And You Call These “Democratic Elections”?

Happy Saint George’s Day!

On 18 April this self-explanatory open letter was sent to the Electoral Commission. How can democratic elections be held if parties are not even allowed to say in any explicit form in official documents what they stand for?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dear Electoral Commissioners

I represent the political party Liberty GB, which is standing candidates in the South East of England in the forthcoming European Parliament election.

As part of our preparation for the election, I recently attempted to register a number of new party descriptions with the Electoral Commission. It was our intention to choose the best of these for printing on the ballot papers. In total, thirteen descriptions were submitted, of which all but three were rejected. Among the rejected descriptions were the following:

End multiculturalism, support Western civilisation.
No to Islamisation. Yes to Britain!
Immigration, no. Islamisation, no. Britain, yes!
Stop Britain becoming Islamic.
No to hate preachers, jihad, terrorism.
Safeguarding Britain's future, no to sharia.

The rejection letter (attached) received yesterday from the Electoral Commission sought to justify their decision on the basis that the descriptions are "likely to be … 'offensive'". No definition of "offensive" was offered, neither did the Commission give any indication as to who might in future be offended by these descriptions, nor indeed the basis for the prediction.

We find it difficult to imagine how any decent, law-abiding voter could be offended by a statement opposing "hate preachers, jihad, terrorism". Regarding opposition to sharia and to the Islamisation of Britain, these represent large, growing and evidence-based strands of public opinion – legitimate opinion that cannot be properly represented politically if its designating terms are censored out of electoral communications. Regarding multiculturalism, you may be aware that several European heads of state, including our very own Prime Minister, have publicly criticised it far more strongly than our first description above does. Is the Electoral Commission saying that it is legitimate for established politicians to express opposition to multiculturalism, but not those seeking elected office?

The Commission argues that within the rejected descriptions is an "implication that some [unspecified] groups in society were to be excluded, rejected, disparaged or disliked". In response, we would point out that even within the groups the Commission studiously avoids naming (we make an educated guess as to who they might be), there are significant strands of opposition to jihad, sharia, hate preachers, and indeed the Islamisation of Britain.

You surely do not need us to tell you that free elections depend upon the capacity of political parties and candidates to communicate clearly to the electorate what they stand for so that voters can make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Should not the broad strands of public opinion that Liberty GB represents be allowed expression in a free election? And is it not more than a little hypocritical of the Electoral Commission to be citing "freedom of expression" and "freedom of thought [and] belief" in the context of this censorial ruling?

The writer George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." By prohibiting Liberty GB from expressing widely-held positions (that some unspecified group might or might not want to hear), the Electoral Commission strikes another small blow against freedom of speech in Britain – the central freedom that earlier generations of British people risked or gave their lives defending.

Consider this a formal complaint.

Yours sincerely

Dr George Whale
Nominating Officer, Liberty Great Britain

Enza Ferreri on the Leftist Ideology Disease



Vote for Liberty GB in the European Elections on the 22nd of May because Liberty GB is the only credible party that can change what's wrong, since it's the only party which has clear ideas about what caused it.

Today's major symptoms of the disease that affects Britain – mass immigration, Islamisation, multiculturalism – have been caused by the Left's cultural dominance in Britain – as all over the West – over the past 50-60 years.

Uncontrolled immigration – in fact, invasion, as this is something about which the British people were never consulted and, if they had been, would very likely have rejected – was something wanted by the Left. The previous Labour government is the one most responsible for it, with its open-door immigration policy.

Multiculturalism and Islamisation are natural consequences of both mass immigration and Leftist ideology.

The Left believes that Britain has a dirty past, imperialist and oppressive of the poorest people on earth. This is historical revisionism for ideological reasons: in reality the colonised countries and populations benefited from colonisation more than Britain did. But it doesn't matter if it's not true, because the Left believes it and it has the means to make many others believe it. As a consequence it has instilled in the British people a sense of guilt.

Also, unrestricted immigration is allowed, even encouraged by the Left because it's a form of redistribution of wealth, one of the Left's cardinal tenets. We are relatively rich, they are poor. Let's welcome them and shower them with benefits.

