* An elite running scared
* New repression — Motion-103 (Islamophobia) now in committee
* Little rebellions across Canada
Spirited greetings to all after 48 hours detention including four arrests, one de-arrest, six hours’ custody at Charing Cross (Desk Sergent: Alison, you’re definitely not the usual kind of customer we get in here).
Bundled into police van, filthy, freezing cold, no seat belt, no seat! Three hours of hell to Chesterfield then car to Buxton. Finally charged at eleventh hour for causing yet more musical gross offence to delicate flowers desperate to see me detained on remand for alleged breach of bail.
Court hearing in Chesterfield this morn. Great lawyer. Not guilty plea. New charges transferred back down to Westminster Mags for legal argument hearing October 25th. No change to bail conditions.
Loveliest court guard was as happy as me: You’re saying everything that everyone thinks but daren’t say out loud.
I made it quite plain in my interview that if the authorities wish to lock up a politically incorrect singer, then they can go ahead.
Good luck to them.
Tue, October 03, 2017 | Author: Ron Voss | Volume 24 Issue 40
The Heritage Committee has started to meet as required by parliamentary M-103. I listened to the first hour of the hearing on September 20th, when Tarek Fatah, a secular Muslim, and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former officer in both the RCMP and CSIS, appeared as witnesses.
We have a former federal police officer basically toying with the censoring of the media and the prosecuting of individuals when “things go too far.”
On the other hand, in a subsequent article in the Toronto Sun, Fatah, reflecting on his experience appearing before the Committee, concluded that it was “evident” to him that “this was not a ‘hearing,’ but an exercise to rubber stamp a pre-determined outcome.”
The testimony by Juneau-Katsuya, presumably an “expert” hand-picked by the Liberals, brought to mind a more malignant version of Winston Smith who worked at the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. Winston Smith’s job was to overwrite the truth, replacing the history of what really happened with a revised version. Juneau-Katsuya sketched out an alarm about the supposed rise and threat of a “radical right,” which voice—he said—needs to be silenced. As if our Charter right to free speech should be forfeited because Juneau-Katsuya’s imaginary enemy might…well…do something.
Juneau-Katsuya started his opening 10-minute segment saying, “My comments today…will focus on the rise of the right which, to my mind…represents a greater threat than radical Islam…a greater threat because it creeps into the thoughts of our fellow citizens so much so that it distorts reality and eventually, over time, withstands dispassionate and measured debate” A greater threat to whom, he doesn’t tell us. He contends that the right of free citizens to hold opinions is more dangerous than the death, maiming, and fear created by Islamic radicalism, despite the almost daily accounts of terrorist activities? With this opening statement by Juneau-Katsuya, the revisionism underway is very detectable.
Most of what he said, as in the following examples, makes sense if you invert what he said, for example, substituting the real threat of the “radical left” (like Antifa) and Islamic terrorists, for his imagined “radical right.”
Juneau-Katsuya tells us, “The rise of the right already has many victims and we are pretty close to being on the eve of domestic terrorism far more severe as a threat.” If we take away the “Ministry of Truth” snow job and look at the facts, we see that since 9/11, in the name of Islam, there have been 34,102 attacks worldwide, with 220,173 killed and 301,002 injured across some 59 countries, as of October 2, 2017, that we can confirm.
Juneau-Katsuya continues, “…the discourse of the English-speaking extreme right in western Canada is much closer to that of neo-Nazis and so-called conventional white supremacists.” Here, he regurgitates the leftist mainstream media narrative and misrepresents the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi) as being on the “extreme right” when they were actually on the “extreme left” (socialists) along with their communist cousins.
His misrepresentation of truth continues with, “I deplore the current lack of leadership and concrete measures by our political leaders, from all parties and orders of government, to offer a counter-discourse to the allegations and outright lies perpetuated by agitators on the right.” The lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” is easily ignored along with the various terrorist activities having no connection whatsoever to Islam.
