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

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

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

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

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

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

 

UPDATE: Alison Chabloz given suspended sentence for “grossly offensive” YouTube videos

Alison Chabloz

Folk singer and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted this morning at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three charges relating to “grossly offensive” material on YouTube.

Judge John Zani found Ms Chabloz guilty of what he termed “serious” offences under the Communications Act 2003: he will pass sentence on June 14th after receiving probation reports. The maximum potential sentence is six months imprisonment on each charge.

Click here to read a more detailed report, analysing Judge Zani’s ruling and his dangerous failure to respond to the important issues raised in defence evidence from H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

14th June update: Ms Chabloz has been given a 20-week suspended prison sentence, combined with 180 hours community service and a 20-day “rehabilitation programme”. She has also been banned from posting to social media. The Campaign Against Antisemitism which brought the original private prosecution said in their statement following the sentencing hearing this morning:

“The case effectively delivers a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

In his personal statement, Gideon Falter of CAA repeated his earlier assertion that the verdict amounts to the outlawing of revisionism:
“This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

As explained in our detailed report, it is by no means clear whether Judge Zani’s verdict does criminalise ‘Holocaust denial’ per se, or only particular forms of such denial which are deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.

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…

The sick state of British ‘justice’

Jewish demonstrators at the July 4th 2015 event which eventually led to criminal charges – not against this mob – but against British Army veteran Jez Turner

In July 2015 a howling mob of ultra-leftwing Jews confronted a British Army veteran on Whitehall. So that no one could mistake their political outlook – and the tradition of brutal terror which they proudly claim to follow – this mob displayed the banners above: one reading “F**k Racism – Daloy Politzei” and another carrying the number “43” alongside the slogan “Jewish Anti-Fascist Action”.

Gentile readers might not know the full meaning of these banners, but the demonstrators knew perfectly well.  The slogan “Daloy Politzei”, waved with impunity in the faces of Metropolitan Police officers that day, means “F**k the Police”.

In fact it is a far more offensive slogan even than these words alone might imply.  The slogan “Daloy Politzei” is a combination of Yiddish and Russian.  It is a slogan that was deployed by murderous Jewish revolutionaries in early 20th century Russia, who proved that they were not employing idle threats when they led the Bolshevik overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

The song goes on to say: “let’s bury little Nikolai along with his mother”.  In fact a Jewish-controlled gang did go on to bury Tsar Nicholas, his wife and children in July 1918 in Yekaterinburg.  The children’s faces were smashed in with rifle butts and the bodies dissolved with sulphuric acid. The man in charge of the executioners, Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov, was honoured by his comrades who renamed the city of Yekaterinburg as Sverdlovsk.

Police in London almost a century later did nothing to restrain Sverdlov’s fellow Marxists, co-racialists and co-religionists as they spewed their bile in the faces of Britons including Jez Turner, who was speaking that day at a protest against an exclusive Jewish police force known as Shomrim.

There was a time when London policemen would have known what the second ‘anti-fascist’ banner meant by displaying the number “43”.  This is a reference to the ’43 Group’, a gang of Jewish criminals backed by notorious East End gangster Jack Spot who sought to terrorise the followers of Sir Oswald Mosley and other British nationalists at the dawn of the multiracial transformation of our country during the late 1940s.

East End villain Jack Spot, backer of the notorious ’43 Group’ celebrated on the ‘anti-fascist’ banner above.

The 43 Group’s terror tactics were not confined to nationalist political activists. This Zionist gang was closely tied to the murderous terrorists of the Irgun, engaged in a campaign of bombings and assassinations against British soldiers and police as well as Arab civilians in what was then the British-administered Mandate of Palestine. One 43 Group activist David Landman (who later emigrated to Israel) was actively engaged with his sister and father in terrorist plots on British soil, including an attempt to assassinate Gen. Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commander of British Forces in Palestine.

