Europe far right courts Israel in anti-Islam Drive
Reuters - Monday 20th December 2010 - 2:55pm GMT
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
PARIS: Far-right political parties in Europe are stepping up their anti-Muslim rhetoric and forging ties across borders, even going so far as to visit Israel to hail the Jewish state as a bulwark against militant Islam.
National Front leader Marine Le Pen has shocked the French political elite in recent days by comparing Muslims who pray outside crowded mosques -- a common sight during the holy month of Ramadan -- to the World War Two Nazi occupation.
Oskar Freysinger, a champion of the Swiss ban on minarets, warned a far-right meeting in Paris Saturday against "the demographic, sociological and psychological Islamisation of Europe". German and Belgian activists also addressed the crowd.
Geert Wilders, whose populist far-right party supports the Dutch minority government, told Reuters last week he was organising an "international freedom alliance" to link grass-roots groups active in "the fight against Islam."
Earlier this month, Wilders visited Israel and backed its West Bank settlements, saying Palestinians there should move to Jordan. Like-minded German, Austrian, Belgian, Swedish and other far-rightists were on their own Israel tour at the same time.
"Our culture is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism and (the Israelis) are fighting our fight," Wilders told Reuters in Amsterdam last week. "If Jerusalem falls, Amsterdam and New York will be next."
While he seeks anti-Muslim allies abroad, Wilders said some older far-right parties [sic] such as France's National Front or the British National Party were "blunt racist parties I don't care for" and he would avoid cooperating with them.
CONCERN ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY
Campaigns aimed at Muslims have been gaining ground in Europe, most notably with the Swiss minaret ban last year and France's law this year against full facial veils in public, which Wilders said the Netherlands should copy next year.
Support for these steps has spread beyond anti-immigrant parties and towards the political centre as globalisation and the ageing of Europe's population fuel voters' concerns about national sovereignty, according to a leading French analyst.
Political scientist Dominique Reynie said the financial crisis had prompted more voters to agree with the far right that their political elites were incompetent.
"Some people refuse what they see as a change in their cultural or religious surroundings," he told the Paris daily Le Monde. "These are the problems posed by mosques, burqas and the provisions of halal food."
Some on the far right see similar trends in the United States. Wilders attended a rally in New York on September 11 to protest against a mosque planned near Ground Zero and the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, Heinz Christian Strache, has said he wants to visit the United States to meet leaders of the Tea Party movement.
Marine Le Pen, who is preparing to succeed her father Jean-Marie as head of the National Front, had in recent years toed a more moderate line before her anti-Muslim comments. She notably refused to echo the anti-Semitic views expressed by her father.
Sunday, she insisted all public subsidies for building mosques must stop. Several politicians and Muslim leaders have said Muslims often pray in the street because they do not have enough space in mosques and urged that more be built.
NEW FAR RIGHT
The rightists' Israel visits set what some analysts call the "new far right" apart from older extremists who were often anti-Semitic and backed Arab countries against the Jewish state.
Declaring support for Israel gives them an opportunity to oppose Muslim opinion in their home countries, since European Muslims are often pro-Palestinian, as well as celebrate the Jewish state as the front line against militant Islam.
"It is not Israel's duty to provide a Palestinian state," Wilders said in a speech in Tel Aviv. "There already is a Palestinian state and that state is Jordan."
A so-called "Jerusalem Declaration" issued by four other European rightists during their Israel visit also staunchly defended the country's existence and its right to defend itself "against all aggression, especially Islamic terror."
Heinz-Christian Strache from Austria, German Freedom Party head Rene Stadtkewitz, Sweden Democrat MP Kent Ekeroth and Filip Dewinter, head of Belgium's Vlaams Belang party, denied they were stoking Islamophobia with their statement.
"The Arab-Israeli conflict illustrates the struggle between Western culture and radical Islam," Dewinter said in Tel Aviv.
Strache made a similar link to Europe, telling a conference in Ashkelon -- a city that has been hit by rockets from the nearby Gaza Strip -- that Israel faced "an Islamic terror threat that aims right for the heart of our society."
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz accused the rightists of "trading in their Jewish demon-enemy for the Muslim criminal-immigrant model" and visiting Israel only to get "Jewish absolution that will bring them closer to political power."
[ENDS]
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
No porridge for Griffin says Tory Boy
Conservative Home, September 07, 2010
Sending Nick Griffin to jail would hand the BNP a lifeline
By James Bethell, Director of NothingBritish.com
Not many defendants at the High Court actually want a night in prison but when Nick Griffin stands in the High Court today he will be praying for a bit of bird. Because martyrdom (or at least a few nights in the clink) is the only way he can redeem himself after a catastrophic year of electoral disappointment, financial mismanagement, egotistical bullying and political marginalisation.
Griffin emerged from the general election as a lame duck whose moral authority is irretrievably dented by his failure to make an effective case on behalf of Britain’s angry white lower-middle class, as witnessed during that Question Time debate, despite a recession, an unpopular war and record-levels of immigration. His organisation, once cited as an energetic example of Obama-style participation politics, is divided by factions and unhappiness.
After building up a substantial election war-chest during the post-Euro-election hubris, the BNP has blown its nest-egg on legal fees fighting an unnecessary, unwinnable battle against the Equality and Rights Commission over its whites-only membership policy. Griffin’s erratic leadership style has driven out hard-working lieutenants, he has failed to make an impact in the European Parliament and he spends his days writing daily begging letters to his disenchanted membership. And yet the BNP’s one-sided constitution gives Griffin an unassailable role.
Today’s court appearance epitomises Griffin’s self-destructive, egotistical leadership style, and the central role Griffin’s personal views on race have played in limiting the appeal of the BNP. The EHRC litigation handed Griffin a valid excuse to abandon the distasteful whites-only membership requirement and create a powerful “Clause 4” moment that redefined the BNP as a popular nationalist party capable of breaking out of the BNP’s electoral ghetto.
Instead, a committed fascist with a ethno-centric view of the world, Griffin sought to turn this case into a symbolic battle against the forces of political correctness, a struggle that had no resonance in the media, freedom of speech zealots or even his own members. Predictably the case has resulted in an embarrassing, costly defeat which even Griffin’s spin-machine can hardly defend.
As the case has progressed and Griffin’s tactics have grown increasingly desperate, the courts have become understandably frustrated by his slippery, schoolboy antics. However much Judge Paul Collins is tempted to teach Griffin a lesson, he should take a chill pill. Because the BNP are a busted flush. And about the only thing that could get them back in business is the martyrdom of their flawed leader.
Sending Nick Griffin to jail would hand the BNP a lifeline
By James Bethell, Director of NothingBritish.com
Not many defendants at the High Court actually want a night in prison but when Nick Griffin stands in the High Court today he will be praying for a bit of bird. Because martyrdom (or at least a few nights in the clink) is the only way he can redeem himself after a catastrophic year of electoral disappointment, financial mismanagement, egotistical bullying and political marginalisation.
Griffin emerged from the general election as a lame duck whose moral authority is irretrievably dented by his failure to make an effective case on behalf of Britain’s angry white lower-middle class, as witnessed during that Question Time debate, despite a recession, an unpopular war and record-levels of immigration. His organisation, once cited as an energetic example of Obama-style participation politics, is divided by factions and unhappiness.
After building up a substantial election war-chest during the post-Euro-election hubris, the BNP has blown its nest-egg on legal fees fighting an unnecessary, unwinnable battle against the Equality and Rights Commission over its whites-only membership policy. Griffin’s erratic leadership style has driven out hard-working lieutenants, he has failed to make an impact in the European Parliament and he spends his days writing daily begging letters to his disenchanted membership. And yet the BNP’s one-sided constitution gives Griffin an unassailable role.
Today’s court appearance epitomises Griffin’s self-destructive, egotistical leadership style, and the central role Griffin’s personal views on race have played in limiting the appeal of the BNP. The EHRC litigation handed Griffin a valid excuse to abandon the distasteful whites-only membership requirement and create a powerful “Clause 4” moment that redefined the BNP as a popular nationalist party capable of breaking out of the BNP’s electoral ghetto.
Instead, a committed fascist with a ethno-centric view of the world, Griffin sought to turn this case into a symbolic battle against the forces of political correctness, a struggle that had no resonance in the media, freedom of speech zealots or even his own members. Predictably the case has resulted in an embarrassing, costly defeat which even Griffin’s spin-machine can hardly defend.
As the case has progressed and Griffin’s tactics have grown increasingly desperate, the courts have become understandably frustrated by his slippery, schoolboy antics. However much Judge Paul Collins is tempted to teach Griffin a lesson, he should take a chill pill. Because the BNP are a busted flush. And about the only thing that could get them back in business is the martyrdom of their flawed leader.
Monday, 20 December 2010
BNP becoming insignificant?
EDL has 'left BNP a mere sideshow'
By Martin Bright, December 16, 2010, The Jewish Chronicle
The head of Britain's leading anti-fascist organisation has said the English Defence League has replaced the British National Party as the major force on the far right of British politics.
Nick Lowles of Searchlight said the BNP had become a "sideshow" since the crushing defeat of its leader Nick Griffin in Barking at this year's general election.
In recent months, he said, the EDL's anti-Muslim message had given the party a wider appeal. At the same time, the violence EDL rallies attracted meant the organisation received a great deal of media attention.
He added that the BNP were stuck with an old-fashioned neo-fascist image which alienated many who were prepared to back the EDL.
Mr Lowles has made it clear that Searchlight will no longer limit its operations to the fight against traditional neo-Nazi organisations. In the new year it will launch a think tank to examine new forms of extremism such as the anti-Muslim politics of the EDL and totalitarian Islamism.
Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida, is the controversial cleric who was first invited and then "uninvited" by the EDL, allegedly on the grounds of his racism and homophobia. In August this year, giving a deposition in a court case in which he was a witness, Mr Jones described Judaism as "a religion of the devil", along with Hinduism and Buddhism.
Gainesville is best known as the home of the University of Florida, where there are about 2,000 Jews in the year-round community with three congregations, Conservative, Reform and Jewish Renewal to serve them. On the campus itself, Hillel and Chabad-Lubavitch cater for nearly 7,000 Jewish students.
According to Rabbi Berl Goldman, co-director of the Lubavitch Chabad Jewish Centre on campus, Pastor Jones is not even on the local community's radar. He said: "I've been here 10 years and I don't know of any formal ties or relationship between Jones and faith-based organisations. I've never seen him at any meetings of the Campus Ministry Co-operative which has representatives of all different faiths and denominations in Gainesville. The Jewish community is very distressed at his provocative actions."
Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Centre (the Montgomery, Alabama-based civil rights organisation) confirmed that Pastor Jones is extremely isolated. "I very much doubt if he has connections with anyone except a dozen or so followers."
[ENDS]
By Martin Bright, December 16, 2010, The Jewish Chronicle
The head of Britain's leading anti-fascist organisation has said the English Defence League has replaced the British National Party as the major force on the far right of British politics.
Nick Lowles of Searchlight said the BNP had become a "sideshow" since the crushing defeat of its leader Nick Griffin in Barking at this year's general election.
In recent months, he said, the EDL's anti-Muslim message had given the party a wider appeal. At the same time, the violence EDL rallies attracted meant the organisation received a great deal of media attention.
He added that the BNP were stuck with an old-fashioned neo-fascist image which alienated many who were prepared to back the EDL.
Mr Lowles has made it clear that Searchlight will no longer limit its operations to the fight against traditional neo-Nazi organisations. In the new year it will launch a think tank to examine new forms of extremism such as the anti-Muslim politics of the EDL and totalitarian Islamism.
Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida, is the controversial cleric who was first invited and then "uninvited" by the EDL, allegedly on the grounds of his racism and homophobia. In August this year, giving a deposition in a court case in which he was a witness, Mr Jones described Judaism as "a religion of the devil", along with Hinduism and Buddhism.
Gainesville is best known as the home of the University of Florida, where there are about 2,000 Jews in the year-round community with three congregations, Conservative, Reform and Jewish Renewal to serve them. On the campus itself, Hillel and Chabad-Lubavitch cater for nearly 7,000 Jewish students.
According to Rabbi Berl Goldman, co-director of the Lubavitch Chabad Jewish Centre on campus, Pastor Jones is not even on the local community's radar. He said: "I've been here 10 years and I don't know of any formal ties or relationship between Jones and faith-based organisations. I've never seen him at any meetings of the Campus Ministry Co-operative which has representatives of all different faiths and denominations in Gainesville. The Jewish community is very distressed at his provocative actions."
Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Centre (the Montgomery, Alabama-based civil rights organisation) confirmed that Pastor Jones is extremely isolated. "I very much doubt if he has connections with anyone except a dozen or so followers."
[ENDS]
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Open letter to Mr Griffin, BNP leader
Dear Mr Griffin
You know as well as, if not better than, I, that all is far from well with the British National Party. In fact, the BNP is slowly dying: from insolvency; declining membership; the largely self-inflicted loss of its most capable and dedicated officers, elected representatives, and activists; and plummeting morale consequent upon the foregoing factors, as well as upon the growing inability to contest elections effectively, and upon the disappointing results obtained in most of those few that are fought.
This is probably not an exhaustive list.
Well, leaving aside for a moment the question of responsibility for all these woes, what is to be done to turn the situation around?
You may point to the reforms outlined at the recent party conference.
They are superficial, with the exception of the proposed change in the constitution to allow the national chairman a four year term of office, eliminating even the theoretical possibility of a leadership election. None of it really addresses the root of the problem.
What is the root of the problem?
Well, a large part of it is your style of leadership, I'm sorry to have to say. You want the public, the electorate, to believe that the BNP is a democratic, and respectable, political party, and that you personally are a democrat, rather than a fascist, yet your every action as leader belies the party's and your own pretensions in this regard.
You seem to get very twitchy if anyone so much as asks a question about the accounts, for example. Are there not questions to be answered, though?
Of course there are. Why have you been unable to appoint, and retain, a party treasurer who is able to maintain adequate financial records? This is not a complex task. It merely requires a certain basic knowledge of book-keeping, rather than advanced accountancy. The party has a number of members with skills, qualifications, and experience, in this discipline, yet you seem to be unwilling to use them, preferring to keep pliant and incompetent yes-men in the nominal position of party treasurer. This naturally begs the question: for what reason?
Then again, why do you become so twitchy at the prospect of a leadership election, when, as the incumbent, the odds are in your favour anyway? Why do you feel it necessary to victimize, and to treat so unfairly, and harshly, not only any serious challenger, but his supporters as well? One might conclude that you dare not take even the smallest chance of being ousted democratically, for fear that your successor would be in a position to discover facts which you wish to remain suppressed.
You cannot imagine that the disquietude within the party, since its poor showing at the general election, has gone unnoticed by the media. If they have largely held their fire up to now, that is no guarantee that they will continue to remain silent. Can you imagine how damaging to the party's electoral prospects an expose by the BBC of the party's oppression of its own activists, and bilking of its suppliers, (many of whom are loyal members who now regret having trusted the party) would be? The lack of proper financial record-keeping would also do more than raise eyebrows, I can assure you.
