Archive | Race and Identity RSS feed for this section

Ofsted inspectors will question girls wearing hijabs in primary schools

7 Dec

[Published 07 December, 2017]

This is a guest blog by Iftikar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics. in response to the article published HERE.

Muslim girls who wear the hijab to primary school will be asked why they wear it by inspectors. The reasons given will then be recorded in school reports, amid concerns girls are being forced to wear the headscarf by their parents. Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools, announced the move on Sunday. Imagine being questioned about why you dress the way your parents tell you at 8 years of age!? What do you say?

“Sorry, I’ll tell them they are wrong”?

Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education? The problem is, before they start the quizzing, they’re making public exactly what the girls should get prepared to reply (by their family) to be allowed to keep the hijab. With all the time to rehearse. Any child asked by an inspector why she’s covering her hair should reply.. ‘its a free country I can wear what I effing want”!! We do not need inspectors chasing Muslims just because we hate them. Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education?

What is the role of the Government can any of the hijab haters answer This? Or do we need another PREVENT policy to target certain group of people? I bet all the readers who have kids have forced their kids to go to sleep, brush their teeth, wake them out of bed, eat dinner etc, wear a helmet whilst riding bike and so on…So what is wrong with telling your kid to cover the head to if one wants to. There is nothing wrong with this as long as its achieved peacefully and through education. Of course they are forced or at least required to wear hijabs by parents because it is the parents who bring up children according to their tradition, religion or both.

Freedom of religion is imperial . One can choose what to believe in an practise it , it’ not the government’ job to dictate what you should eat, how you should dress ,when you should pray ..it only has the power to coerce it’ civilians but it should just focusing on providing services and infrastructure and education and so on. So they need to send inspectors instead of assuming that it’s the parents brainwashing the kids. Interesting. Maybe they expect to find some 7 years old girls who will give them a detailed report of all the faiths they thoroughly researched before choosing Islam because it’s the one they believe provides the answers to all their existential and philosophical questions.

Parents are free to teach their children what they want as long as it’ not harming them physically or mentally. Its called education not force. I guess every parent has the right to educate their child into doing something which they believe is good (as long as its not a crime etc). It’s the parents that they should be questioning, not the children. No good asking the girls. If they are made to wear it, they will be made to say they aren’t, since that’s what the Inspectors want to hear. Everybody knows who the Inspectors spoke to.

You are/will be brainwashing your believes to your future children on what to do and what not. If my daughter from a young age is willing to wear the hijab I will not oppose it and make her understand that it is empowering her when she reaches puberty and she will be ready for it. When you live in a over sexualised society I believe such precaution is important. The child will progress just as much as the kids not wearing a headscarf in what sense does it make them weaker…apart of you sexualising the children when the Muslim parent prepares them for the real life and teaches what’s right or wrong . Who are you to tell ?

Where is the freedom of religion? Can she not express her identity at young age. Surely preparation makes one better.

I do not want my children to be brainwashed by half naked girls instead I’ll teach her what’s right or wrong and that is my duty not yours not the government. Asking little girls why they wear a headscarf is silly. It is forced on them in one way or another, through dictate by parents, training, social pressure.

Tell that to the Queen… even the DailyMail has no problem with her wearing one… Hijab is not the problem. It’s just a headscarf. The Queen like to wear one!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/The-Queen-steps-headscarf…

Did the NSS also ask for Sikh boys to be quizzed about their turbans and Jewish children for their religious headgear (skull caps or wigs)? If not why are Muslims being exclusively targeted again. I hope they’re also going to quiz Sikh boys who cover their hair..? No, thought not. Just pick on the girls.

Start by quizzing children if they are abused by parent who are alcoholics start by protecting children who are left homeless start by actually doing something usefully instead of targeting Muslims for wearing a religious symbol. Start by quizzing all children why they follow a religion after all they are smart in off to decide for themselves Will they ask Jewish kids if they are wearing their outfits voluntarily?

The opposite to hijab wearing is the display of highly sexualised forms of many western women. Western men get to enjoy this without thinking they are entitled to help themselves to every woman wearing a skirt up to her bum-cheeks.

The bottom line (pun intended) gents, is you can look but not touch. If you are offended, look away you control freak prude.

 

Edited by: Jason Schumann 

Disclaimer:

This has been published as an opinion piece only. The contents or views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the author of the debatingculture.wordpress.com blog.

Advertisements

British Sikhs Rally With Alt Right to Malign and Vilify Muslims

29 Jul

[Published 29 July, 2017]

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 16.50.25.png

[Image via Twitter from a now deleted Facebook post of interview given by Bhai Mohan Singh on LBC with Katie Hopkins]

For somewhat disgruntled and clearly resentful reasons, a number of British Sikh organisations appeared to have aligned themselves with members of the alt shite and libertarian movement in order to attack Muslims.

One of these organisations is the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS), which lists Prabjot Singh as its website registrant. Bhai Mohan Singh (above) is also involved in the work and activities of SAS.

SAS states on its website, that:

“In Britain today Sikh youth are still actively targeted on the basis of their religion and history. This historically linked hate-crime causes much emotional distress to the families involved with the majority of these cases ending up in abuse.”

Perhaps herein lies part of the root cause of the Sikh community’s alignment with Far Right commentators and hate preachers in an ongoing bitter attack on British Muslims.

It seems that SAS are rightfully unhappy with the fact that British police wrongly classify racist attacks on Sikhs as antiMuslim hate crimes and/ or classify them under general “Race and Religious” hate crimes.

It is perfectly right that SAS and other Sikh organisations should have such grievances and challenge the police to properly record hate crimes according to the classification of different ethnic and religious groups.

As early as March 2016, another Sikh organisation, which lists Lord (Indarjit) Singh of Wimbledon CBE as its director and published a letter on its website regarding the false reporting and recording of hate crimes against Sikhs.

SAS, however, has gone one step too far and sought to align itself and garnered support from the likes of Katie Hopkins, Anne-Marie Waters, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and Dr Ryan Waters of the UK Independence Party.

Waters, Hopkins, and Lennon, have all repeatedly called for the genocide and expulsion of all Muslims from Europe, claiming that Europe is being overrun and facing imminent Islamification and that the White race is being wiped out.

Bhai Mohan Singh, also of SAS, recently gave an interview for LBC with the former radio presenter, Hopkins, before she was forced to resign due to her continued and unapologetic racist and antiMuslim outbursts after a public campaign.

Hopkins, described as a PR machine for extremists, has recently been photographed having a selfie taken with a holocaust denier and travelled to Sicily to support the anti-Immigrant campaign, Defend Europe.

Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, is more than happy to drag up and reignite ancient and colonial division between Sikhs and Muslims, which SAS seems more than happy go along with and draw out to no constructive or positive benefit or outcome.

Returning to the Sikh communities grievances with police monitoring of hate crimes and having corresponded with Jasvir Singh of the Sikh Federation, UK, the available data for hate crimes against Sikhs would suggest that some 3,500 hate crimes were misreported and recorded for 2015/ 6.

But do such valid grievances of Muslim grooming gangs and the marginalisation of Sikh concerns regarding the police ever warrant the Sikh communities White supremacist associations?

Many members of the Sikh community say no!

The comments have been anonymised in a now apparently deleted Facebook post, but here are some of the sentiments voiced by Sikhs in relation to SAS’s antiMuslim stance and links to the Far Right:

“Katie Hopkins a known and openly racist broadcaster?”

“Fucking pricks. You don’t represent my community.”

“Why are you aligning us with Katie Hopkins? She is hijacking this for her own cause”

Hardeep Singh, of the Sikh Messenger, has tweeted and posted numerous comments and articles against Muslims, including mocking the right of Muslim women to choose and have the right to wear head and face coverings in public.

In response to Singh’s mocking of the right to wear face and head coverings, the Sikh Federation appeared to condemn his comments and in fact draw parallels with similar concerns affecting Sikhs in Europe.

Author: Jason Schumann

Colour Blind: Flags, Racism, PoC, and LGBTI Pride

28 Jun

[Published 28 June, 2017]

download
[Source: ZARI TARAZONA / BILLY PENN]

For those not aware, ‘PoC’ is an abbreviation of the phrase People of Colour.

It’s a term that is commonly used as an all-encompassing catchall phrase – mainly in the United States – to describe people of all cultures and ethnicities, who are non-White.

Whilst it’s still a label indicative of difference – and some may find it too politically correct or even contentious – its usage makes for a good start in the process of moving away from – and the divisions and inequalities of – and connotations associated with racial profiling.

Moreover, its use has been adopted as an attempt to partly cast off notions of race and racism – and, in some way – seeks to unite people [of colour] in a common cause against systemic and social injustices.

In 2017, as part of the official ceremony and opening celebrations for the Philadelphia annual Pride event, the organising committee unveiled a redesigned Pride flag, to include two new (black and brown) stripes, thus seeking to give greater recognition to People of Colour (PoC).

The addition of these two stripes was intended to make QPoC somehow feel more included – and to acknowledge the existence racism from within the community – as a result of the publication of a report of racial profiling in LGBTI bars and clubs in Philadelphia’s Gaybourhood.

Despite this key point, some within our LGBTI communities, were dismissive about the addition of the stripes… on ‘aesthetic grounds’ – yes, you read that right – as if the pretty colours are apparently more important than rights and inclusion! Then we have those expressing complete outrage and indignation at the ‘desecration of such an iconic symbol’, because it the flag already represents PoC. Others have blamed PoC and accused them of being divisive. Yes, this is mainly White people saying all these things.

And people say there is no racism with in the community? I mean, we only need to consider how many non-PoC still perpetuate racial stereotypes of Black men as ‘lions and beasts’, South East Asian men and and women in their smaller physiques, willingness to please, and perceived submissive manner, and Black women as ‘hard work’ or ‘difficult to handle.’

These statements are all stereotypes made and acted out by both Heterosexuals and members of the LGBTI communities, who them use to define PoC.

My partner, of 11 years – who is a White male – told me of an encounter whilst he was on the metro system, with a colleague when he lived in KL some years ago. On hearing two young women speak in Malay, his colleague heard them commenting on ‘how White men are supposed to have big cocks.’ As he was getting off the metro, my partner’s (White, male) colleague, who speaks or spoke fluent Malay, said: “Yes, it’s true! Wanna try?”

The fact is, many White men do travel to live, work, and holiday in South East Asia, purely to have sex with South East Asian men and women. For example, ‘Rice queens’ – as some LGBTI-ers are called, within the community – are mainly White men who prefer South East Asian men.

I know that many of my South East Asian friends, are now increasingly fed up with this narrative and insist on being dominant with White men. Similarly, many African-American and Black-British men, have refused to have any sexual and/ or social relations with White males, because of perceived racism. To give further weight to this view, many White males will put ‘no Black or Asians’ on their profiles on dating websites and apps.

Clearly, without wish to sexualise this any further, many PoC are still viewed as – exotic objects and ‘Other’; to be conquered, dominated, and to be subservient – which maintains and continues to prop up the tired, repetitious position that PoC are lower beings and should know their place.

At this years’ Pride event in Ohio, a group of PoC LGBTI-ers conducted a small protest by stopping the parade. They were asking onlookers to give several minutes silence, in remembrance of the murders of more than 14 Trans PoC in the United States in the first part 2017. It follows similar campaigns on social media, like ‘Black Lives Matters’ and ‘Say Her Name.’

However, before being moved on by police, with some of the protesters actually being arrested, the onlookers apparently booed and jeered at the protesters, claiming that the protesters were obstructing the parade and disrespecting their fellow LGBTI-ers and the celebrations.

The point is, that many PoC within the community still experience exclusion, injustice, and forms of racism both from within the community itself and externally in their lives outside the community – and are still disadvantaged because of how society views us, simply because of the colour of their skin. PoC still rightly believe that they continue to be marginalised; that their voices are not heard or being listened to, and that nothing has moved on for them since the Stonewall riots. This is particularly acute in the United States and in countries like France.

As I noted earlier, whilst some may argue that this change is unnecessary or even diminutive – what this step actually does – is give PoC within the community, greater visibility and enables non-PoC to reflect on their own personal views of PoC and racism from within. Clearly, it’s another step towards greater inclusivity for PoC who have been made to feel excluded and subjected to different forms of prejudice and discrimination by White LGBTI-ers.

The view that the flag has always colour blind and inclusive of all cultures and ethnicities, does not wash with anyone, except non-PoC. One might describe this ‘colour blind’ perspective of the flag, as a form of ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘cognitive dissonance.’ So if the addition of these two new stripes encourages and creates more debate, then this has done its job and is a positive and necessary step in realising what needs to change within the LGBTI community to address some of the above issues.

Card.jpg

As I explained to an old friend and colleague who runs a national organisation for PoC in the arts in the UK:

“Look at these additions [of the two [black and brown] stripes to the flag] as a mirror into which the largely White, privileged hegemony of [the LGBTI] community can [take a long, hard] look at itself, introspectively, and to reflect, on its own role, in perpetuating racial exclusion, and cultural stereotypes.”

We might also then take the time to look further at our views of people who are transgender and the participation and acceptance of members of the Jewish diaspora within our community without the politics of ‘us’ and ‘them.’

If you are a White person reading this blog article, may I suggest that you click on some the linked articles, reflect, and start a conversation with others. Hey, if you don’t socialise with PoC, perhaps even make the effort to.

Author: Jason Schumann

Two Tier Justice: White Terrorist Versus Muslim Terrorist and Institutional Racism

21 Feb

unequal-justice-black-sq-1170x1170

In mid-2016, a 17-year-old male from the City of Bradford in the North of England was arrested on terrorism charges after being reported by a suspicious neighbour.

What ever we say about curtain-twitchers in our local communities, sometimes they can be lifesavers, hey?

The young male’s identity has been protected because he is considered a minor under British Law; and so, he is protected under various legal instruments including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Yes, you may laugh at this; but this is one of the tenets that are supposed to make the British judicial system unique and to be envied as a beacon, is it not?

Many would disagree with this, and suggest that such protections; particularly in this instance, are ‘nannyish’ in the extreme, arguing that the seriousness of the matter (had an act of terrorism been carried out) would warrant removal of anonymity. 

Hold that thought for a moment! 

The police are quoted in the mainstream media; and subsequently by his prosecution, that he became ‘radicalised’ by social media and events happening in the UK and events portrayed in World news.

The 17-year-old had posted images of homemade incendiary devices and made comments on social media, praising the murder of the Labour MP, Jo Cox, who was shot dead in the street of her constituency by a member of the public with Far Right connections.

When West Yorkshire police raided the young male’s family home, they found various extremist paraphernalia and incriminating content on his personal computer, including messages and communications posted on chat forums, that he had shared with others with similar views to his own.

He was apparently planning an attack on a local mosque.

Incidentally, the young male in question, also had links to the same extremist group, National Action, as did Jo Cox’s murderer. Rightly so, National Action has since been proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

In January 2017, the male was found guilty of making ‘viable’ explosive devices, but acquitted of intent to carry out an act of terror. His defence team successfully argued that he was only ‘experimenting’, and had no intention of carrying out any kind of attack.

He was sentenced by Mr Justice Goss, rather leniently, to just a supervision and rehabilitation order.

But what if he had been a 17-year-old Muslim, ‘messing’ around with explosives and posting extremist content on social media, not intending to act out his desires to commit a terrorist act?

Let’s look, shall we?

In March 2015, a 15-year-old male from Lancashire was convicted on terrorism charges, after pleading guilty to inciting a person to commit an act of terrorism.

In May 2015, a teenager from Newham, London, was convicted of grooming a “vulnerable” young man, to kill UK soldiers, and sentenced to 8-years in a young offenders institution and placed on a 15-year prevention and supervision order.

In October 2016, in Paris, France, a teenager was charged with criminal association with a terrorist group. Again, in Paris, in 2017, a 16-year-old female was arrested on suspicion of planning a future attack.

Only within the last couple of days, five teenagers, between the ages of 17 – 19, have been arrested in London, on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack.

In 2014/ 5, two teenage males in the North East of England were arrested by Northumbria police, on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. Again, the defence team argued that the two males involved were not serious and had no intention of carrying out an act of terror. They were also given anonymity and let off the supervision orders.

In the case of the 17-year-old from Bradford and the two teenagers from the North East of England, all three were young White males.

In all other cases referred to, the teenagers involved are Muslim and have all been sentenced to detention, or are waiting to be given detention orders.

In the case of the 15-year-old, from Bolton, in Lancashire, convicted of terrorism charges, for inciting a person to commit an act of terrorism in Australia, his rights as a minor and to anonymity were removed by the British courts.

Anonymity if you are a White teenage terrorist suspect but not if you a Muslim teenage terrorist suspect, you query? 

Does this mean that the British media and judicial system only say ‘terrorism’, when the person involved is Muslim? Can we say that the ‘system’ looks on White teenage terror suspects and treats them more favourably and with more leniencies?

In short, the answer is yes!

In comparing each of these circumstances, all those involved were/ considered minors under the British legal system; only those who are Muslim have received a custodial sentence. Only those who are White have been afforded the right to anonymity. 

Perhaps the British Judicial System is not an enviable beacon after-all?

Indeed, it’s the same outcome when we look at arrests and sentencing rates, of other minority groups. Only in the last week, the Guardian and Voice Newspaper journalist, Leah Sinclair, revealed that Black and other minority groups in the UK are 40% more likely to be tasered by the Metropolitan police.

As we know, it’s even worse in countries like France; and particularly, in draconian countries like the United States.

Whilst the term ‘racism’ is used as a blanket or catchall description; for all forms of prejudice and discrimination, it seems that wherever we are, our criminal and public institutions remain inherently and systemically racist and biased.

Until we remove this double standard of cultural bias and privilege and difference of ‘Other’; true equality under the law (and in society as whole) is, but an aspiration and an everyday reality of inequality to us non-White folk.

Don’t be surprised if we refuse to sit for it much longer!

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

 

Does the Zionist Lobby Really Exist?

20 Dec

 

Ask yourself, does the Zionist lobby really exist?

If it does, is it Jewhate or antiSemitic, to say that it does?

In short, the answer is both ‘Yes’ to the first part; and ‘No’, to the second!

Yes, the ‘lobby’ does exist; and ‘No’, it is not – by any means – antiSemitic or Jewhate (as it should be called), to say so!

The very fact that members of the Global Jewish diaspora, Zionists and supporters of, and the Israeli government itself, are currently applying strong-arm and subversive (international) pressure; to silence – any and all – dissent, and criticism against the state of Israel – via means of lobbying sovereign governments – and; more recently, bringing private prosecutions, against historical revisionists, or those who support the BDS movement and/ or who condemn or challenge Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians – is, frankly, evidence enough.

That these ‘nefarious’ groups and individuals – who, less than 100 years ago, sought to lobby the British and US governments, to support the legitimisation of the illegal annexation and occupation of Palestine (via the Balfour declaration and Havaara agreement) – and then the subsequent lobbying of the United Nations; to decriminalise Zionism, as a form of racism – as was led and orchestrated by B’Nai B’Rith, the oldest advocacy organisation for Jewish supremacy – is an anathema, and further evidence of their existence and such activities.

To be clear, it was European Jews who set up the world’s modern banking system- yes, of course they along with other (non Jewish) merchant financiers and ‘nobles’ – who funded the beginnings of global trade, British imperialism and also supported the continuation of slavery and two subsequent wars in 20th century Europe.

(Note: Until the establishment of the modern banking system, money lending was forbidden by Christians and Muslims).

 

Indeed, it was none other than a singular, profiteering, Nat Meyer Rothschild  (one of the founding fathers of Zionism and the establishment of Israel) and a family member and business partner – one August Belmont, also Jewish, of German origin – who, via the Rothschilds’ New York office – vehemently fought against the British government and Abraham Lincoln, to abolish slavery – in order to protect the former’s financial and business interests.

In case you are somehow – stupidly, and bizarrely, ignorant and unaware – it was, in point of fact, only because of successive boycotts of the sale and purchase of goods, like cotton and coffee – that the slave trade; and subsequent indenture system, of Afrikans – ever came to an end. It was Nat Rothschild himself who raised the finances to compensate – yes, ‘compensate’ – slave and plantation owners.

(Oh noes, boycotting Israel, for its crimes against humanity, is antiSemitic. Cough)!

 

As Jonathan Hoffman, a former Bank of England official, recently stated in a Facebook comment;

“Why shout when you can whisper”.

 

This quote, by Hoffman, is apparently a tactic used by Court Jews (Marranos); on how to ruin, and to condemn their critics and perceived enemies.

On the contrary, Hoffman actually believes:

“shining a sunlight on such dissenters”,  rather than whispers about them.

How noble of him!

 

(Note: No one, should ever doubt the suffering of Jews; certainly not me, as I am an individual of Afrikan and Jewish ancestry. I regularly receive abuse (on social media) for being ghey – mostly about my HIV status – and the fact that I am also often called a ‘nigger’ and a ‘self-loathing Jew’ (due to my Grandfather’s heritage) – you can guess who abuses me for the latter)!

 

Aside, in the UK, the organisation, recently founded and run by one Robert Festenstein, of Jewish Human Rights Watch has failed, miserably, to outlaw the BDS movement, as a valid form of freedom of expression, and dissent against criminal regimes, like Israel.

Similarly, the woeful Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), led by the odious, spot-nosed and vexatious Gideon Falter, has so far, failed – despite his/ its continued efforts to suppress freedom of speech in the UK – and has had to resort to private prosecutions, in order to criminalise any form of public dissent against Israel.

I, am now apparently one of its targets. Needless to say, any claims or charges laid against me, will ultimately fail; as I can substantiate everything I say!

(Because of his threats against me about the fact that I dare to have the affront to make a challenge against him and speak out against the lobby; Gideon has decided to target me. It is because of these threats that, he is now subject to civil and criminal complaints, for harassment).

Gideon’s so-called ‘charitable’ organisation, is nothing more than a sham, attempting to subvert UK law, by means of bullying, threats, and coercion. This fact has been reported to the Charity Commission.

Any further attempts (by Gideon, CAA, or its ‘volunteers’) to harass or vilify me will be dealt with, severely.

Only recently, Gideon’s CAA, applauded Theresa May’s decision, to suggest that criticism of Israel, is antiSemitic; and therefore a punishable offence.You can see a link on their website and Facebook page.

This would be like allowing the government of Saudi to go unquestioned, regarding the cluster bombs it has used (that are in fact supplied by the UK) to target innocent Yemenis; or Mugabe’s regime, and its efforts to silence his critics and oust White Afrikans, from their adopted and purchased lands in Zimbabwe. Equally, allowing the faux White Helmets (founded by a British military officer) – or Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – to even remotely pretend that they are in any way humanitarian in their purpose.

As for the Community Security Trust (CST) – another nefarious organisation – which is currently being investigated by the Charity Commission, HMRC, and other public bodies – for its financial irregularities, which is also accused of having links to Mossad. CST uses its position to influence and leverage funding from the British government, at the expense of other minority groups who have suffered greater harm and abuse.

For example, in March 2016, CST secured £13.4m of taxpayers’ funding, to secure Jewish schools and places of worship. Yes, the Jewish community has and continues to be targeted by certain pervasive elements, but the vast majority of CST’s figures, for recorded abuse and attacks, have taken place online.

This is insignificant, in comparison to the murders, attacks, and abuse of other minority groups. Have any of these groups received any (UK) government funding or support? The answer is, NO! So why should CST and members of the Jewish community receive special protection? The narrative is simply; “We are the only ones who are being oppressed and discriminated against; We are the Chosenites”!

All of the above organisations have active and professional business links, to the Israeli government and politically active B’Nai B’Rith, as well as the World Zionist Organisation, which was founded and is run by Eitan Behar.

Here is what Eitan has to say about criticism of Israel on the WZO website:

“Our multilingual team of interns uses social networking to monitor, track and expose Antisemitic statements and expressions. We aim to give people like you the tools needed to counter and report anti-Jewish bigotry wherever and whenever it occurs. As proud Jews and Zionists, we publicly act to confront prejudice and demand an end to hateful messages.”

 

Interestingly, the pernicious and racist, Ambrosine Shitrit, of the socalled antihate org,  Eye On AntiSemitism, recently posted on social media, that she had a meeting with Eitan Behar, to discuss combatting valid criticism of Israel.

The purpose of her meeting with Eitan Behar was to discuss strategy to target individuals, like myself, and how to lobby and influence the UK government to criminalise holocaust revisionism/ ists, and the boycotting of Israeli goods.

She is quite blatant about her efforts on social media, and so is her hatred of Muslims and Palestinians. All information of these efforts is available on her Facebook pages and the World Zionist Organisation website.

Mrs. Shitrit has also posted numerous defamatory comments about me and even resorted to setting up a fake email account in my name. She is also a fan of the banned Pam Geller and other alt-Reich club members; and has an unhealthy interest in myself and Alison Chabloz, who is now subject to a private prosecution brought by Gideon Falter and CAA to silence freedom of speech in the UK.

Today, and with the blessing of our co-opted governments, the Zionist lobby, is attempting to stifle our freedom of speech. Indeed, it is Zionism, that; in part, promotes dislike of Jews. Why? Because since its inception, Zionism has always served to establish, create, and legitimise a state ofIsrael and its occupation of Palestinian lands and illegal settlements.

By which I mean, by any means necessary!

