Undercover Mosque vindicated

An update on these stories:

West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of a Channel 4 documentary of distortion.

The apology and the promise of £100,000 were made at the High Court on Thursday.

It follows comments made about a Dispatches programme, Undercover Mosque, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism in the West Midlands.

The police statement said the force was wrong to make the allegations.

[...]

The statement, released to the media after the High Court hearing by West Midlands Police, said they accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".

It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context".

The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release."

So, if the police now accept that the programme was wholly accurate, what are we to make of the force's earlier claim that the programme makers - Hardcash Productions - were guilty of "completely distorting" what was said? Or, indeed, of their long-running vendetta against Hardcash, which included attempting to have them prosecuted for "inciting racial hatred", and, when this plan was frustrated, making an official complaint about the documentary to the communications regulator?
Presumably the police have not seen any new footage which might have explained their change of heart. As such, their original claim that the programme distorted what was said must surely be no more or less tenable than it was when they first made it. Why, then, have they now performed a complete U-turn, and accepted that it was untenable? I suspect that it is because they always knew that the accusations they were making were utterly unfounded, but that they hoped that, by making them, they could intimidate the programme makers, and anyone else who might be tempted to criticise Islam (or, indeed, any Muslims), into silence. As with so much else that the police do these days, their conduct in this matter really does beg the question, whose side are they on?

I had no idea!

Election fraud driven by immigrants practising "village politics" of the Indian sub-continent could be a crucial factor in deciding the future control of Birmingham City Council, a major report warns today.

Family loyalties, the dominance of men and the existence of the "biraderi" clan system among British Asians provides perfect conditions for widespread rigging of postal votes and other electoral malpractice in Britain’s major cities, according to the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. In a 94-page report called Purity of Elections in the UK – Causes for Concern, the trust argues that the UK’s election system is close to breaking point and at risk of fraud, as the countdown to May’s local elections gets under way.

The study says the turning point in recognising Britain has a problem with election fraud came in 2005 when a court found six Birmingham Labour Party members in Aston and Bordesley Green, all Asian men, guilty of tampering with thousands of postal ballots.

The incident, which Elections Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC said would "disgrace a banana republic", forced the Government to tighten regulations surrounding postal voting, but the reforms were nowhere near tough enough according to the authors of today’s report.

They say: "The Birmingham election court of 2005 demonstrates that the control of a major city council or the outcome of a parliamentary contest could be influenced by the scale of fraud that was rendered possible by postal voting."

The study says numerous convictions for electoral fraud since 2000, when postal votes first became freely available on demand, resulted from incidents in inner-city wards where a large concentration of voters originate from the Indian sub-continent.

It adds: "Significantly, these convictions have emerged alongside anecdotal evidence of more widespread, and long-run, practices associated with Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi traditions of biraderi (brotherhood) clans influencing voting behaviour.

"It is widely suggested that extended family and kinship networks, frequently with their origins in settlement patterns in Pakistan and Bangladesh, are mobilised to secure the support of up to several hundred electors, effectively constituting a block vote."

So, are our fearless elected representatives from the three main parties taking action to challenge this pattern of behaviour? Are they distancing themselves from those engaging in such activities? Not a bit of it! On the contrary, we are told that "all of the main political parties have sought at times to gain advantage by allying themselves to a Muslim candidate claiming to be able to guarantee a minimum number of votes arising from their support within a wider clan". This is something that is also evident from the fact that, while the overwhelming majority of vote-rigging cases involve Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims, the party affiliations of those involved seem to be pretty evenly divided between Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems. More evidence that for all three parties the primary, or perhaps the sole aim, is to get power, while such things as democracy and public service come, at best, a poor second in the reckoning.

Still, it is nice to see the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, a strongly left-wing organisation, which last year donated £2million to the Lib Dems, coming out and acknowledging that certain sections of the community do indeed have a disproportionate tendency to engage in vote-rigging, and that the advent of postal voting on demand has played into the hands of anyone who should wish to subvert the democratic process in this manner. If we're lucky, this might herald a new era of straight talking about the former issue, and the solving of the latter problem by the simple expedient of abolishing the on demand postal vote. But since all three major parties have, for short-term gain, bought into the long-term corruption of the democratic process, I don't hold out much hope that this new era will eventuate.

Hat-tip: English Rose

Will you tell the liberals, or shall I? Part two

One of the statistics mentioned in my previous post was that 66% of Britons believe that immigrants undercut British workers and take their jobs. This particular belief is the one most frequently mocked by advocates of unlimited immigration, who like to depict it, usually harnessed in tandem with the straw man argument that "they take our women", as a claim made by the stereotypical crude, ignorant "white van men", who, many liberals like to believe, are the only source of opposition to immigration (aside, that is, from taxi drivers, and "racists"). As is so often the case, however, the mere fact that liberals don't want to believe it does not make it any less true (indeed, one might almost say that the probability of a statement being correct increases in direct proportion to the vociferousness of liberals in disputing it). As the Sunday Telegraph reports:

Mass immigration has been accompanied by a fall in the number of Britons with jobs, official figures show.

