Nick Griffin tells Claire Khaw to fuck off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkXcVA2nYqk#t=28

What Nick Griffin's said in Germany:

1. Civic nationalist parties like UKIP and Front Nationale who are doing well are condemned by him for being "phony nationalists".  
2. Even if they were elected they would be overwhelmed by left-wing rioting and fall within the year.
3. Nuremberg is not a German city now but a Turkish city.  
4. Russia is the only European country left in the West.  The rest of the West are full of immigrants and Muslims.
5. The EU elite are conspiring to start WW3.  
6. Russia and Germany must form a nationalist alliance.  

He said nothing about the Equality Act 2010 and nothing about abolishing No Fault Divorce, as I had urged him to.

MY SUGGESTED BNP STRATEGY FOR GE 2015

1. If UKIP won't repeal the Equality Act 2010 then the BNP should. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people
2. If UKIP won't abolish no fault divorce then the BNP should.
3. If UKIP won't be the party of small business then the BNP should be.
4. If UKIP won't denounce feminism then the BNP should.  
5. If UKIP won't oppose gay marriage then BNP should. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/UK/UKIP-will-not-oppose-gay-marriage-Nigel-Farage/articleshow/32313979.cms
6. Declare the BNP to be officially and exclusively civic nationalist.
7. Annul Claire Khaw's expulsion
8. Appoint Claire Khaw as BNP Director of Communications
9. Become bigger than UKIP
10. Absorb UKIP
11. Rival LibDems
12. Become bigger than LibDems
13. Hold the balance of power after GE 2015

Niche marketing must be the way forward for the BNP.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-bnp-can-do-now-that-ukip-has.html

Below are my messages to him:

CK to NG  19/3/14  2126

Your only chance of retaining any credibility with the public is to make the party officially and exclusively civic nationalist.  What are the problems you anticipate and what objections do you have to simply filling up the policy vacuum Farage leaves?  If he won’t repeal the Equality Act you will.  If he won’t abolish gay marriage you will.  Whatever he won't do you take up the slack?  What do you think?

CK to NG  19/3/14  2132

Please tell me your concerns and objections to repeal Equality Act and abolish no fault divorce if you find them objectionable.  I may already have the solution.  

CK to NG  20/3/14  0810

A belated but Damascene conversion to civic nationalism by you would attract media attention.  People would leave the party but you are just getting rid of the dross.

CK to NG  20/3/14  0819

Once the dross has left the good people will join.  Instead of pretending you aren’t racist you can say why repealing the Equality Act and abolishing no fault divorce would be in the national interest.

I am afraid what follows was a rather dismissive response from the Chairman:

NG to CK  20/3/14  0852 

Do stop wasting your time and mine.  Mass immigration has been a deliberate genocide plan against white people from the very beginning.  Civic nationalists are not only cowards but collaborators with the biggest crime in human history.  A crank who poses with assault rifle and a swastika has not the slightest right to lecture the BNP.  http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/which-type-of-mangina-are-you So, to put it politely and for the avoidance of doubt: Fuck off!

I received no further response to my subsequent messages:

CK to NG  20/3/14  0901

That photo was for the purpose of making the point that it is logically impossible for me to be a Nazi and that I am as much a Nazi as I would be a policeman if I had been photographed outside a police station with a policeman’s helmet on my head.  It is also for making the point that the British don’t care much for logic.  I have never said anything antisemitic unlike you or tried to plead the 5^th Amendment on Question Time re Holocaust Denial.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222441/Question-Time-panellist-launches-extraordinary-attack-BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin.html Instead, I have consistently asked: what number is Holocaust Denial?

CK to NG  20/3/14  0904

“Mass immigration has been a deliberate genocide plan against white people from the very beginning.”  By whom?

CK to NG  20/3/14  0906

“Civic nationalists are not only cowards but collaborators with the biggest crime in human history.”  I am a civic nationalist.  How have I been cowardly?

CK to NG  20/3/14  0913 That photo gives me notoriety and links me to nationalism.  You are probably aware that a conventional career path in politics is closed to me and that I must somehow make myself known as I am not a member of any party. 

