Category Archives: Freedom

Dark Arts, Brexit Betrayed And The Death Of Democracy

Brexit is dead. Thus democracy has been killed off and the UK is in a deep political and existential crisis.

On 9th June 2015 MPs from all parties voted by 544 votes to 53 for the European Union Referendum Bill which provided for a Remain/Leave vote on the UK’s continued membership of the EU. No third option – such as voting for EU associate status – was to be offered to the British people; MPs decided it was to be a simple In/Out binary-choice poll.

All four of the national parties represented in Parliament – Conservative, Labour, LibDems and the Green Party – were overwhelmingly in favour of this referendum; only the SNP voted against.

The referendum was, of course, merely another – and new – tactic by the political class to control and close down the fraught public debate over EU membership. UKIP’s outstanding success in the 2014 European Parliament elections forced Remainer prime minister David Cameron to try to lance the Brexit boil by calling the referendum and a once-in-a-generation vote.

After all, there was no way the political establishment were going to lose. Ever since Tony Blair and his spin doctors Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson fifteen years before, the metropolitan political elite has learnt well and developed further the truth-free dark arts of how to manipulate public opinion: fake the news, unperson the opposition, dismiss free speech as ‘far right’ , introduce ‘hate speech’, deplatform and silence ‘hate figures’, create phony ‘phobia’ categories such as Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia, rebrand intolerance as tolerance, duck killer facts, bury damning evidence, promote disinformation.

In 2013, just two years before the Referendum Bill, the elite political class had used the dark arts to achieve a notable victory in the defining battleground of the culture wars – the touchstone liberal-progressive issue of gay marriage.

Opinion polls showed there was no demand for gay marriage even from gay activists like Stonewall. None of the parties had any mandate for gay marriage as not one of them had included it in their 2010 election manifesto. Neither were there any Green or White Paper statutory consultations with the public on gay marriage.

Rather, it was imposed top-down by what Brendan O’Neill excoriated as “tiny handfuls of sharp-suited gay lobbyists, lawyers, celebrities, commentators and the Notting Hill/Hampstead sections of the political class.” If democracy means ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’, the proposed gay marriage legislation was a democratic fraud.

But this didn’t matter. Aided by a tsunami of pro-LGBT propaganda from arch-liberal BBC and the mainstream media, the political elite had learnt to drown the opposition by massive pro-gay coverage, to sideline any adversaries – including UKIP – as bigoted and homophobic, and to close down the debate. Together all four party leaders – David Cameron (Tory), Ed Miliband (Labour), Nick Clegg (LibDem) and Caroline Lucas (Green) – cheered and waved their Order Papers as they bulldozed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill through Parliament.

Faced with such overwhelming top-down power-play by the governing class, the public acquiesced and in due course polls showed that the majority had come to accept gay marriage as mainstream.

Emboldened, our rulers thought they could do it again over the bigger and existential question of Britain’s EU membership – even if, in a new development of their art, they would have to bring the President of the United States across the Atlantic to blackmail and bully Brits into voting the correct way.

However, on 23rd June 2016, disaster struck and their cunning plan came unstuck. In the largest democratic vote ever, the British people voted firmly to Leave the EU. By a clear majority Government and Parliament were told by voters to bring about Brexit.

The political establishment including, of course, the four political parties represented in Parliament, was shocked and stunned to the core. It was not what they anticipated or wanted. So, after a brief pause, they started their campaign to block Brexit by fair means or foul.

As a result, at just before midnight on 3rd April 2019, after almost three years of deliberate delay, gross obfuscation, monumental incompetence, invertebrate negotiators, Civil Service opposition, BBC and media hostility, constructive dismissal of pro-Brexit ministers, intervention by the politicised judiciary, well-heeled and well-funded extra-Parliamentary resistance (think Gina Miller, Tony Blair, George Soros) and increasingly shrill Remain demands for a second bite at the referendum cherry,  Brexit was finally killed stone dead when the cross-party Cooper-Letwin Bill which ruled out a ‘No Deal’ Brexit was passed by the House of Commons.

Remainers were triumphant. Parliament had thwarted the will of the people and the Brexit referendum result had been quashed. The only options left were either (a) for Britain to Remain in the EU as a full member as at present, or (b) for Parliament to accept the prime minister’s catastrophic ‘cock-up or conspiracy?’ Withdrawal Agreement that is BRINO (Brexit In Name Only) and is substantially worse in effect than simply Remaining in the EU as before.

Once again it was game, set and match to the political establishment. They had reasserted their control, rectified the ‘mistake’ of the referendum, beaten the British people back into the servitude from which they voted to escape, and ensured that the UK continues as an off-shore province of, and cash cow for, the EU empire.

As a result there is now one big Question:

The whole world watched wide-eyed as the British people voted for Brexit, national self-determination and freedom from the straitjacket of the EU leviathan. Then, with even more astonishment, they watched as the British ruling elite in the historic Mother of Parliaments overturned and nullified that democratic vote.

It was a coup without bullets, Parliament against the People. The once proud British nation was reduced to a political banana republic with the democratic credentials of North Korea.

Or to be more precise, the UK is now the democratic equivalent of Vichy France. During WW2 that country was run by a quisling French administration at the bidding of a hostile foreign power based in Berlin. Today, of course, the foreign power is based in Brussels as well as Berlin.

The Question is: do the British people have the courage and fighting spirit to throw off the yoke of the quisling ruling class that resides in Westminster?

Until we do, we will never be free of the EU.

An abridged version of this post was first published by Kipper Central on 10th June

Brussels Brexit Broadside

It was the UKIP leader’s best speech so far.

