Jez Turner — Our Champion Steps into the Arena!
by Max Musson
EDITOR’S NOTE: It is the position of National Vanguard that the interests of other races, and especially Jewish interests, are not only different from White interests, but in many cases directly opposed to them — therefore no multiracial society is healthy or acceptable. The moment the British government, or any government, begins to attempt to “balance the interests” of aliens with those of its own people, is the moment that vile tyranny begins. The fact that this valuable article, in places, appears to accept some of the assumptions of a multiracial British society, is likely due to the extreme restrictions on speech which exist there.
AFTER MUCH DELAY, the trial began this week, on charges of incitement to racial hatred, of the much loved, ebullient and renowned nationalist organiser and speaker Jez Turner, or Jeremy Bedford-Turner, to give him his full name.
This trial is the culmination of a great amount of effort exerted by various influential members of the Jewish community, particularly the so-called ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’, who like most vexatious litigants, seem determined to perform an act of communally ‘shooting themselves’ in the proverbial ‘foot’.
Jez Turner is accused of stirring up racial hatred in a speech he made outside Downing Street in on 4th July 2015. He is alleged to have called for his “soldiers” to rise up against “Jewish control”.
He is alleged to have called to the crowd: “Let’s free England from Jewish control. Let’s liberate this land.
“Listen, soldiers, listen to me. It’s time to liberate our country.”
Jez Turner accepts he made the speech but denies the charge of inciting racial hatred, and it is on this point that he appears to concur with the initial analysis of this case conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS originally examined the allegations against Jez for five months, and decided in December 2015 that a jury was unlikely to convict him of incitement to religious or racial hatred. This was the considered conclusion of their lawyers, who free from political pressure had decided there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an offence had been committed, and this is where a case such as this might ordinarily have been expected to end.
However, certain influential members of the Jewish community, most notably the Campaign Against Antisemitism, were incensed at the allegation that Jews exercise an undue level of influence within our society, and in an act of supreme folly have before the eyes of the nation exercised a startling level of political influence, brow beating the CPS into changing its decision not to prosecute.
We must wonder just how much political influence organised Jewry must have when they can without presenting any new evidence, force a government body like the CPS to reverse a decision that has taken several months of intense consideration to reach?
We should also consider why it is that only recently the judgement of the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has been brought so sharply into question following a wave of allegations of incompetence on the part of her staff and the police?
The Campaign Against Antisemitism litigated to force a judicial review of the CPS decision, and following advice from their barristers, the CPS agreed to reconsider the case, following which their decision not to prosecute was under political pressure humiliatingly reversed.
In an article on the Guardian website in March 2017, it was reported: “The Crown Prosecution Service is reconsidering whether to prosecute a far-right activist for alleged antisemitism on the eve of a highly unusual legal challenge to its decision to let the case drop”. This challenge was indeed ‘highly unusual’ as the Guardian journalist states, and one might suggest is proof if ever it was needed, that Jez Turner’s assertion that Jewish groups exercise great power and influence within our society is undeniably established as fact.
This trial now proceeds, with the full knowledge of the public that the CPS, the body charged by the state with mounting and regulating prosecutions against criminals, did not consider prior to the ‘highly unusual’ pressure exerted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, that there is sufficient evidence to convict Jez Turner, and one must question whether it is in the public interest for a prosecution for incitement to racial hatred to follow from the mere expression of opinions that the plaintiffs themselves expose as arguably if not manifestly true.
This brings us to the heart of this matter which centres around Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the ‘abuse of rights’. This article of the ECHR holds that the assertion of one person’s human rights cannot be used to deny the human rights of another, and what we have in this case is organised Jewry attempting to deny the right of freedom of expression (under Article 10 of the ECHR), by the assertion of the right of Jews ostensibly to freedom from religious or racial hatred.
Obviously if someone expresses views that are manifestly untrue and the effect of which is to unjustly incite racial or religious hatred, such a situation would be against the public interest and one might imagine the courts acting to punish the culprit even though the accused may ostensibly have been exercising their freedom of expression. However where someone expresses views that are arguably or manifestly true, albeit that they might reflect badly upon the members of a racial or religious group, then one would expect the courts to rule that it is in the public interest for the accused to have exercise of his freedom of expression.
This case also raises the issue of the so-called ‘International Definition of Antisemitism’, which is ostensibly the work of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), however the FRA evolved from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which in turn evolved from the EU Campaign Against Racism and Xenophobia (CRX), which was established in 1994 and originally named the ‘Kahn Commission’ after its first Chairman, Jean Salomon Kahn, a French Jewish community leader, human rights activist, and lawyer, President of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France and later President of the European Jewish Congress and Vice President of the World Jewish Congress.
Kahn, who was described in many quarters as the personification of the CRX, so dominant was his role, remained chairman until c. 2000 and beyond having gained agreement from European leaders to morph the CRX into the EUMC in 1998.
It was in 2005 that the EUMC released its “Working Definition of Antisemitism”, in circumstances that caused the then Director of the EUMC, Beata Winkler to resign. Apparently the definition was seen to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism in such a way as to stifle any expression of sympathy with the Palestinian cause. For this reason social justice warrior Winkler could not support it and would not give it EUMC approval.
By all accounts the working definition appears to have been the work of three individuals:
Kenneth Stern, author and attorney in the US and until recently, director of the division on antisemitism and extremism at the American Jewish Committee. He is currently Executive Director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, which campaigns against antisemitism;
Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker of the American Jewish Committee; and
Israeli Professor, Dina Porat.
The so-called ‘International Definition of Antisemitism’ would appear to be more accurately described as a ‘Jewish definition of Antisemitism’ and a definition in which the rights of non-Jews are not balanced against the all-encompassing protections afforded Jews within that definition.
If we examine the ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’, now known as the ‘International Definition of Antisemitism’, we find that:
- It conflates opposition to the policies of the Israeli government with antisemitism;
- It conflates dislike of Judaism with antisemitism;
- It conflates anti-Zionism with opposition to the policies of the Israeli government;
- It conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism and dislike of Judaism; and
- It conflates so-called Holocaust denial with antisemitism and dislike of Judaism.
The confusion this creates is in my view deliberate and intended to stifle any criticism of Israeli government policy or any aspect of Jewish life by conflating any form of criticism of Jews with antisemitism and therefore assumed criminality.
No man is perfect, and similarly no religion, no state, no political ideology and no race of men is perfect, and all should from time-to-time expect to experience critical appraisal by others, and should accept the right of others to express their criticisms even if those criticisms are expressed rudely and considered offensive. No one has the right to expect to go through life without ever being offended at some time or another.
Furthermore, mankind has an expanding population which must be provided for from finite natural resources, and this inevitably means that individuals will be in competition with each other to some extent for those limited resources, just as nations will and the other human groupings, be they religious, ethnic or racial etc., and we cannot have a situation in which one group seeks to criminalise any criticism of them either as individuals or by virtue of their group affiliation. To accept such a situation would be to permit a state of class, ethnic, racial or religious supremacy and to establish in law a permanent state of such supremacy to the detriment of everyone else.
It is not in the public interest therefore that one group of people is established in law as beyond reproach and if one minority group continually finds itself the subject of the antipathy of others, it is a sign that group is behaving in a way that provokes the displeasure of those around them, and the solution to this antipathy will not lie in attempting to criminalise those whose displeasure is being provoked, it lies in the airing of grievances and in honest self-examination so that the source of friction can be identified and if possible curtailed.
The behaviour of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, who are active in conflating the four ways in which antipathy towards Jews can manifest and who are complicit in conflating opposition to the policies of the state of Israel with antisemitism, is the behaviour of people who don’t want to consider the prospect of their own imperfection – who are indifferent to the sensibilities of others — and who instead have as their desired aim a state of supremacy over those others.
Let us hope they fail and let us hope that our champion emerges victorious from the arena, his freedom and his reputation intact!
* * *
Source: Western Spring