Since 2004, when citizens of eight central and eastern European countries were given the right to work in Britain, the number of UK-born people working here has fallen by 500,000, from 24.4 million to 23.9 million.

Over the period, the number of migrants in work, including people born abroad but now naturalised as British citizens, rose by 1.1 million - to 3.3 million. They now make up one in eight of the workforce.

The figures, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), provide the strongest evidence yet that Britons have lost their jobs to immigrants, says a leading expert on immigration.

Robert Rowthorn, a Cambridge University professor who uncovered the findings, said: "It seems hard to deny that immigration from the new EU member states has had a negative impact on the employment of UK natives."

The good professor should be careful what he says. If any lefty student groups at Cambridge should get wind of it, they might try and get him sacked!

Will you tell the liberals, or shall I?

Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced virtually no economic benefits for the country, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

A House of Lords committee, which is due to report next Tuesday, will call into question Government claims that foreign workers add £6 billion each year to the wealth of the nation.

It is expected to say this must be balanced against the increase in population and their use of local services such as health and education, resulting in little benefit per head of the population.

"Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run," the report will say.

The findings of the Lords economics committee threaten to demolish the key argument made by ministers to justify the highest levels of immigration in the country's history.

The inquiry by the committee, which includes two former chancellors and several former Cabinet ministers, is the first to try to balance the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration.

[...]

A Whitehall paper produced for the committee said average output growth over the past five years was 2.7 per cent a year and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this. The Government said this indicated a contribution of £6 billion - or £700,000 a day- from foreign workers.

However, the committee's final report is expected to say the Government should have focused on the impact of immigration on GDP per head, not the economy as a whole.

David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University, said in his evidence to the committee that the Government had excluded costs from crime, security, the race relations process, health "tourism" and imported ailments such as TB.

My own objections to mass immigration are, as I have made clear many times before, centred upon the cultural, religious, and (dare I say it?) ethnic change that it brings, and the social problems that will arise in the future as a result of these changes, as well as the essentially undemocratic way in which the political elite has foisted mass immigration upon this country, without ever seeking the consent of the public. Even if there were short-term economic benefits to be had from mass immigration, I would still say that these were outweighed by the long-term social costs. Having said that, economic factors are clearly an important consideration, so I am glad to see that the arguments of those in favour of mass immigration apparently fail on this count as well.

Fitna released

Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film, Fitna, is finally out, after months of delays, and, well, to say that it's "gone viral" would, I think, be something of an understatement. Having been released earlier today, the Dutch-language version is, at the time of writing, pushing two million views, while the English-language version is at just over 1.1million views. To put this in context, when I wrote about the film over at ATW about an hour ago, the Dutch-language version was at 1.6million views, and the English-language version at 780,000. So that's roughly 700,000 viewers in the last hour alone! It's certainly one in the eye for all those - and there were many - who had hoped to ensure that this film never saw the light of day!

I've written more about the film itself in my ATW post, which can be read here, but, since the film's the main thing, here it is (please note that, as is made clear at the start of the film, some of the images used are pretty explicit):

Racist Britain

As any fule (or, which is much the same thing, any good liberal) kno, racism is inherent in British society. Non-whites, we are given to believe, are at constant risk from the massed ranks of barbaric natives, who are just itching to tear them limb-from-limb in an orgy of genocidal bloodlust. Muslims, goes the traditional media narrative, are particularly at risk, and "Islamophobia" is now reaching record levels. Even such fair and impartial representations of Muslims and natives as "White Girl" can do nothing to stem the tide of hatred and bigotry. Knowing all this, it will come as no surprise to anyone to hear of two more horrendous racist attacks.

First up, a race hate incident:

A TERRIFIED pensioner and her grandson had a lucky escape when a gang of yobs threw a brick and a wrench through their window.

Around 15 youths shouted rascist abuse and attacked 74-year-old Jean Mills’ home in Victoria Walk, Chadderton, after threatening to burn it down.

The ordeal happened when her 13-year-old grandson, who she does not want to name, was sitting on the garden wall with a friend at around 8.45pm on Sunday.

They were called “white b*******”. The gang chased them into the house and threatened to torch it.

Half of the thugs stayed at the front of the house and threw a brick and a wrench through a window.

The others went to the back of the house where they kicked in the back door, smashing another window.

Around £400 of damage was caused and Mrs Mills said: “I was very shaken and my grandson was frightened because apparently two of them go to the same school as him.”

Her grandson, who lives with her, has been chased several times by the gang which the family says has been causing havoc in the area.

On Friday Mrs Mills asked them to stop destroying plants in her garden. A neighbour had a fence kicked down and a car was scratched

Her daughter, Janet Mills, said: “The wrench could have hit my mother or my nephew.

“It seems there’s a gang going round causing havoc. People are being confronted by these youths. The fact is if you are white you are going to be in trouble. That’s not good for Chadderton.”

A police spokesman said the gang was made up of white and Asian youths, and that no allegation of racism had been made.

Hmm, even if the gang was made of "white and Asian [sic] youths", that does not prevent it being a racist incident. At least, it didn't when the Stephen Lawrence memorial was vandalised by a black man...

Second, religious hatred. "Islamophobia", no doubt?

