Sentence reduced on NA activist Laurence Burns

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

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

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

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

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

‘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.

 

Royal Holloway demonstration postponed

The latest in a series of demonstrations outside Royal Holloway, University of London, scheduled for Saturday 4th March was postponed as a goodwill gesture due to another event taking place at the college this weekend.

These demonstrations are to highlight the disgraceful sacking of two college cleaning staff, dismissed for political activities which had no connection to their work.

For further information on the rescheduled protest follow the demonstration twitter feed.

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.

Massive leak of Soros documents exposes anti-racist agenda

Soros

A network of organisations run by billionaire George Soros (notorious for his profitable speculation against the pound on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992) has been successfully targeted in a massive leak of confidential documents, published online today.

One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.

This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections.  According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections.  The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”

The smoking gun: leaked document shows Soros funding for "anti-racist" campaign at 2014 elections - click to view full size

The smoking gun: leaked document shows Soros funding for “anti-racist” campaign at 2014 elections – click to view full size

UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register.  It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.

Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning.  Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.

Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way.  The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”

This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.

However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment.  While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”

H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections.  Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!

Media witch hunt against ex-UKIP nationalist

Joe Chiffers was UKIP candidate for Liverpool Riverside at the last general election.  A few months ago, having become disillusioned with UKIP’s avoidance of fundamental issues, he quit and joined Jack Sen’s British Renaissance, where he was appointed party chairman for a few months earlier this year.

Joe Chiffers (right) with his British Renaissance colleague Jack Sen

Joe Chiffers (right) with his British Renaissance colleague Jack Sen

 

Now the Liverpool Echo and its national parent the Daily Mirror are trying to have Joe Chiffers sacked from his job with Liverpool solicitors MSB.  There is no suggestion that Mr Chiffers has behaved improperly in any way, or allowed his political views to influence his work to the detriment of clients.  It has long been accepted that solicitors or barristers will represent clients regardless of their political views, and many lawyers have held ‘extreme’ political views.

Indeed Frederick Lawton, a candidate for the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s who was directly involved in attempting to secure funding from the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist governments for BUF projects, later became (as Sir Frederick Lawton) one of Britain’s most senior judges, sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal until his retirement in 1986. It has often been more difficult for solicitors than for barristers to hold racial nationalist views, unless they are sole practitioners or in a partnership with fellow nationalists.  Examples of nationalist solicitors include the Leicestershire firm run by Anthony Reed Herbert and Philip Gegan of the NF and (original) BDP; the late Tessa Sempik (partner of former NF vice-chairman Richard Verrall); and English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook.

MSB Solicitors’ managing partner Paul Bibby told the Liverpool Echo that Mr Chiffers was facing disciplinary action, saying that MSB “pride ourselves on being a socially liberal firm and the views expressed are absolutely the antithesis of what we stand for at MSB”.

What does Mr Bibby’s “liberalism” amount to? Does it mean slavish adherence to a politically correct litmus test? Or does it mean liberal tolerance of diverse opinions?

 

Simon Fox - chief executive of Trinity Mirror - whose newspapers are conducting a vendetta against British nationalist Joe Chiffers

Simon Fox – chief executive of Trinity Mirror – whose newspapers are conducting a vendetta against British nationalist Joe Chiffers

 

Unsurprisingly the likes of Simon Fox (chief executive of the newspaper group pursuing Mr Chiffers) have no time for such fine British traditions.  The values of Mr Fox and his ilk are entirely alien, and reflected every day in their newspapers.

We hope that MSB Solicitors will reject this disgraceful attempt to impose political censorship and ideological uniformity on the legal profession.  Meanwhile Joe Chiffers has released a video response to his would-be persecutors.

Also worth watching is an earlier speech by Mr Chiffers delivered to a UKIP audience, on the origin and intent of the European Union (see below).

We shall inform H&D readers of further developments in this disturbing case.

 

 

Down Orwell’s memory hole – ‘Ten Little Niggers’

tenlittleniggers

 

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, the all-powerful Party enforces political correctness by rewriting the past.  Political deviations are rendered impossible by erasing true records of past events, eradicating cultural roots and traditions.

Today the world’s media acts as Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’.

One small but telling example is the worldwide publicity today for a poll to determine the public’s favourite Agatha Christie novel.  The winner – as reported today by practically every English-language news site in the world – was And Then There Were None, which the BBC is now dramatising as a three-part series.

Not a single news site reported that this was not the book’s original title: it was first published in England in 1939 as Ten Little Niggers.  It was only American sensitivity that led to alternative titles for U.S. editions – first as Ten Little Indians, then once this was deemed offensive to ‘Native Americans’ changed again to And Then There Were None – but the book was not retitled in England until 1985.

Such is the progress of political correctness: in the space of just thirty years we have adopted the liberal tyanny that not only forbids such a title as Ten Little Niggers, but insists that today’s audience shouldn’t even know of its existence.

London Forum hits the headlines!

The April meeting of the London Forum made headlines around the world, with a massive two page article in the Mail on Sunday headlined ‘Nazi Invasion of London’.

This was more than a little ironic, given the political proclivities of the Mail‘s owner Lord Rothermere during the National Socialist era.

If you want to see the reality behing the headlines, here are some videos of the speakers at the notorious meeting targeted by the Mail.

 

Thought-crime in today’s Europe

DeckertStolzRenouf-672pxWide

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz (centre) after her release from an earlier presence sentence, seen here with human rights activists Günter Deckert (left) and Lady Michèle Renouf.

 

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz has been given a 20 month prison sentence for comments she made during a speech at a conference in Switzerland.  She has already served more than three years in prison from 2008 to 2011 for her defence of client Ernst Zündel.

Several European countries have laws that ban any questioning of the history of the ‘Holocaust’, turning the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War into a form of religious ‘truth’ that cannot be challenged.

Normal historical analysis and debate is thus condemned as a form of blasphemy, and punished by long prison sentences.  For example Horst Mahler, another German lawyer who dared to challenge established historical legends, has been imprisoned since 2009.

Sylvia Stolz’s latest ‘crime’ was committed at the Anti-Censorship Coalition Conference in Switzerland in November 2012.  A video of this ‘criminal’ speech, with English subtitles, can be viewed below:

While sentencing Frau Stolz to prison, the judge in her latest case indicated that he fully expects her to appeal, and she will not begin her sentence until the appeal process has ended.

In fact it is likely that the German authorities have created a serious embarrassment for themselves, by prosecuting Frau Stolz for pointing out facts that were actually accepted by German courts themselves when sentencing former Auschwitz guards at trials during the 1960s.  During those cases the German courts themselves admitted the absence of evidence regarding the locations of the alleged crimes of the ‘Holocaust’; the lack of any judicial findings regarding corpses or traces of the murders concerned; the lack of judicial assessment of witness statements, or of the documents or other evidence; and the lack of any documentary proof establishing the National Socialists’ intention to destroy the Jewish people in part or in whole (i.e. to commit genocide).

Yet to make these very same observations – even in the very same terms as used by the German courts themselves during the 1960s – is now a criminal act in 21st century Germany.

Though here in the UK we have not yet descended into such a Kafkaesque nightmare of bizarre criminal trials, there are attempts to extend our own notorious ‘race laws’ to encompass the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’.  Moreover the British authorities have signed up to the Stockholm International Conference on the teaching of the ‘Holocaust’, which instructed schools as follows:

“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers – do not treat the denial of the Holocaust as a legitimate historical argument, or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

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!

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter