counterjihadwarrior.com - Because Islam will NEVER EVER be a Religion of Peace - rather a barbaric, totalitarian cult, based on fear, violence, intimidation & terror. - If YOU - as a Muslim - choose to subscribe to an anti-Semitic ideology that demands the death or subjugation of non-believers, just because WE believe in something different, then you shouldn't be surprised when we regard you with scorn and ridicule. It's nothing to do with bigotry or Islamophobia - simply a healthy contempt for Islam based on observable behaviour.

Featured

Here’s why Islam should no longer be considered as a religion under UK law.

Scrabbling for justice

Due to the enormous amount of positive feedback that this article has generated, I am leaving it as a “sticky” – that is, it will be the first article visible when you call up http://www.counterjihadwarrior.com from your browser. To view other recently published articles by the Counter Jihad Warrior team, including myself, please refer to the “Recent Posts” and “Archives” sections in the sidebar. If you would like to search for articles based on specific topics then please use the “Tags” section.

This article is partly based on the excellent research undertaken by Graham Senior-Milne concerning the legal status of Islam in the UK. It is of particular relevance to a March 2018 case of Religiously Aggravated Harassment in Folkestone Magistrates Court concerning Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First – and is also relevant to this March 2017 case in Southwark Crown Court where the author of this article was similarly charged.

It may well also be relevant to numerous other cases of Religiously Aggravated Harassment that have been prosecuted since the Racial and Religious Hatred Act came into force in 2006.

Having considered all the arguments from Graham Senior-Milne’s research, it becomes obvious that if only the legal system would take these arguments into account, and find in our favour (as it undoubtedly should) then in addition to quashing the above-mentioned cases of Religiously Aggravated Harassment, we would solve a great many of our problems with Islam overnight. Considering that Islam is shaping up to be the world’s most intractable problem of the 21st century, this would be a most worthwhile goal, and one arguably deserving of a great deal of attention.

The author of this article attempted to have the subject debated in court in 2017, but was informed that there was no way that any judge in the UK would entertain such an idea in the current political climate, which is a sad indictment of the craven and cowardly attitude of those in power who should – in an ideal world – uphold the law without fear or favour, compared to the current policies of appeasement in relation to the increasingly arrogant and aggressive followers of the most barbaric, backward, misogynistic and totalitarian ideology the world has ever seen.

The basic argument is as follows: Islam should not be considered a religion in UK law because it does not meet certain criteria laid down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which is currently the highest authority in our legal system.

In a case going back to 1982 it was stated that: in order to qualify for protection under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Freedom of thought,conscience and religion), religious and philosophical beliefs must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

If it is lawful to protect religious beliefs that meet these criteria, it must be unlawful to protect (via legal recognition) religious beliefs that do not meet these criteria, because such beliefs must either be not worthy of respect in a democratic society (Islam is unquestionably anti-democratic) and/or incompatible with human dignity (the dignity of women, for instance, who are mere chattels in Islam) and/or conflict with the fundamental rights of others (such as gays, including gay Muslims, who, under Sharia law, must be killed).

Following on from this, the logic would be that, in law, you cannot harass a person based on their religion if, in law, that person has no religion (what they believe is not recognized, in law, as a religion and therefore does not qualify for the legal protections that apply, in law, to religions recognized as such).

In other words, ‘religious harassment of a Muslim’ is, in UK law, a contradiction in terms; it is a legal impossibility.

While Islam has been treated as a religion in numerous cases over the years, this issue has never been argued before a court; courts have just assumed that Islam is a religion in law. In other words, there is no binding precedent on this issue.

This may sound surprising, but you can perhaps understand why courts would avoid this issue like the plague, even if it occurred to them that they might consider it in the first place. But courts do not hesitate to apply these criteria to other philosophical or religious beliefs – so why should Islam be exempt?

Consider the sheer idiocy of the proposition that a set of beliefs which are incompatible with the human rights of others (say, sacrificing babies on the first Tuesday of every month), which would not be protected under Article 9 ECHR as philosophical beliefs, would be protected simply because they are ‘religious beliefs’.

Would you protect Nazi beliefs if Nazis believed that Hitler was God? Of course not. Yet there is a direct parallel with Islam. Rampant antisemitism? Check. An inbuilt sense of supremacism? Check. A quest for worldwide domination by any means available, including fear, violence, intimidation and terror? Check again. It can easily be seen that Islam has much more in common with Nazism than it does with, say, Judaism or Christianity.

In another case from 2005, it was stated that “Article 9 embraces freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The atheist, the agnostic, and the sceptic are as much entitled to freedom to hold and manifest their beliefs as the theist. These beliefs are placed on an equal footing for the purpose of this guaranteed freedom. Thus, if its manifestation is to attract protection under Article 9 then a non-religious belief, as much as a religious belief, must satisfy the modest threshold requirements implicit in this Article.

With regard to the ‘modest threshold requirements’, these are stated at para. 23 (my emphasis): “Everyone, therefore, is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wishes. But when questions of ‘manifestation’ arise, as they usually do in this type of case, a belief must satisfy some modest, objective minimum requirements. These threshold requirements are implicit in Article 9 of the European Convention and comparable guarantees in other human rights instruments.”

“The belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity. Manifestation of a religious belief, for instance, which involved subjecting others to torture or inhuman punishment would not qualify for protection.”

“The belief must relate to matters more than merely trivial. It must possess an adequate degree of seriousness and importance. As has been said, it must be a belief on a fundamental problem. With religious belief this requisite is readily satisfied.”

“The belief must also be coherent in the sense of being intelligible and capable of being understood. But again, too much should not be demanded in this regard. Typically, religion involves belief in the supernatural. It is not always susceptible to lucid exposition or, still less, rational justification. The language used is often the language of allegory, symbol and metaphor.”

“Depending on the subject matter, individuals cannot always be expected to express themselves with cogency or precision. Nor are an individual’s beliefs fixed and static. The beliefs of every individual are prone to change over his or her lifetime. Overall, these threshold requirements should not be set at a level which would deprive minority beliefs of the protection they are intended to have under the Convention.”

The bottom line is: A person can believe what ever he likes but his beliefs must meet the threshold requirements to be recognized and afforded protection in law.

It is true that Islam is given as an example of a religion in the explanatory notes to s.44 Equality Act 2006, but explanatory notes are not definitive of the meaning of an Act. Also, the explanatory notes state:

‘Section 44 defines what is meant by “religion or belief” for the purposes of this Act. Section 44(a) defines “religion” as “any religion”, a broad definition in line with the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the ECHR.’

This makes it clear that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2006, a religion can only be recognized and treated as a religion if it meets the criteria for Article 9 ECHR (because Article 9 ECHR does not recognize or protect beliefs or religions that do not meet the criteria specified in Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom [1982] ECHR 1).

In any event, even if a statute did provide that Islam is a religion, that statute would itself be unlawful under Article 9 ECHR, given that the ECHR (and the case law of the ECtHR, which interprets the ECHR) overrides domestic law, whether it be statute or other.

Let’s see how many people out there would support a Judicial Review (the legal mechanism whereby a senior judge would be obliged to consider the proposition that Islam should no longer be considered a religion in law. It is admittedly an expensive process, however if a mere 3000 people (out of our population of 60 million) were to pledge just £10 each then we could take the first step on the road to free our country from the tyranny of Islam. Please register your interest by leaving a message of support at the following email address: editor@counterjihadwarrior.com. You don’t have to pledge any money as such at this stage – I am just trying to gauge the level of interest, and if we manage to get enough people expressing support then we could set up a proper fund-raising campaign.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do everything we can to help provide them with a better world, free from the threat of Islam, Sharia law, and all the other manifestations of this barbaric, misogynistic 7th-century totalitarian ideology. Please help us to meet this goal if you possibly can.

