Category Archives: far-right

‘The Times’ describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”!

 

The Times Political Editor describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”! 

I couldn’t let Francis Elliott, the Times Political Editor, get away with outrageously describing Leave voters as “Xenophobic Insurgents” without responding.
Here is my letter to him:-
Dear Mr Elliott
Re: Times Article, July 18th:- “Tory turmoil could lead to Far-Right revival” 
With respect, your heading betrays the unanalytical nature of your article.  You used the smear expression “Far-Right” which is intended to obscure rather than to highlight actual policy positions.  You then claimed a “revival” despite the fact that for several decades now there has not really been any patriotic or nationalist challenge to the British Political Establishment Lib/Lab/Con which has dominated “British” politics since the Second World War. 
You rightly discuss the likely consequences of the Conservative Party’s destruction of its own creditability over Brexit as either competent or patrioticor honest.  It is also true that, if Corbyn’s Labour was to be given a chance at government, Labour would prove to be internationalist, anti-patriotic, multi-culturalist and pro-immigration.  This is virtually a checklist of the very things that English blue collar workers most despise.  Such a Labour Government would be very likely to complete the divorce between the traditional “white working class” and Labour – a path which has already been trod by almost all of Labour’s sister parties in Western Europe!
The anomaly of the UK State is that it is a unique, unfair, unequal and illogical mishmash of nations.  This constitutional anomaly has to be sorted out before England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland can become fully normal modern democratic nation states. 
If in the process of sorting this out our politics can shed our grandiose “Legacy Parties” and replace them with a modern party structure where policies chime with the various blocks of ideological opinion rather than cut across them – as our current ones do – then so much the better.  Whether that amounts to “fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents” well that is – “hard to know”! I will leave you to resolve your own loaded question!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
Here is Mr Elliott’s article
Tory turmoil could lead to a far‑right revival
Leave voters’ sense of betrayal over Brexit and fear of immigration create the perfect conditions for a new protest party
Our views on race, immigration and Brexit are full of contradictions. But taken together, this jumble of prejudices and ideas is about to change the shape of British politics.
The return to dominance of the two main parties, which saw Labour and the Conservatives share around 80 per cent of the vote, was one of the most surprising consequences of the referendum two years ago.
It left many in the centre ground pining for a new party. But it now seems likely that it’s on the right, rather than on the middle ground, that a new force will appear.
In three recent polls, Ukip has seen an uptick at the expense of the Conservatives. It could be the first sign of the governing party’s electoral coalition unravelling as voters react negatively to Theresa May’s Brexit compromise agreed at Chequers.
Although Ukip is the current beneficiary, the moribund party riven by factionalism looks no more able to revive itself than the Liberal Democrats. Prepare for a new organisation entirely.
At first sight, immigration doesn’t appear to be a factor in the discontent felt by voters. The number of Britons identifying immigration as the most important issue has declined steeply since 2016, while the number identifying Brexit has risen on a similarly striking gradient. But taken together, concern about immigration and the delivery of Brexit mark those who feel disenfranchised by the Westminster establishment, and explain the outrage felt by some voters towards Mrs May’s Chequers plan. It is an uncomfortable truth that just over a quarter of respondents in a recent British Social Attitudes survey said they were “very” or a “little” prejudiced towards people of other races.
Brexiteers react with fury to any suggestion that race played a part in the vote to leave the EU. They are also the first to suggest that a betrayal of the referendum result will unleash an ugly populist backlash.
Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire, is the latest to sound the alarm. “The Chequers deal has disenfranchised voters,” she tweeted this week. “People tell me . . . that it was the ‘last straw’ and if a charismatic figure stood heading a new party they would vote for him/her. Sounds like we could be heading for our very own Trump/Macron/Robinson.”
She was criticised for appearing to treat Tommy Robinson, former leader of the far-right, anti-Muslim English Defence League, as a mainstream politician. Robinson was jailed in May for contempt of court and his appeal against his sentence is due to be heard today. As Ms Dorries later made clear, her tweet was a warning, not an endorsement.
But Robinson’s anti-migrant creed has no shortage of high-profile supporters. Here is Donald Trump, speaking alongside Theresa May after their Chequers summit last week, on the damage the president believes migration is doing to the cultural fabric of Europe: “I just think it’s changing the culture. I think it’s a very negative thing for Europe. I think it’s very negative,” he said.
“And I know it’s politically not necessarily correct to say that. But I’ll say it and I’ll say it loud. And I think they better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security.”
Sam Brownback, the US ambassador for international religious freedom, is reported to have warned Sir Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, that “if Britain did not treat [Tommy] Robinson more sympathetically, the Trump administration might be compelled to criticise Britain’s handling of the case”.
Mr Trump’s son, Donald Junior, has tweeted support for Robinson. A US think-tank, Middle East Forum, helped to organise a rally in support of him in London and sent a Republican Congressman, Paul Gosar, to speak in his support.
Robinson is just one possible candidate to lead whatever replaces Ukip as the repository of protest votes, powered by alt-right cash. Generation Identity, an Austrian nationalist movement, is hovering at the political fringe. With slickly produced YouTube videos and clean-cut provocateurs, it is waiting to leap on any grievance in Britain that can serve its narrative of an apocalyptic clash of civilisations.
It is worth imagining what British politics will be like if Mrs May does, after all, squeeze a version of her Chequers compromise through Brussels. For most of the period between March 29, 2019, when we formally leave the union, and the next general election in 2022, Britain will be paying its full dues to an organisation over which it has no control. What’s more, every politician other than Mrs May will have a vested interest in stoking discontent over the terms of our departure. It is probable that she won’t even be in No 10 to defend it four years from now.
If this isn’t fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents, it’s hard to know what is. For the Tories, it could get even worse. Those now urging a delay in our departure next March are ignoring one large obstacle. If we are still in the EU, Britain must take part in elections to the European parliament next May. These polls are already causing great anxiety in Brussels, where the Commission fears they could return a majority of Eurosceptic MEPs from across the member states, with fatal consequences for the federalist dream.
Senior ministers say that Brussels will find a way to refuse any request to extend our negotiating period because it fears that Britain’s participation in the Euro-election would only inflame the Continental populist revolt.
Just as likely, they know that the Conservative Party would suffer an almighty drubbing in such a poll because it would be outflanked on the right by a populist nationalist party offering a “real Brexit”. That day of reckoning may simply be postponed until the next general election. By then, Labour may find itself in a corresponding bind to the Tories, if a new centrist party ever gets its act together.
The outcome of that election will be determined by which of the two main parties suffers most from the unravelling of forces responsible for their current dominance.
Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-turmoil-could-lead-to-far-right-revival-thw8slrq5

