2019 Australia’s biggest Tax Dodgers using 4 years Australian Tax Office transparency data.

Counting down Australia’s biggest Tax Dodgers using 4 years Australian Tax Office transparency data.
by michaelwest.com.au You can follow Michael on Twitter @MichaelWestBiz.

Australia’s Ten biggest Tax Dodgers

No: 1 ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $33,170,960,652
4-year taxable income Nil
Margin total income taxable 00.00%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor PwC
Industry Oil And Gas

No: 2 EnergyAustralia Holdings Limited
How they did this:
(Read Full Article)

4-year total income $30,229,662,288
4-year taxable income $51,800,099
Margin total income taxable 00.17%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor PwC
Industry Oil & Gas

No: 3 Virgin Australia Holdings Limited
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $17,907,315,984
4-year taxable income Nil
Margin total income taxable 00.00%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor KPMG
Industry Aviation

No: 4 Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $15,177,114,880
4-year taxable income Nil
Margin total income taxable 00.00%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor PwC
Industry Telecommunications

No: 5 Santos Limited
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $14,938,146,824
4-year taxable income $27,340,938
Margin total income taxable 00.18%
4-year tax payable $3,147,975
Tax Rate 11.51%
Auditor EY
Industry Oil and Gas

No: 6 Pomi Pty Limited
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4 year total income $14,065,374,206
4 year taxable income $1,692,587
Margin total income taxable 00.01%
4 year tax payable $507,776
Tax Rate 30.00%
Industry Financial services

No: 7 Peabody Australia Holdco Pty Ltd
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $12,269,988,454
4-year taxable income Nil
Margin total income taxable 00.00%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor EY
Industry Coal mining

No: 8 Amcor Limited
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $11,707,779,637
4-year taxable income $34,889,349
Margin total income taxable 00.30%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor PwC
Industry Packaging

No: 9 Fletcher Building (Australia) Pty Ltd
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $11,510,284,427
4-year taxable income $35,968,543
Margin total income taxable 00.31%
4-year tax payable $5,703,073
Tax Rate 15.86%
Auditor EY
Industry Building products

No: 10 Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd
How they did this: (Read Full Article)

4-year total income $11,108,515,129
4-year taxable income $44,836,317
Margin total income taxable 00.40%
4-year tax payable Nil
Tax Rate 00.00%
Auditor PwC
Industry Automotive

Australia’s following thirty biggest Tax Dodgers

11 Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
12 Hewlett Packard South Pacific Pty Ltd
13 Spotless Group Holdings Limited
14 BG International (Aus) Pty Limited
15 Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd
16 BNP Paribas S.A.
17 Puma Energy (Australia) Holdings Pty Ltd
18 Agrium SP Holdings Pty Limited
19 Healthscope Ltd
20 SABMiller Australia Pty Ltd
21 Food Investments Pty Limited
22 Citic Resources Australia Pty Ltd
23 Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited
24 Foxtel Cable Television Pty Limited
25 Mirvac Limited
26 New Zealand Milk (Australasia) Pty Ltd
27 Sime Darby Industrial Australia Pty Ltd
28 Swiss Re Australia Limited
29 Ingram Micro Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd
30 Sumitomo Australia Pty Ltd
31 CSR Limited
32 BPIH Pty Limited
33 Yancoal Australia Limited
34 Hannover Life Re Of Australasia Ltd
35 Wilmar Australia Holdings Pty Limited
36 Stockland Corporation Limited
37 ING Bank NV (Sydney Branch)
38 UGL Pty Ltd
39 Burns Philp & Co Pty Limited
40 Victoria Power Networks Pty Ltd

Ask your MP why and what is being done to stop this evasion of Tax by Large Corporate Entities

Parliament Contact List 

The Squeaky wheel always gets attention


2019 MAY 2019 White House lawyer Flood letter to Barr on Mueller report


White House lawyers sent a furious letter about the Mueller report and it got one thing right.

“The Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors”

Sebastian Gorka

“Robert Mueller’s actions were in contravention with the Constitution.”  Sebastian Gorka on the White House letter to Barr.

Fox News said: The White House tore into Robert Mueller and his investigators in a recent letter to Attorney General Bill Barr that argued the special counsel’s team included “political statements” in their Russia report and “failed” to act as traditional prosecutors — while stating President Trump reserves his right to invoke executive privilege on matters related to the report.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://4cminews.com/wp-content/uploads/408443675-Flood-letter-to-Barr-on-Mueller-report.pdf”]

AG Barr Delivers Detailed Remarks ‘Mueller Report’ Russian Interference 2016 Election

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks on the Release of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election


Thursday, April 18, 2019

Good Morning.  Thank you all for being here today.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations. 

As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.

At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.  The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.

I would like to offer a few comments today on the report. 

But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process.  Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation.  He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition.  Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion.  Thank you, Rod.

I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process. 

As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.  Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation.  As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” 

I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election.  As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election.  But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter.  That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. 

The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:

First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.  Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme.  Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.  Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.”  Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.

Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails.  Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.  Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. 

Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations.  In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet.  The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication.  Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.  The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts.  Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. 

Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. 

After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.


After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes. 


After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. 

As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation.  Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. 

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision.  Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion. 

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context.  

President Trump faced an unprecedented situation.  As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. 

At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.  Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion.

And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. 

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.  And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.

Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. 

As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information.  To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases.  The redactions are their work product.   

Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States.  Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege.  And he would have been well within his rights to do so. 

Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. 

Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. 

Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege. 

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.  That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.  The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions. 

In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation.  We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so. 

Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. 

Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. 

Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared. 

I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today.  I now have a few minutes for questions.


A Comparison of Violence in the Bible & the Koran

by Bill Warner PhD (Politicalislam.com)

A recent study (by Tom Anderson) makes the claim that the Bible is as violent as the Koran. Hence there is no need to worry about with Islam. It is just like Christianity and Judaism.

My only interest is in political violence, not when Cain killed Able. Political violence is when a group attack those outsides of it. It is political when Muslims kill Kafirs in jihad, for instance. This eliminates counting personal violence and internal wars.

Bill Warner PhD said

🔑 We want to measure ideas, so we count more than individual sentences.

🔑 We need to count all the content that applies to ‘the political’ violence.




0 (zero)
words about political violence

words about political violence

words about political violence

Not on One occassion is there a record in the New Testament that Jesus himself or the first Generation leaders of Christianity preceeding the Death of Jesus taught/teaching Violence as a being part of a disciple of Jesus. Nor is it so today 2019

The violence in the Old Testament is historical in nature, not prescriptive, Nor is it so today 2019

The violence in Islam is prescriptively applicable to all people and times. Jihad is forever. This data makes sense. 2019 It will be jihadists committing murder in the morning news, not Methodists or Mennonites.

In short, there are nearly 10 times as much political violence in Islamic doctrine that there is in the Bible.

