In a marvelous tour de force, Paul Weston exposed the absurdity of Britain’s hate-speech laws by getting himself arrested on the steps of Winchester Abbey, reciting Churchill – specifically, Churchill’s statement about Muslims (The incident occurred in April of 2014).
Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.
The quoted Churchill speech regarding Muslims.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”
– Winston Churchill
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:13 | #
Paul is a very thoughtful guy, and I don’t doubt that he thought through the Winchester action carefully.
However, the question is: on what grounds was he arrested? If for breach of the peace, he would have to be saying something that might cause a riot. Unlikely on a quiet morning in well-to-do Winchester. If for hate speech in some form, he’s free and clear without any doubt if he was only reading from Churchill’s text. Unlawful assembly is out because it doesn’t apply, I think. That leaves local by-laws, since Paul was standing on council-owned property. But, ordinarily, the police would not arrest someone making a political protest on council property. So it’s all a bit odd.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:22 | #
Morgoth, welcome to the site. I have admired your work in the thread wars for a long time. I am very pleased Daniel has opened the doors to you.
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:06 | #
Thanks GW, and Daniel for making this a main post.
Whether or not it is related I can’t say but Paul’s Party recently tried to update their manifesto moving into the upcoming Euro elections, the Electoral Commission rejected the Party’s manifesto. Unfortunately I can’t find the rejection letter but George Whale has published the reply sent back to the Electoral Commission here:
The idea that a Party can have it’s policies rejected on the grounds that they are ‘‘offensive’’ has deeper implications for the growing number of dissident parties.
The article on Paul’s arrest has already gained 10x the amount of comments, and presumably reads, than other articles on his Party’s site so once again we see the death spiral of Liberalism in action, this time it’s a real peach, an Englishman arrested for quoting Churchill (!) The system creates dissidents, the system clamps down on the dissidents and thereby creates far more dissidents.
I posted this on the main DT comment piece:
‘’ Yesterday Paul Weston who is a regular commentor here was arrested for reciting a speech by Winston Churchill. This is the ‘‘Tolerant’’ Britain we now have, a country where repeating a speech by the man who was voted ‘‘The Greatest Briton of all time’’ will get you arrested.
And yet on threads like this the totally insane Liberal Left still argue that ‘‘we’’ and not ‘‘they’’ are the problem.’‘
It gained 75 ‘‘recommends’’ within 30 minutes and was then removed and the entire board shut down, needless to say it doesn’t even come close to an infringement of ‘‘house rules’‘.
The system is starting to appear brittle, like cold toffee.
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:20 | #
The arms of those cops look awfully thin.
Posted by tom metzger on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:23 | #
Bravo! A Brit with balls!!!!! Terrible Tommy
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:30 | #
Paul deliberately forgot to mention to the investigating officer that he was quoting verbatim from Winston Churchill’s writings. He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.
So this was a challenge to the legal system. If the system doesn’t like it and tries to take him to trial, he will be able to elect to go before a jury at, presumably, Winchester Crown Court. There is no way that the Crown Prosecution Service could risk that. The legal officers involved in doing so would be exposing themselves to some very heavy political fire when the jury finds for Paul – which it certainly would.
Either way, the nett effect is that Paul will be free to repeat the Churchill quote as much as he wants. The hands of the system will have been tied a little, and all power to him for that.
Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:39 | #
Guessedworker: “He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.”
Quite clever, if that’s the case. Hat’s off to Paul Weston. I’m only familiar with him through a couple of speeches that I’ve seen on video, but I was impressed.
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:00 | #
Amazingly the police chief told Paul off the record that England is already in an ‘‘unofficial war’‘.
If correct that’s big – not that it’s true, it’s been true for years but that a senior po-leece would say it.
Posted by Jon on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:22 | #
That excerpt from Churchill is one big non causa pro causa fallacy. It’s not unlike blaming “cannabilism” for why Bassongos act like Bassongos. As if if Muslims would only convert to atheism or Christianity, all untoward customs and behaviour would disappear.
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:51 | #
If a Churchillian criticism of Islam is not to be permitted to be voiced in officially Christian England, that is a big deal.
I don’t know what it will taken to awaken Europeans. I find Europe’s “racial” problems utterly baffling – I mean, the fact that Europeans in their own homelands tolerate crap from nonwhites. America is a completely different situation in every sense, beginning with the presence “on the ground” of nonwhites, which antedated the Founding. One can understand, if not exonerate, white race liberals in the US. However poorly behaved our blacks might be, they do have an ‘excuse’ for being here, which in turn renders the white liberal desire for “racial justice” at least intelligible.
