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".

UEA student who blocked UKIP speech has conviction for assaulting police at UAF demo

UEA student officer Liam McCafferty is a violent criminal
with conviction for assaulting a police officer

The student union officer at the University of East Anglia who helped organise a petition to prevent local UKIP candidtes addressing the University's Political Studies Society because he claimed students wouldn't 'feel safe' with UKIP on campus has a conviction for assaulting a police officer at a UAF demonstration.

Liam McCafferty, 22, from Doncaster was arrested at a UAF demonstration against an EDL march in Bolton in March 2010, and was convicted of the assault in June 2011 and fined £100. He subsequently appealed his conviction, but it was upheld in March 2012, when in addition to the £100 fine and £630 costs he was ordered to pay a further £200 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge, bringing his bill up to almost £1000. McCafferty asked to pay at £10 a week, but was told that 'if he could afford to swan off to demonstrations, he can afford to pay up' by the judge. He was permitted to pay the costs at £5 per week, but inquiries indicate that he may not have done so.

The judge, in upholding his conviction, said he had taken 'sly digs' at an officer manning a cordon to keep UAF and EDL marchers apart.

McCafferty, speaking about his campaign to prevent UKIP speaking on the campus, said, "the talk was cancelled because student members did not feel safe", despite neither of the UKIP speakers having a conviction for assaulting a police officer. He also Tweeted the following,

Can students feel safe around a man with a conviction for political violence?
McCafferty was fined £1,000 for assaulting a policeman at a demo.

apparently forgetting to mention that even the police can't feel safe when he's around. Of course, the police can't feel safe when any UAF activist is around, and it is hardly surprising to discover a boy with links to the UAF is attempting to suppress freedom of speech. Normally they resort to bully boy tactics and violence, and we're sure that UKIP can look forward to that when sanity returns to UEA.

Full details of his conviction can be found on the Bolton News website here : £1000 bill as student loses EDL demo appeal

We wonder whether students feel safe knowing that their full time student union officer is a violent convicted criminal with a history of beating law enforcement officers, and whether that makes them feel safer or not?

HnH's own supporters agree with Bloom and oppose burning of books

Evidence of the widening gap between Hope not Hate and their own supporters continues to emerge in the comments following HnH's latest articles.

On Friday, Nick Lowles blog featured an article on former UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom's new book, "A guinea a minute" which was ripped off without attribution from the Huffington Post UK. Entitled 'Godfrey Bloom's best quotes from 'A guinea a minute', HuffPo contributor Asa Bennett had managed to whittle the book down to reveal the very best.

Designed as a piece to elicit mockery of Bloom whose trenchant views are already widely known, the responses from Hope not Hate supporters were revealing when it was posted on their Facebook page. Just 5 people 'liked' the article, while 6 commented upon it. Of the 6 comments, 4 were supportive, including a comment by one of the 'likers'. They said:

 

 

There was yet more disappointment for Lowles and his motley crew as the comments thread also developed on the story we covered a couple of days ago on his enthusiasm for overcoming political opponents by simply burning their books in best National Socialist style. While some agreed with HnH's desire for the censorship of opposing political views no matter how absurd or easily disproved, the vast majority of comments showed that HnH's support is hardly foursquare behind them, while many noted the closeness between Lowles position and that of Goebbels, as we noted in our article: that banning books is just one step away from burning them.

 

 

 

It is worth noting that these are not messages from people who appear to be supporters of the far-right or of holocaust denial. Rather these are people who seem to be waking up to the agenda behind Hope not Hate's words and actions. Increasingly comments are appearing beneath their articles which should give any organisation a reason to pause for thought, although that is unlikely to happen with Hope not Hate. A more likely cause of action will be the disabling of the comments threads, or an even heavier handed censorship of what is posted. They already remove anything which appears to be written by persons whom they consider 'far-right'. It is one thing to remove the comments of political opponents, but could Lowles and Hope not Hate be forced to start removing the comments of their own supporters to hide the growing uneasiness within the ranks? It can not be long coming. After all, no dictatorship can survive for long once it permits internal dissent.