Above: Chart by Bill Warner PhD 1)Source: see URL http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts.html#Bible Raw Data: PDF BELOW

[pdf-embedder url=”http://4cminews.com/wp-content/uploads/OldTestamentViolentPassages.pdf”]
Prime Source: Political Islam | Published on Apr 13, 2016 Other sources: independent.co.uk | 9 February 2016 | Titled: 'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals

References   [ + ]

1. Source: see URL http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts.html#Bible

Read the Mueller report findings: Barr’s letter to Congress TEXT VERSION


On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of­-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review 

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[ s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of’ notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

William P. Barr Attorney General

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2019 March 24 | Author: William P. Barr Attorney General | Article Title: Read the Mueller report findings: Barr’s letter to Congress | Article Link: foxnews.com

Jihad Watch: Detailed Full Report March 2019 (THE MOST INCONVENIENT TRUTH)


pay attention Australia

1400 hear of Islamic Political Religious History doesn’t lie and the pattern **never never changes**

they are doing exactly what is in their holy scriptures SO WAKE UP!

Jihad Report March 2019

Attacks 105
Killed 590
Injured 683
Suicide Blasts 7
Countries 21

Source: thereligionofpeace.com

Note: These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta.  We only include incidents of deadly violence that are reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty – as interpreted by the perpetrator.  Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor.

March 2019

* 31st: Country: India; City/State/Region: Baramulla; Dead: 1 [A chemist is murdered in his shop by suspected Mujahideen.]

* 31st: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Muqdadiya; Dead: 1; Injured: 2 [Terrorists kill a civilian and injure a father and daughter.]

* 31st: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Balkh-Jawzjan; Dead: 1; Injured: 2 [Religious extremists attack a governor’s convoy, killing a member.]

* 31st: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Kamsuma; Dead: 4 [Four civilians are stood up and mowed down by an al-Shabaab firing squad.]

*  30th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Yathrib; Dead: 2; Injured: 1 [An ISIS attack leaves two dead.]

* 30th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Andar; Dead: 4; Injured: 17 [A ‘projectile’ hits a school during a Taliban attack, killing four young students.]

* 30th: Country: Thailand; City/State/Region: Songkhla; Dead: 2 [A latex trader and clerk are shot to death in their truck by Muslim militants.]

* 30th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Dharkenley; Dead: 1 [Islamists fit a bomb onto a civilian car, sending the driver into the hereafter.]

* 30th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Hammam al-Alil; Dead: 2 [Two fishermen are shot to death by the Islamic State.]

* 30th: Country: Burkina Faso; City/State/Region: Yendere; Dead: 3 [Three civilians are murdered by Jihadists.]

* 29th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Boya; Dead: 1; Injured: 1 [A civilian is sectionalized by a terrorist landmine.]

* 29th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Siory; Dead: 9; Injured: 6 [Nine local police lose their lives when armed religious extremists attack their checkpoint.]

* 28th: Country: Burkina Faso; City/State/Region: Barani; Dead: 4 [Suspected Jihadists kill four policemen and burn their vehicle.]

* 28th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 15; Injured: 17 [Over a dozen patrons are cut down in mid-bite by a car bombing outside a restaurant.]

* 28th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Shinkay; Dead: 5 [Five local cops are massacred by the Taliban.]

* 28th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Laghman; Dead: 2 [A child is among two killed when fundamentalists manage to hit their house with a mortar.]

* 28th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Gatamarwa; Dead: 1 [One resident is killed when Islamic extremists burn down a village.]

* 27th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Jamia Masjid; Dead: 1 [A 24-year-old man is murdered by Muslim militants.]

* 27th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Miringa; Dead: 2 [A motorist is among two people killed during a Boko Haram attack.]

* 27th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Tell Jabin; Dead: 9; Injured: 3 [An ISIS booby-trap claims nine civilians.]

* 27th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Lakki Marwat; Dead: 2; Injured: 4 [A woman is among two killed when terrorists open fire on a group from the education department.]

* * 26th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Hodan; Dead: 1; Injured: 1 [Suspected al-Shabaab plant a bomb under a luxury car, killing the driver.]

* 26th: Country: Niger; City/State/Region: N’Guigmi; Dead: 10; Injured: 8 [Two female suicide bombers coordinate with gunmen to massacre ten villagers.]

* 26th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Shireen Tagab; Dead: 1; Injured: 6 [Terrorists sent a mortar round into a home, killing a woman.]

* 25th: Country: Libya; City/State/Region: Ghadwa; Dead: 1; Injured: 3 [A civilian is kidnapped and murdered by the Islamic State.]

* 25th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 1; Injured: 3 [Muslim militants kill a university professor by fitting his car with an IED.]

* 25th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Manbij; Dead: 7 [Seven guards are killed by ISIS at the entrance to a city.]

* 25th: Country: Israel; City/State/Region: Mishmeret; Injured: 7 [Children are among the casualties when Hamas sends a rocket into a home.]

* 24th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Chichawatni; Dead: 1 [A man honour-strangles his 20-year-old sister for ‘having relations’.]

* 24th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Lahore; Dead: 1; Injured: 1 [A woman is chopped up with an axe for marrying without her family’s permission.]

* 24th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Sheikh al-Nasser; Dead: 2 [ISIS shrapnel claims two civilians.]

* 24th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Sangin; Dead: 65; Injured: 38 [Armed fundamentalists overrun two local security bases and murder dozens.]

* 24th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Jalalabad; Injured: 7 [A bomb outside a clinic sends shrapnel into women and children.]

* 23rd: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Mante; Dead: 1; Injured: 2 [Muslim militants attack three Christian teen sisters, raping and killing the oldest.]

* 23rd: Country: Niger; City/State/Region: Diffa; Dead: 7; Injured: 2 [Boko Haram burn down three villages, kill seven and abduct two women.]

* 23rd: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Lashkar Gah; Dead: 4; Injured: 31 [Bombs placed by religious radicals in tents at a Farmer’s Day ceremony kill four.]

* 23rd: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 11; Injured: 15 [Sharia proponents send a suicide bomber into a government building, killing about a dozen.]

* 22nd: Country: Niger; City/State/Region: Dewa Kargueri; Dead: 8; Injured: 20 [Eight villagers are butchered with knives by Boko Haram.]

* 22nd: Country: Kenya; City/State/Region: Elwak; Dead: 5 [al-Shabaab stage a cross-border ambush that kills five Kenyan border guards.]

* 22nd: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Karachi; Dead: 2; Injured: 1 [An assassination attempt on a cleric by sectarian rivals kills two guards.]

* 22nd: Country: Chad; City/State/Region: Dangdala; Dead: 23 [A Boko Haram attack on a Chadian soldier leaves two dozen dead.]

