What’s Next for Britain?

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


After an earthquake, we gather the pieces hurled and scattered all over the place by the magnitude of the event, we put them together and reconstruct.

The big question in British politics is who is going to win the 2015 General Elections for the British Parliament, which will produce the majority to form the new government.

The local and European elections have been much anticipated before and analysed at length afterwards because they are supposed to give an idea of the next occupant of 10 Downing Street, the British Prime Minister’s residence.

But the new four-main-party-system that UKIP has introduced by storm makes these predictions much more complicated. UKIP has been the nightmare of pollsters and number crunchers, who admit defeat in appraising the current and, more importantly, future situation.

Without UKIP, it would be relatively easy to forecast next year’s results. If, as it’s often the case, on May 22 the incumbent party in government had fared badly and the opposition well, it would be seen as a sign that it’s time for the usual reversal of roles between them.

But now the Labour Party in opposition, although electorally performing better than the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the government coalition, has also haemorrhaged a stream of votes to UKIP. Therefore its percentage in the polls is not as much higher than the Tories as it should be for a safe victory prediction in 2015.

On the other hand, most votes for UKIP have come from the Conservatives (Prime Minister David Cameron’s party). This means that these two parties of the Right will be forced to share votes at the General Elections too, thus reducing the Tories’ chances to win. But by how much we don’t know, because a certain numbers of people who vote for UKIP at the European Elections won’t do so when it comes to electing the UK Parliament and deciding the next Prime Minister.

It may seem appropriate to choose UKIP, a party which is largely one-issue (leaving the European Union), at the Euro polls, but from the national government many voters, albeit sympathetic to Farage’s views, want something more. They require a wide range of policies that will affect their lives, on the economy, education, health, crime, welfare, housing, employment, and so on. It’s difficult to know how many will desert UKIP for the Tories next year.

The three main parties, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats - often placed in the same bracket and derisively called “LibLabCon” to indicate that what they have in common is much more significant than their differences, giving the electorate no real choice –, inevitably did not understand or take on board the message of the vote.

In order to do so they would have to change what they are to become something completely different. All their existence, aims and policies are predicated on carrying on as usual, offering the country more of the same, the only difference being in degree. Yesterday it was recognition of same-sex civil unions, today the law on same-sex marriage. Today it’s racist to quote Churchill’s anti-Islam words, tomorrow it will be racist describing a pet as “a black cat with a bit of white”.

Incidentally, many votes were lost by the Conservatives to UKIP because of the Tory Prime Minister’s David Cameron insistence on making homosexual marriage legal.

All the three main parties are egalitarian and strict followers of political correctness. They give the public what they want, not what people ask. They vilify people for asking it, explicitly or implicitly calling them names. They never stop to wonder whether people might be right; at most they express sympathy, understanding and “concern” for how people feel, not so subtly implying that those feelings are irrational and based on false perceptions, whereas reality is what the business of politics is all about so those feelings should be disregarded.

This sums up the reasons why many voted UKIP:

Despite all of this, I will vote UKIP at the Euro-elections, and there are two main reasons for this: first, that I wish to carry the message, very strongly, to the LibLabCon alliance that they do not have a right to be in government, they do not have a right to power—something that Labour and Conservatives have, I think, utterly forgotten (leading inexorably to a corruption almost as total as the Republicans and Democrats in Washington).

Some pundits informed us that UKIP’s voters are mostly men, over 50, blue collar. Implicit in this announcement is the view that such demographics should say a lot about UKIP, specifically how bad it must be if it attracts predominantly people of this despicable sort.

It’s reminiscent of the media in the US and elsewhere, which at the time of the presidential elections were highlighting how Mitt Romney was disproportionately preferred by men, with the same ominous implications of backwardness and “uncoolness”.

Similarly, a frequent attack against counterjihad websites is that their readers are mainly males.

I know that, despite being a female, I’ll be accused of sexism and misogyny for saying this. Does everybody ignore or pretend to ignore that the overwhelming majority of philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, musicians, authors, historians, industrialists – in short all those who have pushed the human machine forward, the makers of human progress – have been men? If it had been left only to women, we don’t know how far from cave dwelling we would be today.