Juneau-Katsuya’s rejection of our freedom of speech continues with, “While respecting the right to free speech, perhaps it is time to examine the degree of acceptability of the aberrations of certain opinion leaders or agitators.” He was very short on specifics throughout his presentation, but he gave some hints as to how he would propose drawing the line, for example, suggesting that the licenses be withdrawn for “trash radio” stations in Quebec, whose viewpoint he considers as being responsible for the attack on the mosque in Quebec City. As well, when asked by a Liberal committee member, “On the Anglophone side, would you perceive Rebel Media (an online news and commentary source offering the ‘the other side of the story’ from a conservative perspective) to be amplifying the message of the extreme right?,” Juneau-Katsuya unhesitatingly answered, “Absolutely.”
Unfortunately, there was no push back from the Conservative MPs present with respect to this fanciful storytelling with its implications of totalitarian overreach on free speech. Liberal MP Arif Virani (himself a Muslim) bluntly told Tarek Fatah, who also addressed the committee, “I disagree with virtually everything you’ve said in your opening discourse and response to questions,” which is what the Conservative MPs should have told Juneau-Katsuya. Virani when he cited the example of an innocuous tweet, by Fatah (again a secular Muslim), related to the attack on the mosque in Quebec City without referencing its author as being Fatah. Chillingly, Juneau-Katsuya declared that the author of such a tweet should be “denounced and if possible prosecuted.”
In just these few examples, we can see how the Liberals are choreographing the desired outcome of these hearings.It appears (ominously) that “the writing is on the wall.”
CHP Canada is the only federal political party willing to stand against these encroachments on our freedoms. If you are concerned then it’s time to join your voice with ours by becoming a member and supporting the Christian Heritage Party. The time to fight is short…join today!
Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech
Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet
By Jonathan Turley
October 06, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.
Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet. Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait. Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.” So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest — leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.
The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it. The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech. Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.
In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.
| No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media
You can’t buy your way onto these pages |
Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media. This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information. Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.
What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes. Thee is no pretense left in this campaign — just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.
Sound familiar?
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. … We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.George Orwell, 1984
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. https://jonathanturley.org/
by Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am
– 
Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.
October. 1, 2017
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager
Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)
The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.
Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant “was not born as male.”
The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, “Application for reconsideration.”
Ms. Quail claims “The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record.”
Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.
On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote: “The Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an “impossibility” and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.”
As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.
Ms. Quail states “The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.”
With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote: “Monday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.”
Ms. Quail incorrectly states, “It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.”
In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.
Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s September 13, 2017 decision in regards to interveners in the Oger vs Whatcott case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.”
1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?
In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott
Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager
Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)
The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision
communicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
correct an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
denying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
at paragraph 2.The first sentence of that paragraph says: “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
female.”Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal’s attention on September
12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
Complainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
Member did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
to describe how this sentence was in error.Counsel responded, stating: “Ms. Oger was not born as male.”
On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
B), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
the person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
said to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.page 2
Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
itself discriminatoryIt is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
their identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
Individuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
applicable gender identity.The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was “born
a male” is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
sufficient proof.Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
sex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not “born male but now identifies as female.”
Ms. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
identity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
This is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
other case before the Tribunal to the Complainant’s or counsel’s knowledge.The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
required to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
Transgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
fact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
Ms. Oger’s, and other transgender individuals’, gender identity is real.For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
further perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
that transgender people’s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record
There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
to make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
member invented this fact.It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
persuade them that those invented facts are false.The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint
Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
woman, not a person “born as male who now identifies as female”, but even that fact ispage 3
irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
BCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
the basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
The Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
the complaint before the Tribunal.This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
information they should have previously put forwardReconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
should have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
of North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger’s gender identity is not information
that the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
complainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
discrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
perpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
prove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.The question of the Complainant’s gender identity will not be resolved in a
determination of the merits of this complaintThe Tribunal’s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
decision and suggests that “even that simple sentence” (describing Ms. Oger as “born as a
male”) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.Ms. Oger’s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
complaint on the merits.Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.
