The last refuge of a (black) scoundrel

Dr Johnson famously remarked that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". He was, of course, referring to ostentatious displays of false patriotism, and the enduring truth of his statement is evident in the "Britishness" agenda of the present government. However, if you are a scoundrel who happens not to be white, then you have available to you a far more effective last refuge: the groundless accusation of racism. This is demonstrated in the recent remarks of two disgraced "celebrities":

Naomi Campbell last night blamed racism for her outburst on a British Airways jet, claiming she had been called 'a golliwog supermodel'.

In an interview with Sky News, Miss Campbell said she was not going to apologise to BA as they were "disgusting."

She said: 'I was called a racial name on that flight. And that was part of my reaction. Again, nothing to do with the police but yes from British Airways.'

'I was called a golliwog supermodel, I don’t think that’s really fair do you?'

The supermodel did not say exactly who had called her the name only that it was not one of the passengers.

When asked who called her the name, she replied: 'Someone on the flight, not the passenger.'

[...]

Miss Campbell avoided jail yesterday despite admitting kicking, hitting and spitting at police officers on board the jet at Heathrow.

Extraordinary details of the supermodel's vicious assault on two officers emerged in court as she was sentenced to a 200 hour unpaid community service order.

Magistrates told the model that the community service was part of a 12-month order.
They also ordered her to pay compensation of £200 each to the two police officers she assaulted, and £150 compensation to the aircraft captain, Miles Sutherland.

In addition she was ordered to pay fines for committing a public order offences totalling £2,300 and a £15 surcharge.

[...]

In court, Melanie Parrish, prosecuting, told how flight crew said initially that Campbell was very friendly and professional.

But after she discovered a bag of hers had gone astray, Campbell became upset and demanded to know where her bag was. Meanwhile the captain began to go through her options with her.

Miss Parrish said: 'To say that this process was difficult would be something of an understatement. Miss Campbell made no attempt to listen to him and talked over him, stating: "I don't want to hear".'

The court heard Campbell continued to shout at Capt Sutherland, saying: 'I can't believe you have lost my f***ing bag. Bring me my f***ing bags now.'

Miss Parrish said: 'She instructed him to personally get off the aircraft and get her bag and show it to her.

'The captain explained this wasn't going to happen. He repeatedly tried to take control of the situation and asked if he could get a word in.'

The magistrates were told that when Capt Sutherland tried to explain her options, Campbell snapped: 'How dare you tell me what my options are? You are not leaving until you find my f***ing bags.'

As the captain walked away Campbell shouted after him: 'You are a racist, you wouldn't be doing this if I was white.'

[...]

The court heard that police were called and three officers arrived.

The officers made no attempt to touch her but Campbell seemed to 'completely lose control', screaming 'You can't f***ing touch me' and shouting down her phone to 'make sure the press know'.

'She said: "You can't arrest me, my cousin is in Scotland Yard."

'When PC John Eastick moved towards her, she went berserk, striking PC Eastick on the arm with her mobile phone.'

Campbell continued to struggle violently and she was described as throwing her right leg back and thrusting forward, striking another male officer, PC Campling, on the thigh.

Miss Parrish added: 'At the time she was wearing formidable platform boots with stiletto-style heels.'

The court also heard how Campbell kicked PC Eastick and PC Charles Campling both in the groin area with her heeled shoes.

'Then she spat and hit PC Eastick on his arm,' said Ms Parrish.

As the continued to kick out indiscriminately, she caught PC Eastick on the right shin and left thigh before slumping down in her seat.

The court heard she continued to shout and swear and then pulled her head back and threw it forward, spitting at PC Eastick.

As they tried to remove the model from the aircraft she continued to be abusive and became increasingly violent, shouting at the officers: 'Don't touch me.'

Campbell then shouted at the officers: 'It is because I am a black woman, you are all racists. I am going to sue you. I am going to f*** you,' and continued to kick out as they tried to remove her.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a violent thug.

Still, it is quite impressive that Campbell - who may now face libel action from the BA cabin crew whose reputations she has impugned - was able to eke three entirely separate accusations of racism out of this one incident. Although, according to some reports, the shoe was rather on the other foot:

While Naomi Campbell claimed racism was the cause of her arrest after pitching a hissy at London's Heathrow Airport last week, it was she who allegedly hurled the epithets. Cops claim the patience-challenged supermodel screamed, "F-ing white honkies!" at them and called a female officer a "white bitch".

And let's not forget this:

Naomi Campbell's former maid is suing the battling supermodel over claims that she called her a "dumb Romanian", the New York Times reports.

Gaby Gibson, 40, filed papers on Tuesday in a New York court which allege Campbell subjected her to "repeated discriminatory assaults based on national origin". Specifically, Gibson claims Campbell asked her: "Romanians are not usually as dumb as you?"

Gibson described Campbell as a "violent super-bigot" who "called her names and threatened to press charges for theft when the model was unable to find a pair of Stella McCartney jeans".