If you are interested in reuniting the BNP, rather than presiding over its terminal decline, I suggest that you reply publicly to this letter, as the beginning of a dialogue between yourself and those, such as Eddy Butler, and myself, who wish for reform of a more substantive nature than was outlined at the recent party conference, which as you know we, with others who have criticized your leadership, were prevented from attending.
While I cannot speak for Eddy, in this regard, I can assure you that my interest in and involvement with the BNP will not end in the event of my unjust expulsion from the party. John Tyndall was right when he said, at the 1998 party rally, that all progress comes from struggle.
Since BNP membership has been held to be valueless by the party's legal representative in open court, non-members of the party are appointed to senior positions within it, and considered as candidates for important parliamentary by-elections, some might wonder why I would wish to remain a member of a party that treats its own members so badly.
You know the answer to that though, don't you? It's because I have a vision of what the party could be, and achieve, were it to be properly led. I used to believe that you too had the same, or a similar vision.
Was I wrong to have once believed in you?
Yours faithfully
Dr Andrew Emerson
You know as well as, if not better than, I, that all is far from well with the British National Party. In fact, the BNP is slowly dying: from insolvency; declining membership; the largely self-inflicted loss of its most capable and dedicated officers, elected representatives, and activists; and plummeting morale consequent upon the foregoing factors, as well as upon the growing inability to contest elections effectively, and upon the disappointing results obtained in most of those few that are fought.
This is probably not an exhaustive list.
Well, leaving aside for a moment the question of responsibility for all these woes, what is to be done to turn the situation around?
You may point to the reforms outlined at the recent party conference.
They are superficial, with the exception of the proposed change in the constitution to allow the national chairman a four year term of office, eliminating even the theoretical possibility of a leadership election. None of it really addresses the root of the problem.
What is the root of the problem?
Well, a large part of it is your style of leadership, I'm sorry to have to say. You want the public, the electorate, to believe that the BNP is a democratic, and respectable, political party, and that you personally are a democrat, rather than a fascist, yet your every action as leader belies the party's and your own pretensions in this regard.
You seem to get very twitchy if anyone so much as asks a question about the accounts, for example. Are there not questions to be answered, though?
Of course there are. Why have you been unable to appoint, and retain, a party treasurer who is able to maintain adequate financial records? This is not a complex task. It merely requires a certain basic knowledge of book-keeping, rather than advanced accountancy. The party has a number of members with skills, qualifications, and experience, in this discipline, yet you seem to be unwilling to use them, preferring to keep pliant and incompetent yes-men in the nominal position of party treasurer. This naturally begs the question: for what reason?
Then again, why do you become so twitchy at the prospect of a leadership election, when, as the incumbent, the odds are in your favour anyway? Why do you feel it necessary to victimize, and to treat so unfairly, and harshly, not only any serious challenger, but his supporters as well? One might conclude that you dare not take even the smallest chance of being ousted democratically, for fear that your successor would be in a position to discover facts which you wish to remain suppressed.
You cannot imagine that the disquietude within the party, since its poor showing at the general election, has gone unnoticed by the media. If they have largely held their fire up to now, that is no guarantee that they will continue to remain silent. Can you imagine how damaging to the party's electoral prospects an expose by the BBC of the party's oppression of its own activists, and bilking of its suppliers, (many of whom are loyal members who now regret having trusted the party) would be? The lack of proper financial record-keeping would also do more than raise eyebrows, I can assure you.
If you are interested in reuniting the BNP, rather than presiding over its terminal decline, I suggest that you reply publicly to this letter, as the beginning of a dialogue between yourself and those, such as Eddy Butler, and myself, who wish for reform of a more substantive nature than was outlined at the recent party conference, which as you know we, with others who have criticized your leadership, were prevented from attending.
While I cannot speak for Eddy, in this regard, I can assure you that my interest in and involvement with the BNP will not end in the event of my unjust expulsion from the party. John Tyndall was right when he said, at the 1998 party rally, that all progress comes from struggle.
Since BNP membership has been held to be valueless by the party's legal representative in open court, non-members of the party are appointed to senior positions within it, and considered as candidates for important parliamentary by-elections, some might wonder why I would wish to remain a member of a party that treats its own members so badly.
You know the answer to that though, don't you? It's because I have a vision of what the party could be, and achieve, were it to be properly led. I used to believe that you too had the same, or a similar vision.
Was I wrong to have once believed in you?
Yours faithfully
Dr Andrew Emerson
Friday, 17 December 2010
Martin Webster says: don't be fooled by Griffin flummery
EHRC defeat in ‘Contempt’ case NOT a "Victory for Free Speech"
A BNP member has e-mailed me to suggest that the outcome of today’s Contempt of Court case brought against Nick Griffin and the British National Party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission was a further instance of the Establishment helping Griffin.
I do not agree with that reaction, and have replied as follows:
--------------
This morning’s result in the High Court in which Griffin was found Not Guilty of “Contempt of Court” is NOT an instance of “The Hidden Hand” protecting him (as it has done before).
The hearing today was NOT on a matter of principle, but only on legal technicalities.
Griffin has NOT won a fight to allow the BNP to keep its original constitution which restricted membership to indigenous White people.
He surrendered that principle at a very early stage of this litigation. All sides agreed about that during this morning’s hearing, as BBC Radio 4 has reported.
On that point Griffin told BNP members in one of his bulletins (when complaining about the EHRC keeping the litigation going):
“We’ve given them everything they’ve asked for....”
The EHRC went to the High Court today to get him/the BNP punished for not abiding by the undertakings he gave to the lower court to change the BNP constitution to allow the party to have a multi-racial membership and to give effect to those changes.
The High Court, apparently, has decided that he has not reneged on his promises given to lower courts to open up the BNP to a multi-racial membership.
So he has NOT won a “victory” for free speech, freedom of association, the “freedom to be ourselves” or any other such thing as he now claims. He SURRENDERED those points of principle a year ago at the County Court hearings.
In my bulletin of Saturday 20th November I commented:
[quote]
However low my opinion is of Gri££in, I want the Equality and Human Rights Commission to lose its current litigation against the BNP so that a matter of principle may be upheld, i.e.:
That in a democracy, the government and its agencies have no right to dictate the terms of the constitutions of political parties, and thereby to dictate their policies. The sole judge on those kinds of matters should be the electorate.
I fear the EHRC may win because the BNP has not fought the case on this matter of principle. It surrendered that principle at an early stage, as Gri££in admitted in a bulletin to members deploring the EHRC’s continuation with the case, in which he said: “We’ve given them everything they demanded....”
Gri££in has only fought the case on a sequence of technical issues and not on the issue that in a democracy a political party has the right to regulate its membership recruitment in accordance with its lawful political objectives.
[end quote]
Unfortunately, today Griffin did NOT seek to reverse his earlier surrender of the point of principle. He merely sought to prove that he has done what he promised the EHRC he would do.
The BNP can now expect the EHRC and its agents provocateurs to continually test whether the party is allowing non-Whites to join the party and influence its policy objectives in equality with indigenous White British people. If he/the party obstructs that process, then he/the party will be back before the courts again to face “contempt” charges. In a statement broadcast by the BBC, the EHRC promised that very thing.
It is necessary to keep your eye on the ball, not on Griffin’s empty “Victory” announcements.
A BNP member has e-mailed me to suggest that the outcome of today’s Contempt of Court case brought against Nick Griffin and the British National Party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission was a further instance of the Establishment helping Griffin.
I do not agree with that reaction, and have replied as follows:
--------------
This morning’s result in the High Court in which Griffin was found Not Guilty of “Contempt of Court” is NOT an instance of “The Hidden Hand” protecting him (as it has done before).
The hearing today was NOT on a matter of principle, but only on legal technicalities.
Griffin has NOT won a fight to allow the BNP to keep its original constitution which restricted membership to indigenous White people.
He surrendered that principle at a very early stage of this litigation. All sides agreed about that during this morning’s hearing, as BBC Radio 4 has reported.
On that point Griffin told BNP members in one of his bulletins (when complaining about the EHRC keeping the litigation going):
“We’ve given them everything they’ve asked for....”
The EHRC went to the High Court today to get him/the BNP punished for not abiding by the undertakings he gave to the lower court to change the BNP constitution to allow the party to have a multi-racial membership and to give effect to those changes.
The High Court, apparently, has decided that he has not reneged on his promises given to lower courts to open up the BNP to a multi-racial membership.
So he has NOT won a “victory” for free speech, freedom of association, the “freedom to be ourselves” or any other such thing as he now claims. He SURRENDERED those points of principle a year ago at the County Court hearings.
In my bulletin of Saturday 20th November I commented:
[quote]
However low my opinion is of Gri££in, I want the Equality and Human Rights Commission to lose its current litigation against the BNP so that a matter of principle may be upheld, i.e.:
That in a democracy, the government and its agencies have no right to dictate the terms of the constitutions of political parties, and thereby to dictate their policies. The sole judge on those kinds of matters should be the electorate.
I fear the EHRC may win because the BNP has not fought the case on this matter of principle. It surrendered that principle at an early stage, as Gri££in admitted in a bulletin to members deploring the EHRC’s continuation with the case, in which he said: “We’ve given them everything they demanded....”
Gri££in has only fought the case on a sequence of technical issues and not on the issue that in a democracy a political party has the right to regulate its membership recruitment in accordance with its lawful political objectives.
[end quote]
Unfortunately, today Griffin did NOT seek to reverse his earlier surrender of the point of principle. He merely sought to prove that he has done what he promised the EHRC he would do.
The BNP can now expect the EHRC and its agents provocateurs to continually test whether the party is allowing non-Whites to join the party and influence its policy objectives in equality with indigenous White British people. If he/the party obstructs that process, then he/the party will be back before the courts again to face “contempt” charges. In a statement broadcast by the BBC, the EHRC promised that very thing.
It is necessary to keep your eye on the ball, not on Griffin’s empty “Victory” announcements.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Islamophile teacher persecutes Christian schoolchildren
Here we see just one example of the endemic, Establishment-endorsed, creeping Islamification of Britain. Observe, if you will, the typically mealy-mouthed response of the county education authority to the righteous fury and complaints of the parents of the persecuted children.
This teacher should be suspended at once, pending a disciplinary hearing, by her employer. She should also be reported for professional misconduct to the General Teaching Council (GTC).
In the final analysis there is only one way to end this forced imposition of an alien faith on our children: to vote for the British National Party, whenever and wherever possible.
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah
Posted by EU Times on Nov 15th, 2010.
Alsager School, near Stoke, has received furious complaints from parents after two Year 7 boys were punished for refusing to kneel to Allah during a religious studies class.
Two British schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and ‘pray to Allah’ during a religious education lesson.
Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent – which included wearing Muslim headgear –was a breach of their human rights.
One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far.
“I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer.
“Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.
“I don’t want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it.”
Another parent Karen Williams said: “I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don’t find it acceptable.
“I haven’t got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn’t do any harm.
“But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said ‘we are now going out to pray to Allah’.
“Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.
“Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.
“They’d never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language.
“My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson.”
The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: “It’s absolutely disgusting, there’s no other way of putting it.
“My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn’t do it they were given detention.
“I am not racist, I’ve been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I’ve also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.
“But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war.”
Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: “It’s difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.
“At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.
“The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn’t around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.
“I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment.”
A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: “The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.
“Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.
“Educating children in the beliefs of different faith [sic] is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.
“We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity.”
This teacher should be suspended at once, pending a disciplinary hearing, by her employer. She should also be reported for professional misconduct to the General Teaching Council (GTC).
In the final analysis there is only one way to end this forced imposition of an alien faith on our children: to vote for the British National Party, whenever and wherever possible.
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah
Posted by EU Times on Nov 15th, 2010.
Alsager School, near Stoke, has received furious complaints from parents after two Year 7 boys were punished for refusing to kneel to Allah during a religious studies class.
Two British schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and ‘pray to Allah’ during a religious education lesson.
Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent – which included wearing Muslim headgear –was a breach of their human rights.
One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far.
“I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer.
“Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.
“I don’t want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it.”
Another parent Karen Williams said: “I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don’t find it acceptable.
“I haven’t got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn’t do any harm.
“But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said ‘we are now going out to pray to Allah’.
“Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.
“Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.
“They’d never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language.
“My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson.”
The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: “It’s absolutely disgusting, there’s no other way of putting it.
“My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn’t do it they were given detention.
“I am not racist, I’ve been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I’ve also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.
“But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war.”
Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: “It’s difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.
“At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.
“The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn’t around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.
“I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment.”
A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: “The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.
“Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.
“Educating children in the beliefs of different faith [sic] is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.
“We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity.”
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
John Tyndall prophesies New Leadership
John Tyndall, the first leader of the British National Party, would have had no truck with a tacky heart-shaped logo, and other, similarly tasteless gimmicks, by means of which Griffin seeks to ape the traitor-parties of the rotten Establishment he is so desperate to be allowed to join. No, John Tyndall was a genuine nationalist, as well as a decent, honest and upright English gentleman. What a pity that no-one can truthfully say that Griffin is any of these things.
When is Griffin going to realize that turning the BNP into a pale copy of the UKIP is the road to ruin, not his coveted seat in the corridors of power?
When is Griffin going to wake up to the fact that a heart-shaped logo just isn't going to cut it - with anyone other than his payroll-flunkeys? Even they are probably laughing at it behind his back.
Certainly, the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth are likely to be profoundly unimpressed. The BBC intends to see to that with an expose of the BNP's shameful victimization of its own activists, and chronic financial mismanagement, on Griffin's watch, early next month: just far enough away from polling day in the by-election for them to be able speciously to claim not to be unfairly disadvantaging candidate Griffin.
Griffin is the author of his own, as well as the BNP's misfortune. He has provided the BBC with all the ammunition it needs to cripple the BNP electorally, just as he has also provided the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) with all the ammunition IT needed to cripple the BNP financially. Is Griffin malignant, or monumentally incompetent, or both? That is an open question, but one to which many BNP members will be demanding an answer in the months to come.
The solution to the BNP's strategic problem is, contra Griffin, not for the party to become part of the mainstream, by concession after policy concession, but to win through by making the mainstream become part of our stream. The objective conditions have rarely been more favourable for political progress by a nationalist party.
In order to turn the situation to account, however, the party must be united, and not demoralized and divided, as at present. Griffin has shown himself to be either incapable, or (for whatever private reason) unwilling, to reunite and re-launch the party.
Consequently, Griffin must go, and go quickly. Even those who have, largely out of ignorance or fear, supported him up to now, should finally see the writing on the wall, and distance themselves from him, and his unforgivable betrayal of the BNP. If they fail, even at this the eleventh hour, to do so, then they may expect to take their share of the inevitable opprobrium that will deservedly be his when he falls, as fall he must.
If Griffin now expects the Establishment to pat him on the head, rub his tummy, and toss a choccy treat into the air for him to catch in his mouth, he is likely to be bitterly disappointed. All that will happen, as a result of the changes announced at the party conference last weekend, is that the party's decline in membership will accelerate, and the crucially important morale of its activists continue to decline.
Was it for this that the heroes of nationalism, was it for this that Albert Mariner, suffered martyrdom? Was it so that Griffin could bring the BNP to the brink of bankruptcy, gut it of its best and bravest, and turn it into a cross between his personal fan club, an apolitical cultural association, and a collection agency for donations to obscure 'causes'?