For whatever reason, this is simply the historical reality. Socialists, feminists and their useful idiots may think whatever they like about the causes of this 100-percent-true fact, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be so disingenuous as to pretend that women are the only force for improvement and progress in human affairs.

That London is not part of the UK any more, due to its strong immigrant and Muslim presence, and is becoming increasingly so, was confirmed once again by the last vote pattern.

London is the only region where UKIP is still struggling, whereas Labour is doing fine. Immigrants in general and Muslims in particular tend to vote for the Labour Party, which has opened wide the doors of the country to them when in government, is overgenerous in its welfare policies for everyone –natives, foreigners legally or illegally here – and is Islamophile to the point of destruction, sorry, distraction.

This is only one of several cases in which the Muslim vote has shaped European politics in recent times. In some cases it’s proved decisive: the analysis of the various groups’ votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won, so the election of socialist Francois Hollande as President was determined by the followers of Islam.

What’s in the future for UKIP and for Britain?

The UKIP will try to get its first Member of the British House of Commons elected on this 5 June, at the Newark, Nottinghamshire, by-election, caused by the suspension from Parliament and subsequent resignation as MP of Patrick Mercer.

European UKIP representatives, including Farage, have said that at the General Elections of 2015 they'll target and concentrate their efforts particularly on those constituencies where they already have councillors or have done well in the local elections. They say that this has been the successful strategy of the Lib Dems, who have been in a similar position of outsiders in the past.

In the long term, Farage aims to repeat the destruction of Canada’s Conservative Party two decades ago, when the rebel Right-wing Reform Party, that many compare to UKIP itself, caused another political earthquake.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Farage said that a Canadian-style Tory meltdown “could happen” in Britain. Canada’s century-old ruling Conservative Party was destroyed overnight in the country’s 1993 election by the populist, low-tax Reform Party, which had been called “racist, sexist and homophobic”, some of the epithets thrown at UKIP, along with the “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” that PM Cameron used for UKIP supporters.

The split in Canada’s Centre Right enabled the Liberals, Canada’s equivalent of our Labour Party, to take power.

But after ten years of infighting, the Reform revolution succeeded. The Canadian Alliance, a merger of Reform with the ruins of Canada’s old-style Tories, led to former Reform official Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister in 2006.

Farage compared attacks on himself to those on Reform Party leader:

‘They called him a Right-wing extremist, a nutter, away with the fairies, he’ll never get anywhere and what happens? They won one by-election, a schoolmistress way out West, who resisted every bribe and temptation to rejoin the Conservative Party.

‘Now you have a Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was first elected on a Reform ticket, as were half the Cabinet.

‘Don’t think this can’t happen here. The public want something different. We are catalysing a big change in British politics on fundamental issues that have been brushed under the carpet and ignored by a completely out-of-touch career political class for too long.’

In all this euphoria, we mustn’t forget UKIP’s limitation, first of all that the party’s not opposed to Islam. In fact, it even has British parliamentary candidates who openly advocate Sharia law, like Dean Perks:

"Sharia law, in my opinion, works as a prevention. And prevention is better than cure. If you think you're going to get your hands chopped off for pinching something, you won't pinch it."

A UKIP council candidate who tweeted that Islam is "evil" was suspended from the party. Farage distanced himself from his own immigration spokesman, Gerard Batten, who had proposed a special code of conduct in the form of a charter calling on Muslims to accept equality, reject violence and accept the need to modify the Quran, which Muslims had to sign. And in public speeches UKIP leader is careful to limit his comments on Islam to politically correct ones.

Even more tellingly, membership of UKIP is forbidden to current or even previous members of the English Defence League and other groups who are outspoken on the Islamisation of Britain and dare hinder it.

"Earthquake" in the UK

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


"An earthquake" is how the United Kingdom Indepence Party (UKIP) called what happened Thursday 22 May, when all Britain voted to elect its share of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and various parts of the country voted to elect local councils.

While the results of the Euro Elections were not announced until Sunday to wait for the results of the whole European Union, where some countries voted later, the local elections results were known immediately, and were pretty much as Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, described them: an earthquake.

In a country with a three-main-party system (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), the UKIP became firmly established as the fourth party. It didn't gain overall control of any local council, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Labour won 338 more councillors than it previously had, the Conservatives were down 231 councillors, the Liberal Democrats took a bashing losing 307, as many as 40 percent, of their councillors, and UKIP went from 2 to an astonishing 163 councillors, turning from a fringe, tiny party into a serious contender for government.

