Category Archives: English Nationalist

COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


COULD YOUNG FABIAN SOCIALISTS BECOME ENGLISH NATIONALISTS?


What I have reproduced below is a speech given by the former Labour Cabinet Minister and long-serving MP for Southampton and now Professor at Winchester University in the Centre for English Policy Studies, John Denham. 

 

John Denham is an intelligent and eloquent man, but his politics are highly Labour Party political partisan. 

 

As the speech shows he is fully alive to the risk to the Labour Party’s future of the fact that the English are becoming more nationally self-aware and that English nationalism is awakening. 

 

In the main his analysis is good although his agenda is unattractive to any real English nationalist.  He wants English nationalism to become multi-cultural and therefore in effect cease to be nationalism. The English are to be told in the words of John Prescott “there is no such nationality as English”!   
His recipe is really therefore an argument that Labour should be more effectively deceitful about England and the English Nation than they are currently being!

 

It is a good example of John Denham’s partisan unreliability, lack of objectivity, that despite having met me and quite a few other English Democrats on a number of occasions, he is unwilling to openly admit that there is a campaigning English nationalist party!   
It is also deceitful of him to only quote the BBC’s survey which showed many people saying that they are both English and British.  Whereas the much larger and much more authoritative survey, the National Census in 2011, showed that 60.4% of English people identified as only English and not British!

 

The speech will however, I think, be interesting to anybody who cares at all about England and the English Nation. 

 

Here is what John Denham said:-

 


English identity and Labour

This is the text of a talk given to the Young Fabians in Westminster on 8th January 2019.

Thank you for the invitation to talk about English identity. The Young Fabians have led the way in addressing the issue, including your recent suggestion that Labour should support an English Parliament. But in my view it is still too rare and unusual for any part of the Labour Party to organise a discussion about England and English identity.

 

Because this is the really interesting thing: England and the English are an ever-present component of our national culture and our politics. But England – as England – is barely mentioned in the national political debate; it is only occasionally addressed in the national culture of the establishment. And if English identity is mentioned, it is to be disparaged and abused.

 

There is now a fair amount of data about English identity, but the quality of academic work – particularly on what people mean when they say they are English – is woefully poor. This allows lazy writers to ascribe to the English dreams of Empire, entrenched racism, or rural idyllic romanticism. They project whatever prejudice takes their fancy unencumbered by troublesome facts.

 

Despite this, we know more about English identity than many might think. And, of course, those of us who spent a long time talking and listening with English identifiers in our constituencies have plenty of insights ourselves.

 

The cost of ignoring England and English has been high. If you are a Remainer the cost is paid in the overwhelmingly English decision to Leave. If you are Labour, the cost is paid in the failure to win votes in English places and amongst English people who were once proud to be Labour. If you want a multi-cultural society shaped by tolerance, inclusion and shared values, the cost is paid by our failure to strengthen the versions of Englishness that meet that challenge and in the persistence in a minority of an ethnicised and racist national identity

 

Above all, if we want to see a radical and progressive transformation of our economy and society to serve the common good, we pay the price in a divided nation, within a divided union, in which the ‘many’ Labour wants to stand for, is too divided and disparate to bring about change.

 

Engaging with England and Englishness is not a quaint cultural diversion. It’s central to the possibilities of progressive change.

 

Nationally (in England) about 80% say they are strongly English; and 80% strongly British.

 

As those figures make clear, most people who live in England say they are English AND British to some degree. The largest group (around 35-40%) are equally English and British. But either side of this there are rather more ‘more English’ than are ‘more British’ – about 3:2 in most surveys.

 

One striking thing is that, in most Labour meetings, there are few who say they are more English than British, and many who are more British than English. There is no ‘must’ about national identity; no sense that people should feel English. But it is very important to be aware when the identities of those in our own party are out of step with many of the people who we want to vote for us.

National identities are about far more than flags and football. In the classic academic description, they are ‘imagined communities’: that set of shared  stories, histories, culture, values and symbols that enable us to feel a sense of common identity with people we have never met.

 

But they are also offer world views; stories, narratives that help us make sense of the world as we experience it. And in a nation where multiple identities are common, people will emphasise the identity, or the mix of identities that make most sense of our own experience.

 

People who identify as more English are also more likely to be rooted within England -that is they are more likely to also identify with a town, city or region of England. They are though, much less likely than British identifiers to see themselves as European.

 

The English are significantly more patriotic – not just about being English but about being British too. You won’t be surprised to know that the people who are more English than British are those most proud to be English. But they are also the most proud to be British!  People who are British not English are not particularly proud of being British.

 

These same is true about national characteristics. In the popular mind, there is virtually no difference about the extent to which British or English identities are seen to be open, welcoming tolerant, friendly, generous. But people who identify as English or English and British, are much more likely to associate both identities with these relatively positive characteristics, than do the people who say ‘I’m only British’.

 

In summary, as you move across the spectrum of identities, we move from people who are strongly rooted within England, towards those with weaker local and more strongly international identities; we move from those who are strongly patriotic to those who have less pride in any national identity; we move from those who associate national identities with positive values to those who are less likely to be positive about any national identity

 

And there is a final but very important point: the differ on attitudes to the governance of England, the union, our relationship with the union and people’s sense of political power.

 

The English are more likely to be dissatisfied with the way they are governed (though few people of any identity think they are well represented), they feel least able to influence politics and business, they are most likely to support an English parliament and certainly to want English MPs to make English laws, most strongly want to put England’s interests ahead of the union.  They most strongly feel the Barnett formula is unfair and have a far higher estimation of the importance of the EU in shaping domestic policy than do their peers in Wales or Scotland.

 

So, we can begin to see how the different world views expressed in these different identities are reflected in people’s political choices. Even though we don’t hear people say ‘I’m voting Leave’ because it is the ‘English’ thing to do, or ‘Labour’ because it is the ‘British’ thing to do, those choices do map strongly on to people’s sense of national identity.

 

For reasons we don’t entirely understand, Britishness rather than Englishness has emerged as the choice for those who are most comfortable and potentially successful in the world as it is; they are least attached to a sense of place, most open to other identities, less patriotic. Englishness is more rooted in place. We can, then, understand why the cultural impact of immigration is most keenly felt in those places where a rooted sense of belonging is most central to people’s idea of their own identity. And, of course, we find the ‘more English’ living outside the big cities, in the smaller towns, where people have seen social and economic change go against them.

 

In short, Englishness is felt most deeply in the places where Labour has been losing ground and needs to win.

 

Tonight, because I’m talking to Fabians, I’m concentrating on that Labour vote (many of whom now unfortunately vote Tory and have supported UKIP); a fuller discussion of English identity would also consider the more traditional Conservative English Leave voters; people who are often somewhat more prosperous than the stereo-typical ‘left behind’ working class voter, though they are no less disconcerted by social change and equally out of step with metropolitan values. They are, though, a harder reach for Labour as they are less likely to share the left of centre economic views of potential English Labour voters.

 

Let’s just think about those potential Labour voters. They are older, poorer, (though not necessarily the poorest) more working-class, have spent less-time in higher education, are more economically precarious, and least likely to think it is worth voting at all.

 

If the Labour Party does not exist to work with them to change the world, I’m not sure why we do exist. Yet we are struggling amongst them. And we don’t even talk to them.

 

At this point, many on the left say: ‘why do we have to engage with national identity of any sort?’ Why can’t we just have policies for older people, policies to improve skills, policies to end austerity, policies for towns and seaside resorts?’

 

In other words, why can’t we talk about everything except the way people talk about themselves!

 

Because these voters are English; they are proud to be English, (usually proud to to be British too). If Labour is not palpably proud to be an English party; palpably proud to be British too; then we send a rather clear message: ‘we are not people like you’.

 

Indeed, many hear the message as ‘we are Labour and we don’t actually like people like you, even though we would like you to vote for us’. Fat chance. And of course, many will not even listen to our policies because most voters look for a party they can identify with BEFORE they will listen to its policies.

 

People who want to talk about policy not identity are often deliberately trying to avoid the difficult conversations: with people who are more socially conservative, with people who are more worried about migration. People who, in other words, don’t share the cosmopolitan values of the metropolitan graduates.

 

But that’s the central challenge in social democratic politics right across Europe. We can build a majority that wants to reform capitalism, that wants to make it the economy work for the common good. But only if we can unite those who are on the left economically: to do that we have to find common ground across the cultural issues that divided us.

 

So, that’s our challenge. To engage with voters who are

·      English

·      Patriotic

·      Socially conservative

·      On the left economically

·      Live disproportionately in key marginal seats

 

Our willingness to engage with English identity is a test of our willingness to engage with these voters. It’s a powerful symbol of being willing to listen. And it is evidence of a commitment to involve them fully in building a better society, not just promise to do things for them. It’s a clear sign that, for all our internationalism, building a strong, fairer nation is at the centre of our aims.

 

One of the common objections that is raised is that this is all about pandering to English nationalism.  In fact, English nationalism barely exists as a political idea or movement. It has no significant political party, no public intellectuals, no cultural movement or institutions.  Unless by nationalism you simply mean loving your country and hoping it will succeed and prosper – but on that basis, Ruth Davidson, most Scottish Tories and the whole of Scottish Labour are Scottish nationalists: which rather begs the question of what the SNP are!