When Goebbels' words fit Hope not Hate's actions, you know they've abandoned argument for suppression

Hope not Hate are publicising an article by 'The Kernel' online magazine concerning their investigation into books sold by Amazon (and others) entitled "New Amazon Shame: Holocaust Denial".

Much could be written about The Kernel and its publisher Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly known as Milo Wagner), although beyond the unpaid bills, legal actions, poor humour and public misogynistic comments the basic facts of the article appear correct, even if the title gives the impression that it is

Milo Wagner - like HnH, supports the
freedom so say what he agrees with only.

just Amazon, and just holocaust denial.

In fact, it transpires the Amazon and Barnes & Noble amongst others sell books which cover such topics as holocaust denial but extend further into the realms of anti-Semitism. Written in an appropriate tone of outraged self-righteousness, the article draws as its penultimate conclusion,

"Anti-semitism is also being more widely observed in mainstream commentators and Left-wing public intellectuals. Against this backdrop, it is appallingly lax of Amazon to stock material that gives succour to extremists, agitators and fantasists and which promotes anti-semitic pseudo-history."

We assume by the presence of the article on Hope not Hate's website and FB page that these are sentiments with which they agree: that they wish to shut down rather than defeat by debate any opposing views is hardly fresh news. What it represents is further proof of how HnH are simply abandoning the main purpose of their existence: the education of people about racism and how it is wrong. When they say on their website that "We try to build relationships, give confidence to those who dislike racism and empower communities to provide a more positive alternative to the politics of despair. We both challenge the myths and lies put out by the BNP and their ilk and also positively mobilise those people who are opposed to racism.", they neglect to mention that they hope to achieve this not by education or argument, but by banning anything which opposes their view, and damn the consequences for free speech.

This has of course been tried once before, when it was said,

" It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare..... this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past."

Which I think it is fair to say sums up their view pretty well. That is hardly surprising, as it comes from a speech by Josef Goebbels to students in Berlin ahead of the Nazi book burnings of May 1933.

One of the delicious ironies of free speech is that if you believe in it, you find yourself arguing in favour of the rights of some pretty unpleasant causes to have their views heard. However, we do so confident that they can be defeated not by banning them and making their proponents martyrs, but by logical argument and the simple truths of reality.

There is an absurdity here which appears to be in Hope not Hate's blind-spot. In this instance, we are talking about a handful of books out of the 600,000+ titles carried by Amazon. In addition to the thousands of books available from the same source which disprove the content of this handful, we also have contemporaneous newsreel footage, millions of pages of testimony from hundreds of war crimes trials, and the recorded memories of tens of thousands of survivors, witnesses and participants. It is not difficult to prove the factual errors in the work of holocaust deniers, so why should we seek to ban their books in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?

There is of course a supreme irony in this which the hypocrites at Hope not Hate can not see - at the same time they applaud the Kernel for advocating Goebbels like censorship, they are also running a campaign complaining that the government's new lobbying legislation would gag them on the front of their website.

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

Hope not Hate on receiving end of 'Golden Shower' campaign after democratic consultation

Over on our Facebook page, we have been running a consultation exercise closely modelled on Hope not Hate's "Let's talk about UKIP" & 'Purple Rain' initiatives, and the results are now in. We asked a completely impartial question - exactly like Hope not Hate - and allowed anybody to vote who was interested. The question was:

Hope not Hate are running their 'Purple Rain' campaign, presenting one sided information to aid their 'consultation' on UKIP. Here at Nope, not Hope we are starting our own consultation on whether we should continue examining Hope not Hate's hypocrisy. It is called the 'Golden Shower' campaign, and is run on exactly the same lines as theirs. Everybody is welcome to vote in our poll.

And the responses - and results - were as follows:

Hope not Hate are hypocrites and should be examined in detail         - 23 votes
You should examine in detail whether Hope not Hate are hypocrites -   1 vote

A further 8 people 'liked' the question, indicating that they got the joke. Turnout was 15%, which is rather more than Hope not Hate managed for 'Purple Rain'!!

