UK MP’s want “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” [Surely Insanity is on the Loose in the UK Parliament]

UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” want to criminalize claims that Islam spread by the sword




The Facts Would Justify the Fear Folks “Islamophobia”

“However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that ‘giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.’”

Why is the UK Parliament citing a university student? In any case, Bertie asserts that it “would be highly misguided” to refraining from criminalizing “Islamophobia” “simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech.” At least in this article, he does not support his assertion with either evidence or argument. In reality, forbidding criticism of any individual, group or idea in itself means the end of the freedom of speech, as the one rendered immune from criticism is then free to do whatever he, she, or it wants without fear of any opposition at all, and that is the very definition of tyranny.

“University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights ‘the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,’ the report also says.”

Ben Whitham


Muslims aren’t only of one race.

There are white people who are fervent believers in Islam, such has Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, the late al-Qaeda jihadi Adam Gadahn, the Marin County Taliban John Walker Lindh, North Carolina jihad plotters Justin Sullivan and Donald Ray Morgan, would-be Wichita jihad bomber Terry Lee Loewen, Boston Marathon jihad bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, UK “Sharia patrol” leader Jordan Horner, failed former Brandeis Professor Joseph Lumbard, and many, many others. Is criticizing any of them “racist”?

“Examples of ‘Islamophobia’ listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.’” [SHAME FOR ISLAM THAT THESE A RE ALL FACTS]

This demonstrates that this entire initiative is a totalitarian war against reality.

The “Palestinian” jihad is inextricably tied to terrorism (scroll the articles here if you doubt that); Islamic sources themselves state that Muhammad raped a nine-year-old girl when he was 54 (evidence here); and Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS is full of evidence, mostly from Islamic sources, that for 1,400 years, everywhere they went from Spain to India, Muslims spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. I challenge Baroness Warsi or anyone else to prove from the historical record that this statement is false. No one, of course, will take up that challenge, because Warsi and her cohorts doubtless know that Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugate minority groups under its rule.

Yet now they’re seeking to criminalize stating this truth. If Britain implements this proposal, it will be officially dead as a free society. This has been a long time coming, and is perhaps inevitable at this point.

“UK Lawmakers Call for ‘Islamophobia’ to Be Officially Classed as Racism,”
by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, November 27, 2018:

A group of British Parliamentarians have demanded “Islamophobia” be officially classed as a form of racism in the UK, claiming the country is deeply prejudiced and unfair towards Muslims.

The new parliamentary report blames “prevalent” Islamophobia for divisions, hate crimes, and even terror attacks. It also appears to reject claims criminalising comments about Islam will restrict free speech and calls for an official definition of “Islamophobia.”

Examples of “Islamophobia” listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.”

The document comes from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which is led by leading anti-Brexit Tory MP Anna Soubry.

Tory Peer Baroness Warsi, the group’s Treasurer, commented on the document release: “Islamophobia is a form of racism – like antisemitism it’s time it got its own definition.”

Labour MP Wes Streeting added: “Islamophobia isn’t just anti-Muslim hatred. It’s about everyday discrimination that takes place — targeting Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. It is rooted in racism and is a type of racism. It can be deliberate or unconscious bias.”

The findings were also backed by the Muslim Council of Britain, linked to the pro-Caliphate Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which was recently criticised for working withgroups calling for apostates to be killed.

When consultation for the report was launched, a UKIP spokesman criticised the parliamentary group for taking evidence from groups allegedly linked to Islamism and extremism and “making rules and definitions which are likely to curtail the freedoms which have been hard-won over centuries of British history.”

The document also claims Muslims are widely oppressed in the UK and blames British society for Muslims not being as economically successful as some other groups.

It says: “British society at large, by virtue of normalised prejudice against Muslim beliefs and practice, have come to imbibe a panoply of falsehoods or misrepresentations and discriminatory outlooks.”

Adding: “Academic research has consistently shown that British Muslims face considerably high levels of economic disadvantage than other groups in Britain.”…

However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that “giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.”

University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights “the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,” the report also says….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 28 | Time-stamped: 11:19 AM | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” want to criminalize claims that Islam spread by the sword  Article Link:

UK: POLICE ignored Muslim gangs’ sexual exploitation of Sikh girls for FIFTY YEARS for fear of “Islamophobia” charges

These revelations come after it has long been known that 1,4001)SEE url British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in one city alone, and “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.” Why did they fear being thought of as racist?

The Muslim rape gangs went unreported, unprosecuted, and in general unstopped because of far-Left organizations including Hope Not Hate, Faith Matters, and Tell Mama, which waged relentless war against anyone and everyone who spoke out about these issue. They demonized as “Islamophobic,” “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who said that there were Muslim rape gangs at all, and that they had to be stopped. They led the campaign to ban Pamela Geller and me from entering the country, when one of the events we had discussed going to was a rally against the Muslim rape gangs.

Hope Not Hate has scrubbed the evidence, but it used to be possible to search for “grooming” (as these gangs are usually called “grooming gangs” in the British media) at Hope Not Hate’s site. You would have seen that the vast majority of the articles mentioning this practice were attacking those who were calling attention to it and protesting against it.

Who is responsible for the mass gang-rape of British girls by Muslims? The British Left — in particular the “anti-hate” crusaders Nick Lowles and Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate, Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters and Tell Mama, and their friends, supporters, and allies.

The lives of at least 1,400 girls are ruined today because of these men. If Britain were even close to being a sane society today, these people would be being subjected to scorching criticism, and there would be a thorough public reevaluation of how much the Left’s alliance with Islamic supremacism and smear campaign against foes of jihad terror has harmed the nation and its people.

But Britain is not a sane society today, and these sinister individuals — Lowles, Mughal, and the rest of them — continue to wield their considerable power and influence in British society. If Britain is ever to recover itself and stave off chaos, civil war and Sharia, Lowles, Collins, Mughal and others like them would be arrested and tried. But that is not going to happen.


“Sexual exploitation of British Sikh girls by grooming gangs has been ‘recklessly ignored’ by police due to ‘political correctness’, claims report,”

Gangs of predominantly Pakistani men have been grooming British Sikh girls for decades, according to claims in a bombshell report.

The study alleges that young Sikh women have been ‘targeted’ by Muslim men who subjected them to sexual abuse.

The report by the Sikh Mediation and Rehabilitation Team charity found that police ‘recklessly ignored’ complaints – often for reasons of ‘political correctness’.

In many cases, according to the report, the men would groom a girl before passing her round to other members of their family.

The girls would be snared by ‘fashionably dressed adult Pakistani men travelling in flamboyant vehicles to predominantly Sikh dominated areas and schools’, it claimed.

The report said that while the revelation of grooming gangs targeting white girls in Rochdale shocked the nation in 2012, similar instances had long been taking place under the radar in Britain’s Sikh communities.

Sikh community leaders say the problem started in the 1960s. The charity said the report was not a ‘witch-hunt against any individual, community, culture or faith’ – but said nothing would change unless the facts were known….

The report said: ‘The research has found verification demonstrating a history of predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs targeting young Sikh females for over 50 years.

‘The over representation of such perpetrators in selecting non-Muslim victims would appear to be indicative of a wider acceptability in certain sections of the community towards the targeting of young females from outside of the Pakistani community and/or Muslim faith.

‘Due to the failures of law enforcement agencies and local authorities in addressing the problem, such networks have continued to flourish.’

The study included a case in 1971 when an 11-year-old was jailed for imprisoning a Sikh girl in Slough.

In other reports in the 1980s, Sikhs were complaining about Muslims ‘pestering’ their girls or that their girls were being ‘used as sex slaves’….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 26' | Time-stamped: 15:30 | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: UK: Cops ignored Muslim gangs’ sexual exploitation of Sikh girls for FIFTY YEARS for fear of “Islamophobia” charges | Article Link:

References   [ + ]

1. SEE url

2018 NOV 25: Islam is controlling the UK; “Theresa May in Submission to Islam”

UK PM personally blocked asylum for accused blasphemer Asia Bibi over Home Secretary’s objection, to appease Muslims


If there are any free people in Britain in future generations, they will curse the name of Theresa May, whose misrule is rapidly leading the nation to ruin. She won’t let in Asia Bibi, for fear that Muslims will be angry. So it is clear who is in charge in Britain now. The British government routinely bans foes of jihad terror and critics of Islam, while letting in jihadis. 

Sajid Javid Banned: all for the crime of opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression
Lauren Southern
Lutz Bachmann
Martin Sellner
Brittany Pettibone
Pamela Geller
Robert Spencer

The Home Office1)Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP recently banned2)see URL Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone3)see URL, Lauren Southern and Lutz Bachmann from entering, all for the crime of opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression, and thereby made it clear that it is more authoritarian and unwilling to uphold the freedom of speech than ever – at least when it comes to criticism of Islam, Muslim rape gangs, and mass Muslim migration.

Even worse, the bannings of Sellner, Pettibone, Southern, and Bachmann were just part of a long pattern. Pamela Geller and I (Robert Spencer) were banned from entering Britain in 2013, apparently for life, also for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. Just days after Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe


“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

And Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.

The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”

Overlord Or Prime Minister

Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.

Above: (Theresa May) ‘blocked asylum application from Pakistani Christian’ Asia Bibi

REVEALED: Theresa May ‘blocked asylum application from Pakistani Christian’ locked up for blasphemy despite UK playing host to hijackers, extremists and rapists,” by Glen Owen and Abul Taher, The Mail on Sunday, November 24, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Theresa May has been accused of refusing asylum to a Christian mother who is being hunted by lynch mobs in Pakistan.

The fate of Asia Bibi has pitted Home Secretary Sajid Javid against the Prime Minister, with Mr Javid arguing passionately that she should be given refuge in the UK.

But sources say that his plan was thwarted after Ms May was persuaded that letting Bibi claim asylum here would ‘stoke tensions’ among British Muslims….

Our investigation reveals that on the day she was seized by villagers and accused of blasphemy she was paraded through her village with a leather noose around her neck, beaten with sticks by a baying mob during a ‘court’ hearing and told that her life would be spared only if she converted to Islam.

Bibi’s conviction was quashed last month following eight years in solitary confinement after Pakistan’s Supreme Court said the case was based on ‘inconsistent’ evidence.

The acquittal prompted days of demonstrations by thousands of hard-line Islamists who demanded she be hanged. Ms Bibi is now in hiding after Imran Khan’s government agreed to allow a petition against the court’s decision as part of a deal to halt the protests….

A senior Government source said: ‘Sajid was very sceptical about the official advice, and pushed hard for her to be given asylum here. It eventually landed on the Prime Minister’s desk, but she just followed the advice of the officials’….

Ms Bibi was harvesting berries in 2009 when her Muslim co-workers accused her of being unclean, prompting an argument and allegations Ms Bibi blasphemed against Islam, which she strongly denies.

This newspaper has pieced together the terrifying sequence of events which followed: she was taken to a makeshift sharia court and flung at the feet of an imam, who told her: ‘You know what happens to people who insult the Prophet. You can redeem yourself by accepting Islam.’

Asia declined as the crowd began jeering and spitting. She was then whipped with sticks and sandals, leaving her bleeding and semi-conscious. Her life was only saved when a teacher intervened, saying she should be handed over to police.

The Foreign Office said: ‘The UK’s primary concern is for the safety of Asia Bibi and her family. A number of countries are in discussions to provide a safe destination’….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 25; | Time-stamped: 11:27 am  Author: ROBERT SPENCER | Article Title: UK PM personally blocked asylum for accused blasphemer Asia Bibi over Home Secretary’s objection, to appease Muslims  Article Link:

References   [ + ]

1. Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
2. see URL
3. see URL

Britain’s Grooming Gangs: Part 1

• As far back as 2013, Britain’s Attorney General stated in the House of Lords that 27 police forces were then investigating no fewer than 54 alleged gangs involved in child sexual grooming.

• Last year, Shahid Javed Burki, a former Pakistani finance minister and vice-president of the World Bank, spoke out about the treatment of women in his country, arguing that the low status given to women has had serious social, demographic, educational, and financial effects.

• This problem is, in some measure, reflected in the UK, where Muslim women (mainly of Pakistani origin) face limitations on their participation in the workplace, in higher education, and even knowledge of the English language — matters examined by Dame Louise Casey in her 2016 government review into opportunity and integration.

• Bringing Pakistani attitudes into the UK, often within segregated communities, only serves to perpetuate the belief that women are intrinsically the inferiors of men in all respects.

ROTHERHAM, ENGLAND – MAY 10: General view of Rotherham ahead of a visit from Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn later today on May 10, 2017 in Rotherham, England. Rotherham voted to leave by 68% during last year’s EU referendum and is traditionally a Labour held constituency. (Photo by Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)

On July 24, 2018, Britain’s Home Secretary, conservative MP Sajid Javid, issued orders for research into the ethnic origins of the country’s many sexual grooming gangs that had involved large numbers of loosely-termed “Asian men”, who, over many years, had taken vulnerable young white British girls to use or pass on for sexual purposes. Most of the men have, Javid has stated been of Pakistani extraction, which makes the Home Secretary’s intervention significant. Javid’s father came, as did many other Pakistani immigrants, from Punjab, and with only £1 to his name. He became a bus driver, then a clothing store owner. Yet his five sons have all become fully integrated Britons, with successful careers in business, politics and the public sector. They are all models of second-generation immigrant achievement, miles away from the men in the gangs. Reporting on the Javid family, The Times wrote:

“Javid’s appointment as the first non-white person — and the first with a Muslim background — to hold one of Britain’s great offices of state is the culmination of a six-decade family journey.”

