The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

Police arrest Camborne man in connection with “Holocaust denial” broadcasts


Police have arrested a Holocaust denier from Camborne because of his anti-semitic broadcasts and social media posts.

Graham Hart, 67, was held for several hours before being released. To date, no charges have been brought. Earlier this year Cornwall Reports detailed how the Cornish Pirates rugby club had stopped playing Hart’s music after complaints about anti-semitism.

According to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism: “A dossier provided by Campaign Against Anti-semitism has led to the arrest by Devon and Cornwall Police of a 67-year-old man from Camborne on Thursday as part of a pre-planned policing operation.

“The man was arrested on suspicion of producing a racist internet radio broadcast that could incite racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986. He has since been released but remains under investigation pending further enquiries.

“Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Director of Investigations and Enforcement, Stephen Silverman, said: “The ease with which the internet has been harnessed in recent years by extremists as a vehicle for hate speech is a growing cause for alarm. Campaign Against Antisemitism commends Devon and Cornwall Police for its prompt response and diligent handling of this matter, and will be watching developments with interest.”

Hart is a Cornish nationalist whose anti-Jewish sentiments have brought run-ins with the police before. His latest arrest followed a campaign initiated by Penzance councillor Tim Dwelly, who runs a Facebook page called Cornwall Antisemitism Watch.

Hart has been a regular broadcaster on an internet radio station called “Revolution Radio.” A co-host, called Brizer, apparently based in Ireland, has now defended Hart and criticised Mr Dwelly.

Graham Hart's song "Hoax Train" is a clearly anti-semitic expression of Holocaust denial

In a torrid rant of anti-semitism, Brizer claims to know details of the arrest, alleging that eight police officers arrived at Hart’s house before taking him, and his computer and mobile phone, to the police station. Brizer has followed-up his initial claims with a further anti-semitic rant against Mr Dwelly today (Tuesday.)

Devon and Cornwall police have been asked to comment. The 1986 Public Order Act has for many years been the main law available to combat hate speech, but the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act has brought new offences before the courts. It is not immediately clear if Brizer’s social media posts, which are clearly anti-semitic, might be grounds for further police action.

Holocaust denial is a specific crime in 16 European countries, and in Israel, but not in the UK, which relies on more general race and hate laws.

Source: Anne North - Cornwall Reports - 4th June 2019

https://cornwallreports.co.uk/police-arrest-camborne-man-in-connection-with-holocaust-denial-broadcasts/

[Ed.] This article is hysterical in tone, but it is true that that 1986 Public Order Act has been the main weapon to combat free speech in the UK on the spurious grounds of alleged race 'hate'. Conviction under this legislation is virtually inevitable, as someone somewhere is always going to be offended. The 'Campaign against Antisemitism are attempting to further bend the law following the conviction of Alison Chabloz, using the 'malicious communications act', which was modified in 2002 to cover electronic communications. This is with the aim at protecting the dead from defamation - only not the gentile dead.

The truth will out, however hard the apparatchiks of the Media and the State fight to prevent it, as happened after the Chernobyl disaster.

Wednesday, 8 May 2019

The May Withdrawal Treaty would be a Disaster and could not be Renogotiated


Rodney Atkinsonon: April 24, 2019


There are those who have immaculate credentials as Brexiteers but who have recently decided to support the disastrous May Withdrawal Agreement (W/A). They nearly all agree that the Agreement is totally unacceptable but say that it does “at least mean we leave” and we can re-negotiate the terms later. International Treaty Law and the Withdrawal Agreement’s horrendous weakening of our economic and negotiating position make such an idea dangerously naive.

As Martin Howe QC has rightly stated this is not like a game of football where we can with a new leader make a strong recovery “in the second half”. Howe rightly says it is like a game of chess where all the key pieces have been lost (in the Withdrawal Agreement) and even the best Brexiteer can no longer win (in the trade negotiations to come).

Equally disastrous is the incorporation of this “deal” into an International Treaty with the EU from which it is virtually impossible to escape. Those who think this view wrong – like Professor Patrick Minford – say that the “letter of the law” will not prevail because “states can always withdraw from treaties”.

But revoking a treaty is not at all easy since most of the grounds for revocation refer to the State in question being “misled” or “corrupted” in some way. We know of course that in this case it is the people of Britain who have been misled by their own State throughout these 46 years of EU treaties and are being misled now by May pretending that this Withdrawal Agreement gets us out of the EU when it does not. Indeed it binds us more strongly, with no votes or power and it does so potentially indefinitely.

The Vienna Convention on Treaties does not care at all whether people and voters of a State have been misled. These treaties are between States and we cannot say that our Government has been misled – they are themselves the misleaders!

Treaties are either signed after a war when one side has been subjugated (that is how Britain got Gibraltar at the Treaty of Utrecht) or when there is simply a mutual desire and respect between two States with no existing bonds or controls or power relationship which disadvantages one party before they even start negotiating a treaty.

This is not the case here. We are not negotiating a treaty as a sovereign power with another sovereign power but as a supplicant prisoner of an empire which has legislated for us, regulated us and taxed us for 46 years to their advantage and whose power the May W/A continues to enforce after we have “left”.

Professor Minford says of the Treaty with the EU which May would sign:

It is not sufficient to say that because it has been signed it is indefinitely binding; this would only be sufficient if there was a supranational power that could enforce this.

But the WA establishes the supranational power – the EU itself – and we are bound by it in so many ways that they could legally attack our interests as soon as we seek fair trade, no freedom of movement, fair mutual tariffs and mutual recognition of standards for instance. EU countries are already threatening we can’t trade with them if we re-claim our fishing grounds!

In other words it is precisely our lack of sovereignty at the start of negotiations which weakens us irredeemably. Only the No Deal WTO option gives us that sovereignty.

In such circumstances we cannot negotiate, as an equal, a totally different economic, legal and constitutional relationship after we have signed an international treaty implementing May’s deal. Professor Minford says the EU State can see its economic interest in renegotiating this deal after we have signed it! But this deal is a comprehensive prison for the UK in which we are prey to every possible blackmail and dirty economic deal or laws directed at our industries, agriculture, finance and fishing.

Indeed in the transition period (which could turn out to be indefinite) the EU can sign us up to trade deals with other countries with tariffs and market access which could disadvantage our industries – and we would have no say in those terms! At the same time they prevent us from concluding our own free trade deals with third countries!

The balance of advantage after 46 years of EU regulatory and legislative power is decisively against us before we even sign a new treaty and the WA binds us possibly indefinitely to it – even threatening to remove N Ireland from our territory. Imagine we agree to WA and seek to overturn its provisions by negotiating a trade agreement with the USA and the Commonwealth. Would those countries be happy to help us break treaty law?

WA also gives the EU at least 2 more years to export more EU citizens to the UK who 1. could become UK citizens and gradually outvote Leavers 2. Give (in the WA) the EU sovereign power by increasing EU case law over these “supercitizens” whose social privileges in the UK are protected whereas UK citizens’ rights will not be!

REVOKING A TREATY UNDER THE VIENNA CONVENTION

I quote here from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

Article 45: Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty

A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of the facts:

it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation, as the case may be; or

(b)(it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be.

(The UK could hardly negotiate over 3 years, pass domestic legislation and sign an International Treaty and claim it was “not aware of the facts”)

Article 50: Corruption of a representative of a State

If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

(But as we noted above it is the British people – not the British State which is the signatory – who have been misled and corrupted and there the Convention is silent)

Article 60 – ONLY a breach by the other party is a reason for termination..

(The EU, given such power over us, will certainly not break the terms of this unequal treaty)

Article 62: Fundamental change of circumstances

A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

(It is difficult to see any change of circumstances – apart from the break up of the EU itself – which would fit this description)

Finally of course this would be a Treaty which – unlike the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 permission to leave the EU – would contain no automatic power for the UK to leave. The EU would itself hold the key to the prison. And International Treaty Law would bind us to the terms we had signed.

In the Houses of Parliament we have Labour and Liberal Parties and Tory Remainers who think these disastrous terms do not bind us enough to the EU and scores of Tory Brexiteers who think they can sign a disastrous treaty and then get out of it!

Those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.

Source: - The May Withdrawal would be a Disaster and could not be Renogotiated

Friday, 5 April 2019

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON


By Senator Fraser Anning - March 27, 2019
The Pickering Post




Prime Minister Morrison,

You are threatening to censure me in the Australian Parliament for statements I made following the mass murder of New Zealand Muslims on Friday the 15th of March. Labor leader Bill Shorten agrees with your intentions.

You accuse me of blaming the victims in my initial response to the atrocity. This, despite the fact that my statement unequivocally condemned this heinous act of murderous violence.

One of the victims of this rampage was a toddler. All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.

There are no mitigating factors which could in any way excuse this evil act. The person responsible needs to feel the full force of the law.

After putting the immediate blame where it belongs, I looked for contributing causes. I said: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand”.

I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.

My brief comment was not an academic treatise seeking to identify all the causes. Instead I zeroed in on the New Zealand government’s indiscriminate immigration policies, which are very much in line with your own.

The censure motion is an attempt to deflect attention from your reckless policies, which are causing run-away diversity – a well-documented risk factor for communal conflict. Shame on you.

Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left. Now, innocent conservatives and even the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation are being accused of guilt for mass murder on the flimsy basis that the killer’s manifesto opposed Islamic immigration to Europe.

This guilt by association has the same level of honesty as your own accusation against me. As Douglas Murray states, “Beliefs held by millions [are] not rendered invalid by [the] actions of a maniac.”

What distinguished the killer from others concerned about Islamic immigration is that he abandoned politics and took up terrorism. To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming democratic socialists for Communist mass murder.

It is completely appropriate to consider contributing causes. This mass murder is clearly a form of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural violence.

It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.

It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970's Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.

The Japanese people have no wish to bring in millions of Vietnamese and grant them citizenship. The Chinese don’t want to be swamped with Indians.

No people wish for this. We didn’t vote for it and we weren’t asked. Yet every Prime Minister since Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration. The only choice has been in how quickly we would become a minority.

“We the people,” were given no democratic option to oppose this madness. Every major party supported it.

For example, you recently critisised Bill Shorten’s refugee policy. You said it was reckless as it would double the number of refugees at a cost of six billion dollars every year.

You implied that your own policy was somehow responsible because you would import only half that number at a cost of three billion dollars per year.

Are Australians supposed to thank you for driving us over the fiscal cliff at half the speed?

As Prime Minister, you must accept the greatest share of the blame. Sadly, you are not alone. Every other mainstream political party subscribes to the ridiculous trope that diversity is a strength. It is not, and the people know it.

You have pursued these policies against the will of the people. Along with the deep state, you have viciously attacked anyone who opposed this madness.

People have been destroyed by accusations of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, white supremacy and an ever-growing number of slurs.

In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society.

This is the foundational principle on which our system of democracy is built.

This deliberate subversion of democratic rights has been ruthlessly efficient in silencing legitimate criticism.

The dogma of multiculturalism has been imposed under cover of threats and intimidation. Had people not been bullied into silence by political correctness and the threat of Government sanction, they would have figured out the truth much earlier.

The fact is, that multiculturalism is simply minority tribalism turbocharged by the Left.

This is part of a wider trend for Western governments to import the “Clash of Civilisations” into once peaceful societies. If this continues the result will be the dissolution of the nation state.

Your policy of multiculturalism encourages all minorities to remain culturally separate. It encourages them to remain loyal to their tribal, religious, ethnic or cultural identities instead of to the Australian nation.

Unless of course it is white Australians who express loyalty to their group, in which case it is referred to the so-called Human Rights Commission under the hated Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Thus, you espouse tribalism from one side of your mouth while decrying it from the other.