In one way, though, the BNP's new heart logo IS emblematic: a phoney emblem, dodgy accounts, and a phoney make-over, for a party with a phoney nationalist for a leader. What else would one expect?
Saturday, 11 December 2010
"Hello, hello, hello...."
The following is an article by Eddy Butler, chairman of BNP Reform, that was published on his blog, www.eddybutler.blogspot.com, today. BNP Sleazebuster, over to you.
Where's the money gone?
A supporter of the British National Party, Edward Alderson, of Bradford in West Yorkshire sadly died on 31st January 2010.
He had decided to leave the British National Party a sum in his will. A copy of the will is attached [visit www.eddybutler.blogspot.com to view]. Click on each image to read them.
The gross value of his estate was £364,868.
In his will Mr Alderson divided his estate as follows:
• To David Irving £1,000
• To his helper he left his house or if it was sold, the sum of £150,000 free of tax. His house was at 5 Shay Grange and it was sold in October 2008 for £155,000 (see this link for details of the sale price (http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/west-yorkshire/bradford/shay-grange/). Mr Alderson died in a nursing home. This means that the helper will have received £150,000.
• To the British National Party he left the balance in the estate up to the inheritance tax threshold after the two above bequests have been deducted. The inheritance tax threshold at the time of Mr Alderson’s death was £350,000. This means that the British National Party should have received £199,000. That is £350,000 less £1,000 and £150,000.
• The residue of the estate – any sum over £350,000 - was left to two Yorkshire based medical charities. The net value of the estate was £361,633, so these charities will have shared the sum of £11,633.
The money would have been received by the British National Party after 16th August, when probate was granted. The sum would have then to be declared to the Electoral Commission as a donation in the third quarterly return (i.e. as having been received between 1st July and 30th September). However the sum declared is only £65,000. It can be found in this link:
http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272010%2D12%2D11%2012%3A50%3A45%27%7D
HERE’S THE QUESTION...
What happened to the other £134,000?
Where's the money gone?
A supporter of the British National Party, Edward Alderson, of Bradford in West Yorkshire sadly died on 31st January 2010.
He had decided to leave the British National Party a sum in his will. A copy of the will is attached [visit www.eddybutler.blogspot.com to view]. Click on each image to read them.
The gross value of his estate was £364,868.
In his will Mr Alderson divided his estate as follows:
• To David Irving £1,000
• To his helper he left his house or if it was sold, the sum of £150,000 free of tax. His house was at 5 Shay Grange and it was sold in October 2008 for £155,000 (see this link for details of the sale price (http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/west-yorkshire/bradford/shay-grange/). Mr Alderson died in a nursing home. This means that the helper will have received £150,000.
• To the British National Party he left the balance in the estate up to the inheritance tax threshold after the two above bequests have been deducted. The inheritance tax threshold at the time of Mr Alderson’s death was £350,000. This means that the British National Party should have received £199,000. That is £350,000 less £1,000 and £150,000.
• The residue of the estate – any sum over £350,000 - was left to two Yorkshire based medical charities. The net value of the estate was £361,633, so these charities will have shared the sum of £11,633.
The money would have been received by the British National Party after 16th August, when probate was granted. The sum would have then to be declared to the Electoral Commission as a donation in the third quarterly return (i.e. as having been received between 1st July and 30th September). However the sum declared is only £65,000. It can be found in this link:
http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272010%2D12%2D11%2012%3A50%3A45%27%7D
HERE’S THE QUESTION...
What happened to the other £134,000?
Friday, 10 December 2010
Griffin denies reality of gas chambers
In this clip from the documentary series the Cook Report, in 1997, we see a much less well-fed Mr Griffin, telling the interviewer that "...thousands..." of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, rather than the millions every educated person knows were actually murdered.
Griffin also states that the gas chambers that were the main instrument of their murder did not exist. Again, the scientific, documentary, and eye-witness evidence that they did exist is overwhelming - for any normal individual. But then, Mr Griffin is hardly a normal person.
Can a party like the British National Party, the success of which is vital to the survival of the British nation, hope to win the trust and confidence of the mass of the electorate, while it is led by a man like Griffin?
I think we all know the answer to that one. Of course it can't; which is precisely why the Establishment is so determined that Griffin should remain the leader of the BNP. They know perfectly well that the party will go nowhere under his "leadership" and that suits them just fine.
To move to the next level the BNP needs a new leader. A leader without holocaust-denying baggage, who can reunite and re-launch the party.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
How Muslims treat Christians in Egypt
Egyptian Copts Appeal to BNP MEP for Help After Renewed Attacks by Islamists
Wed, 08/12/2010 - 19:45 | BNP News article from www.bnp.org.uk.
A representative of the Coptic Egyptian community in Britain has appealed to British National Party MEP Nick Griffin to highlight the violent anti-Christian attacks in Egypt by Islamist-supporting police in Egypt, instances of which are routinely covered up by the politically-correct controlled mass media.
In a statement released by Mr Griffin’s office, he announced that he would most certainly raise the latest attack at the earliest opportunity in Parliament, coming as it does hard on the heels of similar attacks by Muslims on Christian churches on the island of Cyprus.
The appeal for Mr Griffin’s assistance in publicising the latest attack in Egypt was sent by a well-known representative of the Coptic Christian community, who said that he was “writing on behalf of some of the Egyptian Copts who live in Great Britain. We are very concerned for the life and safety of our Christian brothers who live in fear under constant persecution from the State of Egypt.
“In the small hours of Wednesday morning 24th November 2010, the Egyptian Police opened fire on Christian worshippers who were staying overnight in a new building that they had built to use for services and prayers,” the letter continued.
“One person was killed instantly and two others died two days later in hospital. Over 64 people were injured, some seriously, and 165 people were detained by Police.
“The incident happened in Al-Omraneya near Cairo where there is a high concentration of Christian population. For the last 10 years the Christian residents there have been trying to obtain a license to build a church, but without success.
“To get around the obstacle of building a church, they obtained permission to build a four-storey building with the intention of using part of it to gather for prayers.
“The council’s Health and Safety department advised them to add to the original plan an escape stairwell, which they did.
“The building was almost complete when an inspection by another department from the council found the new stairwell added to the original plan which they said was in breach of the original license.
“A meeting was conducted with the Governor who, in an act of deception, advised the Christians that he was happy with the current building and would approve it,” the appeal said.
“It was the night of that same day in which the Christians found that the building was surrounded by thousands of policemen and saw demolition equipment on standby near the building.
“Seeing that months of their hard work was about to be demolished, they gathered inside the building to stop the demolition. The Police fired at them tear gas, plastic bullets and live ammunition.
“The Christians trapped inside the building and surrounded by thousands of policemen responded to the bullets by throwing bricks and stones at the Police. The Police closed in on the building shouting Allah Akbar! (Allah is Great), kill the infidels.
“They attacked the people with such savage brutality that many of them will live with disabilities for the rest of their lives. They ransacked the building, looting the donation box and altar vessels, threw the Holy Bible on the ground and stamped on it, and burned the icons.
“The police acted in exactly the same way that Muslim terrorists act,” the letter continued.
“The following morning the state-run media gave a completely different version of events. They accused the Christians of rioting and attacking the police. This wrong version of events spread to the international media.
“The Attorney General of Egypt announced that the Christians who defended themselves will face the full force of the Law. Nothing, however, was done to the police who were seen on video firing live ammunition, killing and injuring many people.
“A few days prior to these events, Muslim mobs had torched and burned to the ground over twenty Christian houses, also killing their farm animals, in the village of Nawahed at Qena province, in southern Egypt.
“The Christians gave the police the names of the perpetrators. However, the police decided that no one was responsible and that the fires, which affected only Christian houses, were merely an accident.
“These recent incidents and countless others, for which no one has been held responsible, prove the long held suspicion that many of the attacks on Christians are masterminded by the security forces in an attempt to drive the Christians to leave their homeland and live in foreign countries.
“In a way it is a slow, covert process of ethnic cleansing.
“Once again the incident of Al Omranya highlights the plight of the Coptic Christians in their own country. Despite the fact that the Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt, they are discriminated against, persecuted and killed by the Muslim majority, in collaboration with the police and with the blessing of the Egyptian government.
“Despite the fact that sectarian violence in Egypt is increasing with alarming severity, the British Government remains silent on the issue.
“We, the Christians of Egypt, are in need of help from every person and every country who cares for the values of freedom and human rights.
“The President and the government of Egypt will not act to protect Christians unless they realise that their acts to hide the truth from the eyes of the world are no longer working and that their devious acts are exposed.
“I hope you will be able to raise these issues in the European Parliament. I hope the European Parliament will be able to exert maximum pressure on the Egyptian Government to face up to its obligations to comply with the international conventions and laws on religious freedoms and human rights.
“Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns,” the letter concluded.
Mr Griffin said that this sort of treatment was fairly typical in majority Muslim countries.
“These events should serve as a wake-up call for Christians in Britain who think that they will be treated any differently if the establishment succeeds with its plan to colonise those country [sic] with Islamics,” Mr Griffin said.
* The Copts are native Egyptian Christians whose ancestors come from the original ancient Egyptians, who embraced Christianity in the first centuries after Christ.
The Copts became a minority in Egypt after Muslim armies from Saudi Arabia conquered that land by violence in the 7th century and today make up just over 5 percent of the population of Egypt.
[ENDS]
Wed, 08/12/2010 - 19:45 | BNP News article from www.bnp.org.uk.
A representative of the Coptic Egyptian community in Britain has appealed to British National Party MEP Nick Griffin to highlight the violent anti-Christian attacks in Egypt by Islamist-supporting police in Egypt, instances of which are routinely covered up by the politically-correct controlled mass media.
In a statement released by Mr Griffin’s office, he announced that he would most certainly raise the latest attack at the earliest opportunity in Parliament, coming as it does hard on the heels of similar attacks by Muslims on Christian churches on the island of Cyprus.
The appeal for Mr Griffin’s assistance in publicising the latest attack in Egypt was sent by a well-known representative of the Coptic Christian community, who said that he was “writing on behalf of some of the Egyptian Copts who live in Great Britain. We are very concerned for the life and safety of our Christian brothers who live in fear under constant persecution from the State of Egypt.
“In the small hours of Wednesday morning 24th November 2010, the Egyptian Police opened fire on Christian worshippers who were staying overnight in a new building that they had built to use for services and prayers,” the letter continued.
“One person was killed instantly and two others died two days later in hospital. Over 64 people were injured, some seriously, and 165 people were detained by Police.
“The incident happened in Al-Omraneya near Cairo where there is a high concentration of Christian population. For the last 10 years the Christian residents there have been trying to obtain a license to build a church, but without success.
“To get around the obstacle of building a church, they obtained permission to build a four-storey building with the intention of using part of it to gather for prayers.
“The council’s Health and Safety department advised them to add to the original plan an escape stairwell, which they did.
“The building was almost complete when an inspection by another department from the council found the new stairwell added to the original plan which they said was in breach of the original license.
“A meeting was conducted with the Governor who, in an act of deception, advised the Christians that he was happy with the current building and would approve it,” the appeal said.
“It was the night of that same day in which the Christians found that the building was surrounded by thousands of policemen and saw demolition equipment on standby near the building.
“Seeing that months of their hard work was about to be demolished, they gathered inside the building to stop the demolition. The Police fired at them tear gas, plastic bullets and live ammunition.
“The Christians trapped inside the building and surrounded by thousands of policemen responded to the bullets by throwing bricks and stones at the Police. The Police closed in on the building shouting Allah Akbar! (Allah is Great), kill the infidels.
“They attacked the people with such savage brutality that many of them will live with disabilities for the rest of their lives. They ransacked the building, looting the donation box and altar vessels, threw the Holy Bible on the ground and stamped on it, and burned the icons.
“The police acted in exactly the same way that Muslim terrorists act,” the letter continued.
“The following morning the state-run media gave a completely different version of events. They accused the Christians of rioting and attacking the police. This wrong version of events spread to the international media.
“The Attorney General of Egypt announced that the Christians who defended themselves will face the full force of the Law. Nothing, however, was done to the police who were seen on video firing live ammunition, killing and injuring many people.
“A few days prior to these events, Muslim mobs had torched and burned to the ground over twenty Christian houses, also killing their farm animals, in the village of Nawahed at Qena province, in southern Egypt.
“The Christians gave the police the names of the perpetrators. However, the police decided that no one was responsible and that the fires, which affected only Christian houses, were merely an accident.
“These recent incidents and countless others, for which no one has been held responsible, prove the long held suspicion that many of the attacks on Christians are masterminded by the security forces in an attempt to drive the Christians to leave their homeland and live in foreign countries.
“In a way it is a slow, covert process of ethnic cleansing.
“Once again the incident of Al Omranya highlights the plight of the Coptic Christians in their own country. Despite the fact that the Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt, they are discriminated against, persecuted and killed by the Muslim majority, in collaboration with the police and with the blessing of the Egyptian government.
“Despite the fact that sectarian violence in Egypt is increasing with alarming severity, the British Government remains silent on the issue.
“We, the Christians of Egypt, are in need of help from every person and every country who cares for the values of freedom and human rights.
“The President and the government of Egypt will not act to protect Christians unless they realise that their acts to hide the truth from the eyes of the world are no longer working and that their devious acts are exposed.
“I hope you will be able to raise these issues in the European Parliament. I hope the European Parliament will be able to exert maximum pressure on the Egyptian Government to face up to its obligations to comply with the international conventions and laws on religious freedoms and human rights.
“Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns,” the letter concluded.
Mr Griffin said that this sort of treatment was fairly typical in majority Muslim countries.
“These events should serve as a wake-up call for Christians in Britain who think that they will be treated any differently if the establishment succeeds with its plan to colonise those country [sic] with Islamics,” Mr Griffin said.
* The Copts are native Egyptian Christians whose ancestors come from the original ancient Egyptians, who embraced Christianity in the first centuries after Christ.
The Copts became a minority in Egypt after Muslim armies from Saudi Arabia conquered that land by violence in the 7th century and today make up just over 5 percent of the population of Egypt.
[ENDS]
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
To see ourselves as others see us
Below is an article by Sonia Gable, about the British National Party, which first appeared in Tribune.
If one makes due allowance for the perfunctory anathematization of the BNP, that is de rigueur for "anti-fascist" polemic, in its narration and analysis of events the piece is largely accurate, as far as it goes.
It is re-published here as an aid to party members and supporters who wish to increase their understanding of the causes of the BNP's relatively rapid reversal of fortune, since the summer of last year.
The cure for what ails the BNP remains: the departure of Griffin from his throne, and measured democratic reform of the party constitution, so that no other 'wannabe' dictator is ever able to exploit the party for personal gain in the way that he has, so greedily and unscrupulously.
One should perhaps add that it seems highly irrational for Sonia Gable, a Jewess, to be defending the progressive Islamification of Britain, against the righteous, patriotic, and peaceful protest of the English Defence League, when in the event of a Muslim take-over of Britain she and her fellow Jews would become despised and persecuted dhimmis, unless they chose to embrace Islam, of course. One is led to wonder how much Mrs Gable actually knows and understands of Islam.