And why should British identity and culture be dominant? It's a form of cultural imperialism, they say. We're all the same. Purely leftist ideology, again.

This cultural relativism that doesn't judge or evaluate applies to Islam too, even to its appalling manifestations, from sex slavery of young white girls to honour killings.

Never mind, we must celebrate diversity, Islam included.

And also, and here we come to the crux of the cultural matter, why not? We don't believe in Christianity any more. So, why not Islam? It's a religion of the poorest people on earth, and that by itself is a reason to accept it and celebrate it – so they argue.

There is no doubt that the profound erosion of Christianity, its values and ethics has been accompanied by the rise to dominance of the leftist, in particular neo-Marxist, ideology because it has been caused by it, with its attacks against Christianity and propagation of atheism.

Historically Marxists, communists, anarchists have always been enemies of Christianity. "Religion is the opium of the people", Karl Marx said.

He and Engels also hated the family. They wanted to see it dead, and children communally raised.

We are certainly going in that direction, with the welfare state taking the place of fathers.

In our world, 'post-Christian', secular, neo-pagan, atheist, the family has also become much closer to Islam with its polygamy. We have multiple marriages and divorces, children forced to share their fathers with his other families, much like in polygamist Islam.

The Left's 'sexual revolution', the removal of sexual behaviour from the sphere of morality, the domain of ethics, has greatly contributed to that.

Only understanding the cause that has produced an unwanted effect can eliminate that cause and reverse that effect.

There's no other party today in Britain that has formulated such a clear analysis of the current problems as Liberty GB has.

We have detailed policies to solve what afflicts Britain. You can see them in full at libertygb.org.uk.

Please support, join, donate to Liberty GB, and visit our website.

Vote Liberty GB. My name is Enza Ferreri, and I'll be standing as a candidate with Paul Weston and Jack Buckby at the European Elections on May 22nd. Thank you.

Non-EU Doctors Can Be a Risk for Patient Safety, Research Says

The recent news that doctors trained outside the EU perform remarkably worse than others on key exams and performance reviews has created fears and lack of trust in doctors.

This is the result of a study commissioned by the General Medical Council and carried out by the University College London and University of Cambridge, published in the British Medical Journal - the most rigorous study to date – , and a research by Durham University also published in the BMJ.

Non-EU-trained doctors make up a quarter of the NHS medical workforce. We’ve repeatedly – in fact, whenever there is a debate on immigration - been told how immigration has been the saviour of the NHS, which couldn’t be run without foreign doctors. And now scientific studies show that these same doctors, in a high percentage of cases, represent a risk for patients’ safety.

According to the new research, more than 80 per cent of NHS doctors trained abroad do worse than the average British doctor in exams to join the professional bodies for GPs and hospital doctors, and half of them would fail the tests passed by British doctors.

More than 88,000 foreign-trained doctors are registered to work in Britain, including 22,758 from Europe. They account for approximately two thirds of those struck off each year. The country with the largest number of doctors removed or suspended from the medical register is India, followed by Nigeria and Egypt.

“We have no idea about the medical schools they come from and inevitably they’re going to be very varied,” said Professor Chris MacManus, who led the UCL study. He also commented: “There is no real mechanism for checking that doctors coming from outside Britain have been trained to the same level as British doctors.”

The UCL’s findings have been made public now – despite the fact that the GMC working party was due to report later this year – in order to defend an allegation that the GMC was racist in marking the exams of foreign doctors.

The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin launched a judicial review claiming the GMC failed too many foreign doctors in GP tests. But a High Court judge ruled against it this month after seeing the UCL’s report.

Prof McManus said: “We’ve been through the figures with a fine-toothed comb and there is simply nothing to show that examiners are being racist.”

It’s the same old story: fears of accusations of racism – along with problems of staffing an overstretched NHS - trump everything, including the safety of patients. Will something be done now, after the GMC-commissioned research showed more wide-ranging inadequacies than expected? The language skills have also been questioned.

