Socialist Propaganda in British Education

If one were sound of mind, moral of character and decent at heart, which of the following two men would you like to see involved in the education of your children?

The first, Mr Ray Honeyford, (photo here) ex-headmaster of a multi-ethnic school in Bradford, England, considered his primary role to be that of producing academically well qualified and colour blind children who could be integrated into Western society whilst retaining a respect and affection for their own cultural heritage.

The second, a certain Professor Chris Mullard (photo here) had the following to say with regard to the education of black children:

"Already we have started to rebel, to kick out against our jailers…As more black Britons leave school disgruntled, as more black Britons discard their yoke of humility, the ultimate confrontation will become clearer…Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists and scorching resentment which, when peaceful means fail, will explode into street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting."

Professor Mullard, a self-described black Marxist with a violent revolutionary calling, is the author of Race, Power and Resistance and Black Britain from which the quote above was taken. He also has this to say about whites:

"Why does race matter so much? …I think part of the answer is that we mirror the horribleness and inhumanity of white society. We remind white society of the horrible things that were done in the name of whiteness. They see in us the devil in themselves. That goes deep down in popular consciousness."

Ray Honeyford also wrote an article centred on race. Published in The Salisbury Review in 1984, it suggested that British born children of Pakistani descent be taught in English rather than Urdu – detrimental as this was to their education; that they should cease travelling to Pakistan for months on end during term time - detrimental as this was to their education; and most damningly, that the classroom was no place for the Leftist inspired ideology of social engineering which he predicted would lead to the ghettoisation of British cities.

So a white man wanted to improve black and brown children, whilst a black man wanted to destroy the white race. If the two should clash, then the outcome in a sane country should be obvious. But Britain is not sane. It is sick. When Professor Mullard joined the ravening attack pygmies ranged against the moral giant that was Ray Honeyford, there was only ever going to be one winner. Mr Honeyford was chased from office amid accusations of racism in one of the most vicious campaigns ever mounted in British academia, to the total indifference of what was then a Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher.

Mr Honeyford, a working class man who had pulled himself up by his bootstraps to attain a master's degree and the headship of a large school was brutalised by the experience. He never taught again. Indeed, he was not allowed to ever teach again.

Professor Mullard on the other hand has gone from strength to strength. Where once he merely advised teacher training colleges on political indoctrination, he has now - no doubt off the back of the destruction of Ray Honeyford - been awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) for services to British education and currently sells his racist ideology to European governments and agencies as well as international organisations such as the OECD and UNESCO.

Mr Honeyford, a good, decent and non-racist man became an enemy of the state. Professor Mullard, an evil, racist Marxist was the state, and although it breaks my heart to have to say this, the state personified by Mullard in 1984 in now far, far worse after twelve years of Socialist government and the non-stop propaganda to which socialism is inherently wedded.

Propaganda is the most powerful tool in Socialism's obsessive and perpetual quest for social control and absolute power. Fear of the state is nowhere near as powerful as love of the state, and none more so than when love is conditioned from an early age.

During the Iraq/Iran war of 1980-1988, brainwashed parents happily sent brainwashed children to run through mine fields, thereby clearing a path for the less expendable adult soldiers with weapons.

In World War II Japanese Kamikaze pilots were mentally programmed to die for Shintoism and the Emperor Hirohito, much akin to the Islamic suicide bombers of today who self-detonate for Allah and Islamic imperialism, albeit with the guarantee of eternal leg-over in the afterlife.

Western peoples have also been conditioned to die. Not for Allah or Hirohito, but for the new religion of Liberalism. We have surrendered any hope of a decent future for our children and grand children because we do not wish to be labelled racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal. Such a suicidal ideology is wholly unnatural and can only be inculcated through propaganda every bit as powerful as Shintoism once was, and Islam is today.

The Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for his first seven years and I will give you the man" is perfectly in tune with Aldous Huxley's introduction to Brave New World:

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers could control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love is the task assigned in present day totalitarian states to ministries of propaganda, newspapers and schoolteachers."

To make them love; isn't this exactly what to celebrate diversity means? It is not enough we stoically accept the colonisation of our culture and country, not enough that some, perversely, do not seem to mind, we must actively celebrate our dispossession, despite the unnatural and pathological mind-set such celebration demands.

And because it is unnatural and pathological, it can only be overcome by extreme and perpetual propaganda. The British Labour Party, a motley collection of ex-Maoists, Marxists, Communists, Communist sympathisers and a mandated clutch of aesthetically challenged quota harridans who were never much fancied at school know this only too well, which is why they concentrate so heavily on the unformed and innocent minds of children, hence Universities Minister John Denham chilling statement: "Education is the most powerful tool we have in achieving social justice."

And it is never too young to start. The Orwellian sounding Department for Children, Schools and Families, run by the equally Orwellian Ed Balls has an Early Years department geared toward developing "a strong and culturally diverse workforce" with a specific focus on "recruiting staff from black and minority ethnic communities."

I may well be old fashioned, indeed almost out of the Ark at the ripe old age of forty-five, but such statements appal me. Surely the point of education is to produce a cohesive and exemplarily educated citizenship, with the specific focus being the recruitment of teachers who could facilitate this, not buggering about noting the colour of their skin above the content of their character?

But as I say, I am out of the Ark. Teachers are now employed specifically due to their pigmentation or religion, just as teachers were once denied work and ultimately their lives in another Socialist regime, based on their religion and the length of their nose.

In 2007, Ms Baljeet Ghale, (photo here) a member of the Socialist Teachers Alliance was elected as the first black President of the National Union of Teachers. No sooner was she ensconced in her equal opportunity office chair, which revolved in ever increasing circles but did little else, had she taken up her anti-British cudgels with which to bash the indigenous racists.

Her main gripe was the apparently ludicrous suggestion by Education Secretary Alan Johnson that in order to develop "better community relations" schools should promote core British values such as free speech, tolerance and respect for the law.

In Baljeet Ghale's keynote address at her inauguration as perhaps the nuttiest of NUT Presidents, she derided the idea that such values were intrinsically British, and went on to say:

"I have no doubt that for some, behind notions of what it means to be British, stands the shadow of racism."

Followed by:

"To demand that people conform to an imposed view of Britishness only fuels that racism."

Her unorthodox views were reinforced by leading black academic Professor Gus John (photo here) who stated:

…all schools must assume they are institutionally racist."

And then added for good measure:

"I would like someone to define what British values are. I want nothing at all to do with the values of the BNP which are quintessentially British."

Whilst "quintessentially British" to some, conjures up images of standing alone against totalitarianism in 1939, or even hazy summer days, village greens, the thwack of leather on willow and tipsy vicars on bicycles with wicker baskets, it clearly means something else entirely to professor John.

As the BNP are promoted as bigoted, racist neo-Nazis by the liberal/left, then what the good professor is intimating here is both racist and slanderous. There are monuments and graveyards everywhere one looks in this once great country, testimony to the hundreds of thousands of young men killed fighting against precisely the ideology that Gus John has now turned around and levelled against us as typifying the entire British race.

Baljeet Ghale and Gus John are correct that values such as free speech are not exclusively British, even if they originally emanated from England, but they are exclusively Western, and should be taught as such, rather than pretending that Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh are the moral or cultural equivalents of the West, and by default, Britain. And while they're at it, instead of traducing the evils of the British Empire they should dwell on the fact that, as Mark Steyn points out, of the world's fifty most free nations, half were once ruled by Britain and have since adopted our democracy and our rule of law. This is something most countries would be proud of, not an issue to be taught as the shameful legacy of oppression.

There is no use whatsoever in merely opining that the gross insurbordination and ingratitude shown by Ghale and John should merit an instantaneous return from whence they came, which in Ms Ghale's case was Kenya, not exactly a hot bed of free speech, tolerance and respect for the law. Or, should she be unenamoured by Kenya, that then perhaps Cuba, a country she greatly admires and one known throughout the deluded liberal world today as a Utopian society where homosexuals and aids sufferers march unmolested through the streets of Havana calling for their right to a same sex marriage.

I say no use, because they are absolutely typical of those in charge of formulating the ideology that British schools will subsequently teach our children, backed up by Socialist MP's from the Labour dominated Education and Skills Committee who have demanded that compulsory citizenship lessons, which include politics, voting, the Human Rights Act and the importance of diversity, should not endorse British values or history, and should instead concentrate on universal themes such as the acknowledgement and acceptance of homosexuality and abortion.

The committee urged teachers not to dwell on the Monarchy, British freedoms, military successes or the empire, but should "touch on what is distinctive in the inheritance and experience of contemporary Britain and the values of our society today."

Although this should:

"Not be taken to imply an endorsement of any single explanation of British values or history".

Not even babies in nappies are exempted from these twisted people. Lord (Lord help us) Herman Ousely, (photo here) ex-Chairman of The Commission for Racial Equality, believes three year olds should unlearn racist ideology acquired heaven knows where, and nursery staff should report any racial incidents they encounter to the relevant race department at the local council, even over such trivialities as a toddler saying "yuk" when presented with a foreign dish, as outlined in a 366 page report entitled Young Children and Racial Justice.

In the event that four year old Simon Cholmondeley-Warner expresses an extreme racist reaction to curried goat, then Sharon Rasp, the barely educated Early Years Knowledge Facilitation Officer, may well consider reporting him to the Council Thought Crime Department.

But hold on, won't such a report, indeed the tenth one that day, send out the message that Sharon's classroom is infested with rather Patrician junior racists - an odious situation that will reflect badly upon Sharon and her Diversity Awareness Outreach and Equality Team?

Silly Sharon. Her mind would be set at ease if she discarded her Teen Fanzine magazine and listened instead to the National Childrens Bureau, who thoughtfully broadcast the following message on the hour, every hour, from a conveniently sited TeleScreen.

"Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

I'll bet (the TeleScreen bit I made up, the rest is true.) The more cases of racial prejudice shown the more they can proclaim Britian a hot bed of toddler racists, thus enabling them to claim more money with which to recruit more Equality Officers who have strict orders to "cure us."

These people are quite mad of course. I sometimes wonder if there is some kind of dark sexual tension underpinning behaviour that is so incomprehensibly perverse, just as it was with the Nazis, or National Socialists, to give them their full title.

And the madness continues. Children are now taught race relations and multiculturalism in every subject they study, after advice from education adviser Sir Keith Ajegbo who stated:

"Teachers will be expected to make explicit references to cultural diversity in as many subjects as possible."

In music and art, children learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments along with West African anti-racist bongo drumming. In maths and science, key Muslim contributions such as algebra and the number zero are emphasised to counter Islamophobia, and in English, pupils study literature on the experiences of migration - such as Zadie Smith's novel White Teeth, or Brick Lane, by Monica Ali.

Toddlers under the age of five would also learn about Human Rights, including their right to a glass of water or toy, whenever they wanted it, in addition to the gross inequalities between the First World and the "Developing Countries."

Words associated with the Monarchy, Christianity or just Ye Olde Merrie England reminiscent of church bells on wet and windy Sunday mornings in villages across the land, the aroma of damp earth overpowered by the intoxicating fragrance of recently deluged roses, have been removed from school dictionaries.

Vineeta Gupta, the head of childrens' dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said:

"We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it – but we produce 17 children's dictionaries with different selections and numbers of words.

"When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun" would have been in 20 years ago but not now."

It is no longer necessary to burn books in these multicultural times. One can achieve the same result simply by "disappearing" words within them. It is interesting to note how many words relating to Christianity have been disappeared. Here are just a few:

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar, Carol, cracker, holly, ivy, mistletoe.

This is not really surprising. In 2004 a labour think tank released a report entitled What is Religious Education For - which recommended children should learn less about Jesus and the Ten Commandments and more about atheism:

"Pupils would be actively encouraged to question the religious beliefs they bring with them into the classroom"

But learning about atheism and questioning one's heritage was confined only to Christianity:

"A heavy emphasis would be given to educating children about Islam."

We have seen the result of this in my earlier article The BBC, Islam & Young Children which paints Christianity, indeed all indigenous Europeans, as a bunch of enslaving, sexist, racist murderers, whilst giving Islam a cute and cuddly clean bill of health.

Such pathological reverence for Islam is unreciprocated toward Christians and non-Muslims however, where indigenous schoolteachers are advised to wash their hands before touching the Koran with their filthy, infidel, ape like digits, and indigenous school children are instructed to copy the Shahadah from within it, which states:

"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger."

The Shahadah, clearly not coincidentally, is the first of the five pillars of Islam, and the only statement one needs to recite in order to convert to Islam. It is the most important sentence in the Islamic world and as the only part of the Koran teachers are advised to tell their pupils to copy, one has to question the allegiance of Britain's current rulers.

This assault upon indigenous British schoolchildren is beyond my comprehension. As a result it is no surprise to discover that white working class boys bear the brunt of this warped and sinister experiment in the Cultural Cleansing of the British, and languish at the very bottom of educational league tables.

The socialist Baljeet Ghales, Herman Ouselys, Vineeta Guptas, Keith Ajegbos and Chris Mullards have done their jobs well. Their hatred of whites, Europeans, the English and capitalism has been succoured and encouraged by white Socialists of the same bent, who now control all of our institutions and government and such is their influence they can even get to those outside their state sector remit, leading to the following quote from a privately educated girl on a BBC Have Your Say page:

"A lot of people around me think that Britain is some amazing, rich, beautiful country. I think learning about the horrible things we have done help us to learn that our country isn't as amazing as we make out." Jess. Year 10.

It is a shame that even privately educated children such as Jess appear not to have heard of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who knew a thing or two about totalitarianism and whose following observation might give Jess and her Year 10 friends pause for thought:

"To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots."

And that is exactly what is occurring in British schools today. This is not some collective suicide though. In an unprecedented act of the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the British people. These racist, Socialist bastards are murdering us, and it is with anguish, anger and despair that one watches the cultural cleansing of a great civilisation.

Compare and contrast the two photographs of Mr Honeyford and Professor Mullard, both of whom serve as a microcosm of what has happened to Great Britain.The good man looks completely and utterly beaten by what "Great" Britain has done to him. The evil and racist Professor Mullard looks extraordinarily happy, as indeed he should, having benefitted enormously from the treacherous ruling elites in his war against traditional Britain. Professor Mullard and the other Mullard manques' who control us have achieved their long march through the institutions. They have completed their revolution. They are the New Establishment. They are the State. They have won. Our only hope now is counterrevolution.

The final words should come from Mr Dennis O'Keefe. His critique of teacher training in Britain entitled The Wayward Elite should be required reading for anyone who doubts the extent to which Communist ideology has permeated mainstream education:

"What, after decades of anxiety, I still cannot reconcile myself to is the fact that anyone should want to this to fellow citizens. Are those who say that every civilisation has its imminent nemisis correct? Is there a sinister doppelganger behind every great culture, counting off its numbered days? Sometimes one is almost aware of their mocking laughter somewhere just off-stage, scorning our achievements, cheering our enemies intent on spreading misanthropy and despair."

"Our educational tragedy is part of the wider tragedy of Socialism which has betrayed so many hopes. The destruction of our education has been mediated by the same collectivist phenomenon which has ruined half the worlds economic life…Socialism is a wrong theory, its results as disastrous in education as elsewhere, indeed more so since education is the pursuit of truth and moral excellence and therefore the highest secular activity of the human race."