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM EAST!

RIGHT WING WOES IN LEWISHAM 
It was always a bad idea for any sort of patriotic party to be standing in the Lewisham East by-election.  Let me explain why and please bear with me in being brutally honest about it.
When I was aware that the Labour MP, Heidi Alexander, was stepping down and causing a by-election in the Lewisham East constituency, I was immediately very doubtful as to whether it was worth the English Democrats standing there.  Although I should say that I would never discourage any of our members from standing even in the most unpromising areas if they really want to do so and have the necessary resources to do so.  Even in the most discouraging constituencies there may be some potential converts to the Cause of England!
Lewisham East is certainly such a seat.  Looking at the 2011 Census results Lewisham is a place where relatively few people identified as being “English” and surprisingly few even identified as being in any sense multi-cultural “British”.  
Since 2011 the misleadingly named “Conservative” Party (which actually is led by “Liberal” zealots) has continued with the unrestricted, uncontrolled mass immigration of New Labour and so every single year since then half a million or more immigrants have come to England, many of them settling in places like Lewisham.  That together with “white flight” or the continuing movement of English people out of such places, has led to a near total population displacement where the indigenous English population is largely absent. 
In an area where the indigenous populations are still there, what we see across Western Europe is that the patriotic and nationalist vote rarely exceeds 50% and is usually not more than 30%.  
Because of the way electoral politics works people should not get discouraged at that percentage because a block vote of 30% of the electorate would generally get the candidate elected.  That is of course unless the 30% is split up amongst various parties, as is the case at present in England, with the Conservative Party in particular always standing as a spoiler even in the most unpromising seats for the Conservative Party. 
The “Conservative” objective in doing so is of course to prevent any other party from breaking through, even where they do not actually want to win that constituency.  
This Tory strategem is very much like the Aesop’s Fable of ‘The dog in the Manger’!  

