Sunday, 13 March 2016
The Christian Legal Centre’s Chief Executive, Andrea Minichiello Williams, inset, has described the sacking of Christian magistrate Richard Page, above, as ‘modern day madness’.
Her intervention, according to Christian Concern, came after Page, 69, had been removed from office by the Lord Chancellor after sharing his personal conviction in a media interview that there is not enough evidence to show that placing children in the care of same-sex couples is in their best interest.
He insists that same-sex adoption is not “what God or nature intended.”
The Lord Chancellor has removed Richard from the magistracy for allegedly being ‘prejudiced’ and for speaking out in the media about what has happened to him.
This unmasks the face of the new political orthodoxy; it is unkind. It tries to silence opposing views and if it fails it crushes and punishes the person who holds those views.
To remove someone like Richard from the bench is modern day madness. He has a lifetime of public service, expertise in mental health. He is motivated by his Christian faith and a deep compassion for people.
The media interview took place on 12 March 2015 with BBC news reporter Caroline Wyatt. In the interview the Kent magistrate said:
My responsibility as a magistrate, as I saw it, was to do what I considered best for the child, and my feeling was therefore that it would be better if it was a man and woman who were the adopted parents.
Page was first challenged by his seniors in late 2014 when, after hearing an adoption case, he could not agree with his fellow magistrates that placing a child into the care of a same-sex couple was ‘in the child’s best interest’.
He was subsequently reported for his actions, reprimanded, and
Forced to attend re-education training, which he duly did.
Page’s media comments were again brought to the attention of his seniors and an investigation was carried out by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s disciplinary panel. They recommended to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor that he should be removed from office.
Page believes the political move by the government to place children with same-sex couples lacks any solid, reliable psychological or educational research concerning the effects on children.
Commenting on his sacking, Page, aged 69, who has worked in the field of mental health for 20 years, said:
As a magistrate, I have to act on the evidence before me and quite simply, I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that placing a child in the care of a same-sex couple can be as holistically beneficial to a child as placing them with a mum and dad as God and nature intended.
I am surprised that the Lord Chancellor should seemingly pander to the new political orthodoxy when what it amounts to is social experimentation on the lives of the most vulnerable children in our communities.
To punish me and to seek to silence me for expressing a dissenting view is deeply shocking. I shall challenge this decision as it is illiberal and intolerant. It is vital the family law courts always have in mind the best interests of the children.
I cannot believe that the establishment is trying to silence someone like me who has served it wholeheartedly all of my working life.
Page is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre and its Standing Counsel, human rights barrister Paul Diamond.
Thursday, 10 December 2015
08 Dec 2015:-
They are often referred to as Nazis, and in 2003, German lawmakers failed in an attempt to outlaw the party. But now, it seems more likely that the extremist NPD will get banned. EurActiv Germany reports.
On Monday (7 December), the Federal Constitutional Court announced that it would be initiating proceedings against the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), with three hearings scheduled for the early next year. The Court will deliberate on the Federal Council's (Bundesrat) request to ban the party on 1, 2 and 3 March.
With the beginning of proceedings formally confirmed, it becomes more and more likely that the Court will decide to ban the party, as previous attempts to outlaw it have stumbled at this stage. They will be presided over by Andreas Voßkuhle, president of the Constitutional Court.
The Bundesrat submitted their request that the party be banned in December 2013. The German government and the Bundestag both declined the opportunity to lend their support to the attempt. All three joined forces to try and outlaw the political movement in 2003, but when it was revealed that undercover agents working on behalf of the German secret services had infiltrated the party's inner circle, the Constitutional Court had no choice but to throw the case out. There was enough suspicion that the agents had been responsible for encouraging or inciting the actions of the right-wing group for proceedings to be terminated.
In the current case, the Constitutional Court requested that any "evidence" gathered by undercover agents be removed. The Bundesrat announced in May that clandestine operations against the party had ceased.
Numerous politicians have praised the decision to carry on with the case. Bavaria's interior minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) praised the German regions for their preparation. He told a German newspaper that, "Obviously we have a strong argument, otherwise the Constitutional Court would not have set a date."
Herrmann's Saxon counterpart Holger Stahlknecht (CDU) said, "This is a great result. We have already gained more ground than the first attempt to ban them." However, the chairman of the Bundestag's Committee on Internal Affairs, Ansgar Heveling (CDU), warned that, "Banning the NPD will not be enough to combat the threat of extremism."