Turkey in Europe: A Bridge Too Far

A review of A Bridge Too Far by Philip Claeys & Koen Dillen, 2008.

This review first appeared in the Summer 2009 print edition of The Quarterly Review

In 1963 a promise was given to Turkey that one day they might, eventually, subject to a great many caveats and in the fullness of time, gain membership of what was then the European Economic Community. In October 2004 this intentionally vague promise was unexpectedly called in - dependant only on a little legal tinkering here and there - when the European Commission advised the European Council (rather as Herr Hitler once “advised” his Generals) to start accession negotiations with Turkey.

That this may not be terribly beneficial for mainstream Europe seems lost on a good number of European politicians, including David Cameron who should really know better having had the advantage of an Eton and Oxford education. But sadly, Dave, as he likes to be known in order to get down with the workingman, has backed Turkey’s accession and will probably be the British Prime Minister when Turkey finally fulfils its entry requirements. Such political naiveté is not restricted to European politicians alone. President Obama, the most powerful man on the planet now joins Cameron in this clarion call of Western lunacy. One can only hope Mr Barack Hussein Obama has Christian Europe’s best interests at heart.

After all, the history of Europe and Turkey has consisted of unremitting violence in the main, carried out between disparate civilisations and religions over many centuries. The failed siege of Vienna in 1529 by Suleiman the Magnificent. The Venetians’ loss of Cyprus in 1573 to Suleiman’s son Selim, despite the destruction of his fleet by Pope Pius the Fifth’s Crusaders at the battle of Lepanto in 1571. The defeat by Jan Sobieski of the Ottoman army under Kara Mustafa Pasha at the gates of Vienna in 1683 and the final dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after backing the wrong horse in World War One. All have been documented in great detail, yet there is a dearth of information on modern day Turkey.

But that has now changed. Philip Claeys and Koen Dillen of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang Party have produced a devastating book that puts forward a variety of arguments regarding the unsuitability of Turkish entry to the EU. Written in 2008 and cleverly titled A Bridge Too Far it associates Asian Turkey’s link to European Turkey by bridge alone, with the 1974 book by Cornelius Ryan of the same title describing the overstretch of allied forces and their subsequent failure in capturing an all important bridge over the lower Rhine in Arnhem. The analogy of course, is the political overstretch and potential for catastrophe should the EU allow the admission of Turkey as a member state.

With quite magnificent chutzpah, or an equally magnificent lack of self-awareness, Taki Theodoracopulos’s opening paragraph in the foreword of Claeys and Dillen’s book sets the tone in his typically succinct manner: “Lets not mince words. Inviting Turkey to become part of the European Union is the equivalent of a man recently married to a beautiful young bride inviting Don Giovanni to be his houseguest during the honeymoon. The concept is more than stupid – it is suicidal.”

Claeys and Dillen flesh out this simplistic yet all too accurate description of a European death wish with basic reasoning and detailed analysis. First and foremost of the basics is that Turkey is not a European country. An obvious statement, but the EU does not always deal in the obvious. Four percent of Turkey’s total area is situated on the European continent; ninety-six percent is part of Asia. It shares some of its border with Iraq, Iran and Syria, hardly European buffer zones, one country with which the West has had two wars in fifteen years, another we may yet have to go with war with, and another which allegedly finances and arms movements deployed against Western interests today. In addition, the potentially explosive Kurdish question ceases to be a Middle Eastern problem and becomes a European dilemma instead, as does the Turkish army’s occupation of northern Cyprus.

Turkey is not a Christian country, as war historians will note. Admittedly, not many European countries can be labelled with such a moniker today, but Turkey is not even post-Christian. It is emphatically and undeniably Islamic, and whilst the Lisbon Treaty shamefully contains no reference to Europe’s Christian heritage in its founding documents, it does at least have the decency to mention shared values in article 1a:

“Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law.”

If there is any religious inheritance in Europe today it is Judeo/Christian, and primarily Christian. It matters not that Christianity is declining. It has shaped our culture, our morality, our economy, our history and our very people. On this issue alone Turkey fails the criteria necessary for accession. On further issues of democracy and equality, particularly female equality, it fails again, which I shall come back to later.

The sheer size of Turkey brings another negative issue to the EU table. At almost 800,000 square kilometres she dwarfs Germany, the EU’s present largest country by over twice the area and almost matches her population numbers as well. Turkey currently has 71 million inhabitants compared to Germany’s 82 million, but Turkey is expected to expand to 100 million by 2050, whilst Germany, although not actually shrinking, will only grow courtesy of non-indigenous immigrants, the majority of whom just happen to Turkish.

This is of particular importance apropos the number of delegates any European country can send to the European parliament. The larger one’s population, the larger the number of delegates, thus the Europe of 2025 could find itself in the curious situation where an Islamic country is allowed to wield the most powerful bloc vote in Brussels’ European parliament, which itself sits in a city with a majority Islamic population.

Apologists for Turkey point out it is not a hard-line Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia, which is true, but it is not a democracy in the European sense of the word. Established after the end of the First World War under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey was catapulted into near modernity as that all too rare an entity in the Islamic world – a secular state.

But it is an increasingly uneasy secular state, with constant friction between religion and politics. There are two powers in Turkey, the secular army and the Islamist government. The current Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is all too aware of the fate of former Prime Minister Nezmettin Erbakan who was removed from power in 1997 and his Islamist Refah party outlawed by the Turkish army.

But Prime Minister Erdogan still pushes his luck. He has “form” as they say around the Old Bailey. He was jailed briefly in 1998 for quoting an Islamic “poem” at a public event, which included the words: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.”

Although promoting himself to the West as a voice of secular reason, Erdogan is also on record as stating there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Worse still, it was the description of Islam as moderate, the term so over-utilised by the BBC as a projection of what they deeply, deeply desire Islam to be, which so enraged him. Speaking on Kanal D TV’s Arena program on August 21, 2007, Erdogan said: ‘these descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

In 2008 Erdogan’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) was found guilty of promoting pro-Islamic anti-secularist ideology. Had seven of the eleven justices concurred, the AKP would have been disbanded and Erdogan removed from power, but as only six found against the AKP, they were allowed to remain in-situ, albeit with their state funding halved.

Claeys and Dillen outline in disturbing detail the gradual hardening of Islamism into a Turkey never envisaged by Ataturk, and raise the decidedly important question of Turkish immigration into borderless EU countries should Turkey gain accession. They quote EU officials who believe only 2.7 million Turks will move to Europe, the same EU officials no doubt who thought only 17 thousand Poles would come to England, rather than the 2 million who of course did just that.

Former Dutch Minister, Rita Verdonk, stated that two thirds of young Turkish men in Holland look for marriage partners in their country of origin, a figure replicated by young Pakistanis in Britain and presumably therefore by Muslims in Germany as well, which is home to almost 3 million Turks.

The EU officials’ figure of a mere 2.7 million immigrants is laughable. Germany alone may take that number in a matter of months, the rest of Europe possibly ten times that. And regardless of whether they actually move to traditional European countries, the 71 million new EU Turks would transform the Muslim population of the EU from 25 million to almost 100 million overnight, and with higher numbers comes lower assimilation into the host countries culture, helped along by the Turkish Prime Minister’s speech to 16,000 cheering Turks in Cologne, Germany, in February 2008, when he told them “assimilation is a crime against humanity.”

This has serious implications not just for social cohesion, but also for the economy. Claeys and Dillen point toward a 2006 poverty study by Turkstat (The Turkish Statistics Institute) which revealed 13 million Turks living below the poverty line in a country whose idea of poverty is markedly different to ours, and where over half a million people are close to starvation. GDP per head is only seventeen percent of the EU average, with almost half of that measly percentage made up by what Claeys and Dillen politely refer to as the “informal sector” - or the black market to you and me.