PARISHIONERS were in shock this week after thugs attacked a leading East End clergyman in the grounds of his church.

Two youths described by police as Asian attacked Canon Michael Ainsworth at St George-in-the-East Church in Shadwell, Scotland Yard confirmed this evening (Friday).

Police are treating the attack on the 57-year-old clergyman as an alleged 'faith hate' crime.

So, not Islamophobia then (except in the sense that attacks by Muslim terrorists are now designated as "anti-Islamic actions" - in that sense, this was clearly an instance of extreme Islamophobia). Rather, a Christianophobic attack, carried out by "Asians" - a favourite euphemism for 'Muslims'.

Of course, these cases don't fit the liberal paradigm of whites/Christians as oppressors and bigots, and Pakistanis/Muslims as poor oppressed victims. But then, as I have said time and time again, the majority of racist crimes don't fit that model - for a start, most race crime is directed against whites. The cases highlighted above provide further evidence that the hackneyed image of white racists going out "Paki-bashing" is a complete inversion of reality, and that it is, in fact, the "Asians" themselves who have a disproportionate propensity to indulge in racist and sectarian violence.

Hat-tips: Green Arrow (first case) and David Vance (second case)

Demonising an entire community

I have to confess that when the news that the Stephen Lawrence memorial had been vandalised broke, I didn't follow the story as attentively as I might have done. I did, however, note that Ken Livingstone had come out and claimed that it was an "outrageous act of racism", and that various race hustlers (such as the lowlife at BLINK) had made the same claim.
But while I read about the claims that evil white racists had been behind the crime, I did not see the following descriptions of the people who are really alleged to be responsible:

Officers, who have studied CCTV footage, said three suspects were seen approaching the £10 million building from a footbridge over the Dockland’s Light Railway before fleeing the scene after the attack.

Two of the suspects are described as white, between 16 and 18 years old, wearing plain dark hooded tops.

See! Evil white racists! See, Ken was right! Only:

The third is described as a light-skinned black man in his late teens or early twenties and shorter than the other two suspects. He was wearing a dark hat and had facial hair.

It's true that the police are continuing to treat this as a racist incident. But that probably says more about the cowed and politically-correct nature of the Metropolitan Police than it does about the truth. After all, one finds it difficult to imagine in what circumstances a black vandal would have an anti-black racist motive for his crime. Furthermore, as the black suspect was a few years older than the two white ones, it seems quite probable that he was, in fact, the ringleader. If this was the case, then the possibility of a racist motive would be further negated.

Regardless of one's views on the Stephen Lawrence case, and, more particularly, on the victimhood circus to which it has given rise, the fact is that vandalising a memorial to a murder victim is a particularly obscene act. Hopefully, the individuals who have done this will be swiftly brought to justice.
However, equally obscene was the speed with which Livingstone and his race hustler friends leapt up to scream "RACISM" at the tops of their voices, without bothering to produce any real evidence to back up their claim. Had they directed their false allegations against any group other than whites, they would, no doubt, have been accused of "demonising an entire community". Indeed, in those circumstances Livingstone and BLINK might well have been among the first to make the allegations of demonisation...

"Say goodbye to the Britain you once knew"

Singer Morrissey has sparked controversy by claiming British identity has disappeared because the country has been "flooded" by foreigners. The 48-year-old former Smiths star, whose parents were Irish immigrants, suggested that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain.

Morrissey, who has spent most of the last decade living in LA and Rome, told NME magazine that countries like Germany still had their own identity and complained of not hearing "British accents" on the streets.

Asked whether he would move back to Britain, he said: "Britain's a terribly negative place. And it hammers people down and it pulls you back and it prevents you.

"Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears.

"So the price is enormous. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are.

He added: "It matters because the British identity is very attractive. I grew up into it, and I find it quaint and very amusing. But England is a memory now."

He agreed that immigration was enriching the British identity but added "you have to say goodbye to the Britain you once knew".

In a follow-up phone interview, Morrissey told the magazine: "I just think that it could be construed that the reason I wouldn't wish to live in England is the immigration explosion.

"And that's not true at all. I am actually extremely worldly and there are other reasons why I would find England very difficult, such as the expense and the pressure."

He said: "My favourite actor is an Israeli, Lior Ashkenazi, and my favourite singer was born in Iraq and now lives in Egypt. So I'm not a part of Little Britain. And by that, I don't mean the show, obviously."

Asked about his parents moving to Britain, he said: "It's different now. Because the gates are flooded. And anybody can have access to England and join in."

Admitting that he would be "pilloried" for his comments, he added: "You can't say, 'Everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.' It wouldn't work."

NME wrote: "Morrissey, the son of immigrants who has lived for most of the past decade in either LA or Rome, wants others to have the freedom to travel the world like him, but implies he would shut the gates to people coming to live in the UK.

"He might once have been the voice of a generation, but given his comments in these two interviews, he's certainly not speaking for us now."

A hypocrite he may be. And perhaps he doesn't speak for the second-rate hacks at the NME. But the concerns that he voiced about immigration, and about its effects on British society, are shared by the overwhelming majority of British people.