Given the great potential for controversy over identifying ethnicity as a factor in serious crimes, Javid showed courage in taking this move only months after his appointment in April to lead the Home Office. Criticism came quickly from the Labour Party. “Jeremy Corbyn denied there was any ‘problem’ with Pakistani men and abuse, saying: ‘The problem is the crime that’s committed against women from any community.” His combined political and ethnic experience will have shown Javid, based on previous Home Office bans and academic reports, that any such investigation might be used by the far right to attack Pakistanis and Muslims.

Crossing party lines, Javid made his commitment to investigate the ethnic origins in a letter to Sarah Champion, the Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham, the first city to experience grooming gangs on a large scale, and the site of the UK’s largest ever child sexual abuse scandal. Just under a year before, Champion had come under fire for daring to draw public attention to the problem of the preponderance of Pakistanis in the gangs.

First elected to parliament in 2012, Champion, in 2015, served as the Shadow Minister for Preventing Abuse. She was awarded the post in recognition of her work on child sexual exploitation, notably by chairing a cross-party inquiry into child sexual exploitation. The inquiry was done in conjunction with the children’s charity Barnardo’s, which published a report in April 2014. Unfortunately, Champion had to resign briefly in 2016, when a number of MPs stood down in an attempt to remove Jeremy Corbyn. She was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities in October 2016, a role for which she was well suited. In November, she launched a National Action Plan (Dare2Care) to prevent child abuse and violence in teenage relationships.

Then things went wrong. She remains an MP, but was forced to resign her shadow cabinet post nearly a year later, on August 16, 2017, after a major controversy. During an interview with BBC Radio 4, on August 10, she said, about a major grooming gang which had just been convicted in Newcastle upon Tyne:

All the towns where these cases have gone on, the majority of the perpetrators have been British Pakistanis…. One of the things that, for example, on the news last night, there was a picture of eighteen of the people who were convicted, that seventeen of those were clearly Asian men. And it just pains me that this is going on time and time and time again, and the government aren’t researching – you know – what is going on. Are these cultural issues, some sort of message going out inside the [Pakistani] community? We have got now hundreds of men, Pakistani men, who have been convicted of this crime. Why are we not commissioning research on what’s going on, and how we need to check and how we need to change what’s going on?

On the same day, the less respectable tabloid newspaper, The Sunpublished an article by Champion saying much the same. Entitled, “British Pakistani men ARE raping and exploiting white girls and it’s time we faced up to it”, the article argued in part:

For too long we have ignored the race of these abusers and, worse, tried to cover it up.

No more. These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage.

We have to have grown-up conversations, however unpalatable, or in six months’ time we will be having this same scenario all over again.

The irony of all of this is that, by not dealing with the ethnicity of the abusers as a fact, political correctness has actually made the situation about race.

Although Champion subsequently tried to distance herself from the article, it had done her no favours in the Labour Party, which has stressed its opposition to racism — except against Jews. A cross-party group of MPs wrote to The Sun, condemning the article. Even though Champion had courageously stated that, “The perpetrators are criminals and we need to deal with them as such, not shy away from doing the right thing by fearing being called a racist”, she was forced to resign on August 16.

Ironically, another Labour MP, Naz Shah, herself of Pakistani origin, tried to deflect Champion’s comments by stating, no doubt correctly, that nearly 90% of child abusers (presumably in the UK) are white men. She added, “What I won’t accept, or tolerate, is a narrative that demonizes every Pakistani man as a rapist.” But, of course, Champion had not been talking about child abuse in general in a mainly white country, only about the specifics of the grooming gang situation, previously unheard of in Britain; nor had she claimed for a moment that all Pakistani men were rapists. Not surprisingly, Shah herself (who had just been suspended in an antisemitism dispute, but then reinstated) was appointed in July this year to be the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the very post Champion had held.

Champion, meanwhile, after death threats, had to be given increased security by the counter-terrorism police. So-called human rights activists, evidently caring nothing for the rights of little girls and teenagers in the North of England or presumably elsewhere, accused her of “industrial-scale racism.”

Champion, incidentally, was not the first to draw attention to the crimes and the perpetrators. Another MP, Ann Cryer, had revealed details about grooming gangs in her Yorkshire constituency, Keighly, as far back as 2003. When she did so, she was “ridiculed, branded a racist, a liar and a fantasist [and] forced to install a panic button in her own home.”

Champion’s reputation was saved at an early stage by other MPs. Barry Sheerman, Labour MP for Huddersfield, a town where twenty-eight men of mostly Pakistani origin had been tried and sentenced only months earlier for the same offenses, declared that it was a “shameful and disgusting campaign against a courageous and remarkable woman”. Most importantly, it was Sajid Javid, not yet Home Secretary, who spoke out in her defence. He tweeted, “Corbyn wrong to sack Sarah Champion. We need an honest open debate on child sexual exploitation, including racial motivation”. It was an intention he fulfilled virtually as soon as he headed the Home Office.

Although the sexual abuse of children and young teenagers occurs around the world, the grooming gang crisis in the UK, certainly in its wide extent, appears to be unique in the West. As far back as 2013, Britain’s Attorney General, Lord Morris of Aberavon, stated in the House of Lords that 27 police forces were then investigating no fewer than 54 alleged gangs involved in child sexual grooming.

He asked:

“Is it collective amnesia that has blinded us to the underlying circumstances, whereby at least 27 police forces are investigating 54 alleged child grooming gangs?

“Why has investigating and prosecuting in so many different parts of the country taken so much time?

“Is it the fear of racialism, or is it the fact that many of these vulnerable girls come from care homes?”

Four years later, in August 2017, the Daily Express presented a map showing eight towns and cities where gangs had been active. An inquiry in April had, in fact, already brought 29 men from Huddersfield to court, prior to a January 2018 trial in which all were convicted, thereby making the total nine cities.

On September 15, 2018, what was described as “the most serious example of sex grooming yet to emerge in this country” was made public, following a speech in the House of Lords by Baroness Caroline Cox, a staunch defender of women’s rights within Britain’s Muslim communities. 

The case involved a girl, Sarah, who was abducted by a Muslim gang when 15, held in captivity for twelve years, forced twice into marriage, repeatedly raped, beaten, and made to endure eight abortions. As in other cases, her family’s pleas for help were ignored by the police to whom they had turned. “I know Sarah and her family,” said Baroness Cox. “Every sex grooming case is terrible. But the length and cruelty of her abduction make it the worst I have known.”

Sarah is a single victim, but it is likely that the gang involved will have dealt with more young women taken from the same streets.