Their chapter entitled “Social and Economic Integration is Impossible” crunches a lot of numbers and statistics. The essence being the economic foolishness in believing an enormous, backward, poor, corrupt, agricultural society could be absorbed into the bosom of the EU without incurring crippling costs in EU subsidies should Turks decide to stay in Turkey, or massive welfare payments should they decide the grass is greener in say, for example, the valleys of Wales.

Claeys and Dillen, not surprisingly, devote a detailed study of human rights abuse under the heading “Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Oppression and State Denial” which deals with a variety of unpleasantness. The ethnic cleansing of the Armenians as a historical fact, the ongoing oppression of women and potential virginity tests prior to marriage, the thousands of honour killings and the 35% of males who believe the killing of adulterous women to be acceptable, police brutality, torture and the imprisonment of journalists who contravene Turkish penal code 301 which laid down jail terms of six months to three years for “anyone who openly denigrates the government, judicial institutions or military or police structures.”

The result of all the above makes for a scenario where, unlike bogus asylum seekers seeking economic sanctuary in England, genuine Turkish refugees attempt to seek genuine asylum in any EU country which will take them, leading Claeys and Dillen to note Europe cannot recognise political or sexual refugees from Turkey whilst simultaneously accepting that country as a member state.

Given the various failings of Turkey as a potential 28th member state of the EU, would it be cynical to think “if Turkey, then why not Algeria, Morocco or Tunisia?” Well, cynical or not, it has already been thought of. In late 2007, banana toting British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, floated the idea that the EU should expand to include North African and Middle Eastern countries, thereby extending his penchant for bent exotic fruit beyond mere foodstuffs to entire republics. That Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy did not immediately deride such a perverse viewpoint - as one might have expected - speaks volumes, as does the bickering between Europe’s two most powerful politicians who argue the merits and debits of a “Mediterranean Union” between themselves.

President Muammar Gaddafi of Libya has slightly more sinister thoughts than David Milliband, if not equally as unhinged. On April 10th, 2006, Gaddafi made a speech broadcast by Al Jazeera TV in which he put forward a vision of Europe made to the Colonel’s not so secret recipe:

“There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe. Without swords, without guns, without conquests, the fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Allah mobilises the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That’s another fifty million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.”

War is one issue that Claeys and Dillen neglect to cover. Young Turkish males mired in grinding poverty would no doubt be attracted to the EU wages paid by the barely disguised future European army. Indeed, as the ratio of military age Turks is almost double that of the EU population, Europe could find itself with an army whose ranks contain a significant minority of Muslim soldiers. What would be the situation if the EU felt compelled to attack Iran, or the army was called in to put down Allahu-Akbaring adolescents in Andalucia, mutinous Muslims in Malmo or insurrectionary Islamists in Istanbul? The potential for inciting World War Three hardly bears thinking about.

But such an omission takes nothing away from Claeys and Dillen’s painstaking analysis as to why Turkey should never, ever, be accepted into the Europe Union. Justice cannot be done to “A Bridge Too Far” in the few words this review allows, but to finish what Taki and his reference to European suicide started, it is surely no less improvident for European Christians to promote the accession of Turkey, than for Turkeys to promote the celebration of Christmas.

Islam, the BBC & Propaganda

Although the BBC has a reputation for bias, dishonesty and the promotion of infantile ideologies designed to destroy civilised society, they appear to have surpassed themselves in their attitude to Christianity and Islam on their GCSE Bitesize revision website which is so fantastically biased, so hatefully anti-Christian and so perversely pro-Islamic that when one considers it is aimed at the unformed minds of young school children it must surely be tantamount to child abuse.

The BBC religious studies page, which can be found here has various sub-divisions, but for the purpose of this article I am going to concentrate on Prejudice & Discrimination and again, for the sake of this essay I will ignore Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism, and centre only on the attitudes of Christianity and Islam.

For those readers who do not wish to read this article in its entirety, then the four links in the paragraph above will take you to all the relevant pages, but be sure to do the Christian test as well as the Islam test at the end of each revision section. A word of caution however; if you suffer from high blood pressure or have a dicky ticker I would advise you to steer well clear.

Opening with Christianity, the first BBC page reverts to Marxist type as it explains that discrimination can only occur when prejudice is combined with power. As no minority race or religion in Britain is deemed to have power, so they can never discriminate against an indigenous British Christian. And so the scene is set for the evil BBC propaganda that follows their publishing of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

We are also told:

All forms of discrimination go against the first two articles.


Page 2 informs us:

Christianity teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and so all forms of prejudice and discrimination are unacceptable and against God’s will.

Leaving aside the small matter that we discriminate every day on any number of things, such as a preference for good wine over Bulgarian wine or holidaying in Tuscany rather than Arkansas - both examples one would imagine are outside the remit of God’s will - there then comes the inevitable however:

However….there are occasions when Christians are guilty of prejudice and discrimination.

In South Africa, for many years the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid, the system which meant that black people were separated from white people and treated inferior (sic).

When Europeans were colonising other countries around the world they often killed the native people there and treated them as slaves.

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raise awareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in wider society.

Sexism is still a problem for the Christian Church – women are not always treated as equals in roles within the Church.

Page 3 informs us:

Many people think the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

So although Christianity teaches that everybody should be treated the same, this doesn’t always happen.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination = Prejudice + Power

The Roman Catholic Church does not allow women to be Priests

Article 1 states that all humans are born free and equal

There is neither Jew nor Greek slave nor free

The Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid

Paul (St) said: women should be silent in Churches

You shall love your neighbour as yourself

Native people were treated as slaves

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations, you remembered all the facts about Christian prejudice and descrimination. (Spelling mistake courtesy of BBC educationalists.)

The test bite concludes this section on Christianity. You are presented with an interactive statement to which you have to answer true or false. It mimics most of page 4 so I will draw attention to only 2 out of the 10:

Christians believe most people are equal in the eyes of God.

If you answer TRUE to this, then you are admitting that Christians do not believe all people are equal in the eyes of God, which means Christians discriminate, which means Christians simply by existing as Christians are in contravention of article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, so artfully inserted by the BBC propagandists on their opening page.

If you answer FALSE, as most unwitting 16-year-old schoolchildren will, having been repeatedly bludgeoned around the head with instances of Christian sexism and racism, then the BBC propagandists’ job is done. As it happens, FALSE is the correct answer, because Christians believe everyone is equal, as opposed to most people are equal. Very clever. One wonders what regimes recent BBC employees once worked in.

The second statement reads:

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York is trying to reduce racism in the Anglican Church.

Another clever question, to which the correct answer is TRUE. Notice there is no argument as to whether there really is racism in the Anglican Church, it is just presented as fact, and provides the BBC with the opportunity to subliminally brainwash whilst promoting the only Christian they admire based solely on the fact that he is an African, an enormous positive that far outweighs the inconvenient fact that he is far more hard line than the liberal rank and file excuses for the British Clergy epitomised by the Archdruid, Rowan Williams.

Islam, as I am sure you have probably guessed, is treated in an altogether different way.

Page 1 is identical to page 1 for Christianity, detailing the meaning of discrimination and quoting the Human Rights act.

Page 2 informs us:

The Qur’an (the divine book revealed to the Prophet Muhammad) teaches that everyone was created by Allah and that everyone is equal.

Therefore there is no reason to treat people of different races differently. The Prophet Muhammad showed how important this teaching was in his last sermon, when he said…

…All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.

Page 3 informs us of Islam’s attitude to women:

Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for the woman to look after the home and family.