* 22nd: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Chinar; Dead: 1; Injured: 4 [A suicide bomber strikes a family on their way to a party, killing one member.]

22nd: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Deir Ezzor; Dead: 5 [Five members of a family hunting mushrooms are executed in cold blood by ISIS.]

22nd: Country: India; City/State/Region: Hajin; Dead: 1; Injured: 1 [A 12-year-old boy is kidnapped and shot to death by Lashkar-e-Taiba.]

* 22nd: Country: Sudan; City/State/Region: Nyala; Dead: 1; Injured: 2 [Arab militia shoot a local man to death.]

* 21st: Country: Yemen; City/State/Region: Shabwa; Dead: 2 [Two people ‘on the scene’ are levelled by a Religion of Peace car bomb blast.]

* 21st: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 1 [Suspected al-Shabaab bombers send a civil engineer to Allah.]

* 21st: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Kabul; Dead: 6; Injured: 23 [Six people are blown up for celebrating the Persian New Year.]

* 20th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Bahawalpur; Dead: 1 [A student stabs a professor to death for ‘anti-Islam’ remarks endorsing gender mixing at a party.]

* 20th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Lassa; Dead: 4 [Four farmers in a field make easy pickings for Boko Haram gunmen.]

* 20th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Sanjawi; Dead: 6 [The Taliban fire point-blank into a check post, eliminating six local cops.]

* 20th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Khanna Dak; Dead: 1 [A 17-year-old girl is  honour killed by her conservative father.]

* 19th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Tarfaya; Dead: 2 [Two children are pulled into pieces by a planted bomb.]

* 19th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Aleppo; Dead: 2; Injured: 1 [Sunni snipers fire into a school bus, killing a 12-year-old boy and 8-year-old girl.]

* 19th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Tarmiyah; Dead: 3; Injured: 5 [The Islamic State fire on a local security patrol, killing three members.]

* 19th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Tarmiyah; Dead: 2 [An ISIS bomb left at an orchard causes two deaths.]

* 18th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Michika; Dead: 4 [At least five people, including a girl, are slaughtered by Jihadists during a raid on a bank.]

* 18th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Gwoza; Dead: 8; Injured: 7 [Boko Haram aerate a bus with shrapnel, killing all eight passengers.]

* 18th: Country: Netherlands; City/State/Region: Utrecht; Dead: 4; Injured: 2 [A ‘strict Muslim’ with Jihadi ties opens fire on strangers riding a tram, killing four, including a woman.]

* 18th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Reshipora; Dead: 1 [A 25-year-old labourer is taken down by Mujahid gunmen.]

* 17th: Country: Burkina Faso; City/State/Region: Djibo; Dead: 3; Injured: 1 [A priest is kidnapped, and three security personnel are killed by militant Islamists.]

* 17th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Khogyani; Dead: 1; Injured: 10 [A child is disassembled by a bomb left outside a shrine.]

* 17th: Country: DRC; City/State/Region: Kalau; Dead: 6 [Three women and a 9-year-old child are massacred by ADF Islamists.]

* 17th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Qabasin; Dead: 1 [A bomb left by ISIS kills a civilian.]

* 17th: Country: Mali; City/State/Region: Dioura; Dead: 23 [At least twenty-three are killed when Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin attacks a local army base.]

* 17th: Country: Israel; City/State/Region: Ariel Junction; Dead: 2; Injured: 1 [A rabbi is among two Israelis shot to death by a Palestinian terrorist.]

* 16th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Sar-iPul; Dead: 4; Injured: 3 [Four local cops are cut down by Taliban gunmen.]

* 16th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Arghandab; Dead: 4 [Four people are liquidated by Taliban shrapnel.]

* 16th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Sawanah; Dead: 4 [Four civilians are shot dead by Islamic State gunmen.]

* 16th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Shopian; Dead: 1 [A female police officer is gunned down outside her home by Muslim terrorists.]

* 16th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Suqaylabiyah; Dead: 1; Injured: 4 [Militant Sunnis send missiles into a neighbourhood, killing a resident.]

* 16th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Bala Murghab; Dead: 22; Injured: 20 [Twenty-two Afghans lose their lives to Taliban attacks on checkpoints.]

* 16th: Country: Burkina Faso; City/State/Region: Kompienga; Dead: 2 [Two are killed by Jihadist shrapnel.]

* 15th: Country: Mozambique; City/State/Region: Cabo Delgado; Dead: 13 [Thirteen villagers are hacked to death by Sharia proponents.]

* 15th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Baghouz; Dead: 6 [Three female suicide bombers strike families fleeing the caliphate, killing six members.]

* 15th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Helmand; Dead: 1 [A TV journalist is shot to death in his car by suspected radicals.]

* 14th: Country: Cameroon; City/State/Region: Sandawadjiri; Dead: 3 [Three villagers are murdered in the middle of the night by Boko Haram.]

* 14th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Sawki; Dead: 1; Injured: 13 [Suspected Taliban clear out a bazaar with a deadly bomb blast.]

* 14th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Gulzarpora; Dead: 1 [A civilian is abducted and killed by Islamic militants.]

* 14th: Country: Niger; City/State/Region: Toumour; Dead: 4 [A Jihadist car bombing claims at least four lives.]

* 13th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Qara Tapa; Dead: 1; Injured: 6 [Women and children are among the casualties of an ISIS rocket attack.]

* 13th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Rutba; Dead: 1 [A man collecting truffles is captured and executed by the Islamic State.]

* 13th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Dhok Soba; Dead: 2 [Two Ahmadi doctors are abducted and killed by suspected Sunni extremists.]

* 13th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Farah; Dead: 1 [A local official is murdered by suspected terrorists.]

* 13th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Farah; Dead: 10 [The Taliban storm a checkpoint and massacre ten local security personnel.]

* 13th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Gof-Gadud; Dead: 8; Injured: 40 [al-Shabaab bombers murder eight patrons at a livestock market.]

* 13th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Pingleena; Dead: 1 [Islamic militants’ gun down a 25-year-old civilian.]

* 12th: Country: Burkina Faso; City/State/Region: Banh; Dead: 1 [Suspected Jihadists murder a local constable.]

* 12th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Amour; Dead: 4; Injured: 2 [Four people searching for mushrooms are aerated by Sunni shrapnel.]

* 12th: Country: Mali; City/State/Region: Dialoube; Dead: 6 [Six local security personnel are killed by a landmine planted by extremists.]

* 11th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Uzbekparida; Dead: 4; Injured: 4 [Four policemen are shot to death by the Taliban.]

* 11th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Anguwan Gamu; Dead: 46 [A pastor and his wife are among forty-six villagers massacred by Fulani terrorists.]

* 11th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Bala Murghab; Dead: 16; Injured: 13 [The Taliban massacre sixteen local soldiers.]

* 10th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Suwaiyah; Dead: 1; Injured: 1 [Sunni shrapnel brings down a civilian.]

* 10th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Shuwa; Injured: 1 [A girl is injured when two suicide bombers detonate prematurely during an attempt to kill church-goers.]

* 09th: Country: Niger; City/State/Region: Gueskerou; Dead: 7 [A Boko Haram attack on a border patrol kills seven.]

* 09th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Najm al-Zuhour; Dead: 2 [Two children are sectionalized by an ISIS landmine.]

* 09th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Arak; Dead: 8; Injured: 11 [ISIS explosives claim the lives of eight civilians.]

* 09th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Daman; Dead: 1 [A local farmer is disintegrated by an Islamist IED.]

* 08th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Mosul; Dead: 2; Injured: 10 [A child is among two Iraqis picked off by Jihadi bombers.]

* 08th: Country: DRC; City/State/Region: Virunga; Dead: 1 [A park ranger is murdered by the ADF.]

* 08th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Anar Dara; Dead: 3; Injured: 3 [A Taliban attack on a security post leaves three dead.]

* 08th: Country: DRC; City/State/Region: Beni; Dead: 6 [At least one woman is among six civilians hacked to death by ADF Islamists.]

* 07th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 2; Injured: 5 [An al-Shabaab near a theatre leaves two dead.]

* 07th: Country: Yemen; City/State/Region: Aden; Dead: 1; Injured: 5 [Religious extremists open fire on a police patrol, killing one.]

* 07th: Country: India; City/State/Region: Jammu; Dead: 2; Injured: 32 [Hizb-ul-Mujahideen throw a grenade into a bus station, killing a teenager and one other.]

* 07th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Kabul; Dead: 11; Injured: 90 [Sunni bombers strike a Shiite political gathering, killing eleven.]

* 07th: Country: Somalia; City/State/Region: Mogadishu; Dead: 7; Injured: 9 [A group fighting for Sharia sets off a car bomb outside a restaurant, killing seven.]

* 06th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Khewa; Dead: 3 [A schoolteacher is among three gunned down in cold blood by Islamic militants.]

* 06th: Country: Pakistan; City/State/Region: Abbottabad; Dead: 1 [A man is shot dead by extremists linked to an earlier honour killing.]

* 06th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Jawzjan; Dead: 1 [Fundamentalists shoot an 8-year-old child to death.]

* 06th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Makhmur; Dead: 6; Injured: 31 [An attack by ISIS leaves six dead.]

* 06th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Qala-e-Zal; Dead: 10; Injured: 12 [The Taliban storm a government check post, killing ten.]

* 06th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Jalalabad; Dead: 16; Injured: 10 [Sixteen employees at a construction company are massacred by Fedayeen in a massive suicide assault.]

* 06th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Jourin; Dead: 1; Injured: 6 [Sunnis send a rocket into a Shiite village, killing one.]

* 06th: Country: Iraq; City/State/Region: Tawakol; Dead: 1; Injured: 3 [An ISIS bomb blast leaves one dead.]

* 06th: Country: Nigeria; City/State/Region: Addamari; Dead: 5; Injured: 20 [Five farmers are blown to bits by a Boko Haram landmine.]

* 05th: Country: Syria; City/State/Region: Sha’afah; Dead: 2 [Two civilians lose their lives to an ISIS IED.]

* 05th: Country: France; City/State/Region: Normandy; Injured: 2 [A ‘radicalized’ inmate screams “Allah Akbar” as he stabs two guards with a knife smuggled to him.]

* 04th: Country: Yemen; City/State/Region: Hodeidah; Dead: 3; Injured: 6 Children are among three family members dispatched by an Ansar Allah rocket.

* 04th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Yangi Qala; Dead: 3; Injured: 7 The Taliban storm a market and kill three civilians.

* 04th: Country: Afghanistan; City/State/Region: Imam Sahib; Dead: 10; Injured: 9 Ten people are killed when Islamic militants storm a security checkpoint.

* 04th: Country: Yemen; City/State/Region: Taiz; Dead: 1; Injured: 11 A bomb planted at a market kills one bystander.


2019 APR 01 Hijab wearer Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern Christchurch Hospital visit


The new Political / Religious Islamic Hijab wearer NZ Prime Minister clearly you don’t know the women of Iran are being beaten up and worse as they break from the *Oppressive Religious Political Laws* against Women which includes Compulsory Hijab wearing and you; Prime minister legitimises Islamic Shariah Laws ” Way to Go Jacinda Ardern:

Religious Political Islam loves you “for now”

ps. when they get full power over NZ women will not be in Parliament let alone leading a full Islamic Nation1)Original Source: Aysha Trending TV | Published on Apr 1, 2019

Meanwhile in the Unbridled world of Islamic Political Religious Control

Here is a real Leader, not a Submitter! to Political Religious Islam

More on the Unbridled world of Islamic Political Religious Control

Screaming woman ‘is viciously beaten by women in Iran because her red headscarf is deemed an “insufficient” hijab’ 
Iran: dailymail.co.uk 19 April 2018 | By Iain Burns for Mailonline

” Way to Go Jacinda Ardern” You had to wear the symbol of oppression for women to mourn for Islamic community tragedy?????????? This is your best idea!

MEANWHILE IN IRAN. dailymail.co.uk



References   [ + ]

1. Original Source: Aysha Trending TV | Published on Apr 1, 2019

A Catastrophic Media Failure


NO Collusion

NO Russian Interference

NO Obstruction of Justice

By Sean Davis, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2019, 7:10 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, but questions still abound. Not about collusion, Russian interference or obstruction of justice, but about the leading lights of journalism who managed to get the story so wrong, and for so long.

It wasn’t merely an error here or there. America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday—and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” A 2017 Time magazine cover depicted the White House getting a “makeover” to transform it into the Kremlin.

All based on a theory—that the president of the United States was a Russian asset—produced by a retired foreign spy whose work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An unbiased observer would have taken the theory’s partisan provenance as a red flag, but most political journalists saw nothing but green lights. No unverified rumour was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print. From CNN to the Times and the Post, from esteemed and experienced reporters to opinion writers and bloggers, everyone wanted a share of the Trump-treason beat. What good is the 21st-century Watergate if you don’t at least make an effort to cast yourself as the fearless journalist risking it all who got that one big tip that brought down a president?

Not only did the press fail to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency; it provided voluminous evidence for his repeated charge of “fake news.”

Take CNN. The network reported in December 2017 that Donald Trump Jr. received special email access to stolen documents before their public release by WikiLeaks—an accusation that, if true, could have proved the president’s inner circle was colluding with Russian hackers intent on taking down Mrs Clinton. But it turned out “the most trusted name in news” misreported the dates on the unsolicited emails to the president’s son. They had been sent to him days after WikiLeaks had published the pilfered documents. CNN still hasn’t explained why it failed to do basic due diligence on such an important story.