Various medical authorities are now claiming that the pass mark that enables foreign-trained doctors to work in Britain should be raised “in the interests of patient safety”.

Isn’t it interesting that this is what the Liberty GB party, contesting the 22 May European Elections in the South East, was already writing in early 2013 in its manifesto? One of its policies is:

“Rigorously test foreign doctors before licensing them to practice in the UK. Foreign trained doctors are statistically more liable to malpractice and incompetence.”

Enza Ferreri Euro 2014 Election Video. "Immigration and Islamisation: Let's Stop this Madness"



In all probability you wonder why you should vote for another new party, why this small party Liberty GB should make any difference, that others haven't made.

Yet, in all probability you are also one of the 70% of people in this country who want immigration to be reduced or stopped completely, and one of the many and increasing number of people who are worried about Islam.

You are right to feel that way on both counts. Immigration is causing great problems. Economic first: immigrants from outside the European Union take £100billion more in benefits than they pay back in taxes. This is not tabloid sensationalism or right-wing propaganda. It's the result of a 16-year study from University College London, the most far-reaching study ever conducted of the impact of migration on taxpayers, based on official and government figures. Non-European immigrants dig a deep hole in our finances: the amount taken in benefits and services by them is 14% higher than money put back.

What about European immigrants then? They pay 4 per cent more into the tax system than they take out, while British-born people pay in 7 per cent less than they receive from the state.

But this does not mean that, as the spin goes, immigrants – even if only of European origin – positively contribute to British society. It just means that European immigrants, although certainly not as ruinous as the non-Europeans, when they reach a certain number are still a big problem for British economy, as they take jobs that would otherwise be filled by British people, who in turn because of that have to be on the dole, which is a burden for taxpayers.

So, when all is considered, the contribution, even from hard-working, law-abiding and well-integrated European immigrants, is still negative for Britons. If natives did those jobs, they would contribute to the revenue the same amount of tax as the immigrants, instead of living on benefits.

The problems caused by immigration are not only economic, though. They are also social and cultural. British people forced into interminable queues for public services, schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, public housing. Costs of accommodation, bought and rented, rising and making it difficult for young people to leave home or couples to get married, as housing demand outstrips supply and pushes prices up.

Muslim immigration, in addition to all this, causes special problems. Islam is not what the politicians want you to believe. Islam's holy scriptures are divisive and provoke violence, because the final goal of Islam is the imposition of its dominance and its laws on the whole of humanity, with whatever means available, peaceful if possible, non-peaceful if necessary. You can see this happening all over the world, wherever the number of Muslims reach a sizeable percentage of the population, which is soon to be Britain's fate as they out-reproduce the British natives at a very fast rate.

There are among Muslims non-violent and decent people, no doubt, but what they do or want doesn't count for as long as they remain Muslim, because they in the end have to accept the rulings of Islamic law, which is inimical to British civilisation.

Islam is not a real religion, trying to morally improve human beings, but it's a very real political ideology of supremacism.

You have already witnessed many manifestations of this impossibility to reconcile Islam with British life and values, from halal meat pushed down your and your children's throat to sex slave and paedophile rings – who are largely Muslim – raping young white girls; from British soldiers beheaded in the street to hate preachers and terrorists protected by mosques.

Despite this, Britain is becoming progressively Islamised day by day. One morning, it will be indistinguishable from Pakistan or Somalia.

But enough with the bad news.

The good news is that now YOU can do something to initiate a change, in the simplest possible way: with YOUR vote for Liberty GB at the European Elections of May 22.
Change will not be immediate, but will start gradually and then gather momentum, in the same way as an initial decline has slowly turned into a fall into the precipice under our own eyes.

If damage has effectively been done, it can just as effectively be undone.

You need a party to represent you. Spontaneous protests, as we have seen, may attract headlines but don't produce results.

On the other hand, mainstream parties – and that includes UKIP – are too comfortable to want and enact real change, they need the votes of immigrants and Muslims to continue in their cushy jobs.

But in Liberty GB we are not career politicians, we're in politics because we can't stand what's going on any longer.