CK to NG  20/3/14  0927

I would have thought that a nationalist would want to repeal the Equality Act.  I know John Tyndall would have supported my proposal and that the BNP wanted to repeal the Sex Discrimination Act in the 1990s.  You are not helping your people by failing to make nationalism an attractive, moral and noble ideology.  Instead, nationalism is now associated with CHAVs in Islamophobic demos.  Even UKIP have gone further than you in displays of Islamophobia eg screening of Fitna in the House of Lords http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/05/geert-wilders-house-of-lords, Gerard Batten’s proposal to make Muslims promise not to commit terrorism. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence

CK to NG  20/3/14  0933

What have you got against proposing the abolition of no fault divorce which undermines the institution of marriage?  It is the desecration of this institution that has caused racial and national degeneracy, has it not? http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html  [85% of Jamaican mothers SSMs.  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts] You do know that most British babies are illegitimate, don’t you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517 'The whites have become black' says David Starkey

CK to NG  20/3/14  0943

Your trouble is that you lower your morals to match those of your core supporters.  Perhaps my trouble is that I try to raise the morals of those I hope will support me.  I can tell you how to do better and you owe it to yourself and your cause to understand my ideas before you reject them.  If you tell me your practical and philosophical objections to my proposals then I can propose solutions which you would be free to reject or implement.  WHY won’t you propose repealing/abolishing EA/NFD?

CK to NG  20/3/14  1001

I was in The Guardian against last Friday.  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/13/hugh-muir-diary-pickles-audit-commission I can probably attract more publicity than you can these days.  Who else in nationalism has been described by The Guardian as “philosopher activist”? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/29/hugh-muir-diary-waterboarding-bbc  I am also legally-trained.  I am probably your last hope before you face electoral meltdown next year.  Now tell me why you won’t propose to do away with Equality Act and no-fault divorce.  If it is because you are afraid of a mass resignation of the Advisory Council I have just the solution, but you have to act fast.  

http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/content/contact is where you can send him messages saying you are a Eurosceptic who would vote BNP instead of UKIP but only if he does what I have suggested above and at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-bnp-can-do-now-that-ukip-has.html

Why I am suing the Conservative Party, in language a layman would understand

• With politicians working hard to seem amiable, it's refreshing to be reminded that they rarely leave home without the iron fist within that velvet glove. That realisation must be dawning on that horrible controversialist Claire Khaw – who was expelled from the Tory party earlier this year when party bosses discovered nasty things she had previously said about the disabled. You are not our type, the Tories said. Which seemed fair enough. But Khaw, being Khaw, went to the high court and applied for judicial review. Cue a letter from the Tory party lawyers – and it's a beauty. We "strongly advise" that you take legal advice "before taking any further steps", it says. "Your application for judicial review will fail." You can't challenge our disciplinary committee because we are essentially a "private members'" association. Even if you could, the decision was a sound one. We have to respond to your application by 22 July, they say. We will fight and we will win, and make you be liable for costs. "You have a choice. Withdraw your claim and prove that you have done so by 1200hrs on Thursday 18th July. If you do this our client will not seek to recover its legal costs from you." If you don't, on your own head be it. No surrender, says Khaw. I'd rather risk legal fees, if they are reasonable. Reasonable legal fees? She is odd, isn't she?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/hugh-muirs-diary-mps-chelsea-flower-show

It won't be a big legal bill because they are saying my claim is so crap that they just have to tell the court it is crap and the court will agree with them pronto and refuse me permission, in which case that will be the end of the matter.  If I have to pay their costs at all, then it would be for the cost of the Conservative Party instructing its solicitors to file a defence saying that my claim is utterly without merit and should not be entertained for one moment by any High Court judge in his or her right mind.  

What I am asking for is in fact really very modest. The Conservatives have no principles (or mistakenly think that their principles are contained in David Cameron's Foreword of their 2010 General Election Manifesto at http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf). I just want them to publish a formal Statement of Principles.

My theory is that the reason why Western governments are now foundering is because none of parties that are supposed to promote social conservatism - such as the Conservative Party - have a Statement of Principles.  Because social conservatism is never defended and the need for it not properly understood, extremist liberalism and feminism and their irresponsible social policies have caused social problems that will not be dealt with, let alone solved, for a few generations.

I will be suggesting to the Conservatives that they might like a principle along the lines of "The principle of the Conservative Party is to conserve the long-term national interest."

