Tag Archives: Jews

Alt-Right, free speech, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

Jack Sen Meets a Jewish Media Person

6 Comments

Channel 4 Film: Sleeping with the Far Right

I interrupted writing a longer article to write this brief piece. I am in fact unsure whether it is worth the effort, but I should regret not saying something about this typical piece of propaganda presented as documentary film.

I made the mistake of watching what passed for a documentary, presented by Alice Levine, a Jewish woman who has apparently (I had not previously heard of her) presented a number of TV and radio shows. Wikipedia says this about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Levine

I wasted an hour watching this. In the film, London-based Jewish media person Alice Levine spent a week, or at least a few days, living at the house of Jack Sen, a British nationalist activist. The house is in Southport, Lancashire.

I do not know Jack Sen, though I have heard of him. I believe that we exchanged a couple of tweets several years ago, when I still had a Twitter account. He stood as UKIP candidate in West Lancashire in 2015 and, despite being disowned by UKIP after he tweeted something of a critical nature to then Labour Party MP for Liverpool Wavertree, the Zionist Jewess Luciana Berger, achieved an honourable 6,058 votes (12.2%), and thus retained his deposit.

I have to say that I myself would never invite a Jewish (or even non-Jewish) media person into my home, let alone agree to that person staying for days. I can only assume that either Jack Sen is one of those who thinks that “no publicity is bad publicity”, or he received a fee for his participation. I cannot imagine any other motivation.

The film introduced Jack Sen’s mother (also resident there) and his charming Ukrainian wife and little daughter.

The Alice Levine person, when in bed in the room she was allocated, seemed to wear several layers of clothing. Whether that was because the house was cold, or because she did not want Sen to take “sleeping with the far right” too literally, must remain a puzzle!

There was, of course, no attempt to let Jack Sen properly explain his socio-political outlook. One of the problems with this kind of show, for the subject (“victim”), is that not only does the interviewee not know what will be raised by the interviewer, but also what will be left out of the finished product.

I found Jack Sen to be somewhat eccentric, though that was obviously deliberately amplified by the programme-makers. This was, after all, a week compressed into an hour. He seems to be a basically decent person, to my mind, at least on the personal level. I am unwilling to speculate that he is not. “The soul of another is a dark wood” (Russian proverb), in the end. I am aware that many distrust him and his motives, but I cannot comment either way.

At one point, Alice Levine “discovers” from Sen’s mother (I would bet that her researchers discovered the fact well before she ever arrived at Sen’s house) that his original name was Dilip Sengupta, Sen’s father having been either Indian or half-Indian, a fact mentioned by Sen himself to Ms. Levine. The mention of the name(s) to Sen made him angry. He did not present himself well at that point. He allowed the Jewess to provoke him. Later, she tried to give the impression that she was afraid of Sen, which I very much doubt was the case.

It was obvious that Alice Levine had no idea of life outside her comfortable careerist bubble. She went from a comfortable childhood in Nottinghamshire to the University of Leeds and straight into TV and radio. Jack Sen’s background (not much explored in the film) has obviously been more difficult.

Sen did not (out of politeness, or hospitality?) put Alice Levine on the spot about her Jewish origins, beliefs, attitudes etc. Having said that, I was surprised that she was offered pork by Jack Sen (even I found that rather insensitive!) and even more surprised that she apparently ate it.

At any rate, Alice Levine obviously lives in a bubble where everyone thinks and feels much as she does. In a word, biased. She evidently found it challenging even to think that many do not share her multikulti views. She was unwilling to be challenged on Skype or similar by Nick Griffin.

I had to laugh at it all. If Alice Levine thinks Jack Sen “extreme”, what would she make of me, I wonder?

This attempt to copy Louis Theroux was a waste of time, unenlightening. It is the sort of “documentary” that taxpayer-subsidized Channel 4 does. Dull, really.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Levine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-32555535

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lancashire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://www.habitat.co.uk/inspiration/view-all/habitatvoyeur/voyeur-profiles-alice-levine

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dj-and-tv-presenter-alice-levine-on-her-homeware-hoard-and-finding-peace-and-quiet-in-east-london-d39rz9ht3

https://www.classiquepromotions.co.uk/act/alice-levine

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/21/sleeping-with-the-far-right-review-could-you-move-in-with-a-man-too-racist-for-ukip?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/sleeping-with-the-far-right-worlds-collide-as-a-tolerant-londoner-tries-her-best-to-understand-a4073216.html

http://www.britishdemocrats.uk/jack-sen-guest-speaker-at-agm-his-new-book/

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jez Turner, society, Uncategorized

Alison Chabloz— The Fight for Freedom of Expression Goes On!

39 Comments

alison

Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.

Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.

Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.

Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:

“We emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive”

Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!

Updates

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/alison-chabloz-lost-a-battle-but-the-war-goes-on-and-she-is-winning-it/

11 July 2019

Alison Chabloz talks from her piano

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/07/11/fighting-back-and-winning/

Alison Chabloz, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Uncategorized

Jew-Zionists Attack My Blog

25 Comments

Today, I found, on my WordPress blog Comments page, a comment which actually purported to come from me! It was sent from an email address named “ian.millard@yahoo.com” (which I have never had).