But it was tonight, at the European Elections, that UKIP got a real triumph. Not only it topped the polls with more votes than all other parties for the first time in its history, but also its victory marked the first time in which a nationally-held election has not been won by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party since 1906.

This historical event upsets all the current paradigms of British politics. For a start, it makes it much more difficult to predict future election results, first of all the 2015 general elections for the British Parliament, the "real" polls that will decide who's going to govern the UK.

A three-party system is easier to understand and forecast than a four-party one. Without UKIP, Labour might have been cast as the next British goverment, benefiting from the dissatisfaction from the supposed "cuts" and "austerity" measures that the present coalition of Tories and LibDems in goverment had to enforce to heal at least in part the ruinously irresponsible economy and welfare policies of the past Labour administration.

Something similar happened in other parts of Europe, hence the BBC's headline "Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU elections", in reference to the parallel result of Marine Le Pen's Front National which won a record victory in France.

Back in the UK, the Liberal Democrats were almost wiped out from the European Parliament, being left with just one MEP of the 11 they previously had. This is Catherine Zena Bearder, standing in the South East, the largest region in the UK, where my party, one-year-old Liberty GB, got 2494 votes.

These results show a clear shift in public opinion towards a decidedly anti-immigration, anti-European-Union stance.

The reaction of the (previously) three main parties and of the liberal media is interesting because it shows that they simply didn't get it.

They cling to justifications, rationalisations, excuses, pedantic nitpicking, like "it hasn't been an earthquake because UKIP has no control of a single council", or "it's just a temporary protest vote, they'll come back to us".

The Lib Dems project onto the UKIP's future what happened to them. They, never genuinely contemplating the possibility of being in government, were ruined by their experience in power, where they didn't keep their utopian promises to the electorate, and in an act of wishful thinking predict that the same will happen to UKIP.

My favourite is the reaction of Labour. Faithful to their Marxist heritage, they explain everything away with the economy. People on the doorstep tell us that they are not concerned about immigration per se, they say, but only about its economic consequences for jobs, wages, housing and so on.

We'll sort these things out, they continue, the usual Labour way, by wasting more of public money and increasing taxes.

They don't realise that no people "on the doorstep" will tell any Labour representative that they don't want immigration for reasons of culture and identity, not just economics, lest they'll be considered racist by the aforementioned Labour person.

And UKIP took votes from all parties, including Labour, whose traditional base of working-class voters got progressively dissatisfied with it.

People who until now voted for the mainstream, Establishment parties - and people who didn't vote at all - have decided to stop being silent and taken action by choosing a party that says many of the things they think but cannot express.

We all take great hope and encouragement from this trend.

It took UKIP 20 years from its foundation to get to this point, and it struggled for recognition for a very long time.

There was a time when a vote for UKIP was considered wasted, but it turned out to be instrumental in putting pressure on the Tories on the issue of leaving the European Union. There will be a time when voting for Liberty GB will put pressure on UKIP on the issue of addressing the threat of Britain's Islamisation, on which Farage's party has so far been persistently silent.

Please Leave Comments on Online Mainstream Media to Make People Vote for Liberty GB Tomorrow

This is the last day before the vote to elect Members of the European Parliament for Britain, and I cannot resist the impulse to urge you all to do what you can to get my great party Liberty GB elected.

We have three candidates, of which I am one.

Liberty GB's great supporter Linda Rivera has asked for indications of online articles where she – and many other supporters like her – can leave comments that will invite people to vote Liberty GB on Thursday.

She also asked for a suitable leaflet she can upload or type in the comments.

This is a last-ditch effort on our behalf for the elections, for which we thank her.

This is the image of our 10-point-plan leaflet.

And here are some relevant Daily Mail and Spectator articles that are accepting comments. Please comment away as much as you can!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634198/Hamza-We-mistake-treating-jailed-hate-cleric-ranter-real-threat-admits-former-chief-prosecutor.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634590/That-took-America-jail-Hamza-damns-politicians-police-MI5.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633074/American-rushes-Sudan-prevent-pregnant-wife-hanged.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/abu-hamza-embodies-britains-self-destructive-madness/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2014/05/exclusive-leading-tory-eurosceptic-calls-for-cameron-to-ditch-net-migration-target/

Great Support for Liberty GB’s Anti-Halal Boycott Subway Day in Woking

The Subway sandwich chain is the target of many international boycotts for a variety of good reasons.