While MPs in the House of Commons were dumping democracy and fostering a ‘Parliament against the People’ civil war without bullets by overturning the Leave result of the Brexit referendum, Gerard Batten spoke for millions of appalled citizens during a debate in the European Parliament in Brussels of which he is a member.

Gerard Batten

First, with withering irony he congratulated the President of the European Commission and the EU’s Chief Negotiator:

“I have to hand it to you Mr Junker and Mr Barnier. You have done what Philip of Spain, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler couldn’t do. You have brought Britain to its knees without firing a single shot.”

He then turned his broadside on the real target:

“But you could not have done any of these things without the connivance of the quislings, traitors and collaborators in the British Parliament and British Establishment. As Seneca said, ‘A nation cannot survive treason from within’ – and treason it is.”

Batten is not (yet) a national figure and UKIP is a formerly successful party that is only now climbing out of the pit into which it crashed after the June 2016 referendum.

But in the context of the political establishment’s humiliating and buttock-clenching subservience to the EU, and the flagrant flouting by Parliament of the largest vote in British history – it was a well-aimed, brutal attack that has an obvious historical parallel.

Oliver Cromwell

On 20th April 1653, Oliver Cromwell, the psalm-quoting victor of the English Civil War, Regicide and Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, dismissed the self-serving, unrepresentative and quarrelsome Rump Parliament with these words:

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

“Ye are a factious crew and enemies to all good government… Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

“Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place?

“Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

“Go get you out! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

“In the name of God, go!”

Gerard Batten doesn’t have the authority, stature or military backup that gave weight to Cromwell’s words.

But well-chosen words have a power of themselves, and Batten was speaking for England when he denounced the enemies of the people who currently occupy plush leather benches in the British Parliament and who malevolently plot and plan to defy the will of the people.

He could also damn them by simply tweaking Cromwell:

“Ye sordid prostitutes of the EU who are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation, in the name of God, GO!”

Stop The Sex Education Runaway Train

The ‘Sex Education’ runaway train – driven by the liberal elite in Whitehall and Westminster and belching its pollutants into the classrooms of ever-younger children across the country – has hit a buffer at Parkfield Community School in Birmingham.

Up to 600 children aged between 4 and 11 – 80% of the school roll – have been withdrawn by parents who say the school has been “undermining parental rights and aggressively promoting homosexuality”.

It is unsurprising that a revolt against the state-sponsored sexualisation of pre-pubescent children should start at Parkfield with its overwhelmingly Muslim children and parents. The assistant headteacher is the LGBT activist Andrew Moffat who, in 2007, created the teaching resource Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools (CHIPS).

In 2013 Moffat was forced to resign from another Birmingham primary school, Chilwell Croft Academy, when mainly Muslim parents objected to his pro-gay teaching.

His CHIPS programme is simply a surreptitious means of introducing young children to homosexuality under the guise of preventing ‘homophobic bullying’.

Of course it does not tackle the much more widespread forms of playground bullying such as ‘appearance bullying’. CHIPS is narrow, focused and age-inappropriate LGBT propaganda.

The programme includes using in class such colourful cartoon-illustrated story books as King and King and My Princess Boy. The purpose of these and other teaching aids is to “smash heteronormativity” as an associated website Educate and Celebrate says brutally, and to normalise homosexuality.

In the name of ‘inclusivity’, sex-education defenders claim that today’s primary school children must understand the diverse domestic lives of their classmates including those who come from same-sex homes. It is illuminating that they do not similarly claim that children should understand classmates who come from households where other adult pursuits take place, such as heavy drinking or smoking.

No, the priority is solely to promote homosexuality amongst pre-pubescent children. They have learnt well Aristotle’s maxim: “Give me a child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man.”

But the DfE programme for sexualising primary school children is not only about promoting the LGBT agenda, although that is a priority. Primary schools are currently showing the film Spring Fever to year 4 children. In this video, a naked opposite-sex couple are actively cuddling and kissing on a bed, and an erect penis is shown inserted into a vagina. The fact that the video is warm colourful animation seems to justify showing this graphic scene to innocent pre-pubescent children.

Like gay marriage and the transgender agenda, the sex-education syllabus for primary school children is also being forced on us top-down by the globalist liberal elite. So if we want to know what will be imposed on our children down the line, we should find out what currently is being promoted by the UN and international agencies.

The World Health Organisation’s European office based in Copenhagen, together with the German Federal Ministry of Health based in Cologne, have published ‘Standards for Sexuality in Europe’ which set out what European children of different ages should be taught.

Shockingly the ‘Standards’ include:

Age 0-4: explore nakedness and the body and gender identities. Learn ‘my body belongs to me’.

Age 4-6: name each body part – caregivers are instructed to ‘wash each body part’ and ‘talk about sexual matters in sexual language’. Children should be given information about enjoyment and sexual pleasure when touching one’s own body in early childhood masturbation.

Age 6-9: inform about menstruation and ejaculation, choices about pregnancy, different methods of contraception, sex in media, enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s body… Children should examine their body, use sexual language and accept diversity.

UKIP has tried to forestall these further horrors coming from Europe. Since 2015 it has been party policy to ban all sex education in primary schools.

But for now it is the Parkfield school buffers that have provided a welcome halt to the CHIPS and sex-education train that’s steaming through the UK’s primary schools and crushing childhood innocence on its way.

It remains to be seen whether this is a temporary stop before the downward drive is resumed, or a permanent crash that might cause a rethink and a new, more age-appropriate direction of travel.