We have in our manifesto policies that will stop this madness. There is a domino effect in social politics, a vicious circle that multiplies the negative effects of wrong policies; but similarly, the right policies can produce a positive chain reaction, a virtuous circle.

Check out our manifesto – at libertgb.org.uk – to see the measures we want to introduce.

Support us, join us or simply donate money to us. And, more importantly, please vote Liberty GB at the European Elections in May. My name is Enza Ferreri, and I am a candidate. Thank you.

Britain’s Jihadists Within

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri



Some of the “freedom fighters” who are at war against the evil tyrant Assad in Syria, the “rebels” whom both Obama and Cameron wanted to help, have now been re-classified as “the biggest threat to Britain's security” and a “greater threat than al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan”. The British Home Office identifies Syria as “the most significant development in global terrorism.”

More than half of anti-terror investigations by the UK security service MI5 involve “Britons” who went to fight in Syria. Charles Farr - the Home Office’s terror chief - and others warned that the Syrian war is stoking the biggest terror threat to the West since September 11, and this problem is predicted to persist for as long as the hostilities will continue.

Syria is much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and Pakistan, making it a particularly easy and dangerous destination for UK Muslims who come back well trained, armed and ready for business: terrorism. And because the security services monitor about half of them, the risk is very high.

Robert Spencer asks some pertinent questions:

Why aren’t they monitoring the rest? And why were these men let back into the country in the first place? Simply because they’re citizens? (Are they even all citizens?)

In the past three years, from the beginning of the conflict, no fewer than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to fight, many more than the corresponding number for Iraq. According to French President Francois Hollande, they are actually up to 700.

Between 250 and 400 of them are believed to be back with us, although the number may be higher. Apparently, they found life there “too hard”, so they say. But they may have been encouraged to return “home” in order to carry out attacks in the UK.

Hundreds more are still in Syria, and one of them has posted an internet video urging his coreligionists in Britain to join them and help their Syrian brothers and sisters, saying: "The doors of jihad are still open." He is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a group which wants Syria to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law and which is considered too extreme even by Al-Qaeda, that officially disowned it. The first provincial capital to be occupied by ISIS was the city of Raqqa, on whose Christian community it has imposed payment of the jizya and other rules associated with the dhimmi status.

These are people who know their Islam, no doubt. They’ve forced even the BBC reporters to become familiar with the triple choice: convert, submit, die.

Aymenn al-Tamimi, a University of Oxford expert on Iraqi and Syrian jihadists, said:

In case ISIS’s ambitions to a global caliphate were still not apparent to anyone, ISIS’s official Twitter account for Raqqa province had this to say on the imposition of the dhimmi pact: ‘Today in Raqqa and tomorrow in Rome.’

ISIS uses British radicalised recruits, like Anil Khalil Raoufi, the University of Liverpool student of engineering who was recently killed in Syria.

The Syrian war is helping to accelerate the “final solution” for Christians in the Middle East.

The rebels’ ruthlessness is not in question. A Facebook video shows a British jihadist in Syria torturing and executing another jihadi who had insulted Allah, with the caption: “I can’t wait for feeling you get when U just killed some1.”

“Who are the British jihadists in Syria?” asks the BBC. The answer: “The Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London says most British jihadists are university-educated Muslims of British Pakistani origin in their 20s.” Ah! And I thought that, as the Left says, violent jihad and Muslim terrorism are caused by poverty and deprivation. It turns out that, once again, these people are mainly middle class.

UK security services last autumn intercepted a plot by "British" jihadists returning from Syria planning a Nairobi-style gun attack on civilians in a crowded location, maybe in London.

Furthermore, Al-Qaeda urged “lone wolf” terrorists trained in Syria to target the Queen with bomb attacks at British sporting events, including the Derby. Cheltenham races, Wimbledon and Football Association Cup matches are other recommended potential targets that could cause “maximum carnage”.

The recommendations come from Inspire, an English-language online magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), that lists Britain as Al Qaeda's biggest target after America.

The big question is: what to do?