In 2017, the English Defence League, which some disparage as racist — to which the EDL responds, “The truth cannot be racist” — published online a list of “Muslim grooming gangs and other rape jihad convictions”. It provides a long, alphabetical list of “170 known completed trials with convictions for rape jihad offences at 68 main locations”. The list may be of intrinsic interest, in that it provides links to news reports about these trials, but it is in reality, highly misleading.1)Another statistical list of the names of all the accused in joint cases, arranged chronologically and with full details of the towns, trials, and convictions may be found here. First of all, there is no evidence that any of the men involved (most often one or two) had the least notion of conducting “rape jihad”, a concept seemingly made up by the EDL.

The behaviour of the grooming gangs differs greatly from the rapes and sexual harassments — often of people above the age of 16, by men in general in Britain and in other countries — in its clannish and organized nature. Pakistanis seem almost unique in combining efforts to engage in this harassment. That is why Javid’s inquiry must proceed even if it does upset parts of the Pakistani and wider communities — given that large numbers of those community members are themselves keen to see the matter cleared up and their reputations restored. These include other prominent British Muslims such as Yasmin Alibhai BrownMohammed Shafiq, and Nazir Afzal.

Although Javid’s inquiry will focus on the question of why it is Pakistani men who organize and dominate these gangs, it is important that this not be interpreted as a racist endeavour, as some have claimed it to be — for example, when Sarah Champion was accused of “industrial scale racism”. No one is claiming that the racial characteristics of the rapists are remotely a factor in their crimes, and no one should criticize the inquiry on such grounds.

The problem, then, seems to stem not from race but from culture. Many people, trapped by the inquiry’s emphasis on multiculturalism, appear to deem it “racist” to comment negatively on any culture except for Western (including Israeli) culture. For some, it is even racist to borrow from another culture’s dress, food, religion, architecture, art or music – which they term “cultural appropriation” or “cultural voyeurism” — instead of what it might well be: admiration and respect.

The men in the grooming gangs are not proper representatives of many regular aspects of Pakistani culture and Muslim ethics. According to Ben Sixsmith:

“Quite apart from being abusively adulterous, these criminals drank, did drugs, and made their victims have abortions. These were not, in other words, devout Muslim men.”

Speaking on the BBC’s leading political debate show, Newsnight, Muhbeen Hussain, the founder of British Muslim Youth went so far as to deny that the men convicted were real Muslims:

These grooming gangs were individuals that were using alcohol, using drugs and actually having ‘sessions’ exploiting these young girls. I don’t know what’s Islamic about drinking alcohol, drugs and exploiting young girls.

Despite rising secularism in some cities, Pakistan remains a deeply religious society in which outward expressions of piety are ubiquitous, and blasphemy and heterodox allegiance are major social issues. So, the question comes to be: to what extent might some Pakistani values influence men like these?

A partial answer is that, despite tight regulations concerning the behaviour of women in Pakistan and restrictions on male-female relationships there, the country, like some other Muslim countries, has a reputation for a high level of sexual harassment, even if this harassment does not take the form of grooming underage girls. Pakistani social activist Muhammad Usman Awan, for instance, has written at length about various forms of harassment in Pakistan.

In one 2016 article, he writes:

According to a research conducted by UNISON in 2008, more than 50% working women face sexual harassment in Pakistan. An increasing number of violence cases are filed every day and there is an even bigger number of incidents which go unreported. A total of 24119 of violence against women cases were reported during 2008-10 among which only 520 workplace harassment cases were filed…

7,733 cases of violence against women were reported in the media in 2013. 1,516 were murdered while 472 were killed for reasons of ‘honor’. The country has notoriously failed to curb the flow of harassment cases.

Clearly, there is a predominance of physical violence here, but there are other forms of harassment, including the sexual harassment of women when they use public transport:

The condition of public transport in Pakistan is not even close to a satisfactory level. Daily commute for an average Pakistani woman is through public transport buses. But commuting through these public buses has become considerably difficult because of the unwanted attention and indecent remarks.

Harassment is especially experienced, it seems, in the workplace, as Pakistani journalist Nosheen Abbas has described in some detail. The bill on the harassment of women in the workplace that she writes about became an Act of Parliament in 2010, but has yet to make much of an impact. In a lengthy and detailed article in Dawn, published in May 2018, Nazish Brohi writes that things have improved since the 2010 law was passed, but that severe problems remain, particularly for women making complaints of harassment.

Last year, Shahid Javed Burki, a former Pakistani finance minister and vice-president of the World Bank, spoke out about the treatment of women in his country, arguing that the low status given to women has had serious social, demographic, educational, and financial effects. He compares it to neighbouring Bangladesh, which, he said, has improved women’s lot considerably, especially through their engagement in the workforce:

“The main factor accounting for women’s higher social status in Bangladeshi society is the rate of female participation in the labour force which, at 43.1 per cent, is almost double of Pakistan’s 24.3 per cent.”

This problem is, in some measure, reflected in the UK, where Muslim women (mainly of Pakistani origin) face limitations on their participation in the workplace, in higher education, and even knowledge of the English language — matters examined by Dame Louise Casey in her 2016 government review into opportunity and integration. Bringing Pakistani attitudes into the UK, often within segregated communities, only serves to perpetuate the belief that women are intrinsically the inferiors of men in all respects. Once women as such are demeaned to this extent, some men may come to regard sexual mistreatment of non-Muslim women as their God-given right. It is important to note that all of the women treated in this way are Muslims.

One justification used for the UK grooming cases is that the girls involved are non-Muslims who may, as supposed inferiors, be attacked with impunity. Many victims of foreign rapists report that they have kept repeating that rape is permitted in the Quran.

In addition, a female professor from al-Azhar, has claimed that Allah allows “Muslims to rape non-Muslim women to ‘humiliate’ them.”

The second part of this article will examine the roles played by an absence of integration combined with conservative or radical religious attitudes, as well as the Arab practice of taharrush jama’i (mass harassment), both of which may well be keys to why this abuse is happening in the first place.

Original Source: Date-stamped: Time-stamped: Author: by Denis MacEoin | Article Title: Britain's Grooming Gangs: Part 1 | Article Link:

References   [ + ]

1. Another statistical list of the names of all the accused in joint cases, arranged chronologically and with full details of the towns, trials, and convictions may be found here.

Snapshot of the Tommy Robinson Appeal London UK 18 July

Ezra Levant – was able to tweet live from the court room the following is a basic chronological record of the tweets directly related to the appeal.

they are copied not edited

UK 10:16 AM – 18 Jul 2018

Ezra Levant – Still 15 minutes until Tommy Robinson’s appeal will begin. Tommy is represented by John Carson and Jeremy Dein and their junior counsel — four lawyers. The attorney general is represented by Louis Mably,

Ezra Levant – Tommy Robinson is not here in person — he will be joining via video link.

Ezra Levant – The trial has not commenced, but right now Tommy is visible on a video link. He is looking fit and alert, wearing a sharp black dress shirt. There is some back-and-forth regarding some technical problems with the video link.