The comment was abusive and, more interestingly, purported to be from a Jew (anonymous/pseudonymous of course) who (he/it wrote) was “instrumental” in getting many of my reviews on Amazon UK (Amazon.co.uk) removed (and me barred from posting further reviews) “nearly ten years ago”. He/it claimed also to have had my Amazon USA (Amazon.com) reviews removed and my American Amazon account closed. Those events did occur, about 8 years ago. The London-based Jewish Chronicle contacted Amazon in the UK and had me barred from reviewing or commenting. As to what happened in the USA to get me barred on Amazon there, I have no idea. So much for “free speech” and expression in the USA, though! Where there are Jew Zionists in any number, there can be no freedom for non-Jews.

The comments section of my blog is monitored; only comments which are approved (in the sense of allowed to proceed) are posted publicly. Naturally, I am not going to approve the abusive comment of the Jew in question.

The Comments section captures all ISP user numbers from those posting comments. The comment in question was shown as 31.168.232.150. It was a simple matter to track down the origin of the abuse: Tel Aviv, Israel! Quelle surprise…

Turns out that the abuse seems to have come from a company called Bezeq International, also known as Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corporation Ltd. I had never heard of it, but soon found it via Google. That enterprise is, apparently, the Israeli equivalent of BT. It is a very large enterprise, which employs over 15,000 employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezeq

The unsophisticated nature of the abuse etc leads me to the provisional view that the abuser is a lone rat, rather than connected with the notorious Israeli “hasbara” propaganda effort, or (far less likely even than that) MOSSAD.

The Zionist free-speech destroyers have become very active in the UK and elsewhere over the past 20-30 years. Time for pushback.

Notes

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/amazon-user-claims-jewish-lobby-1.18697

Update, 10 January 2020

Today I received another abusive message from (pretty obviously, though I cannot as yet prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) another Jew, this time one who, looking at its message, hates my support for persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Another one who used my name on a one-time-use email account, this time Hotmail. Blocked now, obviously.

The WordPress system took its ISP number:  82.132.222.121. Useful for later reference.

When I started my blog, I was braced for a daily dose of insolent and/or abusive messages. In fact, I think that I have only had about three or four such messages in three years. Worse things happen at sea.

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

ds3

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Lewis, society, Uncategorized

The “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA) Takes A Serious Hit

14 Comments

The “Claque”

Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.

I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz

1. Jez Turner

In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately  by the CAA for the alleged offence.

The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.

2. Alison Chabloz

In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.

3. Nazim Hussain Ali

Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.

The Judgment in the Nazim Hussain Ali Case

The judgment in full can be found here:

https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2VPMgizmz8nNJ5P3vAYie7zW-9vO52-yM5q8ht9ZIsjqqWnB4l6WrfWVY

The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:

“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”

and

“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10  [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are
provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”

and

“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”

My Thoughts

This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).

Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.

Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).

Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.

Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2

Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-wins-appeal-against-race-abuse-claim-1.14675

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2803

Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.

The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).

The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.

I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.

I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.

The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV,  that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.

Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…

Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!

Notes

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

https://gab.com/mossurmoshiach/posts/45770311

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49824.htm

https://ianrobertmillard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/13605-DraftFullResponse.pdf

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-guilty-of-racist-rant-1.11495

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2803

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-wins-appeal-against-race-abuse-claim-1.14675

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213986/Foreign-Office-official-accused-anti-Semitic-rant-gym.html

https://ahtribune.com/world/europe/uk/2359-holocaust-industry.html

Update, 13 January 2019

Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]

https://twitter.com/TonyLelliott1/status/1083832118835404802

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1084177212226629634

Update, 21 January 2019

The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.

Update, 18 July 2019

Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.

Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.

Update, 5 November 2020

The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.

As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.

Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.

Humanity 1— CAA zero…”Nul points”.

Update, 11 March 2022

The pathetic pack failed once again recently: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2022/01/15/diary-blog-15-january-2022-including-an-outline-of-the-failure-of-the-latest-jew-zionist-attempt-to-prosecute-me/

Update, 30 September 2023

The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.

In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…

Alt-Right, animal welfare, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, Threefold Social Order, Uncategorized

Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

4 Comments

One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.

“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.

In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:

CX9ZsZOWEAAky2e

This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.

In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.

Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.

I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?

As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.

Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.

The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.

Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.

To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.

There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.

It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.

In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, Nick Griffin, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, Sargon of Akkad, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

The New UK Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on “Hate Crime”: Thoughts and Suggestions

12 Comments

Background

Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.

In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.

Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then altered to negative:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commohttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commo

The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.

Definition of “Hate Crime”

It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:

“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]

Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”

In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:

“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.

Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”

Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”

So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?

The guidelines now continue:

“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”

This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.

Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge

The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.

How the CPS regards freedom of expression

“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”

Other Thoughts

It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).

One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

Advice for Social Nationalists

I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…

In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.

In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.

In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).

The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.

In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.

In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.

Update, 29 April 2019

Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.

Update, 21 November 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/

Update, 17 January 2021

Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.

In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.

Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.

Update, 11 January 2025

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing