SIOE attack update

It appears increasingly evident that the murderous attack on four SIOE activists attending a rally in Copenhagen last Sunday was indeed the work of the far-left. The Danish blogger Kimporator has found a post on an anarchist forum, in which the writer brags about the attack, in the following terms:

Lately there have been a tendency that people believes everything that they read on nazi-pages, latest SIAD’s lie that knives were used against them last Sunday. Anders Gravers, his wife and their wannabe-bodyguards [among those attacked was a 74 year-old woman: was she a "wannabe-bodyguard"? - FR] got their well deserved (and plentiful) beatings, but naturally knives weren’t used! Don’t believe everything that you read on the net, especially not when it is on nazi-pages!!

This comment, together with the rest of Kimporator's post, was translated from Danish into English by the English-language Danish blogger, Zonka.

Regarding the content of the anarchist's remarks: they clearly indicate an affinity with the attackers. Furthermore, they imply that the writer has personal knowledge of the circumstances of the crime. Thus, he claims to know which weapons were, and which were not, used in the course of the assault. I think that it is therefore reasonable to infer that these anarchists are claiming responsibility.

Regarding the denial that knives were used, I would say, first, that I would tend to be rather hesitant to believe the words of anyone who regards beating elderly women about the head with iron bars (something that they have not denied, but have rather boasted about) as evidence of their heroic resistance to fascism. Secondly, I agree with Zonka, when he says:

I don’t really care whether they used knives or “just” iron rods their assault was an attempted murder on political opponents… and even had they “only” used their fists it would be just as despicable, showing only their own fascist leanings.

And that, really, is the crux of the matter. Whatever the precise details of the attack (and, as I indicated above, I regard SIOE's account as much more believable), the fact remains that these extremist thugs have absolutely no qualms about using force to intimidate and silence political opponents. And yet they have the temerity to accuse SIOE (who have never initiated violent attacks against anyone) of being the Nazis in all this!

Hat-tip: The Midnight Sun

Murderous assault on SIOE activists

Earlier today I attended the SIOE demo in London. I shall write more about this tomorrow, but at this point I will say that, despite the apparent threats of violence emanating from certain quarters, the demonstration passed off peacefully.

Regrettably, the same cannot be said for a SIOE demonstration held in Copenhagen last Sunday, the 21st October. On that day, the Danish organiser of SIOE, Anders Gravers, his partner, and two other SIOE activists (one of them a seventy-four year old woman) were subjected to a vicious, sustained, and murderous attack by a gang of thugs. As Mr Gravers' car, in which they were all travelling to Sunday's demo, pulled into a car park in Copenhagen, it was surrounded by a gang of men brandishing iron bars. They proceeded to smash the windows of the car, attempted to haul Mr Gravers from the vehicle, and beat him and his passengers with the iron bars. Mr Gravers sort to defend himself with the best makeshift weapon that he could lay his hands on - a fire extinguisher - and in the struggle one of his assailants attempted to stab him in the chest with a knife. Had Mr Gravers not been wearing a stab proof vest, it is probable that he would have been killed. The thugs also attempted to stab one of Mr Gravers' colleagues, before beating a retreat. Full details of the assault, as well as some quite graphic images of the injuries sustained by the SIOE activists during the course of the attack, can be found at SIOE's website here, and I would strongly recommend having a read. So far as anything is known about the attackers, it is believed that they were members of the pan-European extreme-left group Antifascist Action, rather than Muslims.

Despite the severity of this attack, Mr Gravers flew to London to attend today's protest. I must say that it is something of a salutary experience to find oneself in the presence of a man who, just five days before, literally came within an inch of being murdered on account of his political views. The implications of the attack also give one pause for thought. First, it is simply shocking to think of this kind of anti-democratic, fascistic, thuggery taking place in 21st century Europe. Secondly, it is a reminder of the risks which some, if not all, of those who actively challenge Islam, and its far-left allies, are running. This incident could very easily have ended with the deaths of one, or indeed, all, of the SIOE activists who were attacked, and, from the actions of the attackers, it appears likely that they actually intended to kill Anders Gravers, at least. It should also be remembered that this attempted murder comes almost three years to the day after the actual murder of the anti-Islamist Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, by the jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri. Of course, the fact that people like Mr Gravers and his colleagues are prepared to take such risks in order to resist the very real threat that Islam poses to Europe should simply spur the rest of us on to work harder to support the same cause. If Mr Gravers is prepared to put his life on the line, then it surely behoves all of us to at least do something to attempt to defeat the kind of people who attacked the Danish activists last Sunday.