In 2011 in the USA the company gave the Subway Sportsman of the Year Award to the American footballer Michael Vick, a convicted felon who was incarcerated for 18 months (and could have been longer) for spending years torturing and killing animals.

When police raided his house, they found 65 dogs, a dog-fighting pit, blood-stained carpets, and various equipment commonly used in dog fighting, including a ‘rape stand’ in which female dogs are strapped into and restrained, to allow male dogs to breed with them.

According to the federal indictment, when Vick’s dogs lost a fight or didn’t perform well, they were routinely killed by methods like electrocution, hanging, drowning and “slamming” the dog’s body onto the concrete floor. Many dogs were butchered in these ways and Vick took part in the executions.

The company's support for an animal torturer sparked an ongoing boycott of Subway promoted by Facebook pages “liked” by tens of thousands.

As if this weren’t enough, Subway is now showing even more signs of its lack of concern for animal cruelty.

Nearly 200 Subway branches in Britain have decided to serve exclusively halal meat.

Halal meat, derived from animals barbarically slaughtered by having their throats slit without previous stunning and then let bleed to death (which can take several minutes), is allowed as a loophole by British law, which normally requires animals to be rendered unconscious before slaughter.

This exception is permitted in the name of “religious freedom”, but in reality not only there is no moral justification but even no need for such atrocity.

Islam specifically exempts its faithful from the obligation to eat halal food if none is available:

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. Quran (002:173)

In addition to the issue of cruelty to animals, the selling and serving of halal meat to a wide, non-Muslim public goes against the spirit of the legislation consenting to such exceptions to humane slaughter in an animal-loving country like Britain, exceptions which were meant only for the followers of a specific religion.

In particular, for Christians – believers of the faith which is constitutionally and historically the religion of Britain - eating food sacrificed to Allah is idolatry: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols” (Acts 15:29) Also Acts 21:25.

Other religious groups, like Sikhs, are expressly forbidden by their religion from eating meat “killed the Muslim way”.

Last but by no means least, according to Islamic law 2.5% of the money Muslims earn must go to zakat (charity). Of this, 1/8 must finance jihad (holy war), which includes atrocities committed in Muslim-majority countries - like Syria - and terrorism. It wouldn’t be halal (“permitted”) for halal-certification companies not to pay their dues to jihad.

Halal is very topical these days, for the many voices, petitions, organisations, Facebook pages, commentators, quite a lot of MPs, yet more MPs, religious leaders, and the new head of the British Veterinary Association John Blackwell calling for its ban in Britain (following other countries including Switzerland and Denmark) and for a clearer labelling so that people are enabled to make informed choices.

Downing Street said that halal labels will be reviewed. Ministers said that they will consider compulsory labelling for halal meat if there is 'widespread demand' and it is done across Europe.

Against this background, the Liberty GB party - which is contesting the 22 May European Elections in the South East - has joined the boycott of Subway. Saturday 10 May a group of us held a peaceful protest outside one of the 200 Subway restaurants in Britain serving exclusively halal meat - the one in 9 Chertsey Road, Woking, Surrey – and surrounding areas.

We handed out leaflets, displayed placards and discussed with interested members of the public. Talking to people we found that, as always, the halal issue is one over which almost all non-Muslims agree: cruelty to animals should not be tolerated for any reason, and Islamic law, sharia, should not be forced down anyone’s throat, literally or metaphorically.

Enza Ferreri: No More Immigration and Islamisation, Vote Liberty GB



Transcript

Liberty GB, for which I am a candidate, is a new patriotic, conservative party contesting the 2014 European Parliament Elections in the South-East constituency on the 22nd of May.

People sometimes ask us why they should vote for us and not UKIP, adding that a vote for Liberty GB will be a wasted vote.

Let me answer those questions.

I want to start with the BBC’s Question Time programme in Barking of the 6th of March. People’s worries about the alien invasion that part of East London has been subjected to were motivated by “personal perceptions” not corresponding to reality, said Leftist journalist David Aaronovitch.

