Written by Cigpapers
Merchandising by Watt Tyler
The Cigpapers Pro Shop is open at:
The shop features stickers, activist packs, T-shirts, hoodies, baseball shirts and caps. Some of the items are pictured below but for the full range visit:
In Orwellian Britain, yet another man who thinks differently from the establishment has been charged with a hate crime.
Joshua Bonehill had been legally organizing a legally allowed protest against the parasite Jews when the cops swooped him up.
Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Public Order branch continue to work with Barnet borough officers and their partners ahead of a proposed demonstration in the Golders Green area on 4 July.
As part of that work, officers from Avon and Somerset Constabulary together with Met officers arrested Joshua Bonehill, 22 (7.12.92) of Hudson Road, Yeovil in Somerset on Thursday, 25 June.
He was taken to a central London police station where he was charged on Saturday, 27 June, with inciting racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.
He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 29 June.
Officers continue to assess all information and intelligence available in relation to the proposed demonstration and speak with the organisers to ensure an appropriate policing response is in place.
We are aware of concerns in the local community about the negative impact this proposed demonstration may have on them. We are working with residents to ensure that people can exercise their rights in a way that is lawful, while minimising this impact.
I was very surprised to hear that the government would not be ordering the demonstration banned, so this makes sense: allow the demonstration but arrest its organizer for organizing it.
This new wave of thoughtcrime arrests which has been intensifying across Europe over the last two years demonstrates very clearly how on edge these Jews are about a mass awakening of the people. Arresting someone for their beliefs is the last act of a desperate government.
The question is, will they be able to fully destroy our countries with immigrants before enough people become aware and stand up that they can’t arrest all of us?
Find more information on the Golders Green demonstration on Joshua Bonehill’s official website.
Written by Cigpapers Additional Material by Watt Tyler
For historical reasons, as a state made up of several separate jurisdictions, the United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system.
Instead, there is one system for England and Wales, another for Scotland, and a third for Northern Ireland.
In most cases, The Supreme Court sits above all of these as the final court of appeal.
Role of The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, as well as being the final court of appeal, plays an important role in the development of United Kingdom law.
As an appeal court, The Supreme Court cannot consider a case unless a relevant order has been made in a lower court.
The Supreme Court:
- is the final court of appeal for all United Kingdom civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland
- hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance
- concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance
- maintains and develops the role of the highest court in the United Kingdom as a leader in the common law world
The Supreme Court hears appeals from the following courts in each jurisdiction: England and Wales
- The Court of Appeal, Civil Division
- The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
- (in some limited cases) the High Court
- The Court of Session
The twelve most senior Judges at the Supreme Court are an odd assortment of jews, freemasons, paedophiles and cultural-marxists. Here are their official biographies:
President of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Lord Neuberger becomes the second President of the Supreme Court since it was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October 2009 to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. He previously held the post of Master of the Rolls from 1 October 2009.
Born on 10 January 1948, Lord Neuberger was educated at Westminster School, later studied Chemistry at Christ Church, Oxford. After graduating he worked at the merchant bank, N M Rothschild & Sons from 1970-1973 until he entered Lincoln’s Inn and was called to the Bar in 1974.
Lord Neuberger was made a Queen’s Counsel (QC) in 1987 and became a Bencher for Lincoln’s Inn in 1993. His first judicial appointment was as a Recorder from 1990 until 1996 when he was appointed a High Court judge in the Chancery Division and was then the Supervisory Chancery Judge for the Midland, Wales and Chester and Western Circuits 2000 – 2004.
In 1999 Lord Neuberger chaired the Advisory Committee on the Spoliation of Art (in the Holocaust). Since 2000 he has been a governor of the University of Arts London and in 2003 became the Chairman of the Schizophrenia Trust.
In January 2004 he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal. He also led an investigation for the Bar Council into widening access to the barrister profession. In 2007 he was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created a life peer as Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury in the County of Dorset.
Deputy President of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lady Hale was appointed Deputy President of The Supreme Court in June 2013, succeeding Lord Hope of Craighead.
In January 2004, Lady Hale became the United Kingdom’s first woman Lord of Appeal in Ordinary after a varied career as an academic lawyer, law reformer, and judge. In October 2009 she became the first woman Justice of The Supreme Court.
After graduating from Cambridge in 1966, she taught law at Manchester University from 1966 to 1984, also qualifying as a barrister and practising for a while at the Manchester Bar. She specialised in Family and Social Welfare law, was founding editor of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, and authored a pioneering case book on ‘The Family, Law and Society’.
In 1984 she was the first woman to be appointed to the Law Commission, a statutory body which promotes the reform of the law. Important legislation resulting from the work of her team at the Commission includes the Children Act 1989, the Family Law Act 1996, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. She also began sitting as an assistant recorder.
In 1994 she became a High Court judge, the first to have made her career as an academic and public servant rather than a practising barrister. In 1999 she was the second woman to be promoted to the Court of Appeal, before becoming the first woman Law Lord.
She retains her links with the academic world as Chancellor of the University of Bristol, Visitor of Girton College, Cambridge, and Visiting Professor of Kings College London. A home maker as well as a judge, she thoroughly enjoyed helping the artists and architects create a new home for The Supreme Court.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Mance
Lord Mance became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 2005. He was from 1999 to 2005 a Lord Justice of Appeal and from 1993 to 1999 a Judge of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, where he also sat in the Commercial Court.
Lord Mance read law at University College, Oxford, spent time with a Hamburg law firm and then practised at the commercial bar and sat as a Recorder until 1993. He chaired various Banking Appeals Tribunals and was a founder director of the Bar Mutual Indemnity Insurance Fund.
He represented the United Kingdom on the Council of Europe’s Consultative Council of European Judges from 2000 to 2011, being elected its first chair from 2000 to 2003. He currently chairs the Executive Council of the International Law Association and the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law. He is a member of the Judicial Integrity Group and of the seven person panel set up under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (article 255) to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice and General Court.
He served from 2007 to 2009 on the House of Lords European Union Select Committee, chairing sub-committee E which scrutinises proposals concerning European law and institutions. In 2006 he chaired a working group under the auspices of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region, recommending changes in the procedures for enforcement of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and in 2008 he led an international delegation for the same Group and the Swedish Foundation for Human Rights, reporting on the problems of impunity in relation to violence against women in the Congo.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
Lord Kerr served as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland from 2004 to 2009, and was the last Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed before the creation of The Supreme Court.
Lord Kerr was educated at St Colman’s College, Newry, and read law at Queen’s University, Belfast. He was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 1970, and to the Bar of England and Wales at Gray’s Inn in 1974.
He served as Junior Crown Counsel from 1978 to 1983, at which point he took silk and served as Senior Crown Counsel from 1988 to 1993. In 1993 he was appointed a Judge of the High Court and knighted. He became Lord Chief Justice and joined the Privy Council in 2004.
Lord Kerr succeeded Lord Carswell of Killeen as Northern Ireland’s Lord of Appeal in Ordinary on 29 June 2009, the last Law Lord appointed before the creation of The Supreme Court.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony
Lord Clarke spent 27 years at the bar, specialising in maritime and commercial law, undertaking a wide variety of cases in these areas. He became a Recorder in 1985, sitting in both criminal and civil courts.
He conducted the Marchioness and Bowbelle Inquiries and was appointed Master of the Rolls in 2005. He is the first Justice to be appointed directly to The Supreme Court.
He was appointed to the High Court Bench in 1993 and in April that year succeeded Mr. Justice Sheen as the Admiralty Judge. He also sat in the Commercial Court and the Crown Court trying commercial and criminal cases respectively.
Appointed to the Court of Appeal in 1998, he was called upon to conduct first the Thames Safety Inquiry and in the following year the Marchioness and Bowbelle Inquiries. On 1 October 2005 he was appointed Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Wilson of Culworth
In 1967, after reading jurisprudence at Worcester College, Oxford, Lord Wilson was called to the Bar of England and Wales; and for the next 26 years, first as a junior and ultimately in silk, he practised almost exclusively in the field of family law.
From 1993 until 2005 he was a judge of the Family Division of the High Court. From 2005 until May 2011 he was a judge of the Court of Appeal.
In May 2011 he became a Justice of The Supreme Court.
After reading history at Magdalen College, Oxford, and serving for four years as a history Fellow of the College, Lord Sumption was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1975 and took Silk in 1986. His practice covered all aspects of Commercial, EU and Competition, Public and Constitutional Law.
He was appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge in 1992 and served as a Recorder between 1993 and 2001. He was appointed as a Judge of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey in 1995. In January 2012 he became a Justice of The Supreme Court.
Lord Sumption was a Judicial Appointments Commissioner from 2006 to 2011. He is also an accomplished historian.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill, CVO
After studying law at Trinity College, Cambridge, Lord Carnwath was called to the Bar (Middle Temple) in 1968 and took silk in 1985. He served as Attorney General to the Prince of Wales from 1988 to 1994.
He was a judge of the Chancery Division from 1994 to 2002, during which time (1998 to 2002) he was also Chairman of the Law Commission. Lord Carnwath was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2002.
Between 2007 and 2012 he was Senior President of Tribunals and led the planning and implementation of the reforms of the tribunal system following the Leggatt report.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Hughes of Ombersley
Lord Hughes was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1970 and served as a Recorder of the Crown Court from 1985 to 1997. He became a Queen’s Counsel in 1990 and was later appointed a judge of the High Court (Family Division from 1997 to 2003; and Queen’s Bench Division from 2004 to 2006).