The pro-democracy left

Remember how members of the French left rioted after Sarkozy won the presidential election? Well, now it seems that some of their Swiss counterparts have had much the same idea:

Violence flared in the Swiss capital of Bern as left-wing protesters tried to stop a pre-election campaign event by the nationalist Swiss People's Party.

Police fired tear gas as demonstrators hurled rocks and bottles in front of parliament to interrupt a march and rally by about 5,000 SVP supporters.

The SVP has been criticised recently for its hard-line views on immigration.

Its campaign posters - showing white sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag - have stirred controversy.

The party, which has campaigned against minarets in Swiss cities, condemned the violence as contrary to the country's democratic tradition.

Sadly for the enemies of democracy, the SVP is expected to remain as the largest party after the coming elections.

More footage from Brussels

Here are two more videos from yesterday's protest. Readers will notice that among the "bigots" of SIOE, there are plenty of skinhead thugs and associated low-life. They can be identified by their blue police uniforms. The protesters, on the other hand, appear to me to be well-dressed, respectable-looking people:





Hat-tip: Abandon Skip

Respectable, mainstream politics

A Labour councillor who took an “unwinnable” seat from the Liberal Democrats did so by using smear campaign against her opponent, a court has heard.

Miranda Grell, a 29-year-old aide to the Deputy Mayor of London, appeared to have a glittering political career ahead of her.

A rising star in the Labour ranks, she had been photographed with high-profile figures, including Cherie Blair and Jesse Jackson, and many saw her election to Waltham Forest Borough Council, East London, as the first step on her road to high office.

But yesterday, the Manchester and LSE graduate appeared at Waltham Forest magistrates’ court accused of labelling her rival a paedophile to win the seat. The court heard that Ms Grell told voters that Barry Smith, an incumbent Liberal Democrat councillor, slept with underage Thai boys and was “dirty”.

Mr Smith, 56, a high-profile member of the council cabinet who has a long-term, 39-year-old Malaysian partner, lost his seat by 28 votes. He broke down in tears yesterday as he told of the impact that Ms Grell’s alleged lies had on him.

Gareth Branston, prosecuting, said that during her election campaign Ms Grell, whose parents came to England from Dominica in 1973, told voters: “Don’t vote for Barry because he’s a paedophile.” She led a “whispering campaign” designed to play on constituents’ “fears and aversion to paedophiles”, he claimed.

Ms Grell, who cites Barbara Castle and the suffragettes among her political heroes, is charged under the Representation of the People Act 1983 with four counts of making false statements about another candidate in order to gain an electoral advantage.

She denies all the allegations. Paul Williams, for the defence, said that the accusations against her were “some sort of a Liberal Democrat group conspiracy” and that the court case was now being used as “a political weapon” to attack Ms Grell.

So, if she's guilty, then a relatively senior Labour official and councillor has been caught spreading obscene lies about a political opponent. Lies, indeed, which could potentially have put him in quite serious danger; Mr Smith said in his evidence that after the lies were allegedly spread, he was threatened and spat at in the street.

Or, if Grell is innocent, then the Lib Dems would appear to have brought about a court case in a bid to smear an opponent, and individual Lib Dem supporters might even have committed perjury.

Either way, it doesn't look good, does it?

Free Speech? That's only for Muslims, isn't it?

Unsurprisingly, it seems that the thugs of the Belgian police force got pretty heavy-handed with those who turned out for the Brussels protest against the Islamification of Europe. Al-Beeb reports that dozens of people were arrested, including two leaders of the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, and it appears that the demo was over before it had begun. Once again, we see that free speech is only for those the left likes.

Mr Smith was there, managed to avoid arrest, and has written an eyewitness report of events, which is well worth reading. Meanwhile, the SIOE site is silent: perhaps the organisers of the demo are among those experiencing the hospitality of the local filth.

