Two British Writers Languish In A California Jail for 'Holocaust' Denial
Mark Graffis
'Holocaust Fundamentalism' And The War On Dissent
Two British Writers Languish In Obscurity In A California Jail. Their Crime?
Satire, Mockery & Disbelief.
By Mark Green
2-17-9
An international court battle involving government-imposed
restrictions on political expression has ensnared two right-leaning British
intellectuals.
Writers Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle stand convicted of
violating modern British laws against "stirring up racial and religious
hatred" for publishing, among other things, an allegedly anti-Semitic comic
book called "Tales of the Holohoax" as well as a nativist-British pamphlet
called "Don't Be Sheeple".
As the irrepressible creators of a pugnacious web site called
'Herectical.com', Shepard and Whittle (who writes under the pen name, 'Luke
O'Farrell') have published scores of taboo-busing manifestos, cultural
critiques and satires, as well as numerous scientific papers and 'general
interest' material. But it all came to a crashing end last year under the boot
heel of a British court. What's worse, their prickly commentary was about to
earn them a multi-year stint in an English jail.
Outraged at what they consider politically based persecution, the two
dissenters chose instead to seek political asylum in America. Then the US
Dept. of Homeland Security stepped in.
The most recent chapter of their political odyssey began on July 14,
2008, when Sheppard and Whittle (dubbed the 'Heretical Two') delivered
themselves to US authorities at Los Angeles International Airport upon their
arrival from Europe. But instead of sanctuary they received a one-way ticket
to the Santa Ana jail; this, despite the fact that they entered the US legally
and the contents of their published works violate no US law. In fact, the
server headquarters of their web site, Heretical.com, is located in
California. Despite this, an American judge presiding over their asylum case
has refused to grant them bail.
Sheppard and Whittle remain in police custody under the watchful eye
of the US Dept. of Homeland Security.
'News Blackout' Spells Invisibility
Meanwhile, the mainstream media has shown persistent indifference to
this noteworthy First Amendment brawl, even though the case's legal
implications are newsworthy, perplexing and perhaps even precedent setting,
But why would the mainstream media play a passively hostile role
towards these Free Speech activists? Why? Because the Heretical Two qualify as
exemplars of Britain's 'far Right', a movement that's antagonistic towards
many modern conventions concerning race, sexuality, feminism, Third World
immigration and Israel's elevated status in the West.
The 'far right's' political agenda stands in direct opposition to the
multi-cultural transformation of Europe and North America that's been in
progress for the past half century. Many rightists allege that these cultural
changes have been promoted by influential jurists, financiers, as well as
major players in news, publishing and entertainment. With this in mind, the
media's self-imposed blackout becomes far easier to understand.
As for the British laws designed to inhibit 'racial or religious
hate', it's significant that the only other figure to come under the sway of
this decree was dissident Australian historian, Dr. Frederick Toben, who was
seized by British authorities last year for denying the magnitude of the
Holocaust. Defendant Stephen Whittle contends that "for those who hate truth,
truth is hate".
Bruce Leichty, Sheppard and Whittle's immigration attorney, had this
to say about the bizarre British edict that prompted the Heretical Two to take
flight: "Under this novel application of [British] law, American citizens, or
indeed citizens of any nation, are rendered subject to arrest and prosecution
by the British authorities if anything they post on the world wide web is
deemed in breach of British laws governing the discussion of race and
religion". These extra-national laws pose a direct challenge to America's
First Amendment rights.
Meanwhile, Sheppard and Whittle languish in an American jail, unseen
and unknown. This undermines their quest for freedom since publicity is vital
to raising funds to sustain their legal battle. But the Heretical Two are not
alone. New dissidents are now being targeted. Others, like Holocaust skeptics
Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, remain behind bars.
One recent target, a conservative Catholic Bishop named Richard
Williamson has come under intense pressure for remarks he made about the
official Holocaust story on Swedish TV. This is how it's playing out in the
mainstream news:
Jews Tell Vatican: Holocaust Denial is a Crime
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/wl_nm/us_pope_jews
By Philip Pullella (2/9/09)
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - World Jewish leaders told Vatican officials
that denying the Holocaust was "not an opinion but a crime" when they met on
Monday to discuss a bishop they accuse of being anti-Semitic.
The meetings, the first since the controversy over Bishop Richard
Williamson, who denies the extent of the Holocaust, began last month, took
place three days before Pope Benedict is due to address a group of American
Jewish leaders.
Williamson told Swedish television in an interview broadcast in
January: "I believe there were no gas chambers." He said no more than 300,000
Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, rather than the 6 million accepted
by most historians.