In 2006, he was appointed a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, serving as the Vice President of its Criminal Division from 2009 until his appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court in April 2013.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Toulson
Lord Toulson was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1969 and became a bencher in 1995. He became a Queen’s Counsel in 1986 and served as a Recorder of the Crown Court from 1987 to 1996. In 1996, he was appointed to the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). He sat in the Commercial Court and in the Administrative Court and was then Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit from 1997 to 2002.
Between 2002 and 2006, Lord Toulson was Chairman of the Law Commission of England and Wales, after which he was appointed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in 2007. He has also served on the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales.
Lord Toulson was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court in April 2013.
Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Hodge
Lord Hodge was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1983 and appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1996. From 1997 – 2003, he was a part time Law Commissioner at the Scottish Law Commission.
Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court in April 2013, Lord Hodge was the Scottish Judge in Exchequer Causes and one of the Scottish Intellectual Property Judges. He was also a Judge in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court and a Commercial Judge.
Lord Hodge joined the Supreme Court in October 2013 as one of the two Scottish Justices.
On 11th June 2015 the cigpapers team sent a mailshot to the above twelve Supreme Court Judges. The mailshot was simply three of our leaflets with Coudenhove-Kalergi on one side and United Nations Resolution 260 against genocide on the other side in each envelope. The mailshot was sent to the Judges at House of Lords, Parliament, London, SW1A OAA as no stamp is required when writing to the Judges as members of the House of Lords.
36 leaflets at 1.2 pence each = 43.2 pence
12 envelopes at 1.5 pence each = 18 pence
TOTAL COST = £0:61
TOTAL TIME = 10 minutes
All of our leaflets and stickers are available to buy. Email email@example.com to order and pay.
The copyright-free pdf files for the leaflets are here:
Written by Cigpapers
Memes created by Watt Tyler
Anti-Globalisation Internet Meme Storm
With the internet now the main location for the alternative media and anti-Globalisation struggle, memes have become a very valuable tool. Memes can be endlessly put out on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook etc.) and many other parts of the internet. There are many free sites for making memes after obtaining the required photo or picture from Google Images:
Here are some of the memes we’ve been putting out which are free to use if you don’t want to make your own:
IMMIGRATION IS DESTRUCTION
By Boadicea (1)
We were sold mass immigration as a fabulous celebration: a ‘celebration of diversity’; a ‘rainbow utopia’; etc. It was all about peace, happiness, enrichment, harmony and love. They never mentioned destruction and harm. However, it will be shown that, contrary to the images, this political policy has in fact caused much destruction – and mass immigration is, in many ways, inherently destructive(2). They deceived and manipulated, sometimes they plain lied.
So in what ways can mass immigration be viewed as causing destruction?
In the most significant and fundamental manner, immigration is destruction in the sense that if there is no form of separation between groups, then over time the immigrants will mix with the indigenous people and form one racial group. The mixing actually acts, in the long term, against diversity – this, in fact, leads to homogenisation. In this sense, to sell mass immigration as diversity is not true (in the longer term), and actually it is the opposite (the ‘multiculturalism’ propaganda is inversionist). Some figures in the media, politics, academia, etc. boast of the destruction of indigenous Brits, heralding the day when there will be no more such people and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’ or ‘we will all be one race’, etc. Cessation of existence is the destruction of the racial or ethnic group in question(3). In this sense immigration is destruction(4).
Mass immigration also causes destruction of culture. It is a logical fact that when more than one culture is present in one place at one time, then it is not possible for all cultures to exist totally intact: there inevitably has to be a level(5) of destruction of one or more, if not all(6) of the cultures in question.
The inevitable destruction of culture as a consequence of immigration is enunciated by Dr Turner’s ‘one set of rules dilemma’(7) which states that at one place at one time only one set of ‘rules’ can describe the culture of the population in that area (country, city, etc.). All cultures can be described by what could be conceptualised as sets of descriptive ‘rules’, for example the descriptive ‘rules’ describing the architecture, mode of dress, language, behaviour, etc. An example of one such descriptive ‘rule’ could be that ‘women all wear purple hats’. In cases in which there is a difference (s) between such sets, then not all sets can describe one area simultaneously. And no two different cultures share the same set of such ‘rules’ (or they would not be different cultures). Hence, if one group moves into the area in which another group is practising its culture, then the ‘rules’ of both groups cannot remain unchanged across the area/population in question.
As a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the ‘one set of rules dilemma’, perhaps cultural group P paints all their buildings pink, and cultural group B paints them blue.
If group P moves to the city of group B, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue unless group P gives up their cultural practice of using pink paint. If group P continues to use pink paint, then the city-scape is altered: now there is a mixture of pink and blue buildings instead of the blue view that represented group B’s culture.
Alternatively, amongst other options, group B could change their practice – which would present cultural destruction for group B. Either: group P changes; or group B changes; or both change; or neither change; or parts of groups P and/or B change and other parts do not change (and the relevant changes in all cases could be to any colour or mixture of colours, not necessarily just pink or blue). The only option that does not involve either group changing their paint colour still does not preserve culture: even if neither group change their paint, the indigenous culture has been changed(8) (see above). In any possible scenario there is alteration of one, if not both(9), of the cultures in question. Culture has not been preserved. This destruction is inevitable in such circumstances.