Update: Via Laban Tall and the Brussels Journal, I find this video of the Belgian police arresting a couple of demonstrators, including the Vlaams Belang's leaders, Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter:



The piece at the Brussels Journal also has an eyewitness account of the demo, and of the police thuggery which shut it down. Read it, watch the video, and then ask yourself, "are the police on our side, do they protect us, or are they an enemy and an obstacle to freedom that needs to be removed?"

Update (2): There were 154 arrests in total, according to Australia's ABC News. Meanwhile, the secretary general of the Council of Europe described the protesters as "bigots" who posed a threat to European values (unlike, say, Sharia law), and added:

It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Actually, though, I'm not aware that any of the protesters did pose a threat to anyone else's freedoms of thought, conscience, or religion. What they were doing was criticising other people's beliefs. Now, I suppose that this might have upset those poeple, but if the rights to freedom of assembly and expression can be taken away simply because someone might get their feelings hurt, then they really are worthless.

"Britain is different"

In an interview with the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the following statement, regarding the value of public debate on the new EU "treaty":

I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries.

Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

So, Herr Juncker strongly supports public discussion of the "treaty" in all of the EU's 27 member states, bar one.

Why does he feel that the British public should be singled out for inferior treatment? Well, I suppose treating Britain worse than other countries is pretty much par for the course for the EU, but that doesn't really explain Juncker's objection to allowing us to know the truth about this further loss of sovereignty. Rather, it appears that he feels confident that the other 26 EU member states can be bullied or cajoled into accepting the "treaty", even if they know the truth. The British public, however, cannot be. So, what Juncker really feels about public debate on the EU "treaty", is that he's all for it if he thinks that the public can be tricked into supporting his point of view, but against it if the public cannot be tricked. If the British public were allowed a debate and a referendum they would reject the "treaty", and the goal of creating a United States of Europe (something of which Juncker is a devout advocate) would be derailed once again. And in the EU, democracy comes in a poor second when set against the dream of the USE.

Our own government seems to subscribe to Juncker's plan of lying to us in the hope of getting us to accept the "treaty". One of the last of many lies told by Tony Blair during the course of his premiership was the claim that the "treaty" is in Britain's interests, and Gordon Brown looks set to deny the public a referendum on this latest sell-out of our country. Neither of them has had the guts to acknowledge that, as the EU commissioner Margot Wallström has said, the "treaty" is "essentially the same proposal as the old constitution".

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We were taken into the EU on the basis of a lie (that all we were doing was entering a common market, not a political union) and we've been lied to at every turn ever since. We have no reason to expect our politicians to behave any more honourably this time.

Muslims and leftists celebrate democracy

Last month, I wrote that Muslims in France were threatening to riot if Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president of the country. Segolene Royal made the same threat a few days ago, as did a number of French "intellectuals". Now Sarkozy has beaten Royal by 53% to 47%, and the threats are being carried out.

At this stage it's unclear what, precisely, is going on. The MSM aren't reporting much, although Sky News has acknowledged that riot police have been firing tear gas at "crowds". The best English language source at the moment is No Pasaran!. They are updating their news on the riots as reports come in, so I would simply direct readers towards their main page. They have obtained a number of photographs and videos depicting the violence, as well.

Further proof, if any was needed, that Islam and civilisation just don't mix. Perhaps someone could remind me, once again, why every nation in Western Europe is allowing itself to be taken over by these "people".

Labour rigging the vote in Leeds

An undercover Sunday Times reporter has recorded Leeds Labour councillors Keith Wakefield and Graham Hyde urging student activists in the city to break electoral law in the party's desperate bid to stave off annihilation in Thursday's local elections.
Wakefield also praised something which he calls the "Asian voting system", and which everyone else calls 'Muslim vote-rigging'. I have written a post on the subject over at ATW.

Welcome, new voters!

One million migrants from outside the EU will be entitled to vote in May's local and national elections, it has emerged.

The migrants from Commonwealth countries, dependent territories and the Republic of Ireland - none of whom are citizens here - have gained voting rights from a law passed in 1918.

If they are resident at a UK address, they can play a key role in deciding who wins council seats in England, as well as control of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.

Few of their countries, however, offer British migrants the same rights - only the Republic of Ireland and several countries in the West Indies.

There's not a lot that can be - or needs to be - said in response to this kind of thing. I would, however, direct the reader's attention towards Fjordman's article "Electing a New People: The Leftist-Islamist Alliance" , written in May last year:

A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: "I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money." The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.