 This article was first published by Politicalite on 25th March 

In The Deepening Darkness, Tommy Is A Morning Star

The deep national crisis has been a long time coming and it’s bigger than just Brexit.

It’s even bigger than a quasi-constitutional crisis about whether we’re a functioning democracy.

In full scope it’s an existential crisis about the United Kingdom and its identity, meaning and role in the world.

It started in 1971 when Edward Heath deceived the nation by claiming the EEC was purely about trade and cooperation. The project’s purpose was economic not political he insisted, in clear contradiction of the EU’s Founding Fathers like Robert Schuman.

We believed Heath and hadn’t heard of Schuman’s schemes, so we voted accordingly.

We now know where that has led us. In the name of erasing Europe’s nation-states, a bureaucratic and unaccountable Leviathan has arisen in Brussels. By bribing most of them with our money, the monster has succeeded where Napoleon and Hitler failed: it has gobbled up and strait-jacketed other European nations large and small, ancient and modern, and now struts its stuff across the world stage complete with its own nation-state emblems of flag, anthem, central bank, diplomatic corps and an incipient military force.

Hypocrisy and hubris have become the food and faeces of the Brussels Leviathan.

And, after a thousand years of independence, our once-proud nation has been reduced to the status of an off-shore province and a cash-cow for the management of the monster.

Over the past half century too, and in close cooperation with the Brussels elite who now legislate and regulate our political life, the UK’s liberal political class has busied itself with interfering in our personal and social lives by imposing its language and values on us. It has achieved this via the organs of state – including the fourth estate of the mainstream media – that, like Stalin and Animal Farm’s Comrade Napoleon, arbitrate between “correct” and “incorrect” thoughts, words and deeds. It now controls our discourse and sets the agenda of what we may or may not talk about.

As a result we have been disabled from challenging the establishment’s own deep-seated Anglophobia, fawning Islamophilia, support for mass immigration, minority-worship, devaluation of marriage, promotion of gender fluidity among primary school-age kids, preference for emotion and ideology over facts and evidence, ‘hate-speech’ bans, and all the other progressive-liberal harms and cultural destruction that they’ve foisted upon us.

If we do challenge them, we are subjected to their full arsenal of hate words – xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, misogynist, a hater or similar – and, if we’re not hauled into court, we are cast into outer political and social darkness.

By June 2016, this liberal hegemony and control of our lives and language was almost complete.

But then the British distaste for lying tyrants and self-serving dictators – even liberal ones with their sleek stage management, their glossy self-presentation, their smooth language about tolerance, compassion and inclusion, and their grasping hands thrust smilingly into our pockets – led the people to vote decisively for Brexit.

It was a volcanic eruption of unprecedented proportions. Britons, especially working-class and middle England, voted for freedom from the reserves of independence and liberty found deep within the national psyche, and this of course threatened to break up the smug and settled liberal landscape on the public surface.

Inevitably the elite mask of civility and tolerance slipped: the response became venomous, the gloves came off and the fight to overturn the democratic will of the people commenced.

Tory Remainers were installed at both addresses in Downing Street; quisling staffers and inexperienced civil servants were sent to negotiate terms with hard-nosed Brussels apparatchiks tasked with punishing the departing non-believers pour encourager les autres; prominent big-beast Brexiteers were enervated by lucrative contracts with media outlets, proved impotent around the Cabinet table, or staffed the Dad’s Army of incompetent and tribal Tory back-benchers; and by November 2018 the light of Brexit and freedom was dying, snuffed out by the Prime Minister’s surrender document of vassalage and servitude.

But against the deepening darkness of national decline and Brexit treachery, a morning star has arisen from a council estate in Luton, flickering at first but now shining ever stronger. The star has confronted the darkness, outwitted the elite and given people hope. The star is called Tommy Robinson.

Working almost alone Robinson has created a huge supporter base by continuously promoting his views and activities over social media. He currently has over 1 million followers on Facebook – more than any of the mainstream political parties.

His hour-long address to the prestigious Oxford University Union has been viewed nearly 1.3 million times.

When he was wrongly arrested and sentenced to jail in a flawed trial earlier this year, 30,000 people took to the streets of London, his name was written in the sky over Sydney Opera House and protests took place outside British consulates and high commissions around the world, including Auckland, Ottawa, Vienna, Copenhagen and New York.

Tommy is everything the politically-correct elite despises: working class, white and male – although he is still too young for them to dismiss him as ‘gammon’. Nor does he drive a white van.

He is intelligent, quick-witted and courageous, and learns swiftly from his mistakes. When he realised the English Defence League he founded was being infiltrated by racists and thugs, he resigned in disgust.

He had formed EDL when Al Muhajiroun extremists led by Anjem Choudary hurled abuse at Royal Anglian Regiment soldiers as they marched through the streets of Luton on their return from Iraq. He was incensed that it was the St George’s Flag-waving Regiment supporters who were arrested, not the Choudary Islamist groupies.

Tommy has since single-handedly and successfully insisted that we must talk about the Muslim grooming gangs that have brutally raped probably quarter of a million underage girls over the past three or four decades. He is, too, increasingly identifying the authorities that persistently turned a blind eye to the atrocities and thereby left many thousands of vulnerable girls in the hands of Pakistani perpetrators.

He would not be silenced when he was banned by Twitter for publishing “hateful” tweets not about Muslims but about Islam. He promptly led a #FreeSpeech march of 3,000 through central London to Speakers Corner, the traditional home of democratic debate.