Meanwhile, via Barnsley Nationalists, I see that Linford Christie has also been playing the race card:

Former Olympic champion Linford Christie has claimed there is "institutionalised racism" in Britain.

And Christie, who won 100 metres gold at the 1992 Olympics, is adamant he should have carried the Olympic torch on its way through London in April.

"I think there's institutionalised racism in this country," Christie told BBC Radio 4. "How many black knights from British athletics do you know?

"I've achieved more single-handedly than any other sportsman in (Britain)."

Christie was banned for life by the British Olympic Association in 1999 after he failed a routine drugs test.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a cheat.

The Police are not on our side

Another day, another display of unadulterated cretinism from Her Majesty's police. Their latest heroic exploit? Arresting a seventy-three year-old pensioner for confronting a gang of teenage thugs.

When William Marshall, a retired miner with a heart condition, saw the group throwing bricks at ducks on a canal in Worksop, he, rather bravely, told them to stop. They responded with a barrage of abuse, and after a shouting match, he retreated. As you do, when you're a lone septuagenarian, confronted with several potentially violent men much younger than you.

This was not the first time Mr Marshall had had problems with the gang, and he had made a number of complaints to the police. Accordingly, when two police officers showed up on his doorstep, he naively assumed that they had come in response to his complaints. But he was sadly mistaken, as he swiftly found out, when an officer informed him that he was being arrested on suspicion of assault. One of the young thugs had, it seemed, contacted the police to accuse Mr Marshall of hitting him. And while the police did not see fit to respond to any of Mr Marshall's numerous complaints, they were swift to respond to the first accusation made against him.

Having been arrested, Mr Marshall, who has a previously unblemished record, was kept in a police cell for two hours, before being formally interviewed, and released pending further enquiries. After Mr Marshall's local councillor took up his case, the police have apologised, explaining that the officer in question was "young in service", and, apparently, in need of further training. Personally, I would have hoped that he would get appropriate training before being sent out to harass pensioners. But obviously not...

This is far from being the first time that the police have allowed themselves to be used as, in effect, the enforcers for petty thugs and vandals. Last month I wrote about the case of Julie Lake, who was arrested after slapping a thug who was vandalising a war memorial. In March, I wrote about Fred Brown, who was arrested and charged with assault for giving a clip round the ear to a piece of scum who was vandalising the machines in his launderette. In both these cases, as in Mr Marshall's, the police had failed to respond to repeated complaints about the behaviour of the thugs, but had snapped into action the moment the thugs themselves saw fit to complain that someone had had the effrontery to challenge them. One has to ask what kind of police force responds with such alacrity to the whinings of low-life thugs, while ignoring the justified complaints of law-abiding citizens? A police force, I would suggest, with serious problems, and one which, so far from deserving the substantial pay rise that its members believe to be their due, merits nothing so much as a sizable collective pay cut, as the fitting reward for its uselessness.

Hat-tip: The Green Arrow

Police Priorities

Gangs of thugs vandalising a war memorial and intimidating the elderly? Not a problem.

Lone middle-aged woman confronting a gang of 15 vandals and clipping one of them round the ear? Arrestworthy!

And these people seriously believe that they deserve a pay rise? Personally, I think a collective P45 would be more merited.

Scumwatch

The ringleader of the group who committed this crime may have been as young as 14:

A terminally-ill woman in a wheelchair has been assaulted by a group of youths who hit her on the back of the head.

Police said the attack in Woolworths in Biggin Street, Dover, Kent on Saturday, may have been filmed on a mobile phone.

The youths were seen laughing and looking at a mobile phone after the attack on Beverley McFarlane, 41, who has lymphoma, a form of cancer.

A Woolworths spokeswoman said the firm is co-operating with police and all stores had CCTV and security guards.

Mrs McFarlane said she grabbed her bag before being thumped hard in the back.

She said the attack began when one youth banged a tin of chocolates she had on her knees.

She said: "I grabbed my bag, thinking that they might grab my bag, and then another boy came behind me, and thumped me in the back.

"It was that hard it made me cry."

[...]

Staff alerted a supervisor to the incident, who radioed for police backup.

The staff then intervened and asked the boys to leave, after which the incident was "in police hands", [a Woolworths spokeswoman] said.

Of course, the ideal course of action would have been for the staff, assisted by the other customers (who seem to have done nothing whatsoever while this was going on) to secure the boys, by force if necessary, and detain them until the police arrived. But I suppose that then it would have been fifty-fifty whether the police arrested Mrs McFarlane's attackers, or the people who (hypothetically) caught them.

On the plus side, the lowlife responsible for one of the crimes I wrote about back in February has been jailed indefinitely. Of course, had he not been granted early release from prison - despite breaking a fellow inmate's jaw while incarcerated - this crime would never have happened at all:

A crack addict who left a charity worker for dead had been freed early from prison weeks earlier after another violent attack.

Ebanezer Adesina was on licence when he ferociously attacked Roger Hare after the profoundly deaf grandfather asked him to move his legs so he could get off a train.

