searchlight.org.uk


III: BEHIND THE RACE LAWS

[Page 11] The question of 'race relations' legislation is clouded with a lot of misleading cant and gobbledegook. Those who support it like to pose as 'liberals', as champions of 'Civil Rights' and of poor 'oppressed minorities', while those who oppose race legislation are presented at 'prejudiced racist bigots stirring up hatred'.

The reality of the situation is, however, the complete opposite. The so-called 'liberals' are far from liberal in their treatment of the indigenous White British People. In effect, these 'liberals' are nothing but accomplices in the attempt to destroy our national identity, and that attempt is being pursued through the oppressing, suppressing and repressing of the British majority by a 'minority-liberal' coalition. Not only are we suffering as a result of having had Coloured immigration foisted upon us, but an attempt is being made to make discussion of the whole subject taboo.

During the Second World War, when patriotic Britons were defending their country from outside attack, the Communist-dominated National Council for Civil Liberties were plotting away on how to disarm the British people in the face of any future internal threat by minority groups.

The 1943 annual conference of the NCCL called for legislation whereby individuals or organisations disseminating "racial antagonism in any form" should "be guilty of a criminal offence." The Socialist MP and crypto-Communist, D. N. Pritt, argued that all kinds of racial hatred should be made the subject of a new law.

In February, 1948, a book by Lionel S. Rose, MBE, demanded:

'The Law should be so amended or extended to make it an offence to publish defamatory statements concerning groups identifiable by race, creed or colour, calculated to create or promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty's subjects.'

It may be noted that the wording was closely followed in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act which states:

'A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins, he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting.'

In 1950 Lord Brockway of the Movement for Colonial Freedom (now [Page 12] known as Liberation) formulated a Human Rights Bill. Liberation is the Communist front organisation which organised the demonstration against the National Front which resulted in the riot in Red Lion Square.

SWASTIKA DAUBINGS

Following the Notting Hill race riots demand grew again from the National Council for Civil Liberties for race legislation. In the book Civil Liberties in Britain Barry Cox states:

'Just at the moment when the NCCL was providing this vital intellectual muscle in the race legislation debate, a sudden spate of swastika daubings over Christmas 1959 and the New Year reinforced the wider public consciousness of the incitement problems. These swung the Jewish lobbies behind the incitement bill campaign. Plummer, the Jewish Labour MP who promoted the insults bill in the spring of 1960, allied himself, as did Brockway, to the successful NCCL effort to unite all those who opposed racial prejudice under a common banner.'

One may well ask whose interest these daubings served?

In his book KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (Hodder and Stoughton, 1974), John Barron has thrown some interesting light on the question:

'Under KGB guidance, the Czech STB in 1956 started mailing virulent neo-Nazi tracts to French, British, and American officials in Europe. They bore the imprimatur of a non-existent organisation called the Fighting Group for an Independent Germany (Kampfverband für Unabhängiges Deutschland). Continuing propaganda from this phantom organisation created the impression that a gang of fanatical resurgent Nazis was active in West Germany.'

"BRITISH NAZI PARTY"

'On Christmas Eve 1959, a twenty-five-year-old German, aided by an accomplice, smeared swastikas and a slogan, "Germans Demand That Jews Get Out," on the synagogue in Cologne. A Jewish memorial a mile away was also defaced. In the next few nights, swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans were painted on synagogues, tombstones, and Jewish-owned stores in more than twenty West German towns and cities. Jews received threatening anonymous telephone calls and letters. During the New Year's weekend, swastikas and slogans were daubed on synagogues and Jewish buildings in London, Oslo, Vienna, Paris, Parma, Glasgow, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Milan, Antwerp, and New York. On January 3, further outbreaks of anti-Semitism were reported in Melbourne, Manchester, Athens, and Perth, Australia. On January 6, more desecrations occurred in Bogota, Buenos Aires, Milan, Oslo, Vienna, and the summer home of King Frederick IX of Denmark. A Jewish member of the British Parliament was provided a bodyguard after his life was threatened by an anonymous caller purporting to be a representative of the "British Nazi Party." Meanwhile the epidemic of desecrations intensified and spread throughout West Germany.'

It is interesting to note that the fictitious "British Nazi Party" was the non-existent organisation named by Reg Freeson, MP in his parliamentary question mentioned earlier.

John Barron continues:

'The worldwide reaction was instant... The American poet Carl Sandburg advocated death for anyone caught painting swastikas. In London, Lord Robert Boothby, saying he had been told of a "rising tide of Nazism", announced that he was going to Germany to investigate the situation...'

VISITED EAST GERMANY

[Page 13] 'Responsibility for a majority of the acts remained unfixed. All along, West German spokesmen expressed a vague suspicion of organised, clandestine Communist involvement. The young German and his accomplice who were convicted of desecrating the Cologne synagogue on Christmas Eve belonged to a small right-wing political party and at their trial unrepentantly mouthed Nazi-like statements. But the police established that both frequently had visited East Germany, and one had a Communist Party badge hidden behind his coat lapel. In a separate case, Bernhard Schlottmann, the twenty-two year-old treasurer of a neo-Nazi organization in West Berlin, confessed after his arrest that he was an East German agent under orders to infiltrate and foment anti-Semitism among extremist factions. The simultaneous appearance of swastikas in many cities on different continents as well as the sudden abatement of the campaign suggest an organised operation. But in the absence of proof, insinuations of Communist complicity sounded unpersuasive at the time.

'Western security services did not begin to learn what actually happened until later in the 1960s, when defectors revealed that the whole swastika operation had been conceived by General Agayants himself.'

Agayants was a top KGB official.

We must always be on our guard against possible Soviet agents who may crave positions in or even sole control over anti-Communist organisations in order to indulge in anti-Semitism, thus discrediting them in the eyes of ordinary people and mobilising the Jewish community against them.

In August 1962 the then Conservative MP for Ilford North, Tom Lascelles Iremonger, sought to amend the 1936 Public Order Act by adding to Section 5 the inciting of 'hatred of a racial group' as an offence. Tom Iremonger has long courted the Jewish vote. Not only has he attempted to smear the National Front as Nazi, but he even put an advert in the Jewish Chronicle describing the Labour Party as Red Nazis!

After Red Lion Square some comments of Iremonger's on the National Front were quoted by Peter Gladstone Smith in the Sunday Telegraph: "They talk about repatriation of immigrants. Physically what they want to do is put them all in cattle trucks and shoot them off the end of Southend pier."

YELLOW STAR MOVEMENT

In 1962 a Petition against Racial Incitement, sponsored by the NCCL and the Yellow Star Movement, attracted nearly half a million signatures.

The Yellow Star Movement was launched in July 1962 in response to the 'Free Britain from Jewish Control' rally held in Trafalgar Square by Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement. This rally effectively mobilised members of the Jewish community to oppose not only the lunatic activities of the N.S.M. but the work of all other Nationalist or 'Right-wing' groups.

The Secretary of the Yellow Star Movement was Olga Levertoff, an ex-Communist whose Rabbi father had been converted to the Anglican priesthood. Most of the active support for the Y.S.M. came from the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen, and it was a faction of it which later became the Zionist Fascist 62 Group.

Another organisation agitating for race legislation in Britain was the World Jewish Congress. (The recent affiliation of the Jewish Board of Deputies to the WJC represents a significant victory for the Zionist outlook within the Jewish community in Britain.)

In May 1965 the British Section of the WJC issued a booklet entitled [Page 14] Legal Curbs on Racial Incitement, which was a revised edition of a publication which first appeared in 1962.

The booklet was prepared by Dr. F. L. Brassloff and Dr. Natan Lerner, Legal Advisors to the WJC in London and New York respectively. An introduction to the booklet was written by Dr. S. J. Roth, Executive Director of the European Division of the WJC.

The booklet gives further confirmation of the fact that the Communist organised swastika daubings of 1959-60 led to increased demand for race legislation: "In some cases – Austria, Germany, Norway – existing legislation has been supplemented as a direct result of the swastika-daubing outbreak of the winter of 1959-60."

The booklet also gives significant coverage to the United Nations treaties dealt with in this issue.

Race is again the subject of another WJC booklet published in the same series, Jews and Human Rights, which deals with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The booklet is extremely frank about the twin Messianic aims of political Zionism. Zionists believe that while the gentile nations of the world will all become internationalised, the Jews will enjoy a national state based on Jerusalem which will be the seat of a World Government.