The top of this article is the picture of ‘The dog in the Manger’. Here is that story:-

“A Dog was lying in a Manger full of hay. 
An Ox, being hungry, came near and was going to eat of the hay. 
The Dog, getting up and snarling at him, would not let him touch it. 
“Surly creature,” said the Ox, ” you cannot eat the hay yourself, and yet you will let no one else have any.””
Sure enough in Lewisham the Conservatives and most of the parties to the Left were putting up what is now rather curiously (in such constituencies) still called ethnic minority candidates even where the real ethnic minority in such a constituency would be “White English”!
UKIP put up a black “ethnic minority” their popular London Assembly Member David Kurten.  
The new and it seems politically naive ‘Democrats and Veterans Party’ put up the splendidly named Massimo Dimambro who had 2013 votes in Lewisham Deptford for UKIP in 2015.
Anne Marie Waters who is the Leader of her own new UKIP splinter party which she has called the anodyne “For Britain” very unwisely put herself up to stand in this constituency.  She got 266 votes this time under her new flag compared with the last election where she stood in the constituency then as UKIP candidate when she got 3886 votes!  
Judging from comments on social media it would seem that some of her supporters had got sucked into thinking that she might have been able to do well in this constituency.  For the reasons that I have explained above that was always going to be difficult. 
I had predicted that UKIP, For Britain and the Democrats and Veterans Party together would not get 5%.  In the event combined they got 3.2%.  
Even adding in the Conservative spoiler Candidate’s 3,161 the total Right of center vote was only 3874 which is 12 short of just UKIP’s vote in 2015.
A point of debate was which of them would avoid being beaten by the Monster Raving Loony Party.  In the event the ones beaten by the Loonies were the Democrats and Veterans Party. Anne Marie Walters managed to avoid that fate by a margin of 173 votes. 
It would be interesting to see what the paltry results in this by-election will have on the future development of UKIP, The Democrats and Veterans Party and in particular on the For Britain Party, whose leader Anne Marie Waters had staked so much of her credibility on making a reasonable showing here.

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

On Friday the 15th September there was another Islamist terror attack in England on London’s Underground. The home-made bomb partially went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.

When it was first being reported very shortly after it had happened, there were various pictures and clips which had been filmed on people’s mobile phones put up onto the internet in which you could see what was happening, including the above picture of the bomb.

The initial reports were of people who were in the carriage and who heard it go off who said that it wasn’t a bang, it was a sort of “whoomp”. There was a smell, smoke and some flames. People were desperate to get off the tube train and there was a wild panic to get off the station away from the train in which people were injured in the ensuing stampede.

At first the mainstream media were talking up the possibility that this attack could have been done by “Far-Right Extremists”. As their hopes of that faded there was an increasing unwillingness in the mainstream media, whether it be Sky, ITV or BBC, to report on what type of people were thought to be the perpetrators.

Even though it has since become clear that the people who have been arrested so far are young male Muslim “refugees” it is only recently that it has become crystal clear that the principle suspect is one of the Syrian child refugees that so much fuss was made about to bring them over to England. This was regardless of such and with no attempt to vet whether they were dangerous or not. Well now we know of course that at least some of them are going to prove to be dangerous Jihadists! So much for the effectiveness of our British authorities in showing any interest in looking after our own People!