The problem is, that minority groups vote for their own interests.

Politicians know this from experience. You are constantly pandering to them. The level of largesse which you offer, is in direct proportion to the numbers of each group in marginal electorates or donations to party coffers.

The key demand of these minority groups is always the same. More migrants from their own “tribe” to bolster the power of their own voting bloc.

Mr. Morrison, you enable this minority supremacism, as did your predecessors. You promote it. And you profit from it. This tribalism is not shared by the majority, who do not yet understand the need to vote for their own ethnic interests.

They are told to think of themselves as individuals, not as parts of a cohesive nation. Unless the majority realise the benefits of voting for their ethnic group interests – democracy will be finished. In its place we will have intractable sectarianism and Australia will be just another failed state.

The horror in New Zealand is so newsworthy because it is not yet a failed state. In the three weeks before the shooting in Christchurch, 120 Christians in Nigeria were shot or hacked to death by Muslims.

This tragedy was not reported in a single Australian news outlet that I am aware of. In January, much closer to home in the Philippines, a cathedral was bombed by Muslims and twenty innocents were killed.

Why did you and your Government not issue statements denouncing the killers? Perhaps because murderous attacks are so common in these countries.

Since September 2001, there have been more than 34,000 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islam. This is a staggering number. Most have been committed in countries with large Islamic populations.

As you and your predecessors have increased the Muslim population in our country, we have suffered a growing series of attacks on our soil.

Fortunately, our security forces have thwarted most of them. The Islamic community is expanding rapidly, however. Soon we will not have the resources to control the situation.

The likelihood of a backlash from other groups increases with every attack. As our society splits along racial, religious and ethnic lines, the possibility of escalating conflict increases.

Australia is not the world’s most successful multicultural society. We were once united and peaceful with a secure national identity.

Our children had bright futures. Now cohesion and trust are falling. The data shows it. There is no net benefit to traditional Australians from your multicultural dogma.

Your policies will lead to white Australians – the heart of our nation – becoming a minority within a few decades. Your own figures confirm this.

You, Mr. Morrison, are part of the problem. How dare you judge me. How dare you hold your head up in the light.

You and your cabinet have no real analysis of the national question. Instead you offer vacuous slogans fed to you by equally vacuous senior public servants – “diversity”, “vibrancy”, “inclusion”, “religion of peace”.

You have no vision for Australia situated in our region. No analysis of how to manage diversity and identity in a sustainable, peaceful way. All we get is politics; saying anything to stay in power.

This lack of principle and positive direction indicates that you and your Labor clones are puppets of powerful vested interests. These interests give a damn only for profits, not diversity, identity or belonging.

The present election campaign in New South Wales offers a horrible example of multicultural politics at work. In September of last year, the Labor leader, Michael Daley, gave a speech to a predominantly Anglo audience in the Blue Mountains.

He warned that young Australians were being pushed out of jobs and the Sydney housing market by highly educated Asian (mainly Chinese) immigrants. His predecessor, Luke Foley, was also concerned with ethnic pressures in Sydney.

He spoke about “white flight” in which “Anglo-Saxons” were being pushed out of the Western Suburbs by mass immigration.

These gentlemen know, or at least feel, that their nation is being replaced, that mass migration is causing serious problems. They know however, that they will be pilloried if they speak up. Yet still, they want the immigrant vote!

The Liberals are well aware of the situation. Their friends waited for the final week of the NSW election campaign before releasing a video of Mr Daley’s speech, hoping it would lose him the Chinese vote.

That is tawdry, low politics, with the mainstream media fully engaged. The same racial tactics were used to mobilise Chinese votes against John Howard in the 2007 federal election.

Those votes cost Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, his seat. That is the reality of multicultural politics as practised since the 1970s by the likes of Al Grassby, Malcolm Fraser, and Bob Hawke. It was practised long before that by the Communists who saw the revolutionary potential of ethnic diversity.