The 20-year-old was released early from a three-year jail term for robbing two men.

While in jail, he broke a fellow inmate's jaw and was sentenced to serve 15 months concurrently for the attack.

Adesina, who was unemployed, was on the same train as 61-year-old Mr Hare, who was returning home after an evening discussing charity events in London on February 20 this year.

As he stood up to leave the train at West Dulwich station in South London, Mr Hare politely asked Adesina to move his feet so he could pass by.

Adesina remained motionless and as Mr Hare brushed past him, he stood up, swore and started to punch his victim repeatedly.

Mr Hare was struck with such force that he landed head first on the platform, shattering his skull.

Witnesses described him hitting the ground "like a sack of potatoes".

Adesina then calmly stepped over his Mr Hare's unconscious body and walked out of the station, telling a passenger who shouted at him to stop: "What's the point? He's dead already."

Mr Hare spent a week in a coma on a life-support machine.

Yesterday Adesina, from Dagenham, East London, was sent to jail indefinitely at Southwark Crown Court for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

And a Scumwatch old boy has also found his way to chokey, albeit for only four months:

A thug who blocked the path of an ambulance carrying a dying pensioner to hospital was today jailed for four months.

Michael Boyd, 22, stood directly in front of the ambulance to prevent it making its journey to hospital.

Inside, a paramedic was treating Norman Bell, 84, who had collapsed from a massive heart attach as he played bowls at St Oswald Catholic Social Club in Ashton-in-Makerfield, Wigan, in July.

Mr Bell died the following day.

Magistrates in Wigan were told today that Boyd, a father-of-one from Belvedere Road, Newton-Le-Willows, put his hand on the windscreen of the ambulance then began to swear at the driver and shouted threats that he would kill him.

The driver set off but Boyd continued to shout threats then began to bang on the side of the ambulance.

I should point out that there's no evidence that Boyd's actions contributed to Mr Bell's death. Still, with a sentence of four months (which will mean rather less than that in practice), I have to say that Boyd has got off pretty lightly.

Racist thugs convicted

An update on the racially-motivated attempted murder mentioned en passant in this post - specifically, a verdict in the case:

Three Asian racists were convicted at the Old Bailey today of shattering a man's skull because he was white.

Sodrul Islam, 23, Delwar Hussain, 21, and Mamoon Hussain, 20, were found guilty of attempted murder for the attack on John Payne, 33.

Up to 30 Asians set upon the victim and his friends for drinking in a pub on the Clichy estate in Stepney, which the gang considered to be their turf.

They shouted insults including "white honkies" at the five people who dared to walk through.

Mr Payne was then felled with a machete and the gang repeatedly punched and kicked him as he lay helpless on the ground.

The gang continued as Mr Payne's sobbing girlfriend tried to shield him.

He suffered a severe fracture of his head and bone fragments penetrated his brain.

Surgeons at the Royal London Hospital battled to save him.

He continues to require constant medication and suffers severe epilepsy, nightmares and flashbacks.

The three defendants, from Stepney, will be sentenced in the New Year.

Still not a single word about the case on al-Beeb's website. Indeed, the Daily Mail appears to be the only news source of any description to report the conviction. Oddly enough, I find it difficult to imagine that we would be witnessing this almost total media blackout had the mob of murderous thugs been white, and their victim Pakistani. Oh well - c'est la vie...

Hat-tip: Pub Philosopher

"Following Islam to the word"

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother.

In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.

[...]

"I know the Koran says anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate, so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word."

[...]

Hannah was born in Lancashire to Pakistani parents who raised her and her siblings as strict Sunni Muslims.

She prayed and read the Koran, wore traditional Muslim clothes and was sent to a madrassa, a religious Muslim school.

She ran away from home at 16 after overhearing her father organising her arranged marriage.

Hannah was taken in by a religious education teacher and decided to convert to the Christian faith.

Although unhappy, her parents tolerated their daughter's dismissal-of Islam as a "teenage phase".

But when she opted to get baptised, while studying at Manchester University, her family were incensed and the death threats began.

Her father arrived at her home with 40 men and threatened to kill her for betraying Islam.

"I saw my uncle and around 40 men storming up the street clutching axes, hammers, knives and bits of wood," she said.

"My dad was shouting through the letter box, "I'm going to kill you", while the others smashed on the window and beat the door.

"They were shouting, 'We're going to kill you' and 'Traitor'.

"It was terrifying. I was convinced I was going to either die, but suddenly after about ten minutes the noise stopped and the men suddenly went away."

The immediate response of liberals, when confronted with appalling cases like this, is half-hearted condemnation, combined with the commonly-heard refrain that this is the work of a "tiny minority of extremists". Which is a very reassuring explanation, marred only by the fact that it is patently untrue. Earlier this year a survey carried out on behalf of the think-tank Policy Exchange revealed that 36% of Muslims in Britain between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four supported the death penalty for apostasy. Not a majority, but a very significant minority, akin to the percentage of the general population who voted Labour at the last general election. Among older Muslims, support for the execution of apostates was lower (which is hardly encouraging, since it means that Muslims are becoming more, not less, extreme with each passing generation), but still 19% of Muslims over fifty-five advocated it. To keep up the general election analogy, that's on a par with the Lib Dems.

