Militant rises - Hope not Hate & SutU incite wave of violence against UKIP

If there is one thing we will remember this election for when polling day is gone and the campaign is long forgotten by most, it will be the violence. Mostly unreported, mostly directed towards UKIP, we have seen reports flood in from around the country. Billboards destroyed. Shops and offices vandalised. Activists assaulted. Vehicles damaged. Candidates intimidated. The scale of it has been unprecedented in the UK. And the source of it has been the hard left, even on the handful of occasions when the Labour Party has been the victim, getting called 'Red Tories' in Scotland.

Mark Smith, the Bournemouth UKIP activist assaulted by
5 men attempting to remove a UKIP sign from his garden

In the last 24 hours, we've seen a UKIP poster van in Eastbourne severely damaged in the third attack on the vehicle in 2 weeks. In Plymouth, council officials acting at the behest of foul-mouthed Labour councillor Tudor Evans have harassed UKIP candidates, removing placards and threatening council action. In Bournemouth, a UKIP activist was assaulted by a group of 5 men attempting to remove a UKIP placard from his garden.

These things are not isolated incidents; in fact, they have been brewing for some time. In July 2013 we blogged of a UKIP candidate in Swansea who stood down after his wife's career was threatened by a UNISON rep if he dared to stand for the party. Throughout 2014 and the European elections, we saw a rising tide of vandalism directed against UKIPs poster campaign and against campaign shops and offices. Nigel Farage was assaulted on several occasions - always by people with

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten's London home after it was
attacked with bricks

links to Stand up to UKIP and Hope not Hate - and other candidates and activists also came under violent attack. This included UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, who had a brick thrown through his window at home.

This year, the violence and hate has been even greater. As of 2 weeks ago, over 30 UKIP shops and campaign offices had been attacked, some several times. Ramsgate, Blythe, Folkestone, Kidderminster, Southport, Herne Bay, Wrexham, Penarth - the list goes on, across the country from North to South and East to West.

It is not just UKIP premises which have been targeted. Householders in Lincoln who displayed 'Vote UKIP' banners found their windows put through. People unconnected with UKIP who signed UKIP nomination papers have been harassed and threatened. Potential candidates have been physically intimidated into not standing. A UKIP candidate was forced to withdraw from a local hustings after receiving death threats from Stand up to UKIP. Nigel Farage was harassed by Green Party and Labour activists while eating Sunday lunch in a pub with his family.

What has been the official response to this? Beyond local newspapers, it may as well not be happening. None of the national media has seen fit to report on this wave of political violence, while the police can barely stir themselves to take statements. There have been few if any arrests.

So what is the cause of this?

Hope not Hate and their allies in the equally union-funded, SWP-run 'Stand up to UKIP' campaign must take a significant share of the blame. Neither are 'grass-roots' organisations in the sense that UKIP is - the vast majority of Hope not Hate's funding comes from the big unions: Unison and Unite. They also were in receipt of a significant slice of public funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Hope not Hate claim they do not take part in violence. This may be technically true. But what we have seen on repeated occasions is Hope not Hate activists attending rallies by the far-right, and using their Twitter account to direct the hard-left thugs of UAF towards a confrontation by giving precise

Weyman Bennett of Stand up to UKIP, having his collar
felt once again, but not at an anti-UKIP event

locations of far-right activists in a running commentary. When the inevitable violent clashes occur, HnH stand back and hold their hands up in mock horror. Add to that their hate-filled rhetoric, their demonisation of insignificant UKIP members who have said something they regard as politically incorrect. Labour and Tory candidates invariably have many years of sucking at the public tit before being selected as a candidate for a Parliamentary election during which time they learn the language of empty words and politician-speak. UKIP candidates are builders, housewives, truck drivers and nurses, unused to talking the foreign language used to disguise the true meaning of words so beloved of our professional political class. They say what they think - sometimes in colourful language, sometimes in intemperate language, and rarely in the sort of doublespeak used by those with an elected position to protect. This relentless focus on pensioners who say 'coloured' or 'black' instead of the currently preferred 'BME' (Black & Minority Ethnic, in case you wondered) is not because they have said anything particularly terrible, nor even that they have expressed racist sentiments. It is because the media outcry will deter others from sticking their head above the parapet. It is part of a long-running campaign of intimidation.

We then move on to UAF and their Stand up to UKIP front campaign. Relying on the same funding sources as HnH - the large unions - much of the overt violence has been caused by them. The intolerance of activists such as Bunny La Roche in Thanet South (who now also works for Hope not Hate) has positively incited a core of hard-left activists drawn from an assortment of hard left groups ranging from the Greens to the SWP via International Socialists to take violent action against UKIP. Is there any condemnation from their organisation? From the Labour Party? None. That La Roche is a defender of a racist sexual practise is of no interest to the anti-UKIP brigade.

Thanet South is particularly interesting. After a spate of violent attacks against UKIP activists and properties, there were claims of UKIP activists attacking Labour campaigners while simultaneously claiming they were National Front. A more convenient state of affairs is difficult to imagine, ticking all the right boxes for them to claim victim status. A few blurry photographs and a couple of quotes from professional politician and Labour candidate, the 12 year old Will Scobie, was enough to send the Daily Mirror close to orgasm over 'UKIP violence' with no actual proof whatsoever.

This victimhood was continued in Grimsby, where a Hope not Hate day of action which had already been called into question over claims of 'treating' ended as a damp squib after a mere handful of HnH activists arrived. To cover their embarrassment, claims were made of assaults and intimidation by UKIP supporters to the local newspaper, who ran a story pointing out that despite these claims, Hope

Thanet Green councillor & candidate Ian Driver being
'non-violent' at an anti-UKIP demonstration

not Hate had failed to provide any evidence, and were unable to provide the paper with a crime number despite them claiming the police were investigating.

We should also mention the active participation of the Green Party in this. Those peace-loving bunny huggers have not found themselves averse to a bit of violence against UKIP, as we reported on a few months ago in Penarth where the Green-run 'Stand up to UKIP' campaign refused to take action against a member who threatened to burn down a UKIP shop.

