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, 29 October 2019

The Great Hate Crime Hoax

By Douglas Murray For The Mail On Sunday
26 October 2019

Do you feel ten per cent more hateful than you did this time last year? Do you think the British public as a whole are ten per cent more unpleasant in 2019 as compared to 2018?

If you believe the latest ‘hate crimes’ stats, then you may come to such a ludicrous conclusion.

Figures compiled by the Home Office claim that there were 103,379 hate crimes committed last year. A record number, and up ten per cent on the year before. Various campaign groups disguised as charities insist that this is merely ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

To which one might say simply: ‘Of course they do.’ For if you are sane and reasonable you will realise that all of this is nonsense – nonsense, in fact, of the purest, most disgraceful kind: professional nonsense, cooked up to serve a political purpose.

It is time that purpose was identified and named.

The foundations of the hate crime hoax started 20 years ago with the Macpherson Report on the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence. As well as its good effects, that inquiry had a number of negative consequences. Two stand out. The first was that an offence against a person of sexual or ethnic minority became a crime of greater seriousness than a crime against someone of no minority group.

So if an old woman was hit over the head for her purse, that was just a crime. But if someone who was gay or black was hit over the head then that was not just a crime but a hate crime. A two-tier system of offence was created in which some crimes (with an identical effect upon the victim) were deemed worse than others.

But the second development was more damaging, still: Macpherson stated that a crime was a hate crime if it was ‘perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group’.

So if I get hit over the head I might be the victim of a bog-standard crime. But if I am hit over the head and think, or pretend to think, that it is because of my homosexuality, then we are in the realm not just of crime but of hate crime. And that means the sirens of the modern police force can really go off.

In the years since the Macpherson Report, the British police have done everything they can to prove that they are on the beat with this new orthodoxy.

They don’t just want to find hate crimes. They need to find hate crimes. Some years ago a friend of mine was accosted on a train late at night by a couple of rowdy drunks. Reporting the matter to police at the next station, the officers positively begged him to report it (once they found out he was gay) as a ‘hate crime’. He insisted that there was no such element to their abuse. The police seemed desperate to persuade him otherwise.

That is just one of the reasons why the statistics on hate crimes keep going up and up. The police want them. They want to be able to report them. They positively advertise for them.

In case anyone thinks that is an exaggeration, consider the pathetic video released by DCC Julie Cooke of Cheshire Constabulary. It took the form of an online message for ‘pronoun day’, which she described as ‘a day which is particularly important to people who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming’. Cooke wittered on: ‘Being misgendered can have a huge impact on somebody and their personal well-being. It can also be used as a form of abuse.’

And here is one of the problems of this form of touting for business. The Home Office’s statistics claim that, in the past year, ‘transphobic hate crimes’ rose by 37 per cent. That is a pretty horrific number – like all the other rising hate crimes numbers. Until you dig one centimetre beneath the surface. What exactly constitutes a transphobic hate crime? Murder? Mugging? Burglary? Well, once again we have to remember that these crimes are in the eye of the beholder. And consider just one such beholder from only a few days ago.

Ria Cooper is a glamour model based in Hull, who ten years ago (at the age of 15) became Britain’s youngest transgender woman. Other than that, there is no reason why the nation at large should have heard of her. Except that earlier this month it emerged that Ms Cooper recently contacted Humberside Police to tell them of a set of WhatsApp messages she had received she was reporting as ‘transphobic’. What were these messages? Well, they were from a photographer whom Cooper accuses of trying to scupper her modelling career.

The photographer reportedly pointed out that Cooper has a penis, which was not the sort of lady he was after. Cooper calls this ‘f****** disgusting behaviour’ and deemed it ‘transphobic’. So there is another ‘hate crime’ just there.

Of course, campaigning groups long-ago cottoned on to the fact that all of this suits their interests. I suspect that sometimes that interest is commercial.

The remaining LGBT organisations in Britain have relatively little to do with their time. Their battles are largely won, and presumably their careers and pension plans are at risk from this success.