But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe? There ought to be 90+% support for terminating immigration, and at least majority support for reclamation-via-repatriation.
Which simply takes us back to the grim empirical diagnosis that there is something racially aberrant about the white race, considered collectively …
Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:39 | #
Leon Haller: “But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe?”
Leon, I used to think this way too. I remember first learning about non-white immigration to Europe when I was a kid back in the 80s. I distinctly recall thinking, “Are they crazy?” Why would they inflict this misery and stupidity upon themselves? I understood immediately that America had created its own racial problems, and we therefore had to deal with it, but it simply made no sense whatsoever that Europe would do this to itself.
Now, of course, I understand that we whites are being subjected to a racial attack at an international scale, and therefore the struggle for our people is inherently an international one. What I didn’t understand at that time, but do now, is that the anti-white liberal (by this I mean the garden variety types, not those that are at the top and orchestrating all of this) is not a rational being. Certainly, he is far more akin to a cultist than a rational man. What he believes doesn’t need to make sense. He is fundamentally hostile to the continuity of the European peoples, and if he lacks a good reason to justify this, he’ll just make one up. Any ludicrous reason will do, or none at all. Arguing with them reveals this bizarre nature.
Not too long ago, Jesse Jackson visited Sweden, unless my memory fails me. He told a group of liberal Swedes that Sweden must become a multiracial society, and the justification for this seemed to be that some Swedish ships were supposedly involved in the slave trade. Even if true, even if a handful of Swedish sailors and merchants were involved, by what utter madness does one conclude that an entire people must be swamped with Africans? That an entire people must become Africanized hybrids? It’s beyond mad hatter insanity, but the Swedish liberals ate it up. They grinned and applauded the good reverend.
Really sickening stuff, but also bizarre. Again, madness.
It’s so insane, so grotesquely evil, that it baffles the mind that any sentient creature could believe such a thing. But the anti-whites do so believe. None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point. The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do. The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists, and we must separate from them entirely.
Posted by wobbly on Fri, 02 May 2014 21:20 | #
@Trainspotter
But the anti-whites do so believe. None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point. The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do. The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists
You’re right that sense and logic aren’t relevant. However what is critical to them is that they believe themselves to be moral. That’s their weak spot.
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:17 | #
This is what we are up against. Such people cannot process the idea that liberal “compassion” and “empathy” have to go out of the window if our people are to survive.
What we are up against are people whose thinking is overridden by emotion. They comprise the masses. OTOH we are driven by reason and logic. Facts and evidence matter to us. Facts and evidence matter not to liberal do-gooders. They don’t care how disastrous the outcome of their illogical endeavors; the only thing that matters to them is their good intensions. As it stands now, we are vastly outnumbered.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:47 | #
There’s the Ilana Mercer, “White psychology’s suicidal tendency”, meme again.
Not that Christianity disrupts logical thinking and assertive concern for self interest in this life or anything.
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 15 May 2014 22:51 | #
Either way, does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power in exchange for such “trivial matters” as preventing the white race from going extinct?
They always do. They are driven to concentrate wealth – mostly out of evolved paranoia – but an economy can’t function if wealth is too concentrated so round and round it goes in a cycle.
Posted by wobbly on Fri, 16 May 2014 04:59 | #
Your original point.
does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power
My answer to that is they always (involuntarily) give up their wealth and power by destroying the basis of their wealth and power. They always cut the branch they’re sitting on.
#
Separate to that is whether or not in the process of losing their wealth and power this time – as they always do – they will have done enough damage to permanently destroy the host population.
I agree that part is different this time.
Although that’s now new historically either: you can follow their progress through history by following the chain of once impressive ex civilizations starting with Saba that became African admixed and stagnant.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:07 | #
Speaking of wedge issues, this is another wedge issue that is coming up just north of where Weston is, and which has been developing for a while now. There is the fact that the ‘gay rights’ issue has evolved to the stage where ‘gay rights’ are now associated with what they call ‘white privilege’, because Muslims don’t like gay people and so rubbing it in their faces is now considered to be a form of oppression directed against what they regard as a marginalised group.
Breitbart, ‘Swedish Nationalists Plan Gay Pride March Through Muslim Area: Left Is Outraged’, 23 Jul 2015: (emphasis)
[…] Organisers said there was no dress code, adding: “You could take the opportunity to tan your belly and legs in the sunny weather.”However, angry left wing and gay rights activists have taken to Facebook, denouncing the planned pride march as “right wing”, “xenophobic” and “pure racism”.