Robert Spencer is not the only one calling for not letting Syria jihadists back into the UK. The Week has a sensible suggestion:

Pass a law forbidding any British subject from travelling to Syria - unless registered with a charity authorised by the Foreign Office...

But anyone suspected of making an unauthorised trip to Syria would not be re-admitted to the United Kingdom. Put up posters to that effect at every airport and seaport... "If you travel to Syria illegally, you will not be allowed to return here."

Preventing any more of these jihadists coming 'home' would be the simplest solution. Dealing with an attack by such men once it kicks off will be difficult. Terrorists on shooting sprees of this kind inflict damage quickly, relying on a shock effect to cow their intended victims. No doubt the SAS or SBS will arrive, but even they will be lucky to arrive in time.

The butcher's bills have been quite severe. Mumbai: 153 killed and more than 600 wounded. Nairobi: 67 dead and 175 wounded. In both cases hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage were also caused to property. Imagine if something similar were to happen in London.

The UK’s Home Office, despite tough talking, has let these potential terrorists back into the country. We’ve heard threats to arrest and prosecute them from the Crown Prosecution Service.

There have been arrests: while only 24 people last year, already 20 this year, including Moazzam Begg, a former Guantánamo detainee – yes, one of those innocent souls – whose trial date has been set in October.

But his arrest has caused protests from the Muslim community, claiming that they are being unfairly targeted. What’s new?

That has made government officials even more “aware of the thin line they must tread in dealing with the problem” than they already were.

UK Muslim charities delivering aid in Syria complain that they risk being arrested for terrorism on their volunteers’ return home – as if one eighth of zakat (Islamic charity) were not obliged to finance jihad according to Sharia law.

In fact, ten Muslim charities linked to Syria are under surveillance after Adeel Ali, the head of a UK charity that raised thousands of pounds from the British public for Syria, has been photographed embracing masked fighters brandishing an AK47.

With Islam, you never know where the money supposedly for charity ends up. There’s ample evidence of "charity workers" in Syria supporting jihadi "martyrs”.

The Left, as usual, sides with the Muslim community, and has accused the government, like George Monbiot in The Guardian making this historical comparison: ‘If George Orwell and Laurie Lee were to return from the Spanish civil war today, they would be arrested under section five of the Terrorism Act 2006.”

But a legitimate question has been raised: how can a government, like the British one, which only a few months ago was prepared to join the war against Assad and be allied to the same "fighters" on whose side these jihadists are battling, now consider them criminals? Isn’t it a bit inconsistent? This, after all, is the same government that openly supports the downfall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backs the Syrian rebels pursuing this goal, lost a parliamentary vote on military intervention in Syria last year - and is fully aware that its allies in the Gulf are funding al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria. This inconsistency clearly shows how that pro-rebel stance is a terrible error.

And how likely is it that anything will be done to British-citizen Syrian jihadists now, when in an analogous situation in the case of the NATO-backed uprising in Libya in 2011 no British jihadi fighting in Libya was arrested? After all, to punish them would be “Islamophobic”.

Taqiyya and Blasphemy Laws in the UK

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri



In British law, race and religion are increasingly becoming deliberately confused for the purpose of accusing critics of Islam of racism.

A soccer fan was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after allegedly ripping up pages of the Quran and throwing them at a match. While on bail, he was also banned from attending any football games, visiting St Andrew's - the stadium of the incident -, and going to any city where his team Middlesbrough was playing.

Insults against Islam are taken very seriously in Britain, and the world of soccer is particularly sensitive to them. After the incident, Middlesbrough Football Club suspended six more people, and vowed to ban anyone convicted of the “crime” from the Riverside Stadium, its home ground, for life.

A Middlesbrough club spokesman said it operates a "zero tolerance policy" towards all forms of discrimination, and supports football's pledge to "eradicate racism in all its forms".

Nobody could answer the question of what race Islam is. Muslims belong to all races, including white. But we know that the word “racism” has lost its original sense, and indeed any sense.

Originally the concept of racism had a place and an important role in both ethical and political discourses.