The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
whether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant’s gender identity in order to
answer that question.In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
whether transgender people’s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
Respondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
the Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger’s gender identity at any point
in this complaint.The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected
page 4
The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is
based on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
in law.When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
other foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
certificate that was formerly marked “M” is not now marked “Born M but now identifies
as F”. It is marked “F”. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
mis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
different ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
now identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
always been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.The idea that transgender people were “born” one way but “identify” differently rests on
the assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
shape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
true, biological gender.The statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is false and
perpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
published decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
Tribunal’s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger’s sex and gender
are something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
rights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
and public reputation are significant.The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
favour of reconsiderationReconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
justice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
thinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
on something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
invented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” is false.The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” in 2017 BCHRT 195
is contrary to the purposes of the Code.page 5
It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
equal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
they say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
are true.It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
it perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a “true”
biological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
merely an identity.It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
contrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
through the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
gender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
binding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal’s decision refusing to
correct the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
September 13, 2017, be reconsidered.All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,
ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
per Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitorcc Morgane Oger
Bill Whatcott
CAFE
A year has passed since my legendary performance at the London Forum, now subject to criminal proceedings as already explained in detail here on this blog.
Desperate to see me further punished for the crime of singing humorous songs about Jewish power and influence, my accusers and longtime stalkers fail to grasp that I am not in the least afraid. Once one knows the Truth, it simply feels right and there is no going back. If the British authorities wish to imprison a singer for her satirical songs – so be it!
Unable to perform and speak freely (my laptop STILL in police possession after almost a year), I might just as well be in prison: the experience would no doubt spark further artistic inspiration, not to mention increase Joe Public’s ever-growing distrust of police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and our elected leaders.
Anyway, on to the topic of this blog which deals with last week’s news concerning how a Hope Not Hate ‘researcher’, Patrik Hermansson – a queer Swede – managed to infiltrate the alt-right in a ‘year-long’ investigation which began last January.
Already, I can hear you say we are still only in September. Yes, the consummate liars down at Hope Not Hate (HNH) never fail to impress when it comes to trying to outdo mainstream gutter press for touting misleading headlines. Hermansson’s infiltration ended with the Charlottesville demonstration in August: seven or eight months at the most – hardly a year.
Admittedly, the Swede did manage to fleece several hardened dissidents by worming his way into the London Forum, masquerading as a masters student researching the doxing and deplatforming of figures such as David Irving, Vincent Reynouard, myself and others. The tactics used to infiltrate are largely described on HNH’s website for those of you who are interested. I shan’t be sharing any links here – apologies, but you’ll have to search for yourselves.
Hermansson used a top-of-the-range button camera to secretly film ‘interviews’ with some of the world’s leading alt-right figures. Yes, some of the footage is rather embarrassing. However, at the same time, Hermansson fails utterly to reveal anything of note. The short clips published so far prove that those targeted say the exact same things in private as they do in public. A documentary is scheduled for release at a later date.
There have been a few lukewarm press reports, mostly from the state-funded BBC. When interviewed, the Swede sticks to HNH boss Nick Lowles’ predictable script.
It is an eyebrow-raising reflection of the times we live in when a queer publication reports more even-handedly than the state-funded broadcaster.
No doubt attracted to the story by way of the Swede’s sexual preferences, Pink News has produced the most balanced report so far. Hermansson admits to engaging in dishonest behaviour, as well as lamenting the fact that he has received ‘murder threats’ – from people he’s never met!
My interview with Hermansson took place early April, just after my scheduled ‘trial’ had been adjourned and Senior District Judge Arbuthnot had recused herself after being outed as a pro-Israel stooge.
With hindsight, Hermansson had been well-trained in the art of deception.
We met in a cafe near Victoria Station in London and for the first half hour, as far as I can remember, we chatted generally about my case. Hermansson then feigned dismay that he hadn’t switched on his iPhone voice recorder from the start. Of course, all the while he’d been secretly filming me through his very expensive button camera.
I told him the facts as recorded here on my blog. As well, I gave my opinion of Hope Not Hate and the poor content of their website. A musician’s memory is a useful tool. Checking my email history confirms that, at the time, I had been researching the very organisation which had sent a paid infiltrator to spy on me in the hope of gleaning intelligence about the UK alt-right.