Assuming, that is, that he did voice those concerns. He is apparently planning to sue the NME for libel over the article in question.

But really, whether a faded eighties musician did or did not criticise immigration is irrelevant when compared to the real issue here. And the real issue is, of course, immigration itself, and its impact. There can be no doubt that immigration has had a huge impact on our society and culture. Even the national language is in the process of being replaced - English is now a second language for fully 40% of primary school children in London. Whole parts of London - and many, many other towns and cities - are entirely given over to immigrants, and those of recent immigrant stock. Indeed, there are even some parts of this country into which it is simply not safe for native Britons to set foot. Thanks to Muslim immigration, we now have in this country some 600,000 people who wish to see the imposition of Sharia law across Britain - an attitude of a kind which this country has not witnessed for hundreds of years. And, perhaps worst of all, we are now experiencing the widespread active suppression of native British culture, in order to make the immigrants feel more at home. Even the indescribably vile Keith Vaz has acknowledged that British society is changing. In his Newsnight debate with Nick Griffin he said that "it is wonderful that this country has been transformed" (video link, if you can stomach it, here; he says those precise words at 4:49). And that is the heart of the matter. Not, "has the country been changed by immigration?" (it's abundantly clear that it has been), but "do we like the change, do we want to quicken the rate of change, or do we, on the other hand, want to reverse the change?". Keith Vaz would choose the former option, I (and Morrissey, according to the NME) would choose the latter.

West Midlands Police: Looking out for the Islamists

Police have been criticised for taking action against a television programme which exposed how some Islamic preachers use British mosques to spread a message of hatred and segregation.

Broadcasting watchdogs have cleared Channel 4 of wrongdoing over the controversial documentary about Muslim extremism.

The programme featured footage of preachers at a number of mosques, including one who praised the Taliban for murdering British soldiers.

West Midlands police rejected calls to take action against the preachers for stirring up racial hatred – and turned on the film-makers.

Three months ago, the police, backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, made a formal complaint to Ofcom, alleging that the way 50 hours of videotape had been edited was 'distorted'.

But The Mail on Sunday has been told Ofcom has backed Channel 4's claim that the film was fair and has criticised the police response.

Thinking about the actions of the police, who now seem to be firmly mired in the same morass of PC liberalism into which the rest of the public sector has already sunk, I was reminded of this quote, from the beginning of Enoch Powell's so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech:

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Of course, we have, in the thirty-nine years since those words were spoken, gone beyond the situation Powell described. We now have a situation where problems are not just being predicted, but where they are happening, and where many of those in authority are so desperate to believe that there are no problems, that they fete the very people who are actually causing the problems (or who, indeed, are themselves the problem), while at the same time harassing and persecuting those who have the temerity to point the problems out. This would appear to be the case here: the police, confronted with a truth which, while correct in terms of being factually accurate, is not politically-correct, have chosen to take action, not against the Muslims who incited murder and terrorism, but against those who reported that they were doing so. After all, it would be so much nicer for everyone if Imams were not inciting murder in mosques, that it is simply not nice to point out that, actually, they are doing so. Because for the PC left, a designation which can now fairly be said to include at least the upper echelons of the police force, anything is better than to face the politically-incorrect, but factually accurate, truth.

Nigel Hastilow and James Watson murder Indian sailors, says Tribune

ON October 20, two Goan sailors, Gregory Fernandes and Finod Appa, were brutally attacked by a drunken gang of racist youths in the Hampshire village of Fawley.
Mr Fernandes, 32, and his friend were returning to their ship Garonne, moored alongside the marine jetty near the Fawley refinery, when they were surrounded and beaten. Mr Appa sustained a broken shoulder while Mr Fernandes, who was more badly beaten by the 20-strong gang, later died from his injuries.

Hampshire police said the unprovoked assault was racially aggravated. Shocked residents, ashamed by the racially-motivated attack, held an emotional candlelit vigil.

“The community is in shock”, said the Reverend Barry James of All Saints Church, who led the service. “People are dismayed and ashamed of what happened here, in what is normally a small, quiet, sleepy village.”

Christine English, who lives in Fawley, said: “We’re stunned that an innocent visitor could be killed in a racist attack, not in one of the tougher areas of the city, but in a quiet New Forest village.”

Well, I think that we can all agree that the people who committed this murder are worthless scum, who ought to be strung up. And if I lived in Fawley, I imagine that I would be quite shocked too, to have this kind of thing happen on my doorstep.

However, one thing I should perhaps have mentioned before, is that this article comes from the far-left magazine, Tribune. As a result, the above, pretty reasonable, reporting, is swiftly followed up with this idiotic statement:

A link is now being made between what is said in public by people such as Nigel Hastilow and James Watson and racially motivated violence such as this on the streets of Britain.

Really? And by whom is this link being drawn? And what evidence have they adduced to establish the existence of such a link? Have the unnamed drawers of the link uncovered evidence that, for example, racist violence by whites against non-whites rose sharply in the aftermath of Prof Watson's comments, or Mr Hastilow's article?