In true Hope not Hate fashion, all 32 participants agreed with the proposition, or failed to express a preference in this democratic exercise, and we are pleased therefore to announce the launch of our 'Golden Shower - putting Hope not Hate under the magnifying glass' campaign effective immediately.

We have at great expense designed the eye-catching graphic to accompany our campaign, which is reproduced right - you are free to copy and paste it without restriction!

News reports, pictures and information can be sent to our dedicated e-mail address at HNHgoldenshower@yahoo.co.uk or via our Facebook group!

 

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!

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?

 
 

Islamic Emergency Defence slips beneath Hope not Hate's radar

While Hope not Hate were running their campaign to ban Pam Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK, their old friend Anjem Choudhary - whose Al Muhajiroun group was supposed to be one of the hate groups they opposed - was launching a fresh group to circumvent government controls.

As reported in 'The Sun', Choudhary's new group - which he was pushing through his Twitter feed

Choudhary's Twitter feed, showing his support for
'Islamic Emergency Defence' (IED)

(pictured) - aims to set up 'task forces' and mete out 'instant justice'. Choudhary admits to having an 'advisory role' with the group, but does not run it.

The selection of the name Islamic Emergency Defence and its initials IED were, according to a spokesman, 'completely coincidental' to any similarity with the initials for Improvised Explosive Device.

Over on Hope not Hate's website, Director Nick Lowles wrote only a week ago that "While many people look just at the extremism on the right wing, it is important to also monitor those who deliberately stoke sectarian tensions within the Muslim communities too."

It may be that Lowles and his colleagues simply missed the story: they are after all nice, middle class kids who probably don't read the 'Sun', which is reserved for the working class in their view. Far better to read the 'Guardian'. Even so, as Al Muhajiroun is one of the groups they supposedly monitor, it is not unreasonable to expect them to have spotted it. Perhaps they could launch a front page campaign demanding that the Home Secretary ban the group, similar to the campaign they launched against Geller and Spencer?

That won't happen, of course. There are few Labour votes to be gained in opposing Islamic extremism with the same fervour they apply to opposing right-wing extremism whatever Lowles may state publicly. Of 51 news links on their websites news feed, only one deals with Islamic extremism. Of 15 front page stories on 'Nick's Blog', only one deals with Islamic extremism - regarding Mohammed al Arefe, while of 28 posts on the 'Insider' blog, none deal with Islamic extremism.

Elsewhere, on our Facebook page this morning we posted of an initiative in Bristol - an inter-faith prayer group dedicated to the memory of Lee Rigby - which was held in a mosque, and which was organised by a Muslim woman.

It seems to us that as every day goes by Hope not Hate is more about Hate and less about Hope. Where was their mention of the Bristol event as a symbol of hope? Where are the mentions of Imam Alvas Karmani's initiative against sexual grooming in Bradford? Where is their condemnation of Choudhary's latest group of extremists?

Nick Lowles, Ruth Smeeth and their colleagues at Hope not Hate should hang their heads in shame. Their hypocrisy is not advancing Hope, it is only interested in their own Hate and advancing the Labour vote for their own political and financial gain.

Geller & Spencer banned - al-Arefe & al-Habib are fine by HnH though

In what Hope not Hate will undoubtedly see as a victory, news reaches us this afternoon that Home Secretary Theresa May has banned US anti-Islamic campaigners Pam Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the UK - read more >here< - on the grounds that their presence is not conducive to the public good.

On the whole this is consistent with government policy, and the list of people banned on the same grounds includes significant numbers of what might be broadly termed 'Islamic hate preachers'. We disagree with the notion of banning people because they express views which are not widely shared, but that is not really the point of this article.