So ‘rising hate crimes’ must provide a massive business opportunity for these groups. Other groups also benefit from this marketplace of grievance.

Last month, when Parliament returned to spend a couple more days bickering about Brexit, Labour MPs used the opportunity to attack the Prime Minister. On what? Why hate crimes of course. The ridiculous, fulminating MPs kept pretending that Britain is in the midst of a hate crimewave and that the PM himself is responsible.

Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and others insisted that Boris’s column last year defending the right of Muslim women to wear the burka (a column his opponents deliberately misrepresented) in fact caused a ‘spike’ in anti-Muslim hate crimes. They claim that such hate crimes rose 375 per cent in the week after his column.

Which sounds impressive until you realise this is a rise from eight reported incidents in a week to 38 reported incidents. Scepticism has been poured on these figures.

Labour MPs who were attacking the Prime Minister with these bogus statistics were only using the favoured tactic of recent years.

For the fact is that since the Brexit vote there has been a huge number of ways in which people opposed to the result have assailed the British public.

We have been called stupid, ignorant, gullible and more. But perhaps the favourite claim of all has been the claim that the Brexit vote unleashed a tidal wave of hate in the British public. Anti-Brexit campaigners repeatedly pretended that the tragic murder of a Polish man called Arek Jozwik in Harlow in August 2016 was a result of the referendum. The resulting trial found that the murder was a squalid and mundane event with no link whatsoever to Brexit. But that is par for the course.

In the wake of the referendum there have been claims that British voters celebrated the result by a wave of hate crimes against ethnic and sexual minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no country in the world more tolerant than this one. Yet time and again in the past 20 years – and never more so than since the referendum – we have been slandered and smeared.

Political campaigners have used bogus statistics to push their own political and sectarian interests. It is time that people named and shamed the smear-merchants. There are bigots out there, as there are in every country. But this is not a bigoted country. And we have the right to vote how we want to vote without being defamed as such.

If there was one wave all sensible people should wish for in the near future it should be a wave of scepticism about the claims of campaigners whose only interest is in doing down this country.

A country which has justifiable pride in our tolerance and should exercise a healthy dose of scepticism towards our critics.

Source: The Great Hate Crime Hoax

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

Now trans and gay hate crime will mean SIX months in jail after judges are ordered to crack down with harsher sentences than those that are given for domestic burglaries

By Steve Doughty / Daily Mail

    • Transgender hate offences to get harsher sentences than domestic burglaries Judges ordered to hand out tough jail terms in a crackdown on hate crimes
      Figures revealed that transgender hate crimes up 37 per cent on the year before Sentencing Council denies the guideline is 'politically influenced or motivated'
      Judges have been ordered to hand out tough jail terms in a crackdown on transgender and homophobic hate crimes.
      Offenders found guilty of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexuality should get at least six months in prison, new sentencing guidelines state.
  • And there should be a six-year jail sentence for those convicted of the worst cases of intolerance against gay or transgender people.

    The instructions, released yesterday by the judge-led Sentencing Council – the statutory body that recommends punishment levels – mean transgender hate offences will receive harsher sentences than domestic burglaries.

    It comes after police figures revealed reports of hate crimes soared last year, with transgender hate crimes up 37 per cent on the year before.

    Mr Justice Julian Goose, of the Council, said the guidelines would help the courts take a ‘consistent approach’ to sentencing the offences, adding: ‘Public order is essential for the safe-functioning of society and the law seeks to protect the public from behaviour which undermines this.’

    The instructions, which will come into effect on January 1, follow a series of cases in which police have been accused of launching heavy-handed investigations into transgender hate crime allegations.

    This year Surrey Police quizzed a Catholic mother-of-five after she was accused of ‘misgendering’ the trans daughter of an activist on social media by using the pronoun ‘him’.

    Last week Thames Valley Police launched an inquiry into possible public order hate crimes by demonstrators who put up stickers in Oxford with messages such as: ‘Woman: noun. Adult human female.’

    The guidelines, which judges and magistrates must follow unless they can show doing so would run against justice, are the first to apply to public order offences – which include the offence of ‘stirring up hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation’.

