There is a growing enthusiasm by the authorities in Britain to prosecute people who are judged to have broken the law by being racist in speech or writing. This enthusiasm is fuelled by the adoption of political correctness as the elite ideology of the day. Anyone in a position of power and influence is forced on pain of being cast from such circles to at least pay lip service to the creed and the fear of being called racist has those without power or influence in a vice-like grip as they see people who have been accused of racism having their lives turned upside down by the media engaging in hate campaigns against them, their jobs taken from them and, in an increasing number of cases, criminal records put upon them for simply saying what they think.
The police have become frantically keen on showing their politically correct credentials. Recently the Home Secretary Amber Rudd found the police recording a complaint of racism against her after she made a speech dealing with immigrants as a “non-crime hate incident, a category without any statutory basis that the police have invented. In cases such as this the police cease to act as police and become political commissars.
The “non-crime hate incident” will be logged on a police computer, quite possibly the central computer the police have. It is unlikely to affect the likes of Rudd but anyone without power or influence could well find the police bringing such a record into play if they end up, for whatever reason, being questioned by the police. Even if it never happens it will hang heavy in the minds of the person to whom such a record refers because they will have become “a person known to the police” despite ever having been charged with an offence. It might well come up on a criminal records check undertaken because of the nature of a job someone is applying for. Even if that never happens to you imagine how your employer or your family might react if becomes public knowledge in some other way such as a newspaper report that you are a person deemed to have been the perpetrator of a “hate non-crime incident”.
The police are rather less enthusiastic about one class of complaint of racism. Any complaint of a “non-crime hate incident ” to the police which falls outside what the politically correct deem to be a worthy case – basically any complaint involving racial incitement against whites – will not be recorded. I have in the past tried out the police’s willingness to record such complaints, for example, I made a complaint of racial incitement against Greg Dyke when he was Chairman of the BBC following his “hideously white” description of the Corporation. The police refused to record the complaint let alone investigate it.
The great advantage you have
All that will seem daunting to anyone accused of racism which reaches the police . Do not despair. People accused of this type of offence has one great advantage : those with power and influence in the UK have a dread of the issue of free expression being the subject of public debate in the courts. This is so for two reasons. First, they know that prosecuting people for simply saying something goes against the idea of a free society, something which the British elite invariably claim to believe in in the abstract. Second, the free speech that is being suppressed is that which goes against the politically correct version of what is permissible. The politically correct know in their heart of hearts that political incorrectness is the natural order of things and that only by censoring can the pretence that political correctness reflects reality be maintained.
As a consequence of these fears the police and those in the justice system do everything possible to persuade those charged with such offences to plead guilty. This was graphically shown in the case of Emma West who maintained her innocence for many months even though initially she was held on remand in the highest security women’s prison in the UK . Her crime? To make what was really no more than a public protest about the consequences of mass immigration. Eventually, she pleaded guilty to lesser charges after the stress got to her, not least the fear that her young son would be taken from her. The extraordinary efforts to made to get the woman to change her plea strongly suggests that had she stuck by her original Not Guilty plea there was a very good chance the case would never have come to court.
The lesson of all this is always get on the front foot if you are threatened by those with power and influence. Show that you are afraid and intimidated and the powers-that-be will simply ride all over you. Let those who are harrying you know that you are coming out fighting. That is not only your best chance of neutralising the accusation of racism it is probably your only chance. Try googling cases of people accused of pc “crimes” who tamely pleaded guilty. Despite assiduous researching I cannot find one case which ended with a person pleading guilty being left in their original position, either in their work or socially. At best, the common outcome is for people to lose their job and to find getting another one very difficult; at worst they can end up in prison. Pleading guilty to such charges is never a soft option.
Subject access requests
If the complaint which has led to criminal charges being brought has been made by someone representing an organisation rather than just acting as an individual you may be able to get useful information from your accusers by using the Data Protection Act to make a subject access request . This places the data holder (the organisation to whom you are directing the subject access request) under a legal obligation to supply the person making the request with copies of any information they hold about them.
It is also worthwhile to put in a subject access request to other organisations, for example
- the police force which is dealing with the complaint against you.
- Any media organisation such as a the BBC or a national newspaper if it has shown an interest in your case.
Such organisations may hold data which will be at embarrassing at best and at worst damaging to their accusation against you. For example, there may be data showing that there were arguments against making a complaint by some members of the organisation making or supporting the complaint; details of the surveillance of you before any alleged crime has been acted upon by the police or attempts to entrap you which depending on circumstances could be illegal.
There is an exemption in the Act for legal documents and information held for journalistic purposes, but often the recipient of a subject access request will have data which is not covered by the exceptions.
Apart from possibly gaining useful information, the effect of making a subject access request will be to reinforce the fact that you are coming out fighting for even if no useful data is forthcoming the sending of a subject access request will signal that you mean business.
How do you do make a subject access request? Use the wording below for the request, enclose £10 for the fee and ask for the data they hold in paper form. The reason for asking for the material in paper form is that often paper documents have manuscript notes written on them. These may carry important information.
I am making a subject access request to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This data will include any qualifying information held on any type of media.
Please send to me copies of any data relating to me which your organisation holds within the 40 calendar days allowed by the Act.
I want any qualifying information you hold to be supplied to me in paper form.
A cheque for £10 is enclosed to pay the fee.
If the matter does go a trial
Base your defence on free expression and the fact that political correctness requires the denial of the reality of homo sapiens’ biology and evolved social nature.
For free expression make these arguments:
- When it comes to censorship there is a simple binary choice: there is either free expression or a range of permitted opinion which may be altered at any time. In present day Britain there is only a range of permitted opinion, the scope of which narrowing by the day.
- Free expression is an integral part of democracy. If people are not allowed to put forward their views there is no democracy.
- By definition any totalitarian ideology is incompatible with democracy because it excludes any viewpoint apart from its own.
Political correctness is a totalitarian ideology. It both potentially covers every aspect of life because the non-discrimination test can be applied to any aspect of life and insists that the only correct and permissible view of anything where political correctness applies is the politically correct view. The defining of antisemitism , especially in its present very broad sense, is part of political correctness.
- Many in the West who want to censor also wish to also pretend quite absurdly that they support free expression. It is important to ensure that their hypocrisy is made clear at every opportunity . The notes below provide a potent way of driving those adopting this position into a corner.
- For a detailed examination of the issue of free expression see Free Expression or a range of permitted opinion . Use the details in that essay to give chapter and verse on the vast constraints on free expression in England today. Simply reciting in court the long list of ways in which free speech is discouraged today should have the effect of knocking on the head any claim that free speech exists.
For the denial of the reality of homo sapiens’ biology and evolved social nature use these arguments:
Humans are social animals. Social animals only become social (what biologists call the development of sociality) by setting limits to those within their group. This is because sociality can only develop where there is trust and trust comes from triggers ranging from scent and chemical triggers to, in the case of humans, a recognition of those who belong to a group through a mixture of biology – basically does this person look like me? – and acquired knowledge that an individual belongs to the group through their cultural behaviour, for example, speaking the same language or having the same accent. That is the basis of group or tribal belonging . Tribal feeling is not an optional extra. It is an essential evolved behaviour which protects the group.
Political correctness denies that humans have an evolved social nature and insists against all the evidence that everything is down to cultural imprinting. When presented with this argument simply point out (1) that wherever a society is racially/culturally mixed there is always serious friction and (2) that the universality of racial and ethnic tension in mixed societies can only be plausibly explained by tribal feeling being innate .
Dealing with accusations of racism generally
Always get those accusing you of racism to define the word. This will simply stump most people because they are rarely if ever called upon to explain what is meant by racism. That is particularly true of the politically correct who rely on their control of the positions of power and influence, including the media, to censor out challenges to political correctness. That this is done and accepted as legitimate by the politically correct tells us one thing: at some level they realise, as the religious do, that their beliefs cannot stand up to argument.
Asking for a definition of what is meant by racism is a tool which can be used to fluster and unsettle everyone involved in bringing and prosecuting a case against you. If they are unable give a satisfactory definition you are halfway to winning the case. If they give a definition to which you can answer “I do not meet that definition” so much the better. Indeed, there is a good chance that asked for a definition of racism people are likely to say something along the lines of “Well, it means you think some people are inferior to you because of their colour”. To that you can say, no, that does not apply to me. I merely, like all human beings, naturally seek the company of those who resemble me because of my evolved nature.