The President of Munich and Upper Bavaria's Jewish community, Charlotte Knobloch, called for more action to prohibit right-wing parties. "The ban is well overdue. 'Die Rechte' and 'Der III. Weg' should be outlawed as well," she said.
A new Nazi party?
The Bundesrat has attempted, in its 270 page application, to establish a relationship between the NPD and the Nazi party, particularly in regard to anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Additionally, remarks from leading NPD figures have been cited, in which they have called for the "system" to be "abolished".
According to Article 21 of the constitutional law, parties are unconstitutional if they use violence to try and destroy democracy. The Constitutional Court has previously stated that in order for parties to be banned, they must show a "combative and aggressive attitude towards the existing order".
The Bundesrat also put forward that the NPD is responsible for creating an "atmosphere of fear", especially in parts of east Germany. It referenced instances of "intimidation and threats against mayors and local politicians". People who oppose right-wing extremism have felt threatened by the party. The group's stance against asylum seekers, a particularly relevant factor given the refugee crisis facing the EU currently, was also cited by the Bundesrat.
Banning a political party is one of the most effective weapons available in a democracy’s arsenal. It has been implemented twice in the past, first against the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) in 1952 and then the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1956.
A potential final hurdle for a ban could prove to be the European Court of Justice, which would only class the decision as proportional if it finds the party to have a significant impact on the political landscape.
[Ed - 'extremist NPD'. The occupation parties should take a look at themselves - their creed is a feminised version of Stalinism combined with reverse National Socialism]
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
A square in the Leipzig old town named for 19th-century German romantic composer Richard Wagner may be renamed to help promote a “cosmopolitan and tolerant” city.
Initially suggested by a group of hard-left anti-borders activists masquerading as a “
citizens’ initiative”, the name change of Richard Wagner Platzes to ‘Refugees Welcome Platz’ has now been taken up by the city council with support from the Green party bloc.
City spokesman, pro-migrant campaigner, and Green politician Christin Melcher said of the change she is supporting: “We stand for a cosmopolitan and tolerant Leipzig. The renaming of a central square as Refugees Welcome Place is also a symbol of a new culture of welcome in Leipzig”, reports the Saschen Depesche.
City council Green colleague Norman Volger, in a spectacular moment of honesty a
admits the move is intended as a deliberate snub towards Germany’s insurgent right wing movements.
The Leipzig branch of the Patriotic Europeans Against The Islamisation Of The West (PEGIDA) protest group meet regularly at Richard Wagner Platzes, and the erasure of the memory of an important figure from German history could be a bitter blow to the group, which campaigns for traditional European culture. Mr. Volger wants the new ‘Refugees Welcome Platz’ to stand as a sign against PEGIDA, who he calls ‘inhuman racists’, and that “Leipzig is no place for racism”.
Richard Wagner, born in Leipzig in 1813, is a towering figure in the German psyche for his role in influencing the unification of Germany into a single state in the years leading up to 1871. His operas drew heavily from romantic and dramatic Germanic folklore and his essays called for a single German identity, rather than disparate kingdoms as it was during much of the 19th century. The Richard Wagner Platzes was named in 1913 in honour of the composer, celebrating the centenary of his birth.
A number of groups have moved to oppose the proposition, including the Junge Union. The German equivalent of the Young Conservatives, the group has warned against allowing faddish political beliefs to influence place names, remarking that while majorities shift within democratic systems, it is not healthy to constantly change place names, reports the Leipziger Internet Zeitung.
The International Association of Wagner Societies has reacted with fury at the suggestion the square in the composer’s home town might be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. They said in a statement “Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig and is one of the greatest artists of the 19th century.
“Since the 100th anniversary naming in 1913, the city has been honouring one of its greatest sons. This must remain so! Anyone against the cultural and political nonsense, which is directed against the interests of our city and its citizens, and wants to raise his voice, can sign a petition during business hours at our office”.
A new petition has been launched online, and the discussions in the comment section on the page provide an illuminating insight into the perspectives of those tousling over Richard Wagner Platzen. One writes that he refuses to sign the petition, because “according to Wikipedia, Wagner was a convinced anti-Semite. My attitude is refugees welcome”. Another contributor asks in response to the comment that if Wagner is to be removed because of his anti-Semitism, why is it right to welcome Muslim refugees who have increased anti-Semitic attitudes in the community of late.
Renaming squares and streets is an emerging cultural battleground in Europe, as leftist groups on city government boards seek to erase cultural histories and inconvenient reminders as soon as they seize power. Breitbart London reported on two such examples in July where Spanish authorities insulted the memories of right-wing figures by renaming their squares after LGBT-lobby campaigners.
Plaza Margaret Thatcher was one such square, with her memorial to be torn down and the place renamed for Pedro Zerolo, a left-wing gay anarchist who died this year. Following that, it was reported the square dedicated to noted Catholic scholar Juan Vázquez de Mella would also be renamed after a gay rights campaigner.
‘Oliver Lane 5 November 2015
Monday, 5 October 2015
by Steve Goode • October 4, 2015 •
In Germany, Facebook is now being patrolled by the Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers, a government affiliated group which seeks out people who express “radical” opinions.
Their definition of “radical” seems to mean anything they don’t agree with. It can range anywhere from making threats, to simply talking negatively about immigrants.
(Whoops, radical old me – I have used the “i” word. We’re supposed to call them “newcomers” now.)
Merkel is still not happy – she has asked Zuckerberg at a UN summit in New York to do more to filter comments she disagrees with, so people cannot read them.
Facebook has agreed to carry out this mass censorship, and in future will be working with the Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers.
Censorship means one thing: they have lost the debate. Merkel HAS lost the debate so she simply tries to stop her opposition from talking.
At first she was screaming “racist” and “nazi” at them. For once, that didn’t work. Now she has moved on to legally censoring their opinions.
In case you didn’t know, Merkel wants Germany, and Europe as a whole to bring in as many non-White immigrants as possible in order to get rid of the White majority.
This is White Genocide because policies and laws have been put in place to make this happen. When there is a deliberate attempt to get rid of a group – no matter what the methods – it is always classed as genocide.
Recently, Merkel has said Europe should protect its borders. Do not be fooled – she still wants White Genocide, but she has been forced by a massive public backlash to bring an end to open borders.
“And for Europe, this means we of course need to, above all, protect our external borders across Europe – and protect them together – so that immigration to Europe is orderly,” she said.
“But it also means we must take on more responsibility for countries where the causes for people to flee are, or where there are a lot of refugees, such as in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey,”
Monday, 14 September 2015
The incentive is greater for people to risk the perilous journey to Europe
12 September 2015
On Tuesday last week, Germany declared that any Syrian who reaches the country can claim asylum there. In the days that followed, 25,000 arrived at Munich central station and that number is growing fast. Some trains from Austria have been diverted to other German cities to ease the pressure. Merkel now wants to use her clout to distribute these refugees around Europe — arguing that EU plans to resettle 160,000 may not be sufficient.
The current wave of migration started about 15 years ago, an unforeseen side-effect of globalisation. It has been vastly intensified by the chaos which followed the Arab Spring, and particularly the civil war in Syria. The EU’s responsibility is laid out in the Dublin Convention of 1990, which decrees that refugees must claim asylum in the first European Union country that they reach. This crucial safeguard was torn up by Merkel when her government declared that it will be ‘responsible’ for processing the claims of Syrians. The Dublin rules were made for a reason: to save lives, as well as to protect Europe’s borders. German panic has imperilled both priorities.
The welcome that has been given to refugees in Germany is remarkable. But encouraging these people to continue their journey is risky. The 71 refugees found dead in a lorry on an Austrian motorway last month might still be alive today had they ended their journey in Budapest. Some 7,000 refugees are estimated to have passed through Vienna during one day this week, but fewer than 100 claimed asylum there, choosing instead to head on north. Austria is rich, but Merkel’s promise exerts such a pull that people don’t want to stop until they reach Germany.
The distinction between refugee and economic migrant is also being elided. Many of the Syrians making this journey are fleeing war, but many others are fleeing camps in neighbouring Jordan or Turkey. The incentive to do this is growing, because life there is becoming harsher. As Michael Moller, the head of the UN’s Geneva office, warned this week, these millions will ‘get up and leave and come to Europe’ unless conditions in the camps improve. Iraqis are also joining in; extra flights are being laid on from Baghdad to Turkey as people go on the move in the belief that Merkel has created a window of migration opportunity that may not last. It is at this point that the distinction between refugee and immigrant, on which European law is based, breaks down.
The economic pull is exacerbated because, unlike in previous times, the residents of the refugee camps have access to mobile phones and information. They know that Germany has said it expects to accept 800,000 asylum-seekers this year (a figure greater than the population of some EU members). They will have heard about — or seen — the welcome being given to refugees arriving there, the reception committees and the politicians holding placards saying ‘refugees welcome’. All of this will encourage many more to embark on the perilous journey to Europe.