But the racial politics of the 2019 NSW election then sank even lower, becoming grotesque and outright dangerous. NSW Labor changed tactics to place election ads in Chinese language newspapers.

On Wednesday 20th March Michael Daley began grovelling to recover Chinese votes. He publicly apologised to Asian voters. He promised to speak with Chinese community leaders and the Chinese consul-general when Premier. A Chinese government official!

This is the reality of multiculturalism and diverse immigration – political leaders in thrall to minority tribalism and even to foreign governments.

This is the diversity you praise and nourish, Mr Morrison. In reality you have no problem with tribalism, except for Anglo Australians.

There is more. We need a public discussion of fifth columns. For years the intelligence community has warned you and your colleagues of the security risks posed by Beijing’s soft power.

They fear that universities and political parties have been penetrated and suborned to some extent by Chinese agents of influence.

But the risk does not come solely from China. It also comes from Australian citizens living in Australia who think of themselves as Chinese.

Your government, Mr Morrison, continues to allow mass Chinese immigration at a time when China is flexing its muscles It has annexed the South China Sea, is swamping Tibet and the Turkic western provinces with loyal Han Chinese migrants, and is seeking to push Australia’s indispensable ally, the United States, out of our region.

At such a time your government has not applied any brake to Chinese immigration. You haven’t even raised the subject for discussion. Are you delusional or do you hate Australia? It must be one or the other, or both.

I say this because I respect the Chinese people. In my maiden speech I took up Sir Henry Parkes’s vision of the “crimson thread of kinship” that unites the core Anglo-Celtic Australian nation.

Well, there are hundreds of crimson threads around the world – ethnic and cultural bonds – that tie nations together.

They are positive ties, but they have been imported into Australia over the last several decades by a political elite that turned its back on our nation.

This is another harsh reality of the multiculturalism that you, Mr Morrison, praise and try to win votes from.

This is the tragedy of your beloved diversity, that it weaponises positive human bonds. It turns good people against one another.

Your immigration policies have turned Australia into a squabbling Tower of Babel. Those policies really should be criminalised. They should be made unconstitutional.

The Australian nation is dying in the big cities. Congested, progressively foreign, replaced, colonised, self-segregated, hurt by falling trust and loss of belonging. Why are you doing this to us? Where is your soul? Where is your decency?

Stop thinking about your parliamentary pension and media reputation and start thinking about your people, our people. Isn’t it obvious that the nation is in crisis? Why can you not stand tall and actually lead our people?

Our children and grandchildren will curse you if you are remembered at all. You have no right to transform their society without the people’s permission. You have no right to inflict this legacy on them, to become a minority in their own country.

Let me be doubly clear that I condemn you and Mr. Shorten in the strongest terms imaginable – as traitors to truth and traitors to social cohesion.

You have even turned your back on your Christian faith and values. Multiculturalism means “fewer Christians.” Is that really your intention?

Without mass immigration and multiculturalism, neither the Islamic attacks in Australia or this appalling reaction to them would have occurred.

Without your reckless policies, the Australian people would still be living in a peaceful, stable and secure nation state as the Japanese do today.

The New Zealand government is using this hideous attack to further its cynical agenda. Instead of offering their people a vote on ruinous immigration policies, they are further strangling free speech and suppressing opposition.

Censorship of the media was hardly mentioned after terror attacks on Australian soil. Now however, after an attack by an opponent of multiculturalism, The State is demanding censorship of the internet.

Any website which does not embrace your extreme multicultural agenda is coming under scrutiny.

This foreshadows darkness and tyranny which were once unimaginable to Australians. You and your cohorts are driving us there at full speed.

Australia is on the path to a police state, fomented and legitimised by multiculturalist ideology.

Again, Mr Morrison, your government leads the charge, by allowing people to be persecuted under ill-defined accusations of hate speech, when most just hate oppression.

I implore all politicians to step back and think again about what you are doing to this nation.

Do not oppress us in a knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy born of fanaticism.

Any response must be measured and sane. It must not be at the price of this nation’s cohesion and unity.

Free Speech is always the first target of ham-fisted tyranny. The Christchurch killer’s intent was to topple our traditions by his evil scheme. Do not become pawns in his game.

Australia once trusted its citizens to discuss the most extreme ideas peacefully. We have a long history of rejecting radical ideas.

It is clear that our elites cannot be trusted with controlling our borders. I don’t just mean the few thousand illegals coming in boats but the millions coming legally by jet.

We as a nation need to take a breather. We need time to assimilate those already here. We need a plebiscite on immigration!

We the people, not you the elites, have a right to decide who comes here.

Fraser Anning

Source:
http://dev.pickeringpost.com/2019/03/27/an-open-letter-to-prime-minister-scott-morrison/

Tuesday, 22 January 2019

Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter.

Admin - January 21, 2019

   

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:

“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:

“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel: “they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:

“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:

“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.

“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.” The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset” Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.” On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards. “Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991. Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day. A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that: “The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991 Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature. The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law. The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!
Neville Nagler

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –
I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter

Source: http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/revealed-how-britains-leading-jews-lobbied-prime-minister-to-block-faurisson-and-leuchter/

Sunday, 18 November 2018

The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal


By Steerpike - Spectator / 17 November 2018



This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132). And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthy document themselves, Steerpike has compiled a list of the top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

Once you’ve finished reading this – why not try 10 Downing Street’s 40 rebuttals here.

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite literally, a “lifetime” duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most part) for the “transition” period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

The top 40 horrors:

1. From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
2 .May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
3. The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87) 4. The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
5. The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
6. Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
7. “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
8. The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
9. Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
11. Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
12. The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
13. The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
14. The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
15. The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)
16. The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
17. All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
18. Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
19. The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37) 20. Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
21. Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
22. The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50) 23. The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
24. The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
25. The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
26. We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
27. The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
28. The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
29. Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
30. The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
31. Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
32. The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
33. The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
34. The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
35. The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
36. And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
37. The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
38. The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
39. The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
40. And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-top-40-horrors-lurking-in-the-small-print-of-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Thursday, 11 October 2018

German historians on Wednesday accused far-right leader Alexander Gauland of paraphrasing Adolf Hitler in a newspaper column taking aim at a "globalised class" that he claimed threatens all that is good in his "homeland".

Far-right AfD party leader Alexander Gauland is facing accusations of paraphrasing Adolf Hitler after taking aim at a 'globalised class' he claimed threatens all that is good in his 'homeland'

The co-leader of the far-right AfD rejected allegations of parallels with a 1933 speech by Hitler, but the latest episode is yet another controversy raising questions over his anti-migrant party's views on the Nazi-era.

In a guest commentary for Saturday's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Gauland wrote that the "globalised class" occupies positions in mainstream organisations from international corporations to the media to universities, and are also in key political parties.echoing

"Their members live almost exclusively in big cities, speak fluent English, and when they move from Berlin to London or Singapore for jobs, they find similar apartments, houses, restaurants, shops and private schools everywhere.

"This group socialises among itself but is culturally 'diverse'," he wrote, adding that they have no attachments to their homeland.

He argued that the AfD stands against this group which if left unchecked, would threaten "what makes our country and our continent worth living in".

Historian Wolfgang Benz, a prominent researcher on the Nazi era, noted however that Gauland's commentary was strikingly similar to a speech made by Hitler in 1933.

"It's a paraphrase that looks like the AfD chief had the Fuehrer's speech from 1933 on his desk when he was writing his column for the FAZ," wrote Benz in Tagesspiegel daily.

Gauland had simply modernised the criticism, added Benz.

Addressing workers at the Siemens Dynamo Works in Berlin in November 1933, Hitler railed against a "small, rootless, international clique".

They are "the people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have anywhere a soil on which they have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague or Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere," he said, as a man in the audience shouts "the Jews!".

In the speech -- also the first by Hitler broadcast live on all German radio stations, the Nazi leader accused this "clique" of its ability to "conduct their business everywhere but the people cannot follow them".

Historian Michael Wolffsohn said it was no accident Gauland had written his column in this manner.

"It is bad that Gauland is signalling to his educated followers that he knows the speech and style of Hitler's speech and that he is transferring Hitler's accusations against the Jews to the opponents of the AfD today," said Wolffsohn.

Leading members of the AfD have come under fire repeatedly for comments that appear to play down the Holocaust.

Gauland in June described the Nazi period as a mere "speck of bird poo in over 1,000 years of successful German history".

https://m.france24.com/en/20181010-german-historians-accuse-far-right-chief-echoing-hitler

Thursday, 30 August 2018

The Crucifixion of Jeremy Corbyn

   

Israel's friends demand total surrender
Philip Giraldi • August 28, 2018


Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what is going on in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the reality is that there exists an “Israel Lobby” in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be. Failure to confront Israel’s crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.

For the United States this corruption of the media and the political process by Israel has meant endless wars in the Middle East as well of loss of civil liberties at home, but some other countries have compromised their own declared values far beyond that. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Israel completely inaccurately as a light that “…burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations – freedom, democracy justice.” He has also said “I will defend Israel whatever the cost” to Canada, an assertion that some might regard as very, very odd for a Canadian head of state.

In some other cases, Israel plays hardball directly, threatening retribution against governments that do not fall in line. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned New Zealand that backing a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements would be a “declaration of war.” He was able to do so because he had confidence in the power of the Israel Lobby in that country to mobilize and produce the desired result.

It might surprise some that the “Mother of Parliaments” in Great Britain is perhaps the legislative body most dominated by Israeli interests, more in many respects than the Congress in the United States. The ruling Conservative Party has a Friends of Israel caucus that includes more than 80% of its Parliamentary membership. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) clone located in London. It is well funded and politically powerful, working through its various “Friends of Israel” proxies. Americans might be surprised to learn how that power is manifest, including that in Britain Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish London neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police-type vehicles. There have been reports of the patrols threatening Muslims who seek to enter the areas.

Prime Minister Theresa May is careful never to offend either Israel or the wealthy and powerful British Jewish community. After Secretary of State John Kerry described Israel’s government as “extreme right wing” on December 28, 2016, May sprang to Tel Aviv’s defense, saying “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.” May’s rejoinder could have been written by Netanyahu, and maybe it was. Two weeks later, her government cited “reservations” over a French government sponsored mid-January Middle East peace conference and would not sign a joint statement calling for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu vociferously condemned the proceedings.

This deference all takes place in spite of a recent astonishing expose by al-Jazeera, which revealed how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to “take down” parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been under unrelenting fire due to the fact that he is the first major political party leader in many years to resist the demands that he place Israel on a pedestal. Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism. Corbyn’s crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an “end to the repression of the Palestinian people.” As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years.

The invective being spewed by some British Jews and Israel has increased of late, presumably because Theresa May’s Conservative government is perceived as being weak and there is a distinct possibility that the leader of the Labour Party will be the next Prime Minister. That a Prime Minister might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is viewed as completely unacceptable.

Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn “a fucking anti-Semite and a racist”. She then wrote in the Guardian that Labour is “a hostile environment for Jews.” The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland, who reportedly believes that “his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally… he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel.” Last month he featured in his paper a letter attacking Corbyn signed by 68 rabbis.

All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, which “directs Israel’s covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world”.

There are two principal objectives to the “get Corbyn” campaign. The first is to remove him from the Labour Party leadership position, thereby ensuring that he will never be elected Prime Minister, while also eliminating from the party any and all members who are perceived as being “too critical” of Israel. In practice that has meant anyone who criticizes Israel at all. And second it is to establish as a legal principle that the “hate crime” offense of anti-Semitism specifically be defined to include criticism of Israel, thereby making it a criminal offense to write or speak about Israel’s racist behavior towards its Muslim and Christian minority while also making it impossible to freely discuss its war crimes.

The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. Andrew Sullivan recently observed in New York Magazine that “When it emerged, that Naz Shah, a new Labour MP, had opined on Facebook before she was elected that Israel should be relocated to the U.S., and former London mayor Ken Livingstone backed her up by arguing that the Nazis initially favored Zionism, Corbyn didn’t make a big fuss.” Sullivan then went on to write that “It then emerged that Corbyn himself had subscribed to various pro-Palestinian Facebook groups where rank anti-Semitism flourished” and had even “…attended a meeting on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010, called ‘Never Again for Anyone: Auschwitz to Gaza,’ equating Israelis with Nazis.”

In other words, Corbyn should have been responsible for policing the personal views of Shah and Livingstone, both of whom were subsequently suspended from the Labour Party with Livingstone eventually resigning. He should have also avoided Palestinian Facebook commentary because alleged anti-Semites occasionally contribute their views and ought not to acknowledge in any fashion the Israel war crimes being committed on a daily basis in Gaza.

So Corbyn must go based on the “fact” that he has to be a closet anti-Semite as discerned by the likes of Andrew Sullivan on this side of the Atlantic and a host of Israel-firsters in Britain. But the Labour leader’s worst crime that is being regarded as an “existential threat” to Jewish people everywhere is his resistance to the pressure being exerted on him to endorse and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) precise multi-faceted definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The IHRA basic definition of anti-Semitism is reasonable enough, including “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The Labour Party and Corbyn have accepted that definition but have balked at eleven “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism” also provided by IHRA, four of which have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel. They are: Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

One might observe that many Jews – not all or even most – but many, do have dual loyalty in which the allegiance to Israel is dominant. I would cite as a prime example the current U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman who spends much of his time defending Israel. And there are also the American Jews who have spied for Israel, to include Jonathan Pollard and AIPAC luminaries Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman who obtained classified information from Lawrence Franklin and then passed what they had obtained to Israeli intelligence.

And yes, Israel is a “racist endeavor.” Just check out the recent nationality law passed by the Knesset declaring Israel to be a Jewish State. It grants self-determination only to those living within its borders who are Jews. And if using racial distinctions for full citizenship while also bombing hospitals and schools while lining up snipers to shoot thousands of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators is not Nazi-like behavior, then what is? Israel and its leader are sometimes compared to Nazis and to Adolf Hitler because they behave like Nazis and Adolf Hitler.

And finally there is the definition that challenges any “double standard” in demanding behavior from Israel that is not expected from any other democratic nation. Well, first of all Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy or ethnocracy if you prefer wrapped around a police state. Other countries that call themselves democracies have equal rights under law for all citizens. Other democracies do not have hundreds of thousands of settlers stealing land and even water resources from the indigenous population and colonizing it to the benefit of only one segment of its population. Other democracies do not regularly shoot dead unarmed protesters. How many democracies are currently practicing ethnic cleansing, as the Israeli Jews are doing to the Palestinians?

Will Corbyn give in to the IHRA demands to save his skin as party leader? One has to suspect that he will as he is already regularly conceding points and apologizing, publicly delivering the required obeisance to the holocaust as “the worst crime of the twentieth century.” And every time he tries to appease those out to get him he emerges weaker. Even if he submits completely, the Israel firsters who are hot to get him, having just like in American significant control over the media, will continue to attack until they find the precise issue that will bring him down. The Labour National Executive Council will meet in September to vote on full acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. When they, as is likely, kneel before force majeure that will be the end of free speech in Britain. Criticize Israel and you go to jail.

And the same thing is happening in the United States in precisely the same fashion. Criticism of Israel or protesting against it will sooner rather than later be criminalized. I sometimes wonder if Senator Ben Cardin and the others who are promoting the hate legislation really understand what will be lost when they sacrifice the U.S. Constitution to defend Israel. Once free speech is gone, it will never return.

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-crucifixion-of-jeremy-corbyn/