He has bearded the judiciary in their Old Bailey den with a brilliantly-timed personally-composed Defence Statement that caused the judge to cancel the legal trial, release Tommy from bail and refer the issue up to the Attorney General for a political decision.

He has out-manoeuvred the military establishment. When the Muslim Council of Britain complained to the Ministry of Defence about pictures of Tommy alongside British Army cadets at Newport Pagnell service station on the M1, the military denounced the pictures, investigated the cadets and, the young soldiers revealed, dismissed one. The MCB said “Jump”: the British Army said “How high?” – so Tommy collected 200,000 signatures for a petition demanding the reinstatement of the soldier. He presented it at 10 Downing Street on the same day it emerged that the soldier was not to be dismissed after all. This was, of course, not a coincidence.

His detractors point out he has a criminal record; he illegally entered the US on a false passport, lied on a mortgage application and head-butted an off-duty police officer who intervened in his on-street domestic dispute with his wife.

But supporters retort that these are minor infractions compared with, say, the dodgy-dossier lies, fraudulent prospectuses and illegal wars of the former prime minister, prominent Remainer and BBC favourite, Tony Blair. Blair is only protected from a substantial criminal record by his membership of the ruling class.

And anyway, Tommy has had to grow up recently and put foolish things behind him.

He may be a rising star but he is also a marmite figure; you either like him or loathe him. But he is not divisive; rather he forcefully highlights the divisions that others have created, especially the chasm between the well-heeled politically-correct globalist elite and the rest of us.

On Sunday week Tommy is turning his attention to the current crisis facing the country. Together with UKIP leader Gerard Batten, he is calling for a ‘Brexit Betrayal’ demonstration in London just days before Parliament votes on Theresa May’s pitiable surrender document.

It should be electric. It might light up the political firmament. It’s an event not to be missed.

This article was first published on 30th November by Kipper Central

Tommy Robinson At The Old Bailey Tomorrow

I have this morning sent this message to Tommy Robinson:

Hi Tommy,
 
I know you are not religious. However tomorrow when you stand in the dock at the Old Bailey, you will be God’s man standing for light, truth and free speech while the forces of darkness and control will be ranged against you.
 
This is a seminal moment in the life of our country. You are being given a world-famous platform to make the case for freedom, and the world will be watching. 
 
Occasionally one man making a stand can save a country. Tomorrow, Tommy, you are that man.
 
So be bold, strong and courageous, and do not be silenced. I will be praying that you hold your head high as a proud Englishman fighting for freedom, and that you receive true justice.
 
#IamTommy, and so are many thousands of others.
 
Your friend and admirer,
 
Alan Craig

Nigel Farage: Hero To Zero?

Nigel was my hero.

I loved him for how, almost singlehandedly, he had rescued the country from the controlling clutches of Jean-Claude Junker and the power-mad dead-hands in Brussels.

I respected him for how, single-mindedly, he had toured the country for 20 years speaking against our membership of the EU. I first heard him in a Tottenham backstreet ten years ago before I joined UKIP. The meeting had been organised by Winston McKenzie, then UKIP’s Commonwealth spokesman, but it was a cold wet night and only 10 people attended. Nevertheless Nigel was charismatic, passionate and funny. I was impressed.

I admired him for how he was so committed to the cause that he rolled with the punches, took insults, opprobrium and debilitating ‘racist’ accusations on the chin, and still came back for more – usually smiling and with a pint in his hand.

I even defended him when he resigned as party leader immediately after the 2016 referendum, leaving the party bereft and adrift. “Nigel has given his all,” I pointed out to his UKIP critics. “He has earned a holiday and a break from politics.”

The first inkling that Nigel wanted to stay involved in UKIP internal affairs despite his resignation came when he agreed to be Henry Bolton’s political referee during the September 2017 party leadership election. I was David Kurten’s campaign manager and was frustrated that Nigel should give this huge and unfair boost to Henry, alone of all the candidates.

My jaw also dropped with disappointment when, in January this year, Nigel argued that there possibly should be a second referendum to stop the whining and whingeing of Remoaners like Nick Clegg and Tony Blair. It seemed like betrayal. After all UKIP’s hard work, Nigel was now wobbling under pressure from lightweight busted flushes Clegg and Blair. My hero’s halo was beginning to slip.

But the show-stopper came in February when Nigel again publicly backed the incompetent lothario Henry Bolton. Bolton’s antics and arrogance were destroying UKIP before our eyes, yet Nigel fatuously compared him to Jeremy Corbyn and said Bolton could be the reforming saviour of the party.

Fortunately members ignored him and at the Birmingham EGM the same month they voted for Bolton to pack his bags. Nigel’s nominee was sacked after just five ineffective and embarrassing months in the job.

The party, though, was left a laughing-stock and nearly bankrupt. And Nigel’s halo was hanging by a thread.

Without personal ambition and from an honourable sense of duty, Gerard Batten stepped into the breach and promptly raised enough money to save the party and force London Mayor Sadiq Khan to eat his spite-fuelled words. He appointed a new chairman and treasurer and new deputy leaders, and started to clear up Henry’s mess and steady the ship.

And as the party’s former Brexit spokesman, he ensured exiting the EU remained the party’s core issue and his personal priority.

But Gerard is also known as a proponent of free speech and a critic of Islam, although he will never countenance any form of Muslim-bashing.

In this context former Islamic extremist and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, Majid Naawaz, draws  an important distinction between Muslimophobia (hating Muslims as people) which is not acceptable, and Islamophobia (hating Islam the religion) which is. It’s a distinction that is vital in a democracy, and one that I suspect Gerard strongly supports.