Tim Burton (with acknowledgements to Graham Senior-Milne)

More Taqiyya from Faith Matters under a new name – Muslims Against Anti-Semitism

Well, well. Not content with painting Muslims as perpetual victims through the medium of Tell Mama UK, the “umbrella” organisation of Faith Matters (through the direction of Fiyaz “Fizzy Bollocks” Mughal, the Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist-In-Chief) has created a new group – obviously with the intention to dispel the notion that Islam has something to do with the rampant anti-Semitism coming from the Muslim community in Western countries in general, and in the UK in particular.

Because as everyone knows, or should know, according to Fiyaz Mughal – that Islam has nothing – nothing whatsoever – to do with anti-Semitism or indeed any of the numerous manifest evils currently being inflicted on non-Muslims by Muslims acting in the name of Allah, and if you should dare to think otherwise, well, then you are nothing but a greasy Islamophobe, not to mention “far-right”, “bigoted” and “racist.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting.

This new group is called Muslims against Anti-Semitism (MAAS) and they have taken out extensive media advertising in the UK in order to pull the wool over the eyes of non-Muslims concerning the verses in the Koran that disparage Jews and command Muslims to hate those of the Jewish faith.

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

This is quite apart from the fact that hating ALL non-Muslims (Jews or otherwise) is commanded in Islamic scripture through the doctrine of Al-Walaa wal-Baraa.

‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ – (Allegiance and Disassociation) is an Islamic doctrine that is very similar to apartheid.
‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is an ‘essential doctrine’ (usul ud-deen). ‘Essential’ means that all Muslims must believe and practice al Walaa wal Baraa as a condition of being admitted to paradise.
‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is a highly developed, well-supported and canonical part of Islam approved by the consensus of Islamic jurists.
‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is legally binding and obligatory upon all Muslims.
‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is precisely defined by Islamic jurists and is not a nebulous idea
‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is an official Islamic doctrine and considered the second most important doctrine in Islam.

Muslims against Anti-Semitism? I don’t think so, Fiyaz. Enough of the Taqiyya already. If you are a devout Muslim then you MUST by necessity hate for the sake of Allah, that is, to hate everyone non-Muslim and / or everything non-Islamic (this is the doctrine of al-Walaa wal-Baraa.) The logical corollary to this is that you CANNOT be considered to be a true Muslim if you do not hate everyone and everything that is non-Muslim and / or non-Islamic.

Any Muslim who wishes to live side-by-side with non-Muslims as equals, in perpetuity (that is to say, not just until the Muslims are strong enough in number to wage jihad against the non-Muslims) should follow the path of intellectual honesty and renounce Islam in its entirety. It is a barbaric, totalitarian ideology with absolutely zero benefit to Western civilisation.

Some Muslims do just that, and apostasise from Islam, at great risk to themselves, it has to be said. The penalty for apostasy under Islam is death, which is why we don’t see more Muslims apostasise, at least in public.

But don’t try and kid us that Islam has nothing to do with the virulent anti-Semitism that has arisen wherever Muslims have become more than a tiny percentage of the population. It has everything to do with it.

Tim Burton

Please support my fight for justice on appeal – and against the corruption endemic in the British Establishment and the British legal system.

Tim Burton Legal Defence Fund

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

May this go down as a pivotal point in the proud history of our beloved country – The Day For Freedom March – London 06 May 2018

Milo Yiannopoulos

On Sunday 06 May 2018 I was privileged to be part of the Day For Freedom march and demonstration in Whitehall (London) outside the entrance to Downing Street. Many thousands of people marched from Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park to the main event in Downing Street, in support of our rapidly dwindling rights to Freedom of Speech in this country.

From my vantage point just outside the gates of Downing Street I had a perfect view of not only the main stage where the speeches were given, I could assess with about 80% accuracy (according to scientific studies on the matter) the strength of support for our Freedom of Speech. It was surprisingly large, and many of the speakers at the event commented on it.

Crowd counting (estimating the number of people in a crowd) is an inexact science, depending on whether people are packed tightly together (as in a mosh pit) or more loosely packed (elbow to elbow, as in a demonstration or rally of this type) however one can come up with an estimate of numbers which is accurate to around 80% – that is, within a 20% margin of error.

People from all walks of life, and a wide variety of races and ethnicities were represented at the event, together with groups such as the Football Lads Alliance, MBGA (Make Britain Great Again), the DFLA, Anne-Marie Waters’ For Britain, and Veterans Against Terrorism. But for the most part, these were just ordinary people who were fed up with the progressive loss of our freedoms over the past few decades, and who wished to stand up with the rest of us and say “No More!”

Mainstream media reports of the event were few and far between, with only the London Evening Standard, the Metro and the Guardian deigning the event worthy of interest. (I am discounting reports that appeared in the so-called “men’s magazine” GQ, various Russian TV outlets, and Horse and Hound ) which reported that there were two horses on duty outside Horse Guard’s Parade just up the road (and very well turned out they were too.)

Now, working on an estimate of 4.5 square feet per person, loosely packed elbow to elbow, and taking into account that an area of approximately 150 feet wide by 800 feet that I could see from my vantage position (120,000 square feet, the area of Whitehall in front of the stage that I estimate was packed with people for the duration of the event, it might have been more) then there would have been around 25,000 / 30,000 people present. (Some people have estimated that it could have been significantly more than that, but as I have said, crowd counting is not an exact science. It certainly wasn’t any less, irrespective of what the London Evening Standard, the Metro and The Guardian might have had to say about it.)

All this when the London football teams Arsenal and Chelsea were playing at home to Liverpool and Burnley, and other football matches were taking place up and down the country – otherwise I am sure that a large percentage of the football-supporting population of the country would have turned out and the numbers would have been at least twice as many as they were in the event.

Most of the mainstream media deliberately under-reported the size of the crowd, no doubt due to discourage other law-abiding people from thinking that this was an event of any significance.

The event was very professionally handled – the unwashed lefties of Hope Not Soap and so-called “anti-fascists” (by which I mean “Antifa” supporters, who ironically are the very epitome of fascism and intolerance) were kept at a safe distance by the police, and a high quality of audio was delivered by the PA sound system organised by Tommy Robinson (although this didn’t necessarily translate into high quality audio everywhere on the Internet.)

Liam Tuffs and VAT – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCp07qxVinQ

Milo Yiannopoulos – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B0X0ScrqXM

Sargon of Akkad – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY2N-FU7e2U

Count Dankula – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-v8sN5cS0s

Lauren Southern – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFiMRdZEVLk

Tommy Robinson – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_tEppOqwF4

Anne-Marie Waters – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSaSRpriK-4

Full Event – 2:10:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NjdRSwrgQ4

There may well be other high quality audio recordings out there – I leave it to the ingenuity of my readers to search them out. It will be time well spent, as every single speaker had something moving, positive and passionate to deliver at the event. (If you can find them, please forward any good quality audio / video transcripts to me at tim@counterjihadwarrior.com so that I can disseminate and publish them on my website.)

I recommend that you listen to the speeches in their entirety – they were all delivered with a passion and an intensity that I have never encountered during all my years of attending counter-jihad / freedom of speech events.

My thoughts at the end of the day were – Maybe this IS a pivotal moment. Maybe we really DO have the ability – through large and ever-increasing numbers of patriots prepared to turn out en masse and to put their heads above the parapet – to deliver change. As much as I and many others would prefer peaceful change at the ballot box, it is becoming increasingly likely that this problem is NOT going to be solved by votes at the ballot box in the time we have available, and it is never going to go away of its own accord. Muslim demographics are increasing and will continue to increase – with all of the the accompanying problems that wreak havoc in our societies – unless firm and draconian measures are taken to deal with it – RIGHT NOW.

I particularly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech (Milo was banned from giving a presentation at his old school in England in 2016.) Other speakers included Anne-Marie Waters, Gavin McInnes, Gerard Batten (the leader of UKIP) Sargon of Akkad, Marcus Meechan (Count Dankula) and of course Tommy Robinson, who was on the verge of tears as he described the racist murder of three young men (Josh Kennedy, George Wilkinson and Harry Rice) covered up by the police, the Government and the mainstream media.