Another CNN foul-up came in June 2017, the month after President Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr Trump said Mr Comey had assured him three times that he wasn’t under FBI investigation. The network reported Mr Comey would directly refute the president’s claim under oath. In reality, Mr Comey’s own memos explicitly confirmed Mr Trump’s statement.

A December 2016 Washington Post story “incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid,” as a later editor’s note acknowledged. “Authorities say there is no indication of that so far.” Slate falsely claimed in October 2016 that Mr Trump’s computers were secretly sharing information with a Russian bank as part of a scheme to avoid detection.

Each new claim, true or not, became fodder for political pundits. Sure, there may be no actual smoking gun or verified information or anything even approximating evidence, but if you take all the disparate pieces and put them on the same corkboard, stand back at just the right distance, and squint really hard, you can almost make out a barrel and a plume of smoke.

Enter Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, author of the classic 2003 article “Why I Hate George W. Bush.” (“I hate the way he walks. . . . I hate the way he talks. . . . I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.”) Last July, before Mr Trump met Mr Putin in Helsinki, Mr Chait penned a nearly 8,000-word piece titled “Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart—or His Handler?” Mr Chait’s speculation—that “Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987”—was worthy of the late Lyndon LaRouche.

In a January 2019 Twitter thread, meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted that “the failure to connect the dots on Trump-Russia” was one of the “big failures of 2016 campaign coverage.” He added: “There is no sin quite as offensive as challenging conventional wisdom early, and then being proved right.”

Many in Washington and around the country believed Mr Mueller’s investigation would put the entire issue to rest. If there was collusion, he’d find it. If there was obstruction of justice, he’d prosecute it. Whatever he found, the nation would accept it and move on. “The best thing for our country is that Trump is innocent and that Mueller tells us he’s found nothing,” Garrett Graff of Wired tweeted Thursday, the day before Mr Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr. “Mueller got everything he wanted,” Mr Graff wrote Friday. “Never blocked by DOJ in pursuing something he requested. That’s big.”

But the next day, Mr Graff excoriated Nikki Haley for agreeing: “No, everyone does not have to acknowledge that Trump didn’t interfere with Mueller,” Mr Graff tweeted Saturday at the former United Nations ambassador. By Monday Mr Graff was insisting that “a million questions” about Trump-Russia collusion remain.

Likewise, on Monday the irrepressible Mr Chait insisted the president could still be guilty: “People who want to demonstrate their innocence make displays of cooperation with investigators,” he wrote. “His flamboyant refusal to cooperate deprives Trump of any claim to having been cleared.”

So much for accepting Robert Mueller’s conclusions and recommendations. If your objective is to bring down Mr Trump, nothing Mr Mueller or anyone else finds—or fails to find—makes a difference. Mr Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs Clinton. From their behaviour, it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.



Britain’s War on Christianity: Part I

In recent years, dozens of Christians — clergy and non-clergy — in Britain have been arrested or fired from their jobs due to their faith. Much of the harassment is based on three sections of two British laws that are vague and open to subjective interpretations.

At an appeal hearing at Bristol Crown Court, attorney Michael Phillips emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even in cases where the speaker does not necessarily hold the views being expressed. Another attorney, Paul Diamond, argued that there is no right not to be exposed to contrary ideas. He added that should passers-by not wish to hear the preaching, they are able to walk away.

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND - DECEMBER 16: Pastor James McConnell who has been accused of making grossly offensive remarks about Islam answers questions from reporters as he leaves Belfast Magistrates' Court on December 16, 2016 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Pastor McConnell denies two charges relating to a sermon he gave in a Belfast church last year. Belfast Magistrates' Court heard that Pastor McConnell called Islam "satanic" and "heathen". The judgement of the case has been reserved until January. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

Belfast, Northern Ireland – December 16: Pastor James McConnell who has been accused of making grossly offensive remarks about Islam answers questions from reporters as he leaves Belfast Magistrates’ Court on December 16, 2016 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Pastor McConnell denies two charges relating to a sermon he gave in a Belfast church last year. Belfast Magistrates’ Court heard that Pastor McConnell called Islam “satanic” and “heathen”. The judgment of the case has been reserved until January. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

The unlawful arrest of a Christian street preacher in London has drawn attention to the continuing use of hate speech laws to silence Christians in multicultural Britain — even as incendiary speech by Muslim extremists is routinely ignored.

On February 23, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a 64-year-old Nigerian evangelist known as Preacher Olu, was arrested at Southgate Station in North London after complaints that his message about Jesus was “Islamophobic.”

A video of the arrest, viewed more than two million times, shows how two police officers ordered the man to stop preaching because “nobody wants to listen to that,” confiscated his Bible and then arrested him for “a breach of peace.”

The video was filmed by Ambrosine Shitrit, co-founder of Eye on Antisemitism, a London-based organization that tracks anti-Semitism on social media.

Shortly before Ilesanmi’s arrest, Shitrit had seen him interacting with another man, who turned out to be a Muslim. She thought the Muslim was about to assault Ilesanmi when she went over and started filming with her phone. When the police arrived in response to an emergency call, the Muslim man left the scene.

The video shows Ilesanmi pleading with police, “Don’t take my Bible away. Don’t take my Bible away.” An officer responded: “You should have thought about that before being racist.” A popular blogger known as Archbishop Cranmer tweeted what many people doubtless felt: “Dear @metpoliceuk, Setting aside the appalling ignorance of these two officers, would you handle a copy of the Qur’an like that?”

Ilesanmi said that after he was searched, the police drove him to a remote area before “de-arresting him.” In Britain, “de-arrest” is a legal term which means that no crime has been committed. Since then, London police have changed their story about what transpired; some have accused the police of staging a cover-up.

When journalist Marcus Jones of Premier Christian Radio asked the Met Police whether they agreed that Ilesanmi had been driven away to a remote location, the Met Police expressly denied it. In an email exchange, they said that Ilesanmi was escorted “approximately 200 meters away, de-arrested and shown to a nearby bus stop.”

Upon further questioning by Jones, Met Police said that Ilesanmi “was driven approximately 3.5 miles to Hadley Wood in north London, where he was left at a bus stop.” The police also said that the man was arrested “in order to prevent[emphasis added] a breach of the peace.” The police also said, “Yes, officers checked that he had a bank card.”

Jones emailed a follow-up question:

“Mr. Ilesanmi says he was taken 5.2 miles away and dropped at the edge of Wrotham Park outside of the London transport zone. He also insists that he had no money on him when he was left by the police. I just want to be sure on the exact distance: is the 3.5-mile figure an exact distance or an estimate? Thanks.”

The Met Police responded:

“The man was driven approximately 3.5 miles to Hadley Wood in north London, where he was left at a bus stop. As stated below, the man was left at a bus stop with a bank card.”

