At ATW...

...a post on the Henley by-election, the result of which will be announced in a couple of hours. How badly will Labour do?

More sowing and reaping

A union activist was branded a racist for producing a leaflet with an image of the Three Wise Monkeys proverb.

Onay Kasab, secretary of Greenwich Unison, is one of four branch officers facing a disciplinary hearing after handing out the pamphlet at last June's conference for the union, which represents more than a million public sector workers.

The four say the leaflet used the image of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys to lampoon the committee for removing important issues from the agenda. But union bosses said the image was a "racist" slur aimed at one black committee member.

Mr Kasab, 40, from Bexley, said: "It's upsetting that I am accused of racism by my own union. We felt it was an apt image to illustrate our point that the committee were refusing to listen to members' concerns over issues such as the funding of the Labour Party, the election of full time officials and control over strike action.

"But in the conference hall the Unison president denounced it as racist and when we went to respond the microphone was switched off. We have been gagged and subjected to a witch hunt."

Now, up until this point I had some sympathy for Kasab, trade union activist though he may be. After all, the Three Wise Monkeys is well known imagery, devoid of any racial connotations, and there appears to be nothing indicating any racist intent or content in the leaflet in question. Rather, the Unison bosses just seem to be adopting the traditional leftist strategy of silencing an opponent by invoking the demonic chimera "racism".

But my sympathy rapidly diminished to the point of non-existence, when I read the next paragraph. For Kasab continued:

"I have dedicated a lot of my life to representing Unison members in Greenwich from all backgrounds. I led a 13-week strike against the civil service over the employment of a senior BNP activist. I am Turkish-Cypriot and have faced racism so to be accused of being something I despise is terrible."

It really does take a special kind of hypocrisy to be able to complain that one is the subject of a witch hunt, and then in the next breath to boast of having led a witch hunt against someone else. And a witch hunt which, if successful, would have had far more serious consequences for its victim (who would have lost his livelihood) than the alleged witch hunt against Kasab will have for him.

The three other members under investigation are Glenn Kelly, secretary of Bromley Unison, Suzanne Muna, secretary of the Housing Corporation Unison branch, and Brian Debus, chairman of Hackney Unison. All are also in the Socialist Party. Matthew Waterfall, who is not a member of the Socialist Party, was investigated but not charged.

"The fact they cleared Mr Waterfall shows that this is motivated by the New Labour supporters in Unison against the Socialist Party," said Mr Kasab.

Again, Kasab's hypocrisy is evident. He resents the fact that he may perhaps be being hounded out of his trade union because of his involvement with a far-left political party. However, he also believes that membership of a "far-right" political party should not only disqualify one from union membership, but that it should also disqualify one from the right to earn a living, full stop. Certainly, it is hard to put any other construction on his attempt to have the unidentified "senior BNP activist" dismissed.
Sadly for Kasab, hypocrites do not make very suitable objects of sympathy. Kasab has made his bed - he has willingly helped to create a situation in which "anti-racist" witch hunts are the order of the day, and in which people deemed "racist" can safely be subjected to inferior treatment - and now the time has come for him to lie in it.

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth

Perhaps the best thing about Boris Johnson's victory last Thursday/Friday has been the sight of the entire British left wringing their hands in palpable woe. Many of them apparently believe that the election of a candidate they don't like represents a failure of democracy! Perhaps they should elect (or rather, speed up the process of electing) a new people! Anyway, here is a brief catalogue of some of my favourite lefty whines:

We start at JuliaM's new blog, where she has found three examples of mournful pieces by Guardian hacks at the paper's "Comment is Free" site. John Harris's "Enter the Jester" is particularly amusing:

...one can surely envisage the idea of London as the ultimate switched-on metropolis - the political class's beloved "world city" - beginning to wilt...corks are already popping in the home of such neo-Thatcherites as George Osborne, William Hague and Liam Fox. The chances of a David Cameron government taking power and laying waste to what remains of the welfare state and the public sector ethos are now all the greater.

Other schadenfreude-inducing whinings include, from the blog Stumbling Sonata, the revelation that it was all those damn lower middle class suburbanites who did it. If only the right to vote were restricted to those who could be trusted to use it properly (a category that is apparently composed primarily of the author's friends and acquaintances) then that nice Mr Livingstone would still be in charge!

I simply cannot get my head around the fact that so many people voted for that shameless, bumbling moron. I have not met a single person who lives in central London who wanted Boris for Mayor so I can only conclude that the bored suburban masses all came out of the woodwork to provide themselves with four years’ entertainment at the cost of the capital. This is what a nation that watched Big Brother will do.