But what responsibility do Labour bear for this? It is ironic that the only violence suffered by Labour has been at the hands of hard-left activists links to the SNP in Scotland, where they label Labour as 'Red Tories'. Across England and Wales, we have not found a single story of a vandalised Labour shop or vehicle. The same applies to the Green Party. The truth is that both parties are quite happy to tacitly condone this: after all, it is their activists who play a large part in it. It is not by accident that

Labour MP Liam Byrne delivering Hope not Hate literature

Hope not Hate's leaflets are in the same colours and style as the Labour Party's, nor that Labour activists frequently double as Hope not Hate ones: their aims and objectives are similar, if not identical. They seek to prevent discussion of the topics which ordinary people outside of the Westminster bubble care about: immigration, Europe, crime, benefits. A visitor from another planet who listened to any Labour Party speech would be forgiven for thinking there was nothing else in the UK apart from a 'weaponised' National Health Service.

Labour and the hard-left are desperate to avoid some difficult questions, and not just for obvious reasons. Unlimited immigration has driven down wages - anyone who gets paid on an hourly basis can tell you that. The problem for Labour is that this has proved of limited benefit even for the migrants, who eventually end up relying on state assistance in some form just to get by. The only people it has proved good for are the large corporates who ultimately fund the Labour Party, and for the Unions, who see a pool of labour from which to draw more members (and who also fund Labour). The hypocrisy of their position on this is quite breath-taking: can anyone recall when the Labour Party and the Unions were supposed to support the British worker rather than consistently undermine him or her?

What is the answer? Some fair, balanced media coverage would be a start, exposing those who would subvert our democratic process in order to silence views they don't like. There appears little chance of that, with the BBC preferring to focus on UKIP trivia and the stupid comments of a handful of individuals rather than report on the 2 Labour candidates convicted of fraud last week.

It is difficult to know where it will end. Chaiman Mao said that 'political power grows from the barrel of a gun', and the hard left, lead by Hope not Hate, the SWP, Labour and the Greens, seem to have taken this to heart. Until they take responsibility for their actions and cease trying to howl down valid political arguments, there seems little chance of a retreat from the violence. None of them seem in any danger of choking on their own hypocrisy, from Bunny La Roche's race play sex to Labour's acceptance of former BNP councillors.

For the Tories, who seem eager to jump into bed with Hope not Hate in their desperation to retain
Thanet South, they should remember one thing: if the hard left succeed, you're next. Be careful what you wish for. MacKinlay's desperation to come first in anything other than a safe ward handed to him as a prize for defecting from UKIP should not blind the Tories to the dangers welling on the hard-left.

HnH supports Human Rights Day by continuing the fight to suppress the rights of opponents

A reasonable Hope not Hate protester standing up for freedom
of speech and human rights. The right to thump coppers.

While Hope not Hate and their supporters may not see the irony, HnH owner Nick Lowles blog is full of information on how his organisation is supporting Human Rights Day for the United Nation's Declaration of Universal Human Rights. It is ironic that many countries consider the UDHR to be 'racist' in the sense that it imposes western values on nations where such values and beliefs are not culturally accepted. Who'd have thought that Lowles, Smeeth and all would be supporters of cultural imperialism? Muslim states do not recognise the UDHR as it is considered un-Islamic, and instead support the 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam', while Asian states support the Bangkok Declaration on Human Rights because the UDHR's western bias fails to take account of Asian values. Nick Lowles and Hope not Hate supporting something seen as racist? Fancy that.

Still, as he himself says, "Everything we do at HOPE not hate, every ounce of support we seek, is cemented by our faith in the universality of human rights." To celebrate the day, Hope not Hate have continued to do their best to infringe the human rights of everybody who doesn't agree with their point of view, something they do each and every day.

HnH's beliefs include the right to use violence to
suppress political ideas they don't agree with

Hope not Hate's entire campaign against UKIP is based on attempting to suppress the freedom of speech of anybody who dares disagree with their hard left ideology. Needless to say, the right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the pre-amble of the Declaration. When internet campaigns aren't sufficient, there's always the bully boys of UAF and the SWP to hand to take practical action on Hope not Hate's behalf and suppress dissenter's human rights just a little bit more.

We could remind him that using individuals as pawns in his attacks upon UKIP are contrary to Article 12 of the Declaration, which states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Tell that to the private individuals his organisation is happy to label as Nazis just because they don't share his views. Still, they're all grist to his propaganda mill.

Then there is Article 19, which states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

The Human Right to hit people over the head with placards
if you don't agree with their views - one of HnH's key principles

this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." This right only applies if you agree with Nick and Hope not Hate. If you have a different opinion, be prepared for a bunch of unwashed, hard left activists to descend upon you and troll your social media.

And we shouldn't forget Article 20, which states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.". Unless you're attending a UKIP meeting, when the same unwashed, Hard Left activists will turn up and harass you with the intention of preventing the meeting taking place. If you're really lucky, Hope not Hate's UAF allies will respect your human rights by hitting you over the head with a placard or throwing eggs at you.

What we find most sad is that Lowles can trot out his 'everything we do is in support of human rights' without any sense of irony. We can only suppose that the hypocrisy is so deeply ingrained amongst his organisation and its supporters that they no longer bother with facts or reality. There is a danger in believing in your own propaganda though, and we can only remind him of Noam Chomsky's words - "Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to the totalitarian state".

Senior Labour Party figures Miliband and Ummuna closely associated to man with links to 'Britain First'

A 'Mr Robinson', happily posing with
Britian First candidate

Senior figures within the Labour Party including leader Ed Miliband and shadow Business Secretary Chukka Ummuna had been repeatedly photographed engaged in earnest discussion with a man known to associate with far-right group 'Britain First'.

Left wing commentators and campaign groups showed their outrage by not saying anything, and threatened to protest at such outrageous behaviour by not highlighting it in any way and by not flagging up the connection on their blogs at all.

Labour shadow business secretary clearly
associating openly with 'Mr Robinson'
despite his far-right links

Neither Miliband nor Ummuna had any comment to make on photographic evidence that they had repeatedly been seen in public with a Mr Nick Robinson, the political editor of the BBC, despite recent photographic evidence that he was in a 'selfie' photograph with the deputy leader of Britain First and their candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election Jayda Fransen.