Perhaps, though, Mrs Gable is playing le double jeu, hedging her bets, in the hope that the Muslims, if or when they take power, will overlook her Jewishness out of gratitude for past services rendered to Islam. Perhaps she hopes that they will give her special treatment. One hopes, for her sake, that it does not turn out to be of the sonderbehandlung variety.
The article now follows.
December 07, 2010
Decline and fall but not the far right’s end
Few will lament the BNP’s travails, says Sonia Gable. But something worse may supersede it.
The British National Party came out of the European Parliamentary election in June 2009 with two MEPs, albeit by the slenderest of margins. These gains – which could have been greater, had it not been for a strong anti-fascist campaign – boosted the party’s respectability and finances, and enabled several BNP activists to move onto the European parliamentary staff payroll. They also led to an appearance on the BBC’s Question Time in October last year for BNP leader Nick Griffin and opened the possibility that the party would take control of its first council in May 2010.
Eighteen months on, the BNP is disintegrating. Party officers have been expelled and it cannot pay its bills. It has lost half its district councillors and its London Assembly member, who now sits as an independent. It is contesting few council by-elections and where it fights, it gets few votes. Members are leaving and it faces crippling legal costs if the High Court rules against the party in the action brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over racial discrimination in its constitution.
The BNP’s collapse is not really surprising and is the result of several factors coming together. A dysfunctional party of bigots and extremists [sic] who prefer bickering among themselves to campaigning, led by a man who cannot bear genuine democracy, reason and compromise, and whose only real skill is in political intrigue and playing off one faction against another, could only go so far. Few people with any professional ability or management skills are attracted to the party and any who have been given party positions – which are in the sole gift of Griffin – have been removed as soon as they inevitably clashed with him. Others are promoted far beyond their ability on the back of their unquestioning support for their leader.
Many members were disillusioned after the BNP’s abysmal failure in the general and council elections in May. Right up until polling day, Griffin had held out the hope of taking control of Barking and Dagenham council and winning parliamentary seats. “We stand on the brink of a massive breakthrough”, he emailed supporters on May 3.
The heightened interest in the contest between the three main parties was only partly to blame for the wipe-out of the BNP. A massive campaign by Hope Not Hate dealt a heavy blow, especially in Barking and Dagenham, where the party’s 12 councillors all lost their seats. And Griffin’s mind was not fully on the campaign, as he was preoccupied with laboriously rewriting the party constitution in an attempt to get away with minimum compliance with race relations legislation, while taking the opportunity to insert provisions to consolidate his absolute power in the party and make it near impossible to challenge his leadership. Only a fascist party would give such power to one individual.
Five weeks before the election came the shock revelation that the BNP’s head of publicity had been arrested for threatening to kill Griffin. Mark Collett, who was in charge of producing the BNP’s election literature, was also accused of “financial irregularities and scamming” and of trying to sabotage the party’s campaign. He was suspended from membership and Eddy Butler, the BNP’s national elections officer, accused of conspiring with him, was relieved of his post.
Collett, who notoriously featured in the television documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, in which he said he was inspired by images of German Nazis “sieg heiling” in the streets, was unpopular within the BNP. In accusing him of financial irregularities, Griffin was undoubtedly trying to deflect attention from his own long record of financial mismanagement that would eventually result in the party’s near bankruptcy.
Searchlight has long been on the trail of the BNP’s dodgy finances. For the past few years, BNP national treasurers have lasted only a few months in the job. In 2004, a new treasurer shredded the financial records held by his predecessor. Accounts are delivered late to the Electoral Commission. The 2009 accounts are nearly five months overdue and the 2008 accounts remain under investigation because the auditors were unable to report that they represented a “true and fair view” – a devastating verdict for any organisation.
A major issue in the rebellion within the BNP at the end of 2007 was the incompetence of the treasurer and deputy treasurer. Griffin sided with the treasurers and expelled the rebels. He also brought in James Dowson to kick life into the party’s fundraising ability. Dowson, a man with criminal convictions, who had achieved some success for a militant anti-abortion campaign, made some headway for the BNP. Although many members complained about the constant begging letters, they brought in money.
But Dowson brought with him the seeds of the BNP’s destruction. Searchlight relentlessly exposed every lie, such as the claim that the BNP had bought its own advertising lorry, the misnamed “truth truck”, which remained all the time in Dowson’s ownership. Searchlight also tracked Dowson’s takeover of the bulk of the BNP’s assets and operations, including the leases for party offices and the Belfast call centre, opened before the European elections.
Searchlight’s accusation that Dowson owned the BNP reached the ears of many BNP activists, who were already unhappy at how Dowson, who claimed not even to be a BNP member, had, in effect, become Griffin’s consigliere. Worse, he was being paid £160,000 a year for this. And faster than Dowson brought in the money, Griffin spent it – on long, drawn-out and inept legal battles, unfairly dismissing employees and deliberately provoking Unilever by using a Marmite image in a party election broadcast.
All that might have been forgiven had Griffin brought home the election goods in May. As it was, it sparked an attempt to challenge his leadership. Butler, the sacked elections officer, had no disagreements with Griffin on policy, but condemned his financial and administrative incompetence, his reckless legal actions and Dowson’s excessive power. Griffin pulled out all the stops to prevent Butler getting the almost impossibly high number of signatures needed to require a leadership election, imposing rigid procedural rules and suspending several of Butler’s supporters from party membership.
Inevitably Butler failed and was expelled. He now sits on the sidelines, promoting a new party constitution and exposing Griffin’s continued shortcomings in the belief that he can still rescue the BNP. Some of those who supported Butler’s challenge have formed a new party, the British Freedom Party, largely based in the south-west of England. Ironically, it replaced its first treasurer less than a month after his appointment. With similar policies to the BNP and no charismatic personalities, it is likely to follow the Democratic Nationalists, formed by the rebels of December 2007, into near oblivion.
The BNP continues to lose members rapidly. It has debts that even when Dowson’s fundraising was at its peak, it would have struggled to pay. These debts could cost Griffin his treasured seat in the European Parliament if he is held personally responsible for them and made bankrupt. Dowson appears to have walked out, while Griffin’s dwindling band of henchmen, who now include Patrick Harrington, an old comrade from Griffin’s days as a National Front “political soldier”, are constantly bickering with one another and jockeying for petty positions.
The BNP may limp on, as does the NF, which still insults [sic] Britain’s war dead on an annual basis by marching to the Cenotaph on the afternoon of Remembrance Sunday. Few of the BNP’s ex-supporters have joined other far-right parties. The risk is that, disillusioned with electoral politics and with a simplistic outlook on the world, they will be attracted to the English Defence League’s brand of Islamophobia and street violence, fuelled by outrageous and irresponsible daily attacks on Muslims in the right-wing gutter press.
Sonia Gable is deputy editor of Searchlight.
[ENDS]
If one makes due allowance for the perfunctory anathematization of the BNP, that is de rigueur for "anti-fascist" polemic, in its narration and analysis of events the piece is largely accurate, as far as it goes.
It is re-published here as an aid to party members and supporters who wish to increase their understanding of the causes of the BNP's relatively rapid reversal of fortune, since the summer of last year.
The cure for what ails the BNP remains: the departure of Griffin from his throne, and measured democratic reform of the party constitution, so that no other 'wannabe' dictator is ever able to exploit the party for personal gain in the way that he has, so greedily and unscrupulously.
One should perhaps add that it seems highly irrational for Sonia Gable, a Jewess, to be defending the progressive Islamification of Britain, against the righteous, patriotic, and peaceful protest of the English Defence League, when in the event of a Muslim take-over of Britain she and her fellow Jews would become despised and persecuted dhimmis, unless they chose to embrace Islam, of course. One is led to wonder how much Mrs Gable actually knows and understands of Islam.
Perhaps, though, Mrs Gable is playing le double jeu, hedging her bets, in the hope that the Muslims, if or when they take power, will overlook her Jewishness out of gratitude for past services rendered to Islam. Perhaps she hopes that they will give her special treatment. One hopes, for her sake, that it does not turn out to be of the sonderbehandlung variety.
The article now follows.
December 07, 2010
Decline and fall but not the far right’s end
Few will lament the BNP’s travails, says Sonia Gable. But something worse may supersede it.
The British National Party came out of the European Parliamentary election in June 2009 with two MEPs, albeit by the slenderest of margins. These gains – which could have been greater, had it not been for a strong anti-fascist campaign – boosted the party’s respectability and finances, and enabled several BNP activists to move onto the European parliamentary staff payroll. They also led to an appearance on the BBC’s Question Time in October last year for BNP leader Nick Griffin and opened the possibility that the party would take control of its first council in May 2010.
Eighteen months on, the BNP is disintegrating. Party officers have been expelled and it cannot pay its bills. It has lost half its district councillors and its London Assembly member, who now sits as an independent. It is contesting few council by-elections and where it fights, it gets few votes. Members are leaving and it faces crippling legal costs if the High Court rules against the party in the action brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission over racial discrimination in its constitution.
The BNP’s collapse is not really surprising and is the result of several factors coming together. A dysfunctional party of bigots and extremists [sic] who prefer bickering among themselves to campaigning, led by a man who cannot bear genuine democracy, reason and compromise, and whose only real skill is in political intrigue and playing off one faction against another, could only go so far. Few people with any professional ability or management skills are attracted to the party and any who have been given party positions – which are in the sole gift of Griffin – have been removed as soon as they inevitably clashed with him. Others are promoted far beyond their ability on the back of their unquestioning support for their leader.
Many members were disillusioned after the BNP’s abysmal failure in the general and council elections in May. Right up until polling day, Griffin had held out the hope of taking control of Barking and Dagenham council and winning parliamentary seats. “We stand on the brink of a massive breakthrough”, he emailed supporters on May 3.
The heightened interest in the contest between the three main parties was only partly to blame for the wipe-out of the BNP. A massive campaign by Hope Not Hate dealt a heavy blow, especially in Barking and Dagenham, where the party’s 12 councillors all lost their seats. And Griffin’s mind was not fully on the campaign, as he was preoccupied with laboriously rewriting the party constitution in an attempt to get away with minimum compliance with race relations legislation, while taking the opportunity to insert provisions to consolidate his absolute power in the party and make it near impossible to challenge his leadership. Only a fascist party would give such power to one individual.
Five weeks before the election came the shock revelation that the BNP’s head of publicity had been arrested for threatening to kill Griffin. Mark Collett, who was in charge of producing the BNP’s election literature, was also accused of “financial irregularities and scamming” and of trying to sabotage the party’s campaign. He was suspended from membership and Eddy Butler, the BNP’s national elections officer, accused of conspiring with him, was relieved of his post.
Collett, who notoriously featured in the television documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, in which he said he was inspired by images of German Nazis “sieg heiling” in the streets, was unpopular within the BNP. In accusing him of financial irregularities, Griffin was undoubtedly trying to deflect attention from his own long record of financial mismanagement that would eventually result in the party’s near bankruptcy.
Searchlight has long been on the trail of the BNP’s dodgy finances. For the past few years, BNP national treasurers have lasted only a few months in the job. In 2004, a new treasurer shredded the financial records held by his predecessor. Accounts are delivered late to the Electoral Commission. The 2009 accounts are nearly five months overdue and the 2008 accounts remain under investigation because the auditors were unable to report that they represented a “true and fair view” – a devastating verdict for any organisation.
A major issue in the rebellion within the BNP at the end of 2007 was the incompetence of the treasurer and deputy treasurer. Griffin sided with the treasurers and expelled the rebels. He also brought in James Dowson to kick life into the party’s fundraising ability. Dowson, a man with criminal convictions, who had achieved some success for a militant anti-abortion campaign, made some headway for the BNP. Although many members complained about the constant begging letters, they brought in money.
But Dowson brought with him the seeds of the BNP’s destruction. Searchlight relentlessly exposed every lie, such as the claim that the BNP had bought its own advertising lorry, the misnamed “truth truck”, which remained all the time in Dowson’s ownership. Searchlight also tracked Dowson’s takeover of the bulk of the BNP’s assets and operations, including the leases for party offices and the Belfast call centre, opened before the European elections.
Searchlight’s accusation that Dowson owned the BNP reached the ears of many BNP activists, who were already unhappy at how Dowson, who claimed not even to be a BNP member, had, in effect, become Griffin’s consigliere. Worse, he was being paid £160,000 a year for this. And faster than Dowson brought in the money, Griffin spent it – on long, drawn-out and inept legal battles, unfairly dismissing employees and deliberately provoking Unilever by using a Marmite image in a party election broadcast.
All that might have been forgiven had Griffin brought home the election goods in May. As it was, it sparked an attempt to challenge his leadership. Butler, the sacked elections officer, had no disagreements with Griffin on policy, but condemned his financial and administrative incompetence, his reckless legal actions and Dowson’s excessive power. Griffin pulled out all the stops to prevent Butler getting the almost impossibly high number of signatures needed to require a leadership election, imposing rigid procedural rules and suspending several of Butler’s supporters from party membership.
Inevitably Butler failed and was expelled. He now sits on the sidelines, promoting a new party constitution and exposing Griffin’s continued shortcomings in the belief that he can still rescue the BNP. Some of those who supported Butler’s challenge have formed a new party, the British Freedom Party, largely based in the south-west of England. Ironically, it replaced its first treasurer less than a month after his appointment. With similar policies to the BNP and no charismatic personalities, it is likely to follow the Democratic Nationalists, formed by the rebels of December 2007, into near oblivion.
The BNP continues to lose members rapidly. It has debts that even when Dowson’s fundraising was at its peak, it would have struggled to pay. These debts could cost Griffin his treasured seat in the European Parliament if he is held personally responsible for them and made bankrupt. Dowson appears to have walked out, while Griffin’s dwindling band of henchmen, who now include Patrick Harrington, an old comrade from Griffin’s days as a National Front “political soldier”, are constantly bickering with one another and jockeying for petty positions.
The BNP may limp on, as does the NF, which still insults [sic] Britain’s war dead on an annual basis by marching to the Cenotaph on the afternoon of Remembrance Sunday. Few of the BNP’s ex-supporters have joined other far-right parties. The risk is that, disillusioned with electoral politics and with a simplistic outlook on the world, they will be attracted to the English Defence League’s brand of Islamophobia and street violence, fuelled by outrageous and irresponsible daily attacks on Muslims in the right-wing gutter press.
Sonia Gable is deputy editor of Searchlight.
[ENDS]
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
How Griffin queered the pitch for the BNP
The article below, from the Times, describes how Nick Griffin destroyed the British National Party's electoral prospects, four weeks before the 2010 general election, by running to the enemy media with a cock-and-bull story about a murder plot against him and fellow shyster, Jim Dowson. Was there a falling out within the party's top leadership over the division of spoils? We shall probably have to wait just a very little longer now, to see whether honest men come into their own.
The Times, April 5, 2010
BNP’s head of publicity arrested for threatening to kill Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, has told police that a senior colleague threatened to kill him after an investigation into a political “conspiracy”.
Mark Collett, the BNP’s head of publicity, has been arrested and suspended from the party after the discovery of an alleged plot by a “small clique” of officials to overthrow its leadership.