Ezra Levant – Throughout the day (and if the appeal continues tomorrow) all of my videos on the subject will be compiled at . We will attempt to upload them as fast as possible, but of course we will be guided by restrictions laid down by the judge.

Ezra Levant – Just a reminder: Tommy’s case will be heard by a panel of three judges, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales — literally the most senior judge in the UK. We are in court 6, the same room where @Geoffrey_Cox was sworn in moments ago as Attorney General.

Ezra Levant – We are still eight minutes away from the commencement of the proceedings. At that point, I will immediately cease tweeting until we have clear instructions from the judge on what is permitted. If no live-tweeting is permitted, I’ll post updates during breaks.

Ezra Levant – Tommy is on a video link (from prison, I assume). He seems unaware that we can hear his every word — and, typical Tommy, he’s engaging in banter with whatever prison staff are with him. I’m impressed that he still has his sense of humour.

Ezra Levant – Tommy just said to someone near him that the results of the appeal “could be huge, politically”. I’m not sure who he’s speaking with, and he is obviously unaware that his voice is being broadcast into court. But I’m sure he’d say the same on the record.

Ezra Levant – There are five journalists (plus our Rebel cameraman) in the media gallery in the court. I introduced myself to the BBC man. He seemed pleasant enough, but I’m sure he’s here to bury, not to praise.

Ezra Levant – The Lord Chief Justice has just confirmed that we can live-tweet from court — subject only to the continuing publication ban in the Leeds Crown Court, that covers two rape gang trials there.

UK 10:45 PM – 18 Jul 2018

The Lord Chief Justice said he was pleased that so many members of the public were in attendance. He warned that some of the matters would be highly technical and asked that people be respectful as they come and go from the court room.

UK 10:46 AM – 18 Jul 2018

Jeremy Dein, QC — the barrister instructed by John Carson — is giving background to the court about the rape gang cases in Leeds.

Dein is referring to Tommy’s conviction of contempt of court in Canterbury in 2017, and the Leeds case this May.

Dein is indicating that he is appealing the conviction itself — of both matters. Ezra Levant – Obviously Dein needs the permission of the court given the delay

Dein is explaining how difficult it was for lawyers to meet with Tommy, given his speedy imprisonment.

Dein is making the case to the court to permit an appeal of the conviction itself, given that technically they’re out of time. (I predict the court will allow the delay.)

Dein is outlining just how difficult it was for Tommy to instruct lawyers, given how Tommy was treated in prison — limited phone calls, solitary confinement, etc. Ezra Levant – If Tommy were a leftist, @amnesty would surely be in court intervening in behalf.

Dein is describing an outrageous incident — Tommy’s solicitor, John Carson, had a meeting with Tommy at HMP Hull prison. But when Carson went to meet him — Tommy had been moved to HMP Onley prison. Ezra Levant – Outrageous.

Dein is now describing how one of Carson’s meetings with Tommy, which was scheduled for two hours, was cut down to less than an hour, because the prison delayed in bringing Tommy to the meeting. Ezra Levant – Scandalous.

Dein is describing how the government refused to furnish transcripts to Tommy and his lawyers touching on the conviction. The government had the documents, presumably. They just refused to give them to Tommy or his lawyers. Ezra Levant – Outrageous. As Tommy would say: a stitch-up.

Dein is describing other lawyers’ meeting at prison, where prison officials cut back the time by 65%. Tommy’s first best-seller is called “Enemy of the State”. To hear a senior QC describe in cold-blooded terms, just how abusive and high-handed the state has been, is chilling.

Ezra Levant – By the way, we still don’t know why the UK prison system moved Tommy from the (relatively) safe prison at HMP Hull to the dangerous prison HMP Onley, where Tommy needed to be in solitary confinement to survive Muslim prison gangs. A stitch-up.

The Lord Chief Justice has asked Dein why the appeal of the Canterbury conviction should be heard. There is an implication that the court accepts the extension to the Leeds conviction, due to irregularities, etc.

“Justice demands that time be extended” says Dein.

The Lord Chief Justice says Dein can make his arguments — as in, the extension will be decided on later; but Dein can proceed nonetheless.

Ezra Levant – BIG HEADLINE NO. 1: Tommy is not just appealing his sentence. He’s appealing the very conviction too. And not just in Leeds — in Canterbury. Ezra Levant – They’re going the whole mile.

Ezra Levant – BIG HEADLINE NO. 2: The treatment of Tommy whilst in prison, esp. the limits on his lawyers, has been outrageous and punitive — and it has directly brought the administration of justice into disrepute. Ezra Levant – I think the court is very attentive to that.

Ezra Levant – I hear Dein refer to Justice Leveson — the senior judge who was originally scheduled to hear this matter. It seems that Justice Leveson has written a key ruling in contempt of court law. Ezra Levant – I suspect that is why Leveson himself has been replaced as the judge here.

Dein has referred to the five-hour, drum-head trial of Tommy in Leeds — how speedily he was tried, convicted and sentenced. Dein is referring approvingly to Leveson’s ruling, pointing out how procedural fairness is especially important in such a hasty hearing.

Ezra Levant – Unlike U.S. and Canadian courts, the lawyer’s pleadings are not publicly available. We are therefore hearing about pleadings that the lawyers and judges have seen, but not the public.

Dein:a great deal more than irregularity… occurred

Some of the grounds of the appeal for the Leeds conviction: 1. Failure of the defendant to appreciate the details of the contempt complaint. “We do contend that the category of contempt… was not made clear by the learned judge.”

“The judge should not have proceeded summarily in these circumstances”. As in: why did it have to happen in five hours?

Lord Chief Justice: “there was obviously a need to try to remove the material from circulation. you wouldn’t criticize the judge for that?” Dein: “not at all”. It was done consensually.

Lord Chief Judge (paraphrased): so, given that Tommy offered to delete the Facebook livestream immediately, there was no need for an immediate trial? Dein: exactly.

Dein: The finding of contempt should be quashed.

Dein on timeline: livestream about 9:15 a.m.; court was aware of it very quickly; brought before the court mid-morning; was given a lawyer by around noon; sentencing right after lunch adjournment. “Significant, substantial loss of liberty on his behalf”.

Dein: Criminal procedure rules were not followed (for Tommy’s conviction).

Dein: there was not compliance with the rules. Lord Justice Leveson made the “unequivocal observation” that this is necessary. (How interesting that Leveson’s ruling is so central here!

Dein: “criminal procedure rules played no part in these proceedings”. Dein suggests that if they had been followed, there would not have been a hasty, summary hearing.

Dein: “The appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to reflect and take advice” on his actions to mitigate them. Proceedings “unnecessarily and unjustly rushed.”

Dein: At no time was Tommy asked by the judge if he knew/accepted what the contempt was! As in: Tommy may have been contrite — but he and the judge may have had different ideas of what he did wrong! Tommy had asked for time to instruct a proper QC! It was denied!