 

People blame Brexit on English nationalism, but its leaders like Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannam, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage are British politicians who speak, not about England, but about Britain. They certainly have an Anglo-centric world view – only a Johnson who equates Britain and England could talk of ‘1000 years of history’ – but he tells Telegraph readers ‘it’s time to believe in our Greater Britain’.  

 

In short, it is wrong to equate Britain’s English ruling elite with the people of England.

 

The second problem group is with a different part of the elite. The anti-patriotic, cosmopolitan, British and definitely not English. Predominant in the media, much of politics, the business elite and academia, they disparage English identity as racist and xenophobic; blame the crime of empire exclusively on the English despite the enthusiastic participation of Scotland, Wales and at least some parts of Irish society in it. They, of course, are disproportionately found on the left and within Labour.

 

By dismissing English voters and English interests as English nationalism they aim to avoid engaging with England at all. They often claim that UKIP is an English nationalist party. Yet, the collapse in support for UKIP is not reflected in any fall in the strength of English identity. UKIP was a temporary home for English votes, not an expression of English interests. Brexit was a cry of pain from people who were not listened to, not people seeking a new imperial glory.


Of course, it is no coincidence that England and the English provided the bulk of the Leave vote. Only England – lacking a parliament or any national institutions of its own – has not had the chance to reimagine itself as a 21 stcentury nation in the way as Wales, Scotland and even Northern Ireland have had a chance to do as a result of democratic and constitutional changes.


And unlike the other devolved nations, the state has played no role in the development of national English identity. Some on the left like to contrast a civic, democratic Scottish identity with an ethnicised Englishness. But where did this come from? The differences between Scotland and England in attitudes towards minorities, immigration or the degree to which identities are ethnic can be greatly overstated – there is much less difference than most people think. But the different images owe a great deal to the active involvement of political leaders and the national (and also the UK) state in promoting the idea of a civic identity.

 

Nothing like that has happened in England. Neither the UK government nor the Opposition talks about England or plays any role in promoting an inclusive English identity.

 

From all of this, we can begin to see what our political strategy should be


Firstly, Labour should take a leading role in reinserting England in the national conversation. Yesterday (7 thJanuary) a plan was launched for the NHS, but in sharp contrast to what would happen in Wales and Scotland, little mention was made of the fact that it was for the English NHS. Nor did Labour’s response.

 

We have a national education service. For which nation? Clearly not for the devolved nations where they have their own policies. If it is a national education service for England, why don’t we want to say the name?

 

Secondly, Labour needs to have its own English identity, in our material, in our language, in actually celebrating St George’s Day, not just tweeting about four new bank holidays.

 

Thirdly, we need to grasp the need to England to have a national political identity including, in my view (this is not ELN policy) some form of English Parliament, or real EVEL within Westminster.

 

Fourth, we need to understand that it is the UK government that makes England such a centralized nation, and the UK government that concentrates resources and energy on London. Labour needs to go way beyond current commitments to devolve power with England – not as an alternative to English governance but as an integral part of it.

 

Finally, a Labour government should be willing to act, as the Scottish and Welsh governments do, in using the state to promote a patriotic, yet diverse and inclusive English identity.

 

None of this should be too difficult. But it would make a real difference.

 

(Here is a link to the original >>> http://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/182240412323/english-identity-and-labour)


English Nationalism upheld as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act

 English Nationalism upheld as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act

The Workers of England Union, whose website is here >>> http://www.workersofengland.co.uk/ 
has been highly effective in fighting for its member’s interests.  In its relatively short life has already taken members’ cases three times to the Court of Appeal and won on every single occasion, establishing some important points of legal principle. 
Quite recently the Workers of England Union was representing a Claimant in the Employment Tribunal who claimed to have been discriminated against on the grounds of his active English nationalism.  In fact in the end the Tribunal decided that he wasn’t dismissed because of his English nationalism but for another reason which it wasn’t illegal for the employer to dismiss for.
The interesting thing however about the case from an English nationalist point of view is that the National Health Service England Commissioning Board’s own lawyers accepted that English nationalism was a system of belief which was protected under the Equality Act 2010.  Also the Employment Tribunal expressly made a finding that English Nationalism is a protected characteristic, although with some caveats. 
The case was taken on to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where Mrs Justice Slade, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, heard the case and also confirmed that, in her view, English nationalism was a protected characteristic under the Equality Act as a “System of Philosophical Belief”.  She indicated that the caveat that the Employment Tribunal had thought might take this particular claim of English nationalism outside of what was protected was arguably wrong. However, because she was upholding the Tribunal’s finding on what had actually caused the dismissal being legal, why therefore the definition of English nationalism couldn’t be relevant to the outcome of the particular case. 
This of course gives strong support for bringing any case whenever there is any suspicion that the reason for the decision was the employer was opposed to English nationalism.  
The type of English nationalism which the Tribunal upheld was set out in detail by one of the leading thinkers on English nationalism, Tony Linsell.  This was in a witness statement which was accepted, not only as defining English nationalism by the National Health Service England’s Commissioning Board, but also by the Leeds Employment Tribunal.  
What I am going to do therefore is set out the whole of Tony Linsell’s witness statement so that you can see what has now been clearly accepted by the Employment Tribunal and then by the presiding Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as being wholly acceptable English nationalism whose adherence are unquestionably protected by the Equality Act 2010.
After Tony Linsell’s witness statement I shall set out the edited decision of the Leeds Employment Tribunal so that you can see what the thinking of the Tribunal was about the question of English nationalism. 
The rest of the Judgment was about other matters and, in particular, why they were saying that the decision of the employer was actually on a completely different issue and is therefore irrelevant to the consideration of English nationalism as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
Here is the witness statement of Tony Linsell:-
“I,  Anthony Linsell, will say as follows:-
1.         I am a semi-retired book publisher and English political and cultural campaigner. (Date of birth 17th February 1946). In 1989 I began publishing books about early English history, language and identity. In 1998 I was a founding member of the Campaign for an English Parliament. I was a founding member in 2002 of the English Democrats Party. I wrote, and in 2001 publish a book, An English Nationalism.
2.         As the subject matter of this statement is English Nationalism and what it means to be anEnglish Nationalist it makes sense to define some terms as follow:-
(i) Nation
A nation is a group of people who share a communal history, language, culture, ancestry, identity and sense of belonging. A common religion often also plays a part in binding together a nation. A nation is an extended family with informal and hard to define boundaries. There is no check-list for determining membership but members have a sense of who is an insider and who an outsider. Membership of a nation is felt rather than defined.
he idea of a nation being a family is the original and what most regard as being the correct use of the word nation. Others – especially Americans – choose to use nation to mean state, which often cause unnecessary confusion. Thus we had the League of Nations and the United Nations despite the members of both being states. The European Unionand NATO also have member states – not member nations.
(ii) Nationalist
A nationalist is someone who gives political expression to their feelings of affection for and loyalty to their nation. It is a love of a nation’s way of life that inspires a wish to preserve its territory and customs, and further the welfare of its members. It is generally believed that a nation can best preserve itself and pursue its interests by having its own government. This idea of national self-determination is embedded in classic liberalism and underlies the democratic principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. It acknowledges the fact that different nations, cultures and political traditions have different ideas about government and who should govern.
(iii) Nationalism
Nationalism is loyalty and devotion to a nation, which is an extended family. Just as individuals care for the welfare of their immediate family, so nationalists care for the welfare of their nation as a whole and its individual members; they feel an affinity with fellow members and feel a need to preserve the nation’s way of life and territory – the homeland. This instinct is natural and usually positive, and is at the heart of nationalism.  Many of those who feel a sense of national bonding do not think of themselves as nationalist.
(iv) State
A state is a political entity that claims, (a) ownership of a territory; (b) the right to enact and enforce laws in that territory; (c) the right to define who is a citizen and to demand their loyalty; (d) the right to make agreements with other states.
The United Kingdom is a state. Scotland, Wales and England are countries. The Scots, Welsh and English are nations. This shows what a nonsense it is to speak of the nations and regions of the UK in the context of devolution.
Those who use nation to mean state necessarily have a distinct view on what nationalist and nationalismmean. For them a nationalist (often called a patriot) is someone who gives loyalty and devotion to their state, which they often call their country.
Those who control states tend to see nations and the loyalties they inspire as competitors. It is principally for this reason that states prefer nationalists to be seen in a negative way, e.g. nasty, brutish and war mongering, while patriots (who express loyalty and devotion to the state) are seen in a positive light as, for example, peace loving upholders of freedom and democracy. However, if we look at the voting record of Scottish and Welsh nationalists in the House of Commons we can see that the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru have voted against acts of war against Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Syria while those who claim to be patriots voted for wars.
Ghandi was an Indian nationalist who advocated peaceful political action. There were also Indian nationalists who advocated violence; one of them murdered Ghandi. The point being that it is wrong, and shows prejudice, to claim that nationalists as a whole are any more nasty and brutish than others.
Christians and the followers of many other religions have advocated and supported wars despite claiming to believe Thou shall not kill. Many Christians, clergy and laity, participated in World War I and condemned and persecuted those who refused to fight. Would it be fair to use this to condemn Christians as brutish warmongers?  Let those without sin cast the first stone.
States have laws that set out clearly who is a citizen and how to become a citizen – they have a check-list. Citizenship is defined rather than felt. This contrasts with membership of a nation where membership is by birth or informal assimilation.
3.         The English Nation
The English nation has a long recorded history and has all the other essential ingredients of a nation.
Those who wish to trace the history of any nation need to trace the recorded history of those who bear the name of that nation. The first mention of the English is by Tacitus writing in 98AD. In Germania he mentioned the Anglii, which is the Latin version of Angel (plural) Angle (singular).
4.         The Angel lived in Angeln, in the south of the Jutland peninsula. The archaeological record shows that they had lived in that area for centuries before Tacitus recorded their existence.
The Old English poem Widsith tells of Offa, the 15 year old son of the king of Angeln, who, about the year 350AD, fought and defeated two warriors at once and in doing so greatly expanded his father’s kingdom. On his father’s death Offa became king of the Angel. The language they spoke was Anglisc. With shifts in the language over the next few centuries Angel became English; Angeln became England; Anglisc became English (language). The French have record the earlier forms of these words in their name for the English and England – Anglais and Angleterre. East Anglia is also a reminder of the earlier form.
5.         The Venerable Bede (672-735) took the existence of the English people as a matter of fact. In his, An Ecclesiastical History of the English People, he tells of the migration to Britain of three powerful tribes, the Angels, Saxons and Jutes. This migration took place during the 5th and 6th centuries, after the Romans had formerly left Britain in 410AD.
Bede says that when the migration of the Angels was finished their old homeland stood empty. The main early area of Anglian settlement became Mercia, with its capital at Tamworth. They also settled in East Anglia and Northumbria (the land north of the Humber).
6.         The migration of the Angels was probably a tribal migration. The kings of Mercia, Penda (reigned 626-655) and Offa (reigned 757-796), claimed descent from Offa of Angeln. Offa of Mercia was also known in his time as King of the English.
7.         The other large groups of migrants were Saxons and Jutes. The Saxons were a confederation of closely related tribes who differed little from the Angels. Only a part of the Saxon people settled in Britain, mainly in the south of what is now England – Essex, Sussex, Middlesex, and Wessex. Those Jutes who migrated to Britain mostly settled in Kent and the Isle of Wight and the mainland to the north of Wight.
8.         We have a broad picture of the migration but the number of migrants and the details of how they migrated and exactly when it took place are not known. However, the linguistic, genetic, material culture and place name evidence suggests that the information we have from Bede is broadly correct and the number of migrants was substantial. The more we learn of the migration the more apparent it becomes that the speed and extent of settlement varied for time to time and place to place. For example, it is likely that North Sea Germans migrated to Britain before and during the Roman occupation.
9.         Bede appears to have believed that the closely related tribes he mentioned were merging into a common English identity. He tells from whence they came and were they settled. He had access to a vast library and a folk memory (oral tradition) so it is reasonable to believe he knew more about the matter than those who now claim they know better. It is also highly probable that Bede’s informed contemporaries shared his views; he would hardly paint a picture of events that was at odds with living folk memory. Many of the books he had access to, and most of the oral tradition, have since been lost but they informed his account of the migration. Bede was, in modern terms, an English nationalist in that he claimed the existence of an English nation and outlined its history.
10.       When the Anglo-Saxon migration and conquest was complete, the land in which the English lived (Englalond) was made up of seven kingdoms. By the time of King Alfred’s birth (849-899) there were effectively four kingdoms, Northumbria, East Anglia, Mercia and Wessex. The first two fell under the domination of Danes, and Mercia was only partially independent. Wessex came under attack and in the wars that followed Alfred became king at the age of 21. At a low point in the war Mercian warriors joined Alfred’s force and together they set about driving the Danes out of England. The contribution of the Mercians was ignored by those in Wessex who wrote the official history of the time. In an age when marriages were an expression of alliances, it is no accident that Alfred’s wife Ealhswith was a Mercian and that their eldest daughter, Æthelflæd, became known as Lady of the Mercians and ruled Mercia from 911 until her death.
11.       The English gave their name to land they lived in – England. Alfred the Great was an English nationalist who set out to create and defend an English nation-state (kingdom) and to unite all of the English in one English national identity. This was not fully accomplished during Alfred’s life time but he devised a grand strategy for achieving it. Alfred set about defending England by fortifying towns and creating an obligation on his subjects to defend those towns. He also devised a system of taxation and obligation that made his reforms possible.
12.       A treaty between Alfred and the Danes, acknowledged Alfred as being king of all the English, wherever they lived in England. He was therefore king of the English living in that part of England controlled by the Danes (The Danelaw).
13.       Bede acknowledged and believed in the existence of an English nation but Alfred the Great went very much further and gave political expression to the strands of national identity. He encouraged the clergy, nobles and administrators, to be learned and efficient. He introduced his own Law Code and contributed to a rudimentary welfare system.  He stabilised the currency and reformed land and naval forces. He built on Bede’s work as a historian and was responsible for the creation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which was the story of the English nation. He translated and had translated written documents from Latin into English, both to increase the status of English and to make knowledge available to all of the English and not just the clergy and administrators. Among the translations were extracts from the Bible. By these and other means Alfred united the English and created the Kingdom of England, which became one of the most sophisticated, efficient and powerful kingdom in Western Europe.