The national interest could be defined as, for example, solvency and social stability which would mean the promotion of fiscal prudence and marriage (between a man and a woman only) for social stability.

I know people will find it very difficult to grasp, but what I am suing the Conservative Party for is this:

For claiming that I have said and done things that were 'wholly inconsistent' with their aims, objectives and principles AND THEN BEING UNABLE TO TELL ME WHAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE.

To judicially review a decision of a public body you have to cite the following legal grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Grounds_for_review

I recognise that my legal action may fall at the first hurdle, because their lawyers have already claimed that the Conservative Party is not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body and are instead "a private members' association".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_on_Take-overs_and_Mergers,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc is the case that I will cite that argues that any organisation that can make decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large will be deemed to be a public body, whether it likes it or not.

This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatisation" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Cameron could not have become Prime Minister if he had not joined the Conservative Party.

Now that he is PM and proposing to legalise gay marriage, this would clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

Organisations such as

The Marriage Foundation http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Default.aspx

Christian Concern http://www.christianconcern.com/

Christian Institute  http://www.christian.org.uk/

Coalition for Marriage http://c4m.org.uk/

and anyone else who is against gay marriage and the way the Conservative Party is running this country should really be supporting me in this.

This would include UKIP and the BNP and any organisation that considers itself Libertarian eg

The IEA  http://www.iea.org.uk/

The Libertarian Alliance  http://www.libertarian.co.uk/

Adam Smith Institute http://www.adamsmith.org/

If the court is minded to favour my arguments, then it will be what lawyers call a landmark case.

I expect anyone who is a member of any political party to take an interest, because this case highlights really how powerless the individual political activist is and how likely his rights will be abused by the leaders and his cronies with impunity by his abusers.  Any complaint of ill-treatment will be treated with indifference by one's friends, family and associates because everyone hates politicians and think they deserve to suffer for presuming to tell them what to do.

They are of course claiming I am a very bad egg: an antisemite and a Nazi for one thing, and for daring to discuss controversial subjects in a way that has caused great offence to liberals and feminists.

My intention is to prove that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi and deny that I am an antisemite.  I will however put my hands up to discussing controversial subjects. One goes into politics precisely because one has a view about controversial subjects. Discussing controversial subjects and expressing controversial opinions should not be a reason for expulsion from any party, should it?

It is shocking that no political party will defend the right of any of its members when they say something liberals and feminists dislike.

I have a made a point of not saying anything that is logically, morally and intellectually indefensible, but it seems that these rules of rational discourse are unknown even to what passes for the intelligentsia in this land.

No one is interested in discussing whether something is moral, practicable or rational, only that it is offensive in this easily-offended and morbidly feminised country.

The Truth is ugly, boys and girls, and I think it is time that you were told that this is a fact of life.   Santa Claus does not exist and Mummy and Daddy (if you have one) will not be around forever to look after you and bail you out.

Surely political activists are allowed to discuss controversial subjects without being vilified and their political careers ruined, in what we fondly imagine to be a society which is supposedly free because the principle of free speech is upheld  by the state?

Is there anything at all in the Conservative Party constitution that forbids a member from discussing the disabled in terms that they or their parents might find offensive?  I rather suspect not.

Just because one is not taken out and shot for saying something found to be offensive by the easily-offended - usually women - does not mean one has free speech.   Many are easily intimidated and the threat of a much lesser punishment, such as loss of a Facebook friendship, loss of status, is usually enough.  Many men fear being considered odd by women with whom they wish to have sex and so toe the feminist line in order not to offend the women whom they hope to fuck.  Men, as we know, will do anything for sex, and telling a few lies, or, more likely, refraining from criticising feminism during courtship in order to gain sexual access to women, is easily done.

All this is enough to make self-censorship the rule in this supposedly free country.

Probably, China has more free speech than Britain.   

What Claire Khaw said and didn't say

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/27/hugh-muir-diary-edward-snowden

We recounted in January how Claire Khaw, the deliberately offensive activist cum "British nationalist philosopher", managed to achieve membership of the Tory party. This was despite her eye-popping views on the need to get tough on those with children with disabilities and advocacy of slavery for people found in Britain without the right immigration papers. Unsurprisingly, the Tories, realising the anomaly, withdrew her membership. But the former BNP agent won't be told, so here it is, Khaw v Central Office. She's gone off to the high court, seeking judicial review. May the least objectionable party win, we say.