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said – paradise lies at the feet of your mother.

Page 4 is a revision page where you have to match up the end of a statement with the beginning. If completed correctly it reads as follows:

Discrimination = Prejudice + Power

The Qur’an teaches that everyone is equal

Article 1 states that all humans are born free and equal

Women have the right to take part in politics

Men and women will be judged equally

All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve

Paradise lies at the feet of your mother

Sometimes men have the final word

If you get all the above correct on their interactive site, a little message pops up stating:

Congratulations. You have understood all the arguments about Islamic prejudice and discrimination.

Notice how the BBC uses the word “facts” in relation to Christian prejudice and discrimination, but replacedswith “arguments” with regard to Islam.

The test bite concludes the section. There is nothing surprising in it; just a continuation of the BBC’s overt propaganda suggesting Islam is divine, pure, non-racist and non-sexist.

There is a different section on Christian and Islamic attitudes to fighting and warfare. It is worth browsing in its entirety but the general thrust of the propaganda is that Christians and Jews are warlike and Islam is a religion of peace.

That the BBC should peddle such overt and dishonest propaganda is obscene in itself, but to whitewash Islam with its arranged marriages, honour killings, global violent jihad etc whilst painting Christianity as a religion of racism, sexism, colonialism, enslavement and murder leaves me struggling for a word stronger than “obscene.” And to peddle it to innocent school children? Words fail me.

The BBC hate the Britain our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for. They realised many years ago they needed to eradicate Christianity if they were to destroy Britain from within. And they have virtually done so.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson penned a recent article in which he argued that Christian Britain was dead, destroyed by multiculturalism and heading for complete extinction within 30 years. He did not mention the role of the BBC in their long ideological march to economic, social and moral ruin, but as you can see, they have certainly played their part.

UPDATE 10 SEPTEMBER 2009

A small victory for bloggers. The BBC has completely revamped it's web section on propaganda and discrimination. Not bad, pity it took five years and public outrage to do so.

Muslims, Mosques and Mosquitoes

Although the population of Great Britain is reputed to consist of only sixty million people, a recent Independent newspaper article argued there may well be up to eighty million inhabitants of this poor benighted island, and as the Muslim population is expanding at ten times the rate of the demographically dying post-Christian population, one can reasonably conclude that a good percentage of these possible extra twenty million bodies are of Islamic descent.

There is no particular reason to disregard such a possibility just because it is not of mainstream acceptance. The number of Sharia courts operating in Britain was thought to be only five until yesterday, which proved to be yet another naïve and delusional liberal hope shattered by the news that there are actually eighty-five Sharia courts sitting in Britain, a seventeen fold increase on received opinion. One is almost tempted to note that Sharia courts are expanding like mosquitoes, but perhaps that would be a little dangerous in the modern Western world, so I will refrain from saying so.

When Mark Steyn attracted the attention of the Canadian Thought Police by relaying in print the words of Mullah Krekar… “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” his utilisation of another man’s words led directly to his hate speech trial as the authorities reflexively tried to censor out any semblance of truth as to the real number of Muslims in Europe.

Comparing the reproductive proclivity of Muslims with mosquitoes is to make a rather distasteful association and not one that sits easily with the average European, his or her mind filled with notions of oppression, prejudice and general Western ne’er do well, unlike the good Mullah who presumably has no such mental shackles. But although Mr Krekar is a member of a faith not universally known for its contribution to stand up comedy, was his linking of Muslims and mosquitoes not perhaps subconsciously drawn from an old sketch by Peter Cook and John Cleese, in which Cook took it upon himself to inform Cleese of an interesting fact?

PETER COOK: The grasshopper is an interesting creature…….up and down and up it goes, all over arable land. That’s land that’s actually tilled by Arabs. You see the interesting fact about your Arab is that he can live for a whole year on one grain of rice.

JOHN CLEESE: What rubbish! One year on one grain of rice!

PETER COOK. Sorry, sorry. It's the mosquito that can live for a whole year on one grain of rice...I get those two muddled up because they're next to each other in the dictionary.

JOHN CLEESE: What are?

PETER COOK: Mosquitoes and mosques…

But levity aside, and God knows we need it, as an apparent 40% of British Muslims wish to see Sharia law enacted in the traditionally Judeo-Christian country they were so affably invited to reside within, it becomes important to know what their numbers are. Relying on our ruling elites to honestly inform us of such pertinent facts is perhaps asking too much, but let us take a stab in that general direction.

In 2001, the BBC released a report, stating there were 1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain, equating to some 2.8% of the population.

In 2008, Jacqui Smith, Britain’s masochistically implausible and as such sadly missed Home Secretary disclosed there were 2 million Muslims enjoying the advantages of British democracy.

By 2009, The Times newspaper reported the numbers had surged to 2.4 million, or 4.5% of the population.

The Economist magazine agreed with the figures from the Times survey, but broke down the overall percentage into differing age groups, within which the Muslim population of 0-4 year olds now numbers close to 10%.

Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund has little time for such surveys; his personal viewpoint being there are at least four million Muslims living in Britain, which is certainly a more believable figure given the puzzlingly disproportionate clout Islam currently exerts over British authorities, not to mention the confusion surrounding official statistics.

Suppose though, that all the above are mistaken, and Britain’s Muslim population is far higher than anyone has yet to admit?

Such a scenario is more probable than improbable. Were Britain an Eastern bloc country circa 1975 then it would know exactly how many people entered and exited it’s borders over any given time scale, but the truth in Britain of 2009 is that no one has the faintest idea who comes in and who leaves.

A recent Daily Telegraph article tells us of a gang of illegal immigrants running one of the biggest visa scams in Britain. The ringleader by name of Jatinder Sharma was accused of submitting visa applications based on thousands of forged documents to the British Home Office all of which were rubber stamped by the equal opportunity officials with nary a backward glance, although one assumes they were scanned assiduously for that dirty word “Gurkha.”

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) was rebuked last year for hosting a Christmas party where the invitations consisted of mocked up visas inside fake British passports, a Home Office jape which unfortunately coincided with news that 300,000 immigrants had been processed by said UK Border Agency that year, and for many other years, with obviously fraudulent paperwork because to deny them entry meant increased form filling.

Not that this is much of a surprise. The UK Border Agency lacks sufficient staff, particularly lean men of substance to ensure complete surveillance of our borders, especially so over weekends and national holidays when quite unbelievably they have been told not to arrest anybody- so a little tip to any ambitious Afghans, striving Somalis or peripatetic Pakistanis without the correct paperwork, is to turn yourself in to the authorities on a Saturday afternoon when Manchester United is playing Chelsea. In wintertime. When it is raining - at dusk.

What is something of a surprise however is who partially co-sponsored the £140,000 UK Border Agency Christmas knees-up, fake visa invitations included. Step forward Clear Springs Property Management and The Angel Group, two privately run organisations who make millions from the British government by housing illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, not always in accommodation fit for human habitation.

In 2003, Julia Davey, the owner of The Angel Group, collected almost 1.5 million pounds in salary and dividends. Nice work if you can get it, but try getting it without having a “friend” in the higher echelons of government. In Davey’s case her name has allegedly been mentioned in association with an ex-Home Secretary and ex-Communist sympathiser (take your pick as regards the name, it could be one of four and the short straw wins) always useful if you want to enrich yourself at the expense of the British taxpayer whilst reaping the 90% Labour voting pattern of third world immigrants even as you destroy your own country.

Britain is out Mecca-ing Mecca as a destination for Muslim students from Pakistan, who come to the UK on fraudulent study visas all the time. A few months ago Britain had 15,000 schools and colleges open to non-EU students, the majority of which appear to have been used as a major conduit in the trafficking and promotion of Islamic extremism and terrorism within our borders. Of the twelve Muslim terror suspects arrested in April 2009, ten were here on student visas.