One thing however that was striking on the day as reporting of the news story progressed on Friday was that, by the 6 o’clock BBC Radio 4 news, the BBC was reporting that the bomb had “exploded”, that there had been a “wall of flame” and that “29 people had been injured”, the obvious implication being, to anybody who didn’t know better, that the people were injured by the bomb, rather than as they actually were by the panic and stampede to escape from the station. The bomb of course did not “explode”. The videos at the time showed that there was not a “wall of flame”, at most the flames were a foot high and perhaps only six inches high.

What better example of fake news could you get than this distortion from the BBC?

The question that then arises is why would they do it? But then you have to think what Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has been saying in response to Islamist attacks in London. After the car ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge he said:-


“Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days – no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.

“I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.

“But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can.”

After the van rammings and knife attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market he said:-

“Our city is filled with great sorrow and anger tonight but also great resolve and determination because our unity and love for one another will always be stronger than the hate of the extremists.

“This is our city. These are our values and this is our way of life. London will never be broken by terrorism we will step up the fight against extremism and we will defeat the terrorists.”

And:-

“I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.

“London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.

“We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.”

In stark contrast to these remarks however, after the attack on Muslims near the Finsbury mosque, he said:-

“The Met have deployed extra police to reassure communities, especially those observing Ramadan.”

The moral of these quotations seems to be that, whilst Muslims must be protected whatever the cost to taxpayers, the rest of us must simply get used to being attacked by Islamists.

This agenda is confirmed by what he is reported to have said in New York:-

“Living with terror attacks – like the one that hit New York at the weekend – is ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’.

‘It is a reality I’m afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.

‘That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice.”

In short what people like Sadiq Khan want to happen is that the general population accepts the story that these sorts of Jihadi terror attacks are now simply part and parcel of living in a big city, rather than what they obviously actually are, accordingly to common-sense: Which is the consequence of the British Establishment allowing unrestricted immigration by large numbers of unvetted Muslims, often from very troubled parts of the world, who too often bring their wars and their Jihadi mentality with them!

It should also be noted that when Islamists get involved in suicide bombing or other suicidal terrorist activity, their focus is currently being completely misunderstood by the authorities and, in particular being mis-reported by the mainstream media.

What we have to understand is that a Jihadist deciding to undertake such a mission is thinking of it not in terms of a “suicide mission”, but of a “martyrdom operation”. This explains why the London Bridge terrorists were wearing fake suicide vests. The point of doing so was to make sure that the police wouldn’t try to capture them and instead would shoot them dead!

It should be remembered that the point of a “martyrdom operation” is obviously to be martyred and is therefore done in reliance on the statements in the Koran and the Haddith that he who dies in Jihad will automatically go to Paradise and be rewarded by Allah with celestial virgins in a jewelled palace for eternity!

Jihadists truly believe that this is what will happen to them if they die in Jihad. So if their life has not been lived fully accordingly to Muslim law then they are a person who is more likely to feel that a “martyrdom operation” will get him to paradise, despite his sins, than if he had lived a blameless life.

It therefore makes no sense for commentators to talk about the fact that some pf those Jihadists who commit martyrdom operations have not lived strict Muslim lives!

We need to realise that the killing of unbelievers in a “martyrdom operation” is not the goal of the operation; it is merely the goalposts which enable the goal to be scored. That is getting into Paradise by being killed whilst on Jihad.

No wonder the mainstream media do not want people to understand what is going on because if they did then maybe the demand to end Muslim immigration would rise from its current opinion poll rating of about 47% to a pitch where almost everybody who was not a Muslim would be saying no to any further Muslim immigration!

Rumours of Far-right groups being “proscribed” by the Home Secretary

Rumours of Far-right groups being “proscribed” by the Home Secretary


For the last few weeks there had been rumours circulating that the current Home Secretary intends to ban a small neo-Nazi group called “National Action”. This is the same repellent Amber Rudd of the spiteful personal attacks on Boris Johnson (when she was losing in the EU referendum debates).