Dein: Tommy was “incorrectly sentenced to a custodial sentence“. As in: prison was inappropriate.

Ezra Levant – Here are the rules of British criminal procedure when it comes to contempt. See s. 48:  This is what Dein asserts was not followed.

Dein: “The prejudice to [Tommy] is that he has been treated as a prisoner who has been convicted and sentenced under the criminal sentencing regime… as opposed to a civil prisoner, civil prisoners are generally allowed privileges that criminal prisoners are not.”

Ezra Levant – Dein’s point is that Tommy has been treated like a murderer; not like a civil prisoner. His treatment in prison is a result of this improper procedure and result. He refers to few privileges (e.g. visits, phone calls, etc.)

Ezra Levant – I notice that Tommy Robinson is trending on Twitter in the UK.

Ezra Levant – Now seven MSM journalists here, in addition to our Rebel cameraman Ed.

Ezra Levant – Courtroom is pretty full — 90% Tommy supporters; I see a sharia activist here who’s tweaking me.

Lord Chief Justice is asking how the Canterbury contempt ruling (a year ago) is unfair, given that it was done at a slower pace (with legal counsel). Dein acknowledges Canterbury was fairer procedurally, but there remains a substantive flaw in that conviction.

Dein and the judges getting into dense legal procedure — hard to follow without copies of the pleadings or case law in question. Tommy is sitting on the video screen; I think he can hear, but it’s pretty abstruse even for us right here in the room.

Lord Chief Justice mentions that in Leeds there was an application by the defendants to disqualify the trial given Tommy’s live-streaming. Dein indicates that application was denied, and it did not in fact compromise the trial.

Dein:right from the outset Tommy offered to take the livestream down“. “Any thoughts he had of disrupting the trial — he had none”. “Showing maximum cooperation“.

Ezra Levant – “In terms of assessing the level of criminality Tommy made repeated reference [in the livestream] to reporting restrictions”. As in: Tommy clearly didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.

Dein points out that Tommy’s comments were in the public domain, “a number of press articles“. Of course, as anyone who watched the Livestream knows, Tommy was simply reading from those other publications.

Very interesting! Lord Chief Justice points out that, given how many other media had published the same facts, it was important for his alleged breach to be specified to him.

Chief Justice: “there has to be absolute clarity what the accused person is being accused of.” This was a key point by Dein — Tommy may have plead guilty to one thing in his mind while the judge had quite another in his mind. Since it wasn’t particularized.

P.S. Here are all the other British MSM who are still violating the publication ban that Tommy was convicted of breaking:

Dein and the Lord Chief Justice are going back and forth acknowledging that Tommy was not standing anywhere inappropriately; he said the defendants were merely “alleged” criminals, not convicted, etc. This is strong.

Dein indicates that Tommy knew he was being observed by police and in fact conferred with one to confirm that he was conducting himself appropriately. Dein says this shows Tommy was acting in good faith as a journalist.

Ezra Levant – Tommy was “conducting himself in a manner that, in his own mind, was vigilant“. “When the matter was brought to his attention… he was willing to mitigate any damage he had done.”

Dein refers to a legal seminar that we at @therebeltv set up for Tommy at a leading law firm, Kingsley Napley, where Tommy was given a deep briefing on how to stay on the right side of the law. Dein mentions this as an indication of Tommy’s good faith conduct.

Dein says that Tommy’s public defender lawyer in Leeds simply did not have enough time to get properly briefed on his client in time. It was just too rushed.

Dein is giving other examples of Tommy’s good faith — including his work with the Quilliam Foundation. Dein’s point seems to be: none of this character/background was adduced in Leeds. It was too rushed; the lawyer on hand didn’t know Tommy’s background.

Dein says it was not brought forth at trial/sentencing that Tommy was “seeking to better himself” in respect of journalism, and a legitimate campaign against Islamic extremism. “It should have made some difference” to the length of Tommy’s sentence.

Dein says that Mr. Mably, the Attorney General’s delegate here, has minimized in his filed documents Tommy’s mistreatment at the hands of the prison system.

Dein repeats the reduction of legal visits in prison; notes that Tommy has had no “discipline problems” in prison, etc. A model prisoner.

Dein says there is no “rehabilitative aspect” whatsoever. He is only permitted 30 minutes of yard time per day. Not permitted to work. Not permitted to attend church. Not permitted to talk with his children (because of his solitary confinement).

Ezra Levant – One of the other judges notes that these abuses were done at the hands of the prison authorities. That’s technically true — but how on earth does that make it more acceptable from Tommy’s point of view?

The Lord Chief Justice chimes in to clarify — noting that his Tommy’s time in prison “is much tougher than if he weren’t subject to his restrictions”.

Dein notes that Tommy has been attacked in prison before — and Tommy’s public defender in Leeds didn’t have that information in hand at his speedy hearing.

Dein notes that Tommy’s treatment in prison is that usually reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Ezra Levant – Let me come back to an earlier point: Tommy’s lawyer says that Tommy has not been permitted to attend church in prison. I don’t think Tommy’s particularly religious. But could you imagine if Tommy were Muslim, and if he were prohibited from praying five times a day? Unthinkable.

Dein is pointing out that Tommy’s sentence is disproportionate and does not comport with precedent for similar cases. Dein points out that the public defender didn’t have time to make these points properly, in the short-time permitted on May 25.

Ezra Levant – To state the obvious, contempt of court is a rare and obscure area of law; a public defender who only just met Tommy that day had no background in it; and didn’t know Tommy or his history. He was technically “legal counsel”, but he wasn’t effective. It was as if Tommy were alone.

Ezra Levant – “He has spent sufficient time in custody”. I think the judges will accept this, even if they don’t accept the appeal on substantive conviction. Who could argue that two months in solitary is not enough? I predict the appeal will success at least on the sentencing matter.

Ezra Levant – Re: Canterbury: “because there was no compliance within the framework of the criminal procedure rules that the learned judges finding should be quashed”. So, they want last year’s conviction to throw out too for technical reasons.

Lord Chief Justice suggests that Canterbury was probably done properly, given the “legal talent” there, and the time for reflection. Dein makes the point nonetheless that Tommy was charged under the wrong section.

Ezra Levant – Remember, the Canterbury contempt yielded a 3-month suspended sentence. The Leeds contempt added another 10 months.

Ezra Levant – Dame Maura Patricia McGowan is one of the two other judges here. Her interventions have been more critical of Tommy. That doesn’t necessarily indicate her conclusions; they might just be questions to elicit more information from Mr. Dein. But I’d say she leans against Tommy.

Dein: the Leeds judge should never have had the 3-month suspended sentence from Canterbury in front of him, because it was procedurally inappropriate.

Dein concludes. Now some questions from the judges.

Sir Mark George Turner, one of the judges on the panel, asks Tommy’s lawyer Jeremy Dein, what he would concede Tommy did wrong in Leeds. The Chief Justice intervenes.