The European Union’s energies would be far better spent improving life in the camps and finding ways to allow people to work there, as Professor Paul Collier suggested in these pages last month. The camps should be properly funded. The UNHCR claims it currently has a $795 million funding gap in its Syrian operation. France has given a fraction of what Britain has to this work, which puts a rather different perspective on François Hollande’s insistence that Britain must take on more of the refugee burden. No country in Europe has given more to the refugee camps than Britain.
Another danger of Merkel’s open-door policy is that it may make Syria’s recovery from civil war harder. By accepting those who have managed to make it to Europe, rather than those still in the camps, Germany is, intentionally or not, cherry-picking the more prosperous members of what used to be Syrian society, those who have sufficient resources to pay the traffickers. Without them, their ravaged country is far less likely to make a recovery once the fighting eventually stops. As the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius warned this week, ‘If all these refugees come to Europe or elsewhere, then Isis has won the game.’
Compounding Merkel’s folly is her desire to impose mandatory refugee quotas on the rest of the EU. (Britain won’t be part of this, we are one of the countries with an opt-out.) Forcing countries to accept refugees they don’t want is bound to boost support for populist anti-immigrant parties. German public opinion might be strikingly liberal on these issues — it is important to remember that, before her recent announcements, Merkel was being criticised for not doing enough to help — but opinion in other European countries is far less so. Strong-arming recalcitrant eastern European countries into taking a significant numbers of refugees will push politics to the nationalist right in these countries. In France, Marine Le Pen has already been making political hay out of Merkel’s actions.
Given the disaster unfolding on the continent, it’s odd to see Britain coming under pressure to become more like Germany. The Prime Minister’s decision to accept refugees from the camps, rather than send thousands more into the hands of people traffickers, seems to demonstrate a better understanding of the issue. To criticise the Prime Minister for not taking those refugees who have already reached Europe is bizarre; it seems to play into the hands of the people-traffickers, who would be pushing for their customers — those who have reached Europe — to be given priority over those who are still on the Syrian border.
Many in Cameron’s circle are furious at Merkel. There is a suspicion that, as one of the Prime Minister’s confidants puts it, ‘This has more to do with what happened in Europe 70 years ago than what is happening today.’ There is also anger at the criticism being directed at London from other European capitals. One Downing Street figure says that if Britain were not supporting the camps on Syria’s borders, at least a million more people would be coming to Europe. And we should remember those who aren’t even in the camps, those who have been forced from their homes but remain trapped inside Syria.
To save lives, Europe needs to stop people from thinking that if they take the risk of trying to cross into the European Union, then they will be able to claim asylum. This means turning around the boats that attempt the journey, and paying for processing stations in Turkey and Egypt. This may be hard, but there is nothing compassionate about giving desperate people false hope.
Britain can be the voice of sanity in this debate, while others panic. Cameron can point out that refugees and migrants who are already in Europe are not in imminent fear for their lives. Those gathered at Calais trying to cross the Channel might have once fled Syria, Somali or other war-torn countries — but they are now risking their lives to leave France, which is another matter entirely.
Merkel’s actions, now, will be hard to correct: her words cannot be unsaid. She has exacerbated a problem that will be with us for years, perhaps decades. More than 40 per cent of those who applied for asylum in Germany in the first half of this year came from the former Yugoslavia; the last of its wars ended 14 years ago. Handling all of this correctly will require true statesmanship, which means thinking through consequences. Merkel is failing that test spectacularly.
Sunday, 30 August 2015
Pope Francis Praises Author of Children's Book That Includes Lesbian Rabbits and Gay Penguin Parents
An Italian book that explores different types of families – including same-sex couples – has caused quite a stir after the mayor of Venice banned it from schools. Now, Pope Francis has upped the ante by writing a letter praising the author for her work, The Guardian reports.
In the book Piccolo Uovo, which means "Little Egg," Italian author Francesca Pardi writes about an egg that comes across a pair of gay penguins and lesbian rabbits raising a family, as well as a single-parent hippo, a mixed-race dog couple, and kangaroos who've adopted polar bear cubs.
Pardi's conservative critics say she's spreading a pro-homosexuality theory. The new mayor of Venice, Luidi Brugnaro, banned the book (and about 50 others) from schools in June. That decision caused 250 Italian authors to demand their own books be removed from city shelves as a "protest against an appalling gesture of censorship and ignorance," the paper reports.