Ms Rudd is said to be particularly anxious to ban a “Far-right” group or party, probably mainly out of the multi-culturalist, tokenist urge not to “profile” Islamists, but instead to balance proscriptions against their organisations with a diversity of political opinion and racial stereo-types!

Here is the Home Office Press announcement:-

National Action has today become the first extreme right-wing group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

An order laid in Parliament on Monday (12 December) to proscribe National Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 has now come into effect following debates in the Houses of Parliament. As a result, being a member – or inviting support for – the organisation will be a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

National Action is a neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013 and has branches across the UK. It has been proscribed following an assessment that it is ‘concerned in terrorism’. The group’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. National Action also promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism after Jo Cox’s murder.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said:

As Home Secretary, I am clear that the safety and security of our families, communities and country comes first.

National Action is a racist, antisemitic and homophobic organisation which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology. It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone.

Proscribing it will prevent its membership from growing, stop the spread of poisonous propaganda and protect vulnerable young people at risk of radicalisation from its toxic views.

Decisions about whether to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information. 

The Home Secretary took the decision to proscribe National Action prior to the trial of Thomas Mair, who was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Jo Cox MP. 

National Action becomes the 71st organisation to be proscribed, alongside 14 organisations connected to Northern Ireland. 
(All the rest of the proscribed groups look as if they are Islamists).

Here is a link 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-action-becomes-first-extreme-right-wing-group-to-be-banned-in-uk

Now that such a ban has been ordered against “National Action”, the question might be what from a lawyer’s perspective could they do about it?

The ironic thing is that probably the main thing that they could do about it is take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. This is the Court which deals with the European Convention of Human Rights (and is not the EU Court, which is the European Court of Justice).

However the start point for any lawyer is of course the legislation which applies to the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. The relevant legislation would appear to be the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended).

Bearing in mind that terrorism was robustly and successfully dealt with relating to the IRA you might have thought (and be right) that there were more than sufficient crimes on the statute book to enable Islamist terrorists to be dealt with.

That of course is not the thought process of the current British Political Establishment which is often very much more concerned with appearance than the substance. So there has been constant tinkering with often trifling amendments to the legislation and Home Secretaries regularly conceal total failure to do anything useful by introducing a new bit of legislation, in the probably successful hope that that will enable them to bamboozle their Party colleagues and ill-informed journalists that something is being done!

In this case the Terrorism Act, even though only on the statute book in 2000, has already been tinkered with. But the current version of the relevant clauses are as follows:-

Terrorism Act 2000

2000 c. 11Part II Procedure Section 3


Proscription.

(1)For the purposes of this Act an organisation is proscribed if—

(a)it is listed in Schedule 2, or

(b)it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule.

(2)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in Schedule 2 if its entry is the subject of a note in that Schedule.

(3)The Secretary of State may by order—

(a)add an organisation to Schedule 2;

(b)remove an organisation from that Schedule;

(c)amend that Schedule in some other way.

(4)The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.

(5)For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a)commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b)prepares for terrorism,

(c)promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d)is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

[F1(5A)The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—

(a)include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or

(b)are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.

(5B)The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as—

(a)conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or

(b)conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated.

(5C)In this section—
“glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly;
“statement” includes a communication without words consisting of sounds or images or both.]

[F2(6)Where the Secretary of State believes—

(a)that an organisation listed in Schedule 2 is operating wholly or partly under a name that is not specified in that Schedule (whether as well as or instead of under the specified name), or

(b)that an organisation that is operating under a name that is not so specified is otherwise for all practical purposes the same as an organisation so listed,

he may, by order, provide that the name that is not specified in that Schedule is to be treated as another name for the listed organisation.

(7)Where an order under subsection (6) provides for a name to be treated as another name for an organisation, this Act shall have effect in relation to acts occurring while—

(a)the order is in force, and

(b)the organisation continues to be listed in Schedule 2,

as if the organisation were listed in that Schedule under the other name, as well as under the name specified in the Schedule.