Why the cover-up? Because the police, the Government and the mainstream media did not want the fact that they were murdered by a Muslim – who brutally and callously mowed them down with his car because of who they were (non-Muslims) and not because of anything they might have done – the “powers that be” did not want this fact to become public knowledge.

Why protest for Freedom of Speech, you may ask? This event was absolutely necessary, given the clear and present dangers that we face as a result of the increasing Islamisation of our country. This event was necessary, not just simply because a number of prominent and vociferous “right-wing” conservative personalities had their Twitter and Facebook accounts suspended, but because Freedom of Speech is under attack everywhere in the West as Islam insinuates its tentacles into every aspect of our society.

This is not just “radical” or “fundamentalist” or “extremist” Islam – this is mainstream Islam, red in tooth and claw, and together with the twin evils of political correctness and multiculturalism, if they are left to their own devices they will endeavour use our tolerant, open democracy to criminalise any criticism of Islam, thereby removing our ability to effectively fight against Jihad and those who would impose barbaric Sharia laws upon us.

The supporters of this event were predictably labelled “racist”, “far-right” and “Islamophobic” by the mainstream media – terms which have no meaning when they are analysed critically and dispassionately – 1) Islam is not a race, 2) everything looks “far-right” when you are on the far-left, and 3) to quote Bare Naked Islam – there is no such thing as Islamophobia – it isn’t a phobia when they (radical Muslims) REALLY ARE trying to kill you.

For those of you out there who say – Islam is a Religion of Peace and that any criticism of such a Peaceful Religion is beyond the pale – I say wake up and smell the coffee.

Tim Burton

Please support my fight for justice on appeal – and against the corruption endemic in the British Establishment and the British legal system.

Tim Burton Legal Defence Fund

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

Paul Weston – How to Destroy a Country

Paul Weston

I am reproducing this video from July 2015 because I wish to invite my readers to compare the video and the accompanying transcript with the events that have transpired in the intervening three years.

Many of the predictions that Paul Weston has made have come true – and some of the predictions have been surpassed by the draconian censorship of social media which has resulted in the “shadow-banning” of accounts on Twitter and Facebook, and the charging, prosecution, conviction and jailing of patriots under unjust “hate-crime” laws which are frequently invoked to persecute those who merely wish to speak the truth.

Here is the transcript from this video:

Paul Weston: How to Destroy a Country — TRANSCRIPT

We are in a war – a war against Islam and the forces arrayed against us on the left of the political spectrum. The most important thing in fighting any war is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY. Paul Weston’s video provides a blueprint in helping us to fight that enemy.

As Sun Tzu says in “The Art of War” –

If you know the enemy and
know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred
battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If
you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb
in every battle.

Tim Burton

Anne-Marie Waters’ For Britain party campaigns in Sandwell local elections

Anne-Marie Waters

Normally I wouldn’t comment on local authority elections, but on Sunday 29 April I was privileged to attend a For Britain meeting in Sandwell, West Midlands. For Britain is a new political party in the UK led by Anne-Marie Waters, and is poised to deliver a powerful challenge to the established two-party system that has dominated politics in the UK for over half a century.

Anne-Marie was introduced to an audience of around 100 local people by Darryl Magher, one of three potential councillors for Sandwell, and wasted no time in projecting her vision for her new party, and why it was so important that a viable alternative to the existing political order should be introduced at this time.

As Anne-Marie explained, mainstream Labour and Conservative politicians at both the national and local level have become increasingly remote from – and dismissive of – their electorates. For these politicians, eye-watering six-figure salaries (four or five times the national average) together with gold-plated pensions are increasingly common, and at the same time, their accountability has decreased to the point where there is very little incentive for them to try to solve the many problems that affect the day-to-day life of people in their constituencies.

Anne-Marie gave numerous specific examples of the corrupt behaviour and incompetence of Labour and Conservative politicians over the last twenty or thirty years, and pointed out that if it had been their own children who were affected by their lack of action, their incompetence and their complacency, then their behaviour might have been very different. As things stand, there have been no serious consequences for those politicians, and in many cases the worst that has happened is that those politicians have been quietly moved to other jobs, with their salaries and pensions untouched, so that the appearance can be given that the problems that they have caused have been addressed. Of course, from then on things are back to “business as usual.”

Anne-Marie’s party – For Britain – is targeting those voters who have become more and more disillusioned with the current two-party system, and perhaps more importantly, targeting the most disillusioned one-third of the electorate who have given up voting altogether, largely for the reasons given above.

Although it is admittedly unlikely that one-third of the electorate are suddenly going to vote For Britain at the next election, there are obvious “push” factors that will increasingly work in favour of For Britain.

As more and more decent, working-class and middle class Britons find themselves increasingly disenfranchised due to the inevitable (and manifestly deleterious) consequences of diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness, they will naturally be drawn to a party that offers a viable alternative without running the risk of being unjustly smeared as “racist”, “bigoted” and / or “Islamophobic.”

For Britain (Logo)

To make this point, an ex-Muslim speaker was introduced – Mo Fyaz – who vividly described his journey towards enlightenment, having grown up in an oppressive Islamic environment. He described having to memorise large parts of the Koran, in Arabic, without even the slightest understanding of what the verses meant, other than that their recitation apparently pleased Allah. When in his early teenage years, he started to question Islam and the Koran, and was horrified by what he found concerning the hatred that Islam teaches towards the rest of humanity. Although he was discouraged by his parents, his friends and siblings, and of course his Islamic teachers, he embarked upon a journey of investigation and discovery which culminated in his leaving Islam forever.

He gave numerous examples of how dangerous it was to leave the ideology of Islam, as even in our country, the UK, apostates were shunned by the rest of the Islamic community and not only faced ostracism but in some cases a very real risk of physical injury and death at the hands of members of their former co-religionists.

Although, perhaps like many of us in such a situation, he appeared a little nervous while speaking in public, he described his enthusiasm at having found a political environment within For Britain that presented realistic solutions to some of the problems he had experienced. Consequently, he did a great job of reassuring the Sandwell audience (of many different races and ethnicities) that they had nothing to fear, nothing to lose and everything to gain from supporting the sensible leadership and well-thought-out policies of For Britain.

As with any other political party just starting out, potential voters need to have the policies of that party clearly explained to them, and For Britain is no exception. On their website, it is emphasised that For Britain stands for the Common Sense Majority, and their priorities are – 1) an efficient, meaningful exit from the EU following the Brexit vote, 2) restoration of the Rule of Law to ensure that there is one law for all, 3) an end to political indoctrination of our children within the educational system, 4) a dramatic reduction of immigration to restore stability in our communities, 5) bringing stability to the public sector including the police and armed forces, 6) the ending of the Islamisation of the UK and the abolition of sharia councils, 7) the protection of British culture in the public space, 8) Freedom of Speech and 9) putting the interests of British people first, rather than interests of immigrants and so-called “refugees” who in many if not most cases are simply economic migrants.

Anne Marie took some questions from the audience in a spirited Q&A discussion, and made the point that political events are rapidly moving in a direction where more and more decent people become disenfranchised and thereby find themselves having nothing left to lose. It stands to reason that a political party like For Britain with integrity, good leadership and a well-thought-out set of policies is perfectly positioned to pick up millions of votes and give the Establishment a well-deserved kick in the Fizzys whilst at the same time restoring a sensible and stable political environment.

For that reason, and for all the other reasons listed above, even though this was the first For Britain political meeting I have attended, I would advise all my readers to seriously consider becoming members of For Britain, to vote for them wherever possible, and to donate whatever you can to the cause of restoring much-needed sanity to the political arena in our beloved country.

The For Britain website can be found here.

Tim Burton

The Turks are irked: Non-existent “Islamophobia” is apparently on the rise in Europe

An Irked Turk

All the Turkey-based Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) had to do was to consult the ICLA report on so-called “Islamophobia” of 2013, and they would have seen the error of their ways.

From Christine Douglass-Williams in Jihad Watch:

The Turkey-based Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) “has released its annual report on Islamophobia, covering more than 30 countries and giving several statistics and findings, the most important of which concerns Islamophobia.” SETA is known to be a supporter of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP Party. It also has offices in Washington, D.C. It asserts that “Islamophobia” is “undeniable” across Europe, that hatred of Islam and Muslims are on the rise, and that Muslims are the most attacked minority, etc.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong, as is bigotry against people of any race or adherents of any creed. However, there is an insidious agenda at play in SETA’s report. It makes Europeans out to be phobic and hateful against Muslims for no apparent reason other than their creed. It diverts attention from the crimes that are being committed against innocent people in Europe by Muslims acting in the name of Islam. The word “Islamophobia” serves to beat down critics of Islam by smearing them as “racist.” It aims to set Islam above every other religion or ideology by shutting down criticism of it, in accordance with Sharia.

The best way to combat negative views about Islam is for Muslims to stand united and in large numbers against the crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. A good opportunity to do this recently presented itself in France, when a group of 300 French politicians and artists demanded that prominent Muslim leaders denounce Islamic anti-Semitism and declare anti-Christian and anti-Jewish verses in the Quran outdated. This initiative stemmed from the increasingly violent anti-Semitism from Muslims in France, which prompted the President of the Confederation of Jews in France to declare that in a few decades, there will be no Jews left in France.

Not surprisingly, Muslim leaders did not take the opportunity. They instead responded with outrage, claiming that they felt targeted. They refused to sign the document.

If Muslims wish to live in peace in Europe without jihad or Sharia, they will give up employing the “Islamophobia” tactic and embrace the battle against all bigotry, beginning with the bigotry and intolerance that are justified by their own religion. It is not just a small minority that is violent in the name of Islam, as Islamic supremacists routinely insist: Israel’s very existence is under threat, Christians are being wiped out in the Middle East, Europe is falling increasingly into chaos, and in Sharia states, state-sanctioned violence against gays and apostates still exists. Other abuses, such as FGM, forced marriage, wife-beating and a legally inferior status of women are also sanctioned in Islamic law. All this does do not make for a “small minority.” Such Muslims do not want to change in order to live in peace with non-Muslims in Europe. They want the world to change to suit them.

Even Angela Merkel has admitted that anti-Semitism is coming to the country from “refugees or people of Arab origin.” But Muslim lobbies continue to be silent about the astronomical tally of victims of jihad and Sharia worldwide, and continue to call attention to supposed “Islamophobia,” a term that has been pushed heavily by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in an effort to advance Sharia blasphemy laws. The “Islamophobia” subterfuge creates a win-win situation for these lobbies. This is how the formula works:

As Muslims increase in numbers in Europe and Islamization advances, the higher the number of victims of jihad and Sharia rises. The greater the tally of victims, the angrier some non-Muslims become, and rightly so. Unfortunately, among these, there do exist genuine bigots, who must be opposed.) The more that Europeans express their anger about the advance of the jihadist culture in Europe, and about all the loss of life and ruined lives, the louder these Muslim lobbies shout about “Islamophobia.” It’s a symbiotic equation rooted in the goal of subjugating the House of War.

“Islamophobia is an undeniable social fact in Europe, report says”, by Yusuf Selman İnanç, Daily Sabah, April 8, 2018:

SETA has released its annual report on Islamophobia, covering more than 30 countries and giving several statistics and findings, the most important of which concerns Islamophobia

A recently released report from the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) on Islamophobia says that the Islamophobia is an undeniable fact in Europe. While European intellectual circles still discuss the question of whether Islamophobia exists or not and what it covers, the report says that the hatred of Islam and its followers is on the rise as explained through numbers and statistics in more than 30 countries. Compiled by Enes Bayraklı and Farid Hafez, the 729-page report, which can be found in full on SETA’s website, includes the European Islamophobia Report’s (EIR) country-based findings on Islamophobic crimes. The report, which considers the rise of far-right parties as a “vital threat to democracy,” says that the Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe as a result of right-wing politicians and parties coming in from the periphery. “Firstly, the far-right political camp has moved from the periphery to the center and become integral to the political landscape in Europe.

While most far-right parties are still in opposition, some have gained major influence by becoming governing parties such as in the cases of Austria, Bulgaria, and Finland. While others may still be in opposition, their Islamophobic discourse, which is so central to most of them, has become mainstream since their issues have been co-opted by former centrist political parties,” the report says. Even though far-right extremist parties are in the opposition, their anti-Muslim rhetoric has a considerable impact on shaping society, according to the report. It also says that far-right politicians from different countries are cooperating. “We also observe a stronger cooperation of various Islamophobic parties in Europe. For instance, the Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy Party (SPD) organized a meeting of representatives of its partners from the European Parliament in December 2017 in Prague. Politicians such as Geert Wilders (Dutch Freedom Party) and Marine Le Pen (Front National) were among some of the participants,” the report said.

Despite that similar reports are published by some agencies and survey companies, they are not as large as SETA’s and do not present the larger picture. Benefiting from other reports as well, the EIR employed more than 40 scholars and civil society activists from different backgrounds in several countries, including almost all EU countries. During the preparation for the EIR, the authors collaborated with other institutions and their representatives.

The EIR has some key findings that are quite remarkable and frightening for the future of Muslims in Europe, as a high number of individuals have been subjected to discrimination or hate speech. “As the report based on a survey of 10,527 people who identified themselves as Muslims published by the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) reveals 76% of Muslim respondents feel strongly attached to the country they live in, while 31% of those seeking work have been discriminated against in the last five years,” it says. The report also recorded that the number of reported cases is low. According to the report, the real number of attacks may be eight times higher than recorded, as Muslims are reluctant to go to the police due to several reasons, including that victims may not have knowledge of legal procedures in the country they live in, victims’ possible social isolation or proximity to the perpetrator, victims’ lack of trust in the authorities or victims fear of being victimized again by police officers. The report also says Islamophobia is not taken seriously and is not considered a hate crime in European societies. “The denial of the very existence of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim racism/anti-Muslim hate crime in Europe by many demonstrates the need for an appropriate effort and political will to tackle this normalized racism and its manifestations that are deeply entrenched in European societies, institutions, and states,” the report says. The report adds that European intellectuals consider that Islamophobia is a term created by Muslims to block any discussion on Islam. “In countries like Austria and Norway, leading journalists of editorial boards shift the focus from Islamophobia as a problem to Islamophobia as a ‘combat term,’ arguing that the term itself is used by Islamists to delegitimize any debate on Islam and Muslims. Hence, there is a reluctance to use the term ‘Islamophobia’ in the public sphere.”

Muslims in most of EU countries are the most discriminated and attacked minority…..

As the article above states, the best way to combat negative views about Islam is for Muslims to stand united and in large numbers against the crimes committed by other Muslims in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, as Israeli diplomat Abba Eban observed about Arabs, Muslim leaders never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and as non-Muslims grow increasingly angry with every outrage committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, the calls by those very same Muslim leaders for criminalisation of so-called “Islamophobia” grow ever louder and more frequent.

Until such time as a majority of Muslims engage in a sufficient level of self-reflection and accept that there are valid reasons for hostility towards the oppressive, barbaric, totalitarian ideology of Islam that masquerades as a religion behind a cloak of mendacity and deceit towards non-Muslims – and take action accordingly – they should not be surprised when they are treated by the rest of us with mockery, scorn, ridicule, suspicion and contempt.