This helps to explain the seeming contradiction prevalent in Zionist circles which simultaneously demand fanatical support for the survival of Israel, but race-mixing for everybody else.

Both these two WJC booklets were printed by the Narod Press Ltd., Cavell Street, London El – the same press that printed the AF and R smear magazine against the National Front entitled "A Well-Oiled Nazi Machine ."

This continual agitation by the National Council for Civil Liberties, Zionists, Socialists and Communists, was also aided by the Jewish Board of Deputies as well as by numerous other interests.

These included a group of Labour lawyers headed by Anthony Lester, the British Caribbean Association, the Institute of Race Relations and the then newly-formed Campaign Against Racial Discrimination.

This agitation eventually resulted in the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and '68. Although most of the agitation was concerned with demanding laws against 'incitement to racial hatred', the Race Acts were also aimed at breaking down the 'Colour Bar' – that is forcing White people to serve, employ or mix with anybody and everybody regardless of whether they chose to or not.

BINDMAN

In order to assist in persecuting people and dragooning them into multi-racialism, the Race Relations Board was set up. The solicitors who act for the Board are Bindman and Partners. Together with Anthony Lester, Geoffrey Bindman was co-author of the book Race and Law. He also serves on the advisory committee of the pro-immigration Runnymede Trust, as well as being a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies Race Relations Committee.

It may be of note that Bindman also acted for Paul Foot of the International Socialists in the Socialist Worker contempt trial.

INTENT

Rather ironically the law against incitement had an opposite effect. It [Page 15] forced immoderately written propaganda out of existence, and obliged those who were trying to alert the population to the dangers of immigration to phrase their appeals in a far more moderate and thus effective tone. The counter-productive race hate literature of lunatic fringe groups was effectively swept away, leaving the field clear for the National Front to alert people to the dangers of immigration in a responsible and effective manner.

When the Race Relations Act was first planned, however, it was obviously intended to suppress all racialist literature, and the fact that it failed to do so was a great disappointment to its promoters. Moves are afoot, therefore, to amend the Race Relations Act so as to make prosecutions easier, by removing the need to prove intent to stir up "hatred."

Returning again to what Lionel Rose wrote in 1948, we see advocated that, "The proving of intent to promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty's subjects should not be the criterion of conviction under the Act."

Then we read in the Jewish Chronicle of January 17th of this year that:

'Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to the Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, QC, by the Board of Deputies.

'In the view of the board's Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that "intent" to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed.'

The Editorial in the same issue expressed gratification that the visit had had this result, but said that it "would better have been achieved by less publicised means."

In February, the Scarman report on the Red Lion Square riot was issued. There was little criticism of the National Front's behaviour, but there was an insidiously menacing threat echoing the demands of the Jewish Board of Deputies.

Lord Justice Scarman wrote:

'Section 6 of the Race Relations Act is merely an embarrassment... Hedged about with restrictions (proof of intent, requirement of the Attorney General's consent)... The section needs radical amendment to make it an effective sanction, particularly, I think, in relation to its formulation of the intent to be proved before an offence can be established.'

In the Jewish Chronicle of March 7th we read of a meeting of Manchester and Salford Jews being addressed by Mr. Martin Savitt, chairman of the Board of Deputies Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, and Dr. Jacob Gewirtz, its director: "The Race Relations Act was yet another bone of contention. Mr. Savitt said they must insist on amendment to the Act – section 6 [Page 16] was unworkable, and "intent" should be eliminated."



        LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN

He used the pretext of a report on Red violence to call for a stronger Race Relations Act. Was he acting on instructions from Labour's Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, or on those from the Zionist Board of Deputies?


In the Jewish Chronicle of June 6th, its editor added his voice to the campaign by stressing

'the need to improve the 1965 Race Relations Act so that it can act as an effective deterrent... The law in some circumstances accepts the proposition that a person is deemed to intend the consequences of his act. As Lord Justice Scarman has pointed out, Section 6 of the Act (which requires proof of intent to stir up racial hatred) is "merely an embarrassment." Hedged about with restrictions, he says, it needs radical amendment to make it an effective sanction, particularly in relation to proof of intent before an offence can be established... If the Race Relations Act is to be relevant to the current situation, it must be given the teeth which it now patently lacks.'