Yes, it's all TV's fault!

Meanwhile, the author of the evidently rather unsuccessful "Stop Boris" blog warns that Johnson's victory will bring out the violent racist in all of us:

With Boris as Mayor and the BNP on the Assembly, we could also see race-hate crime on the increase in the capital for the first time in many years, following years of the capital bucking the national trend with a fall, versus a rise elsewhere.

We could indeed see racist crime rise in London. We could also see the sun darken at noonday (I'm sure many leftists fully expect it to). However, there is no evidence to suggest that the election of people that the left don't like will bring either scenario about.

In any event, as I've pointed out many times before, most racist crime is targeted against white people. So is Mr Stop Boris in fact arguing that all those tolerant minorities will now be going out beating up white people for having the temerity to vote for Boris Johnson or the BNP?

On the subject of the BNP, it has to be said that, owing to the misery engendered by Johnson's victory, Richard Barnbrook's election to the London Assembly has received less attention than it might otherwise have done. But it did serve to further depress the spirits of many leftists. Take this, from the Daily Mirror's political correspondent, James Lyons:

And things look even worse. Forget Labour's May Day mauling and Boris's triumph in London its [sic] another result in the capital that has me holding my head in my hands.

Personally, I suspect that it is not in his hands that Mr Lyons has placed his head...

Richard Barnbrook is the new British National Party member on the London Assembly after the odious far-right party managed to get more than 5 per cent of the vote. They also picked up council seats in other parts of the country.

I met the charming Mr Barnbrook and his travelling circus of slack-jawed goons during the 2005 general election and the idea that anyone could vote for them fills me with horror.

And, of course, pompous lefty hacks being "filled with horror" (as opposed to their normal state of being 'full of shit') is a prospect just too dreadful to contemplate. Remember James Lyons next time you're voting: you wouldn't want to upset him, would you?

But my very favourite display of leftist rationality and common sense came in a comment on this Times article about Mr Barnbrook's election:

Boris as Mayor and the BNP on the Assembly. This is the worst night London has seen since the Blitz.

Steven Morrison, Streatham, London, UK

Nothing like keeping a sense of perspective, is there?

Plus ca change...

So, Red Ken is gone. And in his place we have a left-liberal who fawns over Muslims, favours an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and declared in his victory speech that London "brings the world together in one city". I'm truly delighted to see the back of Livingstone, but forgive me if I don't break out the champagne just yet.

On the plus side, the BNP's mayoral candidate Richard Barnbrook has been elected a member of the London Assembly. That should be one in the eye for the leftists in all three big parties. The Times informs us that "anti-facist [sic] and gay rights groups have called for protests in the capital in light of the win". There's something rather ironic, is there not, in self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" protesting against the result of a free and democratic election?

Witch hunt of the day

I read that the Labour MP for Hastings and Rye, Michael Foster, has called for members of the BNP to be banned from working in the public services, after it was revealed that the Department of Work and Pensions had granted permission to two of its employees to stand for the party in the forthcoming council elections. Foster's demands have been backed by the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Mark Serwotka.

Members of the BNP are already banned from working in the police force, and an officer in the Greater Manchester force is currently facing disciplinary proceedings for allegedly committing the heinous crime of wearing a badge supporting the party. In the past, it has also been suggested that they should be banned from working as firemen, and there have been a number of individual cases of BNP members being dismissed from their jobs, in both the public and private sector, on account of their political affiliations. Oddly enough that great champion of liberty and human rights, Shami Chakrabarti, has yet to interest herself in these matters...

There is no suggestion that either of the two civil servants at the centre of this case have been performing their duties in any manner other than that required of them. Nor, so far as I am aware, has there ever been any such accusation in any of the numerous cases of people being hounded out of their jobs for either supporting the BNP, or in some other manner offending the sensibilities of goodthinkful liberals (vide Frank Ellis). In a decent society, an individual's ability to do their job properly would, in most cases, be the sole determinant of the question whether or not they kept that job.

In modern British society, however, there is an increasing tendency to deny known thought criminals the legal and moral rights that everyone else takes for granted. As I have written before, this is profoundly dangerous to the democratic process (or what's left of it), and has the potential to fatally undermine all political debate. After all, it is difficult to view the bans and consequent witch hunts that the likes of Michael "Matthew Hopkins" Foster favour as being anything other than an attempt to intimidate people into not exercising their rights of free speech and freedom of association in a manner other than that approved by the liberal-left, by threatening to take away their livelihoods if they speak heresy, or associate with heretics. And yet Foster and his ilk have the nerve to call themselves "anti-fascists"!