As regards the specific facts of this case, I would add that the father here is not a marginalised, extreme figure. Rather, he is an imam - a leader of his community. Neither was he lacking for supporters within his community: when he went to his daughter's house and threatened to kill her, he brought forty men with him - a far from negligible number, especially when drawn from only one local community. And those men didn't just support the death penalty for apostates - they were prepared to assist in carrying it out.

Nor is this the first case of its kind in Britain. Back in 2005, The Times published an article by Anthony Browne, which documented several other cases of attacks and threats made against ex-Muslims, by members of their own communities and, in some cases, their own families. It is probable that we will, sooner rather than later, see a resident of this country killed for converting away from Islam. And clearly, the fact that this has not happened already, cannot be attributed to any lack of effort or willingness to do the deed on the part of the far-from-tiny minority of extremists.

Cause and Effect

Consider this story:

Children are more likely to be injured by their classmates in England than in almost any other comparable country, a Pirls international survey has found. England was ranked 37th out of 45 countries and provinces in a league table of pupils' feelings of safety in school - but first when English headteachers were asked. Norway was ranked top, followed by Sweden and Denmark in the index of children's perceptions of their safety. Morocco, Russia and Iran all had better records than England.

Now, I wonder, could cases like the following have anything to do with this sorry state of affairs?

In October, three sixth-formers from a school in the South East took knives on a school trip, which resulted in a pupil being stabbed in the chest. One successfully appealed against exclusion and is back at school.

In June, governors overturned the decision of a secondary school head in the Midlands who had expelled a teenage pupil for setting up a website calling on classmates to kill a teacher.

In May, an 11-year-old pupil who repeatedly battered a fellow pupil on the head, punched a member of staff and smashed a door was returned to the school in the South East by the governing body.

A relevant previous post:

"Protect your child: buy them body armour"

Fascists at the Oxford Union!

I regret to inform readers that, this evening, a number of fascists succeeded in forcing their way into the Oxford Union, where they attempted to prevent two British citizens - one of them the leader of a well-known democratic political party - from taking part in, irony of ironies, a debate about the limits of free speech. The fascist activists jumped over a wall into the courtyard of the Oxford Union building, before barging into the debating chamber itself. Thankfully, their bid to prevent the debate going ahead was unsuccessful, and both Nick Griffin and David Irving proceeded to express their views freely and without let or hindrance, albeit in two separate rooms. One Oxford undergraduate described the debate as "very balanced" and added that "both sides did really well".

However, while they were unsuccesful in their attempt to prevent the debate from going ahead, the behaviour of these far-leftists is just the latest in a string of incidents which have demonstrated that it is the far-left which today poses the greatest threat to free speech in Britain, and in Europe as a whole. In the past few months alone we have had:

A petition organised by left-wing students at Oxford University, calling for the sacking of the university's Professor David Coleman, for working with the think-tank MigrationWatch (at least Prof Coleman managed to keep his job, unlike Dr Frank Ellis, driven out of his post at Leeds University by the far-left in July 2006).

The use of violence to prevent supporters of the Swiss People's Party from rallying in Geneva.

The attempted murder of SIOE activists in Denmark, and threats of violence made against SIOE demonstrators in this country.

Schoolmaster Mark Walker suspended from his job for being a member of the BNP.

A vicious attack on peaceful BNP members campaigning in Barnsley.

The hounding of a Nobel Prize winner, including calls for his prosecution under "anti-racism" legislation, and his ultimate dismissal from his job, for expressing a politically-incorrect viewpoint.

Needless to say, the far-left was responsible for all these incidents. And I doubt that the list I have produced is even remotely close to being definitive. But when did you last hear of right-wingers hounding leftists out of their jobs, or of right-wing "extremists" physically attacking leftists? I can't recall a single case of either! And yet the Unite Against Fascism thugs, and the useful idiots from the student body at Oxford, who they brought along with them, want us to believe that it is the BNP who are the real threat to democracy. Well, I'll believe that when I see the BNP sending thugs to attack campaigners from rival parties, or invading the Oxford Union to prevent those they dislike from speaking. Until then, forgive me if I believe that the people who actually do those things are the somewhat greater threat.

Update: Another point to bear in mind regarding last night's debate, is that some of the demonstrators outside the Oxford Union were reported to be chanting the words "Kill Tryl" (Oxford Union president, Luke Tryl). So, aside from attempts to physically prevent the debate from taking place, some of the anti-free speech mob were also calling for a student to be murdered, because he gave a platform to people they don't like. As Nick Griffin said in the course of the debate, had these "anti-fascists" lived in Germany seventy years ago, "they would have made splendid Nazis".

