AddThis

Share |
Showing posts with label EHRC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EHRC. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 July 2010

Private Members’ Bill to Ban Burka

Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering, yesterday tabled his private members’ bill entitled the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill in an attempt to ban the burka and kindred facial coverings such as the niqab. Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), it does not command the support of his party or any other in the House of Commons, and is widely expected not even to be debated as he came 17th in drawing lots for the right to sponsor a bill.

Mr Hollobone is quoted by the Independent as saying:
I think it is inappropriate to cover your face in public, whether it's a burka, a balaclava or anything else. . . We are never going to get along with having a fully integrated society if a substantial minority insist on concealing their identity from everyone else.
His bill is bound to elicit the usual squeals of hysteria from Muslim lobby groups and those individuals and organisations of a politically correct disposition. In fact, such totalitarian voices have already attempted to silence Mr Hollobone, for the Northamptonshire Race Equality Council complained to the police about his remark about burkas earlier this year in which he stated that wearing them was "the religious equivalent of going round with a paper bag over your head with two holes for eyes". This is factually unquestionable, and yet this unaccountable Stalinist quango attempted to criminalise him. Such organisations should be disbanded, and the legislation which provides them with their mandate repealed.

Another much more powerful and equally unaccountable quango is currently attempting to destroy the BNP through a politically motivated court case. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is using its legal mandate to prosecute thoughtcrime to claim that the party’s constitution remains in breach of the 1976 Race Relations Act. Apparently, even seeking to represent the interests of the indigenous British is deemed ‘racist’ and unacceptable by this thoroughtly anti-British anti-national organisation. Naturally, the Guardian is delighted that the BNP finds itself in this predicament, which could see its financial ruin and subsequent destruction.

Returning to the question of the proposed burka ban, I am glad that Hollobone has tabled his bill despite the unlikelihood of its acceptance. It is deeply worrying however that sinister undemocratic forces operating with a legal mandate in Britain have attempted to criminalise him and his views. Freedom of thought and expression has long been criminalised in the UK, and I see little prospect of this changing under the current administration of politically correct Tories and Liberal Democrats.

Saturday, 20 March 2010

Bolton: UAF attack Police and English Defence League

First they came for the BNP, then they came for the EDL. The Trotskyist-led UAF has again attempted to foment violence upon our streets in Bolton today, and yet our mainstream media continue to purposefully misrepresent the EDL (as they always have the BNP) as “racists”, “fascists”, “thugs” and the instigators of violence. UAF is invariably provided with the opportunity to put its side of the story to the media, who lap it up and regurgitate it in an uncritical fashion whilst demonising not only EDL demonstrators and supporters, but also anyone in this country who holds a contrary view to the sham orthodoxy that “Islam is a religion of peace”.

Are our media pundits truly so politically illiterate that they do not understand that despite the end of Communism in the former Soviet bloc, the Trots have dropped neither the core principles of their ideology, nor their devotion to violence? The fact that they have decided to ally themselves with followers of a seventh-century dark age irrationalist ideology worries them not, for they see Muslims as being able shock troops in their myopic utopian bid for power. If Trots cannot seize power (which they cannot) they will content themselves with violence, and to this end, they are causing no end of mischief through manipulating naïve members of the trade union movement to do their bidding. Trots view millennial violence as being a positive end-in-itself, so why does the media accord them such respect?

Religious leaders of all hues used the occasion of the demonstration to seek to shut down the freedom to express dissident opinions on our streets and in our daily lives through penning a joint letter to Alan Johnson asking him to ban the march. Thankfully, Johnson was unable to find a legal pretext to do so, but how much longer do we have before the Labour Party or the other mainstream Westminster parties finally snuff out our right to criticise any negative aspect of the multiculturalist dystopian project to which they all actively subscribe?

To criticise Islam is not racist. Neither does criticising the many negative facets of this ugly violent religion make the critic a “fascist” or a “Nazi”. An 89-year old WWII veteran (Bertie Lois) who joined the UAF counter-protest was quoted by the Telegraph as saying
"I fought the Second World War against these Nazis. What did I fight for if we let them? The EDL are the enemy. I would say to them 'you are the guys we fought for, what are you doing?'”
The question that the media should be asking is: why is this old man involved with a group of hardline Trotskyists who are attempting to destroy the political liberties that he ostensibly fought for in the struggle against Nazi tyranny? Might he himself not be a Communist? If not, he is greatly misinformed if he thinks that the EDL is comprised of neo-Nazis. I shall be charitable however, for the manner in which the EDL's position is distorted by the mainstream media would be enough to mislead any naif to fall for this revolting piece of black propaganda. This man is just misinformed. If he truly wanted to join the struggle against the closest contemporary political phenomenon to Nazism, he would be marching alongside the EDL.

As in previous marches, the BBC and the Times (owing to the influence of Arab oil money?) have been particularly misleading in their reporting, imputing the violence to the EDL, despite the fact that it was UAF directed and that the majority of arrests were of UAF members who had attacked the police. A similar thing happened last year at a UAF counter-protest at a Harrow mosque, where the fact of there being next-to-no demonstrators did not hinder them from attacking the police and staging a mini-riot. If there is any threat to public order and safety on our streets today emanating from an organised political campaign, it is from UAF members and supporters, not from the EDL.

It will be likely that we will not know the full tally of arrests until tomorrow, but early indications from the Telegraph are that circa 55 people have been taken into custody, and that all but a handful of these people were from the UAF group. The UAF, comprised as it is of hardcore Trotskyists, Islamists and misguided trade union members who have been dripfed non-stop lies for years, represents a genuine threat to our political liberties and right to peaceful assembly. We can but hope that the public in the UK wakes up to the reality of what this organisation is, and do not fall for calls to further erode our cherished right to free expression, which has already been severely curtailed by the Labour government and the unelected and unaccountable Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). I fear that our drift into a police state is accelerating. Still, at least we can take heart that an estimated 2,000 protestors turned out on behalf of the EDL today, as opposed to the 1,500-strong UAF mob, as well as the fact that Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of the UAF has been “arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder.” I hope that Bennett is charged and receives an appropriate custodial sentence for his repeated attempts to unleash rivers of blood upon our streets.

Sunday, 15 November 2009

BNP Membership Change

Yesterday, delegates at the BNP’s annual party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of amending the party’s constitution to allow non-whites to become members. The wider party membership will also be balloted on the proposal, and Simon Darby anticipates that the final text of the amendment should be forwarded for approval at an EGM either in December or early in January.

This proposed change is hugely significant for the BNP, as it will allow members of ethnic minorities sympathetic to its aims to join. Through making this provision UAF, Searchlight, Antifa, the mainstream political parties and media will no longer be able to claim that the BNP is a racist party. In bringing a case against the BNP the EHRC has handed the party a huge opportunity. It will now be able to brush aside all of the usual accusations of being a racist organisation lying beyond the pale of civilised political life in the UK. Importantly, once the membership criteria are changed the BNP will be able to overturn bans on membership for those working in the police and prison services, and to forestall moves to proscribe membership for those working in other professions such as teaching. Nonetheless, it is likely that the globalists within the trade union movement will still attempt to find various pretexts for hounding party members and supporters out of their jobs wherever they work.

Despite the forthcoming change, it should not be expected that the vitriol and violence employed by opponents of the party will suddenly cease. This opening up of the party’s membership may lead to an initial period of confusion amongst its opponents as to how to tackle it, but it is probable that the stream of lies and smears will continue. Don’t be surprised if someone is commissioned to produce a tendentious television documentary entitled something along the lines of “The Ugly Face of the BNP” to be screened immediately prior to the next General Election, deliberately designed to undercut the party’s momentum.

References:

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/11/bnp-annual-conference-gives-go-ahead-for-constitutional-change/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360185.stm