Dein’s answer: Tommy referred to the trial, the charges, and referred to Muslims and an eleven-year-old victim, and to the cost of the trials. Dein concedes that this would violate the court order. Ezra Levant – (I’m a sceptic.)

Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett questions whether discussing the costs of the rape gang trials would be contempt. (I sense that this judge leans towards Tommy — at least all of his interventions seem to.)

Lord Chief Justice: anyone complaining about the cost of a trial doesn’t seem to be in contempt of court.

Dein indicates that a transcript of the livestream was made available to the court. That’s probably book length — Tommy was talking for more than an hour.

Dein is taking the court through various documents that we do not have access to at this point.

Dein concludes his submissions.

Louis Mably, QC, is now on his feet on behalf of the Attorney General. Though he is styled as a friend of the court, I sense that he is really the “opposition” to Tommy’s team.

Mably: “To what extent is failure to follow procedure fatal”?

Mably: it’s inappropriate to suggest that any misstep procedurally should stop justice from being done. As in: he doesn’t think a technical appeal is sufficient; “it’s a question of substance not form”.

Mably: refers to the Canterbury contempt finding of 2017. Reminder: in that case, Tommy filmed a selfie video for literally 45 seconds on the court precincts. In my view, hardly worth a three-month sentence, suspended or not.

Lord Chief Justice asks Mably: “do you have any submissions on the importance of the need to identify any conduct… and put it to the alleged contemptor”

Mably: the person under the investigation cannot meet the allegation against him [if he doesn’t know the particulars]. So, it is a fundamental part of the procedure.” He says the devil’s in the details though.

Mably said the livestream was actually played in court in Leeds. The Lord Chief Justice immediately interjects — “not all of it!

Ezra Levant – I’ve always asked: how can Tommy have been convicted of contempt for a 75-minute broadcast, if that broadcast was not even viewed by the judge?

Mably “The conduct had been identified in a general sense”. “I suppose in any report of proceedings there are likely to be parts that don’t of themselves offend a court order”.

Mably: “it is a fundamental part of any fair procedure that a person under investigation knows what he’s accused of.”

Lord Chief Justice quotes the Leeds judge: “I made an order prohibiting publication of anything relating to these trials…The Chief suggests that is too broad and doesn’t comply with the law!

Ezra Levant – It’s 1 p.m. on the nose; Mably says he’s reached the end of his speaking notes. I predict they’ll break for lunch now

Lord Chief Justice asks Dein how much time he needs to reply to Mably.

Ezra Levant – I have to tell you, I’m impressed with the temperament and clear thinking and clear speaking of the Lord Chief Justice in his interventions. I think he was courteous and generous to the public, too. I believe this case will be taken seriously. I hope I’m not a fool for saying so.

Dein says he wants to make ten minutes of rebuttal, so that will happen at 2 p.m., after lunch. The court is adjourned until then. Tommy is taking a break, from his location too.

Ezra Levant – It’s 2 p.m. in London, so the court is about to reconvene in the matter of the appeal of Tommy Robinson.

Ezra Levant – Tommy Robinson is still trending on Twitter. But I think we should tweak that — will you help me to get #FreeTommy trending? I have a good feeling that it will actually come true today, by the way.

Jeremy Dein, Tommy’s barrister, is summarizing his reply to Louis Mably, the lawyer from the Attorney General.

Dean is making a technical argument, noting that criminal procedure rules are relevant, as opposed to an obsolete case mentioned by Mably.

Ezra Levant – Factoid: a person held in contempt of court is called a “contemnor”.

Dein: 1. No attempt by the court to identify the precise breach said to have been committed by Tommy. 2. Therefore, no submissions made by Tommy in reply. 3. No discussion advising Tommy about what breach he was on the brink of being imprisoned for 4. Upon sentenced, not being told what he did wrong. 5. Not admitting what he did wrong. 6. Failed out proper punishment. … 8. Insufficient opportunity for Tommy to reflect and take advice, esp. to mitigation. 9. Summary proceedings should have happened. 10. Tommy deprived of chances to mitigate 11. Bad sentencing, including that Tommy is held as a criminal, not a civil prisoner. Sorry I couldn’t keep up so quickly with Dein’s rapid-fire summary.

Dein: Tommy has served almost two months — being the equivalent of four months as a civil prisoner, since he’s improperly being held as a criminal. (My addition: and of course, he’s in solitary confinement!)

Ezra Levant – Dein’s point is: two months as a criminal prisoner (equivalent to four months as a civil prisoner) is more than enough punishment already. So, at the very least, he should be let go now.

Ezra Levant – The judges have briefly adjourned to confer amongst each other. Mr. Dein’s no. 2, Kerrie, tells me the 12-points Mr. Dein made.

Here they are:

  1. No attempt to identify the precise breachers.
  2. Therefore no submissions made as to those breaches by Tommy’s lawyer.
  3. Therefore no discussion in with his lawyer in relation to any specific breaches…
  4. Tommy was not told by the judge (in Leeds) what he had done wrong.
  5. He was not asked if he admitted it.
  6. The judge failed to set out his powers of punishment, as per the criminal procedure rules.
  7. The judge failed to set out his powers of detention under the same rules.
  8. Tommy was given insufficient time to reflect and take advice, as per the rules, and in particular regarding mitigation of any problems he cause.
  9. Summary procedure — i.e. a drum-head trial — should not have been used in this case.
  10. Tommy was deprived of full and comprehensive mitigation — as in a chance to make things right. 10. Sorry — mitigation here means things he could set out in his favour — as in, his character, his family, his intent. That’s what mitigation means.
  11. They passed an imbalanced sentence — obviously.
  12. In summary, Tommy’s lawyers disagree with Mr. Mably’s contention that the spirit of the law was complied with, if not the letter of it.

Ezra Levant – That was a private-re-statement of Mr. Dein’s points to me by his associate!

Ezra Levant – We are now waiting for the judges to return. I’m told that could be in five or ten minutes. They’re just conferring. I’m told that a likely outcome is that the judges will return tomorrow to render a formal verdict.

Ezra Levant – Obviously, this was a legally complex case, and there are three senior judges who must confer. And the court is acutely aware of the public policy implications — not just for Tommy Robinson and his supporters, but in terms of fixing contempt of court law for the future.

Ezra Levant – So it may be that the judges call us back tomorrow for their verdict. Or: they may issue it immediately. Or: they may reserve it for days. It’s up to them — and these are the top bosses.

Chief Justice says they have a complicated task for them, and they hope to complete it before the end of July.

Ezra Levant –That seems excessively slow to me — you’d think that they’d grant Tommy bail in the meantime, if they seek to be so painstaking.

Ezra Levant – Now, it’s true that “before the end of July”, that could be tomorrow. But it could also be nearly two more weeks of solitary confinement for Tommy.