Mr Collett, 29, was in charge of the party’s election campaign literature and BNP newspaper, with a budget of tens of thousands of pounds. He and Mr Griffin had been close political colleagues and were both charged with race-hate offences after the broadcast of secret footage of a party meeting in Leeds in 2004. They were both found not guilty of all charges.
Details of the alleged plot against Mr Griffin, an MEP, were disclosed in an e-mail sent from the BNP’s headquarters last Wednesday. The organisers’ bulletin said that the party was also aware of threats to the safety of James Dowson, the BNP’s senior management and fundraising consultant.
The memo to party activists said: “Mark Collett was conspiring with a small clique of other party officials to launch a ‘palace coup’ against our twice democratically elected party leader.” It added: “We believe we have uncovered the most serious and dangerous threat to this party and its officers that we have ever witnessed.”
Mr Collett was seen as a potential leader of the BNP and had been selected to stand against David Blunkett, a former Home Secretary, at the general election.
The BNP memo said that the party’s internal security team had been carrying out a long-running investigation into “alleged financial irregularities and ‘scamming’” over printing materials. The investigation had also covered the leaking of sensitive information, an apparent reference to its membership list, and a “catalogue of recurring and seemingly inexplicable ‘gaffes’ being made in the general election campaign”.
Eddy Butler, the BNP’s national organiser and national elections officer, has recently left his position. Mr Butler, who had been selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Harlow, Essex, could not be contacted for comment.
Emma Colgate, who stood down on Friday as the staff manager for the BNP’s two MEPs, said that she was concentrating on fighting for her local parliamentary seat and denied suggestions that she was part of the alleged conspiracy. Ms Colgate, a BNP councillor in Thurrock, Essex, said: “There is always going to be gossip and conspiracy in all parties. This is not ideal timing, but sometimes you can’t control these things.”
The BNP is holding an urgent briefing for regional organisers and key officials this morning. The party has allegedly faced a resurgence of political infighting recently over Mr Griffin’s controversial appearance on the BBC One Question Time programme and the amendment of its constitution to comply with race discrimination laws.
A Humberside Police spokeswoman said that a 29-year-old man had been arrested on Thursday for making threats to kill and had been released on police bail after being interviewed.
Mr Griffin, 51, had made the complaint against Mr Collett to Dyfed Powys Police, his local force, who referred the case to Humberside Police, where the alleged offence occurred.
A BNP spokesman said: “Mark Collett’s membership of the British National Party has been suspended pending a disciplinary tribunal.”
A spokesman for Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, said: “Nick Griffin is constantly claiming he is the leader of a moderate, non-violent organisation. It is difficult to see how he can square that assertion with his statement to the police that his own head of publicity has been plotting to kill him.”
[ENDS]
The Times, April 5, 2010
BNP’s head of publicity arrested for threatening to kill Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, has told police that a senior colleague threatened to kill him after an investigation into a political “conspiracy”.
Mark Collett, the BNP’s head of publicity, has been arrested and suspended from the party after the discovery of an alleged plot by a “small clique” of officials to overthrow its leadership.
Mr Collett, 29, was in charge of the party’s election campaign literature and BNP newspaper, with a budget of tens of thousands of pounds. He and Mr Griffin had been close political colleagues and were both charged with race-hate offences after the broadcast of secret footage of a party meeting in Leeds in 2004. They were both found not guilty of all charges.
Details of the alleged plot against Mr Griffin, an MEP, were disclosed in an e-mail sent from the BNP’s headquarters last Wednesday. The organisers’ bulletin said that the party was also aware of threats to the safety of James Dowson, the BNP’s senior management and fundraising consultant.
The memo to party activists said: “Mark Collett was conspiring with a small clique of other party officials to launch a ‘palace coup’ against our twice democratically elected party leader.” It added: “We believe we have uncovered the most serious and dangerous threat to this party and its officers that we have ever witnessed.”
Mr Collett was seen as a potential leader of the BNP and had been selected to stand against David Blunkett, a former Home Secretary, at the general election.
The BNP memo said that the party’s internal security team had been carrying out a long-running investigation into “alleged financial irregularities and ‘scamming’” over printing materials. The investigation had also covered the leaking of sensitive information, an apparent reference to its membership list, and a “catalogue of recurring and seemingly inexplicable ‘gaffes’ being made in the general election campaign”.
Eddy Butler, the BNP’s national organiser and national elections officer, has recently left his position. Mr Butler, who had been selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Harlow, Essex, could not be contacted for comment.
Emma Colgate, who stood down on Friday as the staff manager for the BNP’s two MEPs, said that she was concentrating on fighting for her local parliamentary seat and denied suggestions that she was part of the alleged conspiracy. Ms Colgate, a BNP councillor in Thurrock, Essex, said: “There is always going to be gossip and conspiracy in all parties. This is not ideal timing, but sometimes you can’t control these things.”
The BNP is holding an urgent briefing for regional organisers and key officials this morning. The party has allegedly faced a resurgence of political infighting recently over Mr Griffin’s controversial appearance on the BBC One Question Time programme and the amendment of its constitution to comply with race discrimination laws.
A Humberside Police spokeswoman said that a 29-year-old man had been arrested on Thursday for making threats to kill and had been released on police bail after being interviewed.
Mr Griffin, 51, had made the complaint against Mr Collett to Dyfed Powys Police, his local force, who referred the case to Humberside Police, where the alleged offence occurred.
A BNP spokesman said: “Mark Collett’s membership of the British National Party has been suspended pending a disciplinary tribunal.”
A spokesman for Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, said: “Nick Griffin is constantly claiming he is the leader of a moderate, non-violent organisation. It is difficult to see how he can square that assertion with his statement to the police that his own head of publicity has been plotting to kill him.”
[ENDS]
Monday, 6 December 2010
Old Chinese proverb: sooner put head in tiger's mouth than enter court of law
The following is an article published in New Europe, yesterday. Members of the British National Party may find it interesting for the light it sheds on Mr Griffin's money management skills (or rather lack thereof), and his judgement in general.
December is the BNP's busiest time of year for membership renewals. Please, everyone, remember to renew your party membership in good time, and well before Christmas, if possible. The party, and Mr Griffin, needs every penny at this difficult time.
The article now follows.
The impecunious Mr Griffin?
The strange world of the British National Party leader’s legal team
5 December 2010 - Issue : 914
Chairman of the far right British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin | EPA/ZSOLT SZIGETVARY HUNGARY OUT
Facing many court cases, Nick Griffin appears to have turned to a charity for his legal affairs; Legal Action, a registered charity in the UK, number 1100780, also has the working name of Charles Henry & Co. Their official registration says that their purpose is to “relieve impecunious persons, by providing them with legal facilities particularly in connection with a possible or actual claim or defence, before a tribunal in England & Wales, for [sic] which they could not otherwise obtain, by reason of their impecunosity [sic]".
Can anyone imagine an MEP without a euro in his pocket? That is just the beginning of the strangeness.
According to people with a knowledge of the charity, it appears to be run by Kevin Gregory, who, like his father, is a trustee according to their registration with the Charity Commission in the UK. He has an interesting background for such a position. He used to be a Conservative Councillor, but was thrown out of the party after a series of scandals and court appearances. These included being charged with harassment of an ex-girlfriend, whom he believed a fellow Tory councillor had used hypnotism to charm away from him.
Gregory has also a line in pretending to be a solicitor, suing an ex-girlfriend for legal advice he claimed to have provided. He also falsely represented he was a solicitor in front of a High Court judge, which led to a Law Society Tribunal, which ruled that, “he had described himself as a “trainee solicitor”, and as “a solicitor” or as an “acting solicitor” when he was none of these things.”
Office space
People very familiar with Gregory say that bailiffs pay him regular visits, but these gentlemen deserve some credit - they can find his offices! Their website - www.legal-action.org - lists four offices, by postcode, but only one has a phone number, which is a dead line. The registered office phone is rarely answered.
The website designer describes the client for the website as another charity that has Gregory as a trustee, the Augustine Housing Trust and through their telephone number - an 0845 re-direction service - New Europe spoke with a man who called himself John Sullivan, who said he worked for Legal Action. He refused to say who else worked for the charity, or even where their office was. When it was put to him that he should know this information because he is listed as a trustee, he claimed that there had been a mistake and the real trustee was John O’Sullivan.
We were also contacted by someone who said they were a co-ordinator for the various Gregory charities, but refused to say who she worked for or who else was working for the charity. However, she didn’t recognise the name of Mr O’Sullivan or Raymond Hosegood, who, on documents provided to New Europe, signs letters with a signature that appears to be “PP Kevin Gregory.”
Legal firms are often discreet, but the wall of silence put up by the charities associated with Gregory, where people won’t even answer the most basic of queries is unusual.
The right solicitor
How did the far-right MEP end up with such unusual people? The connection appears to be one of the 4 Legal Action solicitors, Jane Stanley Phillips, now with 'Iverson, Stanley Holmes Ltd'. She has also helped a charity, The Steadfast Trust, which aims to “relieve poverty amongst the Anglo-Saxon community of England”. She has previously represented the BNP leader, according to the BNP’s ex Legal Affairs Officer, the excitable Lee Barnes.
Barnes describes her re-writing the party’s constitution, after it was judged to be illegal because it only allowed white people to join the party. Her revised draft has also been judged illegal and the party is anxiously awaiting the ruling from the appeal. Losing could bankrupt the party. Barnes also failed to appreciate her legal acumen, “After I pointed out a serious flaw in her legal strategy that would have allowed the court to undermine our case, she flew into a rage and refused to speak to me any more.”
Phillips also made an appearance on a British TV documentary, "100% English", where her DNA was tested. She was told that the expert described her sample as “absolutely typical of a Romany gypsy”. She threatened the programme makers with a law suit, but failed to prevent the broadcast. Griffin has well known and strong views on gypsies.
Enter The Commission
Legal Action have something else in common with the BNP, a failure to deliver their accounts on time. The latest return, due at the Charity Commission, is 306 days late. Their finances look odd. In 2005, they had no income, yet spent almost 45,000 GBP. 2006 saw 11,000 go in and 47,000 spent. A legal expert says these figures only make sense if they are operating on a no-win, no-fee basis.
The Charity Commission are now investigating the charity. Meanwhile, Griffin has a series of court cases ahead of him and his party.
There have been long-standing rumours about the imminent collapse of the British National Party, both financially and as a political organisation. Recently the party has written to creditors, offering them 20 pence in the pound on the party’s debts to suppliers, etc.
Some may think that this unusual legal team may yet save the party, but they are likely to be a minority and the BNP don’t usually warm to minorities.
December is the BNP's busiest time of year for membership renewals. Please, everyone, remember to renew your party membership in good time, and well before Christmas, if possible. The party, and Mr Griffin, needs every penny at this difficult time.
The article now follows.
The impecunious Mr Griffin?
The strange world of the British National Party leader’s legal team
5 December 2010 - Issue : 914
Chairman of the far right British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin | EPA/ZSOLT SZIGETVARY HUNGARY OUT
Facing many court cases, Nick Griffin appears to have turned to a charity for his legal affairs; Legal Action, a registered charity in the UK, number 1100780, also has the working name of Charles Henry & Co. Their official registration says that their purpose is to “relieve impecunious persons, by providing them with legal facilities particularly in connection with a possible or actual claim or defence, before a tribunal in England & Wales, for [sic] which they could not otherwise obtain, by reason of their impecunosity [sic]".
Can anyone imagine an MEP without a euro in his pocket? That is just the beginning of the strangeness.
According to people with a knowledge of the charity, it appears to be run by Kevin Gregory, who, like his father, is a trustee according to their registration with the Charity Commission in the UK. He has an interesting background for such a position. He used to be a Conservative Councillor, but was thrown out of the party after a series of scandals and court appearances. These included being charged with harassment of an ex-girlfriend, whom he believed a fellow Tory councillor had used hypnotism to charm away from him.
Gregory has also a line in pretending to be a solicitor, suing an ex-girlfriend for legal advice he claimed to have provided. He also falsely represented he was a solicitor in front of a High Court judge, which led to a Law Society Tribunal, which ruled that, “he had described himself as a “trainee solicitor”, and as “a solicitor” or as an “acting solicitor” when he was none of these things.”
Office space
People very familiar with Gregory say that bailiffs pay him regular visits, but these gentlemen deserve some credit - they can find his offices! Their website - www.legal-action.org - lists four offices, by postcode, but only one has a phone number, which is a dead line. The registered office phone is rarely answered.
The website designer describes the client for the website as another charity that has Gregory as a trustee, the Augustine Housing Trust and through their telephone number - an 0845 re-direction service - New Europe spoke with a man who called himself John Sullivan, who said he worked for Legal Action. He refused to say who else worked for the charity, or even where their office was. When it was put to him that he should know this information because he is listed as a trustee, he claimed that there had been a mistake and the real trustee was John O’Sullivan.
We were also contacted by someone who said they were a co-ordinator for the various Gregory charities, but refused to say who she worked for or who else was working for the charity. However, she didn’t recognise the name of Mr O’Sullivan or Raymond Hosegood, who, on documents provided to New Europe, signs letters with a signature that appears to be “PP Kevin Gregory.”
Legal firms are often discreet, but the wall of silence put up by the charities associated with Gregory, where people won’t even answer the most basic of queries is unusual.
The right solicitor
How did the far-right MEP end up with such unusual people? The connection appears to be one of the 4 Legal Action solicitors, Jane Stanley Phillips, now with 'Iverson, Stanley Holmes Ltd'. She has also helped a charity, The Steadfast Trust, which aims to “relieve poverty amongst the Anglo-Saxon community of England”. She has previously represented the BNP leader, according to the BNP’s ex Legal Affairs Officer, the excitable Lee Barnes.
Barnes describes her re-writing the party’s constitution, after it was judged to be illegal because it only allowed white people to join the party. Her revised draft has also been judged illegal and the party is anxiously awaiting the ruling from the appeal. Losing could bankrupt the party. Barnes also failed to appreciate her legal acumen, “After I pointed out a serious flaw in her legal strategy that would have allowed the court to undermine our case, she flew into a rage and refused to speak to me any more.”
Phillips also made an appearance on a British TV documentary, "100% English", where her DNA was tested. She was told that the expert described her sample as “absolutely typical of a Romany gypsy”. She threatened the programme makers with a law suit, but failed to prevent the broadcast. Griffin has well known and strong views on gypsies.
Enter The Commission
Legal Action have something else in common with the BNP, a failure to deliver their accounts on time. The latest return, due at the Charity Commission, is 306 days late. Their finances look odd. In 2005, they had no income, yet spent almost 45,000 GBP. 2006 saw 11,000 go in and 47,000 spent. A legal expert says these figures only make sense if they are operating on a no-win, no-fee basis.
The Charity Commission are now investigating the charity. Meanwhile, Griffin has a series of court cases ahead of him and his party.
There have been long-standing rumours about the imminent collapse of the British National Party, both financially and as a political organisation. Recently the party has written to creditors, offering them 20 pence in the pound on the party’s debts to suppliers, etc.
Some may think that this unusual legal team may yet save the party, but they are likely to be a minority and the BNP don’t usually warm to minorities.
Sunday, 5 December 2010
Know the enemy in order to beat the enemy
Before anyone posts a comment saying "Have you gone mad, Dr Emerson?", I should like to make it clear that I post the video below, not because I subscribe to the views and sentiments expressed therein, but as an aid to understanding just what it is that we, as members and activists of the British National Party, are up against.
What we are up against is a very well-funded, Establishment-backed, experienced and professional 'third party' spoiling operation, on behalf of whichever of the Establishment parties is believed to have the best chance of preventing the BNP from winning a seat. In Barking, at the general election earlier this year this was Labour. It usually is Labour as it happens, because traditional, neglected, 'safe' Labour constituencies are precisely the kind of area in which the BNP's message of hope finds its most receptive audience.
If this were 'all' we were up against we might well have won the Barking seat, or at least won control of the Barking and Dagenham council. Tragically, this was not all we were up against. While Labour's Margaret Hodge was, as we saw in the recently screened TV documentary, "The Battle for Barking", cleverly projecting herself as the underdog against the challenger, Nick Griffin, and Hope not Hate [sic] was executing a well planned strategy of leafleting, canvassing, and internet activism, what was the BNP doing?
It was at sixes and sevens, its morale having been all but destroyed by the party leader, and Barking candidate, Griffin, having, five weeks before polling day: sacked the party's national organizer, national elections officer, and Barking and Dagenham council candidate, Eddy Butler; the party's publicity director and Voice of Freedom editor, Mark Collett; and its national administration officer, Cllr Emma Colgate. Not content with this, Griffin also announced to the national media that Collett had been conspiring to murder both him and the party's chief fundraiser, and Eminence Grise, Jim Dowson. You really could not make it up.
Is anyone surprised that the BNP did so badly in Barking and Dagenham with the toxic Griffin in charge of operations for the last, crucially important, five weeks of the campaign? Organization is not the man's forte, nor for that matter is team-work. What he is good at is self-promotion. Unfortunately there is such a thing as over-exposure, pace BBC Question Time last year, and his image is now a "spoiled identity" in the public perception. There can be little doubt but that Richard Barnbrook, for all his faults, would have been a much more popular choice as BNP candidate for Barking, with both the electorate, and the party activists.
Griffin's judgement is appalling, and he seems to be incapable of learning from experience. He should not have said, as he did at the Barking count, that London was a lost cause, however disappointed he may have been feeling at the time. It is not true, and his statement did nothing but harm the prospects of the party in London, as Richard Barnbrook found just a few weeks later. As Griffin left the Barking count he shied away from the TV cameras, whereas a leader who knew what he was about would have boldly marched up to them and put a brave face on the night's results. As I said at my count in Watford, quoting John Tyndall, "...we...fight on, and...dare all, so that a great land and a great race may live again in splendour." Of course, it helps if one actually believes in what one is saying, as I did, and do.
Mr Griffin, if you read this, as I believe you do: please do the decent and honourable thing; no, I don't mean shoot yourself; just resign as leader, and concentrate on the European 'parliament' instead. A man of your undoubted expertise in demolition might just bring the entire rotten edifice crashing to the ground.
What we are up against is a very well-funded, Establishment-backed, experienced and professional 'third party' spoiling operation, on behalf of whichever of the Establishment parties is believed to have the best chance of preventing the BNP from winning a seat. In Barking, at the general election earlier this year this was Labour. It usually is Labour as it happens, because traditional, neglected, 'safe' Labour constituencies are precisely the kind of area in which the BNP's message of hope finds its most receptive audience.
If this were 'all' we were up against we might well have won the Barking seat, or at least won control of the Barking and Dagenham council. Tragically, this was not all we were up against. While Labour's Margaret Hodge was, as we saw in the recently screened TV documentary, "The Battle for Barking", cleverly projecting herself as the underdog against the challenger, Nick Griffin, and Hope not Hate [sic] was executing a well planned strategy of leafleting, canvassing, and internet activism, what was the BNP doing?
It was at sixes and sevens, its morale having been all but destroyed by the party leader, and Barking candidate, Griffin, having, five weeks before polling day: sacked the party's national organizer, national elections officer, and Barking and Dagenham council candidate, Eddy Butler; the party's publicity director and Voice of Freedom editor, Mark Collett; and its national administration officer, Cllr Emma Colgate. Not content with this, Griffin also announced to the national media that Collett had been conspiring to murder both him and the party's chief fundraiser, and Eminence Grise, Jim Dowson. You really could not make it up.
Is anyone surprised that the BNP did so badly in Barking and Dagenham with the toxic Griffin in charge of operations for the last, crucially important, five weeks of the campaign? Organization is not the man's forte, nor for that matter is team-work. What he is good at is self-promotion. Unfortunately there is such a thing as over-exposure, pace BBC Question Time last year, and his image is now a "spoiled identity" in the public perception. There can be little doubt but that Richard Barnbrook, for all his faults, would have been a much more popular choice as BNP candidate for Barking, with both the electorate, and the party activists.
Griffin's judgement is appalling, and he seems to be incapable of learning from experience. He should not have said, as he did at the Barking count, that London was a lost cause, however disappointed he may have been feeling at the time. It is not true, and his statement did nothing but harm the prospects of the party in London, as Richard Barnbrook found just a few weeks later. As Griffin left the Barking count he shied away from the TV cameras, whereas a leader who knew what he was about would have boldly marched up to them and put a brave face on the night's results. As I said at my count in Watford, quoting John Tyndall, "...we...fight on, and...dare all, so that a great land and a great race may live again in splendour." Of course, it helps if one actually believes in what one is saying, as I did, and do.
Mr Griffin, if you read this, as I believe you do: please do the decent and honourable thing; no, I don't mean shoot yourself; just resign as leader, and concentrate on the European 'parliament' instead. A man of your undoubted expertise in demolition might just bring the entire rotten edifice crashing to the ground.
The real battle for Barking & Dagenham from HOPE not hate on Vimeo.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Cowardly teachers kowtow to Muslims
UK SCHOOLS DROPPING THE HOLOCAUST FROM HISTORY LESSONS TO AVOID OFFENDING MUSLIMS
Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
By Laura Clark
The Mail on Sunday (UK)
April 2, 2007
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
Teachers fear backlash over crackdown in the classroom.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades – where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem – because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history ‘as a vehicle for promoting political correctness’.
The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into ‘emotive and controversial’ history teaching in primary and secondary schools.
It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.
The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.
The report said teachers feared confronting ‘anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils’.
It added: “In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.
“But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques.”
A third school found itself ‘strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination’.
The report concluded: “In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship.”
But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: “History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable.”
The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers – particularly at primary level – was leading to history being taught in a ‘shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning’.
Lessons in difficult topics were too often ‘bland, simplistic and unproblematic’ and bored pupils.
Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
By Laura Clark
The Mail on Sunday (UK)
April 2, 2007
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
Teachers fear backlash over crackdown in the classroom.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades – where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem – because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history ‘as a vehicle for promoting political correctness’.
The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into ‘emotive and controversial’ history teaching in primary and secondary schools.
It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.
The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.
The report said teachers feared confronting ‘anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils’.
It added: “In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.
“But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques.”
A third school found itself ‘strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination’.
The report concluded: “In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship.”
But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: “History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable.”
The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers – particularly at primary level – was leading to history being taught in a ‘shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning’.
Lessons in difficult topics were too often ‘bland, simplistic and unproblematic’ and bored pupils.
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Truth overcomes everything
The following article, by the American politician V Kumar, published in the New English Review, whilst primarily focussing on the American scene, is equally applicable to Britain, as regards the deadly threat posed by Islam to the freedom guaranteed by our unwritten constitution.
The Truth About Islam: In Rebuttal to a Recent Article Published in The Tennessean
By Vijay Kumar (December 2010)
To an open minded, rational thinking person engaging in a fact-based assessment comparing the fundamental tenets of Islam with the founding principles of our Constitution, the essential opposition of these two ideologies should become quickly and readily apparent. Examples of this unmistakable opposition abound and are easily discerned:
-- It is a fact that Islam, as an ideology delineated in the Quran, opposes separation of church and state; whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution requires it.
-- It is a fact that Islam seeks to eradicate freedom of religion, while the First Amendment defends it.
-- It is a fact that Islamic doctrine suppresses freedom of speech, whereas our First Amendment guarantees it.
-- It is a fact that Islam commands cruel and unusual punishments, whereas our Eighth Amendment forbids them.
-- It is also a fact that the Quran urges its followers to “Fight and slay the pagans (infidels or non-Muslims) wherever you find them,” whereas America’s most hallowed founding principles dictate that all people are created equal and have inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are just some of the problematic facts relating to Islam that rightly concern many Americans in the post 9/11 world. But from the very first line of his October 24th article in the Tennessean entitled “Anti-Muslim Crusaders Make Millions Spreading Fear” reporter Bob Smietana blatantly ignores these facts and many other essential issues pertinent to the discussion of the spread of Islam and Sharia law in America, choosing instead to engage in a mottled series of baseless ad hominem attacks which portray Americans concerned about the issue as being hate mongering profiteers.
Smietana opens his article with a completely unsubstantiated and fallacious attempt to portray Steven Emerson as a “leading member of a multimillion dollar industry of self proclaimed experts” who “spread hate toward Muslims” for their own profit. Let us begin the logical decimation of Smietana’s spurious allegations by addressing his ludicrous assertion that Emerson is a “self proclaimed expert.”
This particular assertion blatantly ignores the fact that rather than being a “self proclaimed expert” Emerson is in reality considered to be a top expert on Islamic terrorist activity by FBI counterterrorism agents, national security personnel, U.S. congressmen, major news organizations such as CNN and many, many others.
“Steve has been on the cutting edge of [investigating terrorism] for many, many years... he has provided an extremely valuable service," says Robert Blitzer, retired FBI Counterterrorism Chief. Richard Clarke, former head of NSC Counterterrorism, calls Emerson “The Paul Revere of Terrorism” and says Emerson routinely provided him with counterterrorism information that the FBI and CIA didn’t have. Senator John Kyl said Emerson “is the most authoritative expert on Middle Eastern terrorism in the United States today…whose investigations have uncovered the existence of terrorist groups operating in the United States“ Kyl adds that “This country owes a great deal of gratitude to him."
As for Emerson being a profiteer, Smietana points to the $3,390,000 in income Emerson’s “for profit” company -- SAE Productions -- “collected” in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. While providing no accounting of how that money was dispersed or where it ended up, Smietana also ignores the fact that Emerson, according to SAE spokesman Ray Locker, takes no profit from SAE. The money in question was used to pay for research, expenses and the salaries and benefits of 18 employees. The organization, according to Locker, is only designated “for profit” for security reasons, so that Emerson can protect the anonymity of his employees. Considering the fate of others who have openly criticized Islam --- such as Salman Rushdie, or Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who’s movie about the shameful abuse of Muslim women got him assassinated by a Moroccan Jihadist) -- it is understandable that Emerson, while braving the personal risks entailed by his open fight against Islamic Jihad, is concerned with protecting the well being of his employees.
As for Emerson being a hatemonger, Smietana simply makes the slur without citing a single instance of Emerson saying, writing or doing anything that remotely constitutes hate speech or hatred of Muslims.
LOGICAL DISCOURSE AND THE TRUE PURVEYORS OF HATE AND INTOLERANCE
Since Smietana provides absolutely no evidence of hate speech coming from Emerson or any of the other people he accuses of hatemongering, it is apparent that for him the mere criticism of Islam alone constitutes intolerance and hate mongering. Regarding this absurd (though common) and baseless assertion that the only intent of those who point to the dangers inherent in political Islam is to spread hate, light the fires of passion and loose the dogs of war, we must once again do what Smietana never does in his article -- which is to address facts and the empirical data, and formulate a reasoned. dispassionate assessment of the pertinent issues.
Let me first state unequivocally that empirical arguments against the ideology of Islam and its diametric opposition to the Constitutional foundation of America (and the notion of human freedom) are all logical variances and oppositions against an ideology, not arguments or attacks against a people. Let it further be said that opposing Islam does not make you a racist, and does not mean that you oppose or hate Muslims or want to oppress them. What it means is that you oppose (on a purely empirical and rational basis) the racism, hatred and oppression that the ideology of Islam itself embodies.
Consider for a moment the sounds of hate, oppression, intolerance, and the irrational -- compared to the considered arguments of the rational and the empirical. Hate mongering never begins with, “Consider this....” followed by a presentation of facts, as those who Smietana criticizes have done in regard to addressing the issue of the threat of the Islamic ideology. Instead, hatred, oppression and intolerance state their claims and ideological positions and then reject outright all dissent -- reasoned or otherwise. True intolerance is a mindset that -- particularly as it presents itself in academia and the media -- insists that we must quietly take our seats and behave, or else risk insult, humiliation and punishment. It is a mindset that is not interested in rational debate and discourse.
There may be some who, in fact, do harbor feelings of strong antipathy for all Muslims. That fear is one unfortunate consequence of 9/11, perhaps, or a result of a personal familiarity with Islam's hostile history. But to lump all critics of Islam together and brand them as hate mongers is tantamount to equating Rosa Parks with O.J. Simpson, because they both were victims of police discrimination.
The basis for any just criticism should always be rational thought, based on empirical data. Concerning the issue of critiquing Islam, a sort of social-scientific method should and must be used. Anything less falls below the standard of anyone who truly honors the words upon which our nation was established. Criticism of Islam's political aspect is thus not hate-speech, nor is it an indication of a knee-jerk reactionary at work: it is the sensible, logical, and above all, reasonable response of people who have not forgotten that their freedoms are ensured and preserved by adherence to the principles of Reason.
CONCERNS BASED ON FACTS, NOT HATRED
It is unfortunate (and probably futile) to have to remind Smietana of certain undeniable facts, which lead many to have great concern about the spread of Islam across the United States and the world. Consider that when making the absurd assertion that the few million dollars Emerson’s company “collected” makes him a profiteer of hate, Smietana ignores the fact that the government of Saudi Arabia has spent billions to establish schools that propagate Wahhabi Islam -- a doctrine that profusely and openly espouses intolerance and hate.
It is a fact that the Wahhabi philosophy is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in every detail. It is also a fact that Saudi monies have played a large role in funding American colleges and universities. It is a fact that the Saudi regime itself promotes no democratic participation. Does my citing of these facts constitute hatred of Arabs? Of course not. It merely indicates and states the power and influence of a political system beyond and within its own borders -- and we would be well served to consider the consequences of ignoring that influence and power and allowing a doctrine that is so blatantly opposed to our Constitutional belief system go unchallenged.
So it is our responsibility not to jump to any conclusions, but to evaluate all the available evidence in order to make a dispassionate, sober evaluation of the situation we find ourselves in today. But in doing so we must not ignore the fact that in the recent histories of Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia, the main consequence of Islam's influence has been havoc, genocide, and revolution. And in past decades and centuries, Islam has not built and spread prosperity, but poverty, isolation and hostility.