As H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton pointed out in his speech on the day, the ‘anti-fascist’ mob represented the combined forces of anti-British terrorism: some were fans of the IRA (including the Harrods bombers who were leading activists in the London branch of Anti-Fascist Action), while others were fans of Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose bombers had tried to blow up Whitehall itself seventy years ago.

Yet these terrorist fan clubs went unmolested by the police.

After extensive pressure from Zionist lobby groups (the Community Security Trust and the Campaign Against Antisemitism) the police instead brought charges against Mr Turner whose speech (in contrast to the foul-mouthed and violent language of his adversaries) had contained no obscenities.

Judge David Tomlinson

Last Thursday the case came before a jury at Southwark Crown Court, in a three-day trial presided over by Judge David Tomlinson, who proved almost a parody of disgraceful judicial bias, and Jez Turner was duly convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

At the very start of the trial Judge Tomlinson refused the application of Jez Turner’s barrister Adrian Davies to ask jury members whether they were members of any of the three Jewish groups involved in the proceedings.  Even this simple method of seeking to ensure a fair trial was rejected.

The judge went on to make repeated sarcastic interventions during Jez Turner’s testimony, which served no legal purpose and at best had the effect of distracting the defendant in the witness box, while at worst prejudicing the jury.

Betty Knout (alias Lazarus), the Zionist terrorist who planted a bomb on Whitehall just yards from the site of the demonstration

Jez Turner was being cross-examined by prosecuting counsel on lines from his speech three years ago.  A large part of this speech referred to historical questions, and had the prosecution wished to do so they could have brought ‘expert witness’ testimony from historically qualified witnesses to dispute the defendant’s interpretations.

Of course had they done so, the defence could also then have summoned their own expert witnesses, and the jury could have heard various aspects of Jewish history dispassionately debated.

But the prosecution chose not to bring any such expert testimony.  Instead the judge himself (a law graduate who claims no specific historical expertise and certainly did not demonstrate any) made his own crude interventions on historical topics. At one point he disputed Jez Turner’s contention that the Soviet Union had invaded Poland from the East in 1939 while Germany invaded from the West – the learned judge seemed to believe that the Soviets had only sought to invade Poland following Germany’s defeat in 1945!

Yakov Sverdlov, Jewish Bolshevik murderer of the Russian Royal Family

Even worse, Judge Tomlinson interrupted Jez Turner on what might be thought the incontrovertible point that Jews dominated the leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, having a grossly disproportionate role in the leadership of the Soviet murder squads of the KGB and equivalent organisations thereafter.

In a blatant attempt to sway the jury, Judge Tomlinson questioned the defendant about Viktor Abakumov, asking rhetorically “was Abakumov a Jew”, and suggesting that this demolished the notion that the Soviet terror state was disproportionately Jewish.

Confronted with this random name out of the blue, Jez Turner was not equipped to enter a detailed historical debate with the judge from the witness box: nor should he have been expected to do so.  The judge’s interrogation of the witness was gravely improper – had the court wished to debate the racial composition of the Soviet bureaucracy (and specifically the KGB) the proper course was to introduce expert witnesses.

Viktor Abakumov, the Stalinist thug bizarrely namedropped by Judge Tomlinson

Judge Tomlinson implied that Abakumov was some sort of number two to Stalin in the postwar USSR.  In fact he was a (gentile) thug brought in by Stalin partly to counterbalance the power of KGB chief Beria.  It is certainly true that Stalin purged a large number of Jews (in various stages) from the leadership of the KGB and the Communist Party, and Abakumov was a leading apparatchik carrying out the postwar purges, but in the overall context of Soviet Communism he is hardly a major figure.

Still less does the presence of Abakumov and his ilk carrying out anti-Jewish purges disprove the defendant’s original argument that the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet state were disproportionately Jewish.  In fact the very presence of such vast numbers of Jews to be purged from leading positions rather proves Jez Turner’s argument!