"Today we strongly reaffirmed that the denial of the Shoah is not an
opinion, but a crime," said Richard Prasquier, president of the French Jewish
umbrella organization CRIF, using the Hebrew word for Holocaust.
The headline and narrative are fairly typical of the news-bites that
frame this unique kind of dispute. In this instance, the reader finds the
accused Bishop alone, stigmatized and denounced by numerous authoritative
sources and even a court. The Jewish perspective is given overwhelming
prominence. Nowhere in the article are there any defenders of Williamson's
position. The vital issues of Free Speech and political liberty are altogether
absent. Case closed.
In most any other context, the attempt by government to impose
criminal penalties for mere utterances would be questioned--if not
deplored--in the article itself. But arguments involving the Holocaust and
Jewish sensitivities are treated, in the mainstream media at least, with
unique partisanship.
The London Times (Online edition, 2/9/09) proclaims:
British Diplomat Arrested Over "Anti-Semitic' Rant
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5693687.ece
"Allegations that a senior British diplomat launched into an
anti-Semitic rant in a London gym while watching TV footage from Gaza will not
upset the "treadmill of diplomacy", the Israeli Ambassador to London said
today.
In a curiously tongue-in-cheek response to a case that has provoked
concern within the Jewish community in Britain, Ron Prosor added that the
tirade did not reflect "the health and fitness of our relations".
The diplomat, 47-year-old Rowan Laxton, allegedly shouted "f***ing
Israelis, f***ing Jews" while watching television reports of the Israeli
attack on Gaza last month.
He is also alleged to have said that Israeli soldiers should be "wiped
off the face of the Earth" during the rant at the London Business School gym
near Regents Park on January 27. The tirade reportedly continued even after
other gym users asked him to stop.
After a complaint from a member of the public, Mr. Laxton was arrested
for inciting religious hatred - which can carry a seven-year prison term - and
bailed to reappear at a central London police station at the end of March."
When the dust settles, the curious reader is left with this unanswered
question: What's worse?-using the F-word in the same sentence as the word
'Jew'?-or a military invasion and assault upon a civilian population by an
overpowering, nuclear-ready foreign power? The London Times' coverage would
suggest that insensitive language is the more reprehensible of the two. On
this key question, the editorial pages at the same paper are silent.
Meanwhile, Mr. Laxton is facing years in jail for his verbal
indiscretions.
'Overrepresentation': So What?
Have Big Media and Big Government joined forces to advance an ethnic
agenda? It's looking that way. Writing in the LA times (12/19/08) columnist
Joel Stein adds humor and realism to the stunning reality of ethnic monopoly
in Big Media/Entertainment. He writes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,3844
853.column
"How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a
full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the
Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News
Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey
(Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures
Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry
Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great
uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan
(Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If
either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only
the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough
Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah."
Stein clears the air. And he's pretty funny about it. But the impact
of ethnic activism in media and government must be assessed, and
critically-without the threat of reprisal. Stein takes good-natured pity on
Hollywood's ethnic outsiders (plain old white folks) saying:
"The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with
six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them
to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to
me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie
Collier, turned out to be Jewish."
But concentrated power with a global agenda can become very un-funny
indeed. Just ask the Heretical Two. When wealth, talent, religion and
government merge, there can be many, many causalities.
Glenn Greenwald, writing in the American Conservative Magazine, makes
this disturbing observation about Israeli influence in the US Congress:
"From the moment Israel began dropping bombs on Gaza, leaders of
America's two major political parties rushed to announce their total support,
competing to see who could most fulsomely praise the offensive. So complete
was the agreement that they all seemed to be reading from the same script.
While other Western government issued even-handed statements condemning both
Israel and Hamas and their diplomats worked furiously to forge a ceasefire
agreement, America's political leaders stood on the sidelines, cheering
[Israel's invasion] with increasing fervor.
"In the Senate, support for the resolution was absolute across party
an ideological lines. Its chief sponsors were Majority Leader Harry Reid and
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not a single senator-not one-expressed
opposition, so there was no need for a roll-call vote. On Jan. 8, as images of
a burning Gaza were being broadcast around the world, the Senate approved the
resolution by unanimous consent, without objection."
Greenwald also cites a recent University of Maryland study which found
that 71% of Americans do not want the US to take sides in the Israel-Palestine
conflict, and asks "How are US interests advanced by insinuating ourselves
into such a an entrenched conflict?"
Whittle, in the meantime, warns about federal legislation here in the
US that also poses a danger to traditional American liberties. "[House] bill
HR-1955", he notes, "is ready to begin pushing the US down the same slope as
the UK and European Union". Though this bill finally stalled in the Senate, it
received overwhelmingly support by both parties in the House of
Representatives.