More interesting is the response to Hope not Hate's triumphalism on their Facebook page. While Lowles and Co celebrate the halting of free speech by foreigners - it's not as if there aren't already a multitude of people in the UK who express the same views - the views of those commenting are far from wholly supportive. Several comments regarding censorship have been removed from the comment string, but as Hope not Hate feel that too much democracy is not a good thing, this is not surprising.

For all the 'hurrah's on their post, they still resolutely refuse to address one burning issue: how can they justify running a campaign against the two Americans, while failing to address the issue of Mohammed al-Arefe or Yasser al-Habib mentioned earlier today? Their views are just as reprehensible in a democracy, so where is the petition campaign? Or would that be just too much democracy?

Al-Arefe & al-Habib vs Geller & Spencer: more Hope not Hate hypocrisy

Hope not Hate are currently running a campaign to deny entry to the UK to a pair of anti-Islam activists from the US, and are urging their supporters to write to Home Secretary Theresa May demanding that the couple - Pam Geller and Robert Spencer - be denied a visa.

Pam Geller and Robert Spencer:
HnH seek to deny them a visa

In addition to this front page campaign, there are 7 postings outlining the words and deeds of the pair, and all demanding that they not be permitted to enter the UK, allegedly to address an EDL rally.

Meanwhile, on the 20th June, HnH featured a single paragraph article on Saudi preacher Mohammed Al Arefe. The article, posted by Nick Lowles, paraphrases an Huffington Post article on Al Arefe described by Lowles as 'a really good piece'. Al Arefe's arrival in the UK follows that of another Islamic militant, Sheikh Yasser al-Habib, who was imprisoned in 2003 for inciting sectarianism. Al Habib has not even been mentioned by Hope not Hate.

We make no defence of Geller and Spencer: their views seem to us to be inflammatory and alarmist, sprinkled with absurd conspiracy theories and based on the worst possible misreading of Islam. They are true right wing nutcases in the American style. However, Al-Arefe and Al-Habib are simply the other side of the coin, doing their best to spread the worst of Islam, bringing sectarian strife wherever they appear and trying hard to fit the stereotype that Geller and Spencer seek to create.



Mohammed Al-Arefe - seeks to stir
up sectarian strife but HnH don't care

Our interest is solely this. Why do Geller & Spencer warrant a front page banner campaign and 7 news articles rehashing their past statements and actions and launching a petition to deny them visas to enter the UK, while Al-Habib doesn't feature at all, and Al-Arefe gets a single paragraph?

It seems to us that we either have freedom of speech in this country or we don't. If we do, then the answer to all of these visits is to take on what they say not by the use of violence and the UAF - which appears to be HnH's answer to most things - but by logical argument and reasoned thought. If - as Hope not Hate clearly wish - we do not, then the answer is to deny entry visas to all of these people on the grounds that they are divisive and not conducive to the public good.



Sheikh Yasser al-Habib - imprisoned
for stirring up sectarian strife, but no trouble for
Hope not Hate

What is truly hypocritical is to go after Geller & Spencer with a full-blown campaign, while ignoring Al-Habib and barely mentioning Al-Arefe - a man who even Lowles concedes as one whose presence will "negatively impact the peaceful co-existance (sic) amongst the Muslim community".

At least the Huffington post attempted to answer this conundrum, quoting Labour MP Khalid These preachers are purely here to promote themselves and create divisions where none need to exist. Neither Al Arefe or Al Habib should be allowed to do this, and the Home Office must take action on this issue. This is just another branch of hatred."

Why then does Hope not Hate stick to such a hypocritical line? We can only assume that their opposition to certain types of hate is superficial at best: while Geller and Spencer's approach is decidedly right wing Republican and opposed to the Democrats and therefore Labour, Al Arefe and Al Habib's visits are likely to have no political dimension which is electorally significant. Is there a better indication that Hope not Hate are betraying the very principles they are supposed to uphold?

Lowles in his brief article on al-Arefe says, "While many people look just at the extremism on the right wing, it is important to also monitor those who deliberately stoke sectarian tensions within the Muslim communities too". Let's just not look too hard, eh, Nick? After all, Labour votes and your position are at stake.