These days the objective “reality” can only be established by costly studies commissioned by the government or a Leftist university institute. When people hear the words “study”, “report” or “research” they automatically assume that it’s conducted according to scientific principles of investigation.

That unfortunately is not necessarily the case. Many studies are flawed in various ways, especially when they try to arrive at a conclusion which suits the researcher’s ideology or that of the provider of his funds. Take the research done to establish whether immigration affects British housing and employment. These are problems deeply felt in the South East. The question can be answered with a simple arithmetic calculation coupled with a basic knowledge of how the market law of supply and demand works.

Researchers should answer this question instead: how is it possible that huge numbers of new additions to a population in a short time can NOT affect things like housing and employment?

It’s as simple as 2 plus 2 equals to 4. You have, say, an area with accommodation for 1,000 households. In this area live 950 families. Relatively suddenly there’s an influx of other 200 families. Now there are 1,150 households but still 1,000 homes. Demand will far exceed supply, which in turn will drive up prices and increase homelessness.

The only research that is needed is finding out the size of population and the available housing: the rest is deductive logic. Certain consequences are inevitable.

This is so true that even pro-immigration people keep calling for the building of new houses, therefore implicitly admitting that immigration does have an impact on lack of accommodation.

Similar scenario for employment. If, as a simple example, there are on average 100 job seekers for 1 vacancy, the outcome for job seekers will be greatly different than if there are 200. More people competing for the same jobs - same demand for labour force and more supply - means more unemployment and lower wages.

And again, the easy confirmation of this comes from the fact that employers are among the most ardent supporters of immigration, which provides them with ample – and therefore cheaper - workforce.

Of course things tend to be always a bit more complicated, but in this case the complications are small details in a very clear fundamental, overall picture.

During the same Question Time programme, David Aaronovitch called a man we at Liberty GB have christened “the homeless patriot” racist without using the actual word, when he asked him how seeing black faces in the street makes them not your streets any more. Incidentally, the homeless patriot had never uttered the word “black”.

What would Aaronovitch say about the fact that you can walk and use public transport anywhere in London for hours and hardly ever hear a voice speaking English? Does that qualify for those no longer being your streets? I get annoyed by that and I’m not even English-born, I’m Italian – although I’ve lived in London 30 years -, I can imagine what it must feel for English people.

In addition to the number, we have the question of the kind of immigrants. Many of them are Muslim. Most Westerners don’t really know what Islam is and, hearing that it’s a religion, make the natural assumption that it’s something similar to our own experience of a religion: Christianity. They think it’s basically the same thing, just replacing the Bible with the Quran, God with Allah, Jesus with Muhammad.

The reality is very different. Islam is not so much a religion as a political doctrine and system of law and government. Islamic law, sharia, doesn’t constitute just moral commandments as in Christianity but laws of the state.

Divine laws, according to Islam, should replace human, imperfect laws. Everywhere. All over the world. How? By Muslims’ assuming power and domination over the various countries and peoples of the earth. Peacefully if possible, but using force and violence if necessary.

When Muslim leaders and representatives say that Islam is a religion of peace, what they actually mean is that, once all the world is united under Muslim rule, there will be peace. They equivocate, knowing that Western people ignore that.

It doesn’t take much to understand that there is a big difference between self-described followers of a religion – Christianity - committing acts of violence that go against the core precepts of that religion and self-described followers of another religion – Islam - committing acts of violence that they are ordered to perpetrate by that religion.

Britain, when Muslims reach a certain number, will follow the same fate as all other places where they try to impose sharia. And we already see the first signs now.

This takes us back to the original question. What’s wrong with UKIP? UKIP understands the problems of immigration, but doesn’t deal with them effectively. Freezing it for 5 years is not enough.

What about the immigrants already here and their successive generations? UKIP has no answer to that. Liberty GB will deport illegal immigrants, expel foreigners found guilty of imprisonable offences, examine the case of legal immigrants living in Britain since 1997, expel foreign imams and home-grown hate preachers, help repatriations, demand that immigrants assimilate into British life.