Mr Robinson, 51, of North London, has a long history of talking to people involved with politics, and has previously spoken to Nick Griffin, former leader of the BNP.

Self-appointed 'anti-fascist' leader of Hope not Hate Nick Lowles has remained strangely silent on the subject, despite earlier tweets during the by-election campaign demanding to know "Why are UKIP campaigners having photograph taken with Britain First candidate in Rochester today?" after Fransen 'ambushed' them for a picture. At the time, Lowles

Labour leader Milliband and Robinson

rubbished claims that they did not know who Fransen was, and said it was 'clear proof of a link between UKIP and Britain First'.

We asked Hope not Hate whether Robinson's photograph was clear proof of a link between the Labour leadership, the BBC and Britain First based on exactly the same logic, but their press officer put the phone down without responding. We also e-mailed the question to Mr Lowles, but on attempting to e-mail again 12 hours later after he had failed to respond, discovered that they had blocked our e-mail address. We were going to contact both the BBC and the Labour Party with the same question, but then remembered that we weren't Nick Lowles, and that drawing conclusions based upon photographs taken out of context was absurd, stupid and the sort of puerile childish behaviour one expects from an anti-UKIP organisation.

What is the point of an anti-fascist organisation if there are no fascists?

Our attention was recently drawn to yet another anti-UKIP campaign ahead of the European Elections in May of this year.

This one would appear to be another UAF/SWP/HnH front. Carefully hosted overseas and using privacy to hide the true owners behind anonymous hosting companies in California it trots out pretty much the rubbish you'd expect.

One phrase which was interesting was this:

"Such a climate of racist and reactionary ideas also creates a fertile breeding ground for fascist organisations, such as the British National Party and the English Defence League."

Which rather flies in the face of experience. In fact, since the rise of UKIP began, we have seen the collapse of both the BNP and the EDL. UKIP have achieved more in the past year than Hope not Hate, Unite Against Fascism and the Socialist Worker's Party have in a decade in combatting the far-right by proving themselves a moderate, non-racist party which still stands up for Britain.

This of course is the reason UKIP now faces such ire from the hard left, and explains the increasingly violent methods they are using to combat UKIP. For Nick Lowles, Martin Smith, Weyman Bennett and the rest, their opposition to fascism was only skin deep and nothing more than a vehicle for their own wider political views which were no more or less fascist than those of their opponents. All of them occupy that strange position where the extremes of political right and left meet and onlookers can no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the men.

The real problem - and the reason for setting up UKIP as a party of the hard right when it is clearly nothing of the sort - is that there is little point in having an anti-fascist organisation if there is no fascism to fight. Hope not Hate is not a campaign, it is a multi-million pound business masquerading as one. The SWP is not a political movement, it is a shelter for rapists and a natural home for those who would destroy that which they can not possess. In both cases, it lends to people who would otherwise be non-entities a feeling of empowerment, of strutting self-importance which far exceeds their true abilities. Nick Lowles, a failed journalist. Ruth Smeeth, who lost a safe Labour seat and can't get voted onto the Labour NEC despite repeated attempts. Martin Smith, a rabble-rousing rapist who has been temporarily shunted out of sight. Weyman Bennett, who has multiple criminal convictions. These are not people who would otherwise be destined for stellar careers, these are the also-rans who cling to the prominence their failing organisations have given them.

We should not mistake their continued attacks for continued success on their part. They themselves are well aware of how thin the rope is on which their survival depends. With recent polls showing that UKIP is the most favourably viewed party in the country the hard left campaigns are in a tail spin: the public no longer believe their shrill hysteria.

Make no mistake, the European Elections are probably more important to these hard left campaign groups than they are to UKIP. At the moment, the traditional political parties - Labour, Tories and Lib Dems - are pinning their hopes on HnH and the rest doing their dirty work for them. With the Lib/Lab/Cons having no clear idea about how to stop UKIP, they are happy to sub-contract the dirty work to the hard left and never mind the ideological differences: the violent intimidation of geriatric UKIP campaigners, the assault of elected UKIP members, the graffiti-ing and theft from UKIP offices.

The real problems for Lowles, Smith, Smeeth and Bennett begin if UKIP garners a large percentage of the vote on the 22nd May. If 30% of the country support UKIP, will the political establishment continue to fund and tacitly support their organisations, or will they realise such campaigns to be counter-productive? You can not after all ask for 30% of the population to vote for you if you have spent the last year telling those same people that they're extremist racists, even if you have done it by proxy.

Naturally, such groups have other purposes. So far they have constrained debate on a wide range of subjects. Doubt whether global warming theories have a sound scientific basis? Heretic. Wonder whether mass immigration is good for the working class? Fascist. Think increased benefit payments may encourage indolence? Capitalist pig-dog lackey.

Be prepared over the coming months to have everything including the kitchen sink thrown at UKIP by these unaccountable rich-man's toys. For the traditional parties, the stakes are high, but for HnH/SWP/UAF it is their very existence which is at stake: if UKIP polls well, they will be discarded without a second thought. Lowles, Smeeth, Bennett and Smith will be queuing up next to Griffin, Brons, Robinson and Carroll at the jobcentre.

HnH incites violence against immigrants

It was instructive to watch the Hope not Hate Twitter feed earlier on today. With Jobbik set to hold a meeting in London - originally in Holborn, but moved to Speaker's Corner at Hyde Park - Hope not Hate were busy providing a blow by blow account of how many people were present, exactly where they were, what the police presence was like, and how and where they were moving.

It is difficult to guess what the point of this is if it is not to cause - or at least enable - violent opposition. There is a certain irony here given that most of those attending were Hungarian immigrants to the UK: Jobbik leader Gabor Vona's visit is ostensibly to speak to the large Hungarian population in the UK ahead of forthcoming elections in Hungary.