(8)The Secretary of State may at any time by order revoke an order under subsection (6) or otherwise provide for a name specified in such an order to cease to be treated as a name for a particular organisation.

(9)Nothing in subsections (6) to (8) prevents any liability from being established in any proceedings by proof that an organisation is the same as an organisation listed in Schedule 2, even though it is or was operating under a name specified neither in Schedule 2 nor in an order under subsection (6).]

(Click here for the original >>> 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/3)

This wording is worth studying. As is in particular this section:-

“(a)commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b)prepares for terrorism,

(c)promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d)is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

[F1(5A)The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—

(a)include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or

(b)are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.

(5B)The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as—

(a)conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or

(b)conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated”

These words show that the behaviour of the group that Ms Rudd has proscribed would have to have fallen into these categories. If the group has not behaved in that way then she will not have the legal power even in English Law to ban the group and the group I would say should apply to the High Court for Permission to Judicially Review.

The Permission stage of Judicial Review is relatively cheap but they should use a member of their group as the spearhead of the Judicial Review who has no assets or income, save for Welfare Benefits, so that if there is a Costs Order it cannot be enforced. Such person should first be given a prominent sounding office within the organisation.

If the challenge is being mounted, as I said on the basis that the group’s behaviour does not properly qualify for a ban to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act, then it will be worth raising the European Convention of Human Rights position which is directly applicable to English Law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In any case it might also be worth making a direct application straightaway to the European Court of Humans Rights for breach of the group’s human rights as set out in the Convention. This should be done anyway if the Judicial Review Application is rejected because even if the proscription is legal under the Act that will not necessarily make it so under the Convention.

Let us therefore turn to the relevant articles of the European Convention of Human Rights whose full title is:-

The European Convention on Human Rights 

(signed in ROME on 4 November 1950)


The relevant Articles are:-

“ARTICLE 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

“ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

“ARTICLE 11

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
(Here is a link to a source setting out the full Convention >>> http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html)

The way that Convention rights under the European Convention are interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights is that the general right at the beginning of each Article is subject only to the limited number of specified exceptions, as set out in the second part of the Article. 

So if Ms Rudd cannot bring the reason for her proscription within those exceptions then her action must be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and so illegal.

As you can see from the text that is likely to be difficult for her unless the “National Action” group has actually done something that would amount in common sense terms to terrorism, rather than the overly openly sweeping authoritarian and all-embracing provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended)!

All in all and speaking not only as somebody who is interested in politics, but also as a lawyer with direct experience of Human Rights cases, I would say that the prospects of a successful challenge to any proscription of any group that has not really been terrorist would be very good. There is also no reason why bringing the challenge should be expensive for any such group.

If on the other hand the group in question has been involved in actions which are within the normal meaning of the words terrorist, then of course the chances of a successful case against the Home Secretary would be minimal, provided she has followed the correct procedure as laid down in the legislation.

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LEFTIST LIES!


ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LEFTIST LIES!

We wrote recently to the “Gay” newspaper the Pink News to complain about them calling us “Far Right”. This was their typically barbed reply:-

“The English Democrats have been classified as a far-right party in many places, and by a number of independent academic studies – including two cited on your own Wikipedia page. I would suggest you direct complaints on this front to Katherine Tonkiss, author of Migration and Identity in a Post-National World, and Daniele Caramani, author of The Europeanization of Politics, both of whom classified your party as such from an independent academic standpoint. We, of course, assume you are not trying to stifle free expression of academics.”

I therefore wrote to both academics and here is my email to Dr Tonkiss:-

Dear Dr Tonkiss,

It has recently been claimed to us by the “Pink News” that you have claimed that the English Democrats are “Far Right” in your book “Migration and Identity in a Post-National World”. Is this correct?

If so why did you make such a claim?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman

Dr Tonkiss kindly replied:-

Dear Robin,

I can confirm that I do not refer to the English Democrats as ‘far right’ in my book.