UKIP’s website has hardly any mention of Islam, and the party is hesitant in recognising that the problem of the Islamisation of Britain exists. Liberty GB clearly declares in its manifesto that Islam is incompatible with our democratic system, and has many policies dealing with its threat.

On same-sex marriage too, UKIP hasn’t been firm and uncompromising in its opposition as Liberty GB is.

In the past, voting for UKIP was also considered a wasted vote, but it turned out to put pressure on the Tories about leaving the EU. Now, voting for Liberty GB may put pressure on UKIP about immigration and Islam, making its positions more straightforward.

To know more about our policies, visit libertygb.org.uk.

Please support, join, donate to, and most importantly vote Liberty GB. My name is Enza Ferreri. Thank you.

Fox News: In the UK a Radical Imam Has More Respect than a Man Who Saved the Western World



“The Five” political talk show on the American TV channel Fox News discussed the Paul Weston case.

A headline was: “Free speech? British pol arrested for quoting Churchill passage critical of Muslims.”

The panel pointed out that in the US the First Amendment – which guarantees freedom of speech – would have prevented this from happening, whereas in Britain free speech is curtailed to the point that two people could be arrested if someone overhears their private conversation in a pub which he considers of a racist nature and calls the police.

Panellist Greg Gutfeld, remarking on the lack of respect for the British wartime leader in his home country, said: “Now Churchill is seen as another dead white male, and probably racist”. He added that the danger in limiting speech is that you decrease options for outrage, which in turn increases likelihood of violence.

During the programme a clip of an interview on the Canadian channel Sun TV was shown, in which Paul Weston said: “They go out of their way not to arrest anybody from the Islamic community, no matter what awfully dreadful things they get up to, but they will immediately arrest anybody from the non-Muslim side of it who dares to raise his voice in protest about what’s going on. And the reason why they do this is because, if they have to admit that there is a serious problem with Islam, then they will have to do something about it”.

Kimberly Guilfoyle agreed with that sentiment. She said that the UK faces a serious threat of Islamic terrorism – and America is heading that way too – but, as Weston is asserting, the authorities don’t want to deal with the problem.

Juan Williams remarked that, in a multicultural, multi-religious society like Britain, public discussion of the history of Islam should not be forbidden, including its negative aspects, in the same way as it is allowed to criticise in public his own faith: Christianity.

Dutch Foreign Minister Questions about Paul Weston’s Arrest

Two members of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon of the Party for Freedom (PVV), have raised the question of Paul Weston’s recent arrest with the Dutch foreign minister.
Below is the press release sent out today by the PVV.



PVV questions Dutch Foreign Minister about arrest of British politician

Today, Dutch parliamentarians Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon (both PVV) asked the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Frans Timmermans, a number of questions about the arrest of British politician Paul Weston. You can read the questions below:

Parliamentary questions of MPs Raymond de Roon and Geert Wilders (both PVV) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the arrest of a British politician for quoting Winston Churchill:

1. Are you familiar with the articles “Paul Weston — Victim of Sharia: Arrested For Quoting Winston Churchill” and “Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill: European election candidate accused of religious and racial harassment after he repeats wartime prime minister’s words on Islam during campaign speech”?

2. Do you share our opinion that the arrest of the politician Paul Weston is a gross violation of freedom of expression and an example of dhimmi behavior? If not, why not?

3. Do you agree that this event is not unique, but is exemplary for the state of siege surrounding freedom of expression through the rise of Islamic censorship in the West? If not, why not?

4. Is it true that Paul Weston risks a two-year prison sentence due to simply quoting a passage from Winston Churchill’s book “The River War” about the militant character of Islam and the social decline that results from it?

5. Are you willing to contact the British Minister of Justice and insist that no charges be pressed against Paul Weston? If so, will you keep Parliament informed of the British reaction? If not, why not?

6. What are you going to do to ensure that freedom of expression, both domestically and internationally, will not be sacrificed to Islamic intolerance?

7. Are you prepared to draw international attention to the danger that anti-racism laws and criminals laws on defamation of religion and/or groups are abused to silence criticism of Islam?

8. How do you intend to wage the fight for the preservation of freedom of expression, in light of the planned rapprochement to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an organization which aims for an international ban of blasphemy and which attempts to restrict freedom of expression in the West under the pretext of the fight against “islamophobia”?


H/t to Gates of Vienna