So what else could be the point of this and other such detailed tweets? Hope not Hate are not a rolling news provider, and the precise location of far-right activists on a minute by minute basis is hardly news in any case: these are demonstrations and meetings which would draw a limited audience at best. As we have seen previously in Woolwich and elsewhere, the object of the exercise is solely to draw 'anti-fascist' activists onto those Hope not Hate decides to be far right while being able to decry responsibility for the resulting violence.

In the past, this has not made a huge difference. It is fair to say that a significant proportion of the 'far-right' were nearly identical to their anti-fascist enemies: thugs spoiling for a fight. The question must be at what point does this spill over into mainstream politics?

We have already seen Green Party councillor Ian Driver taking part in a violent protest against UKIP in Margate earlier this month. That Driver has close links to the Socialist Workers Party, Unite Against Fascism and Hope not Hate is indisputable. We also reported on our Facebook page about moves by the SWP, UAF, HnH and the Labour Party to actively campaign against UKIP in this year's European Elections, not under a party banner, but anonymously with placards designed in UKIPs colours. Given the links between these self-proclaimed anti-fascists and their use of fascist tactics, how long will it be before we see a repeat of Margate's violence, but directed specifically against the demographically older UKIP membership and activist base?

That it is coming is almost beyond argument. We have seen situations bordering on violence at several other events, including Hove. These intimidatory actions make a poor substitute for reasoned argument or debate, but Hope not Hate are not without form in this: their own 'director of intelligence' Matthew Collins is a former NF thug with a record by his own admission of beating up elderly ladies.

Hope not Hate's guiding ethos according to their website is their opposition to racism and fascism. With UKIP's membership increasingly comprising settled immigrants to the UK from many former British colonies, their continued targeting of UKIP appears increasingly absurd: how long before their braying band of supporters finds itself chanting 'UKIP scum off our streets' to a primarily Asian or Caribbean UKIP meeting?

As for the fascism, the idea of destroying political meetings with violence is nothing new. It happened in Soviet Russia. It happened in Nazi Germany. It happens around the world now, in Ukraine, in Turkey, in North Africa, in Zimbabwe. The common thread is the fascism not of the meetings, but those who would break them up.

It hardly needs saying that UKIP is not the far right. UKIP is a moderate, democratic party. Do people who belong to UKIP say stupid things from time to time? Yes, of course they do. The difference is that while UKIP removes them immediately, there are plenty of instances of homophobia, mocking of the mentally ill, threats of violence and even racism on Hope not Hate's own Facebook page as detailed on this blog many times. Hope not Hate regularly censor their own page: in a recent debate about Nigel Farage's comments about gun control, they carefully removed comments which pointed out that they had nothing to do with racism or fascism and that Hope not Hate was exceeding its stated remit in attacking on straight political grounds. It left behind multiple comments from people encouraging others to use a gun on Mr Farage.

Goebbels - Morphett learns his lessons well, while claiming to hate fascism.

Regular readers will not be surprised to discover yet more hypocrisy from Hope not Hate. Their latest 'Purple Rain' article sees an attack on UKIP councillor Victoria Ayling for comments made in a video while she was a Conservative Party member. In 2008. Still, not a reason to not attack UKIP, eh? And Hope not Hate are having their coffers surreptitiously replenished by both Lord Ashcroft for the Tories and Lord Mandelson for Labour, so neither of them are fair targets regardless of what they do. There is a certain irony however as even as they attack Ms Ayling for using her right to freedom of speech, they are complaining about the possibility of themselves being gagged.

Extremism in action - How dare Ayling suggest she has freedom of speech?

Righteous anger - how dare the government try to halt our campaign against freedom of speech?

 

Still, nobody said their campaign had to be consistent or make sense, did they? Carl Morphett has learned the lessons of Goebbels well for somebody who professes to hate fascism.

 

 

“That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.”

― Joseph Goebbels 

Hope not Hate's actions define them as more fascist than their opponents

A comment by Andy Lovie on my Facebook recently set me to thinking more widely about Hope not Hate's tactics with respect to UKIP.

For those of you who don't recall, Mr Lovie was 'outed' by Hope not Hate in cleverly written piece which implied far more than it actually said in order to avoid libel action. Mr Lovie's supposed crime was that he appeared on the BNP's leaked membership list from 2009.

Andy Lovie - dared to speak to a
former BNP activist

Now, I don't know Mr Lovie personally - he is a Facebook friend whose posts I view occasionally, but that is it. I can't say that I've ever seen him post anything which could be considered either racist or fascist: I've only ever seen from him the sort of thing one would expect a middle-ranking UKIP activist and sometime branch officer to post. His interests are wide-ranging, and he shows a genuine concern for the world.

I don't know if Mr Lovie was ever a member of the BNP. Yes, his name appears on their list and is marked 'activist'. And yet Lancaster Unity, in a commentary on the lists at the time they first appeared, clearly stated that

"Some of the additions to the list are as recent as September of this year, indicating that some of the members listed - though how many is anyone's guess - are not in fact members at all."

While even Wikileaks, who first published it stated

"It should not be assumed that every person with a BNP membership number is a current member of the BNP," the site says. "For instance, journalists and opponents have sometimes joined the BNP to obtain information about it."
This is certainly true, not least because there are at least 6 names which are not real people at all, and whose addresses are fronts for either the UAF (2) or Hope not Hate/Searchlight (4). There are probably more whom we are not familiar with. Mr Lovie categorically denies having been a member of the BNP, and does not know how his name came to appear on their list. He would not be the only person caught in such a situation.

Hope not Hate did allow Mr Lovie a 'right of reply', but then heavily annotated his response to ensure

Carl Morphett - regularly associates with
former BNP activists

that it lacked continuity and that their point of view would prevail. As if to prove their case, they accuse Mr Lovie of discussing the matter online with a former BNP activist, Steve Thompson. The fact that the author Simon Cressy (more properly Carl Morphett) regularly speaks to former far-right thug and HnH employee Matthew Collins is an irony not mentioned, and is hardly proof that Cressy/Morphett is himself of the far-right.