Where did Judge Tomlinson get his obsession with Viktor Abakumov?  H&D suspects that the learned judge has recently read a widely-reviewed book on SMERSH, the murderous counter-intelligence force once headed by Abakumov: but this hardly makes Judge Tomlinson suitable to act as an expert witness in his own court!

In Part II of our analysis of the judicial travesty in Southwark, later this week, we shall further examine Judge Tomlinson’s actions and background.

Jez Turner imprisoned for Race Act ‘offences’

Jez Turner of the London Forum: an ex-serviceman with an unblemished record, today sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for opinions that offended Britain’s race laws.

After a three-day trial, London Forum founder Jez Turner was convicted and sentenced today to 12 months imprisonment for offences against Britain’s notorious race laws.

Mr Turner’s ‘offence’ dated back to 2015 when he spoke at a demonstration in Whitehall against the special Jewish police force known as Shomrim. (H&D‘s assistant editor spoke at the same event – click here for transcript.)

This racially exclusive police force had already attracted opposition from several senior police officers.  When Shomrim first began to appear in North London in 2008, then Hackney borough commander Steve Dann said: I am very upset that no-one has approached me about this.  It has been done behind my back.  I see this as a slight against us, that we are not providing a service.

In 2010 Dann’s successor in Hackney, Steve Bending said: I do not support the concept of any community having their own patrol service.  There is a risk of other communities feeling intimidated by this course of action.

So upset was Bending that he left the Metropolitan Police and emigrated to the United Arab Emirates.

Later in 2010 the Met’s borough commander in Barnet, another area where Shomrim were becoming active, also criticised this exclusive Jewish police force, saying: Uniformed patrols which communities are asked to pay for make me extremely nervous.

Yet Mr Turner’s criticism of Shomrim has today been criminalised.  The Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had at first not thought to prosecute him for the 2015 speech, but relentless pressure was exerted by the ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and the Community Security Trust, an ultra-Zionist lobby group whose founders were part of the violent Jewish 62 Group, which also spawned Searchlight magazine.

In a sense this was a CST prosecution, not a Crown prosecution.  We now know who rules 21st century Britain. Meanwhile on the very same day as Mr Turner was imprisoned, the Zionist state shamelessly slaughtered another 55 Palestinians, a crime which will go unpunished – in fact simply drawing attention to this mass murder will itself be judged a crime, unless anyone who dares criticise the Jewish state weighs his words very carefully.

Jez Turner addressing a demonstration in London.

Mr Turner’s barrister Adrian Davies gave a brilliant summing up of the defence case last Friday, which might have weighed in the mind of Judge David Tomlinson (son of Mary Poppins actor David Tomlinson). The judge’s interventions had been crudely hostile early in the case, but his own summing up today was far more fair.

H&D will be writing later in more detail about the Jez Turner case and its implications.  For now we shall simply say this: certain individuals have engaged in a disgraceful campaign of personal slurs against Jez Turner, even while he was facing trial and imprisonment.  This treason from within the so-called nationalist movement will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

 

 

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.

 

‘Liberal’ thought police crush local democracy in Bradford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Australian government papers reveal race law’s slippery slope

Former Attorney General Michael Duffy, who drafted Australia's race law

Former Attorney General Michael Duffy, who drafted Australia’s race law

Government documents released yesterday by the National Archives of Australia reveal that the notorious Australian race law – section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – was the subject of intense discussion among ministers before it was introduced, and as originally drafted would have been far less restrictive.

However as many countries have found, once setting off down the path of restricting free speech in the interests of racial harmony, there is an inevitable slippery slope towards politically correct tyranny.

The original submission to Paul Keating’s cabinet in July 1992, drafted by then Attorney General Michael Duffy and only made public yesterday, stressed that “for an act to amount to racial vilification it must be an act or conduct that is likely to lead to incitement to hatred, contempt or ridicule and should not be relatively minor or be of the nature of a lighthearted racist joke.”

During their discussions of the draft, ministers went on to emphasise that prosecution should “require a series of precise conditions to be met”, including “actual offensive intent”.  UK readers will note that this would have made the measure more similar to the Race Relations Act 1965, the first UK law specifically to outlaw “incitement to racial hatred”.