The campaign is also being promoted by the Communist Party's Morning Star (15.4.75):

'the police... should also consider their duty under Section Six of the Race Relations Act 1965.

'This makes it an offence to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" in a public place with intent to stir up racial hatred.

'At the same time, Parliament could make their duty even clearer by deleting those words "with intent" as very often the abuse that is racist and leads to trouble can be proved but the intent is more easily obscured.'

This passage shows that the Communist Party has so well penetrated the ruling Establishment through the Labour Party, that far from being revolutionary it sees repressive laws and increased State control as tools of its own power.

More recently a Communist Party broadsheet stated:

'New legislation is being prepared to strengthen the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968... The law has proved, so far, ineffective in stemming racialist propaganda and activity. At present only the Attorney General can start prosecutions and very few cases have been taken up. The new Act must make it possible for both the Race Relations Board and individuals, assisted by legal aid if necessary, to undertake actions in the court to stop racialist propaganda and activity which sets out to incite race hatred or bring into contempt individuals or groups on the grounds of their race, whether in public or semi-public places.'

In a press notice released on May 6 the Home Office stated: "To aid the Government's review of race relations legislation the Home Office today invites organisations. groups and individuals to submit advice and recommendations on improving race relations legislation and machinery."

The Jewish Board of Deputies sent a memorandum on the subject to the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and to the House of Commons Select Cornmittee on Race Relations.

Calling for deletion of the intent provision contained in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, the memorandum stated: "This provision has been a major stumbling-block in initiating prosecutions and has allowed some of the most vicious types of racist provocations to go unpunished." It also noted "the difficult economic situation facing this country and the experience gleaned from recent history that racial hatred can be inflamed in times of economic stress and political uncertainty."

In September the Labour Government duly issued a White Paper which incorporated the proposal to amend Section 6. Paragraph 126 concluded:

'The present law penalises crude verbal attacks if and only if it is established that they have been made with the deliberate intention of causing groups to be hated because of their racial origins. In the Government's view this is too narrow in approach. It accepts the observation made by Sir Leslie Scarman in his report on the Red Lion Square disorders that Section 6 is too restrictively defined to [Page 17] be an effective sanction. It therefore proposes to ensure that it will no longer be necessary to prove a subjective intention to stir up racial hatred.'

Were this new campaign to be successful, it would bring the Race Relations Act more into line with the draconian UN treaties on racial discrimination.

Indeed, the May 1975 issue of Searchlight stated:

'We in Britain should be ashamed that successive governments have not seen fit to ratify the United Nations Genocide Convention and that they have to date only enacted very weak laws with regard to combatting racism. It is about time our parliamentary representatives got on with the job of bringing us into line with countries like Canada in this matter.'

SAMIZDAT LITERATURE?

It is impossible to assess the exact effects of the threatened amendment to the Race Relations Act. It would bring about a situation in which the courts would have to judge whether a piece of racialist writing was likely to stir up racial hatred. Two things are here in doubt. First there is the question of probability. Here the courts apply the test of what they believe the reasonable man would consider likely. Secondly there is the question of what exactly is 'racial hatred.'

When all is said and done, however, the change is obviously one which will make it more difficult to discuss the racial question. Up to a point it will be a good thing if the Race Relations Board starts persecuting and bullying people, as this always creates a sympathetic reaction amongst the general public. On the other hand it would be rather inconvenient if too many activists are slung into gaol.



        EDWARD SHORT

He praised Soviet Jewry for preserving their identity, but works for the destruction of British identity.


It is likely then that we will have to find ways round the problem. This may come in the form of rephrasing though in no way altering our attitude to the race question, or in preparing to distribute anonymous literature like the so-called "Samizdat" literature of the political underground in the Soviet Union. [Page 18] For this purpose it would be necessary to have good typewriters, duplicators and silk screen printing equipment. In this way local news sheets and posters can be easily and inexpensively produced.

Of course, mixing-in isn't for everybody. Mr. Edward Short, Leader of the House of Commons, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and for three years national chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel, once "praised Soviet Jewry for demonstrating its ability to preserve its Jewish identity after decades of Communism." (Jewish Chronicle 23.3.75). One wonders if, in the years to come, Mr. Short will ever praise the British people for demonstrating its ability to preserve its British identity after decades of the Race Relations Acts.




Back