Hat-tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/gagging-camerons-counter-extremism-measures/
“Over generations, we in Britain have built something extraordinary: a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. Our country today is more vibrant, buoyant and diverse than ever before in our history.” These are the opening words of our Prime Minister David Cameron’s forward to the document presenting his government’s ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’, and all people grounded in reality will recognise at once how delusional they are. While the population of Britain are indeed more ‘diverse’ than ever before, no-one outside of a funny-farm, and certainly no-one with first-hand experience of life in our inner cities, could possibly describe our society as currently more vibrant, or more buoyant than ever before.
David Cameron then goes on to talk about the ‘British values’ of freedom, inclusivity and democracy that we have, according to him, come to cherish.
One might think that with all the ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ that our increased ‘diversity’ has brought us that we British people would be falling over ourselves to welcome even more ‘diversity’, and that there would be no need for duress on the part of the Government to persuade us that we must accept more. All is not as David Cameron pretends however, because the ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’ aims to prevent the polarisation of our society in which disparate communities and disparate individuals reject the government’s insistence that we must all live happily, cheek-by-jowl with people who are alien to our way of life. In short, the Counter Extremism Strategy is intended to intimidate communities into accepting the imposition of multiculturalism and multiracialism that few people actually want.
If we truly had built something ‘extraordinary’, a ‘successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy’, with greater ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ than ‘ever before in our history’, there would be no need for the government’s Counter Extremism Strategy. This whole issue therefore, and the government’s position is predicated on a lie.
David Cameron goes on, “One of the greatest threats we face is the scourge of extremism from those who want to divide us. We see it in sickening displays of neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and, of course, Islamist extremism”, oh, of course!
David Cameron says, “… of course, Islamist extremism”, in order to emphasise the only form of extremism that the indigenous British are actually concerned about. His focus here on ‘Islamist extremism’ is intended to distract us from the real intention of the legislation being proposed and to provide the Draconian measures planned with an element of ‘sugar coating’, making them easier to swallow.
Cameron states that government has in the past been “too tolerant of intolerance”, and with regard to Islamic extremism he is right, however with three Race Relations Acts, in 1965, 1968 and then 1976, and finally the Equalities Act of 2010, each act ratcheting-up the restrictions on our freedom of action and freedom of speech regarding race, government have already taken very oppressive steps where so-called right-wing extremism is concerned.
At any time over the last sixty or seventy years government could have almost completely defused the race issue in this country, by simply halting mass immigration from the Third World and by allowing people the freedom to discriminate as we see fit. This would have significantly limited the impact of non-White immigration on our society and by not forcing disparate peoples into contact with each other, public resentment would have greatly diminished. This would have been the response of a moderate government, but sadly, successive governments have not been moderate, they have sought to flood our country with non-White immigrants and to force us to interact with them at every step and turn of our lives. We have been governed by a succession of extremist governments, with the extreme aim of forcibly creating a multiracial society and inducing our people miscegenate.
The Race Relations Act 1965 represents the measures that the Labour government of Harold Wilson thought appropriate in 1965. The measures contained were considered the limit of what could be achieved in terms of coercing the British people forcing us to submit to the presence of a significant non-White population in this country. By 1968 however, the Wilson government thought they could get away with more and they introduced more extreme measures, and by 1976 the Labour government of James Callaghan introduced even more extreme measures.
Finally, came the Equalities Act 2010, which creates an onus on every government department and every public body to take active steps to promote ‘diversity’ and suppress any expression of opposition. The race relations regime established by the Equalities act creates a rigid legislative framework making discrimination virtually impossible and making public dissent from the ostensible goals of tolerance and diversity so costly as to be untenable.
The measures incorporated within the Equalities Act however, were thankfully only designed to punish those who break the law, and this is where the governments proposed counter extremism measures go right off the ‘Richter scale’ of law enforcement measures as far as civilised Western nations are concerned. The new measures include measures to ‘disrupt’ the lives of people who have not broken the law, but who are judged by the authorities to hold and disseminate views with which the government disagrees.
“We will disrupt extremists, aggressively …” says David Cameron, “We will disrupt all those who seek to spread hate and we will prosecute all those who break the law”, adds the Home Secretary Theresa May. Let us be clear, when a government imposes measures that disrupt the lives of its citizens simply because those citizens hold beliefs that are contrary to those of the government, and in circumstances where the citizens concerned have neither employed violence nor broken the law, this is not ‘law enforcement’, it is not ‘protecting the people’, it is not ‘good government’, it is out-and-out oppression!
