CLAIRE KHAW - GROUNDS FOR APPEAL AGAINST CANCELLATION OF MEMBERSHIP
I was told by Stephen Phillips on 15 January 2013 by email that "subject matter personally attributed to you which were wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party."
Despite repeated requests to be told what the aims, objectives and principles of the party were, my question was not even acknowledged, much less addressed or answered properly or at all.
However, I was given a list of "Key Episodes" which were deemed to be "wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the party".
KEY EPISODE 1
Pictured in front of swastika holding gun. A website called 'EDL News' contains a picture of Khaw in front of a swastika, holding a gun, as does a blog entitled 'Griffin Watch' (EDL News, 17 September 2012, http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/featured-stories/derek-fender-corner/828-the-big-fight-kim-gandy-vs-claire-khaw; Griffin Watch, 29 November 2012, http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/khaw-blimey-camerons-latest-recruit.html)
I am no more a Nazi in that photograph than I would be a policeman if I were photographed standing outside a police station. As for why I did it, it was quite clearly for the publicity which very effectively brought me to the attention of British nationalists up and down the land, and now, of course, the Conservative Party itself. It is my contention that if the Conservative Party were doing its job properly, there would be no need for UKIP or the BNP. I wish to be a member of the Conservative Party in order to help it promote Conservative principles so as to prevent the further marginalisation of those who regard themselves as social conservatives. It is farcical and ridiculous that a Conservative Prime Minister should be proposing to legalise "gay marriage" while his government has not implemented a single policy that would support the institution of marriage between heterosexual couples capable of sexual reproduction and bringing up the next generation nor will it criticise never married single mothers who are the cause of widespread illegitimacy which is the cause of national decline. If the Conservative Party refuses to support the institutions of marriage and family and instead desecrates it by falling in with the liberal feminist agenda, then it is clearly not implementing Conservative principles at all. In any case, that photograph was taken in April 2012, before I joined the Conservative Party.
KEY EPISODE 2
Refers to Jews as 'a global metaphor for the rich and powerful who exploit the poor'. Khaw blogged on 13 February 2012, 'I think Jews are the teacher's pet in a class of bullies and dunces who envy the teacher's pet but who refuse to work hard while not being particularly clever. Jews are perhaps a global metaphor for the 'rich and powerful who exploit the poor." (The Voice of Reason blog, 13 February 2012 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html
I am praising Jews for their cleverness and teacher's pet status which would cause the bullies and dunces of the world to envy and hate them. How is this antisemitic or against the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are? In any case, this was said before I joined the Conservative Party.
KEY EPISODE 3
Refers to Grant Shapps as 'Jewish millionaire' and 'spivocrat'. In a blog post Khaw wrote on 5 December 2012: "Grant Shapps, Jewish millionaire and now Chairman of the Conservative Party ... is the greatest spivocrat of all' - unclear if quoting someone else or stating her own views (The Voice of Reason Blog, 5 December 2012 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html)
I was indeed quoting Peter Rushton whose talk I was reviewing on my blog. It was not I who coined the term 'spivocrat', but Peter Rushton, as any viewing of the video would reveal. Anti-semitism is endemic in Christian Europe so it cannot be that my reporting of what someone who may dislike Jews says makes me guilty of antisemitism. How is reporting what someone else said against the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are?
KEY EPISODE 4
Suggested on a radio phone-in that a disabled child should have been smothered at birth. Claire Khaw appears to have told a BBC 5 Live phone-in in March 2011 with reference to a severely disabled child: "She should smothered it after it was born, shouldn't she, rather than expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill? Why should the taxpayer pay for her severely disabled child? Ask her that. Professional sympathy seeker. Well, she ain't getting none from me. We all know lots of mothers tote their severely disabled children around to get attention and rise in the pecking order of a group of mums. The more disabled your child, the higher you are in the pecking order." (The Voice of Reason Blog, 2 March 2011 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html)
How is voicing this opinion - however offensive to some - against the the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are? There is nothing morally or intellectually indefensible about what I said or tried to say during the phone-in, which was that
(a) I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled child
(b) no one should have to pay to maintain the children of other parents, whether able-bodied or disabled
(c) when home births were the rule rather than the exception, the midwife would dispose of unwanted unviable severely disabled babies.