As noted by Theodor Herzl:

wp-1482356908867.jpg

Or a quote by Maurice Samuel, in his 1924 ‘You Gentiles’, in which he states that ‘Jews are the destroyers’… and that: ‘Nothing that you (Gentiles) do will meet our needs’.

This isn’t evidence enough of the Zionist lobby’s existence?

Go and search out the fly-on-the-wall documentary, floating around on Youtube, in the which the director of ADL National says to camera:”How do we use the myth of the lobby without confirming its existence”. Then he laughs.

As Chair, Gideon’s CAA, along with other pro-Israel voices, have successfully lobbied Eric Pickles, MP and the British government to adopt a new, more stringent definition of antiSemitism, which states that, boycotting Israel and criticising Israel should also be considered antiSemitic. In law, it has no legal basis, but has been issued as guidance to the UK Crown Prosecution Service.

It would be in breach of Human Rights law if it were ever applied.

You can see evidence of Gideon’s efforts, here.

If this isn’t further evidence of lobbying for ‘self-interest for and by a particular group’, what is?

Here, in this following link of a speech given by a UK Peer, in the House of Lords, you can hear how the Zionist Lobby physically beats dissenters unconscious, ladels persistent and false accusations of antiSemitism, and proactively seeks to damage individual careers and reputations.

 

If you speak about it in reference to Zionists or Jews, you are automatically accused of antiSemitism. This is part of their strategy. I referred to it above, from a quote by Jonathan Hoffman:“shining a sunlight on such dissenters”.

It’s called character assassination and, more covertly, ‘full spectrum dominance‘ – which is a form of control, that is more often than not – used to humiliate, defame, ruin and ostracise individuals, who dissent or deviate from the norm of the tripe that we are spoon-fed on a daily basis.

Here’s Gideon’s CAA encouraging (((its))) supporters to ruin the respected Jewish journalist, Mira-Bar Hillel:

 

As referenced above, on its website, the World Zionist organisation clearly states that it will circulate information and expose individuals to its global networks.

Shining a light? Whispers? Are you getting this now? And its somehow antiSemitic or an expression of hatred of Jews to say the lobby really exists, really??

 

Note: I have never disliked or expressed hatred towards Jews, but they, like Shitrit, have and continue to do towards me. I find the abuse I regularly receive, gut-wrenching and profoundly frustrating, but I will stand by their right to say it (about me), unless it breaches my privacy, copyright, or it is incitement.

All of these matters against several individuals are currently under police investigation.

 

Regards,

Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann

 

Special Note:

This article has not been published to condemn Israel or Jews. Israel and Jews have a right to self-determination and a homeland; just not at the expense of Palestinians.

That said, no one is exempt from valid criticism for human rights breaches. I fully support the right of Israel to exist.

All comments, images, and other information posted in this blog, are in the public domain and believed to be a matter of public record. I, Jason Lee, of the family: Schumann, believe and assert that the contents herein, have been posted in good faith, in the belief that they are true and not in any way specious or false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump: A Walking Disaster

9 Nov

When I say disaster, I mean it!

Trump is a documented serial bankrupt, an alleged paedophile and rapist, an out and out racist and homophobe, and a proud misogynist who even lusted after his own daughter on live television.

I don’t need to back up any of these claims, as the evidence is already out there.

Trump won because those who voted him in — largely White, uneducated, gun-toting, religious rednecks and coffin-dodgers — did so, to stick one to the establishment and on a clearly racist anti-immigration ticket.

This was coupled with the outrage of the bible-bashers upset with LGBTI rights laws, Muslims, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the economic woes of every day batshit American lives. 

The right-wing media gleefully did its part to feed into and stoked much of this hatefilled and vitriolic clusterfuck.

Like the humorons who voted for Brexit in the UK with their ‘little island’ mentality who are supporters of racist UKIP et al, the Moricons — by which I mean wilfully moronic, fuck-nugget Americans, in case you don’t understand what the term implies — who voted for Trump see themselves as having more rights and privilege over anyone else they do not consider one of them.

Want examples?

The KKK, the American Nazi Party, and the White Nationalist American Freedom Party, all endorsed Trump, as did the many evangelical organizations.