Now it’s best avoided because it’s lost its positive characteristics, its usefulness, and has instead become a tool for intolerance, intimidation, restriction of freedom of speech and other freedoms, in short a means of oppression.

The 19th-century German philosopher Gottlob Frege, one of the founders of modern logic, distinguished between the two dimensions of a concept: its meaning (or reference) and its sense.

The meaning or denotation is the class of objects to which the concept refers, which is comprised by the concept.

The sense or connotation is the concept's descriptive qualities.

There is an inverse proportion between the two: the larger the meaning the narrower the sense and vice versa.

A concept like "universe", just because it has as reference an all-including class of objects, has practically no sense, in that it has very little descriptive, or delimitative, power.

Defining a word means exactly that, giving it borders that restrict it and in so doing make it precise.

Since the word "racism" has started being used to refer to many attitudes, behaviours and ideas that had little or nothing to do with racism in the strict sense, its meaning has become progressively larger and larger, correspondingly decreasing its sense.

When today I hear about someone or something being called "racist", I hardly ever believe that it’s true. The likeliest explanation, I think to myself, is either an umpteenth case of excessive political correctness, or a personal attack. The descriptive capability of the term has got lost or at least dramatically eroded.

There is at the moment a worrying trend: what has for a long time been a common Leftist ploy, the shouting of “racist” to shut down any criticism of Islam, is now tried to be enshrined in British law.

The soccer case is one example of this attempt. Another is what’s happened to Tim Burton, the Radio Officer of the party Liberty GB, which will contest the May 22 European Parliament Elections for Britain (donations to help with the election campaign are welcome).

Burton appeared at Birmingham Magistrates' Court, England, on April 8, charged with racially aggravated harassment for a few tweets in which he called prominent British Muslim Fiyaz Mujhal “a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist”.

Mujhal, founder and director of the organisation Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks), was exposed by The Telegraph newspaper last year for having massaged some facts and figures about “anti-Muslim attacks” following the Woolwich murder of soldier Lee Rigby. For this and other discrepancies between police official figures of anti-Muslim crimes and the inflated ones of Tell MAMA, the organisation, which had received £375,000 from the UK government, had its public funding discontinued.

The obvious paradox here is that Tell MAMA, clearly in desperate search for “Islamophobic” crimes that could justify its requests for public funds, didn’t find a sufficient number of them of a serious enough nature. So, first it exaggerated them both quantitatively and qualitatively, calling “attacks” simple posts on Facebook and other social media. Then, when this manipulation had become well known, it used the same tactic against the people, like Tim, who called the bluff, in a self-perpetuating cycle.

Burton’s trial has been very worrying for anyone who holds dear freedom of speech and basic civil liberties. One of the worrisome aspects is the conflating of “religion” with “race”. Tim Burton was accused of racially-aggravated harassment for tweets concerning Islam. Not only Islam is clearly not a race and Muslims can and do belong to all races, but also the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service considers those two charges (racially- and religiously-aggravated crimes) as distinct and separate ones.

The Crown Prosecution Service, though, despite officially paying lip service to this distinction, in Tim Burton’s case was trying to conflate the two because it did not have sufficient ground to get a conviction on the “religiously aggravated” charge – which requires stronger evidence -, so decided to prosecute using the easier “racially aggravated” one.

As its website says, “So it will be more difficult to prosecute for inciting religious hatred as opposed to racial hatred”.

The attempt to “racialise Muslims” clearly exists but not, as Tell MAMA says, on the part of Liberty GB. It exists on the part of British Islam apologists and their allies, the politically correct Establishment.

Since there are no blasphemy laws in the UK and criticism of any religion, including Islam, is theoretically tolerated, only two alternatives are left to British Muslims who want to protect Islam from the expression of the uncomfortable truths of its supremacist and violent nature. One is to invoke the introduction of a blasphemy law; the other, subtler and more effective, is to turn existing equality, anti-racist, “hate crime” laws into a sharia-style blasphemy law.

The Macpherson Report, which followed the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in London in 1993, reached the conclusion that the British police force is “institutionally racist” and, with the alleged intent of redressing the balance, established that absolutely anything perceived by a “victim” as a racist incident is de facto a racist incident: simple perception becomes legal reality, whether it’s true or not.

This makes the endeavour to legally treat anti-Islam criticism as racist even more dangerous, as it may render it subject to the ruling of the Macpherson Report.

An attempt had previously been made by the Labour government, when the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed, to formulate it in such a way that it could criminalise the criticism of Islam, the Quran and Muhammad. This was made impossible by the opposition of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, as well as various evangelical Christian groups which threatened to use this law against the Quran, which is full to the brim with incitements to religious hatred. Therefore the bill had to be amended.

But what went out legally by the door of Parliamentary procedure is now being reintroduced surreptitiously through the window of politically correct police and prosecution establishment.

This is why Liberty GB held a public protest outside the courthouse and considered this trial crucially important.

Firstly, to show to the British and Western public what taqiyya – deception for the good of Islam - is and, given the special position in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims of this divine permission to lie, to show the whole nature of Islam in relation to us through it. For this reason, Islam’s scholar Professor Hans Jansen appeared at the trial and gave evidence as expert witness on taqiyya. We christened this a “taqiyya trial”.

Secondly, to defend free speech and stop the effective use of anti-racist legislation as blasphemy laws.


Photo by Gareth Davies (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).

Tatchell: "Gay" Is Used to Distract People from Homosexuals' Sexuality



I've written about the hijacking of language by the Left and some of its manifestations.

There are many other aspects of it, like the wounds inflicted on grammar by the use of "they", "them", "theirs" in reference to a singular subject. For example: "Everyone knows what they are doing" or "The user must log in with their password". This is done only because it's politically incorrect to use "he", "him", "his", to cover both men and women, as it allegedly gives men a status of superiority (the same as in saying "man" to mean "the human species").

Politically correct writers - like the Australian-born philosopher Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University - instead use "she" to refer to both men and women, at least remaining grammatically correct. If we want children to be properly educated, PC should not override grammar. Writing logically helps thinking logically.

The practice of employing "they" referring to a singular has spread so much that it is now in use even when it's got nothing to do with PC, like in cases where the sex of the subject is known, so either "he" or "she" would be fine. I suppose people say "they" just to be on the safe side as they don't know the rationale behind its use, or they do it even in a totally automatic, thoughtless manner.

There is a particularly interesting case of PC language: the word "gay". The homosexual movement has hijacked what was once a common English adjective meaning something completely different - in fact in many ways opposite - from the sense that has become predominant today thanks to that movement's highly successful efforts, and now we cannot use this word in the original sense any more. That is tantamount to a small group's theft of the language that belongs to everybody.

In the video above George Galloway interviews Peter Tatchell, the UK's number one homosexual activist, about what terms to describe homosexuals would be accepted by the thought police of his movement. In it Tatchell, among other things, explains the origin of the word "gay" in the modern sense of a man sexually attracted by other men.

According to Tatchell, homosexual men's intention in adopting this term for themselves was to distract people's attention from the sexual nature of their condition. I can understand why they wanted to do so: they knew that being associated with anal sex, which is repugnant to most normal people and is medically unhealthy, as medical authorities keep saying - although this is not much reported in the media -, would not be good for their PR and image.

It is a case of dissimulation, if not outright deception. And it is a rare gem that someone involved in introducing one of the most glaring examples of this kind of politically-motivated changes in our language talks about it frankly and openly.

It is not just one of us saying that the Left intentionally changed the meaning of words for political reasons, but Peter Tatchell admitting it in a video interview with George Galloway. We can document a claim with evidence directly from the horse's mouth.

We should not accept this dissembling any more than we accept taqiyya from Muslims. I never use the word "gay" except in inverted commas (unless I want to describe someone who is merry). To do so would be to give in, to help homosexualists in their disguising attempt.

"Homosexual" is an honest word. It is not offensive - in fact, homosexuals who believe this are implicitly admitting to thinking that there's something wrong with their condition. At the same time, it tells things as they are: it describes people who are sexually attracted to the same sex (from the Greek "homos", meaning "same").