    This is the only public order offence for which offenders can be convicted for what they say, write, broadcast or post on the internet or social media.

    Most cases of hate crime sentenced in the courts are convictions for ordinary offences – considered aggravated – because the criminal targeted a victim from a minority group.

    The Sentencing Council said the least serious offences of stirring up racial hatred, in which people spread hate ‘recklessly’ without intending to do so, should be handed community punishments rather than jail time.

    But the same does not apply to spreading hatred on religious or sexual orientation grounds.

    The number of hate crimes reported to police has reached 100,000 a year for the first time.

    Home Office figures showed a 10 per cent increase this year, with a surge in allegations of homophobic and transphobic abuse.

    Police must record an incident as a hate crime if a victim believes they were targeted over their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

    There were 103,379 such reports in England and Wales in 2018/19, up from just over 94,000 in the previous 12 months. Transgender hate crimes jumped 37 per cent, to 2,333, and there were 14,500 cases involving sexual orientation, an increase of 25 per cent.

    The number of incidents has more than doubled since 2012/13 when just 42,255 hate crimes were logged.

    The Home Office said the rise was partly down to improvements in recording methods, but admitted it could also reflect a ‘real rise’ in crime levels.

    There were 79,000 reports of race hate crimes, up 11 per cent, and incidents involving religious hate rose 3 per cent to 8,500.

    For these offences, the new rules say the least serious offences should attract a six-month jail sentence.

    For those who commit the hate crime from a position of authority, or plan to incite serious violence or whose activity was persistent and widespread, the typical jail sentence should be three years and as much as six.

    By contrast, the Council’s rules mean burglars can avoid jail with a community sentence.

    The Council said it wanted to reassure ‘concerned respondents the guideline is not politically influenced or motivated’.

    But prison charity The Howard League criticised judges for advocating short jail terms.

    It told the Council’s consultation: ‘The guidelines should be encouraging the use of effective community programmes rather than expensive, ineffective short-term prison sentences.’

    Offenders found guilty of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexuality should get at least six months in prison, new sentencing guidelines state. And there should be a six-year jail sentence for those convicted of the worst cases of intolerance against gay or transgender people.

    Tuesday, 8 October 2019

    Holocaust Denial Not Protected by Human-Rights Law, Court Says

    By Hugo Miller October 3, 2019,

    Photographs of [alleged] holocaust victims at the Auscwitz-Birkenau concentration camp museum in Poland.

    Denying that the Holocaust ever happened isn’t a form of freedom of expression protected under the European Human Rights Convention, a top court has ruled in a case that stretches back nearly a decade.

    Udo Pastoers, a German who suggested in a 2010 speech that the Holocaust never occurred, was fairly convicted under the country’s laws against the intentional defamation of Jewish people, the European Court of Human Rights ruled while rejecting his complaints.

    Pastoers’ argument that his statements were protected by Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, was “manifestly ill-founded,” given that he “had intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered,” the Strasbourg, France-based court ruled on Thursday. His complaint that he was denied a fair trial in Germany was also rejected by the ECHR.

    Pastoers had given a speech a day after Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2010, saying that the “the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes” and also referring to a “barrage of criticism and propagandistic lies” and “Auschwitz projections.” He was first convicted in 2012 by a German district court, and then a regional court rejected his appeal of the verdict less than a year later.

    Anti-semitism has again been on the rise in Europe, statistics show, with France reporting a rise of 74% last year in acts motivated by such religious hatred. In Germany where some of the strongest rules against hate speech were designed to discourage such behavior, anti-semitic offenses climbed by 10% in 2018 with violent acts climbing by 60%.

    The ECHR noted in its Thursday ruling that the German court had been thorough in its examination of Pastoer’s comments and hadn’t taken his remarks out of context. The tribunal said the German had deliberately obscured some of his remarks to try to get his message across more subtly.

    “The impugned part had been inserted into the speech like ‘poison into a glass of water, hoping that it would not be detected immediately,’” the court said.


    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

    [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!


    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


    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


    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