The Lord Chief Justice complimented the public gallery for their good conduct. UK 2:34 PM – 18 Jul 2018


THE LEFT AGAINST FREE SPEECH “We must come together to fight the resurgent racist right”




This line up of signatories is nothing to call mother about, nor does it make there opinions correct.

Just One Question: I would be asking the leaders of these organisations that signed this letter have they ask there members what they want said as an organisation “WAIT” no that is what democracy does RIGHT!

Over 50 parliamentarians, trade unionists, faith leaders and anti-racism campaigners sign a letter warning of an emboldened far right and saying we must defend our multicultural society

DIANE ABBOTT MP (Shadow Home Secretary.)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician.

JOHN MCDONNELL MP (Shadow Chancellor)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

LEN MCCLUSKEY (General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: Unite the Union; British and Irish trade union

DAVE PRENTIS (General secretary)
TRADE UNION: Unison; Public Service Union.

TALHA AHMED (Treasurer)
ORGANIZATION: Muslim Council of Britain.

MOHAMMED KOZBAR (محمد كزبر Chairman & Vice President)
ORGANIZATION: Finsbury Park Mosque / Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)


ORGANIZATION: Stand Up To Racism

GED GREBBY (Chief Executive)
ORGANIZATION: Show Racism the Red Card.

RICHARD BURGON [MP] (Shadow Justice Secretary)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

LAURA PIDCOCK [MP] (Shadow Minister For Labour)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

CAT SMITH [MP] (Shadow Minister For Voter Engagement And Youth Affairs)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

DAVID LAMMY [MP] (Minister of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

EMMA DENT COAD [MP] (Member of Parliament)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party

MARSHA DE CORDOVA [MP] (Shadow Minister for Disabled People)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party Politician

ANDREW GWYNNE [MP] (Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician

PETER HAIN [MP] House of Lords (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician.

ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party politician
ORGANIZATION: Member of the European Parliament for Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

JULIE WARD MEP: (Member of the European Parliament for North West England)
ORGANIZATION: British Labour Party.
ORGANIZATION: Member of European Parliament for the Co-operative Party.

ORGANIZATION: Green Party Politician.
ORGANIZATION: Member Of The European Parliament For The London

TIM ROACHE (General Secretary) 
TRADE UNION:  GMB General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union

KEVIN COURTNEY (Joint general secretary)
TRADE UNION: NEU National Education Union

MARK SERWOTKA (General secretary)
TRADE UNION: PCS Public and Commercial Services Union

DAVE WARD (General secretary)
TRADE UNION: CWU Communication Workers Union

MATT WRACK (General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: FBU Fire Brigades Union

MICK CASH (General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: RMT National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

IAN LAWRENCE (General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: Napo National Association of Probation Officers

STEVE GILLAN (General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: POA Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers

MANUEL CORTES (General secretary)
TRADE UNION: TSSA Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association

MICK WHELAN (General secretary)
TRADE UNION: Aslef Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen

KEVIN MAGUIRE (Journalist)
ORGANIZATION: British Political Journalist
Associate Editor  Daily Mirror Newspaper.

MICHAEL ROSEN (English children’s novelist, rapper, poet)

SALMA YAQOOB (British activist) (Head of BStWC)
ORGANIZATION: Birmingham Stop the War Coalition
TWITTER: @SalmaYaqoob

ORGANIZATION: Rock Against Racism


ALAN GIBBONS (Author English writer of children’s books)

DR SIEMA IQBAL (Co-founder of Avow)
ORGANIZATION: Advancing Voices of Women against Islamophobia

JULIA BARD (National Committee Member)
ORGANIZATION: Jewish Socialists’ Group (JSG) Affiliated to International Jewish Labor Bund 

CLAUDIA WEBBE  (Member of  NEC Executive Committee and Councillor)
ORGANIZATION: (NEC) National Executive Committee Of The Labour Party (British Politician)
ORGANIZATION: Councillor for Islington London Borough Council

MARGARET GREER (National Race Equality Officer)
TRADE UNION: Unison Public Service Union

HARISH PATEL (National Equalities Officer)
TRADE UNION: Unite the Union British and Irish trade union

IAN HODSON (National president)
TRADE UNION: BFWAU The Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union

TONY KEARNS (Deputy General Secretary)
TRADE UNION: CWU (postal) Communication Workers Union

STEVE HEDLEY (Deputy general secretary)
TRADE UNION: R.M.T National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

JANE LOFTUS (Vice President)
TRADE UNION: CWU  Communication Workers Union

PHYLLIS OPOKU-GYIMAH (Executive Director and Co-Founder)

SHAHRAR ALI (Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales) and (Home Affairs Spokesperson)

MAZ SALEEM (Activist)
POLITICAL ACTIVIST: Anti-racism campaigner/ Stand Up To Trump
TWITTER: @CampaignerMaz

KATE HUDSON (General Secretary)
ORGANIZATION: (CND) Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

LINDSEY GERMAN (British Left-Wing Political Activist)
POLITICAL ACTIVIST: (StWC) Stop the War Coalition
TWITTER: @LindseyAGerman

KERRY ABEL (Chair Person)
ORGANIZATION: Abortion Rights
TWITTER: @kerryabel

ASAD REHMAN (Executive director (WoW) & Activist)
ORGANIZATION: War on Want General
TWITTER: @chilledasad100

ORGANIZATION: People’s Assembly
TWITTER: @samfairbairn



UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Members Review: United Kingdom


Fifty Most Dangerous Countries To Follow Jesus.1)Open Doors World Watch List (ranked 1 to 50) 

. STATUS: Free
Aggregate Score 2)Freedom in the World 2018 Table of Country Aggregate Freedom Score {0 = least free, 100 = most free}

(0% = least – 100% = most)


US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK) is a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty, parliamentary form of government. Citizens elect representatives to the House of Commons, the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament. They last did so in free and fair elections in June 2017. Members of the upper chamber, the House of Lords, occupy appointed or hereditary seats. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Bermuda each have elected legislative bodies and devolved administrations, with varying degrees of legislative and executive powers. The UK has 14 overseas territories, including Bermuda. Each of the overseas territories has its own constitution, while the UK government is responsible for external affairs, security, and defense.

Civilian authorities throughout the UK and its territories maintained effective control over the security forces.

The most significant human rights issues included violence motivated by anti-Semitism and against members of minorities on racial or ethnic grounds. Authorities generally investigated, and where appropriate prosecuted, such cases.

The government investigated, prosecuted, and punished allegations of official abuse, including by police, with no reported cases of impunity.



a. US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor:

b. Freedom in the World 2018  Table of Country Aggregate Score:

c. Top anti-Semitism nations ranked 1-10 Jewish perspective:

d. ADL-Global 4,161,578,905 Total adult population of countries surveyed:

e. Executive Summary Source:


References   [ + ]

1. Open Doors World Watch List 
2. Freedom in the World 2018 Table of Country Aggregate Freedom Score