The British watchdog group Christian Concern wrote:

“Oluwole was not taken to Hadley Wood. He was taken to Wrotham Park which is some distance away from Hadley Wood and is outside the London transport zone. He had an Oyster card [a rechargeable plastic card valid for all of London’s public transport] with him which was not accepted on the bus. He is clear that he did not have a bank card on him when the police searched him. Bank cards are in any case not accepted on the 84 Metro Line bus which he eventually caught. Furthermore, there are no ATMs anywhere near the place where the police left him.

“Oluwole had to work out where he was with his smartphone and then catch a bus back to High Barnet. When a bus came, he was told that his Oyster card was not accepted on this bus. He explained that he had been dropped there by the police and asked how he was going to get back. The driver asked him to leave the bus. He said that a passenger would help him, whereupon a passenger did volunteer to pay his £2 bus fare in cash. He still has the ticket which validates his account of what happened.”

Christian Concern launched a petition asking Home Secretary Sajid Javid to do more to ensure that the police are trained to act within the law:

“A video of street preacher Oluwole Ilesanmi being arrested outside Southgate Underground station has been seen by millions of people worldwide. It’s not the first time a Christian street preacher has been wrongly arrested in the UK. 

“Christian street preachers should be free to share the gospel, even where it means challenging the beliefs of others. 

“The law rightly protects freedom of speech, even if it offends, shocks or disturbs others. But too often, police officers have shown themselves either to be ignorant of this freedom or unwilling to uphold it. This leads to a chilling effect, where people are increasingly unwilling to say what they believe, for fear of arrest.”

Christian Concern CEO Andrea Williams added:

“Despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers after any suggestion (often false) of Islamophobia or homophobia. This is not only unjust but kills free speech through self-censorship. We want to see police officers protect the freedom of street preachers by only using their powers when truly necessary.”

In recent years, dozens of Christians — clergy and non-clergy — in Britain have been arrested or fired from their jobs due to their faith.

Much of the harassment is based on three sections of two British laws that are vague and open to subjective interpretations:

Section 4A (Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress) of the Public Order Act 1986: “A person is guilty of an offense if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he — (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”
Section 5 (Harassment, Alarm or Distress) of the Public Order Act 1986: “A person is guilty of an offense if he — (a) uses threatening or abusive words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Section 31 (Racially or Religiously Aggravated Public Order Offenses) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: “A person is guilty of an offense under this section if he commits — (a) an offense under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence); (b) an offense under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or (c) an offense under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress), which is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section.”

Many of those accused of breaking the law had challenged the doctrinal claims of Islam or had made public proclamations of Christian sexual ethics. A free speech clause, tabled by Lord Waddington as section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986, assures that public criticism of homosexuality or same-sex marriage is lawful.

The amendment to section 29J (Protection of Freedom of Expression (Sexual Orientation)) states:

“(1) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
“(2) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

Nevertheless, police often use heavy-handed tactics to remove lawful Christian preachers off the streets. Muslim street preachers, by contrast, often are treated more leniently. A video illustrates the double standards being applied by British police with regards to street preaching by Christians and Muslims.

In one instance, a Muslim judge convicted a Christian preacher of a public order offense due to his choice of Bible verses.

District Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi, who also serves with the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the overseer of Britain’s Shariah courts, ruled that Michael Overd, a former British paratrooper who is now a Christian street preacher, should not have quoted a passage from Leviticus Chapter 20, which calls for the death penalty for Israelites who engage in sodomy.

Qureshi said that Overd should instead have used Leviticus 18:22, which merely describes homosexual practice as an “abomination.” Overd later noted: “I am amazed that the judge sees it as his role to dictate which parts of the Bible can and can’t be preached.”

Conservative Party MP Sir John Hayes recently warned that “the ‘golden era’ of religious liberty may be coming to an end.” He explained:

“Religious believers are, once again, facing increased pressure to restrict their faith to the ‘private sphere.’ We now see regular, and increasingly unapologetic, persecution of Christians who remain committed to biblical teaching, refusing to bow to liberal, secular orthodoxies.”

Following is the first of a three-part series which examines the persecution of Christians in Britain. Part 1 documents efforts to remove street preachers from the public square. Part 2 examines the persecution in Britain of ordinary Christians in the workplace. Part 3 documents hostility to Christianity in the British culture.

Gatestone Institute has documented more than two dozen cases in which street preachers have been unlawfully arrested, jailed and or harassed by British police, prosecutors and the judiciary:

July 2018. London. Alan Coote, a 55-year-old Christian street preacher, was arrested outside St. Paul’s Cathedral for “breaching the peace” after reading aloud from the Bible. Coote had been arguing for what he said is his legal right to preach outside the cathedral.

Martin Parsons of the Barnabas Fund, a Christian charity, said:

“This illustrates the slippery slope down which the UK is losing its heritage of religious freedom. One of the first aspects of freedom of religion to be established in England was the freedom to read the Bible in public. St Paul’s is trying to stop someone reading the Sermon on the Mount in public.”

St Paul’s Cathedral staff eventually relented, but only to the extent that they offered to allow Coote to preach on the site for half an hour each week.

The Telegraph noted that the cathedral staff’s treatment of Coote is very different to when, in 2011, St Paul’s Cathedral hosted anti-capitalism protesters as they set up camp outside the church for over three months.

At the time, the cathedral’s Canon Chancellor, Giles Fraser, gave the demonstrators a warm welcome and affirmed their right to protest. He asked police to move off the steps of the cathedral.

March 2018. Barking, London. David Lynn, a Christian pastor from Canada, was arrested outside Barking underground station after a female passer-by told officers that he made homophobic comments. He was later released without charge after police admitted they were wrong to detain him.

December 2017. Camberley, Surrey. David Barker and Stephen Wan, two Christian street preachers from Reading, were charged with hate speech after hecklers told police that they had made homophobic comments.

On January 15, 2018, the two men were cleared of all charges after police determined that they had not said the things they were accused of saying.

July 2017. Nottingham. Andrew Frost, a Christian street preacher, was arrested in the city center after allegedly entering into a discussion with two passers-by about homosexuality.

The two men claimed that Frost had verbally abused them and directed several lewd comments at them, all of which he denied. Frost was charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Nottingham Magistrates’ Court proclaimed Frost not guilty and ordered the repayment of his legal fees.

June 2017. Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Daniel Courney, an American missionary, was arrested in the High Street quarter after a Muslim passer-by told police that he had made Islamophobic comments. He was charged under Section 5 Public Order Act 1986. On September 14, 2017, the Lincoln Magistrates’ Court convicted Courney of using “threatening and discriminatory language.”

During Courney’s appeal at Lincoln Crown Court, his attorneys argued that the law provides the freedom for him to preach the Christian message, a freedom which has been upheld in the courts for many years.

Courney also denied making the Islamophobic comments attributed to him. On December 8, 2017, the Crown Court overturned the Magistrates’ Court’s sentence.

June 2017. Southwark, London. Ian Sleeper, a Christian street preacher, was arrested outside Southwark Cathedral, after displaying a placard which read, “Love Muslims Hate Islam Time For The Truth.”

He was subsequently released on bail after the Crown Prosecution Service could not decide whether to charge him. After having been on bail for six weeks, the police decided to take no further action against him. Sleeper, who owns a restaurant in Ashford and employs Muslims, said:

“Society needs to kick political correctness into the long grass and be unafraid to criticize Islam. It was political correctness and an abuse of my rights under the law that got me detained in a police cell for 13 hours.
“I differentiate between Muslims the people and Islam the ideology. I love my Muslim neighbor as the Bible commands, and I am friends with all my Muslim staff. But I hate the religion’s ideology. It is not Muslims we should be attacking, it’s Islam. Islam makes Muslims victims with a tight grip that holds them captive to an evil ideology.
“The majority of people we engage with on the street agree with us. This includes ex-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Muslims fear that they are unable to speak up against and leave Islam, but I have had the privilege of meeting ex-Muslims on the street and am often joined by them in my protest.”

March 2017. Bristol. Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell, two Christian street preachers, were convicted at Bristol Magistrates’ Court of disorderly conduct and using “threatening and abusive words…likely to cause alarm.”

In July 2016, Overd and Stockwell were arrested for preaching at Bristol’s Broadmead Shopping Center. Several hecklers who appeared to be supportive of Islam became loud and aggressive, with some swearing and hurling abuse.

There was debate on several points, especially over the differences between Islam and Christianity. At the time Overd and Stockwell were arrested, a police officer chided one of the men, saying, “People were getting angry.

You were challenging homophobia [sic]. You were challenging Muslims.” The officer accused them of “anti-social behavior.”

Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Center filed an appeal:

“The Bible and its teachings are the foundation of our society and provided many of the freedoms and protections that we still enjoy today. So it is extraordinary that the prosecution, speaking on behalf of the state, could say that the Bible contains abusive words which, when spoken in public, constitute a criminal offense.”

During the trial, Crown Prosecutor Ian Jackson argued that biblical claims about the unique, salvific role and divine nature of Jesus Christ were offensive. As a result, Jackson argued, quoting parts of the Bible in public should be considered criminal offenses under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

At an appeal hearing at Bristol Crown Court in June 2017, Michael Phillips, an attorney for Overd and Stockwell, emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even in cases where the speaker does not necessarily hold the views being expressed.

Another attorney, Paul Diamond, argued that there is no right not to be exposed to contrary ideas, adding that should passers-by not wish to hear the preaching, they are able to walk away. Bristol Crown Court agreed and acquitted Overd and Stockwell of all charges.

July 2016. Irvine, Scotland. Gordon Larmour, a Scottish evangelist, was arrested after he answered questions from a gay teenager about the Christian view on homosexual practice.

Larmour, who often visits Irvine to offer Christian leaflets to passers-by, referred to the Book of Genesis and stated that God created Adam and Eve to produce children. Larmour’s answers angered the young man, who called police and told them that Larmour had made “homophobic” remarks.

Larmour was arrested and charged with behaving in a “threatening and abusive manner aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation” and “assault.” In January 2017, Kilmarnock Sheriff Court found Larmour “not guilty” after Sheriff Alistair Watson established that the evidence against him was unconvincing.

Larmour told the Scottish Mail on Sunday:

“The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights.
“I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions — I was quoting from the Bible.
“I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that.
“In court the boy’s friend told the truth — that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”

December 2015. Beverley, Yorkshire. Michael Jones, a 66-year-old Christian street preacher, was arrested for Islamophobia. He was accused of shouting “Muslims are terrorists, they should not be allowed in this country,” “Islam is not a religion, Islam is terrorism” and “Islam does not preach the Bible, it’s not religion, it’s terrorism.”

A recording of his sermon revealed that he had not said the words he was accused of saying. In February 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges against Jones.

August 2015. Belfast. James McConnell, a 78-year-old Christian pastor in Northern Ireland, appeared at Laganside Magistrates’ Court in Belfast, after local Muslims complained that he delivered a sermon in which he described Islam as “heathen” and “satanic.”

According to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS), McConnell — whose sermon was streamed live on the internet — violated the 2003 Communications Act by “sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive.”

In January 2016, McConnell was acquitted after Belfast Magistrates’ Court Judge Liam McNally ruled that his comments did not reach the “high threshold” of being “grossly offensive.”

McConnell summed it up this way:

“Islam is allowed to come to this country, Islam is allowed to worship in this country, Islam is allowed to preach in this country and they preach hate. And for years we are not allowed to give a tract out, we are not allowed in Islam, we are not allowed to preach the gospel. We are persecuted in Islam if we stand for Jesus Christ.”

April 2015. Hereford. Andrew Geuter, a Christian street preacher, was arrested after he was wrongly accused of making homophobic comments by a member of the public. He was held for five hours, during which time he was interviewed before being released on conditional bail. The police later determined to take no action due to insufficient evidence.

March 2015. Taunton, Somerset. Michael Overd, a Christian street preacher, was convicted of a public order offense for quoting a Bible passage condemning homosexuality. He was fined £200. District Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi, a Muslim, told Overd he could instead have chosen another Bible passage deemed by the judge to be less offensive.

After the trial, Overd said:

“I am amazed that the judge sees it as his role to dictate which parts of the Bible can and can’t be preached. I did not quote the full text of Leviticus 20 or make reference to the death penalty, but the judge is telling me that I should use other parts of the Bible. This is not free speech but censorship. The judge is redacting the Bible.

“I have been ordered to pay compensation for causing ’emotional pain’ to someone who approached me aggressively demanding to debate the issue. There was no harm, injury or theft, just a simple disagreement over theology which I have now been fined for.”

The President of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson, said that the ruling appeared to make the quoting of certain passages of the Bible illegal. “Whilst we all want to encourage public civility, there is a higher principle at stake,” he said. “As long as there is no incitement to violence, then people should be allowed to speak freely without fearing legal repercussions.”

On December 11, 2015, Overd won an appeal against his public order conviction for using the “wrong” Bible verse in public. Circuit Judge David Ticehurst, sitting at Taunton Crown Court, ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the conviction.

Overd said:

“Today the Court was faced with the farcical situation of a witness telling the judge that he couldn’t even remember what I had said, but simply asserting that it was ‘homophobic’ — as though the mere assertion that something is ‘homophobic’ is enough to curtail free speech.

“In this country, we are now in the ludicrous situation where the slightest accusation of a ‘phobia,’ be it ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia,’ is enough to paralyze rational action by the police and authorities. The highly politicized dogma of ‘phobias’ now too often results in trumped up charges and legal action. There is a chilling effect.