Nigel Hastilow was the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis in the West Midlands until his racist remarks – that Enoch Powell was right to talk about “rivers of blood” in his infamous speech on black immigration – embarrassed Tory leader David Cameron. James Watson is the controversial scientist who caused a row when he spoke of the “inferiority of black people”.

So, I guess we're not going to get any answers to the questions I raised in my previous paragraph. What we do get is the throwing around of the word 'racist', as if that is actually probative of anything.
We also get a bit of apparently deliberate dishonesty and misrepresentation. First, we are told that Enoch Powell talked "about 'rivers of blood'". Now, while his famous speech from 1968 has been dubbed the "Rivers of Blood Speech", Powell never actually used the phrase himself. He did refer to "the River Tiber foaming with much blood" (a quote from a passage in Virgil's Aeneid) but he never actually said "rivers of blood". And yet the author of this piece, Paul Donovan, appears, from his use of quotation marks, to imply that the words are taken verbatim from Powell's speech. This is patently untrue, although Mr Donovan might perhaps argue that his untruth serves to illustrate a wider truth.
The second, and more egregious, misrepresentation occurs when we are told that Prof Watson "spoke of the 'inferiority of black people'". Again, the use of quotation marks in this context would seem to suggest - and suggest quite strongly - that Watson himself actually used the phrase "inferiority of black people". Well, if he did, then it isn't mentioned in the Sunday Times report of the interview which sparked off the whole witch hunt last month. Furthermore, not only did Watson not use the phrase "the inferiority of black people", but he also did not use any other words or phrases tending to imply that blacks are inferior. On the contrary, he specifically said that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race. As such, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, unless Mr Donovan should happen to be privy to information withheld from the rest of us, then he is deliberately attributing to Prof Watson, not only words which he did not actually speak, but also sentiments which he did not actually express.

Content with this little piece of deception, Donovan continues:

When the Labour Government came to power it set up the MacPherson inquiry to look into the racist killing of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The inquiry’s remit was later extended to examine racism nationwide.

Lord MacPherson’s final report made 75 recommendations, many of which have been implemented. Race crime was upgraded among police priorities and heavier sentences handed down where racial motivation can be proven.

True. I don't personally think that that's a good thing, except insofar as it increases some sentences which might otherwise be woefully inadequate, but it certainly is what's happened.

Despite this, racially motivated violence has continued to increase in Britain.

True. But what Mr Donovan omits to add is that most racist crime is directed against white people. In 2004, white people were the victims in 51% of all racially-motivated crime, in 61% of cases of violent racist crime, and in fully 83% of the most serious instances of racist violence. Once these basic facts are known, then the whole issue of racism appears in a rather different light from that in which Mr Donovan is attempting to cast it.

While violent crimes such as the murder in Liverpool of black teenager Anthony Walker are the most extreme form of race hate, the Institute of Race Relations points out that “every day on the streets of the UK, in playgrounds, classrooms, shops and at work, minority ethnic people are racially harassed.”

And that's wrong, and those who perpetrate such offences should be punished. But still more frequent than a non-white person being racially harassed by a white person, is a non-white person racially harassing a white person.

The contributions to public debate made by people such as Mr Hastilow and Professor Watson and, before them, Enoch Powell create an atmosphere in which it is easier for racists to operate.

Any evidence for that?

Race relations legislation – and changing attitudes – mean that blatant racism of the sort that saw signs reading “No blacks, no Irish” displayed in windows no longer exists, but racism has become more covert.

Any evidence for the existence of this new "covert" racism? No? Well, actually there is, after a fashion:

Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Wales, said that Mr Hastilow’s remarks exposed the racist underbelly of the Conservative Party.

There's your evidence: Peter Hain says so. I suppose that is evidence, of a sort. Whether we should attach any weight to it is, of course, a rather different matter.

And anti-racist campaigners fear that when someone such as Mr Hastilow or Professor Watson expresses their inflammatory racist views in public they give succour to those intent on racial violence on the streets of Britain.

Some questions:

1. Who are these "anti-racist campaigners"? Why doesn't Mr Donovan name them and quote directly from them (or fabricate some quotes, since that seems to be his style)? Or is it in fact the case that Mr Donovan is expressing his personal views, and attributing them to "anti-racist campaigners", in a bid to give them some added moral authority (yes, I know that race hustlers have no moral authority whatsoever, but I doubt that Mr Donovan knows that)?

2. What evidence is there that when Nigel Hastilow or James Watson expresses an "inflammatory racist view" (i.e. a view with which Paul Donovan does not agree), violent thugs "intent on racial violence" derive succour? Do such thugs actually sit around thinking "hmm, James Watson made some remarks about race and IQ, therefore it's okay for me to kill an Indian"? Did racist violence against non-whites increase in the aftermath of the comments of either Mr Hastilow or Prof Watson? Does Paul Donovan's article consist entirely of unverified assertions?

That last one's easy...

“The tragic death of Gregory Fernandes proves how important it is to confront racism in all its pernicious forms,” said the Institute of Race Relations this week.

Well, I'd agree that the murder is tragic. And I'd also agree that racism should be confronted. I imagine, however, that my definition of what racism is would differ substantially from that endorsed by Paul Donovan, or the Institute of Race Relations.

