The latest in a series of demonstrations outside Royal Holloway, University of London, scheduled for Saturday 4th March was postponed as a goodwill gesture due to another event taking place at the college this weekend.
These demonstrations are to highlight the disgraceful sacking of two college cleaning staff, dismissed for political activities which had no connection to their work.
Government documents released yesterday by the National Archives of Australia reveal that the notorious Australian race law – section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – was the subject of intense discussion among ministers before it was introduced, and as originally drafted would have been far less restrictive.
However as many countries have found, once setting off down the path of restricting free speech in the interests of racial harmony, there is an inevitable slippery slope towards politically correct tyranny.
The original submission to Paul Keating’s cabinet in July 1992, drafted by then Attorney General Michael Duffy and only made public yesterday, stressed that “for an act to amount to racial vilification it must be an act or conduct that is likely to lead to incitement to hatred, contempt or ridicule and should not be relatively minor or be of the nature of a lighthearted racist joke.”
During their discussions of the draft, ministers went on to emphasise that prosecution should “require a series of precise conditions to be met”, including “actual offensive intent”. UK readers will note that this would have made the measure more similar to the Race Relations Act 1965, the first UK law specifically to outlaw “incitement to racial hatred”.
However as with the several later extensions of that landmark legislation, Australia’s Section 18C developed into a grotesque tyranny, restricting legitimate political debate and in extreme cases even being used against comedians and cartoonists.
Last year the well-known cartoonist Bill Leak was the target of a complaint under Section 18C over the cartoon (above) depicting an Aborigine, or what is now called an “indigenous Australian”. The complaint was later dropped after a public outcry over abuse of the law. The university student who made the complaint has since sought to present herself as the victim, whining that she had only intended a “conciliation process”!
What was originally portrayed as a law targeting serious incitements of “racist” violence is now employed to intimidate anyone dissenting from multiracial political orthodoxy. If Bill Leak had not been backed by The Australian, one of the country’s most powerful media outlets, he would have been crushed under the liberal juggernaut’s wheels.
A network of organisations run by billionaire George Soros (notorious for his profitable speculation against the pound on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992) has been successfully targeted in a massive leak of confidential documents, published online today.
One organisation lavishly funded by Soros was the British “antifascist” group Hope Not Hate, which in one of the leaked documents is shown receiving $93,740 for just one of its projects – Hope Camp – in advance of the 2014 elections.
This was part of a series of Soros-funded projects intended to influence those elections. According to the leaked documents, Hope Camp’s “purpose is to provide a community organizers’ training program for local anti-hate organizations, especially those wanting to engage in the 2014 European elections. The training model will combine the experience, the organizing and campaigning skills developed and used by HOPE not hate in the UK and by United We Dream in the US.”
UK political parties are of course prohibited from receiving overseas donations from people not on the UK electoral register. It will be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission takes a close look at foreign, non-party intervention in the electoral process.
Although Soros & Co. might have been well pleased with the BNP’s defeat in 2014, the truth is that this had little to do with “antifascist” campaigning. Nick Griffin had already effectively destroyed his own party’s chances years earlier.
Moreover, another of the leaked Soros documents – a review of the European campaign, written in November 2014 – showed that not everything went the billionaire’s way. The document makes clear that the Soros foundations “concentrated a large amount of resources and energy to try and bolster the groups and campaigns which could, in some ways, mitigate the feared populist surge in the EP elections.”
This involved “exposing the weaknesses of the extreme right”.
However, while some projects “far exceeded our expectations”, others “surprised us in a negative way. The grant to UNITED, for example, was a clear disappointment. While the proposal was well written and the cooperation with ENAR and HOPE not Hate, two OSF grantees which generally deliver great work, seemed promising, not much was achieved on the ground. …Arguing that the HOPE not Hate approach could not be applied in other countries due to particular sensitivities, the project ended up with five very different projects on the ground, with little coordination amongst them. …It was a typical case of a project which looked great on paper, but was an unexpected disappointment in practice.”
H&D looks forward to analysing these leaked documents further: but two points are already evident. Firstly, there was massive financial intervention by George Soros and his foundations in a covert effort to influence European elections. Secondly, despite lavish funding, many of these interventions failed and are continuing to fail, as European nationalist movements continue to advance!
Joe Chiffers was UKIP candidate for Liverpool Riverside at the last general election. A few months ago, having become disillusioned with UKIP’s avoidance of fundamental issues, he quit and joined Jack Sen’s British Renaissance, where he was appointed party chairman for a few months earlier this year.
Now the Liverpool Echo and its national parent the Daily Mirror are trying to have Joe Chiffers sacked from his job with Liverpool solicitors MSB. There is no suggestion that Mr Chiffers has behaved improperly in any way, or allowed his political views to influence his work to the detriment of clients. It has long been accepted that solicitors or barristers will represent clients regardless of their political views, and many lawyers have held ‘extreme’ political views.