Unlikely that that particular section of footage will be used in the upcoming documentary. With my ‘trial’ ongoing, it’s equally doubtful that a documentary would show any discussion involving my case – especially not the part about my accusers outing themselves as abusive Twitter trolls in court last December.
Two weeks after my interview with Hermansson, HNH trumpeted their brand new revamped website. Little by little, all the archives that had back then been wiped and transferred to a holding site have begun to reappear. The main difference with the old site is that comments are no longer possible – not that anyone bothered commenting much on the old site, something I remember pointing out to Hermansson during our conversation. The content is as predictable and shoddy as ever. In fact, HNH’s MO can be summed up in four words:
Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Donate!
HNH’s infiltration of the alt-right coincides with the organisation’s desire to branch out into the US Donate Button For Gullible Goyim market. There is now a second website – a dot com – as well as a new US Twitter account. Perhaps a necessary move if Lowles and Co are to continue to live in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed?
It would appear that certain sources of funding within the UK – including from government and trade unions – may have dried up somewhat following exposure from several sources. There is plenty of evidence detailing HNH’s dishonesty, duplicity and downright incompetence in running a supposed charitable trust which is, in fact, a cover for state surveillance of political dissidents and a militant, pro-Zionist campaigning wing of the UK Labour party.
Hermansson’s write up includes a couple of predictable paragraphs – no doubt heavily edited by Lowles – about me being one of the UK’s most notorious ‘Holocaust’ deniers.
Interestingly, ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon described Lowles’ thus in one blog article dating back to 2012:
Lowles, himself an ex Jewish student activist, is not against revisionism in general. He is not against Israelis dismissing the Palestinian holocaust – he has no quarrel with Nakba denial. Nor does he oppose the deniers of the Arminian Holocaust. And for some reason, HOPE not hate is also strangely silent about the Ukrainian holocaust, the Holodomor – that according to prominent Israeli Zionist writer Sever Plocker and others, was largely inflicted by Stalin’s Jews.Nick Lowles and ‘HOPE not hate’ are completely uninterested in the denial of any holocaust – any, that is, except one.
Another fierce critic is Larry O’Hara, ‘anti-fascist researcher’ (!) and editor of Notes From The Borderland (NFB) who describes Lowles as being out of his depth when it comes to serious politics:
Lowles mistakes impulsiveness for decisiveness, and simply lacks the grey matter needed for original grounded thought.
O’Hara is equally scathing with regard to HNH company secretary Ruth Smeeth MP, as well as longtime HNH researchers Joe Mulhall and Matt Collins.
Funding for the Swede’s infiltration no doubt partly came from the seemingly aborted HNH threats to sue Nigel Farage: two crowdfunding campaigns, each to the tune of £100,000 (which I already commented on here), would easily buy a specialised button camera, numerous plane tickets, rail fares, hotel rooms and cover the rental cost of a North London flat.
Hermansson’s Twitter profile reads ‘researcher for @hopenothate’. I bumped into him again a couple of times at various meetings since our encounter but he seemed to take only a scant interest into delving deeper into my personal story. He clearly had bigger fish to fry.
At least I finally got a mention from HNH – which, amusingly, certain of my detractors seem to think is a badge of honour:
Anyone should be proud to be on a @hopenothate list. Alt right light for gods sake. Jemma Levine what’s all this judgement on fellow beings!
— Campaign4Truth (@Campaign4T) September 20, 2017
Jonathan Hoffman must be over the moon! Although, as I am officially Too Extreme For the BNP, Hoffman and his Kahanist pals really don’t have too much to worry about.
*
Rendez-vous next Wednesday, 10am at Westminster Magistrates Court for yet another hearing – the fifth so far, now with a third district judge in attendance.
Thank you so much to everyone who has helped me by donating. I am very grateful.
Alison.
https://hatreon.net/AlisonChabloz/
https://www.paypal.me/ajctmusic
Dear Mr. Teicher