Update (2): Meanwhile, Gates of Vienna has a translation of a newspaper article by the Danish MP Søren Krarup, on the subject of "Violence from the Left", which makes similar points to those I have made above, and gives yet more examples of this severely under-reported phenomenon.

Stupid Criminals of the Day

Are these the most stupid muggers in Britain?

Minutes after attacking a teenager on a commuter train, these young lads shamelessly posed for CCTV footage.

Then, astonishingly, they tried to cover up their faces with their scarves and jumpers once they realised what they'd done.

The three youths had just mugged a 15-year-old for his mobile phone and iPod after jumping on him on the train to Guildford, Surrey.

They punched him repeatedly in the face before pinning him down and stealing his possessions.

The victim fled the train at Effingham Junction after the attack, which took place between Leatherhead and Effingham Junction around 4pm on 13 September.

But the suspects remained on board and strutted in front of the train's security cameras, brazenly pulling faces and making themselves easily identifiable.

And here are two of the three Nobel Prize nominees:


Charming, aren't they?

Nigel Hastilow and James Watson murder Indian sailors, says Tribune

ON October 20, two Goan sailors, Gregory Fernandes and Finod Appa, were brutally attacked by a drunken gang of racist youths in the Hampshire village of Fawley.
Mr Fernandes, 32, and his friend were returning to their ship Garonne, moored alongside the marine jetty near the Fawley refinery, when they were surrounded and beaten. Mr Appa sustained a broken shoulder while Mr Fernandes, who was more badly beaten by the 20-strong gang, later died from his injuries.

Hampshire police said the unprovoked assault was racially aggravated. Shocked residents, ashamed by the racially-motivated attack, held an emotional candlelit vigil.

“The community is in shock”, said the Reverend Barry James of All Saints Church, who led the service. “People are dismayed and ashamed of what happened here, in what is normally a small, quiet, sleepy village.”

Christine English, who lives in Fawley, said: “We’re stunned that an innocent visitor could be killed in a racist attack, not in one of the tougher areas of the city, but in a quiet New Forest village.”

Well, I think that we can all agree that the people who committed this murder are worthless scum, who ought to be strung up. And if I lived in Fawley, I imagine that I would be quite shocked too, to have this kind of thing happen on my doorstep.

However, one thing I should perhaps have mentioned before, is that this article comes from the far-left magazine, Tribune. As a result, the above, pretty reasonable, reporting, is swiftly followed up with this idiotic statement:

A link is now being made between what is said in public by people such as Nigel Hastilow and James Watson and racially motivated violence such as this on the streets of Britain.

Really? And by whom is this link being drawn? And what evidence have they adduced to establish the existence of such a link? Have the unnamed drawers of the link uncovered evidence that, for example, racist violence by whites against non-whites rose sharply in the aftermath of Prof Watson's comments, or Mr Hastilow's article?

Nigel Hastilow was the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis in the West Midlands until his racist remarks – that Enoch Powell was right to talk about “rivers of blood” in his infamous speech on black immigration – embarrassed Tory leader David Cameron. James Watson is the controversial scientist who caused a row when he spoke of the “inferiority of black people”.

So, I guess we're not going to get any answers to the questions I raised in my previous paragraph. What we do get is the throwing around of the word 'racist', as if that is actually probative of anything.
We also get a bit of apparently deliberate dishonesty and misrepresentation. First, we are told that Enoch Powell talked "about 'rivers of blood'". Now, while his famous speech from 1968 has been dubbed the "Rivers of Blood Speech", Powell never actually used the phrase himself. He did refer to "the River Tiber foaming with much blood" (a quote from a passage in Virgil's Aeneid) but he never actually said "rivers of blood". And yet the author of this piece, Paul Donovan, appears, from his use of quotation marks, to imply that the words are taken verbatim from Powell's speech. This is patently untrue, although Mr Donovan might perhaps argue that his untruth serves to illustrate a wider truth.
The second, and more egregious, misrepresentation occurs when we are told that Prof Watson "spoke of the 'inferiority of black people'". Again, the use of quotation marks in this context would seem to suggest - and suggest quite strongly - that Watson himself actually used the phrase "inferiority of black people". Well, if he did, then it isn't mentioned in the Sunday Times report of the interview which sparked off the whole witch hunt last month. Furthermore, not only did Watson not use the phrase "the inferiority of black people", but he also did not use any other words or phrases tending to imply that blacks are inferior. On the contrary, he specifically said that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race. As such, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, unless Mr Donovan should happen to be privy to information withheld from the rest of us, then he is deliberately attributing to Prof Watson, not only words which he did not actually speak, but also sentiments which he did not actually express.

Content with this little piece of deception, Donovan continues:

When the Labour Government came to power it set up the MacPherson inquiry to look into the racist killing of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The inquiry’s remit was later extended to examine racism nationwide.

Lord MacPherson’s final report made 75 recommendations, many of which have been implemented. Race crime was upgraded among police priorities and heavier sentences handed down where racial motivation can be proven.

True. I don't personally think that that's a good thing, except insofar as it increases some sentences which might otherwise be woefully inadequate, but it certainly is what's happened.

Despite this, racially motivated violence has continued to increase in Britain.

True. But what Mr Donovan omits to add is that most racist crime is directed against white people. In 2004, white people were the victims in 51% of all racially-motivated crime, in 61% of cases of violent racist crime, and in fully 83% of the most serious instances of racist violence. Once these basic facts are known, then the whole issue of racism appears in a rather different light from that in which Mr Donovan is attempting to cast it.

While violent crimes such as the murder in Liverpool of black teenager Anthony Walker are the most extreme form of race hate, the Institute of Race Relations points out that “every day on the streets of the UK, in playgrounds, classrooms, shops and at work, minority ethnic people are racially harassed.”

And that's wrong, and those who perpetrate such offences should be punished. But still more frequent than a non-white person being racially harassed by a white person, is a non-white person racially harassing a white person.

The contributions to public debate made by people such as Mr Hastilow and Professor Watson and, before them, Enoch Powell create an atmosphere in which it is easier for racists to operate.

Any evidence for that?

Race relations legislation – and changing attitudes – mean that blatant racism of the sort that saw signs reading “No blacks, no Irish” displayed in windows no longer exists, but racism has become more covert.

Any evidence for the existence of this new "covert" racism? No? Well, actually there is, after a fashion:

Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Wales, said that Mr Hastilow’s remarks exposed the racist underbelly of the Conservative Party.

There's your evidence: Peter Hain says so. I suppose that is evidence, of a sort. Whether we should attach any weight to it is, of course, a rather different matter.

And anti-racist campaigners fear that when someone such as Mr Hastilow or Professor Watson expresses their inflammatory racist views in public they give succour to those intent on racial violence on the streets of Britain.

Some questions:

1. Who are these "anti-racist campaigners"? Why doesn't Mr Donovan name them and quote directly from them (or fabricate some quotes, since that seems to be his style)? Or is it in fact the case that Mr Donovan is expressing his personal views, and attributing them to "anti-racist campaigners", in a bid to give them some added moral authority (yes, I know that race hustlers have no moral authority whatsoever, but I doubt that Mr Donovan knows that)?

2. What evidence is there that when Nigel Hastilow or James Watson expresses an "inflammatory racist view" (i.e. a view with which Paul Donovan does not agree), violent thugs "intent on racial violence" derive succour? Do such thugs actually sit around thinking "hmm, James Watson made some remarks about race and IQ, therefore it's okay for me to kill an Indian"? Did racist violence against non-whites increase in the aftermath of the comments of either Mr Hastilow or Prof Watson? Does Paul Donovan's article consist entirely of unverified assertions?

That last one's easy...

“The tragic death of Gregory Fernandes proves how important it is to confront racism in all its pernicious forms,” said the Institute of Race Relations this week.

Well, I'd agree that the murder is tragic. And I'd also agree that racism should be confronted. I imagine, however, that my definition of what racism is would differ substantially from that endorsed by Paul Donovan, or the Institute of Race Relations.

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.

Wanted: Lynch Mob

A paranoid schizophrenic who punched a 96-year-old war veteran in the face, leaving him blind in one eye, walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that detaining him was not in the best interests of the public.

Stephen Gordon, 44, was captured on CCTV launching a savage, unprovoked attack on defenceless Shah Chaudhury after they bumped into each other on a crowded tram in south London.

Other afternoon passengers, including children, looked on in horror as Gordon called Mr Chaudhury a "b******" and lashed out at the great-grandfather with his clenched right fist.

In a statement to Croydon Crown Court Mr Chaudhury, a British citizen, said he had been standing in the aisle of the tram because nobody would give up their seat for him.

Which is bad enough in itself, although hardly surprising: London is, after all, the world centre for rudeness and discourtesy. On crowded tube trains I have actually seen healthy young people, who would be quite capable of standing for a few minutes, pushing the elderly out of the way in their selfish desperation to get a seat for themselves.

He was gripping a rail with both hands to steady himself when Gordon tried to squeeze by under his arms.

In the process Gordon’s hat fell off, triggering the attack.

“I had done nothing to provoke him,’’ said Mr Chaudhury. “The driver and the other passengers came to my aid and I was taken to hospital.”

At a trial earlier this year Gordon, of Academy Gardens, Croydon, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.

During the trial Gordon claimed that Mr Chaudhury had punched him.

Causing GBH with intent carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The attack was vicious and unprovoked, the victim was about as defenceless as you can get, and has suffered severe adverse consequences as a result of the attack (as well as losing the sight in one eye, he has suffered a general deterioration in his health, and now resides in a care home) and Gordon appears to have been completely unrepentant. In these circumstances, what sentence do you think Gordon got?

He was sentenced yesterday to a three year supervision order which requires him to receive psychiatric treatment.

“At first blush it is not a difficult sentencing exercise, an immediate and significant prison sentence would well be justified,” Judge Kenneth Macrae told the court.

“That said it would do nothing to protect the public in the future and my real concern is the public. It seems to me that the best way of ensuring that he is not a risk, is in relying on various support from psychiatrists and probation officers.”

I would suggest that Gordon would be still less of a threat to the public, were he to reside behind the sturdy walls of one of Her Majesty's prisons, while receiving "support from psychiatrists". Judge Macrae also seems to have completely rejected any notion that Gordon should actually be punished for his behaviour, or that the sentence given should aim to deter anyone else from pursuing a similar course of conduct. Indeed, it would rather appear that Gordon has got off almost scot-free. What does that tell us about the extent to which the criminal has become favoured over the victim in the British criminal justice system?

Personally, I would rather like to see Gordon strung-up from a lamppost. And, I can't say that I'd be all that upset to see Judge Macrae swinging alongside him...

Fascist thugs threaten SIOE demonstrators

Last week, I alerted readers to the demo that Stop the Islamisation of Europe plans to hold in London on October 26th. Well, it seems that some Muslim contributors to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK's forums have also got wind of the demonstration, and one of them started a comments thread on the subject.

Some of the comments are perfectly harmless, albeit utterly delusional. One commenter even compares Muslims who oppose SIOE to Burmese monks who marched to oppose the military junta ruling their country. Because, of course, opposing the SIOE demonstrators carries with it the risk of being rounded up and imprisoned or killed, doesn't it? Various other commenters accuse SIOE of being fascists and racists.

But among these generally harmless examples of common or garden Islamic lunacy, are some somewhat less peaceable offerings. Consider, for example, this comment, from "venceremos":

...these racist Islamophobes should either be banned from marching or challenged.

They must not be allowed the opportunity to hide behind the freedom of speech to spread their vile poison.

By which he means, they must not be allowed the opportunity to exercise free speech.

If they can get away with marching in London this time, they'll be back --cowards that they are-- in larger numbers the next time.

London Jews learned that in the 'thirties and confronted Moseley's [sic] thugs in Cable Street in 1936. The Nazis were given a good duffing-up and never reared their ugly heads in Britain again.

This new generation of white supremacists are no different. You either stamp them out or they'll spread like an uncontrolled virus.

So, once again we see the lie that anyone who opposes Islam is a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi" blackshirt. At the same time, Muslims are equivalent, not only to Burmese monks, but also to Cable Street Jews. One wonders whether there has ever been an oppressed group to whom Muslims will not compare themselves? Other than the many groups who have been oppressed by Muslims, of course.

However, of rather greater importance is the fact that this thug appears to be advocating violence against peaceful demonstrators. Possibly even lethal violence: I'd be interested to know what it was, precisely, that he meant by "stamp them out".

Since this comment has been allowed to remain on the MPACUK forum, can we assume that it is endorsed by this Islamic organisation? After all, even the most ardent advocates of online free speech tend to draw the line at threats of violence.

Certainly, it seems that at least some of the MPACUK forum's other commenters agreed with "venceremos". Not one of them condemned him for the threat of violence, and at least one other commenter, "IbnTamiyya", agreed with him:

Yes brtoher [sic]! These people need to be taight [sic] a lesson.

We should take a lesson from the [inappropriate language]and sort these kuffars ourselves. The british government and police will not do it for us as they agree with everything these [inappropriate language]say and do.

This post had been edited by a forum moderator, to remove the "inappropriate language". What that inappropriate language was, I don't know. In the context, I'd imagine that the first instance contained some form of derogatory reference to Jews, but I really can't guess at what the second "inappropriate" phrase might have been. I also note, that while the moderator was quick to remove "inappropriate language", he did nothing to restrict or oppose the expression of views supporting violence against peaceful protesters. Nor did he deem the obviously threatening phrase "sort these kuffars" to be inappropriate. Again I ask, does MPACUK endorse threats of this nature?

As I mentioned above, the commenters at MPACUK repeatedly denounced the supporters of SIOE as being fascists and Nazis. However, I would say, that while there is an abundance of fascism on display in the comments quoted, absolutely none of it is coming from SIOE. On the contrary, it is coming from Muslim commenters, who, rather like the Burmese junta, wish to violently suppress the exercise of free speech by those who oppose them. It is because of people like these, that it is imperative that we do all that we can to resist the Islamification of Britain.

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.

If....

Reading the following news report brought nothing to my mind so much as the 1960s film, If....:

Police were called to a comprehensive school where pupils had walked out of class and set fire to their school blazers in a protest against new rules requiring them to wear uniforms.

The pupils, aged 13 to 16, put their new blazers in a pile and set fire to them in front of the school at Abertillery, in South Wales, which has about 900 pupils.

The protest came the day after Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, during a speech at the Tory conference, promised to reintroduce blazers at all secondary schools.

Police were interviewing the ringleaders yesterday. The decision to reintroduce the black blazers was made by the school council and had been popular with parents, despite them costing an average of £34.

Pauline Thomas, the head teacher, said that the pupils congregated in the bus bay at about 11am. She said she called the emergency services “to get the group under control”. The pupils ran off when the police arrived.

Another efficient use of police time

A boy of ten who claims to have been attacked by a Slovakian woman with an iron bar could be charged with inciting racial hatred, it emerged last night.

Jake Stedman admitted that the woman hit him after he threw a berry at her and told her to 'go back to her own country'.

As a result, the boy - who was left with two black eyes - could become the youngest person in the country ever to be charged with the offence.

A police source said: "There have been allegations that he used racist language and it is necessary for us to investigate the claims."

[...]

Jake Stedman was found in a pool of blood after insulting the woman in her 20s, who is believed to have a child at the same primary school.

He says she chased him down an alleyway before repeatedly striking him on the head and back with the 2ft pipe as he cowered on the floor, leaving him with two black eyes.

Now, throwing berries at people, and telling them to go back to their own countries, is not very polite. It's the kind of thing that might justify a stern word and a clip round the ear. But such behaviour does not warrant a police investigation, still less the possibility of prosecution. Of course, there is precedent for it, in the case of George Rawlinson, the ten year-old who was interrogated by two policemen after using the word 'gay' in an e-mail. Still, one hopes that even if the police do regard Jake Stedman's crime as sufficiently serious to be worth prosecuting, the Crown Prosecution Service will refuse to do so. After all, since they apparently believe that a fourteen year-old is too young to know that negative consequences might accrue as a result of shooting someone in the face with an airgun, one cannot see how they could ever justify prosecuting a ten year-old over something like this.

Somewhat more sensibly, the police have also arrested the Slovak immigrant woman, who may now be charged with assault. Hopefully the Kent Police still possess a sufficient degree of residual common sense to enable them to work out that beating up a ten year-old with an iron bar is worse than throwing a berry at someone.

Of course, this is not just a one-off incident. Rather, it comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions between native British families in the area, and the large number of Slovak immigrants who have moved in in recent months and years, and whose children now take up fully a third of places at the local primary school. Locals claim that the Slovak children go around in gangs intimidating and attacking the British children. Whatever the truth of the situation, this case does serve to demonstrate, once again, that if you bring large numbers of people from different backgrounds together in one place, then you are almost inevitably going to get tensions, and, often, violence. A spokesman from Medway Council, commenting on this incident, referred to the importance of community cohesion. But the fact is, that mass immigration serves only to disunite society, and to undermine its cohesiveness. If we don't want to see many more situations like this, then we need to start imposing severe limits on immigration.

Hat-tip: ATW

"Acting like he's white"

One story that our American readers, at least, will no doubt have come across is that of the so-called "Jena 6". These are six young black men in the town of Jena, Louisiana, who are charged with a variety of serious offences, including attempted murder, after a vicious assault on a white schoolboy, who was knocked unconscious and then kicked and stamped upon by his attackers. As so often happens when a black person is caught committing a crime, the race relations industry circus has come to town, with groups and individuals ranging from the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People through to the rapper Mos Def condemning the decision to charge the alleged perpetrators. After all, if some brothers want to kill a white devil, who has any right to deny them that pleasure?

However, it is not about the alleged offence itself that I wish to write, but rather about certain statements made by the doyen of the American - and indeed the worldwide - race relations industry, Jesse Jackson. It seems that Jackson was not best pleased with the failure of the black presidential candidate Barack Obama to run away and join the Jena circus, and so, speaking at a black college in South Carolina, Jackson accused Obama of "acting like he's white". Such comments about Obama are not, apparently, uncommon among the American black community, where he is regarded with suspicion as being "not black enough".

Now, if a white person dared to suggest that another white person was "acting like a black", with the implication that this was a bad thing, he would be pilloried by the race equality lynch mob. But it is extremely common for non-whites to compare those of their own race whom they dislike to white people - the term 'coconut' springs particularly to mind. And Jesse Jackson is no ordinary black man. Rather, he is someone who is fairly consistently lauded as a great champion of racial equality, and as a fervent "anti-racist". In truth, however, he is as racist as they come. Indeed, his apparent dislike of white people is rather mild compared to his anti-Semitism: he has previously denounced Jews as "Hymies", and described New York as "Hymietown".

This is not the first time that a self-proclaimed "anti-racist" has been shown to be anything but. In March of this year Sheffield-based "anti-racism campaigner" Herald "Ruggie" Johnson was convicted of racially-aggravated harassment, while I have previously written about the overtly and violently racist lyrics of supposedly "anti-racist" rappers, such as the group Public Enemy. Of course, his conviction has not killed off Ruggie Johnson's career, nor has Public Enemy's black supremacism stopped them from being held up as great champions of racial equality. The reason for this is simple: the "anti-racist" movement is not, in truth, anti-racist, it is anti-white, and utterly pervaded by double standards. Jesse Jackson is one of the most vile embodiments of the hypocrisy of the movement, and it is high time that he is torn down from the pedestal on which the liberal-left has placed him, and cast into the gutter where he belongs.

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

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.