This was said in contemplation of the problem mentioned at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/31/care-failing-those-with-learning-disability
" ... people with a learning disability, whose numbers are growing by up to 5% a year ... "
Is the Conservative Party against the principle of free speech and the discussion of anything controversial? It is after all a political party and must necessarily discuss difficult issues that affect the long-term national interest. In any case, that phone-in took place before I joined the Conservative Party.
KEY EPISODE 5
Appears to be in favour of honour killings. Tweeted on 5 December 'The practice of honour killings suggest that Asians have a sense of honour while non-Asians do not, perhaps.' (Claire Khaw's Twitter, 5 December 2012).
How is pointing out that the British these days seem to have a defective sense of honour and appear to feel no shame in their Culture of Excuses and Entitlement against the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are?
KEY EPISODE 6
Banned from BNP. Khaw was expelled from the BNP in July 2011. Published correspondence from the party suggests 'the comments you made regarding disabled children were deemed to be unacceptable.' (The Voice of Reason Blog, 7 July 2011 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html)
How is being expelled from the BNP against the principles of Conservative Party, whatever they are? The comments referred to were the comments made on the Victoria Derbyshire Show on BBC Radio 5 Live mentioned above.
KEY EPISODE 7
Boasts of being banned from 'every nationalist party' in Britain. Khaw wrote in a blog on 5 December 2012: 'I have been banned from every single nationalist party in the land on trumped up charges and spurious accusations.' http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html
How is being banned from nationalist parties and meetings (probably because I am (a) not white , (b) a civic nationalist (c) an anti-feminist or (d) persona non grata for any other reason that I am not aware of ) against any principle of the Conservative Party, whatever they are?
KEY EPISODE 8
Suggested illegal immigrants should be made slaves. Khaw is quoted as saying on her Facebook page: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy." Guardian, 29 April 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary
How is engaging in what the Guardian described as "banter" against any of the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are? In any case, I made that comment before I joined the Conservative Party.
KEY EPISODE 9
Anti-Semitic jokes. Tweeted on 11 December 2012 "Banned from posting for 7 days for posting a rabbi joke on a rabbi Facebook account!" (Claire Khaw's Twitter, 11 December 2012 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/banned-from-posting-for-7-days-for.html)
How is telling a Jewish joke (Rabbi Zvi Solomons on whose wall I posted this himself tells me he did not find the joke offensive) against the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are?
Below is the exchange I had with him after my ban from posting:
13 December 2012
Was it your missus who reported me, Rabbi?
Rabbi Zvi Solomons
Reported me for posting that rabbi joke on your wall, I mean.
It must have been one of your Facebook friends.
If you said it wasn't you.
Rabbi Zvi Solomons
Yes, it is a shame that Jews these days don't appreciate Jewish jokes!
Rabbi Zvi Solomons
It might have been a gentile. Some of my best Gentiles are friends...
Gentiles are such hypocrites.
Rabbi Zvi Solomons
So they're human.
I bet it was a woman.
KEY EPISODE 10
Wants a one party state. On her LinkedIn profile, Claire Khaw states that one of her goals is to convince enough people of the merits of having a one-party state and to guide its formation. "to convince enough people of the merits of having a one-party state and to guide its formation, before one is imposed on us"
Claire Khaws' LinkedIn profile, accessed 12 December 2012 http://www.linkedin.com/in/1party4all)
How is it against the principles of the Conservative Party, whatever they are, to propose what is in effect electoral reform along the lines of Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill mentioned at http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html?
Since it is being claimed by the Secretary of the Board that I have acted in a way that is claimed to be "wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party" it is incumbent on the Party to state what they are.
Surely no decision can be made as to this appeal until and unless the principles of the Conservative Party have been officially stated as well as how I have been alleged to act against them demonstrated?
5 March 2013