14.       English society was very advanced for its time. For example, there was a belief in the rule of law, and women had the right to own and bequeath property. They also retained their ownership of property on becoming married and divorced.
15.       The life of King Alfred (849-899) shows how short life is but how so very much of importance can be achieved in that short time.
16.       When the Dane Canute became King of England he appreciated the wealth and sophistication of the English state and did not destroy or plunder it but took it over and sent his army back to its homeland. It was very different when the English were defeated by the Normans in 1066 and became a subject people living in a Norman colony. This was a catastrophe for the English that had lasting effects but on the positive side it gave rise to the English radical tradition which has had a massive influence on the development of political thought and practice throughout the world. It has also been central to the development of English nationalism and a belief in freedom of the individual and of nations.
17.       The Normans and their successors plundered England and heavily taxed the English. Unlike Alfred who fortified towns to protect the English from foreign invaders, the Normans built castles to protect themselves from the English. They also destroyed English cathedrals and replaced them with large Norman cathedrals that physically and psychologically dominated the largest towns and the people living in them.
18.       The Normans made significant changes to English law. They deemed that the king owned all of the land in England and they changed the property law so that women lost their property rights, which they did not recover until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882.
19.       The Normans made Norman French the spoken language of government and the judicial system: Latin was the written language.  An early consequence of this was that English people had no choice but to settle disputes and answer prosecution in a court dominated by Normans speaking a foreign language. Hence, the need to employ lawyers to speak on their behalf where before they had spoken for themselves. It was not until the 14th century that law courts conducted their business in English.
20.       The English were made to fund Norman wars and in 1189 they were burdened with King Richard I who lived in England for a very short period and spoke hardly any English but did England and the English great damage through his egotistical and ultimately unsuccessful war play. The taxes raised to fund his exploits, and the hatred felt for Richard the Lionheart, gave rise to the tale of Robin Hood, who did not as modern tales of Robin would have us believe, have any liking of Richard or feel any loyalty to him. Richard was an enemy of the English and loathed accordingly.
21.       Despite attempts by the Normans to avoid contact with the English, many of them were murdered by the English. In response a law was introduced that every unidentified body was held to be that of a Norman unless it could be proved the dead person was English. A murdered Norman resulted in a heavy fine being paid by the administrative unit (known as the hundred) where the body was found. The relevance of this is that the Normans acknowledged the existence of the English and that they were a separate nation from the Normans.
22.       Because of all that happened to the English and the centuries of oppression they endured, they have developed a keen sense of what is fair and just. From the Norman occupation comes the idea of the Norman Yoke. The English Radical Tradition is about how the former can best overcome the latter.
23.       In researching Englishry it was discovered that Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls, was very pleased to have Alfred as his first name because it was the name of a great man and linked him with his Anglo-Saxon ancestry. It also became clear that his sympathies were with Cromwell and the Parliamentarians, and probably with the English Radical Tradition.
24.       English nationalists and others have looked to the pre-conquest Anglo-Saxon period for inspiration about the sort of society they wish to create and live in. Those who do that often take an overly idealistic and simplistic view of power and the democratic nature of early English society but such views and beliefs played a part in creating the legend of Robin Hood and influenced the ideas expressed by those leading the English Revolt (Peasants’ Revolt 1371); the Levellers and others fighting on the side of Parliamentarians in the English Revolution (Civil War 1642-51); those framing the American Declaration of Independence and US Constitution; the founders of the trade union movement; the Whigs and classic liberals. Anglo-Saxon notions of liberty and democracy have been central to modern ideas concerning democratic government and human rights.
25.       The Black Death reached England in 1348 and died out in 1349. During that time about half the population of about 6 million people died from the plague, which did not discriminate on the basis of social class. The great reduction in population had dramatic social and economic consequences. It led to a decline in serfdom (semi-slavery) and a rise in wages, which led to the English Uprising in 1381 and demands for greater freedom and equality, and basic support for the very poor.
26.       There were fewer people but there was less control of them and a greater proportion of the population experienced a sense of freedom that led them to press for social reform. The much reduced population did not bring an end the Hundred Years War, which was a series of conflicts in the period 1337-1453 between those who ruled England and those who ruled France. The French aristocrats won and the ruling class in England knew they had lost any chance of reclaiming their French territories. They discarded their French names, ways and claims, and searched for a new identity. They chose to adopt an English identity. This and the increased sense of freedom among the English led to a greater status for English culture and the English language. Thus William Tyndale (1494-1536) followed the lead given by King Alfred and set about translating the Bible into English. He was the main contributor to a great achievement of English culture. Serfdom was rapidly fading away and in 1574 Queen Elizabeth freed the last remaining serfs. The Elizabethan age saw a great flowing of things English and gave opportunities for the English to use their wits and enterprise to set about building a great Empire.
27.       The Whigs were said to be the party of the Anglo-Saxons and the Tories the party of the British Norman establishment. English-Americans like Thomas Jefferson were Whigs who looked to the restrictions placed on royal power by the Anglo-Saxon witan, and before that the hundred, which had its origins in the Germanic world described by Tacitus. This system was an inspiration to him when writing a US constitution that sought to restrain the power of the state and professional politicians, and ensure that sovereignty remained with the people.
28.       The ideals and form of democracy advocated by the American founding fathers were from the English Radical Tradition.  The connection between nation and democracy is explained well by John Stuart Mill who wrote the following.
A PORTION of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others — which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it. Geographical limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.
Representative Government, John Stuart Mill – published 1861
29.       English nationalists want to preserve the English nation and promote its welfare. I am an English nationalist in much the same way that Ghandi was an Indian nationalist or Alex Salmond is a Scottish nationalist. Nationalism is born out of a love for a nation and a concern for its welfare. That concern leads to a demand that the British state should formally acknowledge the existence of the English as a nation and an ethnic group so that the English can enjoy the same rights, benefits and privileges accorded to other such groups living in the UK. These benefits include the right to seek a fair allocation of state funding for the English community and to have the state address discrimination against the English. There is no real difference between membership of a nation and membership of an ethnic group but it is common for ethnicity to be defined in a way that has the political and ideological purpose of denying the English an official ethnic identity and thereby excludes them from recording their ethnicity on monitoring forms and the national census. In other words, it is a way of making the English officially invisible. This places them at a disadvantage in detecting and proving discrimination. It also makes it easier for others to discriminate against the English and avoid detection. England is probably the only country in the world that does not include its largest ethnic group on ethnic monitoring and census forms. ‘White British’ is not an ethnicity –  ‘White’ relates to race and ‘British’ relates to citizenship. Seeking to remedy this and other forms of discrimination by campaigning for English civil and political rights is an honourable activity and part of an ancient tradition. 
30.       Negative images of the English are so often painted, and so little is done to reprimand the culprits that many feel free to discriminate against the English in a way they would not think of doing against any other group. There are in England many supporters of the Indian BJP political party. It is a nationalist party and many of its supporters are presumably nationalists and Indians. It is rightly unthinkable that any of them could be dismissed from their employment because of their support for, or membership of, a nationalist party.
31.       I and many others have long felt considerable anguish about the lack of recognition of the English community and a lack of concern for its interest and welfare. This matter is of great importance to me and many others and it prevents us from leading a less worrisome normal life.”
So there you can see Tony Linsell’s vision of English nationalism which has been fully accepted as protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Below is now the relevant part of the Judgment in the case which explains the Tilbrook’s reasoning. 
I would just say I don’t think the Employment Tribunal was legally correct in its caveat.  In particular the case that they rely upon, Granger, was decided before the Equality Act 2010 came into force on the basis of the previous law, which didn’t have a provision for protecting a “System of Philosophical Belief”. 
Also the leading case on the application of European Convention on Human Rights which is relevant to this case was the case of Redfearn.  Mr Redfearn was a British National Party member who was said to believe in the “White Race Nation” and was assumed to be a neo-Nazi.  Even so the European Court of Human Rights made it clear that his rights were required by the Convention to be protected.  It follows that anyone whose views fall short of being a neo-Nazi should definitely be protected now.
Yet another point of error is that the Tribunal has made its decision as if the European Convention on Human Rights applies to individuals.  In fact the Convention has application only to what the State does and even then only to what it does to those that are in its jurisdiction.  So, for instance, it is not against the European Convention on Human Rights for a signatory State’s employees to shoot foreigners who are not in the State’s jurisdiction, otherwise obviously the European Convention on Human Rights would have in effect outlawed any signatory State from going to war!
Anyway here is the relevant part of the Judgment:-
“Case No. 1800958/2016
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr S T Uncles
Respondents:
1. National Health Service Commissioning Board 2. David J Fish 3. Kovin Bates 4. Paul Smith
HELD AT:
Leeds
ON:
4 and 5 October 2017
BEFORE:
Employment Judge Franey Mr G Harker Mr Simms
REASONS
Introduction
1. By a claim form presented on 10 June 2016 the claimant brought complaints against six different respondents arising out of the termination of his agency work with the first respondent with effect from 6 May 2016. They were complaints of unfair dismissal, of breach of contract in relation to notice, of unlawful deductions from pay and complaints of discrimination because of or harassment related to race, sex and philosophical belief. The claimant is a man who describes himself as English, and the philosophical belief on which he relied was a belief in English nationalism.
Case No. 1800958/2016
There were two issues for the Tribunal to determine,
6. The first was whether the claimant’s belief in English nationalism was a philosophical belief protected by section 10 Equality Act 2010.
7. The second was whether in deciding on 6 May 2016 to terminate his placement the respondents treated the claimant less favourably because of sex, because of race and/or because of his philosophical belief in English nationalism than they treated or would have treated a comparator in circumstances not materially different to those of the claimant.
Relevant Legal Framework
Jurisdiction
12. Discrimination against a contract worker is prohibited by section 41 of the Equality Act 2010
Protected Characteristics
13. Section 9 defines the protected characteristic of “race” as including nationality and ethnic or national origins. Section 11 establishes the protected characteristic of sex
14 Section 10 defines the protected characteristic of a religious or philosophical belief. The material parts read as follows:
(1)….
(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief
(a)
a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.”
15. The leading authority on the proper interpretation of what will amount to a philosophical belief remains Grainger PLC and others v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360, a decision of Burton J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). The claimant asserted that a belief in man-made climate change was a protected characteristic. The EAT agreed that such a belief was capable of being protected under what is now section 10. After considering the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and authorities on the scope of Article 9 (see below), the EAT identified in paragraph 24 five limitations or criteria which must be satisfied if a belief is to be protected:
“0)
The belief must be genuinely held.
3
It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
3
It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
3
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others….”
16. These considerations are replicated in paragraph 2.59 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Employment (2011).
Case No. 1800958/2016
Direct Discrimination
17. The definition of direct discrimination appears in section 13 and so far as material reads as follows:
(1)
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”.
18. The concept of treating someone “less favourably” inherently requires some form of comparison, actual or hypothetical, and section 23(1) provides that:
“On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13 … there must be no material differences between the circumstances relating to each case”.
19. It is well established that where the treatment of which the claimant complains is not overtly because of a protected characteristic, the key question is the reason why” the decision of action of the respondent was taken. This involves consideration of the mental processes of the individual(s) responsible for the decision: see the decision of the EAT in Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884 at paragraphs 31-37 and the authorities there discussed. If the protected characteristic had any material influence on the decision – consciously or subconsciously – there will have been a contravention of section 13
Burden of Proof
20.
The burden of proof provision appears in section 136 and provides as follows:
“(2)
If there are facts from which the Court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the Court must hold that the contravention occurred.
But sub-section (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision”.
21. In Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054 the Supreme Court approved guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Igen Limited v Wong [2005] ICR 931, as refined in Madarassy v Nomura International PLC [2007] ICR 867 where Mummery LJ held that could conclude”, in the context of the burden of proof provisions, meant that a reasonable Tribunal could properly conclude from all the evidence before it, including the evidence adduced by the complainant in support of the allegations, such as evidence of a difference in status, a difference in treatment and the reason for the differential treatment. Importantly, at paragraph 56, Mummery LJ held that the bare facts of a difference in status and a difference in treatment are not without more sufficient to amount to a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.
22. Further, unfair or unreasonable treatment by an employer does not of itself establish discriminatory treatment: Zafar v Glasgow City Council (1998) IRLR 36. It cannot be inferred from the fact that one employee has been treated unreasonably that an employee of a different protected characteristic would have been treated reasonably. However, whether the burden of proof has shifted is in general terms to be assessed once all the evidence from both parties has been considered and evaluated. In some cases, however, the Tribunal may be able to make a positive finding about the reason why a particular action is taken which enables the Tribunal to dispense with formally considering the two stages
English Nationalism
32. Mr Linsell described in his siatement what he believed it meant to be an English nationalist. He defined a nation as a group of people with a communal history, language, culture, ancestry, identity and sense of belonging. He said:
“A common religion often also plays a part in binding together a nation. A nation is an extended family with informal and hard to define boundaries.”
33.
He went on to describe a nationalist as:
“Someone who gives political expression to their feelings of affection for and loyalty to their nation.”
Case No. 1800958/2016
34. A nation was to be distinguished from a state, which was a political entity claiming ownership of a territory and the right to enact and enforce laws in that territory. His witness statement set out a historical perspective on the development of the English nation going back to the mention of the Angli by Tacitus in 98AD.
35.
His statement said at paragraph 29:
“English nationalists wish to preserve the English nation and promote its welfare. In this they are like Indian, Scottish and other nationalists. English nationalists generally do not want special favours they just want the English, the largest ethnic group in England, to be able to enjoy the same statutory rights, benefits and privileges that other communities enjoy.”
36. In his supplementary witness statement the claimant explained his childhood belief that England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were all one united country, and how through football he became aware of the differences between those different countries. He had not been active politically until his late 30s when through a friend he discovered that there were political parties who would “stand up for England and the English.” This led to him joining the English Democrats in 2004. He describes his philosophy as follows:
“English nationalism is the nationalism that asserts that the English are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of English people. In a general sense, it comprises political and social movements and sentiment inspired by a love for English culture, language and history, and a sense of pride in England and the English people. English nationalists often see themselves as predominantly English rather than British.”
37. The claimant believes that the establishment of a separate Parliament for England would encourage the people of England to become more aware of their English identity. In paragraph 49 of his supplementary witness statement he said the following
With territory as a common factor, nationalism can focus on the common descent of a race or solely on a national identity which does not depend upon ancestry and race; my focus is on the latter.” [Emphas s as original]
Respondents’ Submission
76. Ms Checa-Dover submitted that the claimant’s particular brand of English nationalism failed to satisfy criterion (e) in the Grainger test. She referred to the postings made by him on Twitter after the termination of his assignment, but suggested that these represented his views at the time. They included the posts summarised above. She also relied on the contemporaneous press article about use of a machine gun and submitted that these views could not be regarded as compatible with human dignity or anything other than in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. She therefore submitted that the claimant had failed to establish that his philosophical belief was protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
81. He submitted that the respondents had failed to show that they did not contravene section 13 and that the main reason for his abrupt termination was his activity as an English nationalist.
82. The written submission went on to assert that this was a protected characteristic under section 10. Mr Morris addressed the factors set out in Grainger. He also suggested that the matter would have been different had the claimant been a woman or from an ethnic minority because the use of two different names would not have caused any enquiry.
83. In his oral submissions Mr Morris emphasised that seeking to get Muslims to
tone it down” was simply a way of saying that Islam was acceptable as long as it did not break English law. The views on border control expressed by the claimant were in line with the views of the UK Government which vigorously defended its borders as a sovereign state, and the situation the claimant had been talking about when interviewed had been where Illegal immigrants had been storming the border posts in line with what had been happening in Hungary at the time. He invited us to uphold the direct discrimination complaints.
Discussion and Conclusions – Philosophical Belief?
84. The parties were agreed that the relevant authority was Grainger. Our task was to assess the beliefs of this claimant, not whether a belief in English nationalism in the abstract is a protected characteristic. We concluded that the claimant’s beliefs went beyond the English nationalism described by Mr Linsell and by the claimant in his supplementary witness statement. Neither statement expressed any view on Islam, yet a strong anti-Islamic theme was evident in his beliefs from the following matters.
85. Firstly, at the time of the alleged contravention of the Equality Act 2010 the claimant had been quoted in an online article about the desirability of setting up a machine gun to take out a few illegal immigrants coming through the Channel Tunnel. The claimant explained the context in which he made this remark, namely that a number of individuals were storming border control posts, and also suggested that he had been misquoted because he had referred to automatic weapons not to a machine gun. However, whatever the context and precise wording, he clearly advocated killing some illegal immigrants to deter others.
86. Secondly, at the time the claimant had made posts on Facebook about “Banning the Burqa” and how a woman wearing a headscarf was not welcome in the UK.
87. Thirdly, since the termination of the assignment the claimant had posted a number of Tweets which included comments about Islam being only for the insane; that Japan had had the sense to ban Islam; and that Muslims were always the ones being ethnically cleansed and he wondered why that was. He also did not dispute that at times he had used the hashtag #RemoveAllMuslims”.
88. The claimant’s evidence under questioning in this hearing was that Islam in its current form needs to banned unless it is “Anglicised” and “toned down.” He denied that he held that view in May 2016 when the first respondent terminated his assignment, and we considered carefully his assertion that the views subsequently expressed on Twitter were not his views at the time. We unanimously rejected that argument. The only matter he could identify as having changed was his discovery that Japan had apparently banned Islam. There was no other evidence to support any significant step change or development in his views. We concluded that this discovery about Japan simply fortified views he already held. It did not cause him to change his views.
89. We therefore concluded as a question of fact that his anti-islamic beliefs were part of his belief in English nationalism at the time of the termination of his assignment.
90. Having made that determination we applied the Grainger test. We were satisfied that these beliefs were genuinely held by the claimant and they were not simply an opinion or a viewpoint but represented a belief about something of a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, namely national identity. The beliefs were also, we concluded, ones which satisfied the test of being serious, cohesive and important, and were cogent in the sense of being clearly expressed.
91. The crux in our view was whether those beliefs were compatible with human dignity or fundamental rights. In in our judgment they were not. Aspects of the claimant’s belief were incompatible with the right to life in Article 2. Article 2 admits that deprivation of the right to life may be appropriate where force which is no more than absolutely necessary is used, but the concept of using automatic weapons on illegal immigrants and taking a few out” to deter others, even if those immigrants are “storming” border posts en masse to overwhelm a border post and gain entry to the country in our judgment goes far beyond force which would be no more than absolutely necessary. Such a situation is not to be equated, as Mr Morris in one question about World War Two implied, with an armed invasion by a hostile foreign power.
92. Similarly the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 is infringed by views which are to the effect that slam in its current form should be banned if not Anglicised and toned down. That view is not compatible with Article 9. It is based on two stereotypical assumptions: firstly, that offensive practices such as female genital mutilation or “grooming’ are peculiarly or predominantly matters to do with the Islamic faith or Muslims, a view unsupported by any evidence before us; and secondly that all behaviour by Muslims must be taken to be a representation of Islam as a religion.
93. We also considered that there was a likely violation of Article 14 which guarantees that the substantive rights should be enjoyed without discrimination on the grounds of religion. Those substantive rights include the right to liberty under Article 5. The hashtag “#RemoveAlMuslims” can only be construed as indicating coercive removal dependent on religion, and that would inevitably involve infringements of the liberty of Muslims who did not wish to be removed from the UK.
94. As a consequence the Tribunal unanimously concluded that the claimant’s philosophical belief in English nationalism was not a protected characteristic in May 2016 because elements of it (expressed both before and after the termination of his assignment) were incompatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. On that ground alone the complaint of direct discrimination because of philosophical belief failed and was dismissed,
Discussion and Conclusions – Direct Discrimination – Philosophical Belief
95. The Tribunal then addressed the question whether there had been any contravention of section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
96. We decided to approach this as if the claimant’s belief in English nationalism had been a protected characteristic just in case we were wrong about that. That was the first protected characteristic we addressed as it was at the heart of the evidence and submissions in the claimants case. His reliance on sex and race discrimination was ancillary to that main complaint.
le. Intelligible and capable of being understood – see paragraph 34 of Harrop v Chler Constable of Dorset Police UKEAT/0234/15/DA.
106. Assuming for these purposes that his belief in English nationalism was a protected characteristic, the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had shifted the burden of proof. The following factors taken together meant that the Tribunal could reasonably have concluded, in the absence of any explanation from the respondents that his belief in English nationalism and its manifestations had a material influence on the decision to terminate the engagement…
112. However, the burden having shifted, the Tribunal was unanimously satisfied that the respondents had shown that the belief in English nationalism (had it been protected) was not an effective cause.
David Franey
Employment Judge Franey
13 October 2017
JUDGMENT AND REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
18 October 2017
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE”

LEFTISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND EITHER DEMOCRACY OR NATIONALISM!


LEFTISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY OR NATIONALISM


I recently had this exchange of views on Twitter with a Leftist troll:-

Robin Tilbrook 
What are British Laws when there are several jurisdictions in the UK? look at >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained

“Chris” 
British Laws are the collective laws of the UK over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Tilbrook‏ Jan 24

Not so. It isn’t a proper “Supreme Court” like the US one. It has jurisdiction over the parameters of eg Scots’ Devolved Powers

“Chris” Jan 24 
think you need to do a bit more research on their jurisdiction. Either way, UK Supreme Court, not of E&W, so British correct

Tilbrook Jan 24 
As a litigation solicitor, I suspect I know more about the “Supreme Court’s” jurisdictions than most. http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/brexit-befuddled-and-be-judged.html …

“Chris” Jan 24 
As a member of a fascist group, I suspect you’re more blinded by ideological hatred than anything else, but there we are.

Robin Tilbrook‏ Jan 24 
Not true and shows what a hypocrite you are, being that you are the one who is blinded.

“Chris” 
so, despite your profile, you’re not a member of a far right party with fascist beliefs?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 
The English Democrats are:- “Not Right, Not Left, Just ENGLISH!”

“Chris” 
Are you even English? Have you had a DNA test? How long have your family been in this country? Do you test members?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 
Now who is being the Nazi?

“Chris” 
Pointing out the absurdity of your ideology. Personally, I’m proud of my mixed background – Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Irish

Whilst it would be hard to summon much sympathy for “Chris”, as an individual, in fact he does express, albeit “through a glass, darkly” the commonly held Left-wing confusion between Racism, Nationalism, Nazism and Democracy.

Of course, as I put into the exchange, many Leftists, like “Chris”, are not interested in engaging in a sensible discussion about these matters. Their only purpose is to use what they think are ‘nasty’ words to smear people who they regard as political opponents. For this purpose Nationalist, Fascist and Nazi are all interchangeable, even if that usage tells you nothing about the real meaning of those words or the differences of political outlook that these words encompass.

We should try to be more sensible than “Chris” and have a look at the meanings of these words. Let’s start with “Democracy”. The word “Democracy” derives from the ancient Greek word for the rule of the “Demos” which means “the People”.

As regards the modern movement for democracy, whilst there were strands of it in the English tradition, which burst forth into full bloom in the foundation of the United States, the real impetus for much of democratic development comes from the French Revolution. The Revolutionaries talked of the “People” aka le Peuple”, and “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. The Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars overturned the assumptions, practices and politics of most of Europe.

The history of the remainder of the 19th Century and quite a bit of the 20th Century can be referred back to the forces of Democracy and Nationalism which had been unleashed by the French Revolution and by Napoleon.

In particular Democracy and Nationalism were seen by people as two sides of the same coin. Nationalists wanted to see their national group and its interests properly represented in Governmental systems and the “Nation” was seen as the same thing as the “People”. The rule of the “People” was thus expanded to be the rule of the “People of the Nation.”

One of the things we see in the modern world is that where a state occupies territory over which there is no concept of a single nation, it is impossible for that state to be democratic.

It is also worth observing that while nationalism and democracy have a large overlap there are of course versions of nationalism which are undemocratic, such as Fascism. Fascist leaders tended to claim that they were doing what the people of the nation wanted or was in their interest. Nevertheless Fascism was always opposed to representative parliamentary democracy.

Nazism and Fascism are basically both heretical offshoots of Marxist/Leninism. I would remind everybody that in 1932 Hitler made a well publicised speech in which he stated:-

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. 


And of course Hitler’s Party’s proper name translated into English, was the “National Socialist German Workers Party”. 

Where Hitler departed from the basis on which nationalism had previously proceeded was in his ideology that there was an objective “Aryan” race the struggles of which are the basis of history. This is an idea in some respects similar to the Marxist delusion of there being an objective class, the “International Proletariat”. It’s also perhaps not all that surprising that Hitler wasn’t a German nationalist since he was after all Austrian!

Before we leave the subject of Democracy and Nationalism it is perhaps worth considering what Count Klemens von Metternich said in the early 19th Century about the Italian nationalist movement. He said:- 

“The word “Italy” is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political significance the efforts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsular”.

So comprehensively has that early 19th Century Statesman’s view of Italy been swept aside that I have met quite a few people who think that Italy has always been a nation! That Italy is a single nation state going back to ancient Rome.

It is worth remembering that Mussolini’s political objective was partly to try to bolster a sense of Italy being an united nation state, when in fact Italy had only become united in 1863 and the First World War had tested the idea of Italy almost to destruction. But he then went on to found the first nationalist movement which was not avowedly democratic i.e. the Fascists.

On the other side of the concept of representative democracy we have the emerging idea of “Liberal Democracy”, which “Chris” mentioned. 

In England “Liberal Democracy” was really formed on the ideas of, amongst others, John Locke. The right to vote and to hold office was mostly dependent on owning property and therefore on being somebody with a stake in society. It was after all only in the late 19th Century in England that the right to vote was no longer limited to those people with property. Even until the 1960’s those who served on juries had to be rate payers and therefore householders.

Liberal Democracy’s roots therefore are not in Nationalism. 

We have seen this very clearly in the outcome of the Brexit case, in which most of the judges have firmly stated that legally the terms of the constitution is not a “Democracy” in which the “People” would be the sovereign body. Instead the Judges ruled that the “Crown in Parliament” is “Sovereign”, the “People’s” view therefore merely advisory. This is the position of Liberal Democracy clearly expressed.

Nationalists and Democrats on the other hand would say with one voice that it is the “People” that should be “Sovereign” not the Crown in Parliament. Both would also say that Parliament, the Monarchy, Councillors, Local Government, etc., should be seen as all merely the institutions by which the Peoples’ Will is expressed.

As we are seeing the development of Brexit is exposing one of the great divides in the world!

“Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!"


Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!


I am a strong believer in the idea that we owe it to ourselves and to our English Cause to use all appropriate tools and opportunities etc. that are open to us to advance the Cause and also to defend ourselves from opponents.

One of the things that is altogether too obvious is that the police have come down hard on Right-wing, nationalistic, patriotic protesters even when they are being basically law-abiding. This is in the context to their treatment of Left-wing, anti-racist, anti-FA, Hope not Hate types and other multi-culturalist campaigners. My suspicion has been that not only is there a degree of bias, as people have often maintained, but also there has been insufficient action on our side to use all available opportunities to counter-attack or to get in a pre-emptive attack on opponents.

One example is the Government’s new “Prevent” strategy, which has been sold to the public as being part of an anti-terrorism campaign. Most people, who only skim read news stories and do not pay close attention to what is going on, may still think “Prevent” is focussed solely on Islamist terrorists and troublemakers.

Let me tell you now unequivocally that it isn’t! 

You don’t need to be an English nationalist for this to apply to you. It will be enough for you to be a traditional Conservative!

So let’s see whether, as far as the Government is concerned, YOU are an “EXTREMIST”?

The Government has been busy developing a wholly partisan definition of “Britishness” and/of “British values”.
 

Those who do not read these things carefully, may think that their values because they are traditional and that they are historically British that they would qualify as part of “Britishness”. 

Let me tell you now – no they don’t necessarily!

Here is the Government definition of “Britishness” and of “British” values. They only apply in England so read it carefully!

I have highlighted the bit that you need to pay particular attention in bold and underlined.

“The Department for (English only) Education has … published guidance on promoting British values in schools to ensure young people leave school …

The guidance aims to help both independent and state-maintained schools understand their responsibilities in this area. All have a duty to ‘actively promote’ the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011.

Until now schools have been required to ‘respect’ these values, but as a result of changes brought in earlier in the year all schools must now have a clear strategy for embedding these values and show how their work with pupils has been effective in doing so. In a letter to the Education Select Committee in March, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools Lord Nash explained the changes were designed to “tighten up the standards on pupil welfare to improve safeguarding, and the standards on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils to strengthen the barriers to extremism”.

Ofsted and the independent inspectorates now take the work of schools in this area into account during inspections.

Publishing the guidance today, Lord Nash said:

A key part of our plan for education is to ensure children become valuable and fully rounded members of society who treat others with respect and tolerance, regardless of background.

We want every school to promote the basic British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

This ensures young people understand the importance of respect and leave school fully prepared for life in modern Britain.

Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:
an understanding of how citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process
an understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law
an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour
an understanding of the importance of identifying and combatting discrimination

Examples of actions schools can take to promote British values are to:
include in suitable parts of the curriculum – as appropriate for the age of pupils – material on the strengths, advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and how democracy and the law works in Britain, in contrast to other forms of government in other countries
ensure all pupils within the school have a voice that is listened to, and demonstrate how democracy works by actively promoting democratic processes such as a school council whose members are voted for by the pupils
use opportunities such as general or local elections to hold mock elections to promote fundamental British values and provide pupils with the opportunity to learn how to argue and defend points of view
consider the role of extra-curricular activity, including any run directly by pupils, in promoting fundamental British values

The government today also published its interim response to a consultation of the revised Independent Schools Standards (ISS). The revised standards cover independent schools, academies and free schools, ensuring they – along with local authority-maintained schools – must promote British values.”

(Here is the link to the source >>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published

If you are not absolutely certain that I have got this right, check it out on the link.

On the other hand if you have read the definitions carefully, ask yourself if you agree with EVERY aspect of that definition being applied only in England? If you don’t then you are what the Government is trying to redefine as an “Extremist”.
 
What about if, for example, you are a serious and practising Christian and you believe Jesus’ statement in the Gospel of St John, Chapter 14, Verse 6:- “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”?  If so then you are an “Extremist” and your values are not the British Government’s “British values”!

Since these values are the litmus test, here in England, as to whether or not you are an “Extremist” that means that so far as the system is concerned you are an “Extremist” and the “Prevent” strategy is there to disrupt you, your life and your associations.

You might ask how does all this relate to what I said in the beginning, that we are not doing enough to use what is available to us? Well the point is that it is not only us who would not necessarily support every last bit of the Government’s definition of multi-culti “Britishness”, but also the Left don’t support it either.

There is a case that I have recently been advising in which is relevant.

As part of the case we reported a Leftist troublemaker to the police. He was visited by the relevant police Prevent Team and has now been put on the Prevent “Watch List” as an Extremist!

What that means is that if that Leftist now takes part in any activity in the future which is hostile to, for example, English nationalists, then the police are far more likely to crackdown on him than they would have been hitherto.

From now on he will be on the “Watch List” and will be flagged up as somebody whose activities ought to be disrupted.

It is the same with reporting anti-English so called “Hate Crimes”. These always ought to be reported. If a police officer shows any reluctance to accept it as a “hate crime” then a complaint should be made against the officer concerned. The complaint should be taken as far as it can up the Police Forces’ complaints system so that it gets into the records that a lot of the “hate crime” is perpetrated against the English rather than by them.

Equally no opportunity should be lost to insist that you are “English” on ethnic monitoring forms rather than permitting yourself to be put down as “British” which is a legally invalid category and therefore waives your rights and your community’s rights under the Equality Act.

I could of course give many other examples of where we need to make sure that we do pull our weight, but I am sure you get the point! But don’t be put off by any official discouragement! 

Remember the parable of the unjust Judge in the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 18, Verse 6:-  
“There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.”

TRUMP TRIUMPHANT!


TRUMP TRIUMPHANT!


In the light of all the polls and comments in the newspapers I do not think anyone had great confidence in advance of Trump’s victory. I gather from some of the coverage on the night that even Donald Trump himself was talking about the election campaign as having been a tremendous waste of time and money as he didn’t think he had won it.

Nevertheless on the night we really did have another Brexit night with, on ITV, Tom Bradby looking quietly pleased and confident at the beginning along with nearly all ITV’s contributors, the majority of whom were Clinton supporters. But gradually over the course of the night the partying on the Clinton side turned to tears and the reaction of Clinton supporting commentators and journalists turned to despair.

That night I had made the mistake of sitting down to start watching the TV coverage! Then, of course, found it addictive to watch the slow drip drip of good news for Trump, made more dramatic by the moments when Hilary went into the lead and the developing despair of the British and American Establishment commentators especially on the BBC.

It almost made it worth it to pay the BBC’s licence fee!

We now have quite a potentially radical situation in the United States where both Houses of Congress and the Presidency are all Republican badged office holders. If they can behave cooperatively in the way that we would expect of a political party they can make a huge difference to American politics. The third branch of the constitutional “Separation of Powers” is the judiciary. If it can also be transformed as Democrat nominated supreme Court Justices come up for replacement, the Republicans will be able to replace them with Republican nominees and potentially change the constitutional legal basis of the United States.

From the English perspective I think Trump offers more hope of a foreign policy based on “real politique” and old fashioned national interest as against neo-colonialist NeoCon/Liberal interventionist agenda, which has brought catastrophe to so much of the Middle East and undermined the world-wide power and standing of the West. In short there is much to hope for. Also over the course of the next 18 months we have several other very exciting elections to complete the transformation of Western politics!

Exciting times for us all!

Having had to put up with all the nonsense and downright lies from Remoaners over the last few weeks it was a particular low point to hear the BBC Radio 4 item on Woman’s Hour as I was driving on Saturday. On this item we had the classic BBC idea of “balance” with a Californian Black feminist woman Professor of something like Transgender Studies, a Harvard feminist Human Rights Law Professor, a Professor of International” Relations from Sussex University and a Guardian Journalist!

The BBC presenter kept me highly entertained with her increasingly desperate attempts to find a silver lining in the US election outcomes. One of the few of which was apparently the election of a first openly lesbian Governor of the State of Oregan! Even the idea of some women being appointed by Donald Trump in his cabinet failed to sate the BBC’s panels’ despair and fury!

Muslim protester found guilty of racist abuse crime!

This intriguing item appeared on the BBC website on Friday, 28th October.

Race relations worker guilty of racist abuse at refugee rally


Here is what it said:-

“A race relations worker has been convicted of racially abusing a group of Scots at a rally to welcome Syrian refugees to Scotland.

Shafiq Mohammed, 50, was also found guilty of resisting arrest at a demonstration in Monkton, South Ayrshire, on 15 November 2015.

The former Scottish Refugee Council worker broke through a police cordon to verbally abuse a woman and three men.

The rally took place hours after the Paris terrorist attacks.

Ayr Sheriff Court heard how tempers flared among members of the Scottish Defence League and pro-refugee demonstrators.

It followed 150 refugees being granted emergency accommodation at the Ayrshire town’s Adamton Country House Hotel.

Mohammed denied behaving in a racially aggravated manner which was intended to cause alarm and distress.

He claimed the four witnesses had conspired to make up the allegations against him.

Sheriff Robert Weir QC found him guilty on both charges and sentence was deferred.

The court heard Mohammed had previously worked for property firm Orchard & Shipman, which has been paid more than £60m to house refugees in Scotland.

He is currently involved in the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project – an organisation campaigning on asylum seeker housing issues in the west of Scotland.”
Here is the link to the original >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37803531

So it sounds like we should congratulate the Scottish Police and the Scottish Prosecution service for doing their duty in arresting and in prosecuting this man. If only the police and CPS in England could be relied upon to similarly do their duty when aggressive anti-English racists are active here in England!

The law is quite clear that anti-Englishness (or anti-Scottishness) is just as illegal as any other so call “hate crime”. The difference in treatment is simply a political matter not a legal one.

Here is the section 4A of the Public Order Act which is what “Shafiq” appears to have been convicted of.

“4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.”

Click here for the original>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

So what sort of sentence has the Judge deferred the sentencing process in order to consider social workers’ reports? Such deferral means that the Judge is considering imprisonment. Here is the relevant section of the CPS sentencing guidelines:-

“Sentencing

Prosecutors have a duty to present all relevant material to allow the court to pass sentence in accordance with the law. Racial or religious aggravation makes an offence more serious and the court has a duty to take this into account when it sentences a defendant.

Prosecutors must neither minimise nor omit relevant and admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation.

Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 73 CA which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:

the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;

the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;

if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;

the judge should say publicly what the appropriate sentence would have been without the racial or religious aggravation.

Although the original guidance applies to offences charged as specific racially aggravated offences and to all other offences where section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, it should also be taken as applying to religiously aggravated offences, following the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

Click here for original >>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

What all this shows is that it is possible to get Leftist agitators arrested, charged and convicted but much more effort by English Nationalists is required in making the police arrest and charge those guilty of any illegal anti-English behaviour here in England.

Then we might have our multiculturalist opponents writing many more items like this one:-

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – THIS SUNDAY


“The Glad Cafe and Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – Sunday 22nd May 2016

An evening of music with Robin Adams, Kathryn Joseph, Alasdair Roberts, DJ Kwaby and others,

Featuring previews from the new album REFUGEE 

Alasdair Roberts + Kathryn Joseph + Robin Adams + DJ Kwaby + more

Sunday 22 May 19:30 £5.00 minimum donation

Entry Requirements: Over 18s only

Line up • Alasdair Roberts • Kathryn Joseph • Robin Adams • DJ Kwaby • more

Shafiq needs your support – legal, moral, financial and physical!

On 15th November 2015, Shafiq Mohammed was arrested at an anti-racist demonstration in support of refugees. He is awaiting trial, charged with Racially Aggravated Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest (details below).

Here is how you can help

Witnesses — URGENTLY NEEDED. His lawyer is seeking witnesses. If you saw Shafiq at any point during the demonstration, please get in touch. Contact the lawyer, John Harper of McClure Collins.

Email: john@mcclurecollins.com

Telephone: 0141 423 7181

Several people were filming and taking photos. These could be valuable evidence. Please use your networks to find anyone who might be able to help.

Messages — In circumstances like these, messages of support, from individuals and/ or organisations can make a big difference to an individual’s morale. Please send messages of support to: contact@supportshafiq.scot

Financial — His campaign will need financial support. In particular, legal support is not cheap and will need to be paid for. Please use the Paypal button below to send any donations.

Send cheques to GCtWR, C/o FBU, 52 St Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4AA

At the courtroom — He will need support on the day of his trial, both inside and outside the courtroom. Given SDL members will be witnesses against him, they are likely to organise some sort of presence. We need to outnumber them substantially. The trial date has been re-set for Tuesday 9 June 2016. We will let you know the time when we have it.

Support Shafiq Mohammed

On Sunday November 15, at the demonstration in Monkton to support the refugees being housed in Adamton Country House Hotel and against the Scottish Defence League (SDL) who had declared their intention to demonstrate in the village, one of the anti-racist demonstrators was arrested. He was Shafiq Mohammed, one of the few black faces there. He was kept overnight in police cells in Kilmarnock and then appeared on the Monday afternoon at Ayr Sheriff Court. Shafiq has been charged with racially aggravated breach of the peace and resisting arrest. Apparently one of the SDL women accused him of calling her child a “white bastard” and the police chose to act on it. He has pled not guilty and John Harper of McClure Collins is representing him.

Due to the rough treatment he received when being arrested, he suffered a burst blood vessel in his eye and permanent facial injuries. The handcuffs caused severe cuts and grazing encircling his wrists. In custody, as a result of indicating his dietary requirement for halal food, he was given 4 cereal bars to eat in 24 hours.

Shafiq is a respected professional advocate and consultant in the area of race relations. He has worked for Orchard & Shipman, Ypeople, Migrant Help and the Scottish Refugee Council. He currently gives advice to and is a crucial part of the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project, an organisation which campaigns on asylum seeker housing issues in the West of Scotland. He has no previous history with the police and indeed this was the first ant-racist, pro-refugee demonstration he had ever attended, having previously been concerned his attendance at such events would compromise his professional standing.

He is understandably deeply distressed. Bad enough being put through this but more so, having suffered racist abuse all his life, to be attending a demonstration against racism and to be accused by the racists of racism and have the police act upon it, is beyond irony. In his case it is unbearable. Further a conviction for racially aggravated breach of the peace could have a particularly detrimental effect on his career.

We cannot allow the SDL to get away with this tactic of picking out individuals from counter demonstrations and making false accusations against them, even more so, if they are black. Support Shafiq Mohammed.

Jock Morris
Chairperson
Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees”


Click here for original article>>> http://www.supportshafiq.scot/

 
We English nationalists need to take note that the reason that the Scottish Police, Prosecution Service and Courts are taking a more even handed approach to anti-Scottishness is political. Their police authority and those that are appointed to head the prosecution service and in charge of the appointments and promotion systems for the judiciary are all dominated by the Scottish National Party.

So another lesson for English nationalists is that we also need to get people elected to the one similar position that is feasible here in England – Police and Crime Commissioners! Then we too could order the police to be far more robust with the Shafiq’s and Jock Morris’s in their relevant police force areas!

“TO THE STRONGEST!” “KRATISTOS” – ALEXANDER THE GREAT’S “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT”

“TO THE STRONGEST!” “KRATISTOS” – ALEXANDER THE GREAT’S “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT”


A week ago, with almost all the Party Leaders in trouble or resigning I was reminded of the famous story of Alexander The Great’s last Will and Testament in which it is claimed that he left his empire:- “To the Strongest!”

One of the principal classical histories says that on Alexander’s deathbed in 323 BC:-

“When he (Alexander), at length, despaired of life, he took off his ring and handed it to Perdiccas. His friends asked: “To whom do you leave the kingdom?” and he replied: “To the strongest!” Diodorus Siculus

The resulting wars between his Generals, which raged all across Alexander’s vast empire, gave birth to the Hellenistic kingdoms whose Kings rested upon the, often very temporary, support of their soldiers.

I was reminded of those times and that period of history when I suddenly found myself the only remaining leader of a political party in England who has held his position for any length of time!

Nigel Farage’s resignation, seemingly unexpected to the media, but which had seemed not unlikely to those that had heard that he was deeply fed up with the internal politics of UKIP, coupled with UKIP’s redundancy now that it has achieved the purpose of getting and winning the referendum on EU membership, suggests the story of Alexander’s Will is still highly topical and it may be something of a paradigm for the infighting which will now occur in UKIP between its various factions!

It was already apparent that this was going to happen after the referendum, when Neil Hamilton called for a leadership election within UKIP, saying that he intended to support Paul Nuttall. Paul for his part had then indicated that he now felt that he was ready to be Leader. Now however he too has withdrawn leaving the field open to only a medley of “Believe in Britain” types!

The saying:- “may you live in interesting times” is said to be an old Afghan curse, in that blood-soaked country. In England “may you live in interesting times” may however be a blessing to English nationalists. 

Let’s work to make it so!

UKIP AND THEIR MISSING ENGLISH MANIFESTO


UKIP AND THEIR MISSING ENGLISH MANIFESTO


In the General Election, as I told Russia Today in this interview click here >>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzrCSDkjIac&feature=youtu.be, I think UKIP missed their historic opportunity.

UKIP’s leadership should have known, from the work of Professors Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford, in their book “Revolt on the Right”, that UKIP’s best opportunity was to move into being English Nationalists.

I had always thought that, as a result of my discussions with Nigel Farage and other leaders within UKIP, that in fact UKIP would never go for this, as their leadership are too much focussed on being an old fashioned British nationalist party.

I have of course been saying this to anyone that would listen within the system, including some influential people within the Conservative Party. I don’t think that it is any coincidence that the Conservatives had spotted that UKIP’s leaders unwillingness to commit to English nationalism was a potentially serious weakness in UKIP’s position.

In the run up to the General Election the Conservatives had begun to make noises that would please less critical English nationalists, such as commitment to English votes for English laws and Cameron’s comments immediately after the Scottish referendum, they had not gone as far as agreeing to have an England specific manifesto, despite the obvious need for such a specific manifesto in a partially devolved “United” Kingdom. What however did happen was they waited to see what UKIP would do.

In the event UKIP opened themselves up to being triangulated (in the Blairite language i.e. outmanoeuvred) on the English nationalist flank by the mistakes of launching a British manifesto with very few mentions of England in it and then they compounded this mistake by launching a Scotland specific manifesto and a Welsh specific manifesto and a Northern Irish specific manifesto, but none specifically for England.

Once UKIP had done this the Conservatives came out with their specifically English manifesto. Although this was a fairly thin piece of work and its detail would not satisfy committed English nationalists, it wasn’t aimed at us, it was aimed at ordinary English people who are feeling increasingly left out of the devolutionist way in which the United Kingdom is going.

Anecdotally I can say from talking to quite a lot of people it worked brilliantly. One of the best examples being a sub-post master living locally where I live in Essex, who told me that although he and his family were long term trade unionists and Labour voters, even he in the end couldn’t bring himself to vote for Labour and for the first time ever he voted Conservative in order to keep the SNP from having a decisive say over England and being able to get Scotland even more favourable treatment than it has already!

As English nationalists we must of course hope that the habit of voting along national lines will grow!

I do think Scotland’s history suggests it will. After all it was Labour that was riding the Scottish nationalist lion in the 1980s as a way of undermining the Conservatives there. Once people got into the habit of voting along national lines they were far more open to voting for a specifically Scottish nationalist party!

IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


One of the things that has been interesting about the General Election is that the British media’s reaction to any discussion of English interests and rights has been often hysterically anti-English In article after article David Cameron and the Tories have been accused of “whipping up”, “stoking” or some other pejorative verb with regard to raising the question of English national interests.

This reaction is when, to any sensible observer, Dave “I’m a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing in these veins” is a ludicrously unlikely candidate to be described as an English nationalist or even in any way personally interested in raising English nationalism.

We know from all his remarks about “fighting the little Englanders wherever he finds them” and his hostility to an English Parliament, etc., etc., that he is by no means an English nationalist. In fact he is an outright enemy of English nationalism, yet the mainstream media’s hatred of England, the English and English nationalism is such that however mild and minimalistic a proposal is made to correct the blatant unfairness of the current devolution arrangements, nevertheless many mainstream British media commentators can be found rushing forward to howl their disapproval!

Over the years we have heard enough about homophobia and Islamophobia and various other alleged “phobias” which the politically correct wish to make utterly unacceptable. I propose an addition to this list, since it is a hopeless task to get rid of it altogether, and that is:- ‘Anglophobia’. I accuse the mainstream British Establishment Media of persistent and blatant Anglophobia!

The response of our people to Anglophobia needs to change radically if we are to make any serious headway as a Cause.

Any expression of Anglophobia should be treated as a “Hate Crime” and should be reported to the police.

If the police refuse to accept the report or decline to take action, then those of us who do the reporting should make sure that we have obtained the relevant police officer’s name and number and a complaint to their force’s police complaints department should be made against that police officer (or officers) alleging that they have failed to act or have acted in the way that they have out of Anglophobia, which is of course a branch of racism and is a “hate crime”.

Over the years I have heard people say that you cannot be racist against the English. Anyone who says this simply doesn’t know the law, as legally speaking racism isn’t only about race. It does include national identity, national origin and nationality. It is on this basis that any Anglophobic comments or actions, or inactions, should be challenged in a way that brings it home to journalists, police officers, officials and political opponents that Anglophobia will no longer be tolerated and that instead will be “sanctioned”.

I suggest that, as a first step, we make contact with whichever police officer in our local areas is charged with dealing with political and electoral crimes and let them know what is intended.

Every time a complaint is made we need to issue a press release, not only for the purposes of putting journalists on notice that they will be sanctioned, but also with a view to getting it reported.

Even if it is reported in a hostile way, which is, of course, very likely, we should remember that politics is a zone of conflict and therefore any actions involving conflict and taking the fight to our enemy will in the long run be well worth it.

I suggest that our mottos, adapting the anti-racism sloganizing, should be “Unite against Anglophobia!”, “Say no to Anglophobia!”, “No to Anglophobic racism!”.

PM’s nationalist stance welcomed in Western Daily Press

PM’s nationalist stance welcomed

In the Western Daily Press (Bristol, England) – April 29, 2015 on Page:18 appeared this cheeky item:-

The English Democrats welcome David Cameron’s apparent concession to the cause of fairness for England even if he continues in his and many other Conservatives’ recent tradition of disparaging English nationalists and English nationalism.

Ed Miliband however in his response seems to be confirming his and Labour’s position as the anti-English party.

I welcome David Cameron doing anything which will further the cause of English nationalism. In the words of St Luke, “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance”.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman, the English Democrats