Cartoon called an "attack" on Indigenous Australians

However as with the several later extensions of that landmark legislation, Australia’s Section 18C developed into a grotesque tyranny, restricting legitimate political debate and in extreme cases even being used against comedians and cartoonists.

Last year the well-known cartoonist Bill Leak was the target of a complaint under Section 18C over the cartoon (above) depicting an Aborigine, or what is now called an “indigenous Australian”.  The complaint was later dropped after a public outcry over abuse of the law.  The university student who made the complaint has since sought to present herself as the victim, whining that she had only intended a “conciliation process”!

What was originally portrayed as a law targeting serious incitements of “racist” violence is now employed to intimidate anyone dissenting from multiracial political orthodoxy.  If Bill Leak had not been backed by The Australian, one of the country’s most powerful media outlets, he would have been crushed under the liberal juggernaut’s wheels.

Bill Leak cartoon showing himself being handed by a black police officer to a Twitter lynching.

Playing the victim card

Heritage and Destiny readers might be surprised to read that we regret the resignation of Emily Thornberry, who for three years until tonight had been Shadow Attorney General in Ed Miliband’s Labour frontbench team.

Ms Thornberry is the archetypal middle-class leftwinger: daughter of a UN and NATO official, she became a radical barrister and is married to a QC.  No doubt her prejudices fit well with many of her constituents in Islington South & Finsbury.

The problem was that she couldn’t resist displaying those prejudices on Twitter following a visit to the Rochester & Strood by-election campaign, where she spotted a white van parked outside a house displaying three St George flags.  For an Islington leftie this was confirmation that Rochester is home to “white van man”: football fan, patriot, anti-immigration and therefore likely to favour UKIP over Labour.

The Sun was quick to jump on the bandwagon, and the owner of the house is now quoted describing Ms Thornberry as “a snob”.  She swiftly resigned from the Labour frontbench, and her friend Ed Miliband was said to be very annoyed that she had insulted one of Labour’s key groups of target voters: the white working class.

The reality is that Ms Thornberry’s only crime was to be too honest.  Her type of metropolitan leftie really does despise white workers, but members of this truly oppressed and marginalised group should beware of playing the victim card.

British politics requires more honesty, not less.  Party spokesmen are already far too afraid of causing offence to some group or other.

The truth is that we all have “prejudices”, some more rooted in reality than others.  The shackles should be removed from political debate, and we should be unafraid of being denounced as snobs, racists, sexists, heterosexists, xenophobes, or any other victim culture label.

Even Paul Mason – the left-wing economics editor of Channel 4 News – argued this week:

“Maybe we should all front up and say things more clearly. Maybe NHS hospitals should advertise: “We can only run this place with ‘foreigners’ – you got a problem with that?” And maybe businesses could adopt the slogan: “We’re as black, brown, gay, straight, disabled and ‘foreign’ as Britain is, and proud of it – feel free to take your money and prejudices somewhere else.”

“Instead of political correctness you would then have political honesty. It would be uglier but more real.”

From a very different standpoint to Mr Mason, we agree.  Let Islington trendies display their prejudices without fear of resignation: but let other “prejudices” also be aired – and let the voters decide!

Labour, the BNP and UKIP: getting the facts straight

Cllr Trevor Maxfield, Labour convert from the BNP

A pro-UKIP blog – anticipating an “anti-racist” smear campaign at the Heywood & Middleton parliamentary by-election – has decided to get UKIP’s retaliation in first by attacking a North West Labour councillor’s past membership of the BNP.  In doing so, the Nope not Hope blog – whose story was also picked up by the American-based online news magazine Breitbart.com – shamelessly plagiarised several stories published on this website as long ago as 2010.

More seriously, the pro-UKIP blog made no fewer than five basic errors: quite an achievement when the (correct) basis of the story is copied from someone else’s work.