Enoch WAS Right!

I imagine that by now most of my British readers, at least, have come across the story of Nigel Hastilow, the erstwhile Tory candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, who has resigned as a parliamentary candidate after expressing a widespread, but forbidden, sentiment. Writing in the Wolverhampton Express and Star, Mr Hastilow had said:

When you ask most people in the Black Country what the single biggest problem facing the country is, most say immigration.

Many insist: 'Enoch Powell was right'.

Enoch, once MP for Wolverhampton South-West, was sacked from the Conservative front bench and marginalised politically for his 1968 'rivers of blood' speech, warning that uncontrolled immigration would change our country irrevocably. He was right. It has changed dramatically.

And of course, he's right: the country has changed dramatically. I don't think that anyone denies that - the only issue is whether we think it is a good thing. I don't, and I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the public don't. Keith Vaz, on the other hand, does.

Of course, it's the reference to the Evil Enoch that has really raised hackles. The work and pensions secretary Peter Hain says that Mr Hastilow's comments have exposed the "racist underbelly" of the Tory Party. The supposedly right-wing shadow home secretary, David Davis, described the comments as "very unwise", an indicator of the extent to which the Tories now, and for some time previously, have allowed the politically-correct left to frame the limits of "acceptable debate". The left has deemed Powell's so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech to be something akin to Hitler's speech at the Nuremberg Rally, and, in their eyes, anyone who dissents from that line is clearly an unrepentant Nazi. And they have succeeded in inculcating this view in a great many people, especially those who are too young to remember Powell's speech, and have never, of course, bothered to read the text of it.

Well, I have read the text of Powell's speech, and not only do I find nothing in it that any rational person could complain of, but I also find that he rather accurately predicted many of the unwelcome changes that continued mass immigration - now running, by the way, at over fifteen times what it was when Powell delivered the speech - has brought to this country. So, yes, my belief is that "Enoch was Right", and that Nigel Hastilow showed considerable courage (and possibly substantial foolhardiness, from a careerist perspective) in raising the issue. I also think that, whether the likes of Peter Hain like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country do, knowingly or otherwise, share in the general sentiments expressed by Enoch Powell. Of course, Hain and Co don't like this, and thus they make every effort to shut down any discussion of the issue that transgresses the artificial limits of acceptability that they have imposed, and which the Tories slavishly go along with. They attempt to induce a general belief that even talking about immigration, beyond those very narrow limits, is "racist", whatever that means this week. But they cannot change the fact that the problems that Enoch Powell identified nearly forty years ago are still with us, and that they have got worse, and that most people recognise this.

Postscript: Should any readers wish to peruse the speech's text, then I would advise them that the Mild Colonial Boy, Esq, posted the full text at his blog last month, and that you can read it there. Which I would recommend doing, especially if you haven't read it before.

Update: Nigel Hastilow has a blog of his own, here. In particular, he has left a very brief post to thank those who have expressed their support for him over this matter. At the time of writing, it has attracted 92 comments, of which almost all are strongly supportive. I have also left a message of support, which is currently waiting to be moderated. The strong support that is being shown for Nigel Hastilow, most of it, I would guess, coming from people who stumbled across his blog by means of a Google search, as I myself did, contrasts with the general condemnation coming from the political elite, and serves to illustrate the disconnect between that elite, and the general public.

More "racist myths" exposed...

Back in July I wrote about a report in The Times which acknowledged that in some towns there was a significant problem of "Asian" paedophiles preying on underage white girls, and pointed out that the BNP had raised this issue two or three years before, and had been denounced for spreading "racist myths".

Well, another claim that the BNP has made, and for which the party has been denounced as a bunch of lying hatemongers, has been the claim that white British residents in some areas were being put to the back of the queue for council housing, while newly-arrived immigrants jumped straight to the front. Unsurprisingly, Unite Against Fascism, together with a whole host of other leftist organisations, jumped up to denounce the BNP's allegations as - yes, that's right - "racist myths". The Labour MP for Barking, Margaret Hodge, was attacked by many of her fellow leftists when she made a similar point back in May.

And yet, it seems increasingly apparent that the BNP had a point on this issue too. In July Laban Tall reported on a Radio 4 (!) programme in which Barking's director of housing, David Woods, admitted that the "needs-based" system that the borough uses for allocating housing meant that, in practice, local residents, white or otherwise, did often lose out to newly-arrived immigrants. Now I read that Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has announced that there will be an inquiry into this very issue. Possibly the first useful thing he's ever done...

Of course, having an inquiry into the issue is not the same as concluding that there really is a problem. And, indeed, I am sceptical of the EHRC's ability to actually hold an independent inquiry. However, the very fact that the EHRC, an organisation which is hardly a friend of the BNP, has concluded that the issue is worth investigating, suggests that the evidence that there is a problem consists of rather more than "racist myths" existing only in the twisted minds of BNP thought criminals. Certainly, I do not see how, given St Trev's announcement, the BNP's (or, indeed, Margaret Hodge's) decision to raise this issue can be seen as evidence of deceitfulness, racism, and general wickedness. Indeed, the only people who have been shown to be deceitful, racist, or wicked, have been those people - and there are many of them - who have sought to shut down all discussion on this issue, for fear that truths might be unveiled which did not fit the politically-correct paradigm. If those people had had their way, and if the BNP had kept quiet about this, then you can bet whatever you like that there would be no investigation taking place today.