A counter-demonstration is now planned, with organisers claiming Järva Pride “pits two oppressed groups against one another.”Taxpayer-funded gay rights group RFSL has distanced itself from the pride march, accusing it of promoting racism and white privilege, while some activists are even calling for the organisers to be arrested for “hate speech”. […]
Of course, it is difficult to understand how Muslims could be an oppressed or marginalised group, considering that they hold institutional power in a whole region of the world called ‘MENA’ (Middle East and North Africa), and have a large population of adherents as well as being one of the world’s largest and most overbearingly oppressive religions. A religion which asserts that all other gods are ‘false’, other than their own.
The fact that there is a situation where the liberal establishment is defending that religion in European lands, shows how far the Overton Window has been dragged.
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:34 | #
It’s a good idea to use this as a wedge issue.
Queers are a very small part of our populations and clearly a practical place to make a concession (since their small presence is inevitable) when choosing a side to take in order to exploit a contradiction in liberalism and drive a wedge against Islam.
We can freak-out the Mulims, cause significant consternation in the liberal world view and crucially, wedge against “conservatives” altogether as they are, as you say, conserving liberalism and universalism, e.g., through Christianity.
Bone chilling address of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee of America) by Paul Weston, in which he warns America not to look toward Europe as the homeland that will always be there –
“We in England look to Sweden in the way that America should be looking to Britain, because Sweden is literally a lost country …we in England have maybe two decades before everything hits the wall” …
“This denial of what Islam is, is going to be the downfall of Europe.”
“And because I’m English I’m going to have to talk to you very briefly before I wrap-up about what happened with the raping and grooming gangs that we have had for the last twenty years in Great Britain; but only finally made the news last year; and it was broken by a guy called Andrew Norfaulk, who is a Times journalist.
And the reason he knew about it, the police knew about it, the politicians knew about it, but none of them wanted to talk about it because that would cause some sort of ‘community un-cohesion’ ..and community tensions.
Now, I think it is much more likely that you will get community tensions when your local girls and sisters and daughters are being raped and groomed and tortured; and the police won’t talk about it. I think that is much more conducive to community tension than actually telling the truth about it when it could have been stopped way back in 1990.
And I don’t know what you know about the British National Party and Nick Griffin – who has some sins that I can’t forgive him for – but Nick Griffin actually came out and said many years ago, I think in 2004/5, he told the truth about these Muslim grooming gangs.
And the response of the British government was not to investigate, and not to look out for these girls; all of these girls, by-the-way, were in care – they were vulnerable young girls; and they’re not sixteen or eighteen; these girls went from seven to thirteen years of age – and as I’m talking about it now, the police would be called to a hotel, where thirteen Muslim men were in a room with a naked twelve year old girl under the table; and a very irate father outside the front of the hotel. And the police would arrest the father!
This is how bad it is.
I’ve rather gone off track but the Muslim grooming thing, I think, is really the icing on the cake in terms of what they are allowed to get away with; and what our reaction is politically from the politicians, from the police, the media – because they all colluded in covering-it-up – I was talking about Nick Griffin and – the Times journalist when he broke the story in 2014, said the reason they had sat on this story for so many years was because they did not want to give any ammunition to the nasty fascist, right-wing political organizations in Britain.
Which is absolutely disgusting.
I’m rambling, but my point really is that Britain is not yet lost.
We’re not far-off being lost – Sweden’s gone, Sweden is just a matter of five or ten years – Britain can still maybe do something about this.
But I don’t think it will be resolved peacefully.
I think probably we’ll be looking at a civil war scenario, in the same way that Yugoslavia broke-up in the 1990’s. ..and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970’s.
I think this is the future of Europe generally speaking.
And I think that when it happens it will not be contained in the way that Yugoslavia was able to be contained.
It’s going to be cataclysmic.
Something that people cannot imagine, really, living in modern, democratic times.
But it’s coming.
And I will finish simply by saying, you all need to look at what’s happening in Britain and Sweden and Europe; and you all need to make sure that you retain your First Amendment Rights because unless we can talk about this, unless we can bring it out in the open, you in America will go the same way.
You need to stand up and look at what we’re doing and say this is never gong to happen here!”
Posted by The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws on Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:19 | #
Hoover Institution, 1 Dec 2019:
The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws
All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
[…]
The Soviet proposal would be targeted not just at Nazism but against agitation in favor of capitalism and liberal democracy.