Sadly for Mr Lovie, he is just the latest victim in a long line of UKIP personnel subjected to these intimidatory tactics. We recently saw a UKIP councillor paraded across Hope not Hate's pages: his crime? He was in hospital and missed a council tax payment by 4 days - the council subsequently summonsed him for non-payment. We have seen a prospective UKIP candidate's wife's career threatened by a local union official if her husband dared to stand for UKIP.

We can also add to this mix the hacking of UKIP member's social media and e-mail accounts, the photoshopping of screen grabs and the repeated jumping on out of context or poorly phrased quotes from largely elderly UKIP members.

The point? It is quite straightforward. It is using the tactics of Nazi Germany to intimidate people into not sticking their heads above the parapet and supporting or standing for UKIP. As thriller writer John Lescroarts said, “The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies.” - which seems to fit Hope not Hate rather well.

Thus we see nothing about Labour racism, so ably demonstrated by the formerly ruling group on Harrow council, and yet god help an aged UKIP councillor who - respectfully but mistakenly - uses the word 'coloured'. We see Mr Lovie crucified because his name appears on a list which even their allies deem inaccurate in an article written by a close associate of a former NF thug. We see a UKIP councillor who was mistakenly summoned smeared, while there is no mention of the hundreds of Labour councillors who don't just miss a payment but refuse to pay their council tax at all - see our Facebook page for details.

If anyone can imagine a closer fit for Lescroarts quote than Hope not Hate, we have yet to see it.

HnH's UNISON funders threaten UKIP candidate's wife, force withdrawal from election

I was looking through the list of local council by-elections today and was surprised that only one of the by-elections listed for today had a UKIP candidate. I then came across the following post in relation to the Swansea Llamsamlet ward by-election on the English Elections website forum written by the person who would have been the local election agent:

"The reason that there is no UKIP candidate in the Llansamlet election is because the intended candidate pulled out the day before nominations closed .... after his wife mentioned in work .... that her husband was thinking of standing for UKIP.

She claims that she was visited by the workplace UNISON rep who advised her that it would be the end of her career enhancement prospects if he stood."

Unduly influencing an election (or intention of the same) is an offence under S115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and is punishable by up to a year imprisonment.

Readers may recall that last night's Bury 'Let's talk about UKIP' Hope not Hate meeting was hosted by a UNISON rep, and that UNISON is a major funder of HnH.

When HnH talk about free speech, democracy and freedom from fascism, this is what they mean.

Follow us on Twitter @nopenothope for updates

Bury Hope not Hate meeting (attendance 7) - Report by Ian Upton

"We have been asked to make clear that Ian Upton is not associated with the EDL. This occurred while merging two serarate accounts of the meeting we received. We apologise for any inconvenience this misunderstanding may have caused"

Many thanks to Ian Upton who attended last night's Hope not Hate meeting in Bury and provided us with the following report.

Report of Hope not Hate 'Let's talk about UKIP' meeting

The Met, Bury, July 3rd 2013

The meeting was chaired by Jason Hunter, a Unison union rep from Burnley.

The meeting began with the speaker stating that police were in attendance because the EDL were on their way. They were surprised to discover that the EDL was already present and wearing a suit, sitting quietly and respectfully at the back.

I asked if the Hope not Hate organisation had lost its way somehow in defining which type of hate it supported and which type of hate it didn't ? Out of the 7 people who attended the two obvious UAF at the front really couldn't help themselves when talking of fascists and shouted over everyone from the front, quite embarrassing really when you consider myself (and the Bolton EDL Organiser) were very reserved and there to ask questions and challenge the views.

The meeting attempted to stereotype all EDL and UKIP members as fascist or racist. It was quite clear that  the outcome was already decided: UKIP would become a target. They were unable to grasp the notion that because a handful were racist it did not mean that all were, and were unable to answer the contrary point: Stuart Hall was a paedophile and a Labour Party member, did that therefore mean all Labour Party members were paedophile?

One female attendee stated that all Manchester EDL were 'uneducated' because of how they look, before claiming racism because she had a conversation (presumably with an EDL or UKIP member) with a person once who spoke of 'Asians' generally and stereotypically. She did not appear to grasp the irony.

She was followed by a soon to be standing Labour MEP candidate who couldn't help but mention that the only time she had received abuse was when she was knocking on doors on a "council estate" because the family had the audacity to challenge Labour past record and poor performance in government in effect nearly bankrupting the county. It's interesting to see Labour candidates disdain for what used to be their core voters and the very mention of their residence being "council" shows there own inherent stereotyping and class distinction.

I am more certain than ever that the far left and those in these organisations have an embedded interest in ignoring the facts and in being selective in what they see as hatred.

In Hope not Hate's campaign the hatred that comes from "Islamic Terrorists" to put it in the speakers words does not matter, and  nor does it matter that their own colleagues (Union Reps) who are supposed to be representative of all society in the workplace abuse the general public. If they say someone is Racist then it must mean it is true without being challenged or questioned.

The left don't like being challenged and what went down in Bury certainly showed that the inherent vision and determination to label and target without separation certainly clouds the judgment of these organisations

In other words, the meeting was identical to other HnH anti-UKIP meetings: the outcome was predecided, the attendance was laughably low, they attempted to prevent any who disagreed with their views from attending, and it consisted of the far-left repeating the same old stereotypes and platitudes about UKIP.

I'm sure readers will join me in thanking Ian for the excellent report. Similar reports are always welcome from other HnH meetings!

The respectful desecrators and a history of HnH and UAF disinformation

On our Facebook page this morning we covered the South Wales Argus' story about a racist attack on

Hate slogans carefully daubed while flowers and borders
remain undamaged and unmolested?
A strange sort of hate crime.

Muslim graves in Newport's Christchurch Cemetery overnight on Saturday. Graves in an area set aside for Islamic burials were daubed with 'Lee Rigby Murder', 'BNP', 'NF', 'UKIP', 'Kill the Muslim Pakis' and swastikas.

Our first thought was what a disgraceful thing it was to do.

Our second - who was responsible? - got us to thinking.

