Free English Political Prisoner Sam Melia

The Truth is no Defence in British Courts

  1. Home
  2. News
  3. The Truth is no Defence in British Courts

January 24, 2024

Posted by Steve Blake

This afternoon at Leeds Crown Court Sam Melia, the Yorkshire PA Regional Organiser and husband of PA Deputy Leader Laura Towler, was found guilty of inciting racial hatred and encouraging criminal damage.

The jury of nine men and three women unanimously found Sam guilty for creating downloadable templates for stickers which bore slogans such as:

  • Reject White Guilt
  • It’s OK to be White
  • We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066
  • White Lives Matter
  • Stop Anti-White Rape Gangs
  • Love Your Nation

The prosecution contended that despite the content of the stickers being lawful, they were produced as a body of work intended to stir up racial hatred. Out of a total of 310 stickers which were read out in detail to the jury during the eight-day long trial, only a handful mentioned race and the jury was reminded by the prosecution that it did not matter whether the content of the stickers was true, as the truth is no defence in such a case.

Sam awaits sentencing on 1st March and has been advised not to talk about the case as it could impact the sentence.

Earlier Laura posted of her pride for her husband:

“I will say that I am proud of my husband. He put his head above the parapet, defended his people and told the truth.

“As detailed above, I won’t say any more about Sam just to be on the safe side, but I and many others unapologetically stand for a safe homeland for the British people. This will never change for us, no matter what they throw at us.”

Prosecution claims

The prosecution, in their opening statement, claimed that the stickers in isolation were lawful, however the Hundred Handers (HH) project in whole was incitement to racial hatred. The prosecution also claimed throughout the trial that the stickers being truthful was no defence.

The judge stated that Sam was not on trial for being racist, if the jury should decide he was, he was on trial for inciting racial hatred through HH stickers only.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution made numerous statements proving Sam’s innocence of the crime he had been accused of: intending to stir up racial hatred. The prosecution claimed multiple times that Sam had no intention to threaten anybody, commit “hate speech” or do anything illegal. The following two quotes are from the prosecution’s own opening statement:

“The defendant claimed in one exchange on Telegram that he was careful to keep a tight control on what stickers were published under the auspices of the Hundred Handers group, or which bore the Hundred Handers logo, so as to avoid the risk of someone else creating or posting stickers which potentially linked to his operation, but which were overtly threatening or illegal.” “…and he made clear that he wanted to avoid anything that was openly “fascistic, threatening, or hate speech”

When the prosecution’s “expert witness” was called – a far left academic activist who writes for the far-left gossip rag, Searchlight Magazine – he was asked why people on the right may use stickers to spread their message. The “expert witness” responded by saying “to spread a message, recruit people, to start conversations, etc.” The prosecution then responded by adding, “and they could be used to threaten, couldn’t they?”, to which the “expert witness” responded “yes”.

The jury were advised by the judge during the trial, if they were 99% sure that Sam was guilty, they should vote not guilty, so let’s look at the evidence of Sam intending to incite racial hatred vs the evidence of him not intending to.

Sam’s defence evidence

  • The Hundreds Handers archive contained a rule which advised not to put the stickers on any private property, and not to put them anywhere where they could be considered threatening or intimidatory
  • There were multiple streams played of Sam saying publicly that he had no intention to incite hatred and the stickers were created to raise awareness and start a conversation
  • In the Hundred Handers change log, Sam removed sticker number 188 because it bordered on incitement. The log read: “01/09/19 – Addition of 13 new stickers. Removal of #0188 as it bordered on incitement, it’s use is not condoned by the Hundred-Handers.”
  • Sam archived each sticker with its own personal number, writing in the archive that he had done this so that nobody could create any illegal or threatening stickers and link them to him, as that kind of language is not condoned
  • There were multiple private and public messages from Sam, dating back many years, stating that the Hundred Handers was created to raise awareness and spread a message and that there was no intention to cause hatred or violence

This is all clear evidence of Sam stating, publicly and privately, that he had no intention to incite hatred, the crime he was being accused of.

There was not a single piece of evidence indicating that Sam intended to incite racial hatred.

Circumstantial evidence

So what evidence did the prosecution rely upon?

They referenced a picture of Adolf Hitler in a garage that Sam and his friends rented to exercise in during the Covid-19 lockdown. The picture of Hitler was a funny picture placed in an amusing position.

They referenced a book written by and a canvas featuring Sir Oswald Mosley. Both were owned by Laura, who admitted to this in her testimony.

After looking through Sam’s entire message history dating back many years, they found four examples of slurs, averaging at one per year. None of these words were said to anybody of another race but were communicated in private messages, mostly in humour.

Other Points to Note

The prosecution brought up stickers during the trial that were not part of the Hundred Handers project, and then admitted they made a mistake and they weren’t part of the project and had nothing to do with Sam.

The prosecution brought up two articles about razor blades behind stickers, and then admitted they’d had no police reports about razor blades behind HH stickers and no proof that this had happened at all.

The police admitted there had been zero incidents of crimes being reported (or hatred being incited) that related to the stickers.

The jury were asked to consider all 310 stickers in the archive and whether the archive in whole was considered to be incitement to racial hatred. In his closing statement, the defence barrister revealed that over 80% of the stickers didn’t mention other races, religions or ethnicities, or even reference words like “multiculturalism” and “diversity”, seemingly making it impossible that the archive in whole could be considered incitement to racial hatred.

Support Campaign

Over the last few years, Sam and Laura have worked tirelessly for PA, despite having this court case hanging over their heads. Now Sam has been found guilty, it is likely he will serve a custodial sentence. As such, PA is launching a campaign to raise money to allow Sam and Laura to go away for a week as a family before the date of Sam’s sentencing.

The campaign can be found here:

Finally Sam may have been the one in the dock throughout the past eight days, but it is the wider community of nationalists who are in the gun sights of the British State. Our people are under relentless attack from the globalists who seek to replace us with a flood of migrants. Those of us in Patriotic Alternative who defiantly resist this programme of demographic replacement are all in the frame.

We cannot allow that to happen and we must stand together as one to resist our wholesale removal.

We stand with Sam. We are all Sam today.

Musk’s Free Speech Schizophrenia

Musk’s Free Speech Schizophrenia

Realist ReportLeave a comment

“Censor not, lest ye be censored,” Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Twitter, tweeted recently. Since purchasing Twitter, Musk has been vilified by the far left and liberal activist community for pledging to restore free speech on the platform, ostensibly allowing more conservative and right-wing voices space on one of the world’s largest and most influential social media sites.

That very same day, Monday, April 24, several notable right-wing dissidents were unceremoniously deplatformed and banned on Twitter with no explanation given. Popular talk radio personality James Edwards, the longtime host of The Political Cesspool, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, one of the leading dissident intellectuals who edits The Occidental Observer, Dr. Tom Sunic, a Croatian-American former diplomat, academic, and author, along with countless others had their increasingly popular Twitter accounts permanently banned.

Edwards explained to this reporter:

I had been on Twitter since 2016 and never once received a prior warning or reprimand. This wasn’t my second or third strike. This was an online assassination that went straight to a permanent ban. No reason was given.

I conduct myself professionally and have always been sure to responsibly present our arguments. I don’t quarrel with individuals on social media and have never even used profanity or crude rhetoric.

Simply put, by no reasonable standard of measurement could it be argued that I violated even the most ambiguous terms of service. This was just another case of naked censorship.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald noted he simply received an email with a subject line that read: “Your account is permanently suspended.”

The email continued:

After careful review, we determined your account broke the Twitter Rules. Your account is permanently in read-only mode, which means you can’t Tweet, Retweet, or Like content. You won’t be able to create new accounts. If you think we got this wrong, you can submit an appeal.

No reason was provided for the permanent ban, and no explanation was provided detailing in what specific way any Twitter Rules were violated.

“No reason was given and that’s also the case with James,” MacDonald told this reporter referring to the permanent ban. “We have appealed, asking for reasons but I rather doubt anything good will happen.”

Sunic, meanwhile, noted that the Twitter ban didn’t surprise him at all, arguing “that the censorship in the U.S. is continuing where the Soviet Union left off.”

Sunic wrote following his ban:

I know what I am talking about. My family and I were all proscribed in communist ex-Yugoslavia for several decades. My father, an ex-lawyer, even served prison time for “hostile anti-communist literature.”

Now we are witnessing the same intellectual purges, albeit adorned with fancy and demonic euphemisms such as “hate speech” and “ethnic sensitivity training” in the U.S. and EU—akin to the ex-Soviet People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, i.e., the NKVD.

Several other dissident commentators were purged recently as well, including Andrew Anglin, editor and lead writer for The Daily Stormer, easily one of the most censored websites in the world. Paul Fromm, a Canadian free speech activist and occasional contributor to this newspaper, was also banned. It remains unclear what specific rules any of these activists, writers, and commentators broke, if any.

In addition to the recent censoring of popular dissidents, many other content creators and political activists have been permanently banned for months now. Mike Peinovich, Joseph Jordan, Warren Balogh, and others associated with the National Justice Party (NJP), a burgeoning political movement dedicated to advocating “for White civil rights, the working and middle class, and the traditional family against our corrupt and illegitimate institutions,” have been shut down and censored on Twitter. Links to the organization’s website are also banned from even being shared on the platform.

Patriotic Alternative, a similar right-wing political movement based in the UK, and its leadership and affiliated organizations are also permanently banned on Twitter. Additionally, Nick Fuentes, a leading political commentator and organizer based in Chicago, is also banned on the platform.

Laura Towler, a leader with Patriotic Alternative, recently pointed out:

Twitter censorship is worse under Elon Musk than it ever was before. Not only are most of our accounts suspended still/again, but so are URLs to websites like Patriotic Alternative and NJP. This makes it almost impossible to share any [public] activism, direct people to solutions, or even recruit people to sign up. People are able to lie about us and we have no ability to defend ourselves.

Warren Balogh also powerfully argued that censorship under Musk is even more extreme than it was previously, noting that Musk purchased “the most important social media platform in the world for political discourse, with the promise to restore free speech, then [has made] it more restrictive than it ever was for dissident individuals and parties in the West at the wishes of the ADL [Anti-Defamation League.—Ed.].”

Balogh explained:

This is what we get living under the arbitrary rule of an oligarchy of degenerate billionaires. This whole system has to go, including oligarchs like Musk who think they are gods, and the world and all our most fundamental freedoms are their playthings, that they can amuse themselves with or discard when they get bored.

Shortly after purchasing Twitter, which was a long, drawn-out process fraught with controversy and conflict, Musk openly stated that, under his watch, the platform would allow all speech that the First Amendment specifically protects.

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law,” Musk tweeted on April 26, 2022. “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

Musk’s mixed messaging and outright schizophrenic thinking on free speech matters continues to grow. While denouncing censorship on his personal Twitter account, which receives millions of views, his underlings at the social media behemoth censor legitimate and responsible right-wing dissidents that have long been in the crosshairs of organized special interest groups like the ADL, who work overtime to cancel and shut down their opposition.

NB: This article was originally published by American Free Press on May 17, 2023. Subscribe to America’s last real newspaper today!