Although Article 19 of the udhr does not contain a specific limitation clause, it is still possible to restrict freedom of expression pursuant to general limitation clauses contained in the udhr. Article 7 ensures equality before the law and protects specifically against incitement to discrimination, while Article 29 includes a general limitation clause according to which the rights in the udhr may be limited, inter alia, for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.
The drafting of Article 7 started in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. The Soviet Union presented a proposal that included an obligation to prohibit “Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hostility or of national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, as well as any action establishing a privilege or a discrimination based on distinctions of race, nationality, or religion constitute a crime and shall be punishable under the law of the state.” The U.S. and Belgian experts vociferously opposed this proposal and sought to prevent a vote upon it. However, France came up with an extensive proposal requiring states to punish infringements of the principle of nondiscrimination. Ultimately Australia and China presented a draft compromise provision that sought to condemn only incitement to violence against minorities, which was adopted with ten votes and one abstention in the Sub-Commission.
Despite the adoption of this compromise, the Soviet delegate continued the fight for limiting freedom of expression in the Working Group of the Human Rights Commission. The Soviet delegate held a speech in which he declared that without a prohibition against hate speech “any Declaration would be useless.” This led to a reiteration of the above-mentioned Soviet proposal on Article 7, which was rejected, though very narrowly this time, with two votes to two, with two abstentions. During the second session of the Human Rights Commission, the Soviet delegate tried once more to submit the proposal, and this time the Belgian representative took it into consideration. He rejected the Soviet proposal but amended the current version of Article 7 with the phrase “and against any incitement to such discrimination,” which was adopted with a great majority.
However, in the third session of the Human Rights Commission, the British and Indian delegates jointly proposed to delete the prohibition against incitement to discrimination since “the United Kingdom, feeling morally bound to carry out the provision of the Declaration, would be obliged to pass laws which experience had shown were neither necessary nor desirable.”
Countries supporting the British/Indian stand included the U.S., while the French representative strongly favored a prohibition against incitement to discrimination. He was joined by, inter alia, the delegation from Yugoslavia, who felt that “incitement to discrimination should be explicitly forbidden.”
The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.
Posted by Adrean on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:09 | #
Adrean Arlott of Compulsory Diversity News to the Rescue
John Dlugosz: The people will decide what is relevant. The First Selectman has said, “I feel (Anna Zubkova) deceived us by omission and I feel misled. I’m pulling my support and telling my friends and family to do the same. The signs on my lawn are coming up. There’s a lot of good people who made a decision to support her without having all the information they needed.”
I believe ignoring evil–in one’s country, state, town, and certainly under one’s own roof–is unacceptable. Is hatred and fear-mongering and ignorance a family value? Read the content of the blog and it’s very clear Mr Freeman believes the world would be a better place if his beliefs were imposed on us all.
I choose to speak out against hatred and stand up to it, because I’ve suffered too. But I was brought up a Christian, and my family values are love and forgiveness, and having the courage to stand up to hatred and bigotry. Understanding and compassion will always overcome hatred and aggression. That’s a value this country was founded on. To my way of thinking, those who choose to turn a blind eye to evil are either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, I pity them. The good people of eastern Connecticut will decide what is relevant, and what they value in their leaders.
Peace.
Adrean Arlott: Dlugosz, Anna is running to be a probate judge. I don’t think the ability to sense evil is part of the job description. You say you are a Christian. Tell me, what was it like serving on the Salem Witch Trials? Sensing evil must have been a big part of that job. Was your buckle hat really as itchy as it looked?
Posted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:11 | #
Counter Currents, “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Rise of a Prophet”, 4 Feb 2019:
by Spencer J. Quinn
It’s striking how cherry-picking can hone the pen of a propagandist and disguise malice behind a veneer of reason. Jewish writer Cathy Young provides excellent examples of this all throughout her December 2018 Quillette article, “Solzhenitsyn: The Fall of a Prophet.” Published shortly after Solzhenitsyn’s 100th birthday, the article’s point, essentially, is to tarnish the reputation of a great man in order to steer discourse away from aspects of his work which the current zeitgeist finds problematic. Her shoddy, dishonest treatment of Solzhenitsyn resembles Soviet-styled political revisionism, and it stinks, frankly, of character assassination.
Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:16 | #
Thorn: “As expected, the news blackout WRT white genocide continues.”
Yes, which is why it is important to make the link ourselves, wherever we may post comments. Paul Weston, opponent of white genocide, was arrested for exercising his free speech rights.