As a political arm of government, Islam does not embrace assimilation as modern multi-cultural states do, as America has done. In short, it does not tolerate tolerance. While westernized Muslims enjoy and advocate liberty, they fail to perceive the darker side of their heritage. It must be as difficult for Muslims in Tennessee to admit Islam's abuses as it is for Roman Catholics to face sex-scandals, but there is no solution until they do. No doubt, a sort of Islamic Reformation is overdue, but, as yet, it has not appeared, primarily because of the real threat of violent retaliation such a declaration would mean for its adherents. The plight of Rushdie, Van Gogh, and millions of others murdered for apposing Islam throughout history gives ample testimony to the real danger of opposing Islam.
WORTHY OF COMMENDATION, NOT CONDEMNATION
Rather than being falsely accused of hatemongering, Steven Emerson and the others whom Bill Smietana attacks should be commended for having the courage to eschew potential assaults (both verbal and physical) and truthfully address the threat posed by Islam. Bill French (aka Bill Warner), a former Tennessee State physics professor, is one such man, an intellectually and personally honest and forthright person whom I’ve known for nearly a decade and whom I consider to be one of the finest Americans I have ever met. The fact that Mr. French personally finances his own research and publications on the study of political Islam out of concern for his country did not prevent Smietana from accusing him of “cashing in” and profiting by spreading hate.
As with the baseless accusations he leveled against Emerson, Smietana gives zero evidence of French engaging in hate speech. As for French “cashing in” on his publications, other than reporting that French sells books, Smietana offers zero evidence that French profits from his research or publications. I happen to know that for the past 10 years Bill French has funded his research and his writing out of his own pocket and has not profited one dime from his endeavors. He does what he does because as a patriotic American he is concerned about the future of his country and the world as we all face the growing threat of Islamic imperialism.
Although Smietana fails to offer any hard numbers that would indicate that French or any other of the people he slanders are profiting from their endeavors, the question should also be raised as to why Smietana seems to want to characterize organizations that do research and then publicize their findings as somehow “evil” if the organizations are categorized as “for profit.” Doesn’t The Tennessean do exactly that? Isn’t Smietana getting paid and making a profit -- even though, in this instance, his research and writing (as logical discourse) is as shoddy as it gets?
In leveling his groundless assertions that French, Emerson and others are making millions spreading fear and hate, Smietana manages to point to a grand total of around four million dollars that has been raised by or paid out to the half dozen or so supposed hate mongering profiteers that he unjustly vilifies in his article. But besides citing no instances of hate speech and offering no evidence of realized profit earned by any of the people he accuses, Spietana also fails to address the implications evident in the monumental disparity in funding as related to the people he assails and the financiers of Islam itself. For while Smietana can only cite $4,000,000 being circulated to address the effects of Islam on America and the world, compare that to the billions of dollars Saudi Arabia spends each year to propagate Wahhabi Islam -- which creates havoc worldwide.
AN IDEOLOGY OF TOTALITARIAN INTOLERANCE
As I stated, the fact that Islam as an ideology creates havoc, genocide and revolution can be established by considering the violence and death it has fomented in Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia (just to name a few). But additionally, I can cite my own personal experience with the effects of the ideology of Islam -- for I am a victim of Islamic imperialism. My civilization and culture (Hindu, Indian) has been attacked and ravaged by Islam for a thousand years. As late as in 1970 three million Bangladeshi Hindus and Secular Muslims have been murdered by the fanatical Pakistani Islamic Army during the years of Bangladesh's liberation. Therefore, as a victim of Islamic imperialism, I have every right to criticize Islam. And in leveling my criticism, I do so with a warning that if America does not take care of this pernicious problem, my past will be your future.
It should be noted once again that my criticism of Islam is based on empiricism, reason, and scientific method and that I am not advancing any counter-religion. It is my desire to compare the Quran to the United States Constitution, not to the Bible. Why? Because, the Quran is, first and foremost, a political document. As a political document it is in complete opposition to the laws of the United States, and particularly our supreme law, the Constitution.
ISLAM IS A REPRESSIVE POLITICAL SYSTEM DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR CONSTITUTION
That Islam is a political rather than a religious ideology and one that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution is a factual conclusion that can be clearly drawn from examining the origins and documents of Islam itself and contrasting them with America‘s founding documents and principles.
America was conceived as a free Constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.
The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.
These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition.
Our Constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.
Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law—which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable.
So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable.
Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other “explanations” are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil.
The idea that somehow the United States antagonized the current conflicts with Islamic nations and Muslim terrorists is specious. The very existence of our Constitution is what antagonizes Islam. It stands in stark opposition to Islam’s worldwide goal of domination over all mankind. We could be doing absolutely nothing anywhere in the world, and still would be an object of Islam’s contempt and aggression for the sole reason that we do not submit ourselves to Islamic law, and we further have the gall to proclaim in our Constitution that people have the right to choose a religion other than Islam -- or to choose no religion at all.
One cannot serve two masters. One cannot to be loyal to the United States Constitution and to the Quran at the same time.
Muslims and non-Muslims alike, need to face up to this incontrovertible fact: Islam’s ultimate goal is world domination by Islamic rule, and America stands as the single greatest barrier to the realization of that ultimate goal. That is the exact simple statement of the problem.
For that reason, Islam, at its core, requires the overthrow of the American government, the destruction of our Constitution, and the cancellation of all of our laws as its ultimate goal in America, so that all of those can be replaced with the Quran and Sharia law.
Islam, at its core, also demands the suppression and ultimate eradication of every other church and religion in the world without exception. All paths to spiritual enlightenment and sacred belief known to man that are not Islam—and even materialism, agnosticism, and atheism—are branded by the Quran as inferior, and not worthy of existence.
Islam, at its core, also mandates inequality under Islamic law, using a double standard specifically designed to oppress any “non - believer.” It enforces Sharia law and its inherent discrimination with draconian penalties, including selective taxes, dismemberment (cruel and unusual punishment at its worst) and execution.
Islam, at its core, also commands complete and inescapable submission of the mind and spirit to its scripture as supreme and divine law that overrides and supersedes all the human rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, hold sacred—including, ironically, freedom of religion. The Quran and Sharia law suppress all dissent, and call for the destruction of all opposition to Islamic supremacy. To leave Islam, or even to criticize it, is punishable by death. (Comedy Central thought that was a joke. They’re now finding out that perhaps it’s not so funny after all.)
Furthermore, it must be realized that these goals and purposes of Islam are not “radical Islam;” they are literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam’s most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world.
ISLAM’S ULTIMATE GOALS
The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A’ala Maududi left no doubt about Islam’s ultimate goals when he said: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.”
I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or “politically correct” in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely “another religion” and “a religion of peace.”
But Islam, at its core, is a faith-based political theocracy whose most basic tenets and goals are a nullification of our Constitution, and, as such, it is the single greatest threat that America -- and, indeed, the entire free world -- has ever faced. It is a consummate totalitarianism against which every other totalitarianism should be measured. Expressly because of its religious component, Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.
Hitler came to power in 1939, and World War II ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler was in power for about 15 years. The Communist Soviet Union lasted longer, for about 74 years. The Soviet Union and Soviet sponsored Communism died of their own internal contradictions.
Yet today, Islam’s Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA’s own World Fact Book. That’s more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries.
Universal Jihad is a war that has been waged by Islam against the rest of the world for 1400 years. It is by no means limited to violent conflict or terrorism, and demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Once Muslims replace enough of the population of any country, the non-believers will lose their nation, their culture, their heritage, their civilization, their laws, their land, and their fundamental human rights forever.
Instead of assimilating into any society, Islam seeks to establish a state-within-a-state, to insinuate Sharia law into the existing system of law and expand it by degrees until it can consume it.
Islam and our Constitution cannot merge. They cannot mix. The oil-and-water analogy would be the easiest to make, but the more accurate one, in the case of Islam and the Constitution, is that of a parasite and host.
As it has done with other cultures, Islam uses our religious tolerance—which is codified in the “free exercise clause” of our Constitution—first as an entrance point to insinuate itself, then as a protective covering while it grows and spreads.
There are more than a few examples in history. Zoroastrian Persia, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Pakistan, and Christian Egypt all extended tolerance to Islam. All have been metamorphosed into Islamic nations. Their pre-Islamic past is all but wiped out. No one really knows the many achievements, contributions, and heritage of these once great civilizations.
The Hindu civilization today is half of what it used to be. After a thousand years of living in an undivided India, in 1947 the Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Pakistan. Similarly, in Yugoslavia, after a thousand years of co-existence, Slavic Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Bosnia.
America and Europe certainly will suffer the same fate of these past civilizations if effective action is not taken.
The same sort of parasitic process has taken hold today in Europe. Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Italy—all are being inundated by Muslim immigration and suffering the inevitable smothering of their traditional values, culture, and political systems by Islamic influence peddling and Sharia law.
Right now, today, our banks have succumbed to Islamic insistence on separate banking terms for Muslims. Sharia forbids Muslims from paying interest, so Muslims do not get mortgages with interest. They get a loan that has a “fee” instead. Of course liberals, who are Islam’s water-carriers, defend this blatant discrimination that is based solely on religion, while speaking out the other side of their mouths about “equality for all.”
In 2008, the United Kingdom officially sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil matters. In much the same way that Muslims use the “free exercise” clause of our Constitution as a bludgeon against us to extort special concessions and privileges, Muslims in England found in the British Arbitration Act an entrance point to the host while it slowly and methodically grows.
And it is coming to the United States.
THE ORIGINS AND TEACHINGS OF ISLAM
One must only look at the foundational history of Islam to factually substantiate and prove all that I’ve stated previously.
The most sacred site in the Islamic world is the Kaaba in Mecca. It was not, however, built as an Islamic mosque. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kaaba was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca. On the day of its capture, Muhammad delivered an address at the Kaaba in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, The Message:
“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished…I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless …A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims.” —Muhammad
Muhammad’s address at the Kaaba overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Quran 3:85
THE FALLACY OF THE “MODERATE MUSLIM”
The politically correct apologists for Islam claim that it is a “religion of peace” with the numerous acts of terror and murder perpetrated by Islamists being dismissed as the misguided acts of a minority. One must consider however that the majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the Holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the Holocaust.
The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.
Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.
Furthermore, while it is apparent that there are post-Nazi democracies in Germany and post-Communist democracies in some places where the Soviet Union once ruled, there are no post-Islamic democracies anywhere. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical (religious, spiritual) factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.
Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or Constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:
“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas
All Islamic mosques have leaders who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.
MOSQUES AND THE POLITICAL DOCUMENTS OF ISLAM
The Quran is the supreme political document of Islam -- its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kaaba, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.
The Quran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Quran governs all mosques everywhere in the world. As a political document, the Quran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. Mosques are its outpost headquarters.
Central to the Quran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.
“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Quran 5:51
“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” -- Quran 9:5
Mosque leaders must ultimately be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.
Mosque leaders and Imams are also the administrators of Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations. Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.
Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:
“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Muhammad Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh
In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Quran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all.
CONCLUSION AND MANDATE
In summation, all the foregoing facts dictate with precise clarity the reality of the situation: fundamental, literal Islam presents itself as an ideology that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and thus our country. The mandate this reality dictates should be clear to all as well -- it is and should be the duty of every American to vigorously oppose the growth of an ideology that inherently contradicts our founding principles and documents and calls for the destruction of the freedoms and way of life those principles have established for Americans and for much of the free world.
Vijay Kumar, a native of India and long-time resident of Nashville, Tennessee, recently ran for U.S. Congress in the Republican Primary, Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District. He may be reached at kfcnashville@aol.com
The Truth About Islam: In Rebuttal to a Recent Article Published in The Tennessean
By Vijay Kumar (December 2010)
To an open minded, rational thinking person engaging in a fact-based assessment comparing the fundamental tenets of Islam with the founding principles of our Constitution, the essential opposition of these two ideologies should become quickly and readily apparent. Examples of this unmistakable opposition abound and are easily discerned:
-- It is a fact that Islam, as an ideology delineated in the Quran, opposes separation of church and state; whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution requires it.
-- It is a fact that Islam seeks to eradicate freedom of religion, while the First Amendment defends it.
-- It is a fact that Islamic doctrine suppresses freedom of speech, whereas our First Amendment guarantees it.
-- It is a fact that Islam commands cruel and unusual punishments, whereas our Eighth Amendment forbids them.
-- It is also a fact that the Quran urges its followers to “Fight and slay the pagans (infidels or non-Muslims) wherever you find them,” whereas America’s most hallowed founding principles dictate that all people are created equal and have inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are just some of the problematic facts relating to Islam that rightly concern many Americans in the post 9/11 world. But from the very first line of his October 24th article in the Tennessean entitled “Anti-Muslim Crusaders Make Millions Spreading Fear” reporter Bob Smietana blatantly ignores these facts and many other essential issues pertinent to the discussion of the spread of Islam and Sharia law in America, choosing instead to engage in a mottled series of baseless ad hominem attacks which portray Americans concerned about the issue as being hate mongering profiteers.
Smietana opens his article with a completely unsubstantiated and fallacious attempt to portray Steven Emerson as a “leading member of a multimillion dollar industry of self proclaimed experts” who “spread hate toward Muslims” for their own profit. Let us begin the logical decimation of Smietana’s spurious allegations by addressing his ludicrous assertion that Emerson is a “self proclaimed expert.”
This particular assertion blatantly ignores the fact that rather than being a “self proclaimed expert” Emerson is in reality considered to be a top expert on Islamic terrorist activity by FBI counterterrorism agents, national security personnel, U.S. congressmen, major news organizations such as CNN and many, many others.
“Steve has been on the cutting edge of [investigating terrorism] for many, many years... he has provided an extremely valuable service," says Robert Blitzer, retired FBI Counterterrorism Chief. Richard Clarke, former head of NSC Counterterrorism, calls Emerson “The Paul Revere of Terrorism” and says Emerson routinely provided him with counterterrorism information that the FBI and CIA didn’t have. Senator John Kyl said Emerson “is the most authoritative expert on Middle Eastern terrorism in the United States today…whose investigations have uncovered the existence of terrorist groups operating in the United States“ Kyl adds that “This country owes a great deal of gratitude to him."
As for Emerson being a profiteer, Smietana points to the $3,390,000 in income Emerson’s “for profit” company -- SAE Productions -- “collected” in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. While providing no accounting of how that money was dispersed or where it ended up, Smietana also ignores the fact that Emerson, according to SAE spokesman Ray Locker, takes no profit from SAE. The money in question was used to pay for research, expenses and the salaries and benefits of 18 employees. The organization, according to Locker, is only designated “for profit” for security reasons, so that Emerson can protect the anonymity of his employees. Considering the fate of others who have openly criticized Islam --- such as Salman Rushdie, or Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who’s movie about the shameful abuse of Muslim women got him assassinated by a Moroccan Jihadist) -- it is understandable that Emerson, while braving the personal risks entailed by his open fight against Islamic Jihad, is concerned with protecting the well being of his employees.
As for Emerson being a hatemonger, Smietana simply makes the slur without citing a single instance of Emerson saying, writing or doing anything that remotely constitutes hate speech or hatred of Muslims.