Tim Burton

In defence of the freedom-loving patriot and activist John Banks, facing persecution at the hands of the State

John Banks

The trial of John Banks, freedom-lover, patriot and activist, is due to take place on 04 July 2018 at Doncaster. It concerns an ASBO – an anti-social behaviour order – for blasphemy. John has asked for his legal advice to be shared as widely as possible so that people can understand the corrupt way in which our laws are being used against us.

John has also produced a YouTube video concerning the matter.

The legal advice below is rather a long document but it does give an insight into the legal complexities surrounding even such minor enforcement procedures such as an ASBO. If you are able to attend the trial in person on 04 July then please turn up to support John and to support freedom. I will certainly be there myself.

This is my legal advice for you at this time.

Apologies for the messiness of this. I felt I just needed to send it to you as is so it helps you describe your situation to others.

I cover answering your questions about what you are permitted to do and I describe what possible outcomes I envisage from your own personal perspective as well as from our collective perspective.

If the police construe the ASBO as a gagging order then I suggest we contest that interpretation.
Of course they don’t want you talking to voters about what a sham your ASBO is..
It makes them look very corrupt.
They could mitigate the problem by flouting fewer laws instead of demanding you cover for them.

Where I use the term “they” I am normally referring to the judges and prosecuters collectively.
From what I have witnessed at your interim kangaroo hearing the judge appeared to be the judge, prosecuter and principle plaintiff too.
You have caused that judge no end of dismay and alarm by being criticial of Islam and being critical of the police and courts.

Only by imposing a death sentence on you can they adequately balance out the visible trauma that that unfortunate old lunatic imagines he has suffered at your hands.

Our overall strategy for defence can be summed up in one word….
Attack!
That’s usually the best strategy when dealing with cowards.

The prognosis initially looked grim.
It seemed certain this ASBO was merely a formality and then you would get sent down for some ridiculous reason which we all know to be perfectly legal even by their own elastic and inconsistently applied laws.

Now I have had time to look at more of the paperwork and evidence, I can see a pattern of clumsiness in the preparation of the evidence and even in the conduct of the Judge at the interim hearing that invites legal challenges.

It is critical we pay as much attention to how we fight this case in the court of public opinion and otherwise outside of the jurisdiction of the court.
We are little more than spectaters in the court whereas we have a lot more power outside the court.
I may not be allowed to point out all the perjury and mis use of legal powers in the court itself and we may instead have to simply hand them written evidence on the day where the judge will most likely pretend not to read it.

If he stops and reads anything then that might be a bad sign.
I expect the judge to be hand picked for your destruction.
It would not surprise me at all if the judge on the day is a muslim himself.

We still have room for maneuvre even in that situation with plenty left to play for (even during the hearing).

With each and every point of contention we must avoid making the same mistake as them and only considering one outcome.
We must have considered every single possible turn of events and be sure we know how to capitalise on it and punish them in some way.

For this reason my prepared scripts are numerous and it is not clear which ones I will need to use until we see which way they jump.

We can reduce the likelihood of you being prosecuted further even without a discharge or variation being ordered by the court.
Even if the ASBO is not discharged. Even if no variation is ordered on the prohibitions.
If the court can be forced to give straightforward answers of “yes” or “no” when asked whether particualr activities are prohibited by the ASBO then we can gain a guarantee of certain rights for you that though you have them in law already, you demonstrably don’t have them in practice.

We can tip their hand by reminding them of relavant legislation which they have been previously flouting. Forcing them to concede that you have certain rights in law.

So you can leave the court freer than you entered it while appearing (superficially) to lose your appeal against this ASBO.

Strategic gains we can expect from fighting the case
From a strategic perspective we can reduce the capacity of the CPS to bring such cases by forcing them to take more care in the preparation of cases.
This would reduce the number of cases they can prepare with the same resources.

We can also reduce their capacity to prosecute by forcing the court to hear the defence instead of ruling everything as inadmissable.

If cases take ten times as much court time when skillfully contested then that means there will be only a tenth of the number of cases going forward unless they throw more resources at this.

The fewer the cases we have to fight the more of our resources we can devote to each case.
The more punishing each case can become for them.

Strategic gains from our other activities.

We probably won’t manage to get the ASBO discharged or even get a variation ordered on it but they might get such a surprise from the pounding we give them in terms of criticism and protests that they back away and give up on you.

This should not be seen a massive source of hope for you. But certainly they are more wary of bothering people who have a support group that they know full well is going to use their actions as a stick to beat them with.

If not that then at least you are drawing their fire and squandering their resources while a lot more of us are politically rushing them from other directions at the same time.

I am saying this in the hope of reminding you that however much of an unfair beatdown this injustice might seem like – they are still not having it all their own way and your sacrifice is a necessary and helpful part of the struggle.

If we lose the case badly then as a consolation prize I offer you my attempt at flipping one or two Labour seats. We will pick one or two narrow Labour majorities where we have supporters and then leaflet poor areas informing voters about what the court has done and asking them to stop voting Labour or Conservative. We move them to UKIP or For Britain or Britain First.
Whoever is standing against the establishment parties in that area.

We haven’t studied the numbers yet so there is no concrete plan.
We can use what happened to you to generally change opinions but also to target two constituencies in particular and try to flip those seats in the commons. We leaflet using legal protection afforded to political parties informing voters that the court flouted the law in your case and that the police perjured themselves repeatedly while the judge knowingly ignored it.

We will beg people to stop voting Labour and start voting UKIP or For Britain.
We will target poor estates and synchronise different leafleting to make it hard for the other side to react effectively..

They are alreeady so busy with us that they have decided to not bother investigating stuff like burglary, assault and rape so I would say they are already stretched.

Advice for conduct while the ASBO is in place

Encouraging or disseminating politically contraversial material of any type to myself and others

As I have already stated, you are protected in law when it comes to any activity where it is related to the reporting of legal cases.
RRHA2006 excludes it being used in section 29K.

It is possible that they will try to arrest you for it anyway.
You should first present the arresting officer with a printed copy of that paragraph from the act.
He will probably ignore it so then you just phone me from the police station.

I don’t know the procedure yet but just political activism using their illegality as propaganda might well get you released.

My gut feeling is they will not arrest you for flouting your ASBO until after the full hearing so that they can say you have had ample opportunity to contest the ASBO in court.

Otherwise, how come you aren’t already in prison?
Every word I hear you say is a breach of that ASBO in their feverish imaginations.

Flying your flag
I have no doubt that the intention when drafting this ASBO was that you merely possessing an England flag or Union Jack would be enough to arrest you.

But when pressed on this point they have refused to confirm or deny this.
The judge is compelled to instruct the prosecuter to answer our questions until you the defendent understand the conditions.

By failing to do that the judge has given you legal grounds to contest them arresting you over the flag.

In addition I think they will realise at some point soon that if they do that we will use that as propaganda to slap them around the heads with so they’ll retreat on this in my estimation.

We have ticked all the boxes covering you for flying a flag.
I have even asked a senior member of the Conservative party about that prohibition and he insists it would not apply to England flags or Union Jacks but that is just his assumption.

They have been given every opportunity to clarify this matter and have refused..

I’m not sure how to handle them arresting you for this.

I initially considered the idea of a phone blitz as a contingency plan for this situation.
That would comprise a series of expressions of disappointment from various members of the public.
If everyone who was unhappy with them rang them to say so they’d be extremely busy people.
I dismissed the idea because the police is an important service that everybody needs.
Not that they actually do any real police work even with their phones working but let’s not give them extra excuses for being so useless.

They would have tried to use MTA2003 to prosecute us for that and for once we might actually be guilty so there’s another reason not to do that.

Our main battlefield for fighting this issue is on social media and on the door step.

My advice: Keep flying your flag.
They have ignore it thus far.
They refuse to be drawn on the matter.
Nobody is going to vote for politicians who preside over us being arrested for flying England flags.

I can remember two instances where this issue has been something that has worked in our favour in the past. Videos of people being arrested for holding England flags get a lot of shares and cause much outrage among the citizenry.
If these dumbasses want to try for third time lucky then we should invite them to bring it on.

If you must get arrested then please let it be for this.

Other
It would be a good idea for us to think about what other activities need to be considered.
I feel a lot of your books might be seized by them and used as evidence of you breaching your ASBO.

Even best selling books by perfectly respectable people could get you imprisoned.
My advice: Don’t give up your books.
If you owning those books is causing alarm to someone or making them feel harrassed or if the court feels it is an activity that wouold lead to you doing something that would cause alarm, distress , blah blah then you can be locked up in their minds.

If they arrest you for that it is ammunition against them.

There are other things too.

Prediction of outcome

Composition of the trial
This is merely my best guess at what is going to happen with no experience in this area of law.

The trial is scheduled for a full day which means our start time is going to be early in the morning.
The judge and the prosecuter are only really planning on spending about one and a half hours on this and imagine they are going to have an early dart while getting paid for a full day.

They get most of a day off at the cost of you getting a fair hearing.

There’s a very good chance things aren’t going to turn out the way they are expecting and I think we will finish sometime mid afternoon but it can be very short or very long depending on how they react.
It could be over in 15 minutes (for good or bad reasons).

We can’t present a long monologue.
If we did that they would simply cut me short and your defence would never be heard.

Our case is a great number of small components that will be slid into opportunities created by the prosecution and we will rely entirely on their own evidence to argue the injustice of this.
We aim to prove their numerous perjuries.
We aim to point out the cynical ambiguity of the prohibitions and the consistent refusal to clarify them.

We aim to reduce their estimation of the gains they can expect to achieve.
This might help our chances of the judge discharging it.

Without wishing to denegrate your contribution to the movement we can find another speaker in 5 seconds flat so even they must realise that the cost of imprisoning you has zero direct impact on us as a movement.
We are only reacting so vigorously because we are angry about the injustice and we don’t want to wait until it is our turn.

This is principally seen by them as being useful in frightening the rest of us off.
I need to convince them that it is not having any such effect on us.
That there is a long queue of us behind you who are also happy to take a turn in prison.

What to do if arrested during this time.
Remain calm.
Show relavant law and legal guidance pertaining to why they shouldn’t be arresting you.
Try to prepare your freinds and family so they stay put and witness everything and don’t start agreeing with the police in an effort to curry favour and seem reasonable.
Anyone who is unreliable should walk away when trouble starts.
They will bury you even deeper in trouble if they start accidentally motivating the police with confidence building such as that.
Some help is worse than no help whatsoever.
The police should be reminded of how new and unusual their actions and views are.
Nobody must be reassuring them by pretending like this is the most normal thing in the world.
Like as if it seems totally reasonable to arrest you for possession of a flag or for encouraging or permitting someone else to possess a flag.

It is not normal.
It is not OK.

How I need you to act in court
I need you to look perfectly calm and at ease the whole time.
There is a chance that it is going to be discharged.
Even if that doesn’t happen it might not ever be enforced.

If you compare the mild punishment you face in short term imprisonment to the sort of fate they could face in a few years then you are a lot safer being the defendant than the prosecutor or judge.
I would not want to swap places with them if I was you given the way the political tide is moving.
At least one third of the population want these people publicly executed for what they are doing.
If that percentage keeps rising the way it has been doing then the dam is certainly going to burst at some point in the next few years.
The polling numbers (even looking at the latest stats issued by Hope not Hate) prove this rising tide of anger is certanly a reality.
Hope not Hate claim we are 40% of the population now (based on a survey conducted by YouGov). I would say 35%.
Another survey late last year had us at 47%.

Everyone agrees we were a tiny minority a few short years ago.
Everyone agrees we are still on the rise even now with the police and courts pulling out all the stops. The few of us who are immune to career sabotage or some other penalty are still enough to form huge crowds in the many protests that the media are now hiding from the public.

Another year like the last year and they are going to start realising what is coming their way.
Perhaps that thought will help put this into a better perspective for you.
There is no point in making threats towards them at this point.
We first need reality to dawn on them.
Prematurely threatening them with specific criminal charges will result in laughter from them at this point in time.

Imagine you are sat on a train watching the scenery go by.
Maintain that attitude the whole time no matter what anyone says.

If we get this discharged then part of the reason will be that it doesn’t appear to be having the intended effect. They would insist on this staying in place no matter how well we argued against it if they felt it would deliver a strategic advantage to them.

I will be leaving it until late on before pointing out that we have a long line of volunteers behind you all happy to take a turn in prison.
This claim will seem more plausible if you and I both seem perfectly laid back about the whole thing. Even where he threatens me with contempt of court.
We show no big reaction to it..

This will move the judge’s assessed value of this a bit.

Taking a couple of Labour constituencies via leafleting
I have come up with a way of leafleting the public that is protected by law so they just can’t do a thing about it and I’ll give them a copy of what we will be handing out rather than saying stuff about the judge behind his back.
We need to be able to give accurate projections of distribution sizes as well as current polling figures for the political constitutes
We don’t simply pick your home area.
Instead we pick places where the Labour majority is a bit thin and thus we have a realistic chance of flipping a seat.

I need to be polite but still make a clear threat.
“If you do this, we do that”.
We need to produce and distribute enough leaflets for us to reach and convert enough Labour voters and none voters.
This means our richest pickings are poor council estates.
Choosing our demographic with care reduces how many leaflets we need to do.

Your schedule of behaviour.
There are a great number of things mentioned in your schedule of behaviour which are perfectly legal activities where the police have no business being interest.

On top of that they can be proven to be lying time and time again in a futile attempt at making your behaviour sound illegal.

Your schedule is so thickly laiden with perjury that I think I may have mistaken laziness for stupidity when I first started looking at it.
Whatever the reason for all the blatant lying, it helps us more than than it helps them if we are allowed to speak.
Even the inference of Alarm and distress being caused puts them on the spot if forced to explain how.
Not as juicy a lie as my two favourite humdingers in there but still it paints a dark picture of the prosecution.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that it is deliberately misleading the court relying on nobody paying attention to the evidence which accompanies it.
It is just too strong a pattern for it to occur by chance.

This breaks down into 8 defence components that vary in length between short and easy to explain in less than one minute to more complex and lengthy accusations lasting several minutes.

In each instance we must prepublish our accusation and open by pointing this out to them.
My rationale is that on the one hand they have no interest in hearing what we have to say to them in your defence.
but on the other hand they will be interested in knowing what we have been saying to others about them.

We have to juggle the words around so that instead of each point being a defence of you it is instead an attack on them.
Where they are the topic of conversation they are interested.
Where you are the topic of conversation they are not going to listen even if they have to pretend to listen.

The only way to peak their interest in what we say is by saying it to third parties with no apparent care as to whether they know what we have to say.

Clarification of prohibitions
We need to request an example of the application of each and every prohibition.
Prior to that we need to present them with a breakdown untangled from their amalgamated prohibitions.

I have not become familliar with the procedure so I know by simple guesswork what the different parts of the trial will be but not what the order will be.
It would be better if clarification of the prohibitions was dealt with before we looked at anything else but I think they might not cover it at the start.
Whenever they do cover it I will again remind them of the ambiguity of it and our desire to question the relevance or justification for each prohibition.
This will result in many variations simply because the prohibitions make no logical sense or else the prosecution can’t come up with an example of application.
.

Chances of a subsequent custodial sentence
Obviously if the ASBO is not discharged then your percentage likelihood of imprisonment goes up from my current estimate of 10% to 40%
…to a more pessimistic 12.5% to 50% chance.

Chances of other outcomes
This is very difficult to predict.
I must admit I have very little relevant experience with this area of law and have not ploughed through enough case law to be able to seize on every opportunity.

Prepare for a stint in prison but don’t assume it is a certainty..
Maybe somewhere between 10% and 40% chance.
I’m sure it is 100% chance in the minds of the police and the judge and this is merely a formality in their estimation.
I reckon it would have been 100% chance of getting sent down if you had hired a regular lawyer.

The lesson we should learn here is that we’re better off getting our own people trained up as paralegals now.
This allows us to fight a hundred times as many battles as crowd funding professionals would have allowed.

Definitely don’t write off our chances at this point.
They have complete control over so much but still stupidity is a bad weakness to have and they have it lot of it.

There is a small chance that the prosecution will withdraw the ASBO or apply for it to be discharged (I am not sure exactly what the procedure is) prior to the full hearing due to us reacting strongly and publicise all their perjury and other flouting of the law.

We need to seize on this case and use it to inflict more harm on them than they can potentially inflict on us. As a movement we lose a speaker and we have more than we need so it is a zero cost to us.
Sorry for not sounding very appreciative of your immense efforts but we are heaving with people now and they are joining a lot faster than they are getting arrested.

On a personal level it makes others very angry to see you punished.
Also, we know if we let this slide without a push back then we are next.
So I for one am going to do everything in my power to turn your case into a bad decision on their part and I’m sure many others will feel the same way too.
It will help us recruit more people.

We are already recruiting new people into the anti Islamic moverment at a far higher rate than they dissuading people.
We are winning the war of atrition and they are pulling out almost all the stops at this point.

Putting us in prison for 15 years for watching videos is a bluff.
Do the maths and it is obvious that they have very little prison capacity compared to how many of us would openly flout such an arrogant and tyrannical move by that stupid bitch we have as a home secretary.

Let’s say 20% chance they back off prior to the hearing.
Might be 10% or 30%.
I don’t know.

There is a chance of it being discharged during your hearing.
It’s not likely but not impossible either considering the number of instances of perjury I can point to and the number of exemptions that have been ignored thus far in your dealings with the police and courts.

So that leaves us with a 40% to 80% chance of the ASBO standing.
Even in that scenario it might be with a variation ordered on it.
Any clarification will effectively reduce the scope of the order.

It is then not certain if they will act on it or if they will pull their horns in.

I am fairly sure they didn’t envisage the trouble they are now facing when they were drafting this clumsy nonsense they present as evidence so they might change their minds when aware they have wrongly predicted costs and benefits.

I’m not a lawyer myself but I can appreciate that this case has ramifications for freedom above and beyond a typical open and shut case of this type. Please help John Banks and the cause of freedom in whatever way you can, and turn up in Doncaster on 04 July 2018 to demonstrate your support.

Tim Burton

UK Parliament asks mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya artists for a legal definition of something that doesn’t exist

Baroness Warthog

All the UK Parliament had to do was to consult the working group who produced the ICLA report in 2013. Instead they are putting the foxes in charge of the hen-house by asking the most disreputable elements in society, including Tell Mama, MEND, the Muslim Council of Britain and Hope Not Soap to provide “a working definition of Islamophobia.”

From Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch:

“Parliament Offers ‘Islamist’ Group Opportunity to Create Official ‘Islamophobia’ Definition,” by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, April 24, 2018:

MPs are to write a report on identifying a “working definition of Islamophobia”, appealing to hard-line Islamist and far left, Soros-funded groups to contribute.

The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims launched their “appeal for evidence” Monday, describing “Islamophobia” as a form of “group based hatred or hostility” comparable to racism.

Their letter does not acknowledge there might be rational reasons to have reservations about rising levels of radical Islam and the growing influence of Islam in the West generally.

The call for submissions also also only mentions free speech concerns at the end, in passing, describing them as “questions possibly outside the scope of this report”.

They aim to develop a definition of Islamophobia that can be “widely accepted by Muslim communities, political parties, and the Government”, the document adds.

Baroness Warsi, the parliamentary group’s treasurer and one of its four elected officers, tweeted: “To effectively challenge #Islamophobia we must comprehensively define it.”

She also sent the appeal for evidence directly to the radical left wing “anti-fascist” group HOPE Not Hate — who just last week were forced to distance themselves from an anti-Semitic supporter — and the Islamist-linked Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) group, formerly known as iENGAGE, inviting them both to contribute.

The APPG on British Muslims was launched in 2010 but was forced to re-launch the following year after a Tory MP and Labour Peer quit when “Islamist sympathisers” iENGAGE, which had repeatedly defended extremists, were made the group’s secretariat and given parliamentary passes.

A report last year found MEND still promotes “extremism”, harbours anti-Semites, and gives a platform to Muslim grievance narratives and Islamist views, including promoting false claims of “Islamophobia”.

And, in the last two months, they have been slammed for “racist” attacks on a moderate a Muslim appointed to advise the government on integration and an outgoing Metropolitan Police chief compared them to a banned terror group.

Baroness Warsi also sent the appeal to the Muslim Council of Britain, which is accused of working with extremists. The government has also admitted they are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which campaigns for a global, Islamist, sharia state, and are banned as a terror group in some countries.

Tell Mama was likewise invited to give evidence in her tweet. They are an “anti-Islamophobia” group which lost government backing in 2013 after being accused of inflating and misrepresenting statistics….

If nefarious Muslim groups of this nature are allowed to decide what the legal definition of “Islamophobia” is or isn’t, then it will be the death knell of free speech in our society as criticism of Islam will be criminalised – and the oppressive, intolerant totalitarianism of Sharia will replace our hard-won freedoms.

Tim Burton

The Roots of Islamic Anti-Semitism – and why we must fight to eliminate it from our country

This is reprinted from an article by Robert Spencer in Jihad Watch – and I am reproducing it here in its entirety because Anti-Semitism in Europe has to be stopped if we are not to see another Holocaust at the hands of barbaric Muslims following the commands of the Qur’an – specifically concerning our Jewish friends, who judging by their observable behaviour, have every intention of living harmoniously with the rest of humanity – which is more than can be said for most Muslims.

Anti-Semitism in Europe is at levels not seen since the heyday of Nazi Germany, and is growing more savage by the moment. In February 2018, i24 News reported that “two French Jewish brothers were briefly abducted and abused by a group of men in a Paris suburb in an incident that ended with the brothers being beaten and attacked with a wood saw.” This is the new Europe, the same as the old Europe, because of Muslim immigration: the attackers were “a group of men described as having a Middle Eastern appearance.”

A group of men having a Middle Eastern appearance would have every reason, by their own lights, to abduct, beat, and attempt to mutilate two random Jews. The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); as fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); claiming that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); loving to listen to lies (5:41); disobeying Allah and never observing his commands (5:13); disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more.

The classic Qur’anic commentators not do not mitigate the Qur’an’s words against Jews, but only add fuel to the fire. Ibn Kathir explained Qur’an 2:61 (“They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah”) this way: “This Ayah [verse] indicates that the Children of Israel were plagued with humiliation, and that this will continue, meaning that it will never cease. They will continue to suffer humiliation at the hands of all who interact with them, along with the disgrace that they feel inwardly.” Another Middle Ages commentator of lingering influence, Abdallah Ibn Umar al-Baidawi, explains the same verse this way: “The Jews are mostly humiliated and wretched either of their own accord, or out of coercion of the fear of having their jizya [punitive tax] doubled.”

Ibn Kathir notes Islamic traditions that predict that at the end of the world, “the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah), and the Muslims, along with ‘Isa [Jesus], son of Mary, will kill the Jews.” The idea in Islam that the end times will be marked by Muslims killing Jews comes from the prophet Muhammad himself, who said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” This is, not unexpectedly, a favorite motif among contemporary jihadists.

Not just contemporary jihadists, but modern-day mainstream Islamic authorities take these passages seriously. The former Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who was the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims, called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” The late Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam–which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.”

All this shows that leading Muslim authorities approach the Qur’an not as a document rooted in history, but as a blueprint for understanding the world today. Indeed, it is the primary blueprint for such understanding, and yet the one most persistently ignored by authorities. That’s why those authorities keep misunderstanding the rising problem of Islamic anti-Semitism, and are woefully ill-equipped to deal with it.

We owe it to humanity, not just to Jews themselves, who so often are the “canaries in the coalmine” when it comes to predicting institutional discrimination in society. If we allow Muslims to get away with this unjust persecution of the Jews, then Christians and all other non-Muslims will be next in the cross-hairs of the most oppressive, intolerant and totalitarian ideology on the face of the planet.

Tim Burton – with acknowledgements to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch

Sargon of Akkad speaks about Freedom of Speech in London – St Georges Day, Monday 23 April 2018

Defend Free Speech

Sargon of Akkad (the YouTube identity of Carl Benjamin) speaks in London after the sentencing of Count Dankula, (the YouTube identity of Martin Meecham) who was fined £800 for making a cute video of his girlfriend’s dog making a Nazi salute and posting it on Facebook.

Quite apart from the fact that no dogs were harmed in the video, and that it was obviously a joke to wind up his girlfriend, this illustrates the fact that “hate crime” legislation in this country has got out of hand and needs to be repealed forthwith to restore the right of freedom of speech, where so-called “offensive speech” can be freely debated rather than being censored by a heavy-handed nanny state to satisfy the sensitivities of snowflakes.

Sargon of Akkad makes the very valid point that even asking the question about whether Enoch Powell was right concerning his controversial “Rivers of Blood” speech confers upon the questioner the epithet of “racist” and “bigot” when in fact the question should have been “was Enoch Powell right in assuming that the “Windrush” generation would automatically cast aside the British identity and assert their own identity as superior.”

What actually happened was that the “Windrush” generation for the most part integrated and assimilated British values and the British identity, and so the fears that Enoch Powell was referring to were largely irrelevant. This however is not the case with the wave of Muslim immigration over the past forty years, where Muslims have been encouraged to keep their identity and culture separate, as part of the now discredited concept of multiculturalism.

Sargon of Akkad makes a very good case for the repeal of all “hate crime” laws in the wake of the fine imposed on Count Dankula and the charging, prosecuting and jailing of numerous patriots and their leaders which has been increasing exponentially over the past few years.

The video can be seen here, and apart from the first few minutes where the organisers are dealing with a faulty megaphone, this is an extremely well-presented and passionate speech that strikes the right note, and one that our political elites would do well to heed before it is too late and the window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution disappears under the tsunami of Muslim immigration that threatens to swamp us all.

Tim Burton

Please donate whatever you can to the Tim Burton Legal Defence Fund

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

Help to strike a blow against injustice and tyranny

Make Britain Great Again – March Against Child Abuse in Telford – Saturday 21 April 2018

MBGA in Telford

Yesterday I was privileged to join the March against Child Abuse in Telford, Shropshire. The march was organised by Make Britain Great Again (MBGA), and we met outside the local council offices at Darby House to protest about the systematic rape and grooming epidemic in Telford, which as we are now finding, has been going on and getting worse for decades, and about which very little has been done by either the Telford police or the local authorities including the council and social services.

The scale of this rape and grooming epidemic looks to overtake even the scandalous events in Rotherham and Rochdale, where over a thousand young girls were systematically abused by predatory Muslim gangs. Since this hit the headlines back in 2014, when the book Easy Meat was published by Peter McLoughlin, similar patterns involving rape and grooming gangs have been uncovered in every town and city where there is a substantial population of Muslims.

The most common argument is that “well, white men abuse and rape children too,” which is true enough as far as it goes, but only in Islam is divine sanction given to the practice of abusing and raping under-age children, especially those who are non-Muslim. This is because of the passages in the Islamic texts that describe the Islamic Prophet Muhammad taking a six-year-old girl, Aisha, for his wife, and consummating the marriage when she was nine years old and he was fifty-four years old.

Muslims look on the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as the perfect example for mankind – “Al-Insan al-Kamil”, and this means that if Muhammad did it, then it is good enough for every Muslim for all time. Some Muslims try to argue that the practice of marrying young children was the norm in many cultures around that time, which may be true, but the point is that today, in Britain, the age of consent is sixteen years old, and anyone who has sexual relations with a child under that age is breaking the law.

The police have been arguing that when they find a Muslim, or a group of Muslims with an obviously underage girl, perhaps under the influence of drink and / or drugs, perhaps in a state of undress in the bedroom of a house raided by the police, more often than not they will say that she appeared to be consenting to sex and therefore no action will be taken against those Muslims. To say the very least, this sends out the wrong message.

If she is obviously under the age of consent, it should be treated as the serious criminal offence that it is, and those Muslims should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and arguments about whether it is permissible in their culture or their so-called religion should not be allowed to take priority. As things stand, in most cases the police are reluctant to take any action because of the risk of being labelled as “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

Back in September 2016, I was part of a delegation of patriots meeting with Superintendent Tom Hardy at Telford police station. We had assembled a dossier of information which explained clearly that the rape and grooming epidemic was not just a random spike of criminality committed by random criminals, but part of a pattern based on predatory Muslim gangs who were doing what they were doing because it had divine sanction in Islam.

We formally handed over the dossier to Telford police in the expectation that it would be studied and that it would form the basis of the appropriate, robust action needed to stop the epidemic in its tracks. Good luck with that, I hear you say, and you would be right. Judging by the complete lack of any meaningful change in the observable behaviour of Telford police over the following 18 months, the dossier had obviously been filed under W – for the waste-paper basket.

Furthermore, we made it clear that if the police and local authorities continued to treat the problem as one of random criminality, then the problem would get worse year on year as the Muslim demographic continued to grow. Fast forward eighteen months to the present day, and – surprise, surprise, this is exactly the situation that we foresaw back in 2016.

The primary speakers at the event on Saturday 21 April, Luke Nash-Jones and Martin Costello, gave well-argued and passionate speeches denouncing the lack of action taken by the police in such situations. They emphasised the evils of the culture of political correctness and multiculturalism that had effectively paralysed the ability of police to tackle the grooming gangs not only in Telford but also throughout the country, and they were particularly scathing about Superintendent Tom Hardy, who had been quoted as saying “the problem of under-age grooming in Telford is no worse than in other parts of the country.”

What, and that makes it all right, does it? Whatever happened to enforcing the law, robustly and without fear or favour? There is an argument to be made that the police are failing an entire generation of children with their inaction, allowing a campaign of systematic sexual abuse to blight the lives of thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – of vulnerable young girls, many of whom are then fobbed off when they try to report those crimes to the police. In some cases the girls themselves are subject to prosecution.

Worse than that, when patriots like ourselves have attempted to highlight the problems caused by Islam, and have attempted to organise ourselves in order to initiate discussions which would enable informed criticism of Islam to take place in public, we have been systematically hounded to the point where our leaders have been attacked, charged, prosecuted and jailed.

Looking on the bright side, the event was attended by a couple of recently elected Telford councillors who took it in turn to describe their concern over the levels of child abuse in the town. The very fact that we are now able to persuade some of the newly elected councillors to join our patriotic cause and to speak on our behalf does give us all some hope for the future.

A very strong message was sent out by MBGA that if the police, the local authorities, and ultimately the government continued to ignore these extremely serious problems, and failed to deal with them effectively, then there would come a time in the not too distant future when a tipping point would be reached, and the ability to reach a peaceful resolution would be taken out of our hands.

We only had a few hundred people at the rally in Telford on Saturday, but I would urge every person of goodwill, that is to say every non-Muslim, to support MBGA at every opportunity, to turn out at future rallies in their tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and to help Make Britain Great Again by forcing change in the political environment that continues to allow the systematic rape and abuse of our vulnerable young children by gangs of predatory Muslim paedophiles.

Of course, I have no intention of implying that all Muslims are incapable of goodwill towards non-Muslims. What I would say is – actions speak louder than words – and Muslims should seriously consider the implications of their actions – or of the actions of others in their community.

Tim Burton