It is tedious to have point out again that I have never said anything about children with disabilities. What I in fact advocate is to give parents of unwanted unviable and disabled babies the option of committing infanticide.  If they want to keep their unwanted unviable and disabled babies they can. At no time did I propose a programme of systematically exterminating the disabled, as was so sensationally claimed by so many of my detractors.

As for enslaving illegal immigrants, I put my hands up to that one and stand by what I said at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary

Here's one Claire Khaw – whose background, interestingly, is Malaysian Chinese, and who is acting as cheerleader for Jeffrey Marshall, the party's candidate in London's Bethnal Green and Bow – engaging in some recent banter on Facebook: "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."

My arrest at 0740 on 24 January by five policemen for the offence of offending Jessica Thom and other Tourette's sufferers

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jail-Deport-Claire-Khaw-Enemy-of-the-White-Working-Class/382443425185669?fref=ts

This page was created by my former associate David Jones on 26 January.  He describes himself as a libertarian but is either so confused or without principle that he gloats at my arrest because we have fallen out.   He will be trying yet again to become councilor this time in Cornholme Ward in Todmorden in May 2013.

I was arrested at 0740 on 24 January, taken to Peckham Police Station and finally released at 2136 after a two-hour interview.  I was offered the option of making an apology and receiving only a caution, but felt I had a right to say what I did and refused.   I have not been charged and am due to answer bail  on 7 March.

David Jones the self-proclaimed libertarian superimposes prison bars on my image because he thinks it is quite right  that someone should be arrested for publishing what I did about Jessica Thom.  I believe he even hopes that I will be executed. 

It was a bit like that.

This rather amusing picture was created by David Jones, my former associate.  They brought me Tetley tea, scampi and chips finished off by spotted dick and custard.   I have no complaints about my treatment.  Peckham Police Station seems well run; the policemen were handsome, and the policewomen pretty.   The WPC who arrested me was really one of the nicest women I have ever met.

This is a photo from the Facebook group of David Jones dedicated to the purpose of having me jailed *and*  banished from Britain.   It  would be difficult to do both at the same time, I imagine.  

The surprisingly orthopaedic mattress and pillow in Cell 9.  David Jones boasted that he destroyed his when he was held for electoral fraud at Halifax Police Station, but I just did the sensible thing with them and used them for the purpose for which they were created, namely for lying on and contemplating the ceiling.  

A view of Cell 9 lying on the mattress

A view of Cell 9 lying on the mattress looking at the loo

A view of Cell 9 looking at the mattress from the door

On 17 January the post complained of at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/how-many-people-think-jessica-thoms.html by Tourette's sufferer Jessica Thom was removed.  Yesterday, 30 January,  it was briefly displayed before being removed again.   

If you wish to read the offending post it can be found at
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/thevoiceofreason-ann which can only be read if you join Tumblr and at
https://www.facebook.com/notes/claire-khaw/how-many-people-think-jessica-thom-the-biscuit-woman-is-putting-it-on-to-avoid-h/456623547745617

Jessica Thom's book can be purchased at 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welcome-Biscuit-Land-Year-Touretteshero/dp/0285641271

Hugh Muir of the Guardian mentions my arrest at 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/29/hugh-muir-diary-murdoch-times


I have already been mentioned THREE times in January 2013 by Hugh Muir in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/02/hugh-muir-diary-bnp-conservatives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/04/hugh-muir-diary-nigel-farage-card
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/29/hugh-muir-diary-murdoch-times


https://www.facebook.com/notes/claire-khaw/how-many-people-think-jessica-thom-the-biscuit-woman-is-putting-it-on-to-avoid-h/456623547745617 was what got me into trouble, reproduced below.

How many people think Jessica Thom the biscuit woman is putting it on to avoid her responsibilities of being a normal person?

22 April 2013 at 20:23
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12846961
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pgq2v

Is Jessica Thom, a clearly intelligent woman, putting on her Tourette’s syndrome on to avoid  the responsibilities of being a normal citizen with the usual responsibilities of life?  In a more sensible age she would have been shunned.  In our era of matriarchal dementia, she is being privileged.   I think she is using it to avoid having to find a husband and the horror of having sex with a series of frogs to find a decent one.   In a way, I understand.

Here she is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrfFk2ZKDpk

Do you think you could do what she does without suffering from Tourette’s?

How would she feel if she were suddenly “cured”?

Would she then become totally unremarkable and lose all her privileges?

Would you want to be “cured” if you were her?

Do you think if we could bribe her with something sufficiently enticing, such as a lot of money, or the car or the man or the holiday of her dreams, she would and could cure herself?

To discuss these and related issues, as well as to vote YES or NO, please join http://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/512860475402523/?comment_id=512860565402514&notif_t=like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYF7E4xsdkI

Listen to Jessica Thom say “fuck” a lot to music.   Would you want your kid to be like that?   Would you tell your kid that it is OK to be like that?   Biscuit!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tourettes-Syndrome-poor-impulse-control-and-attention-seeking/488217111222294 is the Facebook page I have set up to so that this issue can be discussed without censorship.  Jessica Thom should know that it also advertises her book Welcome To Biscuit Land, and it is hoped that this knowledge will restrain her and her more censorious female friends from trying to get the page reported and deleted.

I only ask questions.  If it is really the case that we cannot even ask questions then we really might as well say goodbye to Western civilisation.

There are polls that should be of interest to Tourette’s suffers and those who have views on Tourette’s sufferers.

It has been crazy the number of people who have said to me “I have Tourette’s and so does my partner and so do my children.”

If Tourette’s is something that isn’t being faked, then it is genetic and neurological.   If it is genetic and neurological, then it can be passed on.  It is my opinion that people with Tourette’s should neither get married nor have children.   Will I get another death threat for just saying that?

What kind of person marries someone with Tourette’s?

Another person with Tourette’s?

This means that their children will be very likely to get Tourette’s.  Why does the government allow this?

Why?

I don’t understand.

My open letter to Tom Walker of the Socialist Workers' Party

Martin Smith AKA Comrade Delta - cleared of rape allegations

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html

The SWP is likened to a "socialist sharia court" - this is delicious!  Schadenfreude, anyone?

The allegations came from an unnamed female party member who claimed she was assaulted over a six-month period between 2008 and 2009 but did not want to go to the police.

To be fair to the SWP, what can you do if the woman claimed to have been raped for 6 months but refuses to go to the police?  Convict anyway?

Now that would be really crazy.

Sounds like she put up with the sexual attentions of Comrade Delta for 6 months then decided it wasn't worth it.  This is what feminists these days call Rape in Retrospect, which goes along the lines of "If I knew he was going to be such a loser and a bastard, I never would have let him fuck me."

Should we allow men to divorce their wives when they lose their youth and figure and start to nag? After all, he could easily say "I never knew being married to to you could be so shit, or I never would have married you. Let's call the whole thing off and pretend we never had the kids or ever met each other.  I'll just leave you with the house and the bills, yeah?"

Is this the way things are heading in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland?

It seems to me that the SWP came to a fair and sensible decision.  It would be crazy to convict anyone of a criminal charge without a criminal standard of proof - beyond all reasonable doubt in a trial by jury.

I must say I am rather conflicted.  On the one hand I believe the SWP were sensible in exonerating Comrade Delta, but on the other, it seems that the manner in which they reached their decision was unfair or oppressive, according to Tom Walker.

I think all parties are guilty of this high-handed treatment of members by the leader and his cronies, and something should be done.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning


Hi Tom

Your resignation from the SWP

Some years ago I bumped into some of your colleagues at an event to do with T3 and remembered them even then complaining about the lack of democracy in the SWP.

I have for many years been saying that the problem with this country is that the rights of those who participate in politics in their respective parties are not at all protected.

I hope this link will explain what I mean and what I propose to do about it.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html

While our politics are not in harmony, I trust we can work together in making the point about how crucial it is for enlightened government that free speech - especially the free speech of those who participate in politics - is protected.

Regards

Claire Khaw

PS   I have been mentioned by The Guardian by Hugh Muir twice last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/02/hugh-muir-diary-bnp-conservatives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/04/hugh-muir-diary-nigel-farage-card

It is possible that he may wish to give this project further publicity if we can work together on this.



Some of you will be interested to know that the Conservative Party appear to be refusing to give me a reason why they have cancelled my membership.   The exchanges can be seen at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html

Even the BNP gave me a reason when they expelled me!
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html