European Scrutiny Committee: the "reform treaty" is the constitution

I see that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has added its voice to the chorus of those, both pro and anti-EU, who say that the new EU "reform treaty" is in reality no different from the old EU constitution. You know, the EU constitution that Labour promised to give us a referendum on? According to the committee, 438 of the 440 provisions in the reform treaty were also in the constitution. They added that the extent to which powers were to be handed over to the EU under the terms of the (not a) constitution was "objectionable".

In proclaiming the reform treaty and the constitution to be one and the same, the members of the (Labour-dominated) Commons European Scrutiny Committee join a proud list of luminaries who have made the same discovery. These include Valery Giscard d'Estaing (former French president), Margot Walstrom (European Commissioner), Bertie Ahern (Irish Taioseach), Jose Zapatero (Spanish prime minister), Angela Merkel (German chancellor), Gisela Stuart (Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston), and a variety of (strongly pro-EU) MEPs. None of these people are exactly arch-Eurosceptics, are they? They simply acknowledge what is an obvious truth. Hell, even the uber-liberal Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley recognises that the reform treaty is "overwhelmingly similar" to the constitution, and, in consequence of this, has called for a referendum.

And who, on the other hand, denies that the reform treaty is simply the constitution by another name? Well, members of the government, and some of the more credulous members of the Labour Party. That's about it.
The government may continue in its pretence that the reform treaty is significantly different from the constitution. Indeed, at this point, having put so much time and effort into their lies, it's difficult to see how they could drop the pretence without having to make the disastrous acknowledgement that they have been deliberately deceiving the public for months. Like Macbeth, the government is:

...in blood/Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Nonetheless, return the government must. They have committed themselves to holding a referendum on the EU constitution, and with every passing week comes fresh evidence that the reform treaty is the constitution in all but name. To do otherwise than hold a referendum now would not only be a failure to honour an election commitment; it would be tantamount to treason.

BNP "lies" exposed...as truth!

A hidden world in which Asian [MSM code for 'Muslim' - FR] men “groom” young white girls for sex has been exposed with the jailing yesterday of two men for child-abuse offences.

Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32, from east Lancashire, were each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.

Both men pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to abduction, sexual activity with a child and the supply of a controlled drug.

Despite being told explicitly by police and social services that both girls were under-age and should be returned to care, the men picked up one girl from a children’s home in Blackburn and then drove on to collect her friend who was living in temporary foster care in North Wales.

Naveed, from Burnley, gave one girl the first of five Ecstasy tablets at a motorway service station before having sex with her on the back seat of the car while the group drove back to Lancashire. The court was told that the two men later took the girls to an address in Blackburn where Hussain, from Blackburn, had sex with the second girl and gave her a total of ten Ecstasy tablets.

[...]

The trial came amid growing concern at the attitudes of some Asian men towards white girls which campaigners for women claim few people wish to address.

Parents have complained that in parts of the country with large Asian communities white girls as young as 12 are being targeted for sex by older Asian men yet the authorities are unwilling to act because of fears of being labelled racist.

Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.

Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.

[...]

However, Ms Cryer added: “I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low. They do not seem to understand that there are white girls as moral and as good as Asian girls.”

Wow. It's almost as though their society was institutionally racist!

Incidentally, I seem to recall that the BNP has been going on and on about this issue for years, and have been repeatedly accused of spreading "racist myths" by groups such as the confused far-leftists of Unite Against Fascism. Now, however, it seems that the wicked Nazis may have been on to something after all. How unexpected...

Latest ATW post

I've just written a new post at ATW, on the subject of the recent witch hunt launched against Nicholas Soames for criticising mass immigration. Click here to read it.

Brilliant!

American talk-radio host Neal Boortz chews up and spits out a whining Muslim, who called into his show to complain about criticism of Islam. It's seven and a half minutes long, but it is well worth taking the time to listen to:



Hat-tip: Jihad Watch

Blood on their hands?

A young Indian immigrant is stabbed to death at a bus stop in what police describe as a "racial attack". Subsequently, an unemployed 19 year old thug is charged with the murder; he today pleaded not guilty, and will go on trial in November.

So, why haven't we heard more about this? Why hasn't the story of the crime been plastered all over the MSM? Why has the BBC hidden the story away in a remote bit of the 'England' section?

An answer suggests itself when one looks at the defendant's name: Kamuzu Monroe. Now, I can't imagine that there are many white men named Kamuzu. And the few newspaper reports on this racist murder seem unusually coy about mentioning Monroe's own race. Whereas if the defendant in such cases is white, that fact normally seems to get mentioned in every other sentence. Finally, via the Crimes against British Sikhs blog, I find that Monroe is, indeed, black.

This murder would be no more or less vile if it had been carried out by whites. But you can bet whatever you like that it would have got a lot more publicity. Because, in the narrative favoured by the MSM, not only can whites never be victims of racism (hence the suppression of the news of the murders of Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes, et al), but only whites can ever be racist (hence the deafening silence that has greeted this murder, and also, in an example of Pakistani-on-black crime, the murder of Isaiah Young-Sam). Now, to me, this sounds rather like, to use a stock phrase of the liberal-left, "demonising an entire community". Not very responsible of them, is it? Indeed, given that it is apparently the case that most blacks and Asians convicted of racist crime against whites attempt to justify their crimes on the basis that they are getting revenge for all the supposed evils that the racist whites have inflicted upon them, is it unrealistic to suggest that the MSM has blood on its hands?

The M word

In March I wrote that the EU was instructing politicians to avoid describing Muslim terrorists as 'Muslim terrorists', in favour of the catchy phrase "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam". Now, via Dhimmi Watch, I find that Gordon Brown has taken the advice to heart:

Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in ­connection with the ­terrorism crisis.

The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase “war on ­terror” is to be dropped.

The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair.

[...]

Officials insist that no direct links with Muslim extremists have been publicly confirmed by police investigating the latest attempted terror attacks. Mr Brown himself did not refer to Muslims or Islam once in a BBC TV interview on Sunday. Ms Smith also avoided any such reference in her statement to MPs yesterday.

She said: “Let us be clear – terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected.”

Tory backbencher Philip Davies said: “I don’t know what purpose is served by this. I don’t think we need pussyfoot around when talking about ­terrorism.”

But former Tory homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said: “This is quite a smart idea. We know that the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in terrorism and we have to accept there are sensitivities about these matters.”

No doubt Mercer is desperately trying to get back into David Cameron's good books after the "black bastard" incident.

As I've stated before, I am heartily sick of the way in which, after Muslims attempt to murder potentially hundreds of people, all our politicians bend over backwards in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the coreligionists of these terrorist scum. The fact is, that these people are Muslims, that their terrorist behaviour is due to the fact that they are Muslims (regardless of whether other Muslims carry out terrorist attack), and that no good will come of sticking our collective head in the sand and pretending that things are other than as they are. The problem of young men going out and trying to blow other people up is one which almost exclusively affects the Muslim community, and that community needs to take responsibility for the actions of its members. But it will not do that, until it accepts responsibility, something which will not happen if they are shielded from the attribution of responsibility in this manner.

Postscript: In a rather amusing display of liberal dhimmitude, al-Beeb has drawn attention to the common ties linking the eight people arrested in connection with the recent terrorist incidents. No, they haven't mentioned that they're all Muslims; indeed, they've studiously avoided acknowledging that uncomfortable fact. Rather, the BBC has proudly revealed that they're all "linked to" the NHS! Now, I know that NHS staff are often overworked, but I hadn't realised that they were turning to terrorism in protest! Thanks to Stan at ATW for this development. And remember, the vast majority of GPs and surgeons are law-abiding people, who should not be blamed for the actions of a few fanatics.

"Britain is different"

In an interview with the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the following statement, regarding the value of public debate on the new EU "treaty":

I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries.

Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

So, Herr Juncker strongly supports public discussion of the "treaty" in all of the EU's 27 member states, bar one.

Why does he feel that the British public should be singled out for inferior treatment? Well, I suppose treating Britain worse than other countries is pretty much par for the course for the EU, but that doesn't really explain Juncker's objection to allowing us to know the truth about this further loss of sovereignty. Rather, it appears that he feels confident that the other 26 EU member states can be bullied or cajoled into accepting the "treaty", even if they know the truth. The British public, however, cannot be. So, what Juncker really feels about public debate on the EU "treaty", is that he's all for it if he thinks that the public can be tricked into supporting his point of view, but against it if the public cannot be tricked. If the British public were allowed a debate and a referendum they would reject the "treaty", and the goal of creating a United States of Europe (something of which Juncker is a devout advocate) would be derailed once again. And in the EU, democracy comes in a poor second when set against the dream of the USE.

Our own government seems to subscribe to Juncker's plan of lying to us in the hope of getting us to accept the "treaty". One of the last of many lies told by Tony Blair during the course of his premiership was the claim that the "treaty" is in Britain's interests, and Gordon Brown looks set to deny the public a referendum on this latest sell-out of our country. Neither of them has had the guts to acknowledge that, as the EU commissioner Margot Wallström has said, the "treaty" is "essentially the same proposal as the old constitution".

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We were taken into the EU on the basis of a lie (that all we were doing was entering a common market, not a political union) and we've been lied to at every turn ever since. We have no reason to expect our politicians to behave any more honourably this time.

Anti-Semitism Rises: No one is responsible

In a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Moser has said that anti-Semitic attitudes in Britain are now at their highest level since the 1930s. His Lordship expressed a particular concern about the levels of anti-Semitism found in British universities, as well he might, given the recent actions of the Universities and Colleges Union.

Lots of people seem willing to talk about how terrible anti-Semitism is, and how we must oppose it, and a few people are even willing to link anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism. But no one seems willing to come out and say that a certain group in particular seems predisposed towards anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour, and that this group is fuelling the national rise in anti-Semitism. And no, it's not the Methodists.