When Gerard tweeted recently that ‘Islam is a death cult’, his Twitter account was immediately suspended and his free speech curtailed. But it’s a valid if contentious view about Islam that ought to be open for free debate, not closed down.

And indeed, if Gerard had instead described Christianity or Communism as a death cult, nobody would have batted an eyelid. Read for instance the extraordinary abuse that celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins heaps on the Jewish and Christian God in his best-seller, ‘The God Delusion’- insults he repeats on stage and screen while chortling at his own cleverness. I’ve seen him.

And read the Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan stinging critiques of Communism.

The blasphemy laws that protect Islam alone from criticism and that prevail in official circles and the media as well as on Twitter, have caught others in their net too. Lauren Southern was banned from the UK as a result of the adjectives she applied to Islam’s Allah – adjectives that are much milder than those Dawkins applies to Christianity’s God.

And when Tommy Robinson held up a Quran on Piers Morgan’s Good Morning Britain TV show and said it is a violent and accursed book – which is virtually exactly what Dawkins says about the Bible – Morgan went apoplectic, the media went into meltdown and the show was referred to Ofcom.

More recently Robinson was banned from Twitter too. Gerard decided therefore to join his ‘Day of Freedom’ protest outside Downing Street on 6th May to speak up for free speech and the right to criticise Islam freely as we do other religions and ideologies.

Robinson is no saint and certainly he has in the past strayed into Muslimophobia which is utterly unacceptable. Muslims are our fellow citizens and deserve respect like everyone else.

But the aim of the protest was right so Gerard spoke powerfully from the platform. He also spoke at last weekend’s massive (and global) #FreeTommy protest after Robinson was suddenly arrested, convicted and jailed all within five hours at Leeds Crown Court.

Some party members are wary of the UKIP association with Robinson and the apparent tilt of the party towards the free-speech Right. Jim Carver MEP quietly resigned. Other members have emailed Gerard their concerns and anxious senior colleagues have no doubt spoken to him in private. That’s the right route, and I have little doubt the leader will take on board what they say.

But Nigel does party allegiance differently. He has toured UKIP branches openly criticising the association with Robinson and objecting to any anti-Islam stance – views that were rapidly republished on social and old media .

Any private suggestions or quiet words of advice from the former leader to the current one? None. Instead it’s the Farage foghorn, sounded with the deliberate intention of stirring up party disunity.

Having nearly destroyed the party by foisting Henry Bolton on us, it looks like Nigel is having another go with his wrecking ball by publicly undermining the leader who rescued us from that disaster.

Yet he could instead do something really constructive and useful. Brexit is in crisis. He might follow the example of Gordon Brown during the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. The former prime minister came out of political retirement, toured Scotland with a series of barnstorming speeches and, by various accounts, turned public opinion and saved the day. Nigel could do likewise for exiting the EU and we’d love him for it.

Meanwhile his halo now lies in the dust and my hero has made himself zero.

If Nigel cannot show some loyalty to the party and its present leader, he should renounce his party membership and butt out.

This article was first published by UKIP Daily and Kipper Central on 15th June

Transgender Delusion

Living in a post-truth society means that we are not only easily susceptible to fake news but also to mass delusion. The latest delusion among the political class is the cruel deception that we can change our sex. I want UKIP to be the boy who points out that the Emperor has no clothes.

My article below was published recently  by UKIP Daily:

All cells in a person’s body have the same XY or XX chromosomes so we are either male or female. It’s clear. It’s not complicated. And exceptions are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.

But scientific facts, like truth, are unimportant to the regressive liberal left who want to remake humanity according to their own Orwellian ideology. Deception is everything, so these cultural marxists – as well as their useful idiots in the wider political class – promote their dystopian society by following the Joseph Goebbels dictum that if you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Transgenderism is part of leftists’ political strategy, and it is a big lie.

It is a lie when they insist we can choose or change our biological sex. Our sex is fixed at birth and we can no more change our chromosomes than we can change our date of birth.

Just because, say, an eighty five year old suffers from acute thanatophobia (fear of death) and therefore insists he is actually twenty five in order to postpone his approaching demise, this does not mean we must buy into his delusion. Nor do we let him fight for his country, drive his car without the triennial over-seventy licence renewal or play football for the local under-thirties team. Rather, if we are compassionate, we call for a psychiatric counsellor to help ease his distress.

And if a five-stone teenage girl suffers from pocrescophobia (fear of gaining weight), insists she is obese and refuses to eat, the sensible response is not to affirm her in her delusion and withhold food from her. She has a psychological disorder and the caring response is to arrange professional treatment.

It is a similar deception or disorder when people claim they are the opposite of their birth gender. And when they demand that we buy into their dishonesty or delusion we should not simply roll over. We cannot agree to call a man a woman or vice versa just because they say so, as it is biologically and factually untrue.

No sane society would allow a convicted serial sex offender and rapist serve his sentence in a women’s jail just because he has decided to self-identify as a woman. Neither would anyone with common sense allow an eighteen year old youth to join the Girl Guides and go camping – sharing tents, showers and toilets – just because he has insisted on coming out as a girl.

Except that, of course, leftists have marched so far through the institutions spreading their lunacy that in the UK we now do both (here and here).

They have even marched into Downing Street. The Prime Minister has signed up and sanctioned their delusion by informing us that “trans is not a (mental) illness”.

And, like bullies, the cultural marxists and their fellow travellers are targeting our kids, especially the younger ones.