The picture shows that while the graves were daubed with paint, flowers, plants and solar lights mounted on the graves were all intact and unmolested, and in the image shown (above) the graffiti artists appear to have painted around the flowers on the headstone rather than apply a hefty kick to free up space. It is a pretty remarkable hate crime indeed where the perpetrators daub violent slogans and yet appear to have set out to do as little damage as possible: surely if you're desecrating a grave and you really mean it, you'd kick it to pieces as well? Nice, well brought up middle class vandals, perhaps? At least - unlike most 'far right' graffiti - it is all spelt correctly.

Then there are the omissions. The graffiti mentions the BNP, NF and UKIP and yet fails to mention either the EDL or its Welsh equivalent, the WDL. Coming just hours after the high profile arrest of Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon and Carroll in London, it struck us as strange that only political parties were mentioned rather than the rather more high profile groups who had been making news headlines all that day. An extension of these thoughts is that UKIP bars anyone associated with the other two groups - or any other far-right group - from membership, while the BNP & NF have a mutual loathing for each other which far outweighs their loathing for Islam. The idea that someone would paint the names of the three organisations as a gesture of support is absurd, given that the BNP and NF regards UKIP as 'race traitors'. A much more likely scenario is that it is an outrage designed to link UKIP and the far-right, which makes it unlikely to have been carried out by anyone on the far-right.


 Richard Purssell (l)
and Dan Cole (r) - both
allegedly UAF activists

There is also the location of the cemetery. Christchurch cemetery is relatively remote, separated from the nearest houses by the M4 motorway and in a relatively rural and difficult to reach location. This was not some midnight drunken prank: carting paint and brushes to such a location required some thought and advance planning rather than a spur of the moment decision, otherwise how would the correct graves be found in the middle of the night out of the many thousands there? How would the slogans be daubed so carefully without torches, and if it was done by torchlight, how come there is no sign of accidental trampling of flowers or other ornaments unless great care was taken?

This brought us back to thinking of several other recent events. On Saturday, we had two UAF supporters dressed as EDL members attacking the EDL leaders on their publicity stunt. Initial reports and tweets from UAF and Hope not Hate indicated that the 'far right were fighting amongst themselves': there has been little reporting of the assailants since. If reports on far-right websites are true the assailants were UAF activists Richard Purssell and Dan Cole dressed in what has become the unofficial uniform of the EDL.



Wood was cleared by a police investigation of making these
statements - they were either made on a duplicate account
or were photoshopped.

This in turn lead us to think about the story of Alex Wood, the UKIP candidate who was splashed across the front page of the Daily Mirror allegedly giving a Nazi salute. With his left hand. He was also alleged to have made comments about Africans living in mud huts, and to have admitted that the picture was of him making a Nazi salute. Hope not Hate devoted considerable time to attacking his claim that his account was hacked, and yet a police investigation subsequently discovered that Wood had not in fact made either statement, and that alleged screenshots in his name appeared to have been created either on a duplicate account created by somebody using his name, or to have been photoshopped. While the original discussion that took place on-line on the Hope not Hate Facebook page appear to have been removed, it is interesting to note that what remains of HnH's participation is hedged by 'allegedly' and 'apparently':

Note the use of the word 'apparently'

We have been unable to find another example where Hope not Hate while condemning the web postings of someone they claim to be far-right hedged their libel bets in such a way. The suggestion must be that 'Simon Cressy' - a pseudonym for HnH staffer Carl Morphett - had some idea that the quotes were not genuine, and yet was prepared to use them anyway. Wood may well prove to be guilty of other offences through his association with failed Tory candidate Joshua Bonehill, but on these, he appears to be innocent, the victim of a 'frame up' which Hope not Hate appeared aware of and yet chose to ignore.

If those who at first glance appear responsible for these actions were not behind them, the question must be 'Cui bono', or who benefits?

It is not difficult to imagine that the pictures of 'UKIP' scrawled on an Islamic grave alongside a swastika will appear in Labour Party election literature, and quite possibly in Lib Dem and Plaid Cymru as well, and even the Tories wouldn't surprise us.

Alex Wood was used by the Daily Mirror (who part fund Hope not Hate along with a number of trades unions) and Hope not Hate just before polling day in the local elections once it became clear that Labour were also suffering badly at the hands of UKIP.

It would appear that the 'beneficiary' of these actions though is primarily Labour. There are undoubtedly ties between senior Labour Party figures and the 'hard left' anti-fascist groups, including HnH and UAF. And as HnH features the Newport story on their webpage, we see the first of the 'dog-whistle' political comments appear:




From Hope not Hate's facebook page
 

Sarah Evans also operates a blog, just in case you thought this was a random comment from a concerned member of the public - Sarah Evans Labour - and was the Labour Party candidate for North West Hampshire in the 2010 general election. She frequently features Hope not Hate on her blog.

So who is responsible? We suspect we'll never know. There are unlikely to be any arrests, but already we see Labour Party activists using the attack to make political capital. It is not difficult to imagine that whoever was behind the desecration has some ties to the anti-fascist movement. Such fascist tactics are increasingly a part of their repertoire.

Only one surprise in an entirely predictable day

There has been an air of predictability about today.

 

EDL leaders Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon were arrested for attempting to deviate from the route set by the police for their 'charity walk'. This was after a pair of UAF activists assaulted Carroll - there is no indication as to whether the UAF pair were also arrested. Carroll and Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon both protested their innocence despite having set out to be arrested in the first place. They then bizarrely claimed that the police were enforcing 'Sharia law'.

Elsewhere, EDL activists laid a wreath at the place where Lee Rigby was murdered before predictably decamping to the local pub.

While all this was happening, Hope not Hate kept up a running commentary. Not just any old running commentary, but one designed to lead UAF activists directly to the EDL, as can be seen from the following messages from their Facebook feed.

Predictably, the whole thing has been a farce. The EDL's poorly organised attempt to hijack Armed Forces Day has distracted attention from what should be a day celebrating the military. The presence of UAF, and their assault on Carroll and Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon served to give their attempts publicity it didn't deserve. Between the two organisations, they managed to tie up a huge number of police resources to achieve precisely nothing.

Meanwhile, Hope not Hate were busy stirring the pot for all they were worth, with such detailed information - which added nothing to the news value of what they were supposed to be 'reporting' - clearly designed to lead to a violent confrontation.