“Reasonable, law-abiding people now feel that they can’t say certain things and that is dangerous. Totalitarian regimes develop when ordinary people feel that there are certain things that can’t be said.

“Rather than prizing freedom of expression and protecting it, the police and the prosecutors risk undermining it, because they’ve become paranoid about anyone who might possibly feel offended.”

February 2014. Banbury. Bill Edwards, a 73-year-old street preacher, was arrested outside Banbury Magistrates’ Court after some people inside the building found his preaching “offensive.” He was taken to a nearby police station, where he was grabbed by six officers and pinned to the floor.

In February 2014, Oxford Magistrates’ Court cleared Edwards, a former teacher, of all charges. An application for a restraining order to prevent Edwards from preaching outside Banbury Court House was refused; he was reimbursed for his travel expenses.

September 2013. Perth, Scotland. Josh Williamson, a Christian street preacher, was arrested twice in one week for breaching the peace.

In an interview with The Scotsman, Williamson explained:

“The officer told me to stop as I was breaking the law. I asked him what law I was breaking and he replied that I was in breach of the peace. When I asked him to explain, he pointed to my mp3 recorder and said I was too loud. I pointed out to the officer that I wasn’t using amplification, but just my natural voice. I then asked him what a reasonable sound level would be. The police officer replied that the noise level isn’t the issue, but rather that a complaint had been made. I tried to reason with the officer, explaining that such argumentation is subjective as anyone can claim anything is too loud. After a few more minutes I was placed in the back of a police van.”

September 2013. Basildon, Essex. Rob Hughes, a 38-year-old street preacher, was arrested and jailed after he was accused by a lesbian bystander of engaging in hate speech against homosexuals. The woman in question had earlier confronted Hughes shouting that she was “gay and proud” then proceeding to tell him to “get down off your pedestal, you judgmental ****. Homophobia is not in this town.”

Hughes, who had recorded everything he said while preaching, explained that he had said nothing about the issue of homosexuality and asked that her request not to be judged be extended also to him. He was later released and informed that no further action would be taken due to insufficient evidence.

In May 2015, as part of an out-of-court settlement, Hughes received £2,500 and a contribution towards his legal fees for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and breach of his human rights.

August 2013. London. Dominic Muir, a Christian street preacher, was arrested for preaching in the Battersea Park area. A police officer asked Muir if he had obtained permission to preach in the area. When he responded that he did not, he was told that he would be prosecuted. The council alleged that Muir had breached little-used by-laws which ban street preaching in certain parts of the borough.

In September 2013, during the first hearing at Richmond upon Thames Magistrates’ Court, Muir entered a not guilty plea. The council subsequently dropped the case against Muir.

July 2013. London. Tony Miano, an American evangelist, was arrested and jailed during the Wimbledon Championships while preaching on the street about sexual immorality. He was part of Sports Fan Outreach International, an evangelistic effort in England to share the Gospel with attendees of the annual Wimbledon tennis tournament.

Approximately a dozen or more men and women were on the streets preaching, distributing tracts and engaging in one-on-one conversation with spectators. Miano, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff, was preaching about sexual immorality from the book of First Thessalonians when a female passer-by became agitated by his message and began to curse.

She then called the police to complain. Moments later, officers arrived and notified Miano that he had allegedly violated Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which prohibits public language that is threatening or insulting. After being booked, photographed and fingerprinted, he was released without charge.

February 2012. Inverness, Scotland. Kenneth Macdonald, a well-known evangelist, was cleared of behaving in an abusive manner while preaching the gospel in Inverness city center. In January 2011, a shopkeeper had falsely accused Macdonald of harassing passers-by. After more than a year of legal proceedings, Macdonald was acquitted.

September 2011. Manchester. John Craven, a Christian street preacher, was arrested and jailed for reading from the Bible after two gay teenagers asked him about his views on homosexuality. He added that “whilst God hates sin, He loves the sinner.”

The teens then began to kiss in front of him and perform sexual acts. They then reported Craven to a nearby mounted police constable, who placed him under arrest for “public order offenses.” After spending 19 hours in jail, police told him there would be no charges and no further action.

In March 2014, Craven was awarded £13,000 in compensation after a three-year legal battle against Greater Manchester Police estimated to have cost taxpayers £50,000.

December 2010. Birmingham. Anthony Rollins, an autistic Christian street preacher who was arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, was awarded £4,250 in damages following a court case against West Midlands Police.

Birmingham County Court ruled that Police Constable Adrian Bill committed assault and battery against Rollins when he handcuffed him unnecessarily.

The court also ruled that Rollins was wrongfully arrested, unlawfully detained and his human rights to free speech and religious liberty were infringed. The court ordered the police to pay Rollins’ legal costs.

April 2010. Workington, Cumbria. Dale McAlpine, a 42-year-old Christian street preacher, was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police officer overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same-sex relationships.

McAlpine said that he did not mention homosexuality while delivering his sermon but admitted telling a passer-by that he believed it was against the word of God.

Police officers alleged that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act. McAlpine was taken to the police station and locked in a cell for seven hours. Prosecutors later dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.

March 2010. Glasgow. Shawn Holes, a 47-year-old American street preacher, was fined £1,000 for “uttering homophobic remarks” that were “aggravated by religious prejudice.” Holes, a New Yorker who was touring Britain with colleagues, was arrested by police while responding to questions from people in Glasgow City Center.

He said later:

“There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight of them – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking ‘What do you think of this?’ It felt like a set-up by gay campaigners. When asked directly about homosexuality, I told them homosexuals risked the wrath of God unless they accepted Christ.”

Holes said that he had no choice but to admit the charge at Glasgow Sheriff Court because he wanted to fly home to see his wife, and his father, who is in a hospice. However, he said he had expected to be fined only about £100.

August 2009. Manchester. Miguel Hayworth and his father, John Hayworth, two street preachers, were accused by police of inciting religious and racial hatred for reading from the Bible and handing out tracts at St. Ann’s Square. Miguel Hayworth said:

“At 2 pm, I was approached on more than one occasion by several police officers who falsely accused me, stating that I was inciting hatred with homophobic and racial comments. One plain-clothed officer, who was with the other two uniformed officers, said: ‘It is against the law to preach and hand out tracts: preaching causes offense and handing out tracts is harassment and could result in an arrest.'”

Hayworth said that at about 2.30 pm another officer warned him that he could be arrested and that his actions were being filmed and recorded. He stopped preaching. Critics claimed that a Muslim preaching Islam in the street would not have been treated in such a way by police.

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2019 MAR 19 | Time-stamped: 5:00 | Author: Soeren Kern | Article Title: Britain's War on Christianity: Part I  Article Link: gatestoneinstitute.org