The vast majority of these “students” are not interviewed by the Home Office, nor are they interviewed by the British High Commission in Pakistan where security threats are now so high that officials, nationality unknown, vet potential students over the phone in……… Abu Dhabi! Perhaps if we were slightly more stringent we would never have allowed Dhiren Barot, often quoted as Osama Bin Laden’s second in command in Europe, to study at Brunel University on forged identification documents.

This has led to a serious rise in extremism on university campuses, where one in three Muslim students think it is acceptable to kill in the name of Islam. Some forty-eight universities have been infiltrated, including Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and the London School of Economics, yet many of those with a student visa obtained in Pakistan do not even bother to attend college. They arrive in Britain and simply disappear. At the time of writing it is not legally necessary for the educational institutions to notify the authorities that Mustafa Bint or Justada Kamel had been granted a visa but subsequently gone AWOL.

The Yorkshire Post points out that 10,000 non- EU students failed to attend local universities over the last three years. One faculty in Manchester claimed to have more than one hundred students whilst foolishly providing only two desks, and an international college in London with links to Pakistani businessmen is alleged to have made five million pounds by selling 2,500 forged visas.

In March 2009 a new ruling decreed the 15,000 educational establishments must be registered with a government authority. To date, only 10% have done so, out of which a quarter were rejected. Ninety percent of them have simply evaporated. How many students passed through nobody knows and just in case you were thinking that good old Britain has started to get its act together, I should point out that the government authority in question is none other than the UK Border Agency, who admit they cannot track non-student students until they have fixed their computer systems, a not inconsequential matter they predict will take place in 2010. Possibly.

How many other people come in? Again, no one really knows. British MP Ann Cryer, who represents Keighley, a town near Bradford, estimates that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over the last four years to work, study or marry, with imported wives making up 80% of all marriages in her area.

If one wishes to wage demographic warfare against a benevolent and naïve country, polygamy is really the way to go. One man has four wives, aka baby machines, each of whom produces five children, all twenty-five one of whom (father, wives and children) will be financially maintained by the British Government, even though polygamy is illegal in Britain.

Such insanity goes some way toward explaining why only two out of three babies born in Britain today are classified as white British, with twenty percent of mothers being first generation immigrants and a further twenty five percent of mothers being second or third generation immigrants. In London, for the first time in history, white school children now enter their first year as an ethnic minority.

Now clearly, not all non-white births are to Muslim parents, but such figures make a mockery of the average middle-class assumption that indigenous Brits make up ninety percent of the population, and the Johnny foreigner-come-latelys only ten percent. Indeed, one million people from Pakistan alone over four years alone is an astonishing figure, even assuming the real figure is not considerably higher.

When Eastern European countries joined the EU, our wonderfully prescient government predicted a mere seventeen thousand people would venture west. That figure is closer to two million of course, at the very least, and Migration Watch UK tells us that nine out of ten recent immigrants are of non-European heritage, which effectively means an additional eighteen-million non-EU immigrants our government chooses not to tell us about.

Going back to the Independent article written by Martin Baker, one is struck by his persuasive simplicity. The people he cites in his argument that an extra 20 million people reside on our small, damp and wind swept island are not gimlet bespectacled micro-statisticians getting everything wrong in the backrooms of failing banks whilst in the possession of petroleum based shirts, wide soled shoes and the entire DVD content of Star Trek, but national food producers and chairmen of supermarket conglomerates, who tell us with brutal honesty that the Britain of 60 million people simply cannot consume so many calories without turning into Little Rock, Arkansas.

This extra 20 million people is borne out by the National Insurance numbers issued in Britain, which outnumber eligible British citizens by 29 million. As it is impossible to obtain welfare benefits without NI numbers, they thus become a matter of vital importance to the forty percent of British Muslims who devote ceaseless time, energy and self-sacrifice into remaining resolutely unemployed, although, to be fair, providing for four wives and twenty five children is probably beyond the financial means of Warren Buffet let alone Sammy Achmed, late of Waziristan, occupation goatherd. Abu “old-hooky” Hamza for example received almost £5,000 per month, to finance his half a million pound house, his current wife, and her seven children, and of course he received this from the very British government he seeks to overthrow. Dear God, please tell me this cannot really be happening.

One does not need to read - or more pertinently to read between the lines - official statistics to gain a picture of reality. There are vast areas of Britain that have been physically transformed into the East in a blink of an eye. Although one sees very few veiled ladies on the streets in my area, which unlike many parts of modern Britain is 80% indigenous, a continental shift occurs the moments one sets foot into the maternity ward of the local hospital, which more resembles Islamabad than Isleworth.

No one from the British government will refute this. They will call you a racist for raising the issue even as they admit the last twelve years has seen an influx of non-EU immigration twenty-five times higher than ever before and even as they cheerfully admit a la Hazel Blears that Britain has become an immigration mad house in which no one has the faintest idea who is here and who is not. We don’t even really know how many indigenous Brits are emigrating. Official reports suggest 1,000 per day, but this could be far higher given the misery that currently exists in Britain, particularly England, coupled with the fact that ALL official figures are just guesstimates, ALL of which have historically proven to be not just inaccurate but as wrong as wrong can be.

Is it racist and xenophobic to raise this issue? I am sure many people will think it is, but they should be aware that the huge number of Pakistani Muslims who came here over the last few years come from a country where only 19% of people have a negative view of al- Qaeda and by default the taliban, and where 75% wish to see Sharia law implemented. Or in other words, out of every five Pakistanis entering Britain, four of them statistically wish to overthrow us.

Although British and Western liberals may decry this, it is not a view shared by Islamic extremists, who view such ridiculously naïve people as Lenin once viewed his very own Western useful idiots. Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca, Medina and Mohammed has not spent 90 billion dollars entrenching Islam in Europe in order to achieve peaceful co-existence. They can do this far less expensively by just selling us oil and leaving us be, but that is not their agenda simply because it was not Mohammed’s agenda.

In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.:

"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

Libyan president Mommar Ghadaffi added for good measure:

We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades…. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.

Paul Goodman, the conservative shadow Minister for “community cohesion” representing High Wycombe, an area historically known only as a stockbroker belt due to it’s close proximity to London, has stated that his constituency will be 25% Muslim within the next fourteen years. Any English readers who are familiar with High Wycombe will tell you that if such an area is being Islamified then quite frankly, it is all over. Or yet to begin.

In conclusion, we don’t really know how many Muslims there are in Britain. The accepted number is 2.4 million, but our government which hates traditional England constantly lies to us, and based on all the above, the true number of Muslims in Britain it could just as well be anywhere between five and fifteen million, which means ten million to thirty million within one generation, which means the end of Britain as a liberal democracy.

I am not surprised that the British Government wishes to cover such appalling realities up. If the truth were known it is hard to believe even the docile British people would not take to the streets. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

One picture worth many thousand words

Not a thousand words, but here is a picture of Britain today.

British soldiers returning from war with their police escort.

Not quite 1918 or 1945. This is what the liberal/left have reduced our country to in 2009.

Weep for England.

Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom Of Speech

Shortly after Gordon Brown became the unelected Prime Minister of Great Britain in 2007, he made a speech outlining his views on liberty and freedom, which included the following phrase:

“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather than reduces the sphere of freedom.”

If one can ignore the tortuous and robotic prose for a moment, let us fast forward to February 2009 in the aftermath of Geert Wilders banishment from Britain, to hear Labour MP Keith Vaz, the Minister For Europe, state on national television his own particular viewpoint on the sphere of freedom:

“We don’t have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, because I myself have voted on laws preventing people inciting racial hatred and violence.”