This alteration of culture as a result of immigration can be seen in real life examples, e.g. views of cities have changed as the indigenous culture of Britain has been destroyed to make way for minarets and temples, etc.
The descriptive ‘rules’ can be applied to any aspect of culture, including to the rules of governance, for example: may women drive on the roads? They cannot drive and also not be allowed to drive. All cultures cannot remain intact: destruction is inevitable if space is shared(10). This is a logical fact. In real life some recommend that indigenous people alter their behaviour to accommodate immigrants, e.g. in Scandinavia one professor recommends that women alter their behaviour to avoid being raped by immigrants(11).
“Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
Of course, when indigenous British culture is actively inhibited so as ‘not to offend’ or otherwise, (e.g. no pork, Christmas celebrations reduced or banned, etc.(12)), then this represents another example of the ‘one set of rules dilemma’ in practice. In fact, the very presence of different people is an alteration to indigenous culture. People form a part of the culture, and also culture is the product of people. In shared space, not all cultures can remain fully intact. Hence, mass immigration presents destruction of culture(13).
There are many other ways in which there is destruction. Mass immigration causes destruction of feelings of fraternity/solidarity, trust(14), peace, familiarity, etc. It goes against natural instincts to have one’s territory invaded, and this provokes feelings of stress(15) and discomfort. Many indigenous people are upset and their quality of life suffers varying levels of destruction in this manner(16) – but the deterioration in the quality of indigenous people’s lives appears less important than the desires of some immigrants who ‘want to improve their lives’(17). Some lives are ‘more equal’ than others. Of course, it is not just feelings of destruction of peace and suchlike that are brought by diversity, but there frequently are actual outbreaks of disorder etc., these on small and sometimes large scales, (e.g. racial animosity/enviousness/resentment in face-to-face encounters, race riots, etc.). Diversity of race/ethnicity etc. brings strife in many forms. Quality of life suffers destruction as a result of immigration.
In Britain, and other countries too, there have been many reductions in freedom as a result of mass immigration(18). Some hold that the diversity of immigration requires reductions in freedoms – and even requires a totalitarian government(19). The former German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, is quoted as saying that ‘multicultural’ countries can only work under an authoritarian government:
“The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society”(20).
Of course, with the competition for cultural (and other) dominance between groups, clashes of cultures and races, etc. such a situation is intrinsically unstable and conflict-prone(21). Reductions in freedom frequently are held as necessary to inhibit unrest and open conflict(22), for example curfews are sometimes implemented and surveillance is widespread, etc.(23) Numerous other problems are caused by the diversity of immigration, many of which the governments of such countries attempt to quell/prevent by reducing freedoms. For example, often we are told that because certain immigrant groups present a security threat, our freedoms and privacies are to be reduced to keep us safe. Freedoms also are reduced in the UK as the government attempts to inhibit any opposition to mass immigration, and, inter alia, tries to suppress the indigenous people from expressing (or even thinking) anything that might upset the illusion that immigration is great. Freedom of speech has been severely curtailed in this country as a result of immigration (and the related actions by the government)(24). In many cases one is not allowed to state certain truths in case it might pose a threat to the political policy of mass immigration and to the related happy rainbow images (and/or upset immigrants, etc.) – truth and knowledge have hence suffered destruction. Of course, the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’ is based on utopian fantasies, irrationalities and lies (see Dr Turner qv). For such ideologies: truth, reason and open debate pose a significant threat. The whole house of cards easily could collapse were people to be well-informed with true facts – and were allowed to think and debate facts and policies in a fearless, honest and rational manner. Such ideologies require the suppression of truth, reason and morality to survive.
“Dissent has been relabelled as either hatred or insanity. Those who disagree with current orthodoxies are therefore deemed to be either bad or mad […] utopian fantasies wrenched facts and evidence to fit their governing idea. Independent thought thus became impossible — which inevitably resulted in an attack upon freedom, because reason and liberty are inseparable bed- fellows. […] Reason was thus replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.”(25)
Even the use of some words, of certain kinds, can result in one being arrested and sent to prison(26). It never used to be like this. Chief Constable Fahy warns of Britain becoming a police state: “There is a danger of us being turned into a thought police”(27) . Many freedoms have been reduced as a result of immigration; this presents the reality of destruction of our liberties.
Justice and fairness have suffered significant destruction as a result of immigration. Because of immigration, albeit perhaps indirectly, the principle of double jeopardy was removed in Britain. In a general sense it is more difficult for certain types of fairness to exist in a mixed country. This is illustrated by examples such as observing the opinions of different races (on average) on cases that pertain to race – such as in relation to the O.J. Simpson trial in which blacks and whites differed (in general) in opinion as to whether O.J. was guilty or not. Such divergences of opinion make jury trials and other matters of justice problematic in mixed countries. The same issue can be seen in relation to the demands that different groups want their own group to police them, judge them, etc. – these demands often made on the basis that other groups will not, amongst other things, treat them fairly(28). The police frequently have been accused of not policing properly because the criminals in question were immigrants – this accusation made for various reasons including that the police do not want to be labelled ‘racist’(29). If the police are not performing their job properly in relation to immigrants, then this is not just nor fair and also this tends to decrease the quality of life for the people of the country. It is also held that often immigrants receive more favourable treatment when they are victims of crime (relative to indigenous victims)(30). Such accusations of differential treatment pertain to the various other arms of the legal system, not only to the police (e.g. CPS, judges, lawyers, etc.). In these contexts, and others, immigration destroys fairness and justice(31). Reduction of trust in the legal system has various destructive consequences, as does the destruction of the belief that the country is reasonably fair: these destructions of justice and fairness cause further destructions.
These problems of inequality before the law touch upon the idea that in many senses of the term ‘equality’, immigration’s diversity is incompatible with ‘equality’(32). Of course, in a social and political sense ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word (see Dr Turner, qv). However, one can distinguish certain forms of ‘equality’ that are not problematic from a rational perspective. For example, above various issues in relation to equality before the law were noted. Immigration also presents inequalities in relation to equality of opportunity and result: for equal results one would have to have unequal processing if the groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria). Hence, ‘equality’ in both of these senses is not possible in such circumstances(33). The very act of immigration into the country of an indigenous people presents the fact of treating the indigenous people as not equal to the immigrants(34). It is a reality that different groups tend (in general/overall) to feel more fraternity and loyalty towards members of their own group, presenting various intrinsic inequalities in a mixed country (including in relation to the law – see above). Thus, in many senses of the term ‘equality’, ‘equality’ is reduced, if not impossible, when there is immigration. In an ironic manner, immigration is frequently sold as ‘equality’.
Many children’s lives have suffered destruction as a result of immigration into Britain – this harm would not necessarily always be a result of immigration (as opposed to some of the destruction noted above which is intrinsic to immigration in general), but has been resultant in this context. This particular harm and destruction has been caused in many ways(35), including the many thousands raped by immigrants(36). It is held by many that the little girls in places such as Rotherham (and Sheffield, Manchester, etc.) were sacrificed to appease the immigrants and/or to enable the authorities to indulge themselves in their feel-good ‘anti-racism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ dogmas – letting them feel superior and compassionate(37) – and, not unrelatedly, avoid accusations of ‘racism’(38). It is likely that some people were too scared to act properly. Some hold that the abuse needed to be ignored to maintain the lie that immigration was not destruction, but was good(39):
“What is particularly sickening is their desperation to cover up the abuse in their attempt to maintain the illusion that cultural diversity was working in Rotherham.” (40)
As the local Labour MP for Rotherham during the time documented in Professor Jay’s Report (MP between 1994-2012), Denis MacShane (former BBC employee and convicted fraudster) stated:
“there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.” (41)
As author Allison Pearson notes in response, qv: “Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being raped, eh, Denis?”(42)
The destruction that results from sexual abuse is particularly life-destroying and the consequences rarely are confined to the victim him or herself; frequently the destruction to the spirit is passed down the generations and also family and others in proximity are affected. For example, the consequences of victims’ mental illnesses (and pain/suffering in general) affect others, as do the many cases when such victims turn to drink and drugs to dull the pain, cope with life, etc. Of course, a lot of the drug trade is conducted by immigrants, only too happy to profit from the destruction of lives.
Crimes inflicted upon indigenous Brits by immigrants are not confined to rape and drugs, and this level of crime has caused pain, destruction of a sense of safety and security – and the resultant decreases in quality of life. For example, many elderly people are scared to go out to the extent that they would like, and largely this is due to the fear of crime (and the destruction of their way of life and comfort in general, etc.). The increase in crime as result of immigration(43) (both by direct and indirect means(44)) causes fear and discomfort, plus other problems such as increased security precautions being necessary, increased insurance premiums being paid, etc. Immigration has destroyed quality of life to a significant extent.
The validity and integrity of the electoral system in Britain has suffered a level of destruction as a result of immigration. This has occurred by various means. For example, the problem of postal voting fraud is found to be occurring disproportionately amongst certain immigrant groups (not to mention the deals for the genuine postal votes and orders to vote from elders and family leaders, etc.)(45). There are attitudes to the voting system amongst some immigrant groups that differ from those of the Brits, and there is a higher level of corruption amongst some immigrant groups than amongst the indigenous people(46). As Attorney General MP Dominic Grieve says:
“we have minority communities in this country which come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic”(47)
Of course, such corruption and attitudes are specific to certain immigrant groups, and this form of destruction is not a necessary consequence of immigration in the general sense. However, the diversity that immigration always brings does present some inherent potential problems in relation to elections, including matters such as split loyalties and groups favouring their own(48). All these general and specific issues present ways in which immigration has presented some destruction of political democracy.
Immigration has brought a lot of destruction to the working and lower-middle classes. In many ways, immigration is a class issue. The propagation of ‘moral relativism’(49) caused a belief to be widely held that one ‘should not judge’ – hence, amongst other things, facilitating immigration. This relativism has resulted in an inhibition of the teaching of moral and correct behaviour, which has wrought havoc on poorer communities. In more direct ways, immigration has destroyed the quality of life for working class people as wages and working conditions have reduced, and the shortage of lower-skilled and no-skilled jobs has rendered many unemployed(50). The main influx of immigrants has tended to be in the poorer areas of the country, and these areas are also less able to cope with extra problems and destruction. It is hence the less advantaged that have suffered the most – this pertains to all the destructions noted above, e.g. it is disproportionately white working class children who have been raped and abused by immigrants and it is largely these communities that have been destroyed by the other crimes and by the shattering of any sense of solidarity, comfort and community. As Leo McKinstry notes:
“Mass immigration has amounted to a gross betrayal of the British people, particularly the working class who have borne the brunt of this catastrophically misguided policy.”(51)
One BBC presenter claims that the BBC ignored the problem of immigration so as not to be branded ‘racist’, and also because:
“BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives…”
In some ways, immigration has been foisted upon the white working class by the more privileged of society, and objections to immigration are sneered at in a snobbish manner by the more privileged – while the poorer are destroyed. Many of the educated/privileged seem to feel it is intellectually, socially and morally superior to support this destruction. This is admitted by some who previously supported mass immigration, e.g. Peter Hitchens writes that he is sorry:
“…we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years […] we sneered at [the urban poor] as ‘racists’. …
I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”(52)
There are other ways in which immigration presents destruction, both in the general sense and in the specific example of Great Britain recently, including, in this country: destruction of the education system(53); the advancement of the country being reduced; etc.(54). However the destruction of culture and existence are perhaps the most serious (and are two of the inherent forms of destruction caused by immigration(55)). So, in exchange for this what do we get? And is it worth it? Could anything be worth genocide?
Well, we are told that mass immigration brings diversity, but in the long term it does not; as noted above it brings quite the opposite. And diversity in shared space is not always a good thing either, (e.g. race riots, fracturing of peace and solidarity, etc.). Some people say they enjoy seeing different faces around – putting aside the patronising ‘zoo-like’ tone of this – the very diversity they enjoy is threatened by mass immigration, and is their small pleasure worth the destruction? How could they think it is acceptable to self-indulge at the expense of others – and, ironically, all the time posing with their ‘moral values’? Why do ‘anti-racists’ throw one race under the bus to posture? And do they not see any possible inconsistency in their position? Another ‘argument’ for mass immigration is the variety of restaurants available, but is this choice of restaurants worth the destruction? And, of course, indigenous people can be taught to cook any dishes(56).
Some argue that it is ‘nice’ and compassionate to bring in millions of people: compassionate to whom? To those suffering the destruction? And in the long run it is not clear that the immigrants will gain – this true in a number of ways. For example, even the new immigrants will, and frequently do(57), resist further immigration after a point(58) – perhaps as, in relation to the area in question, a sense of territorialism and ownership develop to a certain extent(59). The short term gains enjoyed by immigrants might not be worthwhile even for them in the long run. And then there is the alleged economic argument. If all the figures (immigration has caused many costs to Britain(60)) and the long-term economic projections are taken into account, it is not clear that immigration is an economic benefit to Britain, in fact, the reverse is true(61). One can view this from the example of one hypothetical immigrant: he either works and thus takes a job(62) a Brit could have done(63), and pays taxes that a Brit could have paid. Alternatively, he takes benefits. Where is the economic gain coming from(64)? Are these immigrants all arriving and dropping off large amounts of cash that they brought with them? Well the truth is that millions of pounds leave the country every month as immigrants send money back home (plus benefits are sent abroad by the government too, etc.). We are not gaining money here, and even if we were, is it worth the destruction? As Hitchens writes in relation to immigration:
“..it is impossible not to be angry with the politicians who either couldn’t imagine what their policies would bring in practice, or did not care. The destruction of familiarity and security cannot be measured in money.”(65)
How much would you sell your country, peace, freedom, quality of life, culture, heritage, children and race for? Even were there to be a financial gain (which there is not here(66)), is this moral? Are we for sale? What possibly could be worth selling your race for? Of course, all this destruction is predictable, and is documented around the world and across history – which begs the question: who would implement such a policy, and why?
Immigration presents destruction, and it just isn’t worth it.
(1) As background reading to many of the points in this article, please read Dr Thomas Turner’s book:
“MULTICULTURALISM” – WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
Available on Amazon at:
(2)In some senses, immigration is inevitably destructive, and other means of destruction are context-specific. Examples of both forms of destruction will be noted below.
(3)To intentionally cause a race to cease to exist is genocide. Under the UN definition of genocide, physical violence is not necessary, and merely bringing about the physical conditions that reduce the population, with the intent to so do, qualifies as genocide. Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide states that genocide can be defined, amongst other things, as: ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ with ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’ The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was Adopted by Resolution 260 of the U.N. General Assembly on the 9th December 1948
(4)It is facts such as these that have prompted various survival campaigns, such as the ‘’multiculturalism’ is genocide’, ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white’ and ‘diversity is death’ campaigns, e.g. see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/multiculturalism-is-genocide-campaign-and-stickers/
(5)A variable level depending on the context
(6)I.e. possibly ‘both’ if there are only 2 cultures in question, and possibly ‘all’ in cases in which there are more than 2 cultures relevant
(7)See Dr Turner’s book:
(8)As has the immigrant culture
(9)Or more than two if more than 2 cultures are relevant
(10)Of course, sometimes areas split so that different cultures are practised (to a large extent at least) in different areas, also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html
If areas of territory are given away to immigrants, then this destroys the intact nature of the indigenous culture. And why would a country do that?
In such cases, intangible space is still shared, at least to some extent, and this, amongst other things, can present various issues (see Dr Turner’s book qv)
(12)E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236989/Tinsel-Taliban-strikes-Court-Service-ban-staff-decorations-avoid-offence.html
In the US, the inhibitions on celebrating Christmas are called ‘war on Christmas’ by some, e.g. see:
(13)This dilemma also means that if ‘multiculturalism’ is defined as ‘everyone practising their own culture’ or ‘all cultures being preserved’, then this is not possible in shared space – rendering this definition of ‘multiculturalism’ impossible to achieve in practice in cases of immigration (see Turner’s book qv)
(14)Trust suffers destruction in various ways and by various means, for example: trust between people is diminished by a number of processes; trust in the justice system is reduced by various means; etc. As with destruction of the other factors noted here, reductions in trust can have many deleterious consequences for the country.
(15)This cause of stress, as with many of the other stresses caused by immigration, might be a contributory factor to the increase in psychological problems that has occurred
(16)Also see: Telegraph 29th January 2013
(19)Also see: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
(20)Telegraph 25th November 2004
(21)Inter-group conflict characterises such diversity.
(22)Conflict is found between immigrant groups, e.g. see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1519134/Asian-race-riot-killers-jailed-for-25-years.html
and also between immigrant groups and the indigenous people, e.g. see:
(24)For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
(28)If this principle of being policed, judged, etc. only by one’s own group is thought through, then this is an argument for separation – if this is followed, then mixed areas are not feasible
(29)E.g. for such accusations see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html
(30)E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html
(31)In an ironic, manipulative, dishonest and inversionist manner, immigration is often sold to people as being fair and just.
(32)Also see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(33)E.g. see the inequalities presented by affirmative action: members of one race (s) are given favourable treatment for jobs, educational places, etc.
(34)Also see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/are-white-britains-treated-as-second-class-in-their-own-country/
(35)In many areas with high immigrant populations, children no longer have the freedom to go out play like they used to. This is another reduction in freedom and also of quality of life.
(36)E.g. over 1,400 in one town (Rotherham) in just 16 years is documented.
(37)To whom? To the rape and abuse victims?
(39)This touches on the cover-up of the true results of immigration. The media and government act to conceal the truth from the public by various means, e.g.: the censorship, the lies, the ‘finding positive stories’ about immigration, etc.
(42)Of course, other factors may be at play here too, including the fact that if the British public knew of the levels of abuse, then immigration might not be tolerated. There are accusations that the Labour Party dealt for votes, but this is not proven. Many factors are causal here, and different causes are more significant for different people.
(44)Indirect means include factors such as that when the people are divided and oppressed, then feelings of consideration, trust, care, etc. in a general sense diminish and this tends to breed crime. Other indirect factors come into play, such as that the poverty brought to normal indigenous people by immigration tends to increase the likelihood of crime being committed by them. There are many other such indirect factors that result from immigration and its consequences.
(48)There are other related problems, such as one Jewish MP who no longer holds MP surgeries because of inter-ethnic threats, see: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11659715.MP_received_death_threats/
(49)Some define ‘multiculturalism’ as such ‘moral relativism’ – see Dr Turner’s book qv
(50)The poor are made poorer by immigration, also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386537/Mass-immigration-UK-s-poor-poorer.html
(53)Those implementing and/or propagandising mass immigration very rarely send their children to the schools that are most affected by immigration. Many inner city comprehensives suffer terrible problems with inter-group conflicts, lower standards, non-English speakers taking teaching time and #lowering educational standards, etc. E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221759/Hammer-attack-victim-seeks-1m-damages-politically-correct-school-closed-eyes-racial-tensions-Henry-Webster-Asian-Invasion-Swindon-Ridgeway-Foundation.html
For example, black Labour MP Dianne Abbott opted for a private education for her son, as do many such ‘leftie’/’liberal’ MPs, or they chose a state school in a good area (to get a nice time and good education, without admitting they are opting out of the mess they have created).
Senior Guardian Newspaper writers have their children sent to private schools, not affected by the destruction that they propagandise for the rest of us, see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/the-guardian-newspaper-exposed/
(54)Also see destruction of quality of life as pressure is placed on resources, including the NHS, schools, police and justice system, roads, water, housing, etc. E.g.
(55)As opposed to some forms that are context-specific
(56)It is not ‘rocket salad’, merely salad with a different recipe
(57)The resistance usually is found towards those of different races, not to more of their own race. There are reasons why immigrants might not resist, e.g. if this appears a poor tactic for them, etc.
(58)E.g. in Sheffield there are problems between the Roma immigrants just arriving and the Pakistanis who arrived earlier
(59)If mass immigration never stops, then apart from the small islands being over-crowded, there is the issue that nobody ever has a home as such – it is never-ending destruction and turmoil
(60)Many such calculations only focus on unemployment benefits verses tax revenues, but ignore many benefits such as tax credits, child benefits, etc. Also, even without the benefits, there are many other financial costs that have been caused by immigration into Britain (both directly and indirectly) – factors such as: translation services; financial costs of race riots; extra policing costs in general; government posts in ‘community relations/diversity officers’, etc.; the ‘multiculturalism’ industry in general; etc.
(61)Of course, different groups of immigrants present different financial issues. In the UK, third world immigration is particularly expensive for the country.
(62)Some jobs are only for non-indigenous people, sometimes this is explicit whereas other times it is not stated but is the case. Also see: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356955
(63)Unemployment rises as a result of immigrants taking jobs.
Also see: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/800000-uk-jobs-advertised-across-europe–and-foreign-jobseekers-even-get-travelling-costs-8734731.html
Many immigrant workers drive down wages and working conditions for indigenous people, this works in a number of ways including the fact that many immigrants live in a temporary manner (even though it might end up permanent) and hence have lower living expenses and can accept lower wages., (e.g. numerous people sharing a home deigned for many fewer). Other means by which this occurs include that fact that many immigrants arrive from countries with much lower wages/conditions/standards of living – hence we engage in a race to the bottom
(64)Some calculations disingenuously talk about the GDP, rather than GDP per capita. Of course, if there are more people, then this tends to push up the overall GDP, but that is not as relevant as is GDP per capita – which is a better measure of quality of life (from an economic perspective).
(66)Other than for some of the very wealthy
Written by Boadacea
Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?
Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.
However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?
Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.
Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?
If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.
In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.
The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?
This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):
In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.
So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.
Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.
In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004 he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.
There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.
Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.
You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
2.Even those in government can insult the English and/or the British without sanction – and certainly without going to prison. For example, saying the English are a race too lazy or incapable of working, etc. is fine, but don’t say it about Africans, etc.
3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
5. ‘Immunity from criticism’ refers to the fact that if no criticism, challenge, debate, alternative ideas, etc. are allowed, then those with this immunity can merely state their ideas, beliefs, policies, etc. and do not have to face any criticism or challenge on them. Such people do not need to defend what they say in any way and can merely state what they wish and leave the impression almost as though it is correct and perfect – with no alternatives.
6. See Dr. T. Turner
7. George Orwell is quoted as stating that: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’
9. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676
11. These links to the establishment, frequently by those purporting to be ‘anti-establishment’, will be examined in a forthcoming essay
12. Ironically and dishonestly, many of these types pose as very ‘anti-establishment’ and rebellious.
14. And of course not all of them are in direct contact with the state in relation to the enforcement, but most of them understand that they will be very unlikely to be held account for threats, violence, etc. against anti-immigration people. Of course, some of them are in direct contact as will be discussed in future essays.
16. Many fear social rejection if labelled as such a ‘witch’
17. Also see: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1269378544
19. Communist badges? Even anarchists badges?
20. But won on appeal as this breached his human rights, e.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229211/Bus-driver-sacked-member-BNP-wins-legal-battle-claiming-dismissal-breach-human-rights.html
22. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
23. One could interpret some of this legislation in such a manner that it would render many politicians guilty of the offences therein. For example the Public Order Act 1986 makes it, amongst other things, a criminal offence to state certain matters that threaten, abuse or insult and are likely to stir up racial hatred. Are not many pro-immigration speeches thus covered? What about those who state that the immigrants ‘do the jobs Brits are too lazy to do’?
26. And how can this be shown to be the case? When would it not be resentment, disapproval or disgust, etc. and actually be hatred? Besides, how could causing hatred even be thought in a sane world #to be illegal?