LOGICAL DISCOURSE AND THE TRUE PURVEYORS OF HATE AND INTOLERANCE
Since Smietana provides absolutely no evidence of hate speech coming from Emerson or any of the other people he accuses of hatemongering, it is apparent that for him the mere criticism of Islam alone constitutes intolerance and hate mongering. Regarding this absurd (though common) and baseless assertion that the only intent of those who point to the dangers inherent in political Islam is to spread hate, light the fires of passion and loose the dogs of war, we must once again do what Smietana never does in his article -- which is to address facts and the empirical data, and formulate a reasoned. dispassionate assessment of the pertinent issues.
Let me first state unequivocally that empirical arguments against the ideology of Islam and its diametric opposition to the Constitutional foundation of America (and the notion of human freedom) are all logical variances and oppositions against an ideology, not arguments or attacks against a people. Let it further be said that opposing Islam does not make you a racist, and does not mean that you oppose or hate Muslims or want to oppress them. What it means is that you oppose (on a purely empirical and rational basis) the racism, hatred and oppression that the ideology of Islam itself embodies.
Consider for a moment the sounds of hate, oppression, intolerance, and the irrational -- compared to the considered arguments of the rational and the empirical. Hate mongering never begins with, “Consider this....” followed by a presentation of facts, as those who Smietana criticizes have done in regard to addressing the issue of the threat of the Islamic ideology. Instead, hatred, oppression and intolerance state their claims and ideological positions and then reject outright all dissent -- reasoned or otherwise. True intolerance is a mindset that -- particularly as it presents itself in academia and the media -- insists that we must quietly take our seats and behave, or else risk insult, humiliation and punishment. It is a mindset that is not interested in rational debate and discourse.
There may be some who, in fact, do harbor feelings of strong antipathy for all Muslims. That fear is one unfortunate consequence of 9/11, perhaps, or a result of a personal familiarity with Islam's hostile history. But to lump all critics of Islam together and brand them as hate mongers is tantamount to equating Rosa Parks with O.J. Simpson, because they both were victims of police discrimination.
The basis for any just criticism should always be rational thought, based on empirical data. Concerning the issue of critiquing Islam, a sort of social-scientific method should and must be used. Anything less falls below the standard of anyone who truly honors the words upon which our nation was established. Criticism of Islam's political aspect is thus not hate-speech, nor is it an indication of a knee-jerk reactionary at work: it is the sensible, logical, and above all, reasonable response of people who have not forgotten that their freedoms are ensured and preserved by adherence to the principles of Reason.
CONCERNS BASED ON FACTS, NOT HATRED
It is unfortunate (and probably futile) to have to remind Smietana of certain undeniable facts, which lead many to have great concern about the spread of Islam across the United States and the world. Consider that when making the absurd assertion that the few million dollars Emerson’s company “collected” makes him a profiteer of hate, Smietana ignores the fact that the government of Saudi Arabia has spent billions to establish schools that propagate Wahhabi Islam -- a doctrine that profusely and openly espouses intolerance and hate.
It is a fact that the Wahhabi philosophy is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in every detail. It is also a fact that Saudi monies have played a large role in funding American colleges and universities. It is a fact that the Saudi regime itself promotes no democratic participation. Does my citing of these facts constitute hatred of Arabs? Of course not. It merely indicates and states the power and influence of a political system beyond and within its own borders -- and we would be well served to consider the consequences of ignoring that influence and power and allowing a doctrine that is so blatantly opposed to our Constitutional belief system go unchallenged.
So it is our responsibility not to jump to any conclusions, but to evaluate all the available evidence in order to make a dispassionate, sober evaluation of the situation we find ourselves in today. But in doing so we must not ignore the fact that in the recent histories of Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia, the main consequence of Islam's influence has been havoc, genocide, and revolution. And in past decades and centuries, Islam has not built and spread prosperity, but poverty, isolation and hostility.
As a political arm of government, Islam does not embrace assimilation as modern multi-cultural states do, as America has done. In short, it does not tolerate tolerance. While westernized Muslims enjoy and advocate liberty, they fail to perceive the darker side of their heritage. It must be as difficult for Muslims in Tennessee to admit Islam's abuses as it is for Roman Catholics to face sex-scandals, but there is no solution until they do. No doubt, a sort of Islamic Reformation is overdue, but, as yet, it has not appeared, primarily because of the real threat of violent retaliation such a declaration would mean for its adherents. The plight of Rushdie, Van Gogh, and millions of others murdered for apposing Islam throughout history gives ample testimony to the real danger of opposing Islam.
WORTHY OF COMMENDATION, NOT CONDEMNATION
Rather than being falsely accused of hatemongering, Steven Emerson and the others whom Bill Smietana attacks should be commended for having the courage to eschew potential assaults (both verbal and physical) and truthfully address the threat posed by Islam. Bill French (aka Bill Warner), a former Tennessee State physics professor, is one such man, an intellectually and personally honest and forthright person whom I’ve known for nearly a decade and whom I consider to be one of the finest Americans I have ever met. The fact that Mr. French personally finances his own research and publications on the study of political Islam out of concern for his country did not prevent Smietana from accusing him of “cashing in” and profiting by spreading hate.
As with the baseless accusations he leveled against Emerson, Smietana gives zero evidence of French engaging in hate speech. As for French “cashing in” on his publications, other than reporting that French sells books, Smietana offers zero evidence that French profits from his research or publications. I happen to know that for the past 10 years Bill French has funded his research and his writing out of his own pocket and has not profited one dime from his endeavors. He does what he does because as a patriotic American he is concerned about the future of his country and the world as we all face the growing threat of Islamic imperialism.
Although Smietana fails to offer any hard numbers that would indicate that French or any other of the people he slanders are profiting from their endeavors, the question should also be raised as to why Smietana seems to want to characterize organizations that do research and then publicize their findings as somehow “evil” if the organizations are categorized as “for profit.” Doesn’t The Tennessean do exactly that? Isn’t Smietana getting paid and making a profit -- even though, in this instance, his research and writing (as logical discourse) is as shoddy as it gets?
In leveling his groundless assertions that French, Emerson and others are making millions spreading fear and hate, Smietana manages to point to a grand total of around four million dollars that has been raised by or paid out to the half dozen or so supposed hate mongering profiteers that he unjustly vilifies in his article. But besides citing no instances of hate speech and offering no evidence of realized profit earned by any of the people he accuses, Spietana also fails to address the implications evident in the monumental disparity in funding as related to the people he assails and the financiers of Islam itself. For while Smietana can only cite $4,000,000 being circulated to address the effects of Islam on America and the world, compare that to the billions of dollars Saudi Arabia spends each year to propagate Wahhabi Islam -- which creates havoc worldwide.
AN IDEOLOGY OF TOTALITARIAN INTOLERANCE
As I stated, the fact that Islam as an ideology creates havoc, genocide and revolution can be established by considering the violence and death it has fomented in Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia (just to name a few). But additionally, I can cite my own personal experience with the effects of the ideology of Islam -- for I am a victim of Islamic imperialism. My civilization and culture (Hindu, Indian) has been attacked and ravaged by Islam for a thousand years. As late as in 1970 three million Bangladeshi Hindus and Secular Muslims have been murdered by the fanatical Pakistani Islamic Army during the years of Bangladesh's liberation. Therefore, as a victim of Islamic imperialism, I have every right to criticize Islam. And in leveling my criticism, I do so with a warning that if America does not take care of this pernicious problem, my past will be your future.
It should be noted once again that my criticism of Islam is based on empiricism, reason, and scientific method and that I am not advancing any counter-religion. It is my desire to compare the Quran to the United States Constitution, not to the Bible. Why? Because, the Quran is, first and foremost, a political document. As a political document it is in complete opposition to the laws of the United States, and particularly our supreme law, the Constitution.
ISLAM IS A REPRESSIVE POLITICAL SYSTEM DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR CONSTITUTION
That Islam is a political rather than a religious ideology and one that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution is a factual conclusion that can be clearly drawn from examining the origins and documents of Islam itself and contrasting them with America‘s founding documents and principles.
America was conceived as a free Constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.
The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.
These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition.
Our Constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.
Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law—which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable.
So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable.
Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other “explanations” are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil.
The idea that somehow the United States antagonized the current conflicts with Islamic nations and Muslim terrorists is specious. The very existence of our Constitution is what antagonizes Islam. It stands in stark opposition to Islam’s worldwide goal of domination over all mankind. We could be doing absolutely nothing anywhere in the world, and still would be an object of Islam’s contempt and aggression for the sole reason that we do not submit ourselves to Islamic law, and we further have the gall to proclaim in our Constitution that people have the right to choose a religion other than Islam -- or to choose no religion at all.
One cannot serve two masters. One cannot to be loyal to the United States Constitution and to the Quran at the same time.
Muslims and non-Muslims alike, need to face up to this incontrovertible fact: Islam’s ultimate goal is world domination by Islamic rule, and America stands as the single greatest barrier to the realization of that ultimate goal. That is the exact simple statement of the problem.
For that reason, Islam, at its core, requires the overthrow of the American government, the destruction of our Constitution, and the cancellation of all of our laws as its ultimate goal in America, so that all of those can be replaced with the Quran and Sharia law.
Islam, at its core, also demands the suppression and ultimate eradication of every other church and religion in the world without exception. All paths to spiritual enlightenment and sacred belief known to man that are not Islam—and even materialism, agnosticism, and atheism—are branded by the Quran as inferior, and not worthy of existence.
Islam, at its core, also mandates inequality under Islamic law, using a double standard specifically designed to oppress any “non - believer.” It enforces Sharia law and its inherent discrimination with draconian penalties, including selective taxes, dismemberment (cruel and unusual punishment at its worst) and execution.
Islam, at its core, also commands complete and inescapable submission of the mind and spirit to its scripture as supreme and divine law that overrides and supersedes all the human rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, hold sacred—including, ironically, freedom of religion. The Quran and Sharia law suppress all dissent, and call for the destruction of all opposition to Islamic supremacy. To leave Islam, or even to criticize it, is punishable by death. (Comedy Central thought that was a joke. They’re now finding out that perhaps it’s not so funny after all.)
Furthermore, it must be realized that these goals and purposes of Islam are not “radical Islam;” they are literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam’s most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world.
ISLAM’S ULTIMATE GOALS
The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A’ala Maududi left no doubt about Islam’s ultimate goals when he said: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.”
I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or “politically correct” in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely “another religion” and “a religion of peace.”
But Islam, at its core, is a faith-based political theocracy whose most basic tenets and goals are a nullification of our Constitution, and, as such, it is the single greatest threat that America -- and, indeed, the entire free world -- has ever faced. It is a consummate totalitarianism against which every other totalitarianism should be measured. Expressly because of its religious component, Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.
Hitler came to power in 1939, and World War II ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler was in power for about 15 years. The Communist Soviet Union lasted longer, for about 74 years. The Soviet Union and Soviet sponsored Communism died of their own internal contradictions.
Yet today, Islam’s Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA’s own World Fact Book. That’s more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries.
Universal Jihad is a war that has been waged by Islam against the rest of the world for 1400 years. It is by no means limited to violent conflict or terrorism, and demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Once Muslims replace enough of the population of any country, the non-believers will lose their nation, their culture, their heritage, their civilization, their laws, their land, and their fundamental human rights forever.
Instead of assimilating into any society, Islam seeks to establish a state-within-a-state, to insinuate Sharia law into the existing system of law and expand it by degrees until it can consume it.
Islam and our Constitution cannot merge. They cannot mix. The oil-and-water analogy would be the easiest to make, but the more accurate one, in the case of Islam and the Constitution, is that of a parasite and host.
As it has done with other cultures, Islam uses our religious tolerance—which is codified in the “free exercise clause” of our Constitution—first as an entrance point to insinuate itself, then as a protective covering while it grows and spreads.
There are more than a few examples in history. Zoroastrian Persia, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Pakistan, and Christian Egypt all extended tolerance to Islam. All have been metamorphosed into Islamic nations. Their pre-Islamic past is all but wiped out. No one really knows the many achievements, contributions, and heritage of these once great civilizations.
The Hindu civilization today is half of what it used to be. After a thousand years of living in an undivided India, in 1947 the Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Pakistan. Similarly, in Yugoslavia, after a thousand years of co-existence, Slavic Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Bosnia.
America and Europe certainly will suffer the same fate of these past civilizations if effective action is not taken.
The same sort of parasitic process has taken hold today in Europe. Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Italy—all are being inundated by Muslim immigration and suffering the inevitable smothering of their traditional values, culture, and political systems by Islamic influence peddling and Sharia law.
Right now, today, our banks have succumbed to Islamic insistence on separate banking terms for Muslims. Sharia forbids Muslims from paying interest, so Muslims do not get mortgages with interest. They get a loan that has a “fee” instead. Of course liberals, who are Islam’s water-carriers, defend this blatant discrimination that is based solely on religion, while speaking out the other side of their mouths about “equality for all.”
In 2008, the United Kingdom officially sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil matters. In much the same way that Muslims use the “free exercise” clause of our Constitution as a bludgeon against us to extort special concessions and privileges, Muslims in England found in the British Arbitration Act an entrance point to the host while it slowly and methodically grows.
And it is coming to the United States.
THE ORIGINS AND TEACHINGS OF ISLAM
One must only look at the foundational history of Islam to factually substantiate and prove all that I’ve stated previously.
The most sacred site in the Islamic world is the Kaaba in Mecca. It was not, however, built as an Islamic mosque. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kaaba was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca. On the day of its capture, Muhammad delivered an address at the Kaaba in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, The Message:
“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished…I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless …A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims.” —Muhammad
Muhammad’s address at the Kaaba overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Quran 3:85
THE FALLACY OF THE “MODERATE MUSLIM”
The politically correct apologists for Islam claim that it is a “religion of peace” with the numerous acts of terror and murder perpetrated by Islamists being dismissed as the misguided acts of a minority. One must consider however that the majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the Holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the Holocaust.
The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.
Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.
Furthermore, while it is apparent that there are post-Nazi democracies in Germany and post-Communist democracies in some places where the Soviet Union once ruled, there are no post-Islamic democracies anywhere. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical (religious, spiritual) factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.
Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or Constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:
“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas
All Islamic mosques have leaders who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.
MOSQUES AND THE POLITICAL DOCUMENTS OF ISLAM
The Quran is the supreme political document of Islam -- its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kaaba, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.
The Quran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Quran governs all mosques everywhere in the world. As a political document, the Quran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. Mosques are its outpost headquarters.
Central to the Quran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.
“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Quran 5:51
“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” -- Quran 9:5
Mosque leaders must ultimately be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.
Mosque leaders and Imams are also the administrators of Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations. Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.
Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:
“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Muhammad Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh
In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Quran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all.
CONCLUSION AND MANDATE
In summation, all the foregoing facts dictate with precise clarity the reality of the situation: fundamental, literal Islam presents itself as an ideology that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and thus our country. The mandate this reality dictates should be clear to all as well -- it is and should be the duty of every American to vigorously oppose the growth of an ideology that inherently contradicts our founding principles and documents and calls for the destruction of the freedoms and way of life those principles have established for Americans and for much of the free world.
Vijay Kumar, a native of India and long-time resident of Nashville, Tennessee, recently ran for U.S. Congress in the Republican Primary, Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District. He may be reached at kfcnashville@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
