Search This Blog

Saturday, 22 May 2010

Only white people can hate but only if you believe the papers

Only white people can hate but only if you believe the papers

a) What is a hate crime?
b) Who is responsible?
Suddenly, I hear the sound of quiet on our streets except if you look up the exploits of a certain protest group called the English Defence League and see that their legitimate protests were stopped by armed police.
Armed police, who incidentally gave one of EDL's members a broken arm after he had already submitted to being falsely arrested on a charge of burglary after having climbed a rooftop simply to display an English flag and make his protest.
Were any protesters of the group Fathers against Injustice arrested for burglary by armed police when they climbed the roof of the House of Commons? - I think not.
I seen nothing in the news media about the EDL protest despite that marauding gangs of Machete wielding Muslims were rampaging around Dudley shouting 'Kill the infidel', and despite that outnumbered police chose to arrest and prevent legitimate protesters protesting rather than confront those who threatened the lives of 'infidels'. - Is it not 'hate' when you declare death upon a group of people simply because they don't agree with your desire to kill?
Instead, we were treated to constant coverage of candidates of three parties who the public finally chose not to elect into government. We were shown a constant round of speeches from two minority party leaders who together had decided between themselves to ignore the public's declaration - manifested by a hung parliament - that politics was broken and that their legitimate concerns remained unanswered. - Instead we watched two imbeciles appoint themselves into office for a period of 5 years without any mandate or with any further recourse to the general public, most of whom must themselves be imbeciles for actually voting for them at all.
I seen video footage of Cameron and Clegg at Operation Black Vote giving it large about how 'poor black people' are "still victims" in our country, which Cameron declares is 'rightly theirs'. I didn't hear him say where this 'racism' was, who was responsible, or where he obtained the figures, or on what information he relied, but I heard him spell out his belief by implication of the reverse of his argument, that anyone who is 'not black' must be suspect of a 'hate crime', and he deliberately mentioned what he described as 'the despicable BNP'. - Is it a hate crime to denigrate a group of people because of their political views if they happen by sheer chance of fate to be 'white', or can hate crime only be attributed to white people who protest against black groups and Islamists who either want to remove our sovereign rights to government and self determination, or want to kill us?

I seen plenty of coverage too during that election, of gangs of up to a thousand calling themselves HopeNotHate leaflet droppers, delivering hate, lies and propaganda through people's letterboxes, and I seen evidence of unquestionable ballot fraud, suspect threats at polling stations, illegal immigrants canvassing with UKIP, and plenty of evidence of immigrants sitting on television in comfy armchairs telling viewers what they think about British society, but I didn't see anyone asking British people what they think. - Is that bias, hate, exclusion by intent, or is it simply a figment of my vivid imagination?
Yet, despite all this, and despite there is an admittedly larger proportion of crime attributed to 'ethnics' - 80% - and despite the former Group ISLAM4UK has been proscribed, and despite the The Guardian itself gave coverage of what it described as a 'chilling account' of a former member of the Metropolitan Police having spent the last 10 years working: "undercover among anti-racist groups in Britain, during which he routinely engaged in violence against members of the public and uniformed police officers to maintain his cover"......

The Guardian chooses instead, to waste police time and taxpayer resources in a massive number of inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, to raise question only, whether 'hate crime' rises when you have a BNP councillor. LINK
Such startling QUESTIONS (not news but questions), are brought to the public eye of course without any reference to the above, or to what constitutes a 'hate crime', or indeed what 'ethnicity' were the perpetrators of these so called 'crimes', or with in fact any shred of evidence. Rather, it poses a QUESTION which it delivers in the form of NEWS.
Let me make plain the fact at this point that I do not read The Guardian.
I have more important matters to attend to such as finding out the facts and the truth of a situation rather than wasting my time in seeking to 'expose' details which are half truths that amount to lies and propaganda like The Guardian.
Like the Guardian who would have you believe that to shout 'Out with Islamic extremists' for instance would constitute one of these so called 'hate crimes', but to shout 'Kill the infidels', "We will conquer Europe', "We will treat your women as war-booty', and 'We will behead all those who insult Islam', are NOT 'hate crimes. 
They would have us believe that an innocent law abiding person who doesn't want her home used by two gay men who would use it in a way which ran counter to her deeply held religious beliefs was herself guilty of a 'hate crime' because she chose to say she was heterosexual and that homosexuality was against her beliefs. Or that a couple who happened to think that the Islamic Hijab or Burkah, was a sign of women's oppression was in some way guilty of a 'hate crime' for having expressed what is widely known to be the truth otherwise the French Government would not be declaring it to be a crime to wear a Burkha in public. - Maybe the French Government should be arrested for a hate crime?
Is it a 'hate crime' to speak the truth but no longer a 'hate crime' to utter death threats against 'non-believers'?
The Guardian, as members of NUJ and IMRAX, and as supporter of the same UAF - Searchlight - HopeNotHate - etc, in which MI5, Special Branch, and the Metropolitan Police admit to: "working 'undercover' to routinely engage in violence against members of the public and police officers in order to maintain cover", seems to be getting confused when looking at the line between truth and materially unbiased journalism and are sharply distorting the difference between a 'Question', and what constitutes 'News'. - Is the Guardian guilty of a 'hate crime' in that this 'question it raises is likely to stir up 'racial hatred'?
It seems one can only speculate as to whether the Guardian is simply another 'undercover operation' for those whose aim, like the ex-cop who blew the gaffe on state sponsored subversion, and like UAF etc who actively engage in denying the British people democracy, or like the unelected politicians who deny any measure of truth or democratic value with their constant lies about 'hate', may themselves be guilty of hate crimes against the indigenous people of Britain, were those 'whitey' able to demand that they all be arrested and tried, had they not been so undermined in their own country by immigrants.
As I said before, only white people can hate, but only if you believe the papers.