Indeed Frederick Lawton, a candidate for the British Union of Fascists during the 1930s who was directly involved in attempting to secure funding from the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist governments for BUF projects, later became (as Sir Frederick Lawton) one of Britain’s most senior judges, sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal until his retirement in 1986. It has often been more difficult for solicitors than for barristers to hold racial nationalist views, unless they are sole practitioners or in a partnership with fellow nationalists. Examples of nationalist solicitors include the Leicestershire firm run by Anthony Reed Herbert and Philip Gegan of the NF and (original) BDP; the late Tessa Sempik (partner of former NF vice-chairman Richard Verrall); and English Democrats leader Robin Tilbrook.
MSB Solicitors’ managing partner Paul Bibby told the Liverpool Echo that Mr Chiffers was facing disciplinary action, saying that MSB “pride ourselves on being a socially liberal firm and the views expressed are absolutely the antithesis of what we stand for at MSB”.
What does Mr Bibby’s “liberalism” amount to? Does it mean slavish adherence to a politically correct litmus test? Or does it mean liberal tolerance of diverse opinions?
Unsurprisingly the likes of Simon Fox (chief executive of the newspaper group pursuing Mr Chiffers) have no time for such fine British traditions. The values of Mr Fox and his ilk are entirely alien, and reflected every day in their newspapers.
We hope that MSB Solicitors will reject this disgraceful attempt to impose political censorship and ideological uniformity on the legal profession. Meanwhile Joe Chiffers has released a video response to his would-be persecutors.
Also worth watching is an earlier speech by Mr Chiffers delivered to a UKIP audience, on the origin and intent of the European Union (see below).
We shall inform H&D readers of further developments in this disturbing case.
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, the all-powerful Party enforces political correctness by rewriting the past. Political deviations are rendered impossible by erasing true records of past events, eradicating cultural roots and traditions.
Today the world’s media acts as Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’.
One small but telling example is the worldwide publicity today for a poll to determine the public’s favourite Agatha Christie novel. The winner – as reported today by practically every English-language news site in the world – was And Then There Were None, which the BBC is now dramatising as a three-part series.
Not a single news site reported that this was not the book’s original title: it was first published in England in 1939 as Ten Little Niggers. It was only American sensitivity that led to alternative titles for U.S. editions – first as Ten Little Indians, then once this was deemed offensive to ‘Native Americans’ changed again to And Then There Were None – but the book was not retitled in England until 1985.
Such is the progress of political correctness: in the space of just thirty years we have adopted the liberal tyanny that not only forbids such a title as Ten Little Niggers, but insists that today’s audience shouldn’t even know of its existence.
The April meeting of the London Forum made headlines around the world, with a massive two page article in the Mail on Sunday headlined ‘Nazi Invasion of London’.
This was more than a little ironic, given the political proclivities of the Mail‘s owner Lord Rothermere during the National Socialist era.
If you want to see the reality behing the headlines, here are some videos of the speakers at the notorious meeting targeted by the Mail.
German lawyer Sylvia Stolz has been given a 20 month prison sentence for comments she made during a speech at a conference in Switzerland. She has already served more than three years in prison from 2008 to 2011 for her defence of client Ernst Zündel.
Several European countries have laws that ban any questioning of the history of the ‘Holocaust’, turning the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War into a form of religious ‘truth’ that cannot be challenged.
Normal historical analysis and debate is thus condemned as a form of blasphemy, and punished by long prison sentences. For example Horst Mahler, another German lawyer who dared to challenge established historical legends, has been imprisoned since 2009.
Sylvia Stolz’s latest ‘crime’ was committed at the Anti-Censorship Coalition Conference in Switzerland in November 2012. A video of this ‘criminal’ speech, with English subtitles, can be viewed below:
While sentencing Frau Stolz to prison, the judge in her latest case indicated that he fully expects her to appeal, and she will not begin her sentence until the appeal process has ended.
In fact it is likely that the German authorities have created a serious embarrassment for themselves, by prosecuting Frau Stolz for pointing out facts that were actually accepted by German courts themselves when sentencing former Auschwitz guards at trials during the 1960s. During those cases the German courts themselves admitted the absence of evidence regarding the locations of the alleged crimes of the ‘Holocaust’; the lack of any judicial findings regarding corpses or traces of the murders concerned; the lack of judicial assessment of witness statements, or of the documents or other evidence; and the lack of any documentary proof establishing the National Socialists’ intention to destroy the Jewish people in part or in whole (i.e. to commit genocide).
Yet to make these very same observations – even in the very same terms as used by the German courts themselves during the 1960s – is now a criminal act in 21st century Germany.
