HATE OR DEBATE

Throughout Europe, especially Britain, so-called hate laws are passed by parliaments to stifle debate on immigration. The purpose of these inhumane anti-debate laws is not to protect minorities; it is to shield treacherous political elite from scrutiny or criticism.

Mike Walsh, who was sentenced to 6 x 4 month prison sentences for publishing anti-immigration fliers, is skeptical of government censorship and repression.

“Since my imprisonment in 1979, British government’s foreign policy, in collusion with that of the United States, has slaughtered, maimed, and made homeless millions of ethnic groups. Since the cell door slammed on me the UK government has been directly and indirectly responsible for conflicts that caused the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Are we really expected to believe that corrupt political elite, whose military boots crushed liberty in a score of countries in my lifetime, gives a fig about the sensitivities of an Asian shopkeeper or Jewish moneylender?”

On October 30, British dissident Jez Turner at 13.30 attends a pre-trial hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court. The charge relates to his spoken concerns about the influence wielded by a minority with a reputation for race hate incitement. It isn’t hate, it is debate.

On November 3, six young Britons, ex-servicemen and teenagers, are brought before the Old Bailey or Westminster magistrates’ court. Their alleged offence is that they belonged to National Action. This is a small organisation that mounted sporadic non-violent protests against the UK government’s immigration policy. National Action is not an illegal organisation it is a government suppressed entity; there is a difference.

The British state’s case is unconcerned with dissent; the British state encourages Asian, African and Muslim dissent. The state is concerned that Britain’s Whites wish the same rights of protest as those practiced by immigrants and refugees.

On November 20, dissident songwriter Alison Chabloz, who enjoys an international following for her satire, is summoned to a pre-trial hearing at Westminster magistrates’ court. The Joan of Arc heretic is accused of composing lyrics and singing songs of dissent.

If hate rather than debate was the issue then why aren’t the peddlers of anti-White rap, the broadcasters of ant-White racist profanities pursued for writing and ‘singing’ anti-White lyrics in the outpourings.

On February 22, 2018, Simon Sheppard, a lone dissident, is summoned before the bench. His alleged offence is that he was outspokenly critical of noisy neighbours. Had the hapless man’s noisy neighbours been White he would not be facing the magistrates. Sadly, for Simon and the concept of free speech those he complained about are non-White.

Hate or debate? Clearly, it is the governing elite, corrupt media, spineless police and state judiciary that stands accused of hate, race hates against their own kind.

On the dates above, it is not martyred heretics who face trial. In the magistrates’ dock crouches a debauched menacing state elite. The charges against this demonic Orwellian creature relate to base treachery and anti-White race hate.

“The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.”  ~ James Larkin Statue on O’Connell Street, Dublin, Ireland.

(Thank you for sharing what media censors).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

One comment

  • Good article – sadly each case of Article 10 failure has to be taken separately, and would be at the ECtHR. This means that each case ought to end up at the ECtHR, if funds can be raised.
    Or legal aid obtained – I think Arthur Redfearn of the BNP must have had legal aid (he won on Article 9 and 11). Lehideux was rich – he was the managing director of Renault, and married to a daughter of Francois Renault to boot, when he won on Article 10 IN THE END, despite the French government waving Article 17 around and winning all the way through the French courts. then coming to a grinding halt at Strasbourg.
    Joshua Rozenberg QC (the husband of Melanie Phillips) commented on his Facebook page that the CPS eventually agreed to prosecute Jez Turner because the Plaintiffs (the CAAS) told the Judge at the Judicial Review, that Jez’s Article 10 rights were negated by Article 17 of the ECHR 1950. So there was no reason for the CPS not to prosecute, according to the CAAS
    The Judge believed this, or appeared to – but I think perhaps Rozenberg does not. It is sort of a grey area – but not THAT grey.
    There is a “leading case” at the ECtHR (though ECtHR cases do not set precedents, they just provide guidance). It involved the French movement to restore the reputation of the Vichy collaborators, notably Petain. The case is Lehideux and Isorni v. France (case no. 55/1997/839/1045, application no. 24662/94, Publication 1998-VII, no. 92).
    Wiki says it “was a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights on punishing statements praising collaborators. In a judgement handed down 23 September 1998, the court has held by fifteen votes against six that the conviction of applicants for their article in favour of [Marshal] Philippe Pétain ….. wasn’t necessary in a democratic society and therefore violated Article 10 (freedom of expression).”
    This Judgment did give some support to the losers (the French government), because it said that had Lehideux done something like deny the Holocaust, that would have been a different matter This remark was put into European Law shortly afterwards, and the Council of Europe Explanatory Report of the protocol states “European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of “clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – […] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17” of the ECHR (see in this context the Lehideux and Isorni judgment of 23 September 1998)”.”
    The distinction is helpful – and would seem to reinstate Jez’s Article 10 rights in this case? – since he does not appear to have denied or revised established historical facts in his Shomrim adventure?
    I am not sure if Jez WANTS this to emerge at this stage. It would be much better if it went through the courts and got aired all over again, with hopefully the Supreme Court or the Strasbourg ECtHR reiterating that Article 10 is only dis-abled in certain circumstances (most of which are listed in para 2 of Article 10; plus, when none of these applies, resort may be had to Article 17 – but again, only in particular circumstances).
    This would help others in much the same boat – though I repeat, each case has its own facts and can only decided on those particular facts.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s