever expressed seriously anti-Zionist views.)

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…

H&D assistant editor’s speech at the Whitehall anti-Shomrim demo

Today Jez Turner of the London Forum was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for his speech on 4th July 2015 at a demonstration against the racially exclusive private Jewish police force known as Shomrim.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton spoke at that same demonstration (from 23:40 to 30:08 on the video below).

The deafening noise made by Jewish and ‘anti-fascist’ demonstrators makes it difficult to hear the video, so we here attach a transcript of our assistant editor’s speech:

 

I’d like to thank the various forces that have proved the point today about the disgraceful state of double standards that exists in this country.

First of all, the courageous organisers of this event, principally Eddie Stampton over there, who stood up to be counted, who stood up determined to expose the double standards of law and order in this country.

Second, the British Government just the other side of the street there, who similarly proved the point by at the last minute insisting that this demonstration had to be moved from Golders Green down here to Whitehall. They helped to prove again the point about double standards.

And thirdly I’d like to thank the motley crew of ‘anti-fascist’ opponents today because they’ve also turned up to help make Eddie’s point for him. Over here today we see the united forces of anti-British terrorism. We see the friends of the Zionist bombers of the King David Hotel, standing side by side with the friends of the IRA bombers of Harrods, who were of course – as every policeman here knows – the bombers of Harrods were senior activists in the London branch of Anti-Fascist Action.

The united forces of anti-British terror are here today, and they are backed by the World Zionist supporters of the world’s number one terrorist state, the world’s number one gangster state, just over there, the other side of the barrier, proudly flying the flag of terrorism and gangsterism. The flag of a state which owes its existence to terror, and where better, where better than in Whitehall for us to expose that ultimate double standard – that double standard the consequences of which we live with every day of our lives when we face different terrorist groups.

Because the reason why terrorist groups anywhere in the world do what they do, is because they think it works – and why do they think it works? Because the last organisation in the world to proudly call itself ‘terrorist’ – the Stern Gang – helped to form the State of Israel whose flag we see over there today.

That organisation – the Stern Gang – here in Whitehall, you just walk up the street there on your way back from this demonstration, whichever side of the barrier you’re on today, or whether you’re here with the police today, you can see what is now the Scotland Office. What was in 1947 the Colonial Office. The Stern Gang planted an enormous bomb in the lavatories of the Colonial Office in March 1947. It failed to go off due to a faulty timer.

And while we are on about double standards, many of the people here today have been accused of promoting ‘racism’ and ’neo-nazism’. Well, in that same Spring of 1947, just a little bit further up the road there, the organisation that you support [indicating Jewish demonstrators nearby], the organisation that the people with the Israeli flag support, the organisation whose leader became the Prime Minister of Israel, planted a bomb in the British Colonial Club, just off Trafalgar Square, next to St Martin in the Fields.

And you know – we are the ‘nazi scum’ of course, aren’t we [responding to chants from demonstrators opposite], but that British Colonial Club was for non-White servicemen who hadn’t been demobbed. There they were, non-White British servicemen, quietly playing billiards, in their club off Trafalgar Square in March of 1947, and the Stern Gang’s bomb ripped the building apart!

Not a bomb planted by the so-called ‘racists’ on this side of the barrier; a bomb planted by the Stern Gang, whose leader became the Prime Minister of Israel!

If you want to find a ‘racist’ terrorist, if you want to find a bomber who planted a bomb that blew up a non-White servicemen’s club in this country – you can find him! He’s still alive today. He’s in Paris to this day. Prof. Robert Misrahi. Having planted that bomb he went back and instead of being prosecuted he got a promotion from your Zionist friends, and he ended up Professor of Ethical Philosophy at the Sorbonne.

So that’s the double standard in effect that’s seen our demonstration banned in Golders Green and relocated here today; the double standard that sees the supporters of Zionist terror and their useful idiots all screaming and shouting on the other side of the barrier there; and the double standard that allows a bomber whose bomb rips apart a club for non-White servicemen not to be treated as a ‘racist’ terrorist but to be respected, promoted, to be a friend of Israeli Prime Ministers, and to be a Professor at the Sorbonne in Paris.

That’s the double standard: what could better prove it than what we’ve seen here today. The double standard in 1947 is the same double standard in 2015. Thank you very much to everyone who has turned up here today to expose this double standard, and thank you very much to the police for making today such a trouble-free event. Thanks to all concerned.

 

Minister faces sack over secret Israeli meetings

Priti Patel with leading pro-Israel lobbyist Sir Stuart Polak (right) during her visit to Israel in August

Priti Patel – the minister in charge of Britain’s overseas aid budget as Secretary of State for International Development – is expected to be sacked within hours after attempting to deceive journalists about a series of secret meetings with Israeli ministers and officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Some of these meetings involved plans to pay Britain’s overseas aid via the Israeli army.

Ms Patel breached diplomatic protocol by visiting Israeli occupied territory on the Golan Heights as a guest of the government. Britain and most other countries do not officially recognised Israeli control of the Golan, and Ms Patel compounded her offence by suggesting on her return to Britain that our government should provide funds for the Israeli field hospital in the occupied territory.

Former British ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer expressed the astonishment of the diplomatic community:
“What did she think she was doing? Incomprehensibly daft.”

It seems that Ms Patel believed both that she herself was untouchable, as the daughter of Ugandan Asian immigrants and a valuable symbol for her pro-Brexit, neo-Thatcherite wing of the Tory party, and that she was effectively representing the Prime Minister’s pro-Israel instincts, against the more evenhanded approach of the Foreign Office.

Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle has an exclusive story this morning stating that Ms Patel’s ultimate offence – not revealing two of her secret meetings even in her latest press statement after the scandal broke – was actually sanctioned by the Prime Minister’s office. Number 10 (according to Mr Pollard’s sources) asked Ms Patel to keep these meetings secret so as not to embarrass the Foreign Office.

Today’s Tory establishment couldn’t have chosen a better way to mark this week’s centenary of the Balfour Declaration. They have established that 100 years on their party’s relationship with Zionism remains steeped in dishonour.

Remembering two British Sergeants 70 years after their brutal murder

July 29th was the 70th anniversary of a brutal terrorist outrage which our treacherous political establishment now wishes to forget: the murders of two young British Sergeants serving in Palestine, Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin.[spacer height=”20px”]

Paice and Martin were kidnapped by the Irgun, a Zionist terror group whose leader Menachem Begin later became Prime Miniser of Israel.  They were held for eighteen days in bestial conditions, tortured and finally murdered.  Their bodies were left hanging in a eucalyptus grove near the Palestinian town of Netanya, where a mine was planted, exploding when British soldiers tried to cut down the bodies.

The Forgotten British Heroes Campaign, now chaired by Heritage and Destiny assistant editor Peter Rushton, held a memorial event in Bristol to mark the anniversary.

A wreath was laid at the grave of Sgt Paice in the churchyard of St Mary’s, Stoke Bishop, followed by a meeting in central Bristol addressed by Richard Edmonds, Jez Turner, Lady Michèle Renouf and Peter Rushton.

FBHC has previously held two demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, London, outside the Church of St Martin in the Fields, where a Stern Gang terrorist bomb was planted in March 1947 by Robert Misrahi. This Zionist bomber went on to enjoy an academic career in Paris where he still lives today, untroubled by prosecutors. FBHC is calling on the British authorities to extradite Misrahi for questioning about the Trafalgar Square bomb and other Stern Gang atrocities including the 1948 murder of Rex Farran.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter