Category Archives: free speech

Book Review – Sea Changes

Derek Turner

Washington Summit Publishers

ISBN 978-1-59368-002-2

By Robert Henderson

The time is somewhere around the present: the place is England. Thirty seven bodies wash-up on the North-East coast of England. Some have gunshot wounds. All are would-be illegal immigrants. There is one survivor from the group: Ibrahim, an Iraqi. This is the cue for the politically correct mob to go into action, with everything from the-borders- are-racist campaigners to those who pounce on the evidence of gunshot wounds to suggest that some of the illegal immigrants were murdered by the locals.

The novel has two strands. One is of the survivor Ibrahim. He has had the misfortune to spend all his life in uncertain circumstances, living under the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, both before and after the first Gulf War, then through the perpetual chaos following the defeat of Saddam. We follow him on his tortuous journey from Basra to England, during which we gradually learn more and more of his story, a history which includes working as an enforcer for a notorious Basra gangster. He moves from Basra in Iraq to Syria, across Turkey, then by boat to Greece where he is interred in a centre of asylum seekers before escaping and travelling across Europe before paying to be smuggled across the North Sea to England.

Once in England he finds being an illegal immigrant is not all milk and honey. This is partly his own fault because he fabricates a story which falsely paints him as a someone who resisted Saddam and suffered for it, a lie which is discovered and takes the gloss off him as a weapon for the politically correct to wield, but it is also the disillusionment of finding the promised land does not do what it says on the tin. The result is Ibrahim’s withdrawal into the cultural cocoon created by other Iraqis in Britain.

Surrounding Ibrahim’s tale is the English response to the bodies on an English beach. In the politically correct world that is modern England the would-be illegal immigrants are taken up as not the invaders they are, but people who at best have been murdered by the immigration policies of the government which have forced them to take this route to enter England and at worst to believe that those who died of gun wounds have been slaughtered by the unreconstructed English who inhabit non-Metropolitan England.

The peecee fox is started running by a farmer local to the area where the bodies wash up. A farmer in late middle age by the name of Dan Gowt living in the fictional village of Crisby. He is interviewed on television and expresses views which would have passed without remark when he was young, but are now considered not merely insensitive but positively racist, remarks such as. “The fact is they shouldn’t have been trying to get intro England in the first place. It’s a crime that is. It’s just common sense … “

His words make Gowt a media hate figure. He tries to remove the label of racist by talking to the media, writing a letter to a newspaper explaining his position, seeking a lawyer to sue on his behalf for the libels he has suffered. All to no avail. His explanations to reporters are twisted out of recognition, his letter is not published and his attempt to find a lawyer to act for him results in a refusal on the grounds that acting for him would taint the firm.

Gowt finds many of the people he knows shun him, his wife and daughter are treated as guilty by association and his windows are smashed by “antiracist” protestors, whom he goes outside to tackle with a shotgun but who drive away before he can come upon them. After the last event he calls the police who not only show little interest in investigating the crime, but tell him that he has brought this on himself and his family by his racist words. The police go as far as to say threateningly that he is lucky he has not to have been investigated for his racist words and hinting that he may still be. They are also pleased to suggest that his licence for his shotgun may be revoked because he has intended to threaten people with it.

Gowt being labelled a racist affects his wife Hatty and his daughter Clarrie. His wife is simply bewildered; his daughter patronisingly tolerant as she condemns what her father has said whilst blaming his ideas about immigrants on his age, what Marxists would describe as “false consciousness”

The really terrible thing about all this is the fact that Gowt has not been racist in any meaningful way. All he has done is express a perfectly natural resistance to foreigners settling his country in large numbers and effectively colonising parts of it.

Turner parades a large cast of characters before the reader. This can often lead to confusion and the under development of characters. To his credit the author keeps control of them by repeatedly providing snapshots of their intervention in the affair. We may not get to know them intimately , but we do not need to because it is their symbolic roles in the tragedy that is modern England which is important.

There are the politicians varying from fearful pc driven sheep to true believers in the One Worldism creed, the journalists who use their newspapers and broadcasters to carry forward the pc received wisdom and last but not least the multifarious interest groups and individuals who represent immigrant interests: the Black Muslim Mecca Morrow , Wayne Smith of the Christian Democrat Reachout , Atrocities against Civilians Scum, the Rural Racism Task Force ,Ben Klein founder of National Anti-Fascist Foundation NAFF, Dylan Ekinutu-Jones of the Forum for Racial and Ethnic Equality (F.R.E.E) , Carole Hassan from the Muslim Alliance and the Guatamalean Action Group. Readers will be able to readily spot their counterparts in real life.

The political parties are also thinly disguised version of those that exist: the Christian Democrats, the Workers Party and the Fair Play Alliance. All are shown not merely as dishonest but either fanatical or cowardly. There is also a party, the National Union, which plays the indispensable role for the politically correct, a Far Right bogeyman. The Party has a single MP who is ostentatiously ostracised by all the other MPs who eventually vote to expel him from the Commons because of his non-pc views.

There are more substantial characters such as Albert Norman of the Sentinel . Norman is a licensed jester , a man of 70 allowed to be non-pc in a pc world largely because he is a relic of an earlier less tightly controlled era. He also serves a useful purpose for the liberal left establishment because they can point to him and say there, all voices are being heard. Norman’s tragedy is that he is right but ultimately irrelevant because the people who listen to him and agree are the powerless, the ordinary people of England.

Norman is the one character who sniffs out the truth about Ibrahim, as well as resolutely refusing to climb on the English-locals-must-have-killed-immigrants bandwagon . His columns are wildly popular but the his youngish editor Doug is getting twitchy about their political incorrectness . He asks Norman to tone down his columns because he wishes to move the Sentinel to a new part of the press marketplace. Norman resists but eventually gives in and re-writes a piece about Ibrahim. Norman’s readers feel cheated by his new blandness and Norman soon realises that his day is done and retires.

Opposed to Norman on the media front is John Leyden of The Examiner, a columnist who takes a religiously pc on everything whilst being , as so often with card carrying liberals, monstrously selfish and bigoted in the way they live their lives. Leyden thinks no further than the next self-promoting headline, regardless of the harm he inflicts on others. Just think of the more obnoxious type of Guardian journalist and you will get the picture.

Overall Turner paints a picture of an England which has been defeated, at least for the moment. The pc propaganda has not been completely successful, so that part of the population of England has remained in the eyes of the politically correct regrettably backward. But even that part of which has not been fully conditioned understands the danger of being identified as a racist and either keeps mum, clumsily try to fit their true feelings within the envelope of political correctness, or engage in grovelling apologies when the racist hounds start to run after they are judged to have committed the pc sin of not being thoroughly brainwashed into the multicultural way of thinking. The claustrophobia created by what political correctness has become, namely, a totalitarian ideology in both form and practice is nicely caught .

There is a degree of exaggeration for the sake of narrative sharpness in the depiction of the limp calamity of the people of England in thrall to a vicious and recklessly ideological elite, but sadly the book is an all too plausible representation of what England is now. This is a country in which people are imprisoned for expressing their anger at mass immigration, where a single non-PC remark can result in the loss of a job, where the mainstream media go into witchfinder-general mode at the slightest opportunity offered by someone who does not religiously observe the pc rubric of equality.

Those who have read Jean Raspail’s Camp of the Saints will notice some generally similarities of structure as well as intent in Sea Changes. There is no harm in that. Indeed I found Sea Changes a rather better vehicle for warning about the dangers of mass immigration, because it is far less hysterical and blessedly bereft of the intellectual and cultural pretensions of Raspail’s book.

Sea Changes might almost be treated as a documentary of what has gone sadly wrong with English society. Yes, that is what it is, a record of what English society has become now,, or at least of that aspect which touches on mass immigration and its consequences . Whatever the future brings it will stand as a primer on a particular and decidedly peculiar period of English life. Worth reading on its own virtue as a novel and doubly worth reading for its important message.

Political speech and action in Britain: What is legally permitted ?

Robert Henderson

Free speech is a very simple concept: you either have it or a range of permitted opinion, the scope of which can be altered at any time (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/free-expression-or-permitted-opinion-that-is-the-choice/). Sadly and dangerously, not only is free expression in Britain unavailable, but the range of permitted opinion is becoming ever narrower . This is a consequence of the totalitarian ideology that is political correctness becoming embedded ever deeper into the British power structure through laws both criminal and civil and the control of the mass media by the politically correct. Great swathes of political opinion are deemed criminal or at least grounds for excluding their holder from not only mainstream politics but public debate. It is no longer possible to engage in political activity without fear of prosecution, loss of employment (especially in publicly funded jobs) or of being the subject of a media hate campaign.

British political parties can no longer be what they want to be

The most fundamental denial of democratic political action in a Parliamentary system such as that of Britain is to refuse a party the right to recruit as it chooses. It is the most fundamental breach because, if a party cannot recruit freely and stand whatever candidates it chooses in elections , it is barred from any chance of taking part in a government or having a significant voice in opposition on its own terms. By controlling party membership the policies of a party are determined. This is the position in modern Britain.

It is no longer possible for a party wishing to stand candidates in British elections to choose who shall be its members and candidates or determine what are its fundamental beliefs. This was made clear by a court ruling of Judge Paul Collins in March 2010:

“The British National party was plunged into chaos yesterday, weeks before the general election, when a court ordered it to remove central beliefs and policies about race from its constitution.

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

In a further blow to the party’s election hopes, it was ordered to pay an estimated £60,000 in legal costs. The bill could rise to £100,000 when its own legal fees are included.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration.

The BNP last month voted to remove a direct bar on non-white members after a legal challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The government equalities watchdog then challenged the revised constitution on the grounds that ethnic minority Britons could still not subscribe to the party’s beliefs without “denying themselves”.

Collins ruled in favour of the commission, ordering the BNP to remove the offending clauses by Monday afternoon or face potential legal penalties.

The EHRC head of legal enforcement, Susie Uppal, said: “Political parties, like any organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members.”

The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, said the decision “opens a very dangerous door. It’s a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain. The judgment has given a government-appointed, taxpayer-funded quango the rights to change the aims and objectives of political parties.” The costs award would “have some effect” on the BNP’s election campaigning, but it would not be significant, he added.

Griffin said he had already amended the constitution so the clauses were removed from membership criteria. He insisted, however, that the beliefs about immigration and race would remain, even if members did not have to officially sign up to them. “It won’t make any practical difference to us. But it’s hugely symbolic,” he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/12/bnp-racist-membership-rules-outlawed).

The judge’s ruling means that the BNP cannot in principle prevent those from ethnic minorities or the white “antiracist” political left from joining the party with an intent to sabotage it. In addition, the policy of the party has been changed in the sense that its ostensible core values are no longer core values because their acceptance is no longer required of members. Nor is it clear whether the BNP could legally refuse membership to anyone because, if it cannot insist that members must support the ‘”continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration’, prospective members could believe and advocate anything with regard to race and immigration, including demands for Sharia law and the abolition of immigration controls. Such a person out to sabotage the BNP could accept the rest of the party’s political platform , much of which is, ironically, shared by the mainstream parties, to prevent membership being denied on any other ideological ground. More banally, the BNP could be forced to take people who would deliberately try to disrupt its administration. There would also be greater opportunity for leftist agent provocateurs to join the party to engage in violence or crude racist language to reinforce the liberal elite’s portrayal of the BNP as no more than a group of hooligans always on the verge of criminality.

In the present political climate it is also probable that any person refused BNP membership who belonged to an ethnic minority or was native white Briton and came from an “antiracist” background, would find the courts likely to support any action they brought for damages against the BNP on the grounds that they had been discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity or a refusal to accept the BNP “core beliefs”. It is not inconceivable that if such suits were brought, the EHCR (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/) might climb on the “anti-discrimination” bandwagon again and obtain a further court order banning further recruitment or even making the collection of subscriptions from existing members illegal until the refused applicants for membership were accepted. The reduction ad absurdum of Judge Collins’ ruling would be a court ordering the BNP to accept someone as a member who was patently not suitable to be a member.

The danger for any party which cannot decide its own membership by requiring members to adhere to the fundamental principles for which its stands is that it could,, and most probably would, quickly become a meaningless political shell. In the case of the BNP suppose numbers of the political left and ethnic minorities large enough to swamp the existing BNP membership applied for membership. If the BNP had no way of refusing them membership, the party could soon be captured over by the incomers who could overthrow the leadership and change the party’ policies utterly.

That is the way only the BNP is being treated at present , but any party could find themselves in the same predicament if their policies do not meet with the approval of those in power. At present the powerful are disciples of political correctness, but politics can move very rapidly and no one can be certain that their politics will not become the target for criminalisation and marginalisation. Moreover, where an ideology is involved, the ideology can alter so that what was acceptable within it to a follower may well become unacceptable when it changes. A good example comes from modern liberalism. Until around 1980 the liberal left approach to the consequences of mass immigration to Britain was assimilation; in a year or two it switched to multiculturalism, a very different thing which has strong similarities, at least at the conceptual level, to the idea of separate development in Apartheid South Africa.

The Electoral Commission

Successful court challenges by the ECHR are not the only legal obstacle to political parties deciding their own policies. There is the Electoral Commission to contend with. A political party which wishes to put up candidates in a UK election has to register with the Commission. That registration is not automatic and can be refused if the name or emblem is deemed “obscene or offensive “ . (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf). It is all too easy to see anything non-pc being refused by the Commission who would inevitably point to the many legal restrictions which already exists on what may be said legally and use those as the basis for a refusal to register.

There are also some prohibited words in the Electoral Commission’s lexicon which could not be used at all or in certain formats which could curtail political expression in the registration of parties, for example, English Party is forbidden under category 2 words (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/107701/doc-prohibited-rp.pdf) .

The Returning Officer (who supervises the administration of an election) can also refuse a party label on a ballot paper if they deem it inappropriate.

In view of the political dominance of the political correct and the expressed attitude of official bodies such as the ECHR and the courts towards party membership and the values of a party which challenges political correctness, it is reasonable to assume that any party which transgresses the politically correct limits would fail to be registered by the Electoral Commission or pass the scrutiny of the Returning Officer, for example, parties called England for the English or the Anti-Immigration League. It might even prove impossible for parties in the Celtic Fringe to run under banners such as The English in Scotland or Protect the English in Wales

Independent candidates

Independent candidates do not need to register with the Electoral Commission. However, this has the disadvantage for candidates of not being able to described themselves as anything other than Independent on the ballot paper (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0009/83169/UKPGE-Nomination-Forms-Final.pdf ). To use any other label candidates have to pretend to be a party and register themselves as such with the Electoral Commission with all that entails in time, money (there is a £150 registration fee) and organisation . It also leaves them open to the same pc objections to labels as genuine parties. Indeed, the censorship of candidate descriptions is likely to be even more wide ranging than for individuals pretending to be a party than for genuine parties , because the banning of an individual candidate would be far less likely to attract media attention or result in court action to challenge any ban because the refused candidate would be unlikely to have the wherewithal to challenge the refusal. .

The Electoral Commission also control what are known as third party campaigners . These are individual or corporate bodies (including registered political parties) who can be campaigners in support of parties, individuals or policies without being candidates in an election. (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/105936/intro-campaigner-npc.pdf)

There are a considerable and growing number of elections in the UK – Westminster, local government, devolved assemblies, elected Mayors and police commissioners . Consequently, the Electoral Commission has the potential to exercise a very powerful influence on British politics through determining what parties are called.

Laws to silence opinion

In addition to the restrictions imposed on candidates, political speech, writing and action (for anyone) is heavily circumscribed by a depressingly large number of laws which, whether originally intended to suppress political views or not , are being used to censor views deemed to be non-political with ever increasing frequency. he most likely to be applied is the 1986 Public Order Act sections 4 and 5 and the Communications Act 2003 section 127.

“Public Order Act 1986

Section 4 Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

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

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(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 distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4)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.

4 A 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)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(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.]

5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if 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,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(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 other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

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

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)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

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4

The Communications Act 2003

Section 127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

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

In addition these Acts may be deployed :

Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/content as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/contents

Postal Services Act 2000 section 85 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/contents).

There may be other laws which are used to specifically hamper free expression which is deemed politically incorrect, , but those I have cited give the flavour of the current powers available to those with power in Britain to intimidate the public and control public debate. They all have one very dangerous thing in common: the Acts are so broadly drawn that they are an open invitation to those with power to shut down dissent. The idea that people can assign an objective value to words such as menacing, threatening, abusive or insulting is simply wrong. Even more to the point, if words or images may be deemed criminal because they are merely abusive or threatening, anything contentious to the mind of another could be held to be criminal.

In addition to the considerable restrictions on free expression already described, there are civil laws allowing actions for libel and slander, court orders prohibiting the publication or public discussion of specific subjects (breach of which risks imprisonment for contempt of court), restrictions placed by the Official Secrets Act (which applies whether or not a person has signed the Act) and criminal offences relating to obscenity, blasphemy and libel (the last three are so rarely used they are practically obsolete, but they are live laws which could be utilised if no other law would do).

Nothing non-pc is safe

Where does all this leave us? The problem is that no one can be sure what would be treated as criminal by the police and the prosecuting authority the Crown Prosecution Service. A person could look at non-pc speech and writing which has not resulted in prosecution and words which has been resulted in criminal charges and try to analyse what will be deemed officially beyond the Pale but be none the wiser. That is for two reasons: first, the boundaries of what is deemed criminal are constantly expanding especially with reference to “hate speech” and, second, there is no consistency in the investigation and prosecution of similar statements.

A few examples to demonstrate the difficulty in knowing what is likely to result in police action. Negro was the polite word for a black person for two centuries . Gradually over the past half century it was superseded by black, African-American, Afro-Caribbean or even African as blacks asserted their identity. But negro continued to be used. It was not considered a racist term, although a bit old fashioned in much the same way that homosexual rather than gay now seems slightly anachronistic. In 2011 the Liverpool FC forward Luis Suarez (white) repeatedly referred to the Man U fullback Patrice Evra (black) as a negro, (actually its Spanish equivalent negre). This resulted not in criminal charges but disciplinary action by the Football Association who fined and banned him for eight matches for racial abuse (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8969738/Liverpools-Luis-Suarez-guilty-of-racially-abusing-Patrice-Evra-live.html). Although there was no police action, the message the Suarez case sent to the public was negro is now a term of racial abuse which could result in action being taken against its user. If another case comes to public notice I would be most surprised if at the least a police investigation is not begun even if no criminal charges are brought. That would be par for the course in these cases. A word is mysteriously deemed unacceptable, there is liberal media outrage and a little down the line the police act against someone who has used it. Frequently the police investigation does not result in charges but the publicity of the police involvement serves to intimidate the public.

The next word describing the race of a person which is likely to be ratcheted up from polite term to criminal will probably be coloured. This is even more ludicrous than the outlawing of negro as a racial epithet. It is simply a description as innocuous as white. That it was not considered anything more until recently can be seen from the title of the American organisation for promoting black interests the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Despite this history the Scottish football pundit Alan Hansen ran into trouble after using it in 2011 and was forced to offer an abject apology to save his job. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/alan-hansen-black-footballers-coloured)

Now let us move forward to a recent case which did result in criminal charges. BNP member Michael Coleman has just been give an eight month suspended sentence with 240 hours of community service (unpaid work) for publishing racist articles on his blog:

“ The 46-year-old was reported to police after two blogs he wrote in response to last summer’s London riots appeared online.

In them, he said the riots were a perfect example of ‘the difference in personality, perceptions and values of people of the darker races and ourselves’.

And he accused Stoke-on-Trent City Council of ‘flooding this city with Muslims and blacks, a complete population replacement programme. Darkies in, whites out’.

Police were called by Labour city councillor Joy Garner, below, who had been asked to read the blogs by a member of the public. (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Stoke-Trent-BNP-leader-Michael-Coleman-guilty/story-16839343-detail/story.html).

Leave aside the word “darkies” for the moment. Coleman’s message is a straightforward political protest against the most profound act of treason which is the permitting of mass immigration. If he was convicted for that protest it is unambiguous censorship for political purposes. The prosecution is sending the message to the public that complaints about immigration and its consequences is being criminalised.

If it is solely “darkies” which has led to the conviction, and the report does not suggest that it is, then the-powers-that-be through the courts and prosecution authorities are controlling language in a manner reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Red China. “Darkies” may again be an anachronistic term , but it was never considered racist as such when it was widely used. Often it was bestowed on someone black in the same way that a man called white would end up being called “Chalky”.

Even liberals are beginning to get uneasy about the way that day after day new cases as threats of prosecution or actual prosecutions are applied to people in situations which appear ever more extreme. Take Brendan O’Neill of the Daily Telegraph on Coleman. He pays ritual pc obeisance to the “horror” of Coleman’s views and the use of “darkies”, calls him a moron, but then writes

“The councillor who kick-started the legal action against Coleman said something very interesting – he said the reason Coleman had to be punished and turned into a criminal for writing those blog posts is because the views they expressed are “not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of local people”. That is true; the vast majority of Britons find racist ideas and language disgusting. But are we really going to start threatening with imprisonment people who express opinions that the “overwhelming majority” consider to be unacceptable? Will that include radical political views, edgy social arguments, harebrained religious beliefs? The fact that in Britain in 2012 a man has been given a suspended jail sentence and 240 hours’ community service for saying something that is offensive to the “overwhelming majority” should give us all serious pause for thought, and make us ask what gives us the right to slam Putin’s Russia for likewise banging up punkish singers who, according to polls, also offended an “overwhelming majority” of Russians.” (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100183130/darkies-is-a-disgusting-word-but-people-shouldnt-be-given-suspended-jail-sentences-for-saying-it/).

Of course, the “vast majority of Britons” do not find what liberals now call racist ideas and language disgusting (effectively any preference for one racial, national or ethnic group over another) . Many might not feel comfortable with the word “darkies”, but the “vast majority of Britons ” will have varying degrees of sympathy with the idea that mass immigration has changed the country for the worse and is a form of colonisation. But such expressed thoughts would now appear to be illegal. The case of Emma West falls into this category. Miss West was recorded on a camera phone during a tram ride complaining to a racially mixed group of passengers about the effects of mass immigration. There was a bit of effing and blinding but there was no gross racist abuse , just a complaint that her country had been utterly changed through mass immigration (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state). She was arrested after the video was placed on YouTube, held against her will in a top security prison (the authorities claimed it was for her own protection even though Miss West said she did not want to be protected) and is being subjected to an unconscionable delay before she is brought to trial – it is already 11 months since she was charged, the case has been adjourned three times and no new trial date set (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/emma-west-trial-delayed-for-the-third-time/).

One last case. The England and Chelsea footballer John Terry was charged with racially aggravated public order offences when he was alleged to have called the black QPR defender Anton Ferdinand “a f**king black c**t” during a Premiership match between Chelsea and QPR in 2011. Terry’s defence was that he had not called Ferdinand that but thought Ferdinand had accused him of using the words and said to him “I didn’t call you a f**king black c**t”.

A court accepted this version and found him not guilty in July this year, but that was not the end of the matter. Once again the Football Association (FA) acted and effectively tried Terry on the same charges, found him guilty and fined him heavily and banned him for four matches. ). That of course is simply a sporting body and not a court making the judgement, but it at best creates a public mood of fear of saying anything contentious which could possibly be construed as racist. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9568184/John-Terry-found-guilty-of-racially-abusing-QPRs-Anton-Ferdinand-in-FA-hearing-and-handed-four-match-ban.html). Moreover, it was a very sinister development because Terry was adjudged guilty by the FA regardless of the context of the words he uttered. The FA found that the uttering of words to deny having said them with an intent to abuse is an offence if the words are deemed racist. Most dangerous. It could in principle mean that a writer of fiction could be held to be racist because he creates a racist character. Improbable? Well, as luck would have it the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, has just run into trouble for doing precisely that. In her first adult novel The casual vacancy she has a Sikh woman portrayed in unflattering fashion by a character who is a racist. Sikhs in Britain are up in arms threatening to stop it being sold in India and possibly banned in Britain because it portrays a Sikh unfavourably (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9580177/First-Middle-England-now-Rowlings-novel-upsets-Sikhs-as-well.html).

There is a further problem with the increasing numbers of prosecutions being undertaken for alleged racially-aggravated offences. The prosecuting authorities and the courts do not operate an even-handed approach. The most outrageous example I have come across is the treatment by four Somali girls of a white woman Rhea Page. The Somalis viciously attacked Miss Page -a video of the attack can be found here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p. Despite the fact that Somalis were screaming “white slag” and other racist terms at her, the judge found the attack was not racially motivated and, amazingly, did not impose prison sentences on the Somalis.

Despite the uncertainty and double standards , it is reasonable to think that the following would leave a party or individual open to criminal prosecution :

1. Any statement which claimed that mass immigration was an unalloyed ill.

2. Any statement which claimed that the permitting of mass immigration is the most fundamental form of treason.

3. Any statement which claimed that mass immigration is a form of conquest by means other than force of arms.

4. Any statement which advocated the forced expulsion of immigrants.

5. Any statement which claimed that an ethnic or racial minority has cultural values and practices which are incompatible with British society.

6. Any statement which claimed that a racial or social minority commits more crime than the native British population.

7 . Any statement which claimed that a religion favoured by an ethnic minority is antipathetic to British society.

8. The use of the words black, brown or yellow as an adjective where it is attached to a statement which is critical of a person.

9. Any statement claiming or suggesting that there are biological differences between races which mean that different races have innately different capacities.

Race is undoubtedly the prime driver of prosecutions for simply expressing opinions, but increasing police attention is being given to statements about homosexuals (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206108/Daniel-Thomas-Footballer-posted-homophobic-Tweet-Tom-Daley-charged.html)) and recently there have been swelling attempts to bring abuse of the disabled into the police investigation net. Words judged to be insulting to women are, as far as I can discover, as yet not the subject of police action, but give it time and surely they will be because any person with a public voice who makes comments which deviate from the pc line that women are just like men is likely to be shouted down by the liberal media and its cronies.

But it is not only overtly politically incorrect statements which have attracted the attention of the police and the courts. Once it is allowed that words deemed insulting or upsetting can be criminalised, nothing but nothing is beyond the reach of the law. In the political sphere this can stop criticism of a politician. Recently it was revealed that two MPs and two peers reported twitter abuse to the police (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9558464/Two-MPs-and-two-peers-go-to-police-over-Twitter-abuse.html). The revelation of these attempts by politicians to have members of the public investigated by the police resulted in this statement by Jeremy Browne, the junior Home Office minister: “The Government are not seeking to criminalise bad manners, unkind comments, or idiotic views.”

But he went on: “The Government are reforming measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, regardless of whether it occurs offline or online.

“To continue to support professionals to help and protect victims, we are introducing simpler and more effective powers that, where appropriate, agencies can use flexibly to deal with antisocial individuals who cause misery and distress to others.”

The Crown Prosecution Service is drawing up the first guidelines on social media abuse, following concerns that too many people were being prosecuted for making one-off offensive comments that were intended to be funny and not directed at specific individuals.

I think we can all see where that is goings, straight down the path to censorship of political complaint. The present reality is any statement whether spoken, written or broadcast which is not anodyne and written in cautiously polite language potentially puts its creator at risk of prosecution.

All of these assaults on free expression are taking place when the politically correct have a stranglehold on British society through their control of the state and the mass media. No political party which radically challenges the pc creed has any chance of being in government or any likelihood of gaining a seat in the Commons. Yet the strangling of contrary opinion is becoming ever fiercer. Imagine what they would do if a political force which did unambiguously oppose political correctness looked as though it might gain seats in the Commons.

No free expression, no democracy

In a true democracy there can be no restriction on speech because the full range of political opinions and policies must be available to be debated and implemented. Equally importantly if is the ultimate guarantor of freedom. Authoritarian states can only survive if free expression is crushed. Make free expression an absolute legal right and no dictatorship could be established; bring free expression into a dictatorship and it will dissolve the dictatorship.

John Milton famously and eloquently identified the power of free debate three and a half centuries ago: ‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

Anybody putting forward a case for censorship needs to explain why they cannot let “truth and falsehood” contend . I have never met anyone who could provide a meaningful reason. Their arguments are always once removed from the issue of free expression: its denial is always justified in terms of the imagined hurt, whether to feelings or violence, the disapproved of words will cause not on the grounds that the words are true or false.

The Leveller leader John Lilburne never ceased urging people in his struggles with the Parliamentary leaders in the English civil war to resist tyranny with the words “What they do to me today they may do to you tomorrow”. That is a maxim for all people of any time who wish to remain free.

http://ics-www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=ks&folder=13&paper=130

——————————————————————————————————————————

BNP ‘whites-only’ membership rules outlawed

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party’s rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

Peter Walker

The Guardian, Saturday 13 March 2010

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

The British National party was plunged into chaos yesterday, weeks before the general election, when a court ordered it to remove central beliefs and policies about race from its constitution.

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

In a further blow to the party’s election hopes, it was ordered to pay an estimated £60,000 in legal costs. The bill could rise to £100,000 when its own legal fees are included.

Collins ruled in favour of the commission, ordering the BNP to remove the offending clauses by Monday afternoon or face potential legal penalties.

The EHRC head of legal enforcement, Susie Uppal, said: “Political parties, like any organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members.”

A spokesman for the anti-fascist campaign group Searchlight said: “This judgment is a personal humiliation for Nick Griffin. The BNP has been proven in court to be as racist and extremist as ever.”

The millionaire Asian businessman Mo Chaudry, who had said he would apply to join the party to “fight them from the inside”, welcomed the ruling. He said: “This was the only decision that could have been made today. There was no alternative.”

The decision follows weeks of wrangling over the legality of the far-right party’s membership criteria. After the EHRC challenge last year, BNP members voted at an extraordinary general meeting a month ago to scrap the whites-only clause. BNP critics argue the party has no genuine interest in recruiting non-white members and is doing the minimum to avoid legal action and court costs.

An internal BNP memo seen by the Guardian this week told members that the party had not “gone soft”. It continued: “We don’t expect any more than a handful of people of ethnic minority origin to apply to join the party nationally, and we will not let this deflect us from our political objectives of saving Britain and restoring the primacy of the indigenous British people.”

Emma West trial delayed for the third time

Robert Henderson

The trial of Emma West on racially aggravated public order offences has been delayed for the third time ( http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Emma-West-trial-adjourned-time/story-16820636-detail/story.html ). No further date has been set. The trial was originally scheduled for June, then July and finally September 5^th. The ostensible reason for the latest delay is the same as it was previously, further psychiatric reports are being sought by the prosecution.

It is true that cases can be delayed several times for reasons which are entirely legitimate. Further evidence directly relating to the immediate facts of the case, that is, what happened rather than why it happened, may be being sought with a reasonable chance of success. Examples would be where witnesses have not been interviewed because they are not in the country, but are believed to be returning in the foreseeable future or documents are being withheld by a body such as a bank and their release or otherwise is the subject of ongoing court action. But there is nothing like that here, for the delay is simply down to further psychiatric reports being wanted. That is something largely within the control of those commissioning them. The fact that it is the prosecution which is asking for more reports is highly significant because it suggests that the ones they have already commissioned are not to their liking, that is, they are detrimental to the prosecution.

The case is not that complex. The prosecution have the recording. They have had ample time to test it to see if it has been tampered with. As the delay in trying the case is ascribed solely to the need for psychiatric reports, presumably the prosecution either have witness statements from the person who filmed the incident and possibly others amongst the people present or have decided that their evidence is not required for a prosecution.

There is a further consideration. Because of the extensive mainstream media publicity given to the case, and the fact that it deals with the most politically toxic subject in modern Britain, namely, race, this is a high-profile prosecution. The case was given further potency in the public’s mind because Ms West was put in a high security prison “for her own safety” .

Compare the time taken in Ms West’s case compared with that of the England footballer John Terry’s case for racially abusing the black QPR player Anton Ferdinand. The two cases are similar. Terry pleaded not guilty and the evidence against him were recordings of the game in which he was alleged to have made the remarks. If Terry’s trial had gone ahead when it was first scheduled rather than being delayed by his defence asking for a delay, the case would probably have been tried in April or May (the delay of the trial was granted on 2 February). That would have been only six or seven months after the alleged offence – the alleged offence took place on 31 October 2011. (Terry was found not guilty when the case was tried).

Ms West first appeared in court was charged on 28^th November 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/29/woman-court-racist-abuse-tram). Thus more than nine months have passed since charges were brought against her. Because no future trial date has been set it is probable that a year or more will have elapsed before she is brought to court, if indeed, she ever is tried.

Why is there this ever more unreasonable delay? It could be that the CPS are simply hoping that if they request enough psychiatric reports , sooner or later one will meet their purposes. But I doubt that is the reason, because psychiatric reports not favourable to the prosecution could become strong defence evidence. More probable reasons for the delay are that the CPS is hoping the stress of the delay will cause Ms West to change her plea to guilty or they are simply paralysed by her intended plea of Not Guilty and simply do not know what to do.

The CPS’ difficulties have been made more difficult with the appearance on YouTube of a black woman engaging in violently anti-white rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ1D2LCsao). She was arrested and questioned by the police in late August (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191075/Racist-rant-London-bus-Police-investigate-outburst-passenger-posted-YouTube.html). This rant is crudely abusive of white people:

‘I’m so glad. I’m born black and I’ll die black. I was born African and I’ll f****** die African.’

‘The only reason I was born in this country is because you f****** people brought my people here.’

‘My parents are f****** African, born in Jamaica. And I’m f****** African, born in England and I can’t stand you white people, I tell you.’

‘I don’t care what none of you lot got to say because at the end of the day if you lot would have had a choice you will f****** go with your people and I’ll go with mine.

‘Free speech. I hate white people. I can’t stand none of you.’

Unlike the Emma West case the mainstream media coverage of this anti-white racism has been minimal. I have been unable to find any details of whether the woman has been charged or who she is. If anyone has such information please let me know.

If this case is not prosecuted or if Ms West is prosecuted first and is given a prison sentence, it would be difficult for the woman in the video quoted from above not to receive similar treatment if not more severe treatment as her comments were vulgarly racist while Ms West is simply complaining about the fact that her country has been invaded through mass immigration.

The problem for the CPS (and the British elite generally) is that while it may suit their politically correct purposes to have the occasional prosecution of a native white Briton for alleged racism for the purposes of intimidation of the native British population as a whole, such prosecutions carry three great dangers for the elite. The first is that the occasional Briton who is charged will fail to play ball and plead guilty accompanied by a Maoist-style confession of abject horror at their behaviour. Even a few trials where the defendant pleads not guilty is potentially very damaging, especially if the defence is based on the grounds of free expression and the right to dissent from the liberal internationalist credo on multiculturalism, mass immigration and the joy of diversity. This could be a fear in the prosecution’s mind in Ms West’s case.

The second danger is that the British elite cannot afford to have too many prosecutions of native Britons because that just looks too much like a police state. What the elite prefer, at least for the present, are the police “investigating” alleged racist crimes with absolutely no intention of bringing charges. The idea here is that the police can rely on the media to give such cases wide publicity, which publicity serves the purposes of intimidating the native British population without the need for trials.

The third danger stems from the fact that ethnic and racial minorities in Britain are, as anyone who lives in a racially and ethnically mixed area knows (I have done so for over 40 years) , generally much more likely to engage in outright , vulgar and unambiguous racism, both directed at native Britons and by one minority against another, than native Britons. This is rarely if ever admitted or even raised as a possibility in the mainstream media , but the rise of photophones and websites such as YouTube probably means that quite a few racist rants by those ethnic and racial minorities will reach public attention. That presents the authorities with a dilemma: either they stop prosecuting native white Britons who are recorded being racist (or what passes for racist in the Brave New World of politically correct Britain) or they have to prosecute racial and ethnic minorities for the same thing. An even handed approach would probably lead to an embarrassingly large number of prosecutions of racial and ethnic minorities. This would be anathema to the politically correct British elite because their view of race is that only white people can be racist.

More pressingly for the elite, large numbers of prosecutions of ethnic and racial minorities would undermine the politically correct propaganda that racial and ethnic diversity is an unalloyed joy good for any society. This is of fundamental importance, because any elite which is in the grip of an ideology can sustain that ideology only while they control the media . Let free debate into the public fold and the ideology is done for. Milton had it correctly: ‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state

Emma West of New Addington, London has been arrested and placed in “protective custody” following the publication on YouTube of a two minute 25 sec recording labelled by the YouTube poster as “Racist British Woman on the Tram goes CRAZY at Everyone ! (Must watch!)” You can find the recording at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8IlOBKaeTI.

Here is a partial transcript of what was said during the recording published in the Daily Mail : ‘What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of ****ing Polish. A load of ****ing, yeah… you’re all ****ing… do you know what I mean?

‘You ain’t English. No, you ain’t English either. You ain’t English. None of you’s ****ing English. Get back to your own ****ing… do you know what sort out your own countries, don’t come and do mine.

‘It’s nothing now. Britain is nothing now. Britain is **** all. My Britain is **** all.

‘Yeah its fine. I have got a little kid here. Have respect? I have a little boy here. **** you. I dare you, I ****ing dare you.

‘Don’t watch my language. Go back to where you come from, go back to ****ing Nicaragua or where ever you come from. Just ****ing go back.

‘I work, I work, I work, this is my British country until we let you lot come over.

‘So what. It is my British country, you ain’t British. Are you British? You ain’t ****ing British. **** off.

‘You ain’t British, you’re black. Where do you come from?

‘No, someone’s got to talk up for these lot. Look the whole ****ing tram, look at them. Who is black and who is white.

‘There is all black and ****ing burnt people.’

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067557/Youre-British-youre-black-Woman-charged-racially-aggravated-harassment-vile-rant-aboard-tram.html#ixzz1fBE50Xkd)

Her delivery gives her words an articulacy which is not apparent from a transcript. As you listen to her try not to be distracted by the copious swearing because the woman is a white working class Londoner, or at least part of what Jerome K Jerome called “greater Cockneydom”, and the effing and blinding goes with the territory. She is also speaking in a very stressful situation and allowance has to be made for that.

She does not come across as thick. The fact that she has worked as a dental receptionist suggests that she is at least reasonably bright. She is also respectably dressed and there is nothing in her appearance to mark her out as being mentally ill or on the margins of society. Her son (aged between two and three I would judge) is smartly dressed and generally looks well cared for. (Contrary to some press reports, the child looks unfazed throughout ). I can see no sign that she was significantly drunk or under the influence of drugs.

The teasing question is why someone like her would take such a chance, both from the view of what the police might do in oh so politically Britain and the risk to her and her young son of saying such things in a carriage filled with ethnic minorities and white immigrants. We do not know what happened just before the recording begins. It could be that she was somehow provoked by being in a dispute with someone. But her first words in the recording are “’What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of ****ing Polish” and throughout the recording she seems to be addressing the general point of mass immigration and its consequences rather than having a particular quarrel with one person on the tram. Perhaps she started sounding off generally after a specific occurrence, for example, someone ethnic brushing against her or perhaps someone foreign making a disparaging remark about Britain or England. It could even have been simply being in an enclosed environment and hearing nothing but foreign voices in her ears.

But if it was any of those things it would only give us the trigger for her behaviour. There would still be the question of why Miss West would express such views. I suggest it was simply desperation. She lives her life constantly bombarded by the multicultural propaganda and unlike the white liberal; elite probably encounters circumstances every day in which she finds herself in the ethnic minority in her own country. She will feel that her country has been invaded, whilst at the same time being denied any opportunity to protest or have any mainstream politician put her point of view. That type of drip, drip pressure on the most vital thing to any human being – the ethnic nature of your society – can build a rage within a person like no other.

Since the posting of the video on YouTube other recordings of white women on public transport expressing similar views have appeared, for example, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3969559/More-rail-racist-videos-emerge-online.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News. Miss West is far from being alone. Interestingly, there are also regular incidents of supposedly politically correct white liberals being crudely racist (http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/05/30/black-tv-presenter-called-a-nigger-at-the-baftas/). It is also a fact that white liberals have an uncanny ability to arrange their lives so that they live in very white, and in England, very English worlds, my favourite example of this being the English folk singer Billy Bragg who is wondrously right-on and lives in Dorset, arguably the whitest county in England. The truth is that white liberals are not only aware of the effects of mass immigration on the white working class, but have inside them exactly the same primal feelings about ethnicity and the invasion of territory that those who openly rail against the effects of mass immigration.

There is a great deal of suppressed anger amongst native Britons of all classes about the profound act of treason which is mass immigration. The liberal elite have suppressed dissent to the extent that most people have developed the mentality normally associated with totalitarian states, namely, a belief not that certain views are morally wrong but, rather, that they are not to be spoken because they are dangerous for anyone might be a potential police informer. But the resentment is still there and growing. It will become an unstoppable political energy if a mainstream political party has the courage to release it by offering the electorate an end to mass immigration and the removal of all the apparatus created by the state which places ethnic and racial minorities in a privileged position and the native population under the ideological hammer.

The retention of Miss West in “protective” custody is positively sinister, as is the suggestion Miss West is mentally ill. It is reminiscent of the Soviet Union and Communist China still. Both are indicative of the fear the British elite have of the truth about immigration being told. They fear this because it would both dismantle the world which they have built (and which has often enough provided them with a very decent income) and the fact that the finger of blame for the treason would be pointed at them.

That the white liberal’s position is purely political and self-serving rather than principled can be seen by the tolerance they extend to racial and ethnic minorities, especially blacks, when they make nakedly racist comments about whites. The black Labour MP Diane Abbott was allowed to remain within the Labour Party despite complaining in 1996 about the employment of “Blonde, blue-eyed Finish nurses” instead of black West Indian ones (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20066) , while the great black liberal totem is the unreservedly racist Muhammad Ali (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/muhammad-ali-and-the-white-liberals/). All the white liberal does is defend those of whom they approve.

Her son will have been taken into care if there is no relative to look after him. It will be interesting to see if he is, in effect, removed from his mother on the grounds that she holds “racist views”.