The bill, HR-1955, was named the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act" by its liberal (and Jewish) sponsor, Jane Harman
(D-CA). It contained numerous provisions criminalizing, among other things,
"hate speech", which is code for selectively targeting political expression.
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is expected to sponsor a similar bill later this
year. Other bills now under consideration in the House (HR-256 and HR-262)
also seek to broaden and enhance 'hate speech' penalties.
But as America's Zionized conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran push
forward, larger problems surely loom. Nevertheless, eliminating politically
incorrect speech remains high on the agenda of both political parties. With
help from advisors linked to the ADL, lawmakers are now crafting legislation
aimed at circumventing Free Speech guarantees enumerated in the Bill of
Rights.
Pro-Zionist Personality Syndrome?
The pro-Zionist personality that's been on the forefront of condemning
dissent was put under the microscope recently by blogger/activist Karin
Friedmann, who avers:
"Jews in America are socially empowered to go way beyond the learned
trauma of the Jewish experience that results in typical reactionary behavior.
They actually participate in group behavior that is deliberately manipulative
and abusive - aimed at punishing activists who stand up for human equality and
justice. Over the years, US Jews have become increasingly nutty not only due
to current events but due to the internet "alerts" coming to them from Jewish
lobbyists, who solidify their brains in this self-righteous fantasy world
where Hamas is a terrorist organization, where Israel has some kind of right
to kill and rob non-Jews.
"So we are dealing with not only dangerous reactions based on past
trauma - actually learned trauma based on a glorified and fictionalized past -
but American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with
non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other,
to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics, in addition to wrecking
their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is
actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic
self-righteous fury.'
The pro-Zionist personality is so commonplace that it's now considered
normal. But when far right dissenters (often smeared as white supremacists)
gather publicly to legally and non-violently advance their own worldview, they
are typically set upon by even larger numbers of left wing
'counter-demonstrators'. There's hate speech aplenty during these rare
encounters, only it usually comes from the so-called anti-fascists. I recall
attending a rally for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President a decade or more
ago. At an otherwise peaceful assemblage of Middle Americans who came to hear
Buchanan's speech, was a raucous band of protesters with signs the read "Stop
Fascism" and "No Nazis Allowed." If the shoe were on the other foot, these
fiery insults would be classified as hate speech.
A confrontation of this kind happened in Germany recently, when
rightists attempted to commemorate the Allied annihilation of Dresden during
WWII. The problem again, was that hundreds of self-described anti-fascists
showed up, ready for a fight. Many were arrested. Significantly, when
democratic privileges are at play, the anti-fascist crowd shows a remarkable
disregard for civil liberties. It's likely that quite a few of these
anti-Fascists also have more than a passing interest in the security of
Israel.
At the center of so much contemporary indoctrination and censorship
lies the Holocaust, an event that's gradually becoming as large-or bigger-than
any episode in modern history. In America today, denying the existence of God
is a trifle compared to expressing skepticism about the How and Why and How
Many died at the hands of Nazis during WWII. Significantly, comparable (or
greater) crimes by Stalin during the same era are deliberately overlooked.
This is probably because those details detract from what's become the dominant
narrative of our time.
The Holocaust has come to stand for the supreme inhumanity of the
Gentile world towards an innocent and less-numerous (but greater) people. It
also serves to reminds Jews that only their cohesion, determination and
vigilance can possibly save them from the lurking and ubiquitous evil found
within the hearts of Gentiles.
On a more practical level, the Holocaust is essential to the
maintaining the dubious legitimacy of the Jewish State, a race-centered entity
set aside for the world's wealthiest and most accomplished ethnicity,
Without the unique and supreme suffering entailed within Holocaust
lore, Israel would be seen as a chauvinistic colony on a land that deserves,
at the very least, to be shared by all.
Opposing views about The Holocaust (and Jewish history) now define the
outer limits of Free Speech in the Western World. Without the courageous
sacrifice by a handful of dissidents, this might never change.
Please support Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle. They can be
contacted at:
Simon Sheppard 08-6404 Stephen Whittle 08-6408
C/O Santa Ana Jail C/O Santa Ana Jail
Box 22003 Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701 Santa Ana, CA 92701
For information about making an urgently-needed financial donation to
help free the Heretical Two, please contact Paul Ballard who is heading up
their Legal Defense Fund. paullb...@totalserve.co.uk
Contributions can also be sent to the Fund in the UK addressed as
follows: Croydon Preservation Society, P. O. Box 301, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5
4QW, United Kingdom.
Mark Green can be contacted via www.PersecutionPrivilegeAndPower.com