As politically correct as her boss, the Secretary of State for Education Justine Greening is pushing and promoting her Children and Social Work Act that makes sex education, including the teaching of transgender issues, compulsory in primary schools. And earlier this year the largest teachers’ union in the UK, the National Union of Teachers, demanded that transgender issues should be taught in nursery schools to toddlers as young as two. Yes, really: two.

As one educationalist told a conference recently, the teacher’s role is becoming that of “sowing confusion about gender identity” and policing “the values, thoughts and language of children to bring them in line with one particular ideological position”.

So it’s no longer about education. It’s about messing with young minds and, it seems, the younger the better.

Historically the number of young children with genuine gender dysphoria issues is minuscule; in 2009/10 just 19 of the nation’s primary school age children were referred to the relevant NHS specialist units in London and Leeds.

But the educational establishment’s strategy is to push their transgender agenda onto schoolchildren of all ages including the very young; to confuse them about their sexual identity; to get Ofsted to commend primary school staff that label four year olds ‘transgender’ because they want to dress up as the opposite sex; and then triumphantly to declare that – surprise, surprise – gender dysphoria is a rapidly growing issue.

The consequence of this indoctrination is that numbers of primary school children referred – though still miniscule – had quadrupled by 2014/5 and is rising.

The attack on children’s impressionable minds is relentless. Recently we have seen that drag queens are now being invited into nurseries to give transgender lessons to toddlers. And a government-funded LGBT organisation is avidly promoting colourful cartoon books for nurseries that provoke three year olds to question their gender.

This is tantamount to child abuse. Certainly it is massive state-authorised manipulation of young minds. Yet alarmed parents and horrified grandparents up and down the country feel they have no say and cannot protest or protect their children. To question the trans agenda is to risk being labelled ‘transphobic’, ‘bigoted’ or ‘hateful’ and cast into the politically incorrect darkness – as UKIP’s Welsh Assembly Member Gareth Bennett discovered this week.

So step up UKIP. This is exactly our territory. We have never been cowed by the politically correct. Rather, it is our calling and duty to represent the voiceless and powerless against the arrogant establishment.

We did it over mass immigration. We did it over Brexit.

We can do it too over the transgenderisation of our children – and we may even find ourselves moving up the opinion polls once again.

Kippers arise! The hour to defend our kids has come.

Islam And Freedom Of Speech In The Lords

As readers of this blog will know, I have sometimes sat in the gallery of the House of Lords listening to debates, and a couple of times I even sat in the Clerks’ Box on the floor of the House right by the Monarch’s throne which was cramped but enjoyable. This was usually in connection with my work with crossbench peer Baroness Cox on her private members bill that tackled gender discrimination in  sharia courts.

Recently I listened in on a debate about Islam initiated by UKIP peer Lord Pearson. My take on the debate, below, was first published by Kipper Central:

You’ve got to hand it to Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The former UKIP party leader doesn’t mind standing alone.

For years he has stood virtually solo in the House of Lords against hostile peers who are overwhelmingly pro-EU and Remain.

Now the Brexit referendum has been won he is turning his attention to Islam. And it’s clear that this too is unpopular amongst the political class who invariably mention the religion in hushed and deferential tones.

So once again his Lordship finds himself ploughing a lonely furrow and swimming against the politically-correct tide. In other words, Lord P is a true Kipper.

On Thursday he forced a Lords debate about some major tenets of the Islamic religion because, he said, no one is willing to talk openly about the nature of Islam. “You can say what you like about the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Lord Pearson said at the beginning of the debate. “But you get into serious trouble if you try to touch at all on the subject of Islam and what it really is.”

He mentioned the high Muslim birth rate and “the spread of sharia law whereby a Muslim man can have four wives.” Whenever people try to raise these issues, he continued, “we are told… we are spreading hate towards the Muslims”

Which is exactly what happened to him.

“The way Lord Pearson uses his ill-informed narrative to demonise the great religion of Islam and blame this religion for all the ills of the world actually fuels anti-Muslim sentiments that lead to hate crime,” railed Lord Hussain, illustrating Lord Pearson’s point.

“I begin by expressing my disquiet and resentment at the wording of (the debate motion),” protested Lord Sheikh. “I received numerous complaints from Muslims when it became known that this debate had been tabled. Islam is indeed a religion of peace… I feel that a debate such as this… can create discord and lead to further problems.” This peer proved Lord Pearson’s point too.

“The deliberate concept of the mischievous Muslims who can have four wives in the UK is nonsense,” remonstrated Lord Ahmed. “Nobody is allowed to have four wives.” His assertion flew in the face of recent Muslim research which found that 67% of Muslim women in the West Midlands say their husbands have more than one wife, and 7% claim their husbands have the full four wives permitted by Islam.

And by playing the Nazi card, Lord Ahmed also accused Lord Pearson of using hate speech: “Saying that Muslims are breeding more children and will take over is using the language that Nazis used against Jewish communities.” This is the same Lord Ahmed who four years ago blamed a Jewish conspiracy for the jail term he received for a dangerous driving offence after a fatal accident.

The debate achieved what Lord Pearson wanted – it got their Lordships talking about Islam and in the event not all were completely hostile. A Labour peer even complimented him: “The thing about Lord Pearson is that everyone thinks he is wrong, but he wins in the end – as he did with Brexit – so we have to listen to him carefully.”

It was progress, and the UKIP peer was having a good week. The previous day, he had intervened forcefully in the Lords during a discussion about hate crime.

There is widespread concern that the bar for recording hate crime falls lower and lower. You can now be reported to the police for a hate crime if a person – or even a bystander – merely feels you are hostile to or prejudiced against them on grounds of their race, religion, ethnicity or other protected characteristic. No hard evidence of hostility or prejudice is required.