The saddest thing about it all is that we are sure all three organisations are sat back feeling quite proud of what they have 'achieved' today.

Possibly the only unexpected thing to happen today came from a Hope not Hate posting in the
discussion following the last screen capture above. It would appear that Hope not Hate are just as much in favour of bombing Muslims in the Middle East as sections of the EDL are of beating them up in the UK. We are informed that Matthew Collins - the ex far right thug now employed by HnH - was in charge of their Facebook postings today. Perhaps old habits die hard?

 
 

HnH meetings statement 'simply not true'

News reaches us that Hope not Hate have put out a statement regarding their cancelled and rescheduled meetings, including the one in Basildon which Nick Lowles scarpered from. It reads:

Nick Lowles -
HnH statement is a lie

"Some news : Hope Not Hate meetings are not being rescheduled or cancelled they are taking place at venues known to the people that actually want to participate in democratic discussion. The people like EDL/SEA/NWI etc have been given false information and sent on wild goose chases"

Once again, this is not just stretching the truth, spinning the story a bit or exaggerating the facts. It is an absolute, outright lie.

At the Basildon meeting, a handful of HnH supporters were simply abandoned when HnH called the venue shortly before the meeting was due to start and cancelled it. The police who were present - who had been called by HnH - also confirmed that that was the only meeting, and they knew of no other venue. Even the few HnH supporters there knew of no other venue, and simply went home.

The simple truth is that Lowles does not want democratic discussion. He wants his consultation exercise to deliver the verdict he has already decided on - to attack UKIP - with no dissent, and has realised the best way to achieve this is to have public meetings whose sole attendees are carefully selected representatives of the Labour Party and the large trades unions who also happen to fund his organisation.

If he wants to see how to hold a proper democratic meeting, UKIP Basildon and Thurrock have a public meeting this evening, and you can be certain that the local committee won't up and scarper if people who disagree with them turn up. They'd even welcome Mr Lowles, and give him an opportunity to have his say even if they disagreed with him. That's democracy, not his gerrymandered meetings which are designed to exclude the working class.

Ban on 'fascist street thuggery' should include UAF and AntiFA

Hope not hate today published the comments of Colin Inglis, former head of the Humberside Police Authority.

Inglis called the EDL 'fascist street thugs', and called for a ban following an event in Hull which saw 10 people arrested. All ten were protesting the event, and none were associated with the EDL.



The worst of the EDL........

We make no secret of our views of sections of the EDL. While the vast majority of people who support them are decent, law abiding folk there is undeniably an element who are exactly what Inglis calls them. Fascist street thugs. We have no time for them.

At the same time, Inglis seems to have lost sight of the fact that all 10 arrested in Hull were from UAF or another of Hope not Hate's allies. At a recent EDL march in London, the majority of those arrested were also UAF.

...are no worse than the leaders of UAF. Just shabby
street thugs and fascists. The difference is that Hope not Hate
approve of UAF violence. Pictured here (centre) is
Martin Smith, SWP rapist and UAF organiser.

If Hope not Hate are going to call for a ban on 'fascist street thugs', they could do worse than looking much closer to home than the EDL. Their own associates and fellow travellers are no less fascist street thugs than the worst elements of the BNP and EDL.

The question is whether Lowles will also condemn his allies in the UAF, SWP and Anti-Fascist Alliance? Do Hope not Hate believe that violence on the streets is fine as long as those committing the acts of violence are their allies? Do Hope not Hate - and Inglis - advocate the advancement of political aims by the use of violence and intimidation so long as they agree with the cause?

We already know the answer, of course. Just yesterday, when UKIP leader Nigel Farage accused the Anti Fascist Alliance in Scotland of being 'as bad as the EDL', there were howls of rage from Lowles and his mates, who feel they should have an exclusive right to bring violence to the streets of our nation. With that sort of attitude, it is easy to confuse two particular people called 'Nick' - they are beginning to sound the same, and they are both hypocrites of the first order.

HnH cancel meeting to avoid democratic opposition

Hope not Hate's public meeting in Basildon yesterday evening descended into farce when they failed to turn up for their own party. In fact, such was the willingness of Hope not Hate to indulge in democratic debate that before cancelling they called the police who sent a van along. This is hardly what could be called 'Standing up for HOPE'.

The George Hurd Centre, Basildon

Roughly a dozen people opposed to Lowles views turned up to take part in his public 'consultation' meeting about how to deal with UKIP only to hear from staff at the George Hurd Centre that the meeting had been cancelled. They waited for 30 minutes or so after the meeting was due to start, but no other members of the public turned up. As with the Warrington meeting last week, apathy for Lowles party political stance seemed to be the order of the day amongst the residents of Essex, who stayed away in their droves.

To our knowledge, there was no threat of violence to Lowles or his associates at the meeting. The problem was not the threat of violence, but the threat of opposition to the pre-determined outcome of Lowles consultation exercise which brought about the cancellation.

Just so we are crystal clear on this, we believe that Nick Lowles and Hope not Hate have every right to hold public meetings. They have every right to exercise their right to freedom of speech, without fear for their safety or that of anybody attending, and we have always urged that anyone attending to oppose his organisation should be polite, respectful and calm. Perhaps Lowles could take a lesson from our stance and ask the same of his 'anti-fascist' allies? If there were threats, then we deplore them, just as we deplore the threats of his allies in the UAF and Anti-Fascist Alliance.

The cancellation of the meeting saved Lowles from having to
justify his anti-democratic position in front of a
disapproving audience. So much for having the courage of
his convictions.

With that said, we would also remind Lowles and Hope not Hate that democracy means that people will disagree with you. We would remind them that if they want to involve themselves not in fighting fascism and racism but in playing at party politics at the behest of their Labour paymasters, they can not expect a free ride. They can not expect their usual hand picked audiences who agree politely (but with true revolutionary fervour) to what has already been decided by Lowles, who after all owns Hope not Hate Ltd.

In case the contrast should be missed, Nigel Farage returned to Scotland yesterday ahead of the Aberdeen Donside by-election. There, Hope not Hate allies the 'Anti-Fascist Alliance' ensured the cancellation of UKIP events by telephoned threats of violent protest to police and venues. Despite this, Farage was keen to proceed with his scheduled events, and was more than happy to take on protesters in debate. One protester was arrested for assault on a UKIP official after losing a debate with Farage. Such is the power of their arguments and their belief in democracy.

Breivik and Adebolajo, and Hope not Hate's hypocritical stance

In 2009, a group calling itself 'Stop Islamification of Europe' announced a protest at the then new Harrow Central Mosque in Harrow, Middlesex. The protest was subsequently announced on the EDL's Facebook pages, although it was never clear whether the EDL intended to take part themselves. As soon as the protest was announced, UAF announced a counter-protest to take place at the same time.

In all the fuss over who and how many were attending, one important voice was lost. Haroon Sheikh, the Mosque chairman - speaking of both demonstration and counter-demonstration - said, "We would request that the local authority and the police try to put a stop to it. The concern we have is with a large congregation. It's very difficult to control what people would want to do on the day. We would have 200 to 300 people coming here for prayers on a Friday. Emotions will be high if it's provoked, but we will have the police and we will have stewards here."

As it turned out, not many people on either side bothered to listen. The 20 SIOE protesters who turned up were outnumbered by up to 1,000 UAF protesters who repeatedly charged police lines and threw bottles and stones. So far, it was just another UAF gathering, but what made this one different - if only in retrospect - was the presence of Al-Muhijaroun activist Michael Adebolajo, who was captured on video telling a group of UAF protesters that what they did, they did 'for Allah'. Adebolajo was one of the two men arrested recently for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

It is not so much the presence of Adebolajo which is the problem: at the time, he had done nothing illegal, and was as entitled as anyone to be there, even if the local Mosque had asked for people to not attend. No, the thing which is striking about it is the response of UAF since the murder occurred. Weyman Bennett, the UAF leader, has batted away implied criticism with a statement that Adebolajo was 'not on the platform, and was not an official speaker'. While Adebolajo was speaking, a procession of UAF and trades union flags passed within yards, so his words were hardly a surprise to Bennett and his SWP colleague Martin Smith, who passed just feet away.


UAF and Trades Union banners passed within feet of
Michael Adebolajo at the Harrow protest....

 One can just imagine the outcry from UAF if it came to light that Anders Breivik had attended a UKIP meeting in 2009 and had been allowed to hold his own impromptu rally. It stretches credibility to imagine that Nigel Farage could get away with the notion that Breivik 'not being on the platform and not being an official speaker' would be a satisfactory dismissal of concerns.



...as he was spewing his message of Hate, not Hope



There is no love lost between Hope not Hate and the UAF, although there does seem to be a thawing of relations since HnH was taken over by Nick Lowles. Under the Gables' stewardship, HnH recognised that far from being part of the solution, UAF were a part of the problem: the other side of the racist violence coin. Lowles seems to take a more relaxed view, as reports on EDL marches over the past few years demonstrate on HnH's twitter and Facebook feed: the reporters seemed to glory in the violence of running battles between the EDL and UAF, although as most of Hope not Hate's 'feet on the street' were previously BNP activists who a decade earlier would have been in there with fists and boots flying, this is perhaps not surprising.

As Andrew Gilligan discusses in his Telegraph article, the actions of the UAF do not detract from the rise in tensions, they add to it, a point then Harrow Council leader David Ashton made back in 2009: "We are saddened and dismayed that groups from outside the borough have come here and caused unrest. Harrow has an excellent record in community relations and we condemn those who came to our borough from elsewhere to either foist extreme political opinions on us or use religion as a cover for causing trouble."

All of this leaves Hope not Hate's core purpose - fighting racism and fascism - looking rather neglected. Where is the condemnation of Bennett and UAFs pitiful excuses for Adebolajo's presence at the Harrow protest? Back in 2009, nobody knew what Adebolajo would go on to do, but with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that he was an extremist with a future no less notorious than Anders Breivik, even if the number he left dead was smaller. Speaking against Breivik in an article in the Guardian last September, Lowles said, "Sadly, there are many others at large who share his warped ideology. Seventeen people in the UK....have been imprisoned in recent years for terrorist-related offences": the words I have removed and replaced with '....' were 'with far right views'. With those four words removed, it applies as much to UAF as it does to the EDL and the BNP.

But if Hope not Hate can launch an investigation into links between the far right and Anders Breivik and display its results as symptomatic of the approval of the former for the latter, why does the far left not also warrant a similar investigation? With Al Muhajiroun ostensibly a target for Hope not Hate, where is the investigation into the links between the boot boys of the UAF and Anjem Choudhary and Michael Adebojalo?

I will not win many friends in the EDL and BNP by suggesting that such sloppy thinking would not have been a part of Hope not Hate's approach under the Gables' stewardship, but it remains true. Lowles very much takes the view that 'if God is with us, who can be against us', and feels that however fascist the far left becomes, and whatever terrorist organisations it mixes with, the righteousness of his cause outweighs any concerns.

This may have been true were he not simultaneously attempting to make Hope not Hate less a tool to be used against racism, and more a tool to be used against what he perceives to be the political right.
Part of the problem for Lowles is the continued presence at the top of the UAF of such noted Labour Party activists as Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott and Glyn Ford. Despite UAF being effectively an SWP front organisation, such high profile Labour politicians at its top table - even if they are without meaningful power - makes an attack or even an investigation into UAF politically unpalatable for Lowles. To brand the UAF as fascist would be to brand sections of the Labour Party fascist as well, and that is counter to Lowles purpose as he seeks to align Hope not Hate ever more closely with the Labour Party.

Whether such hypocritical evasions are tenable remains to be seen. Certainly the poor attendance to date at his anti-UKIP meetings have lead to the rebranding discussed yesterday: better to climb on the Woolwich bandwagon and hope nobody notices the tolerance shown by the hard left to Al Mujahiroun in the past. We can not believe that the majority of Hope not Hate support will put up with such hypocrisy for long.