Though here in the UK we have not yet descended into such a Kafkaesque nightmare of bizarre criminal trials, there are attempts to extend our own notorious ‘race laws’ to encompass the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. Moreover the British authorities have signed up to the Stockholm International Conference on the teaching of the ‘Holocaust’, which instructed schools as follows:
“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers – do not treat the denial of the Holocaust as a legitimate historical argument, or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”
Heritage and Destiny readers might be surprised to read that we regret the resignation of Emily Thornberry, who for three years until tonight had been Shadow Attorney General in Ed Miliband’s Labour frontbench team.
Ms Thornberry is the archetypal middle-class leftwinger: daughter of a UN and NATO official, she became a radical barrister and is married to a QC. No doubt her prejudices fit well with many of her constituents in Islington South & Finsbury.
The problem was that she couldn’t resist displaying those prejudices on Twitter following a visit to the Rochester & Strood by-election campaign, where she spotted a white van parked outside a house displaying three St George flags. For an Islington leftie this was confirmation that Rochester is home to “white van man”: football fan, patriot, anti-immigration and therefore likely to favour UKIP over Labour.
The Sun was quick to jump on the bandwagon, and the owner of the house is now quoted describing Ms Thornberry as “a snob”. She swiftly resigned from the Labour frontbench, and her friend Ed Miliband was said to be very annoyed that she had insulted one of Labour’s key groups of target voters: the white working class.
The reality is that Ms Thornberry’s only crime was to be too honest. Her type of metropolitan leftie really does despise white workers, but members of this truly oppressed and marginalised group should beware of playing the victim card.
British politics requires more honesty, not less. Party spokesmen are already far too afraid of causing offence to some group or other.
The truth is that we all have “prejudices”, some more rooted in reality than others. The shackles should be removed from political debate, and we should be unafraid of being denounced as snobs, racists, sexists, heterosexists, xenophobes, or any other victim culture label.
“Maybe we should all front up and say things more clearly. Maybe NHS hospitals should advertise: “We can only run this place with ‘foreigners’ – you got a problem with that?” And maybe businesses could adopt the slogan: “We’re as black, brown, gay, straight, disabled and ‘foreign’ as Britain is, and proud of it – feel free to take your money and prejudices somewhere else.”
“Instead of political correctness you would then have political honesty. It would be uglier but more real.”
From a very different standpoint to Mr Mason, we agree. Let Islington trendies display their prejudices without fear of resignation: but let other “prejudices” also be aired – and let the voters decide!
Baroness Warsi has hitherto been a minor political figure: perhaps the highlight of her career until today was an appearance on BBC Television’s Question Time where she assisted in the general humiliation of then BNP leader Nick Griffin.
Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn has a good rant this week at senior New Labour politicians of the Blair era, including successive Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett. Like many of his ilk, Straw has recently taken to apologising for New Labour’s “mistake” of allowing vastly increased immigration after they came to power in 1997.
Littlejohn correctly points out that this was no mistake: it was a deliberate anti-English policy, as revealed by former Blair adviser Andrew Neather back in 2009.
But the Mail columnist can’t be let off the hook too easily in his effort to score party political points against Labour. The ethnic transformation of Britain was not a consequence of the Blair years, it was an accomplished fact well before the 1997 Labour landslide.
New Labour’s main contribution to multiculturalism was to let in millions of Eastern Europeans, mainly from Poland and the Ukraine but increasingly also from other former Soviet bloc countries. Ironically this has resulted in many inner city areas of England becoming whiter, as these new immigrants often moved into areas that had been dominated by blacks and Asians who had arrived in earlier waves of immigration!
And that of course is the point: the turning point in the transformation of Britain was not Tony Blair’s arrival in Downing Street, but the catastrophic European civil war (better known as the Second World War) of 1939-45. Britain’s supposed ‘victory’ in that war not only bankrupted our national finances and liquidated our Empire, it discredited the very notion of racial nationalism. Anyone even daring to mention racial questions after 1945 could be demonised by opponents deploying the shadow of the legendary gas chambers to silence debate.
Britain started to become a multiracial country with the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948, and the process continued throughout the postwar decades. During most of this time – Richard Littlejohn should note – the Conservative Party was in government.
Nevertheless, the fact that even a semi-honest discussion of immigration is now beginning should certainly be welcomed. This week saw a key contribution to that long overdue debate with the publication of a book by the Oxford University economist Prof. Paul Collier – Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century.
The book will be reviewed in the New Year by Heritage and Destiny. In the meantime readers can catch up with a lecture by Prof. Collier given at the LSE earlier this month. Once you cut through the inevitable politically correct introductions, you will hear that even the academic establishment is having to reassess its arguments.