A few years ago a report by the independent think-tank Civitas argued that hate crime legislation is reducing freedom of speech and has effectively introduced by the back door a blasphemy law that protects Islam from animosity and robust criticism. Police and prosecutors, it further claimed, are unfairly singling out alleged hate crimes by the majority population – termed ‘white’ or ‘ Christian’ – while ignoring other similar offences by minority groups.

Lord Pearson grasped the religious bull by both horns. “Will the Government confirm unequivocally that a Christian who says that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God cannot be arrested for hate crime or any other offence, however much it may offend a Muslim or anyone else?”

The Government minister flatly refused to give any such assurance.

In the light of this, Lord Pearson indicated later that he is deeply concerned that Christians’ freedom of religion is being curtailed and that Christians in the UK can now be arrested for simply preaching the Gospel as they are in Saudi Arabia, Iran and China. He made it clear to colleagues that he intends vigorously to pursue the Government on the issue.

So watch this space…

Islam And The West: Irreconcilable Differences

My post here was first published by Kipper Central:

“If you compare Jesus Christ who had so much influence on the Western world, and Muhammad who has had so much influence on the Islamic world, and look at their teachings and their lives and lifestyles and so on, it’s game, set and match to Jesus.”

The audience at the celebrated Conway Hall, high temple of humanism and self-styled ‘landmark of London’s independent intellectual, political and cultural life’, erupted with clapping and cheers.

I was participating in a recent public debate entitled ‘This House believes Islam and the West have irreconcilable differences’ and, given the irreligious nature of the audience, the warm response to my comment about Christ was unexpected.

Alongside me as proposer of the motion was Anne Marie Waters, founder of ShariaWatch UK, former Council member of the National Secular Society, and lately a high-profile controversial candidate for the leadership of UKIP.

The opposition were Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al Husseini, Senior Fellow in Islamic Studies at the Westminster Institute; and Dr Michael Arnheim, practising Barrister, author of books on religion, law and government, and former Professor of Classics and Sometime Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.

So the academic qualifications were clearly on the side of the opposition; but the audience and the weight of the argument were on ours. The full debate can be viewed here.

I have real differences with Anne Marie over how to respond to the rise of aggressive Islam but on the night she and I made a good team. She tackled Islam as a social and political force and critiqued it from a human rights, women’s rights and freedom of speech point of view, whereas I tackled it head-on as a religion.

I did so by comparing Islam with Christianity as the origin and cradle of our western civilisation.

I was free to undertake this exercise because, while the second half of the 20th century saw an increasingly aggressive secularisation of society and a growing hostility to Christianity, 9/11 changed the world. Since then we have found ourselves reaching for our religious identity both as an acknowledgement of our roots and as our distinctive against rising Islam.

Professional unbeliever Richard Dawkins today happily calls himself a Christian atheist or cultural Christian. Similarly political commentator and fellow atheist Douglas Murray told a Canadian interviewer recently that we are all Christians whether we like it or not, that rational secular atheists all “dream Christian dreams and have Christian thoughts” and that our universal human rights are derived directly from Christianity.

My argument in the debate was straightforward: Islam and the West have irreconcilable differences because Islam and Christianity have irreconcilable differences.

Theologically, Islam flatly refutes the historical crucifixion of Christ which is at the heart of the Christian faith. And if, as Islam says, Christ was not crucified, then there is no true Christianity – which of course is Islam’s contention. The cross on our war memorials and in our graveyards, on our village church steeples and atop the Queen’s coronation crown – these all represent a fake event according to Islam, and consequently are a huge deception at the core of the UK’s heritage and culture.

From a political and social perspective too, the contrasting lives and teachings of the founders of the two religions are profound and irreconcilable.

Muhammad – the perfect role model for all mankind according to Islamic orthodoxy – was a religious leader, governor, lawmaker and military chief who slaughtered enemies of Islam as well as personal opponents, and who installed a state theocracy at Medina as a prototype for his followers. Even today Muhammad’s swords are proudly on display in the Topkapi museum, Istanbul.

Jesus, on the other hand, was interested in hearts and minds not physical territory, and in the power of persuasion not political power and military might.

From a rule-bound legalistic Judaism he inaugurated a new grace-fuelled spiritual religion (“the Kingdom of God is within you”), separated church and state (“render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”), taught that love is a prime ethic (“love your enemies”), and refused to allow his followers to use force to defend him or promote his new faith (“put away your sword for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”). The only violence during his ministry was that done to him not by him.

Consequently, I argued, Muhammad and his teachings in the Quran are irreconcilable with Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament.  And the values and cultures of Islamic societies based on the former are incompatible with western societies based on the latter.

Anne Marie is not religious so she, of course, took a different approach in the debate. For her the West is characterised by freedom: freedom of speech, expression and religion; equal rights before the law; and science and reason. The blasphemy laws with death penalties in Islam and the subjugation of women into second class status are, for her, ample illustrations of why the West and Islam are incompatible.

She is a persuasive speaker and she argued her case powerfully. I admired her cool too, as she knew that, late on the same evening after the debate finished, ITV were to broadcast a biased and brutal character assassination job on her led by the lefty hatchet men from Hope not Hate, Nick Lowles and Matthew Collins.

It was entitled Undercover: Inside Britain’s New Far Right www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IM4wtEr4No, and Lowles and Collins were paraded across the programme as neutral “experts”, and in the credits as “consultants”.

The analysis was incoherent and low-level which may explain why ITV scheduled it for a late time-slot. And, despite an undercover reporter following Anne Marie for months, there were no condemning new revelations.