Ali Dizaei in race hustling shock

A senior Muslim policeman has said the Metropolitan Police's (Met) recruitment process is putting off young Muslims.

National Black Police Association President and Met Police Commander Ali Dizaei said the process should be "non- biased and fair".

He said some recruits were discouraged because they come under suspicion if they frequently visited some countries.

A Met Police spokesman said all staff regardless of background underwent the same vigorous security procedures.

Speaking to BBC London, Commander Dizaei said: "Just because someone visits a country several times does not necessarily make them a risk.

"We have to be quite careful to ensure our vetting process is non-biased and are fair and get the best people for the jobs without compromising national security."

BBC London's Home Affairs Correspondent Guy Smith said the National Association of Muslim Police told him another concern was that Muslim officers found it difficult to join SO15, the Met's counter-terrorism command, for which you need to be a detective.

Of the 300 current Muslim officers serving in the Met, half have less than three years experience.

This figure suggests that rather a lot of Muslims have been joining up recently, doesn't it? Or at least, that they've been joining up at a faster rate in the last couple of years than they had done previously. Which somewhat undermines Dizaei's claim that young Muslims are being discouraged from joining the force.

One should also note that the alleged "discrimination" consists, not in Muslims receiving inferior treatment, but rather, in the fact that all potential recruits are treated exactly the same. Dizaei claims that Muslim applicants are more likely to come under suspicion because of the countries they visit. But, had I been in the habit of making regular journeys to, say, Afghanistan, then, were I to apply for a job with the police, it is likely that they would look rather askance at me too. Perhaps Dizaei feels that visiting dodgy countries run or populated by large numbers of terrorists or terrorist supporters should not count against an individual's application to join the Met. But if this is what he thinks, then he should come out and make that case, rather than throwing around unsubstantiated accusations of discrimination. Still, I suppose he's just doing what he does best.

In a similar vein, the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) appears, from this BBC report, to be complaining that Muslim officers are not being recruited into SO15, because they are not meeting a requirement that applies to all applicants equally - i.e. being detectives. This is clearly related to the fact that Muslim officers are disproportionately likely to be new or recent recruits. In order to demonstrate actual discrimination, it would need to be shown that Muslim detectives were being denied positions in SO15, wholly or partly because of their religion. The NAMP has not done this. Of course, certain recent stories suggest that it is not unreasonable to question whether it would be wholly desirable to put large numbers of Muslims in a counter-(Islamic) terrorism force anyway.

When Ali Dizaei talks about making the recruitment process "non-biased and fair", he, like most race hustlers, actually means that it should be unfair and biased in favour of his special interest group - in this case, Muslims. He seems to believe that police vetting procedures should be relaxed in cases where the applicant is a Muslim, while his allies in the NAMP apparently feel that it should be easier for Muslims to enter SO15 than for the rest of us. Either that, or they're both in favour of a general lowering of standards for entry to both the police, and SO15, which might help some Muslim, career-wise, but which certainly won't make the police more effective. Either way, they're wrong.

Of course, while there is no evidence whatsoever that Muslims are being discriminated against, one should not imagine that police recruitment procedures are entirely fair. Members of that entirely legal political party, the BNP, are subject to an absolute ban on joining the police. But they're thought criminals, so it doesn't matter, right?

Thought Crime Roundup (1)

At a time when various leftists are throwing tantrums over the decision of the Hampstead and Highgate Express (the "Ham and High") to publish a BNP advertisement, a potentially rather more important bit of news relating to the party has gone largely unnoticed. BNP for Cleveland relates the story of Barry Towers, who has been dismissed from his job as a steward at Middlesbrough Football Club, allegedly because he stood for the BNP in a recent council by-election in the city.

Now, I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Barry Towers' dismissal. In the absence of any MSM coverage, or any comment from the football club on the case, all my remarks must be based solely on Mr Towers' version of events, as relayed via the BNP for Cleveland blog. And certainly, it would be desirable to be apprised of a few more facts about the dismissal; notably, what reason the club gave Mr Towers for dismissing him - did they say that it was on account of his involvement with the BNP, or are they claiming that there was another, more justifiable, reason?
In the absence of such information, it is impossible to be certain what the true situation is. However, the temporal proximity between Mr Towers' candidature (the election only took place a month ago), and his dismissal, is interesting, to say the least. And he would not be the first BNP member to have been sacked for his involvement with the party.