I have noticed this morning that on the Wikipedia entry for the English Democrats, my book is listed as a source to support the classification of the party as ‘far right’. I cannot, as you know, control how my work is reported on Wikipedia, but I will be contacting the website today to request that the reference is removed given that this is not something that I state in my book.

With best wishes,

Dr. Katherine Tonkiss
Lecturer in Sociology and Policy
School of Languages and Social Sciences
Aston University

So there we have it! The smear against us is based on a lie.

British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness

British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness

Recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer, surprised many of those who are not paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”. 

It therefore suddenly became apparent to some of the newspaper reading public that the focus in combating “extremism” was shifting from what most members of the public had thought was the objective, which is to deal with the Jihadist threat from fundamentalist Muslims, to one where the Government was in fact focusing on crushing opposition to political correctness by using blatant and increasingly heavy handed Police State tactics.

For those prepared to do a little bit of research it is worth considering the elements of “CONTEST” which is the rather silly jargonistic name that the government has given to its “Counter Terrorism Strategy”.

“CONTEST” and its agenda is part of the reason why the police are now so busy, that in the words of the Head of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), Chief Constable Sara Thornton, that police should no longer be expected by the public to turn out for burglaries!

Instead of doing what the public would want our police to do, which is tackling old-fashioned crime and criminals, instead they are being used as part of the UK State’s enforcement of radical secularism, political correctness, multi-culturalism and diversity. That is the reason why so many people who have often merely made unpleasant or over-the-top remarks on Facebook are being treated more seriously than burglars.

One of the core elements of “CONTEST”, is “PREVENT”. Here is what the Government says “PREVENT” is about:-

“The Prevent strategy:
responds to the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views provides practical help to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure they are given appropriate advice and support works with a wide range of sectors (including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health) where there are risks of radicalisation that we need to deal with

The strategy covers all forms of terrorism, including far right extremism and some aspects of non-violent extremism. However, we prioritise our work according to the risks we face. For instance, following the death of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Prime Minister is leading a task force on tackling extremism and radicalisation. The special committee, which includes senior members of the cabinet and security chiefs, builds on the Prevent strategy.

The Home Office works with local authorities, a wide range of government departments, and community organisations to deliver the Prevent strategy. The police also play a significant role in Prevent, in much the same way as they do when taking a preventative approach to other crimes.

We use a range of measures to challenge extremism in the UK, including:
where necessary, we have prevented apologists for terrorism and extremism from travelling to this country
giving guidance to local authorities and institutions to understand the threat from extremism and the statutory powers available to them to challenge extremist speakers
funding a specialist police unit which works to remove online content that breaches terrorist legislation
supporting community based campaigns and activity which can effectively rebut terrorist and extremist propaganda and offer alternative views to our most vulnerable target audiences – in this context we work with a range of civil society organisations
supporting people who are at risk of being drawn into terrorist activity through the Channel process, which involves several agencies working together to give individuals access to services such as health and education, specialist mentoring and diversionary activities – more information on Channel can be found in the Channel Guidance and Channel Vulnerability Assessment”

Click here for the full article:- CONTEST, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

It should also be noted that ‘Extremism’ is now defined…. “as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values”. The “Fundamental British Values” are being defined as “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs“. It is the state enforcement of the last clause which is at odds with traditional values and traditional English Liberty.

In this new wort should perhaps therefore not be surprising that NHS workers for example are reporting that they have been forced to attend seminars on “PREVENT” with the entire focus of their being expected to deal with is the threat of “Far-Right extremists” such as the EDL. In refocusing “PREVENT” on attacking the EDL and, no doubt, shortly any expression of Englishness, the authorities are in full conformity with the way that various EU bodies have been urging that these counter attacks should be deployed across the whole of the EU against those with “Right-wing” views.

It is a salutary thought to remember that the first “terrorists” were in fact the “Left-wing” French revolutionaries using the coercive powers of the State to transform France through La Terreur! No doubt soon “Fundamental British Values” will be the revolutionary “declaration of the Rights of Man”!