In a bid for recognition, Pardi sent a package to Pope Francis with seven or eight children's books addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues from her publisher, Lo Stampatello. She included a heartfelt note explaining her predicament.
"Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us," she writes. "We have respect for Catholics ... A lot of Catholics give back the same respect, why can't we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?"
Much to her surprise, the Pope wrote back.
"His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values," writes Peter B. Wells, a senior official at the Vatican secretariat of state, in the letter dated July 9.
"It's not that I think that he's for gay families, because there's the Catholic doctrine, but we mustn't think that we don’t have rights," Pardi tells the paper.
Historically, the Vatican deems homosexual relationships "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to natural law." It preaches that gay people must live a life of chastity in order to be considered good Catholics. Pope Francis, 78, has adopted a more welcoming approach during his papacy.
Francis has previously said while the Church has a right to its opinions, it cannot "interfere spiritually" in the lives of homosexuals. The remark built on another he made in 2013 about gay priests: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"
While the Pope has a more inclusive approach than his predecessors, it's unlikely his thoughts on Pardi's work will create a significant shift in the Vatican's view of gay relationships.
The pontiff will make his first papal visit to the U.S. next month for the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia – a gathering of Catholics from across the globe – but LGBT groups have not been invited to share their views. He's also set to host a mass for a million pilgrims, visit a prison, and meet with families of inmates; prisoners in the city have been working hard to hand-carve a special chair for him.
Tuesday, 4 August 2015
Issued via <firstname.lastname@example.org> to sundry media pm on Wednesday 29th July 2015
The text of the letter from the Forgotten British Heroes Campaign
to the Israel ambassador in London, Daniel Taub.
to the Israel ambassador in London, Daniel Taub.
This will be delivered to the Israel Embassy on Saturday 1st August, the day on which the Campaign will hold a wreath-laying and then a meeting at the site of a notorious Zionist terrorist bombing near to Trafalgar Square (the former British Colonies Club).
The event will commemorate various murders, bombings and other atrocities perpetrated by Zionist terrorists both in Britain and Palestine against British soldiers, Crown servants and civilians and against the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.
Forgotten British Heroes CampaignPO Box 301, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 4QW
Tel: 07932 049019<email@example.com>
Tel: 07932 049019<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Saturday 1st August 2015
His Excellency Daniel Taub,
The Israel Ambassador,
2 Palace Green,
London W8 4QB.
Our organisation has been formed to preserve the memory of British servicemen and civilians whose sacrifices for their country have been airbrushed from history by venal Westminster politicians of all the major parties at the behest of powerful alien pressure groups and donors.
Today is close to the anniversaries of two dreadful events in Palestine: the murder of two 20-year-old British Army sergeants: Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin on Wednesday 30th July 1947 and the bombing of the King David Hotel, Jerusalem, on Tuesday 22nd July 1946. In respect of these and other atrocities we have a number of requests to make of the government and people of Israel, and of the Israel-supporting Jewish community in Britain.
As to the murders of Sgts Paice and Martin: These young soldiers were kidnapped on 20th June 1947 by the Irgun Zwei Leumi, a Zionist terrorist group led by Menachem Begin. Begin threatened to hang them if the UN-authorised British Mandate authority in Palestine carried out the execution of three Irgun terrorists who had been lawfully tried, convicted and sentenced to death on 16th June 1947 for their part in a murderous attack on the Fortress of Acre on 4th May 1947 to assist the escape of other Irgun terrorists who were held there.
When the three Irgun terrorists were hanged according to law, Begin personally assisted with the hanging of Sgts Paice and Martin, who had been held for many days in tiny dark underground cells. Their bodies were found, suspended by the neck with piano wire, in a eucalyptus grove at Netanya. The area around them had been booby-trapped so that those tasked with cutting them down might also be murdered. A photograph of the hanging sergeants was published on the front page of the Daily Express on Friday 1st August 1947. Shortly after, the original negative of that photograph disappeared from that newspaper’s archives and now only copies of copies survive.
The British government of the time issued a warrant for the arrest of Begin for this and multiple other terrorist acts and offered a reward of £10,000 for his capture — the equivalent of circa £300,000 today — an indication of the heinous nature of his crimes. That warrant was never rescinded. An attempt to activate the warrant was made by former Palestine Police sergeant, the late James Sawyer, on Monday 5th December 1977, by means of an application to Bristol Magistrates Court — Bristol being the home town of Sgt Mervyn Paice.
This application was made on the occasion of the visit to Britain of the terrorist Begin who the people of Israel had elected to be their Prime Minister. The magistrate, Alwyn Webber Thomas, refused Mr Sawyer’s application and refused to give any reason for so doing, which was unlawful. Mr. Sawyer immediately resorted to the High Court in London to secure an Order of Mandamus to compel the magistrate to set out his reasons. His application was frustrated by a sequence of contrived procedural obstacles until Begin had departed from this country the next day.
As to the bombing of the King David Hotel: This terrorist atrocity was perpetrated by the Irgun on the orders of Begin on 22nd July 1946. Huge quantities of explosives were smuggled into the basement of the hotel, part of which was occupied by British Mandate Authority officials. The massive explosion demolished most of the building killing 100 military and civilian personnel.
Many other lethal terrorist acts were perpetrated by the Irgun and by allied Zionist terrorist groups such as the Lehi, otherwise known as the Stern Gang, led by Yitzhak Shamir, who, like his
associate Begin, was in due course elected by the people of Israel to be their prime minister.
Here in London we are especially mindful of three such terrorist acts committed by the Stern Gang on British soil: the bombing of the British Colonial Club just off Trafalgar Square in March 1947; the attempted bombing of the Colonial Office in Whitehall in April 1947; and the letter bomb which killed Rex Farran, brother of SAS anti-terrorism specialist Captain Roy Farran DSO, MC at the Farran family home in May 1948. The parcel, was addressed simply to “R. Farran”.
We were therefore appalled by the speech by Home Secretary Theresa May during a ceremony on 22nd April this year at Finchley United Synagogue to mark the 67th anniversary of the State of Israel. Mrs May insulted the memory of British servicemen by assuring her audience: “… we remember the sacrifice of those who fought to achieve and protect that independence”. Mrs May chose to honour the Stern Gang assassins who gunned down British Minister Lord Moyne and his driver Lance-Corporal Arthur Fuller. Your government also honoured these gunmen, who had been justly executed for their crimes but reburied with full military honours more than thirty years later. Patriotic British people dissociate themselves from Mrs May’s homage to Zionist terrorists.
In mentioning these atrocities against British personnel, we also bear in mind the vast number of genocidal war crimes against Palestinians, such as at Deir Yassin on 10th April 1948, where more than 250 people, mainly women and children, were rounded up and shot. Such exterminations were perpetrated to terrorise Palestinians to flee their homeland in order to allow cynical Zionist propagandists to claim: “Israel is a land without people for a people without land”. We note with horror that this genocide has continued until the present time, as seen in Gaza last year. In the interests of peace in the Middle East, we request that you urge your government to cease such genocidal activity and secure a just settlement with the greatly oppressed Palestinian people.
The overwhelmingly pro-Israel Jewish communities throughout the world, through bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, have co-ordinated themselves in a campaign against acts of terrorism against them conducted mainly by Muslims. But this campaign is designed to criminalise any criticism of Israel and Jewry by anybody. We assert that Jewry is not above criticism.
We therefore request you to urge on your government and on Jewish communal bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council:
1) to make a public statement of regret recognising that Zionist groups such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang were the creators of terrorist methods which were subsequently copied by extremists of all kinds throughout the world; and to make grants of financial compensation to the families of British service personnel who were murdered by Zionist terrorists in Palestine prior to May 1948;
2) to pay appropriate compensation and pensions to surviving British servicemen who in most cases fought in the Second World War (now taught to European schoolchildren as having been fought to defend Jewry) only to find themselves under attack in Palestine;
3) to erect a memorial at the King David Hotel to honour the victims of the Zionist bomb attack;
4) to establish a ‘Victims of Zionism’ museum in Israel to honour the many British and Palestinian victims of the process which created that state; and to ensure that all Israeli educational institutions make awareness of Zionist war crimes a mandatory part of the school curriculum; and,
5) for Jewish communities everywhere — including in Britain — to cease the relentless insidious campaign to load the British people with a false burden of guilt with the suggestion that they, their parents and their grandparents did not do enough to aid Jewry during the last century; and, instead, to acknowledge that Jewry owes Britain an unrepayable debt of gratitude.
Martin Webster · Richard Edmonds · Lady Michèle Renouf · Jeremy Turner · Peter Rushton
Forgotten British Heroes Campaign
Martin Webster · Richard Edmonds · Lady Michèle Renouf · Jeremy Turner · Peter Rushton
Forgotten British Heroes Campaign