To allow election candidates, whatever their party, to be dismissed from their jobs on account of their political activity is to undermine the very basis of the democratic process. Such behaviour cannot be construed as anything other than an attempt to stifle debate, by intimidating people into not expressing certain views, and preventing certain policies or ideologies from being put before the electorate. If this is indeed what has happened here, then that is deplorable. Equally deplorable is the fact that the decision of a local newspaper to promote free speech and debate has been met with greater outrage, than the apparent attempt of an employer to suppress it.

But they all worship Hitler, don't they?

One thing of which I was, until yesterday, unaware, was that Michael Barnbrook, the man who made the formal complaint about that corrupt lowlife Derek Conway, which led to Conway's eventual downfall, is a BNP member. I discovered this after reading a blog post by the veteran Guardian journalist Michael White, who briefly discussed Mr Barnbrook's political activities, before adding that:

...the media, raised on the two-party model of politics, isn't very comfortable with small parties of either left or right at a time when major party loyalties have been unravelling for years. The Greens, for instance, are permanently frustrated by their inability to get attention to match their voting strength in some places.

Admittedly, they're not very good at the mechanics of politics, all that debate about ''principal spokesman'' - not leaders, for instance. Ukip messed up its own chances at some sort of breakthrough at Tory expense during the Kilroy-Silk fiasco in 2004 and afterwards. The BNP and the sectarian left often give the impression of being more interested in internal feuds, and purges too.

But many of their voters are just normal, frustrated people who don't feel heard, aren't they? Former Inspector Barnbrook may well be one of them.

Well, it's certainly an improvement on "people who support the BNP are without exception racist scum". Perhaps the MSM is actually beginning to realise that large numbers of perfectly decent people (who are clearly not Nazis) have concerns about the direction this country is heading in, and that those concerns are going unaddressed by any of the three main parties.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has an article on the campaign by BNP member Donna Bailey to be elected onto the parish council of the Sussex village of Upper Beeding (population: 3,798). Aside from the "shocking" revelation that Ms Bailey has peach walls, rather than swastikas, in her living room, the following quote from parish councillor Simon Birnstingl was particularly amusing:

You give the BNP a toehold in a place like this today - and what happens tomorrow?

Today, Upper Beeding. Tomorrow - THE WORLD!!

"I hope you all die a long and slow and horrible death"

Laban Tall meets the tolerant, sensitive, and thoughtful left, in the form of Liverpudlian Labour councillor and "Christian Socialist", Louise Baldock.

Banning the BNP?

Via Conservative Home, here is the text of an early day motion that Boris Johnson - apparently working on the premise that the best way to defuse an accusation of racism made against oneself is to make a similar accusation against someone else - is in the process of initiating:

“This House notes that in May 2008 there is a possibility that at least two members of the BNP will gain a seat on the London Assembly. As things currently stand there is a grave risk of these two members of the BNP having a deciding vote on the Mayor’s budget. This is a potentially disastrous situation in which a future Mayor of any party could depend on BNP support to pass his budget. We call upon all politicians from all parties to denounce the BNP in London and ask for all politicians to work together to combat anyone who seeks to play the race card in London politics. We call upon the Government to use its powers to combat this very real threat.”

This last sentence is particularly interesting. As a number of commenters at Conservative Home have already asked, what is it, exactly, that Johnson wants the government to do with "its powers" in order to "combat this very real threat"? Is he calling for some kind of restriction to be imposed on the BNP? Or even for the party to be banned?

I would also suggest that if Johnson and his fellow MPs are really that concerned about the possibility of the BNP getting a couple of assembly members elected, then they should consider the concerns (particularly over mass immigration) that lead people to vote for the BNP, and take some proper action to deal with the problems that give rise to those concerns. But, of course, it is so much easier for our political class to engage in sanctimonious hand-wringing over the fact that some voters are daring to use their votes in a less-than-PC manner, than to actually take any steps towards undoing the damage they've done to the country.

Fascists at the Oxford Union!

I regret to inform readers that, this evening, a number of fascists succeeded in forcing their way into the Oxford Union, where they attempted to prevent two British citizens - one of them the leader of a well-known democratic political party - from taking part in, irony of ironies, a debate about the limits of free speech. The fascist activists jumped over a wall into the courtyard of the Oxford Union building, before barging into the debating chamber itself. Thankfully, their bid to prevent the debate going ahead was unsuccessful, and both Nick Griffin and David Irving proceeded to express their views freely and without let or hindrance, albeit in two separate rooms. One Oxford undergraduate described the debate as "very balanced" and added that "both sides did really well".

However, while they were unsuccesful in their attempt to prevent the debate from going ahead, the behaviour of these far-leftists is just the latest in a string of incidents which have demonstrated that it is the far-left which today poses the greatest threat to free speech in Britain, and in Europe as a whole. In the past few months alone we have had:

A petition organised by left-wing students at Oxford University, calling for the sacking of the university's Professor David Coleman, for working with the think-tank MigrationWatch (at least Prof Coleman managed to keep his job, unlike Dr Frank Ellis, driven out of his post at Leeds University by the far-left in July 2006).

The use of violence to prevent supporters of the Swiss People's Party from rallying in Geneva.

The attempted murder of SIOE activists in Denmark, and threats of violence made against SIOE demonstrators in this country.

Schoolmaster Mark Walker suspended from his job for being a member of the BNP.

A vicious attack on peaceful BNP members campaigning in Barnsley.

The hounding of a Nobel Prize winner, including calls for his prosecution under "anti-racism" legislation, and his ultimate dismissal from his job, for expressing a politically-incorrect viewpoint.

Needless to say, the far-left was responsible for all these incidents. And I doubt that the list I have produced is even remotely close to being definitive. But when did you last hear of right-wingers hounding leftists out of their jobs, or of right-wing "extremists" physically attacking leftists? I can't recall a single case of either! And yet the Unite Against Fascism thugs, and the useful idiots from the student body at Oxford, who they brought along with them, want us to believe that it is the BNP who are the real threat to democracy. Well, I'll believe that when I see the BNP sending thugs to attack campaigners from rival parties, or invading the Oxford Union to prevent those they dislike from speaking. Until then, forgive me if I believe that the people who actually do those things are the somewhat greater threat.

Update: Another point to bear in mind regarding last night's debate, is that some of the demonstrators outside the Oxford Union were reported to be chanting the words "Kill Tryl" (Oxford Union president, Luke Tryl). So, aside from attempts to physically prevent the debate from taking place, some of the anti-free speech mob were also calling for a student to be murdered, because he gave a platform to people they don't like. As Nick Griffin said in the course of the debate, had these "anti-fascists" lived in Germany seventy years ago, "they would have made splendid Nazis".

Update (2): Meanwhile, Gates of Vienna has a translation of a newspaper article by the Danish MP Søren Krarup, on the subject of "Violence from the Left", which makes similar points to those I have made above, and gives yet more examples of this severely under-reported phenomenon.

Some are more equal than others

In the wake of the recent conviction of the self-styled "Lyrical Terrorist", Samina Malik, the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala has penned a characteristically rambling piece, entitled "An attack on liberty", at the Guardian's Comment is Free site. After ranting for some time on various stock Muslim grievances, he concludes by saying that "a foolish young woman who did not harm anyone now faces a maximum 10-year term in prison for what can only be described as a thought crime".

Now, some might say that possessing terrorist propaganda and joining an organisation, Jihad Way, which aimed to disseminate such propaganda and to support al-Qaeda goes some way beyond mere "thought crime". Personally, I would definitely say that organisations such as Jihad Way ought to be illegal, although I don't really think that she should be punished for her (admittedly appalling) poetry, or for downloading offensive material from the internet. In any event, I fail to see why Samina Malik should be prosecuted, while the likes of Anjem Choudhary are left free to incite murder in peace. So, to some extent I do actually agree with Inayat Bunglawala, and I am certainly glad to see that he is taking a stance against thought crime, an issue which greatly concerns me, and about which I have written on numerous occasions.

But hang on a minute! This Inayat Bunglawala, this champion of free speech, this enemy of the criminalisation of thoughts, surely he cannot be the same Inayat Bunglawala who, in 2005, wrote in favour of the introduction of laws creating a new crime of "incitement to religious hatred"? He must be a different Bunglawala from the one who then said that:

We believe stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them should be regarded as a social evil...We understand the concerns about free speech, but we think that they are totally misplaced.

And he can't possibly be the same Bunglawala who last year supported plans to widen the scope of the laws against "inciting racial hatred", following the acquittals of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. No, because anyone who felt that Nick Griffin should go to prison for saying that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" (which statement, I would point out, does not contain any explicit or implicit threat, nor any reference to individual Muslims), but that punishing Samina Malik for writing such delightful couplets as "Kafirs your time will come soon/and no one will save you from your doom" and "For the living martyrs are awakening/and Kuffars world soon to be shaking" is "an attack on liberty", would be a complete hypocrite.

Postscript: To be fair to Bunglawala, he's not the only person displaying a distinct hypocrisy over this. Following Malik's conviction, Martin Sullivan, of the Islamophobia Watch blog, quoted approvingly from both Bunglawala's article, and Boyd Tonkin's rather better written piece on the same theme. Yet in the past he too has repeatedly come out in favour of restricting the free speech of people like the BNP.

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.

Legitimate targets

Via North East Scotland Nationalists, the following story:

A British teenager who is accused of plotting to blow up members of the British National Party appeared in court today.

The 17-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court in London to face two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000.

It is alleged that he had in his possession a copy of the "Anarchists' Cookbook", containing instructions about how to make home-made explosives.

The charges are that he was in possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year and that he collected or had information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

The teenager, who is a British national but has dual nationality with Pakistan, stood in the dock wearing a baggy, blue hooded top.

"Dual nationality with Pakistan". No religion mentioned, but I wouldn't mind betting that he isn't a Pakistani Christian.

I am not at all surprised to see that BNP members are now being targeted by Muslim terrorists. Not only is the BNP the only British party of any significance that is prepared to come out and challenge Islam, but it has also been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of demonisation by all three major parties, and the MSM. There have also been a number of cases in which public figures have openly advocated the use of violence against members and supporters of the BNP. For example, in November 2004 the "alternative" (as in "alternative to funny") comedian Jeremy Hardy expressed the view that those who support the BNP "should be shot in the back of the head". Earlier in the same year, the singer Billy Bragg announced that he was "in favour" of "duffing [BNP members] up in the street". This constant drip feed of anti-BNP propaganda is in many ways comparable to the campaign of vilification with which the Dutch establishment targeted Pim Fortuyn. And we all know what happened there.

Of course, many Muslims are quite capable of behaving in a violent manner against any non-Muslim, and especially against one who opposes them, straight off their own bat. They do not need the encouragement of the likes of Billy Bragg in order to get aggressive. But the vitriolic and hysterical anti-BNP language of many in the British media-political elite does often imply that anti-BNP violence is justified - that the BNP are legitimate targets - thereby reinforcing the views of those who would like to commit violence against the BNP anyway, and perhaps encouraging others, who would not otherwise wish to commit anti-BNP violence, to seek do so. If - perhaps when - a BNP member is murdered solely for being a member of this legal political party, then people like Billy Bragg and Jeremy Hardy will have blood on their hands (of course, being communists, they'll probably regard that as a point of pride).

Postscript: Laban Tall points out that al-Beeb is once again spinning for Islam and the left in its coverage of this story. Their report of this trial completely fails to mention either that BNP members were the intended targets of the alleged plot, or that the defendant in this case has dual British-Pakistani nationality. As with the case of Nicholas Roddis, the BBC is doing all it can, short of actually telling outright lies, to imply that this is just another one of those white British Christian terrorist plots. They really have given up even trying to be fair and impartial purveyors of fact, and the sooner the whole corporation is shut down the better.

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...

Bad night for Tories

Up late to keep track of the by-elections in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall. Both Labour holds, and both poor results for the Cameron Tories, who came in third in both seats. In Sedgefield, they fell from second last time, being overtaken by the Lib Dems, while the result in Ealing Southall was, perhaps, even worse. There, despite the presence of the much vaunted ten-day Tory Tony Lit, they stayed in third place, some way behind the Lib Dems.

The Ealing Southall result can, I think, be viewed as a particular rebuttal of David Cameron, personally. In most constituencies, when one has a Tory candidate, he is simply listed as a "Conservative". But in Ealing Southall, Tony Lit stood, not as a "Conservative", but expressly as the candidate of "David Cameron's Conservatives". Not to mention the fact that the Tories put a huge amount of effort into the constituency - Cameron himself visited five times. And for all that, their share of the vote went up a mere 0.9%.

In two constituencies tonight, voters have rejected the Tory Party, and, it would appear, David Cameron personally. Given that the most recent opinion poll showed the Tories 7% behind Labour, one has to ask whether, having sold themselves out to a leader who makes Labour look right-wing, the Tories have actually achieved anything at all. Personally, I believe that they would be doing substantially better if they had a leader who actually had principles, and who was prepared to talk about the issues, such as immigration and crime, which really matter to people, rather than an unprincipled low-life, who drivels on in a sanctimonious cant about minor concerns such as the terrible threat posed by illegal logging. Feel free to quote this back at me if I'm proved wrong, but unless the Tories replace Cameron pretty damn quickly, I really can't see any result at the next general election other than a fourth successive Labour victory.

I also noted that in Sedgefield, approximately 21% of the vote went to minor parties, or independent candidates. Of particular interest to me, were the comparative results of UKIP and the BNP. UKIP scored 1.9%, a marginal increase from last time, but still an essentially insignificant figure. By contrast, the BNP, who didn't even stand last time, took 8.9% of the vote, finishing in a comfortable fourth place. To me, this provides further evidence that UKIP really cannot achieve a significant result outside of the European elections. And, at a time when all three main parties are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, and when not one of them is willing to listen to the views of the public on such issues as crime, immigration, and the EU, then this result suggests, once again, that the best option for those of us who really wish to see real change in the way this country is run, is to vote for the BNP. Even if they don't win, a vote for them is by far the best method of applying a sharp kick to the fatted posterior of the political elite.

UCU Little Vichyists Update

Following on from last night's post on the subject, the BBC reports that academics of the University and Colleges Union have now officially voted, by a unanimous majority, to refuse to take any steps towards challenging Islamism on university campuses. The UCU's general secretary, Sally "Witch" Hunt, said:

Lecturers have a pivotal role in building trust. These proposals, if implemented, would make that all but impossible.

Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.

Hmm. It sounds like old Witch Hunt is a real libertarian defender of free speech. The kind of principled advocate for her position that one can really respect, even when that position is patently absurd.

But wait. Astonishingly, she isn't. Here's what she had to say when Nick Griffin was banned from speaking at Bath University:

It was the correct decision. Allowing the BNP to speak would have compromised the safety of students and staff and sent out a very worrying message about Bath University's commitment to diversity.

Okay. So on the one hand universities should allow free discussion of all views no matter how "challenging, offensive and even extreme" they might be. But on the other, the BNP should be prevented from speaking at universities because their views are seen as being, essentially, "challenging, offensive and even extreme" by Miss Hunt. It would appear that our great champion of free speech is in fact a bit of a hypocrite. Ultimately, as I wrote yesterday, the stance of the UCU simply suggests that, while they really, really hate the BNP, they have more than a sneaking sympathy for Islamic terrorists.

Labour chases the Muslim bloc vote

The British government needs to change its foreign policy to win back voters who deserted the party over the Iraq war, says Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, who is seeking to become deputy leader of the ruling Labour Party.

In a speech to a mainly Muslim audience in east London on Tuesday night, Hain said that "hundreds of thousands" of Muslims had been lost to Labour as a result of the worsening situation in Iraq.

"We must combine a commitment to reducing inequality at home with a progressive foreign policy abroad," he said in becoming the first minister to directly link the invasion of Iraq with the waning support for the government.

Hain, who is also Welsh Secretary, has in the past been indirectly critical of some of the failings of US foreign policy under President George W Bush.

He was quoted by the Cardiff-based Western Mail as telling his audience that he wanted to "bring back to Labour the hundreds of thousands of Muslim voters we lost in 2005, as a result of the Iraq war."

"We must work to reform and strengthen international institutions like the UN so they can effectively promote democracy and human rights worldwide," the 57-year old deputy leader candidate also said.

For the avoidance of doubt, that's the same UN that has today elected such totems of democracy and human rights as Egypt, South Africa, and Angola onto its Human Rights Council. That one, not a different UN.

"We must also redouble our efforts to prevent the (right-wing) BNP spreading hate and fear in your community," he said.

Mr Hain does not appear to have specified quite how the BNP does this. I'd have thought that the people who really spread hatred and fear among Muslims were the men known as "Imams". But, Mr Hain is, like most politicians, more interested in vote grubbing than in honesty.

And, is anyone else revolted by the endless attention given to the wounded feelings of Muslims, not just over Iraq, but over everything else? David Cameron was fawning over them earlier this week, telling us that we mustn't use the term "Islamist", lest the poor dears feel victimised by this, and now Peter Hain is doing the same thing. Why don't some of these politicians go and speak to the native working class once in a while, rather than occasionally leaning down from the Ivory Tower and instucting them not to vote BNP, and to quietly acquiesce in their own destruction and replacement?

Bath University stifles free speech

A while back, Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was invited to speak at Bath University. Now, following protests from the usual bunch of trade unionists, students' union hacks, extreme leftists, and assorted other soap-dodgers, the event has been cancelled by the university:

In a statement [the university's vice-chancellor and secretary] said they had taken into account the views of staff and students about the meeting and the university's belief in freedom of speech.

They said: "In addition, some staff and students have registered with us their serious concerns for their safety if this event proceeds, as well as fears of disruption to examinations given the likely scale of protests on the day.

"These considerations do need to be balanced against the need to hear and challenge a variety of opinions in an institution committed to high quality learning and research. Freedom of speech is a principle to be highly cherished by academic institutions.

"The university has, however, now learned that a very large number of protesters intend to arrive on campus. This creates the likelihood of substantial public order problems and real possibility of disruption of the essential activities of the university community, making it impractical for the university to allow the event to go ahead."

What we have here is yet another example of the power that the far-left wields in our universities, and which they use to stifle the free speech of all who oppose them, often in alliance with Muslims. The Cambridge Motoons case would be an obviously comparable case, as would that of the German academic Dr Matthias Kuentzel, banned from giving a lecture at Leeds University after Muslim students threatened to get violent. The hounding of Dr Frank Ellis from his job, also at Leeds, was a particularly revolting instance of leftist opposition to free speech, although the fascists have thankfully failed in their machinations against Oxford's Professor David Coleman.

In at least two of the above cases, the left-Islamic axis used the threat of violence in order to get their way. It appears from Bath University's statement that fears of violence from the anti-Griffin demonstrators influenced their decision to cancel the event. One assumes that they had realistic grounds for their fears.

The deeply disturbing willingness of the left and of Muslims to use force to silence opposition is not a peculiarly British phenomenon. American universities have had similar problems, and talks from anti-Jihadi commentators are often greeted with violent protests, or cancelled outright through fear of violence. Jewish student groups suffer regular intimidation from Muslims and far-leftists.

What is also disturbing is the sheer hypocrisy shown. People like Mr Griffin, or Dr Kuentzel, are banned from speaking at universities, because their views are non-PC. And yet at the same time George Galloway can speak freely (warning: offensive link) in whatever institution he wishes. And as for the kind of people that Muslim student groups routinely let in: well, suffice it to say that Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) a known terrorist supporter, is a favourite of university Islamic societies.

Bath University's decision is to be regretted, but it is not surprising. Sadly, unscrupulous elements have learnt that those who shout the loudest are often listened to, particularly if the unspoken threat of violence is left hanging in the air. This appears to be what has happened here. And it will happen at some other august institution of learning before long.

Hat-tip: The Green Arrow

Voting BNP makes you go bald, says Cameron

Well, he hasn't quite gone that far yet. But the latest Tory attempt to prevent people voting BNP is almost as bizarre. Apparently, if you vote BNP, the price of your house will automatically fall:

Voters in the South-East were today warned that electing the BNP could cost them thousands of pounds in depressed house prices.

Tory activists have decided to use property costs against the far-Right party ahead of tomorrow's local elections.

In one leaflet, the Conservatives claim that voting BNP "could cost you £17,000" because areas that have backed the party in large numbers have seen their house prices hit hard.

Any figures for what happens to house prices in an area flooded with immigrants?

Tories claim that once an area has the "taint" of the British National Party, its reputation suffers.

A leaflet distributed in Broxbourne, Herts, warns of the financial penalty.

Broxbourne was the first place in the South-East outside London to elect a BNP councillor when Ramon Johns won in the traditionally Tory seat in Rosedale ward in 2003.

The leaflet claims that Barking, which elected 12 BNP councillors last year, saw homes rise by 1.2 per cent compared with the London average of 9.1 per cent.

It says the difference meant Barking homeowners lost out on an average £17,000 over the past year.

In 2005, the year before the BNP got elected, Barking homes increased with the London average.

Of course, even Tories should know that correlation does not prove causation. As an example, I recall reading somewhere (sadly I can't remember where) that the level of alcoholism in Scotland had risen in direct proportion to the increase in the number of Presbyterian ministers. This does not, however, prove that Presbyterian ministers cause alcoholism. There were other factors, unrelated to the ministers, that were responsible for the increase in alcoholism. Equally, it is unclear what factors have had an impact on house prices in Barking. One doubts that the Tories have undertaken in-depth research into the matter.

In any event, telling people that their houses will lose value has to rank as one of the stupidest arguments on record. Presumably the Cameron Tories are so weak on the issues that really matter to people that they have to resort to something that sounds like a Private Eye parody of a Daily Mail headline. Indeed, the whole argument reminds me of a Steve Bell cartoon in The Guardian before the 1992 election, which depicted a Tory holding a gun in one hand and a puppy in the other, and telling voters, "If Labour win, I will personally shoot this cute little puppy in the head". Proof, if any was needed, that Cameron's little acolytes have now descended completely into farce.