Error 1: Trevor Maxfield was never a BNP councillor.  As we wrote in our original article on his defection to Labour, Cllr Maxfield (or ‘Max’ as he is known to his friends, whether in the BNP, Labour or Darwen’s pubs) was a BNP organiser in his home town about a decade ago – but not a BNP councillor.  (In fact the BNP has only ever had one councillor in Blackburn with Darwen: Robin Evans, elected in a Mill Hill ward by-election in 2002.)

Error 2: ‘Max’ was never a member of the England First Party (EFP).  He was on the verge of defecting to the EFP in 2006 after the party’s two council victories, but Darwen politics was then turned upside down by the decision of millionaire (and former Lib Dem) Tony Melia to launch the ‘For Darwen Party’, campaigning for a separate town council.  ‘Max’ became one of For Darwen’s most important organisers, and in 2007 was elected as a borough councillor for Earcroft ward on Blackburn with Darwen council – not for the BNP, but on the For Darwen ticket. He also became a town councillor for Earcroft on the new Darwen Town Council that was created as a consequence of For Darwen’s campaign.

Error 3: The Nope not Hope blog put themselves at grave risk of legal action by falsely stating that ‘Max’ was “described by his predecessor as being one of the ‘drug dealers and football hooligans’ who made up the local branch of the BNP.”  Former BNP councillor Robin Evans did make this statement, but he was not talking about ‘Max’!  He was referring to a group of Blackburn BNP activists led by Andrew Wells, a well-known football hooligan later imprisoned for under age sex offences.

Error 4: While keen to throw as much mud at ‘Max’ as they can, Nope not Hate‘s Ukippers clearly don’t know that their target’s nationalist associations go back a lot further than a decade.  During the late 1980s he was involved with the ‘Flag Group’ faction of the National Front.

Former BNP organiser Trevor Maxfield (now a Labour councillor) appropriately standing far left at the bar during the 2006 Heritage and Destiny Christmas social!

Error 5: The photograph highlighted by Nope not Hate was taken at a Heritage and Destiny social event in Blackburn, not Bradford.  Moreover the blog claims that a “luminary of the far right” called “Dave Smith” was also in the picture.  Presumably they mean the late Dave Brown, whose obituary accompanied the photo.  Dave Smith is another Labour councillor in Darwen: he has no connection with the BNP, Heritage and Destiny or any other nationalist organisation.

So aside from all these basic errors by Nope not Hate, what are the actual facts of ‘Max”s association with the Labour Party?

As we explained in 2010, For Darwen – including ‘Max’ – ended up in a coalition with Conservative and Lib Dem councillors ruling Blackburn with Darwen.  However after a row over council cuts – specifically over the closure of a swimming pool in a white working class area – ‘Max’ and one of his For Darwen colleagues effectively overturned the council leadership in September 2010 by voting with Labour.

‘Max’ himself later defected to Labour and in 2011 was re-elected as a Labour councillor for his ward, as we again reported at the time.

It’s quite obvious why Blackburn Labour Party ignored Max’s political record: he held the balance of power and put them back in control of the council! This really had nothing at all to do with Liz McInnes, as she is a councillor in Rossendale, which although sharing a constituency with Darwen is in a different council. (Rossendale & Darwen is one of those constituencies that cross council boundaries.)

The closest connection between McInnes and Max is that they both gave endorsements to Jack Straw’s son Will in his (successful) campaign to win the Labour parliamentary nomination for Rossendale & Darwen.

In many ways the most bizarre aspect of the story is UKIP’s pious pretence of ‘anti-racism’, which leads them to attempt a futile ban on ex-BNP members – even though a prominent UKIP activist in Scotland is a former member of the ultra-hardline American national socialist movement National Alliance!

The truth is that UKIP has many ‘racist’ members and officials, but their ‘racism’ is of a petty, reactionary kind.  Essentially UKIP is a neo-Thatcherite party, most of whose policies and attitudes are symptoms of (not cures for) our national problems.

 

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter