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.

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

Image result for jews

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

 

 

New header image for counterjihadwarrior.com

    Better or worse?

Much as I like appealing images of wildlife, especially the cuddly-looking tiger above that has adorned our header page over the last six months, it is my opinion that the time has come to be far more assertive concerning our values, morals, traditions and ethics, and so I am incorporating the modified St George’s Flag image (previously used on the tee-up for the Five Minutes to Midnight radio show) – together with my social media profile logo – into the website header page.

The last four decades or thereabouts have seen a relentless assault on our tolerant (some might say overly tolerant) and democratic way of life, and the pressure has been building rapidly, if not exponentially, over the past twelve months. Patriots have been slandered, demonised and in some cases jailed for standing up and stating the obvious; that the presence of Islam is simply incompatible with a civilised, democratic society. It’s not just me saying this; the EU itself said as much in 2003.

The increasingly authoritarian concepts of multiculturalism and political correctness, combined with globalisation and Islamisation, not to mention the ambitions of white genocide dressed up as “diversity”, have prompted me to say, as many others have said already – “No more!”

I yield to no-one in my enthusiasm for individual freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, expression and thought. I think that everyone should aspire to live together in a spirit of tolerance and acceptance. But where you have one clearly identifiable group in society, the majority of whom follow a totalitarian ideology, and who obviously do not accept our Judaeo-Christian values, morals, traditions and ethics that have underpinned our society for two thousand years – and where that group is being protected by those in authority at the expense of everyone else – it is incumbent upon us to stand up and forcefully assert that our values, morals, traditions and ethics are not just better, but vastly superior to anything that the barbaric, political totalitarian ideology of Islam is ever likely to produce.

This is OUR culture, OUR history, OUR heritage, and OUR country, handed down to us by our forefathers and ancestors for us to keep in trust for our children and grandchildren. We have a responsibility to fight against those who would take it away from us and turn it into a third-world Islamic hell-hole where human rights are non-existent (except for Muslim males.)

This is not a call to violence; I would far rather that change came about through the ballot box. But the Left-Wing in this country have such a tight stranglehold on all the major state institutions, in the areas of national and local politics, the police, judiciary and educational authorities, that it is difficult to see how peaceful revolution may be achieved in the time that we have left before Muslim demographics overtake us.

The Left-Wing abuse their dominant position in these institutions by attempting to suppress free speech in the overtly fascist manner of Hitler’s Brownshirts in the 1930’s. They are aided not only by Muslims, who (of course) wish to suppress all criticism of Islam, but also by organisations such as Hope Not Hate, who have allied themselves with violent so-called “Antifa” thugs to target individual conservative speakers – and the venues at which those speakers would otherwise peacefully express their views.

As John F Kennedy is reported to have said – “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” Our politicians have sown the wind by allowing a tsunami of mass Muslim immigration; it is increasingly likely that they will reap the whirlwind in the form of civil war in our country within a generation as the increasing population of Muslims reaches a tipping point – at which juncture they will inevitably try to take over. Again, this is not just my opinion – this is a pattern that has been repeated over 1400 years in every country whose leaders have been foolish enough to allow in large numbers of bellicose Mohammedans.

So this change of header image is a declaration of assertiveness in support of our values, morals, traditions and ethics, and in support of our culture, our history, our heritage and our country. I hope that you will rally behind this declaration of assertiveness and spread the word amongst your friends, family and work colleagues. We will not, and must not allow the destruction of everything that we hold dear just because some Muslims might become “offended” – or because some “safe-space” Left-Wing snowflakes cannot tolerate any speech that deviates from the prevailing Left-Wing orthodoxy.

Messages and gestures of support would be most welcome – on the other hand, if anyone prefers the cuddly-looking tiger, or wants to use the image on their own website, then please feel free to do so.

Tim Burton

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

Help to overturn an unjust conviction and strike a blow for justice.

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

The Twin Evils of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism

2358193079_bf9230e095_z
This essay was originally published on the Brenner Brief website in May 2014, and I thought that I would reproduce it on this website for readers to determine for themselves how much has changed in the intervening four years.
The essay was prompted by an article in the Daily Telegraph, concerning Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, who was at an Asian Business Awards function recently and spoke about the success of Asians in Britain. In doing so he referenced the now discredited concept of multiculturalism and was apparently in some confusion about it, giving the concept some praise which was manifestly undeserved.
Having done this, he was taken to task by David Green, from the right of centre think-tank Civitas, who said that Mr Gove had confused “multi-ethnicity” with “multiculturalism”. He said:

He said: “Michael Gove has confused a multicultural society with a multi-ethnic society. We have become a multi-ethnic society, but we been successful because our dominant culture of freedom and democracy allows space for different lifestyles.
“The vital point is that alternative lifestyles must be compatible with a free, democratic and tolerant society. Multiculturalism is the name for the condition in which antagonistic cultures co-exist in the same country.
“Mr Gove should have known from his experience of dealing with alleged sectarianism in Birmingham’s schools that not all cultures are compatible with a free society. Muslims who are opposed to extreme interpretations of Islam will not thank him for confusing the issue.
“There is good diversity and bad diversity […] Sectarianism is diversity that threatens freedom, democracy and toleration.”
The fact that Michael Gove – a man who has done more than most in recent years to reform the UK educational system and undo the worst excesses of previous Labour governments and the teaching unions – can confuse the evil of multiculturalism with its comparatively benign cousin, multi-ethnicity, is a testimonial to the political machinations of the Left who have almost, but not quite, succeeded over the past twenty or thirty years in making us all think that multiculturalism is somehow a good thing and that anyone who opposes it must by definition be racist and bigoted.
Indeed, as recently as 2012, social workers in Rotherham, UK, were still prepared to remove foster children from parents who were deemed to be supporting “racist” policies opposed to multiculturalism – and it is only in recent years that some European leaders have started to condemn multiculturalism as a failure.
The concept of multiculturalism of course, could never have even got off the ground if it were not for the all-pervading miasma of political correctness, which has stifled independent thought, reasoning, logic and critical analysis – not only in the UK but in most, if not all other Western democracies for the last forty or fifty years. Political correctness has often been spoken of in disparaging terms – but most people have accepted the concept as a necessary prerequisite for remaining within the boundaries of polite society when faced with the possibility of falling out with their friends, families and / or work colleagues. In some cases people have even been threatened with the loss of their livelihood, particularly in employment sectors dominated by the political left, such as health, education or local government, if they have been found to hold politically incorrect views.
It is not widely known, and in fact the political left have tried to keep it a closely guarded secret, but the twin evils of political correctness and multiculturalism derive from a Marxist concept – Cultural Marxism – developed by the Frankfurt School in the 1920′s. Cultural Marxism seeks to:

… destroy everything good about a society, what holds it together, what helps it to advance, what promotes intelligence and beauty. It seeks to degenerate society and take it to a lower form where people are less intelligent and more animal. It’s based on the Marxist lie that everything good about society is all a form of oppression. Every time anyone promotes Cultural Marxism, they use the same line claiming it is about freeing people from oppression. These common Cultural Marxist themes all are promoted by the same lie that they are done in the name of freedom: liberalismsexual perversiondegenerate artdegenerate musicmass immigration, anti-intelligence and promotion of people acting like animals, […] multiculturalism, oppressing people of European ancestry, and destroying nationalism.
Although originally developed by the Frankfurt School, the Cultural Marxism model was further developed in later years by another group of intellectuals at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England. The fields of Cultural Studies and Critical Theory are rooted in and influenced by Cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism has been formulated in such a way as to subvert Western nations and civilization using methods other than direct political action. using political correctness, multiculturalism and Critical Theory. It seeks to control society by manipulating language, media, and academia. In addition, demographic genocide is a major focus of Cultural Marxism.
When you realise this, of course, many things start to fall into place, and all of a sudden the essay “Preventing White Genocide” by Paul Weston – a British politician and leader of  the [former] political party Liberty GB – leaps sharply into focus.
Tim Burton

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

Help to overturn an unjust conviction and strike a blow for justice.

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

Pigeon on the Wing – Chapter 6 – The Birmingham Taqiyya Trial

    Birmingham Taqiyya Trial

Foreword: All chapters of Pigeon on the Wing published on this website are in draft form only. The final version may include grammatical, syntax and content changes, as well as sidebars and illustrations to maintain a level of interest and to stop readers’ eyes from glazing over. All comments and / or criticisms of content or writing style would be most welcome. Masterpieces like this don’t just write themselves, you know.

Seriously, though – this is your book just as much as it is mine. I couldn’t have even begun to write it without all of your help and support. Thank you so much for everything you have done for me, and I hope you enjoy reading the book as much as I have enjoyed writing it.

Tim Burton

Pigeon on the Wing – Chapter 6 – The Birmingham Taqiyya Trial

During the course of Chapter 2 in this book – Ground Zero – I endeavoured to provide the reader with an account of my journey towards understanding the true nature of Islam, and the threat that Islam poses to our Western democratic society. By 2013 I had researched the subject extensively for over ten years, and the picture that was emerging was a far cry from the notion that our political elites and our mainstream media were peddling – that Islam was somehow a “religion of peace.”

Nothing could be further from the truth – unless of course one redefines the terms “religion” and “peace” to mean something completely different from the normal understanding of the words in accordance with the Judaeo-Christian values that underpin our Western civilisation.

For example, “peace” to most of us means a state of harmony between individuals, between groups, or between countries whereby differences are tolerated and a positive effort is made to rub along together. “Peace” in Islam is an entirely different concept, as it is the happy state of affairs that will exist when all non-Muslims have been subjugated, slaughtered or converted to Islam. That’s it. There is no compromise or tolerance in Islam.

“Religion” has been defined for millennia by the Golden Rule – “do unto others as you would have done unto you” alternatively “don’t do anything to others that you would not like done to yourself.” Islam does not follow the Golden Rule – the world according to Islam is divided into Dar-Al-Islam (lands ruled by Islam) and Dar-Al-Harb (lands ruled by the Infidel.) As far as Islam is concerned, a permanent state of war exists between the two until such time as Islam rules the entire world, whether Infidels like it or not.

This means that Islam is not a religion at all. It is a totalitarian political cult, spread and maintained by fear, violence, intimidation and terror, and all non-Muslims should comprehensively understand the implications and take that message on board if Western civilisation is to survive.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the Islamic scriptures – the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira – for yourself. Everything you need to know is in there. You don’t need to consult so-called Muslim scholars. If it is in the Qur’an, Hadith or Sira, then it is Islam. If it is not in the Qur’an, Hadith or Sira, then it is not Islam. To paraphrase – it’s not rocket science. The Qur’an actually tells the reader that the message is clear and easy to understand – and it is.

During the course of 2013, several events occurred which were to change the course of my life. The first was the appalling murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich, in London, on 22 May. The murder shocked the nation with its sheer brutality – the soldier was run over with a car, and then stabbed and beheaded in broad daylight by two Muslims, one of whom was caught on video after the event, calmly giving an interview to a passer-by armed with a smart-phone camera.

One of the Muslim murderers, Michael Adebolajo, his hands covered in blood and holding a knife and machete, explained quite clearly why he and his accomplice had done what they had. They had done it in the name of Islam, and completely in accordance with the teachings of Allah and Mohammed. Theologically speaking, he was absolutely correct. He quoted extensively from Qur’an 9:29 and explained that attacking and killing the soldier was a justified response in Islam to perceived Muslim grievances.

Only a handful of us non-Muslims, of course, recognised the allusion to Qur’an 9:29 and what it meant for our peaceful democratic society. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, stood up in Parliament the following day to announce that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that the killers were following a “warped and twisted version of Islam.” This was quite untrue, but his goal was to play down the significance of the event and to lull the British public into a sense of false security so that we would not recognise the enormity of the Islamic threat that was bearing down on us at an ever-increasing speed like an out-of-control steamroller.

Not everyone was fooled of course, and over the next couple of months there were demonstrations across the country. The English Defence League, for the most part comprised of patriotic citizens who were becoming increasingly alarmed at what they saw as the Islamisation of their country, and led by the charismatic Tommy Robinson, attempted to bring the truth to the British public. They were immediately smeared by the Establishment and the mainstream media as “racists”, “bigots”, “fascists”, “right-wing extremists”, and of course the now favourite catch-phrase of the left-wing media – “Islamophobes” – which implies that it is somehow “phobic” (that is to say, a mental illness) to criticise Islam or Muslims for any reason.

The next seismic event that influenced me was a revelation in the Sunday Telegraph in June 2013 to the effect that a prominent member of the British Establishment, Fiyaz Mughal OBE, had been instrumental in fraudulently manipulating the statistics of his organisation, Tell Mama UK, in order to swindle the British taxpayer out of hundreds of thousands of pounds in grant money. Tell Mama UK purported to catalogue the rise in so-called “anti-Muslim hate crimes”, which was a subjective concept at best.

The mood of the country following the Fusilier Lee Rigby’s murder the previous month had led Fiyaz Mughal to falsely claim that there was a spike in “Islamophobic” crimes. It transpired that these weren’t really hate crimes at all for the most part; they were simply unkind things that people had said about Islam and Muslims on social media.

Such opinions, offensive and upsetting as they may have been to those who are notoriously perpetually offended and thin-skinned, should have been protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows for freedom of expression, the right to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas subject only to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society.”

Well, I was incensed. In fact, I was absolutely outraged. Here was a public figure, in receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, who was alleged by a respected investigative journalist to be fraudulently manipulating the figures of his organisation to keep the money coming in.

It wasn’t just me saying this; the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) were evidently of the same opinion.

Fiyaz Mughal had been told by ACPO that his figures didn’t add up, at which he reportedly threw his toys out of the pram and stormed out of an ACPO meeting, and the DCLG took the unusual step of terminating the grant, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, to his organisation.

I took to social media to denounce Fiyaz Mughal (OBE) in the strongest possible terms. I called him a mountebank, a weasel, an unmitigated fraud, a lying Muslim scumbag and a common criminal. Most memorably, I also called him a “Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist.”

It was my opinion that if it had been you or I who had committed crimes on this enormous scale, the consequences would have been dire. Our feet would not have touched the ground as we would have been arrested, charged, prosecuted and whisked off to prison to contemplate a substantial jail term.

Of course, none of these dire consequences were applied to Fiyaz Mughal (OBE). He was a prominent, connected member of the Establishment; our political elites viewed him as a paragon of virtue, a so-called “moderate” Muslim who allegedly wanted nothing more than a chance to promote “community cohesion” and to speak out against all those so-called “Islamophobes” who were evidently doing their best to undermine it.

However, it turned out that Fiyaz Mughal (OBE) had two weaknesses; firstly, a very high opinion of himself (it was rumoured that apparently his OBE was not an Order of the British Empire at all, but an Order of the Bloated Ego, conferred upon him by Her Majesty the Queen in a fit of absent-mindedness while she was trying to attend to an errant corgi) and secondly, he was possessed of an extremely thin skin.

He had picked up the phone to the Metropolitan Police, and had expressed his displeasure that I had seen fit to repeatedly criticise him on social media. He was not only displeased; he was offended, and when a prominent Mohammedan tells a police officer that he is offended, then that police officer had jolly well better do something about it. As we will see, there is one law for Muslims and another for the rest of us in the “vibrant, multicultural and diverse” society that is Britain today.

I was arrested, interviewed, charged and eventually prosecuted with Racially Aggravated Harassment, and duly appeared at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 08 April 2014 to answer the charges. What happened next is recounted in the following essay – Showdown in Birmingham – and as this essay forms the only detailed written testimony of the proceedings (the Clerk of the Court having mysteriously mislaid her extensive jottings, written contemporaneously in full view of the court on the back of a series of scruffy envelopes) I have reproduced the essay here in full.

Showdown in Birmingham

I took a last mouthful of cappuccino and glanced out of the window of the restaurant over the road from the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. A small group of demonstrators had already arrived on the Court steps and were busy setting up placards and handing out leaflets to curious passers-by. It was time to go.

It was Tuesday 08 April, and the time was just after 09:00. I was scheduled to appear in Court 13 of Birmingham Magistrates’ Court later that morning to answer a charge of Racially Aggravated Harassment – a charge which had been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service following my interview with West Midlands Police some four months earlier. A gentleman by the name of Fiyaz Mughal had complained that I was harassing him on Twitter by referring to him as a “Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist” and a “Lying Muslim Scumbag” – words which I had indeed used in relation to the gentleman in question – and he had seen a chance to exact revenge by using the forces of law and order to do his dirty work for him.

A link to the case from Liberty GB is included here.

I walked across the street and introduced myself. The demonstrators with the placards and the leaflets (whom I already knew by reputation) were from Liberty GB, a political party for whom I was the Radio Officer, and there were also one or two familiar faces from other publications and political organisations that I had come to know and respect. I also recognised (from photographs in his many articles and books) Professor Hans Jansen, our expert defence witness, chatting on the courtroom steps with one or two people. The case had generated a lot of interest over the preceding four months, with the phrase “Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist” going around the world like wildfire – a phenomenon which had generated its own cottage industry with commemorative coffee mugs and T-shirts, each emblazoned not only with the “Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist” slogan but also with the distinctive features of Fiyaz Mughal himself.

It was now 09:30 – time for me to present myself at the Court. I walked up the steps into the main building, an imposing edifice built in Victorian times and originally known as the Victoria Law Courts. As I walked through the door, past the security screening device, the two imposing gentlemen wielding metal detectors and the sign saying “No Knives Allowed”, I reflected on the many generations of people who had come here to answer similar charges and wondered if they had felt as I did – a feeling of awe at the magnificence of the surroundings combined with a certain trepidation at the prospect of facing serious jail time.

For make no mistake, the charge of Racially Aggravated Harassment is not one to be dismissed lightly. On conviction, the penalty may be up to £5000 and six months imprisonment. One might think that this is somewhat over-the-top for the heinous crime of calling a Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist a – well, a Mendacious Grievance-Mongering Taqiyya-Artist – but apparently there is “A Lot Of This Going Around” according the Crown Prosecution Service, and they wanted to put a stop to it. Never mind that the right to free speech is one of our fundamental freedoms and the cornerstone of a free democracy – if it offends one of our protected minority species then it must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – or so the current thinking goes today, influenced as it is by the twin evils of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Court 13 is on the second floor of the building, and I made my way up the step to meet the Court Usher at the door. The Court Usher checks (amongst other things) that the people coming in and going out of the Court have all mobile devices turned off, and ensures that they are seated in the right place – such as the press gallery for newspaper reporters, the public gallery for members of the public, and (of course) the dock for miscreants such as myself. The ban on all mobile devices is a bit of a nuisance – obviously the Court does not want people to be recording audio or video of the proceedings, or to be taking phone calls in the middle of a case – but some of the political activists were looking to see whether they could blog or tweet live from the public gallery, and that was unfortunately not allowed. Note-taking, however, was indeed allowed, and the lady representative from New English Review settled into her chair with her pencil at the ready, as did several of the representatives from Liberty GB, and we all waited for the proceedings to start.

The judge entered the courtroom just after 10:00 and the first thing that became apparent was that my case was not the only case scheduled for Court 13 that day. There was one more case involving a dispute between two local business people. However, the other case was beset by procedural delays concerning the appropriate documentation, and was quickly adjourned to a later date. Then it was time for my case to proceed. My name and address were confirmed, the charge was read out, and it was ascertained that I wished to plead Not Guilty.

The first problem was to get the video-link working. Two enormous TV screens on the wall of the Court were to facilitate the evidence to be given by Fiyaz Mughal from an undisclosed remote location, somewhere in London. Fiyaz Mughal had submitted a letter to the Court indicating that he was too frightened to come up to Birmingham because the threatening nature of my tweets had made him scared for the safety of himself and his family. (I had been quite surprised when I had first heard this. I know that they say that the pen is mightier than the sword, but one would have thought that having gone out of his way to make life difficult for me by pressing charges, Fiyaz Mughal would have at least had the courtesy to be present in person, in order to look me in the eye.) Nevertheless, it was his right to ask for his evidence to be given from a remote location, and even though I myself might have thought he was a complete wuss, the Court had granted his request.

I glanced around the court and surveyed my surroundings. The Crown Prosecution lawyer and my defence lawyer, standing at their desks in front of the dock, were exchanging pleasantries and poring over a copy of a law manual whilst waiting for the video-link connection to be made. The Crown Prosecution lawyer seemed somewhat harassed. Some of the papers he needed were missing, and the Birmingham Magistrates Court fax machine wasn’t working, so there was quite a lengthy delay while this was being sorted out. You could tell that the judge was unimpressed by all of this. He indicated to the Crown Prosecution lawyer that he was not minded to postpone the case, and that the Crown Prosecution lawyer had best get his act together, pronto. The Crown Prosecution lawyer scurried off to get his papers in order, and the case finally started at 11:45.

Fiyaz Mughal was the first to give evidence. The officers in the undisclosed remote location asked Fiyaz Mughal what religion he was – to which he replied “Islamic – I’m a Muslim” and so he was sworn in on the Qu’ran. I did think about jumping to my feet and shouting “Objection, Your Honour – this book gives the plaintiff divine permission to lie under oath in a British Court of Law if it furthers the cause of Islam!” but as I had been advised by my defence lawyer not to do any such thing, under threat of being charged with contempt of court, I simply gritted my teeth and remained seated.

The Crown Prosecution lawyer led Fiyaz Mughal through his testimony, during which he stated that he had felt threatened, harassed, distressed, alarmed, upset, insulted and offended by my tweets. In addition his very identity and who he was as a Muslim had been viciously attacked – he had felt scared for the safety of himself and his family – who knows what @catstrangler101 (my Twitter persona) might have done if he had turned up on his doorstep one day with a mad gleam in his eye and a blood-stained keyboard under his arm? I sighed inwardly. Oh, for heaven’s sake. Methinks the lady doth protest too much (to paraphrase Queen Gertrude in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.)

Fiyaz Mughal was also asked about taqiyya. He said that it was a historical concept, used by Shia Muslims a thousand years ago to defend themselves from persecution. (He didn’t say that the persecution was from other Muslims.) He said that the concept of taqiyya was mainly used today by extremist far-right groups seeking to defame Islam and Muslims. (He didn’t say that taqiyya was a generally accepted licence for Muslims to routinely lie to non-Muslims about the nature of Islam.)

But then it was the turn of my defence lawyer. He fixed Fiyaz Mughal with a steely glance (as far as it is possible to fix someone with a steely glance over a video-link connection.) “I put it to you, Mr. Mughal, that far from feeling threatened, harassed, distressed, alarmed, upset, insulted and offended by my client’s tweets, you felt a sense of quiet satisfaction, didn’t you? You wanted and needed those tweets to add to your online hate crime database, didn’t you? In fact if you didn’t get enough of such tweets, you would be hard pressed to justify your enormous public grant, wouldn’t you, Mr. Mughal? Isn’t that right?”

It wasn’t long before beads of sweat could be seen on Fiyaz Mughal’s brow – a phenomenon which was commented on by several people in the public gallery afterwards. It was generally agreed that my defence lawyer was doing a grand job of grilling Fiyaz Mughal, and I have to say that I concurred with that sentiment. My defence lawyer continued. “Do you know what the word – mendacious – actually means? Or the word – scumbag – do you know what that actually means?” “Of course I do, let’s move on to the next question!” “Well, Mr. Mughal, what does it mean?” “Next question!!”

At that point the judge intervened to explain to Fiyaz Mughal that he was obliged to answer the question. It subsequently transpired that Fiyaz Mughal had only a partial grasp of the subtle nuances of both words – to the extent that it made me wonder why he was offended in the first place.

Fiyaz Mughal was indeed losing his cool. “But what about all the other tweets?” he spluttered. “Your client called Muslims “inbred welfare parasites.” Your client said Muslims “had shit-for-brains.” Your client is associated with extremist far-right groups. Not to mention Robert Spencer. Not to mention Pamela Geller. Your client is a menace!”

Fiyaz Mughal was reminded that the Court was dealing only with the three tweets that formed the subject of the charge. Then it was time to break for lunch.

During the lunchtime period, I spoke to the Court Usher. He was one of those people who had been around the Court system for decades and had seen it all. He probably had enough experience to have been a judge or a magistrate himself. “You’re very lucky,” he said “to have a District Judge hearing the case. If it had been a panel of lay magistrates, they might well have had difficulty understanding all the concepts in what is turning out to be quite a complex case.” He seemed quite impressed that we had managed to secure the presence of Professor Hans Jansen in order to give evidence concerning the nature of taqiyya and its understanding and practice by Muslims today.

After lunch, Fiyaz Mughal concluded his evidence and was then released by the Judge from giving any further evidence. That was the last we saw of him. Then it was my turn to give evidence and I was sworn in on the Bible in the witness stand. It’s an odd thing, but having completed the swearing-in, a sense of calm descended on me. It was as if I knew that I couldn’t lose.

I had experienced the same feeling once before, when I was taking my Aikido black belt examination. Part of the examination includes a multiple attack scenario, when you are simultaneously attacked by six students on the command of a senior instructor. I remember standing in the circle of six students, who were slowly advancing towards me and waiting for the word to attack. I closed my eyes and the same sense of calmness descended on me as it did in the courtroom. The Japanese call it “No-Mind.” I knew I wasn’t going to lose.

The sense is conveyed well in the attempted assassination scene with Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai.

My defence lawyer started by taking me through the use of Twitter as a social medium and my use of it with respect to my tweets. I explained that because of the nature of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology rather than a religion, I saw it as my duty to raise awareness of the threat of Islam towards non-Muslims and that Twitter was a useful tool in that regard. I talked about taqiyya and how Fiyaz Mughal was using dissimulation when he avoided explaining how Muslims use it today to deceive non-Muslims about the true nature of Islam. I explained that in my view Islam posed a threat to our civilisation and that our political elites were ignoring a very real long-term danger in favour of short-term advantages. Then it was the turn of the Crown Prosecution lawyer.

Well, I have to say that the Crown prosecution lawyer tried his best. He was like a dog with a bone that he wouldn’t let go. “I put it to you, Mr. Burton, that your tweets were nothing more than a racist diatribe!” “I put it to you, sir, that they were not. Islam is not a race and Muslims are not a racial group.” “I put it to you, Mr. Burton, that your tweets were intended purely to threaten and harass Mr Mughal!” “I put it to you, sir, that they were not. My tweets were intended to scold, to criticise and to castigate Mr. Mughal. I felt very strongly that someone running an organisation like Tell Mama UK should not be fraudulently misrepresenting his statistics, as alleged by Andrew Gilligan in The Telegraph, in order to receive public money.” “I put it to you, Mr. Burton, that your tweets were racist in nature!” “I put it to you, sir, that they were not. As I have said, Islam is not a race and Muslims are not a racial group.”

I must have repeated that phrase half a dozen times before the prosecution gave up and tried a different tack. “You called Mr Mughal a lying Muslim scumbag. That is not only racist and offensive, but deeply unpleasant!” “The definition of scumbag in the Cambridge Online Dictionary is of an unpleasant person whose actions and behaviour are unacceptable. That seems reasonable to me under the circumstances. I did not mean to imply that Mr. Mughal was a scumbag because he was Muslim. However I did mean to imply that there was an association between lying and being Muslim, and that is because of the doctrine of taqiyya.”

Then the prosecution changed tack again. “Mr. Burton, you could have written a tweet in less offensive language, telling Mr Mughal that you disagreed with some or all of the things on his website, inviting Mr Mughal to have a meeting with you and to discuss differences of opinion face to face. Why didn’t you?” I explained that Twitter constrains one’s tweets to 140 characters, at which a muffled titter ran around the courtroom. I further explained that I wouldn’t expect Mr Mughal to respond to such a message, and that my primary audience was my thousands of Twitter followers, who I wished to invite to join me in condemnation of Fiyaz Mughal and his organisation.

The Crown Prosecution lawyer asked me whether I considered myself to be a journalist, and if so why my language differed so markedly from that of Andrew Gilligan in The Telegraph. I said although I might be considered a journalist in some respects, Andrew Gilligan was writing for a different audience and was probably more constrained by laws of libel than I felt myself to be. The Crown Prosecution lawyer laboured this point extensively until the judge stepped in and pointed out that it was accepted that I had used language not normally found in the Daily Telegraph, but that it might be considered fair political comment. I think that was where the Crown Prosecution lawyer realised he was starting to lose his grip on events. “But Mr Burton, your tweets taken as a whole were nothing more than gratuitous racial insults!” “No, they had a specific purpose, and anyway, as I have said before, Islam is not a race, nor are Muslims a racial group.”

Shortly after that I was released from the witness stand, and Professor Hans Jansen was called. I have to say he made an excellent witness, with his extensive qualifications over many years presented to the Court in detail, and he elaborated on the concept of taqiyya, basically confirming all the points I had made and also making the point that although Fiyaz Mughal might have been well-meaning (!) he was obviously not a student of Sharia Law and was inaccurate in his explanation of taqiyya to the court.

The prosecution and the defence were both allowed a final summary of their argument, with my defence lawyer arguing that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act allows for fair comment in the context of free speech, and although the state does have the right to restrict free speech, those limits should be very narrowly drawn. The Crown Prosecution lawyer wasn’t going to let go of the “gratuitous racial abuse” angle and again argued the point with the judge.

The judge then began his summing-up. He noted that although some of my language had been unpleasant, and that Fiyaz Mughal might well have found it to be upsetting, that was not the test. The test was whether my comments transcended the boundaries of fair political comment and strayed into the realms of criminality through harassment. Had Mr Burton crept up to his door one night and shouted these things through his letterbox, then it might have been perceived differently, but as it was, the use of the Twitter platform to convey the same messages was not the same thing at all, which was a point which I had elaborated upon in my essay in New English Review a couple of months earlier.

The judge also indicated that he understood that the juxtaposition of the words “Mendacious”, “Lying” and “Muslim” were acceptable in the context of the Islamic concept of taqiyya, and did not therefore constitute a racial slur. This was a highly significant observation, in my opinion.

The judge indicated that Mr Burton might wish to moderate his language in the future, but in a case involving free speech, the bar must necessarily be set very high, and that in his view, the prosecution had failed to meet that bar in trying to prove its case. He said “Mr Burton is hereby found Not Guilty and formally acquitted of the charge.”

At that point a round of applause reverberated around the courtroom from the public gallery. I was a free man. The Crown Prosecution lawyer, in one futile last-ditch attempt, did then try to have a restraining order applied to me in respect of Fiyaz Mughal, but the Judge was having none of it. I thought that was nice, because I did want to send a photographic memento of the day to Fiyaz Mughal (see below.)

    Outside the Court

I would like to thank my many supporters, both in the courtroom on the day and those from around the world, who have supported me in the ongoing fight against the insidious creep of Islamic supremacism and the consequent encroachment on, and erosion of, our freedoms. This was an historic decision, whereby the judge recognised that the Islamic concept of taqiyya was a valid reason for criticism of Islam in a political context. Although I am not a lawyer, and although I do not at this moment in time fully comprehend what constitutes a legal precedent, as opposed to what does not, I think I can safely say that this was a landmark case with enormous implications in favour of our fight, not only to expose the true nature of Islam, but also to specifically determine the relationship (concerning trust or more importantly the lack thereof) that must necessarily exist between non-Muslims and Muslims due to the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya – which not only gives Muslims divine permission to lie to non-Muslims if it promotes the cause of Islam or prevents the denigration of Islam in the eyes of non-Muslims – but also makes lying obligatory if the goal (promoting the cause of Islam or preventing the denigration of Islam in the eyes of non-Muslims) cannot be achieved by telling the truth.

End of Chapter 6

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

Help to overturn an unjust conviction and strike a blow for justice.

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat