HERO-WORSHIP AND TOMMYTARDS
The English Defence League, after all, was formed in the image of the Jewish Defence League, a terrorist group that aligned itself to militant Negro groups in America. It was started just a couple of weeks after the BNP had gained two MEPs in the European elections of June 2009, reaching the height of its power, and we in the BNP were aware that the EDL had been created for three reasons:
1. to syphon off support for the BNP and channel it into dead ends
2. to create a group of “far-right” football hooligans that were a soft target for the press and could be linked to the BNP
3. to make good little “anti-racists” out of nationalists.
From the very beginning, despite doing good work in exposing Muslim paedophile gangs, it also promoted multi-racialism and attacked genuine nationalists in Britain who had been exposing the same as “racists”. The EDL under Robinson had various groups within it, including a Jewish section and an LGBT one. In other words, the EDL promoted the same agenda as the government. This is not to say there were not any good people in the EDL. There certainly were, but they were coerced into toeing the PC line, with Robinson being convicted of headbutting someone he referred to as a “neo-Nazi” in 2011.
“The Board has been at the forefront of the development of proposals for race relations legislation in the UK… The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation […] It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.
“The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998…..
“The social climate affecting racism and racial discrimination has also evolved during that period, and many proposals have been put forward for correcting deficiencies or anomalies in the legislation […] But there remains some scope for improvement.
“We regard the proposals of the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) for legislative change to be well thought out and substantiated […] We are pleased to welcome and endorse the CRE’s published proposals.
“In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B, which recommends that the Race Relations Act should apply to all aspects of the activities of Government and all Public Bodies. We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in forming public opinion on social issues…..
“The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds […] We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to outlaw Holocaust Denial…..
“In addition to changes in the main body of national law, changes are needed in the rules and regulations of many institutions and organisations to decrease or remove discrimination on religious grounds.”
I think that pretty much shows what organised Jewry in Britain has been up to in their own words. But onto the present case in hand – Tommy Robinson’s jailing, supposedly for speaking freely. Julie Lake’s article published here got it absolutely spot on: it was his own fault. (ER comment: we highly recommend this article, which calls into question why Robinson actually did go outside the court during jury deliberations. According to her it ‘has put the entire trial at risk of collapsing and the bastards walking free, laughing up their sleeves’ and ‘Tommy Robinson put the trial in danger of the defendants being able to claim a mistrial due to public opinion having been swayed, and get off scot free, even if they were as guilty as hell.’ Lake calls him an idiot but ER is not so sure about that.)
I will go further: he went there with the express purpose of being arrested and imprisoned so that he could become “a martyr to the cause”. He knew full well that the terms of his suspended sentence received in Canterbury last year, where the judge was surprisingly lenient considering that even then he had been warned in Luton about interfering with ongoing trials, were that he would receive a harsh sentence if he attempted to prejudice another ongoing trial by reporting on it in such a way that prejudiced the jury. For those who do not wish to read the whole thing in the link: here are the highlights:
“They were deliberate actions intending to take photographs of the defendants; they were actions which you continued to take, despite having been told that you should not do it, and I find, as a clear logical inference, that your intention on coming into the court building was to seek out the defendants, who you referred to in the way in which we have all seen and heard […] You made it abundantly clear, indeed it is abundantly clear that your mission and purpose was to try and film the defendants. The fact that you failed to do that was because we were able to take avoiding action. You then continued to film in the court building, even though you had been told not to, and these matters were then published on the media with, as I am aware, a very wide viewing rate, referring to the defendants by their religion and referring to them as “Muslim child rapists” or “Muslim paedophiles”…..
“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial…..
“If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am…..
“The question therefore comes down to what the appropriate disposal should be. In my judgment, an apology, although it is an apology which I accept and for which I thank you, is not sufficient. Neither do I feel in this case that a financial penalty is appropriate. It seems to me that this does need to be met with a custodial sentence. The only question in my mind is whether it might, in the circumstances and bearing in mind that which Mr. Kovalevsky has told me, and which I accept from him about the potential dangers that you might face were I to send you into custody immediately, and bearing in mind the need to ensure that this trial is kept on track, and bearing in mind the fact that, as he says, you will now be under no illusions whatsoever as to what you can and cannot do, whether it might be possible in your case to suspend the sentence of imprisonment which I would otherwise have imposed…..
“The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you […] is one of three months’ imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.”