Illustrating the hypocrisy of these new measures, the government document detailing the proposed counter extremism strategy begins Chapter One with the words: “Life in our country is based on fundamental values that have evolved over centuries, values that are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and are underpinned by our most important local and national institutions. These values include the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and the mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs”.
It does not seem to have occurred to David Cameron or Theresa May that ‘the rule of law’, means that government does not act outside of the law by persecuting with disruption orders, those who have been law abiding. It does not occur to them that a central tenet of ‘democracy’ is the right of freedom of expression, a freedom that successive rafts of so-called hate-speech legislation has already substantially curtailed, or that ‘individual liberty’ confers upon people, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience. That is, the freedom to hold beliefs not shared by the government and in some instances directly opposed to those of the government, providing the people holding those beliefs act within the law.
In Chapter Two of the government document, it states under the heading ‘Disrupting Extremists, “We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law”. Furthermore, in Chapter Five, dealing specifically with ‘Disrupting Extremists’, it continues, “there remain extremists in our society who cause an immense amount of harm, while being careful to stay just the right side of the law. In addition to strengthening our use of existing powers against such extremists, we will introduce new, carefully targeted powers to challenge the most active and persistent individuals and groups”.
Bear in mind here, the government are not talking about terrorist groups being targeted for disruption, nor are they talking about criminal organisations that break the law, they are talking about ‘disrupting’, that is, persecuting people for simply holding and disseminating dissident beliefs. These are the sort of tactics which a generation ago, and perhaps even a decade ago would only be associated with totalitarian regimes, or autocratic governments in Africa or Asia.
The government document continues: “The police have a range of powers to deal with extremists. However these powers are neither comprehensive nor are they always flexible enough to respond to the risk. For example it is not currently possible to ban groups which stir up racial hatred, or to stop the activities of extremists who deliberately set out to sow divisions between communities and encourage young people to reject the fundamental values and institutions on which our society is based.
“We will therefore introduce new powers to: ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism; restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals; and restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism.”
When we realise how low the threshold is becoming in terms of the authorities deciding what is considered to be racial hatred, the implications of the above two paragraphs become frighteningly clear. The ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’, which is currently being promoted in government circles by Jewish groups, asserts that, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”, amounts to anti-Semitism, and as we all know, in the minds of Judeophiles, anti-Semitism is the most heinous form of racism. Therefore, we can expect to see certain nationalist organisations banned under the government’s new measures.
The measures that have already been vested in the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, include:
House arrest;
Travel restrictions and/or denial of passport;
Exclusion from certain geographical areas;
Denial of banking or other financial services;
Banning from buying or selling property;
Banning the use of computers or telephones;
Banning association with certain other individuals;
Proscribing certain kinds of work or study; or
Electronic tagging and/or curfews.
Refusal to comply with such a disruption measure would of course be an arrestable criminal offence.
Most importantly, we must make as many people as possible aware of these new measures and the way in which they deviate into naked oppression in a way that the law in the UK has not done for hundreds of years or more. These measures will undermine democracy in the name of protecting democracy; they will undermine the rule of law while professing to do the opposite and they will similarly undermine freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, and we must make our people beyond the nationalist community aware of this. We must make them understand that if government find they can behave in such a cavalier fashion without any adverse repercussions, this kind of crude and lazy law enforcement will increase, sweeping aside the civil rights of everyone and sooner or later we will all find ourselves living in a police state.
“Part of the new role is to advise the council’s executive committee – which Tankerton representative Mr Baker was suspended from following his arrest – on highways, road traffic and public transport issues. The 30-year-old father-to-be was hauled before the courts on January 7, after crashing his car into a tree in Whitstable while more than twice the legal drink limit.”
Steven Messham, who claims he was abused as a boy, said: “David Cameron has made a sweeping statement that abused people need to be believed.
Shambles: The UK Border Agency was established in 2008 to control immigration to this country
Keith Vaz has called the Border Agency ‘a Bermuda triangle’ for immigrants
Benefits: Since ten more countries joined the European Union in 2004, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU – giving them the right to work and live
Taken from 
![pigs[1]](https://eotp.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pigs12.jpg?w=585 "pigs[1]")
.jpg)
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE 