The person to whom the question of a definition has been addressed may well be unable to meaningfully expand on their original offering. If they do it will probably be by saying something like “It’s discriminating against people”. This allows the defence to then bring out the fact that all humans have to discriminate all the time between people because we have to make choices.
That is just a few examples of how even in a court the prosecution and their witnesses can be exposed as having no firm grasp of what they mean by racism and that in turn will make it difficult in principle to say whether what you are accused of inciting actually exists.
The effect of this type of defence is to keep the prosecution on the back foot.
The special case of Antisemitism
These contrary arguments will cover most of the accusations of anti-Semitism:
- It is not anti-Semitic to apply the same test to Jews as should rationally be applied to any minority group, namely, is the group or members of the group attempting to gain an advantage for their group which is achieved at the cost of disadvantaging the rest of the society in which they live. That is simply rational self-preservation by the majority population. The most potent example of unacceptable behaviour by a minority group is one which advocates free immigration to the country in which the group lives and whose members are either immigrants themselves or the descendants of immigrants.
- It is not anti-Semitic to be concerned if there are a disproportionately large number of Jews in positions of power and influence such as politics and the mainstream media. The prime example of this is the Jewish lobby in the USA. Such positions are gained most commonly not because the best person gets the job but because those occupying them are either born into a privileged position or the position is an appointment made by patronage. For example, a significant percentage of those employed in the media have relations who worked in the media before them.
- It is not anti-Semitic to refuse to treat the Holocaust as an event which is uniquely abominable and consequently something that must be placed before the world to be condemned ceaselessly. It is now 71 years since the ending of the Second World War . Even the youngest of the surviving death camp survivors will be old. Most will be dead or in their eighties and nineties. Time has reduced to the Holocaust to what everything eventually becomes, an historical event which can be viewed objectively.
- It is not anti-Semitic to point out that huge numbers of non-Jewish people died in the Camps and that the frequent portrayal of the mass killings as an essentially Jewish event is wrong. That is not to deny that huge numbers of Jews died or to belittle their suffering. Rather, it is to provide an accurate account of what the death camps were and to rebalance the emotional response to what occurred.
- It is not anti-Semitic to treat the six million figure for Jews killed as uncertain. That does not mean six million did not die. Indeed, many more may well have done so. What matters here is that the six million figure is not an historical fact. To give just a couple of examples of the difficulty in calculating the numbers killed. Estimates of the number of Jews in Europe before 1933 run into two primary problems: the definition of who is a Jew (which covers a wide span of circumstances) and the reliability and lack of uniformity of methodology of census records compiled in different jurisdictions. Piled on top of that is the post-Holocaust dispersal of European Jews outside of Europe which makes comparison of the pre-1933 Jewish European population with the post-1945 population of Jews in Europe very difficult even if the definition of who is Jew is ignored.
- It is not anti-Semitic to view the modern state of Israel as illegitimate in foundation and support for it to be against Western interests because it puts the West perpetually at odds with the Arab world in particular and the Muslim world in general.
How to deal with the police
Do not be aggressive to or try to ingratiate yourself with the police. Be formally polite but reserved. Make it clear by your behaviour that you are not to be intimidated. I realise that is difficult for people who have no experience of the police but adopting a reserved manner will go a long way to achieving this. Always have at the front of your mind that the police and the justice system are not geared up to deal with people who will not plead guilty to charges relating to racism.
If you have been arrested get your lawyer to ask the police to justify the arrest – they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that you have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime.
Always remain silent until you have a lawyer present.
The police must caution you if they are attempting to get evidence from you about a crime that you have committed or are intending to commit or are otherwise involved with, for example, fencing stolen goods.
If you have been cautioned without being arrested you must be told that you are free to leave at any time.
Be aware that if you accept the offer of a formal police caution (this can be with or without conditions) to avoid going to trial that can be as damaging as having a criminal record particularly if you work in jobs requiring a criminal records check. These cautions have nothing to do with the caution previously described
Be aware that if you accept an offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the long run this can be as damaging to your life as fighting a more serious charge.
For my detailed advice on dealing with the police see https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/what-to-do-if-you-become-involved-with-the-criminal-law/