Mr Vaz, an immigrant of Yemeni/Portuguese extraction, is clearly proud of the part he has played in restricting the ancient and bloodstained freedoms of Britain. No doubt Vaz is pleased the dark days of 1990 are now behind him, when he wrote to the Guardian to claim “there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech” as he attempted to ban the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

Unfortunately for Vaz, freedom of speech actually existed in 1990 and Rushdie’s book was duly published. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the subversion of British law carried out by Vaz and his ilk means it no longer does in 2009 – witness the Wilders travesty - which rather damns Gordon Brown’s apparently admirable speech as typical socialist spin, if not deliberately disingenuous propaganda.

It is unsurprising that Keith Vaz should raise such words as “racial hatred and violence” in relation to Geert Wilders, this being the default fallback for Muslims with a grievance (a body of people whose members far outnumber Scotsmen of a sunny disposition) but Wilders was not barred in order to prevent the incitement of racial hatred and violence, he was barred because his words and film would:

“…threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.”

This leads to all sorts of questions. The first surely being the blind assumption of community harmony; the second asking which part of the allegedly harmonious community is threatened by the mere presence of Mr Wilders; the third wondering if “therefore public security” is just a more inclusive way of saying “therefore Muslim violence” whilst the not inconsequential fourth and final question can only be - is it actually legal?

Taking one at a time, let us look first at Britain’s harmonious community.

MI5 believe there are up to four thousand potential terrorists and thirteen thousand Al Qaeda sympathisers living in the UK, many of whom are earmarked for the export market (who says British manufacturing is dead) leading the CIA to devote an astonishing 40% of their anti-terrorist US homeland security operations against suspects not in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Waziristan, but in Britain itself - a country described by one CIA operative as “a swamp of Jihadis.”

It is rumoured that the terrorist attacks in Bombay (or Mumbai if you read the Guardian) involved a number British Muslims operating under the banner of Lashkar-e-Taiba otherwise known as the Party of the Righteous or LET, who are ranked alongside Al-Qaeda in terms of a potential terrorist threat by Barack Obama’s counter-terrorist advisor Bruce Riedel, who has stated:

"The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda's best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.”

British born Muslims make an estimated four hundred thousand trips a year to Pakistan, where as many as thirty threats against Britain are being monitored at any given time. MI5 is struggling to keep track of them all, quite understandably, as is the newly formed UK Border Agency (motto: we are closed on weekends and bank holidays) so it is obvious that those who wish to destroy us can flit in and out of terrorist training camps in Pakistan to, say, the House of Lords in London, at the drop of a hat.

Despite the oft repeated insistence by British politicians that Islam is a peaceful religion, vast sums of money are thrown at Muslims in the UK in an attempt to stop them blowing the rest of us up.

In 2007 “communities” Minister Hazel Blears earmarked fifty million pounds to invest in “cohesion promotion and tackling community tensions.” Ah, those good old harmonious community tensions. Blears bent over backwards as she sprayed money at Muslim “experts” stating: “Nobody has a duty to assimilate themselves but I do think we need to understand how each other lives” prompting the bearded experts, who recognise fear, defeat and Dhimmitude when they smell it, to swiftly trouser the money whilst opining it would do little good as Muslims are instinctively suspicious of any help from the British government, what with them being the infidel and all that.

In it’s overarching desire to be geographically inclusive, my government does not limit its financial largesse to the British mainland alone. When Gordon Brown visited Pakistan recently, he handed over a cheque for six million quid to promote love and peace, whilst the British Foreign Office - who once sent gunboats to troublesome countries - has bankrolled a series of TV adverts for broadcast in Pakistan in which famous Muslim personalities implore those who wish to colonise and convert us to cease forthwith, and to understand and respect us instead.

We Dhimmi Brits can even look forward to a constructive debate on "the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values.” I know, I know, it sounds like something out of the Richard Littlejohn school of “you couldn’t make it up” but I am at a total loss for words here. One can only imagine how constructive the debate would remain if the liberal debatee attempted to date the Muslim debatees sister, or even better, attempted to roger the Muslim himself.

So I think we can safely say there is little or no community harmony in Britain.

In terms of who should feel threatened, it is unlikely to be any of Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 band of brothers, or any other member of Britains Muslim community come to that. It is something of a giveaway really, look to the man surrounded by bodyguards with a price on his infidel head; Mr Geert Wilders himself, the lone surviving Dutchman of outspoken anti-Islamic sentiment.

And what of Public Security? A giveaway again. The British government does not really believe that Wilders is going to strip to the waist and engage in fisticuffs with his Allahu Akbar-ing adversaries. They know as well as the rest of us that a day in the House of Lords is more likely to consist of G&T’s with ice and a slice, than GBH with malice aforethought. I don’t really believe that Mr Wilders, a European parliamentarian, was planning on bringing his gang, or posse, to the House of Lords intent on bashing anyone who shows him “disrespect” unlike Lord Ahmed, the implausible new leader of Britain’s Muslim Street.

Was the banning of Geert Wilders legal? The law used was written specifically to counter Islamic terrorism, rather than countering a man warning us of Islamic terrorism. But as with most recent laws, many of which originate in Brussels, they are vague and catch-all in their character, and deliberately so, in order they may be used against anyone the government disapproves of.

It would have been so much more honest of the British government if it had said the following:

“We understand the content of the film Fitna to consist of the written words of Islam alone,
the spoken words of Islam alone and the physical actions of Islam alone.”

“Sections of these written and spoken words are in direct contravention of British and European laws pursuant to the incitement of racial or religious hatred.”

“We appreciate that Mr Wilders is an elected European politician who does not posess a criminal record and is therefore entitled to visit any EU country he so wishes.”

“We appreciate that Mr Wilders has never called for violence against the Muslim community and that even if faced with violence would seek lawful protection rather than unlawful retaliation.”

“We acknowledge the threats of violence that would impinge upon the public security of Great Britain have come not from Mr Wilders, but from an unelected Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed.”

“We tacitly acknowledge that allowing Mr Wilders the opportunity to argue Islam is an inherantly violent and intolerant faith will cause 10,000 violent and intolerant Muslims to take to the streets of London.”

“We appreciate that the barring of Mr Wilders from Great Britain would necessitate the manipulation and distortion of laws passed to counter Islamic terrorism in order to silence a man warning us of Islamic terrorism.”

“We appreciate that bending British democracy in the face of Muslim threats will have dangerous and far reaching consequences.”

“However, after careful and considered discussion with a number of politicians who have not seen the film Fitna, notably Minister for Europe Keith Vaz and foreign Secretary David Milliband, we would like to close with the following statement…

....The British government is acutely aware of the 2 million plus Muslims within Great Britain, a percentage of whom are fanatical fundamentalists who, quite frankly, frighten the life out of us. Were we to agree that Fitna contains Koranic verses which contravene our laws against inciting racial or religious hatred, then by default we would be forced to arrest 90% of British imams who quote exactly the same verses in mosques all over Britain. This would lead to civil unrest or even civil war if we proscribed certain passages from the Koran itself. It is far easier therefore to distort and misrepresent existing anti-terrorism laws in order to preserve a temporary peace, even if it means shooting British democracy and freedom through the heart, ourselves in the foot, and missing Geert Wilders by a country mile.”

Who is Lord Ahmed

Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least, away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.

In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons’ and Hitlers’ of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling it’s great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.

Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle aged, rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.

Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?

Step forward Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.

But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s resume.

Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the tax paying British public and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.

In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.

In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and multi-faithed country that Britain is now priveliged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.

In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at, wait for it, The House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.

When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew hating momologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!

According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-semitic publication, and and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: No Jews. Just Right.) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

But such associations hold no fear it would seem for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less than moderate Islam, associated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-semitic variety.