In the end the programme could only resort to smearing her, and did so by including her in the same broadcast as an investigation into real militant extremists, the banned anti-Semitic Hitler-praising occasionally violent Nazi group, National Action.

It was damnation by slur, defamation by association.

Hope not Hatefunded by billionaire global financial market-manipulator George Soros – tries to silence anyone who refuses to dance to its regressive lefty political agenda. For years it has directed its bile against patriotic, anti-establishment, anti-EU, anti-globalist, pro-localism UKIP – including during this year’s general election.

And Lowles and Collins have regularly pilloried Nigel Farage personally too. Based on his experience with them, Farage reckons Hope not Hate “are among the most hateful people in modern Britain”.

Now vilified by them as well, Anne Marie is in good company.

Respecting Muslims, Challenging Islam

Since the successful Brexit referendum in June last year UKIP has, inevitably, been struggling to find a new purpose and political identity.

There is much internal party debate, and one of the current hot topics is about how the party should respond to the rise of Islam as a religio-political force across the UK. My contribution was published last week on the blogsite ‘UKIP Daily’, and now here:

Recently UKIP Daily has hosted a number of articles about issues such as halal slaughter, Sharia courts and jihadi terrorism. It is good to see the party is beginning to get to grips with the rise of Islam in our society.

But it seems we are still tip-toeing around the topic and trying to avoid giving offence. One of the contributors even wrote that we should be careful about going too far when discussing Islam in case our political enemies “have us promptly branded as BNP-Lite, or similar” – as if it matters what our opponents say about us.

We cannot do policy by worrying about tomorrow’s headlines.

Islam now saturates our political landscape and dominates the public imagination in the way that, say, Communism/Marxism did fifty years ago, and the UK is being increasingly Islamised. UKIP must therefore develop a coherent approach to the issue if it wants to be a serious political party.

I offer two key principles to guide us:

First we must fully respect Muslims as our friends, neighbours and fellow British citizens who have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. Stupidly stereotyping them, insulting them or slagging them down as people is unacceptable.

But, second, we must insist that we are free to challenge all aspects of Islam, unconstrained by political correctness and with nothing off-limits. Nonsense accusations of racism and Islamophobia must not be allowed to shut down necessary debate.

I’ve tried these principles and they work:

In 2005 a fundamentalist Islamic group called Tablighi Jamaat (TJ) announced that they planned to construct one of the largest mosques in the world, with a capacity of between 45,000 and 70,000, at West Ham in east London just a mile from my home and half a mile from the London Olympic stadium. TJ intended to build this as a massive showcase mosque for the 2012 London Olympics and as a global centre to propagate their hostile form of Islam across Europe and North America.

I decided to oppose it without personal animosity towards the Muslims behind the project. Indeed I often subsequently defended their right to propose their mega-mosque just as I defended my absolute right to oppose it. That’s how democracy works in the UK even if not in Saudi Arabia.

Before I started the campaign I tried to meet with the TJ elders in order to explain my opposition. Although they refused, I regularly extended the right hand of neighbourliness to them to show I had nothing against them personally or as Muslims. However they continued to refuse to meet.

I was also ruthless in publicly exposing the political ideology of the group and their underlying hostility to British society, with no holds barred. In my view it would have been utter madness to allow them this huge platform to propagate their anti-social beliefs across the UK and wider.

I launched the campaign via BBC TV in July 2006 and immediately ran into a storm of vitriol and bile, mainly from the Left, with the inevitable accusations of race-hatred, bigotry and Islamophobia. Jonathan Bartley, now joint-leader of the Green Party and that party’s leading UKIP opponent, was one of the first out of the blocks with uninformed and typically knee-jerk comments.

Muslim mega-mosque supporters too attacked me. One even issued a death threat by publishing my obituary on social media.

But as I respect Muslims and am not Islamophobic, I was able to campaign together with moderate British Muslims who also opposed this monstrosity. Our campaign co-operation was telling and in due course the message got through. Newham Council, which previously had been 100% in favour of the mega-mosque, took note, changed its mind and in December 2012 it rejected the TJ planning application. The government followed when in November 2015 Secretary of State Greg Clark MP rejected TJ’s appeal.

A personal warmth towards Muslims, together with an iron determination to publish the unpalatable facts about Tablighi Jamaat and their mega-mosque no matter the cost, were both vital to the success of our campaign.

Islam is a theocratic religion, that is, both a political ideology and a religious belief system. Also, like Communism/Marxism, it wants to take over the world. In our democracy we primarily challenge such take-overs by disputing their ideas and contesting their policies. We must maintain therefore that we are completely free to dispute the Quran, to expose hypocrisy in the Hadith and to rubbish Sharia, for example.

Further, at the heart of Islam lies Islam’s prophet Muhammad whom every stream of Islam claims is the ‘Role Model for All Humanity’.

It is our democratic duty to put Muhammad under the microscope and see what he has to offer UK society.

For instance, he had nine wives, the youngest of whom was aged six when they wed and with whom he consummated the marriage when she was just nine. If our increasingly Islamised society begins to accept Muhammad as a role model for the UK, will this necessarily change our collective view (and, ultimately, our legislation) about polygamy, paedophilia and child brides to a more Islamic approach?

UKIP is a bold radical party that rejects the soggy truth-denying political correctness of the political class. We must be willing, if necessary alone, to raise tough issues, ask hard questions and champion unpopular causes.

And from now on Islam, but not Muslims, must be on UKIP’s agenda and in our political sights.