In July 2005, after four self detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. Having exploded no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?

In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue it’s then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.

In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh - a British prison - for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.

Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.

Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive” however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.

In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdies’ crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.

In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:

“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”

In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of it’s Holy Book’s Unholy Words and it’s Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.

A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer great Britain.

Or so we thought.

Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.

I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary school teacher turned Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans – one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.

Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it, even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.

Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words sedition and treason.

Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of her folly. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.

Paul Weston 2009.

Wilders In Wonderland

When Alice fell down a rabbit hole and embarked on her adventures in Wonderland, she discovered a thoroughly surreal environment in which the White Queen was able to advise the Mad Hatter that… “quite often subjects are punished before they commit a crime, rather than after, and sometimes they do not even commit it at all.”

Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.

Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.

Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)

If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.

But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.

It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.

He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.

According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.

The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.

The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.

No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.

This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?

“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”

Quite.

In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?

Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.

What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.

This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:

“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”

Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.

Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.

There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.

Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.

It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.

It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.

Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.

When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.

It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.

There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.

Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.

When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.

The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.

To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.

These politicians are guilty of treason.

If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.

It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.

Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking

Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.

Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.

IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."

So do your bit and spread the word.



Copyright Paul Weston. 2009

.

The Suppression Of Free Speech In Britain

In 1984 a British headmaster, Ray Honeyford, wrote an article for “The Salisbury Review” where he questioned the values of multiculturalism, which he deemed to be segregationist rather than “inclusive”.

Mr Honeyford, a brave, decent and completely apolitical man was driven to write the article by his belief that young ethnic children were being badly let down educationally, and that their future life chances were being sacrificed for Leftist political gain.

Mr Honeyford was chased from his job amid accusations of racism in a carefully orchestrated political alliance of the hard left coupled with various ethnic-minority spokesmen.

Whether this contributed solely to future anti-racist legislation is unclear, but it certainly played its part.

In 1986 new legislation was passed to counter the rhetoric of such men as Ray Honeyford in the form of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 17 of which clarified racial hatred as being:

“..hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.”

Section 18 clarified racist behaviour as:

“The use of words or behaviour or display of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”

The maximum penalty for any individual found guilty of contravening this act was two years imprisonment.

In 1993 a young black male called Stephen Lawrence was allegedly (legally speaking) stabbed to death by a gang of five white youths in Eltham, south London.

The case was seriously mishandled by the police which led to media hysteria and an investigation by Sir William Macpherson who subsequently published a seminal study in 1999 known as the Macpherson Report which, in addition to labelling the police as “institutionally racist” gave birth to eighteen words which have been used by the British authorities to clamp down on any speech critical of any minority group. The exact wording is as follows:

“A racial incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

In 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 extended the maximum jail sentence over and above normal sentence times if racial aggravation was used in crimes up to and including murder.

In 2006 the Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed which classified religious hatred along the same lines as racial hatred and extended the jail sentence for transgression to seven years.

2006 also saw the introduction of the Equality Act 2006 which swept away the Commission For Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and replaced then with a single entity called the Commission For Equality And Human Rights or CEHR.

In 2007 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was passed, with an amendment that bought homophobic hate crime in line with the definition of racial or religious hatred, including a maximum jail sentence of seven years.

In addition to the above legislation, Britain has also seen the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, both of which have been used to suppress freedom of speech in the UK.

Ray Honeyford was fortunate that none of the above legislation was in place when he transgressed the racial thought police in 1984. Other people have not been so lucky.

Robin Page, a television presenter, was arrested in 2002 for inciting racial hatred when he stated that people living in the countryside, and who supported fox hunting, should be granted the same rights as blacks, gays and lesbians. The police claimed they had received reports from distressed persons unknown, although it seems likely they acted on their own volition.

Fourteen-year-old schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested over a “racial incident” in 2006, after she asked to be moved to a different discussion group where her fellow pupils actually spoke English. She was released without charge but only after spending several hours in the cells where her DNA was taken.

Much to the chagrin of the Muslim Council of Britain, Robert Kilroy-Silk was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred after he described Muslims as suicide bombers and limb amputators in a 2004 Independent newspaper article. The police wanted to prosecute but were advised by the Crown Prosecution Service there was insufficient evidence. Despite this, Kilroy-Silk still lost his job as a television show host.

In 2006, Nick Griffin, Chairman of The British National Party was acquitted (at the second time of asking) over inciting racial hatred, after he publicly accused Islam of being a wicked and vicious faith. His acquittal, after Muslims were deemed a religion rather than a race, was the prime motivation for the religious aspect to be introduced into The Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006.

The blogger Lionheart has now been arrested and bailed on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred. If found guilty, he faces seven years in prison. We await news of this with hope rather than certainty as to the possible prosecution. His crime? He detailed the activities of Muslim criminals in the Luton area. I have read his blog and nowhere does he call for deportation of, or violence toward, British Muslims.

A retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts were warned by Lancashire police in 2005 that their request to display Christian literature alongside homosexual rights pamphlets at their local council offices was discriminatory and homophobic, that they were walking on eggshells and that they were almost guilty of a hate crime. Much as Lancashire police wanted them to be guilty, they would have to wait a couple of years for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 to be enacted in order to criminalise them.

Author Lynette Burrows was cautioned by the Metropolitan Police in 2006, for suggesting that male homosexuals did not make ideal adoptive parents. This was in the build up to the introduction of the rights of homosexual males to adopt children, built into The Equality Act 2006 which was passed without the necessity of asking whether homosexual males were more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexual couples, which according to Family Research Council they overwhelmingly are. (Note: this report has been censored).

In 2005 Maya Ann Evans was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war whilst standing next to the Cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead close to the House of Commons. In so doing, she contravened section 132 of The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which had purportedly been enacted to prevent terrorist attacks at the seat of British government.

The use of anti-terrorism legislation has now spread to local councils who use it to spy on essentially law abiding people who may have lied about their post code in order to obtain a place at school for their children, but was used most famously when Walter Wolfgang was detained by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. His crime had been to attempt to rejoin the Labour Party Conference of 2005, having been physically ejected for daring to heckle a speaker over the war in Iraq.

The latest attempt to muzzle free speech occurred in Birmingham in May 2008, when two Christian preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, were warned by a Muslim police community support officer that handing out Christian literature in a Muslim area was a “hate crime” and could lead to their being beaten up if they dared to return. West Midlands Police refuse to apologise for this incident.

What should be apparent by now is the proclivity of the of the newly politicised British police to crack down on any dissent from indigenous Britons if they voice their concerns over any matter relating to race, religion of a non-Christian bent, gender or sexuality, all of which run counter to traditional Western civilisation.

This is the culture war in all its glory. The myriad laws passed in recent years are simply there in order to stifle discussion, let alone dissent, in the Liberal/Lefts ongoing war against that which they hate – indigenous European, Christian, heterosexual families.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Nowhere is this maxim more apparent than the approach by the police to areas where Islam is at fault and the indigenous European innocent.

No imams exposed in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosques programme have been prosecuted under any of the legislation outlined above. In fact, the West-Midlands police force attempted to prosecute Channel 4 themselves for inciting racial/religious hatred by dint of their sheer temerity in broadcasting footage of Muslims calling for the overthrow of the West and the murder of homosexuals and the infidel kuffir.

Although this article is about the UK and not Europe, it seems inevitable that we will be subsumed by Brussels when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified early in 2009, so will leave you with a quote from Terry Davis, Secretary general of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the brutal crack down against SIOE and Vlaams Belang in Brussels last September as to the future of free speech in Britain, or such as is left anyway:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

One cannot caveat freedom of speech. It exists or it does not. In Britain we must come to accept that it does not, and we must make every effort to ensure that in the future, it does.