Well, here is what Trump is going to do, or seek to do:

  • Repeal equality laws for Black and other minority people, including the LGBTI community.
  • Strengthen religious freedom to discriminate against each of the above groups.
  • Repeal Obama’s healthcare bill that currently protects 62 million people on low incomes.
  • Forcibly deport and intern Latinos and Muslims.
  • Introduce greater protections for law enforcement officers who shoot down unarmed members of the public to allow them to escape scrutiny and justice in many cases.
  • Remove the rights of Native Americans to protect their homelands and property, which will include sending in military to forcibly remove them, even in a body bag.
  • Increase pollution and global warming by removing current legislation and granting no strings licenses to big corporations to produce more coal and frack without any consideration to local residents or the environment.
  • Make abortion illegal, even for rape victims, in favour of demented fucktard Xtian zealots.

With Trump in the driving seat of one of the world’s leading and most powerful economies, these are just a few of the things that are likely to get the go ahead.

Don’t even get me started on the American economy. It’s already on its arse; by which I mean dirt broke. Yes, that’s right, America is bankrupt; both morally and financially! Not a pot to piss in! Tanking! Living on borrowed time!

Doubt me?

In case you were wondering, there are now more than 10 major American cities that have filed for bankruptcy since Wall Street and lacks financial control caused the 2000, 2007 & 2008 crashes that resonated across and still impact on the world to this day. Many other American cities are in prolonged deficit and the housing market is still on its arse.

America is the most indebted country in the world, to the tune of 19,643,000,000,000 dollars. That is more than all the other most indebted countries in the world combined. Its trade deficit is equally as bad, and there is nothing Trump can do.

What about checks and balances, you may ask? They won’t work. America’s political system of lobbying, bribes, and favours, is one of the most corrupt in the world. Besides, Trump’s supporters and the humorons who voted for him would lynch him if he doesn’t carry out his promises.

Only today, on the announcement of his election, the dollar dropped again. It will drop further. The example below is proof.

[Image via Twitter]

World markets have also slumped but are recovering, unlike America.

Yes, America, you can expect recession and a deep depression like no other! Ultimately, Americans will suffer more than they have ever before. The rest of the world will also feel it but will recover more quickly.

Trump’s only solution is quantitative easing, which will devalue the dollar further, thus increasing inflation, damaging the markets such as structured products, depressing interest rates which impacts on savings and pensions, and international trade.

(China has previously stopped exporting valuable minerals to the U.S. due to its quantitative easing program).

Already world leaders are sending warning shots to Trump.

As my neighbour’s 11 year old daughter said today: “Mummy, the world is doomed! What are we going to do? Can someone assassinate him?”

Despite my equally negative views of Hillary, I would have to agree with this girl’s conclusions.

America is well and truly fucked!

By Jason Schumann

White Privilege: When is a Terrorist Not a Terrorist?

1 Sep

Zack Davies.png

Photo: Zack Davies, Facebook Page

 

Original Article Published on News7826, 2015

Zack Davies (pictured above) took a machete to Dr Bhambra’s head, a Sikh man, in a UK supermarket, because he had brown skin. Davies wanted to wreak revenge for the death of Lee Rigby, who was publicly murdered in the streets of Woolwich by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, in 2013.

Also in the UK, a few weeks ago (May, 2015), two 15-year-old teen boys were given a 12-month custody order by UK courts for purchasing explosive chemicals and other related materials, in a plot to blow up parliament and commit public acts or murder, including beheadings.

Similarly, in June 2015, Dylann Roof, massacred nine lives at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States, because he felt Blacks were taking over and he wanted to start a race war. 

In contrast, just last week (July/ August 2015), there were confirmed reports of a deliberate explosion at a gas works in St Quentin-Fallavier, France, followed by the discovery of a decapitated body. The perpetrators’ name is one Yassin Salhi. The body was that of Salhi’s boss, Herve Cornora.

What’s the difference between these events, we might ask? The difference, is that only in the case of Salhi, were officials, governments, and the media, quick to condemn his actions as an act of terrorism. Salhi has since said his actions were related to family and work troubles, though evidence also clearly disputes this. 

In all the other three cases (Davies, the Two Teen Boys, and Roof), members of Far Right, the media, politicians, and the judiciary, have been quick to label these extremists as ‘lone-wolves’ and ‘troubled’, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Davies and Roof both had known links Far Right extremist organisations. Extremist paraphernalia being found in each of their homes and in their possession, including the teen boys. It was the same with Anders Breivik.

When news of Zack Davies first came to light, the likes of Far Right extremists such as Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch); Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, founder of the English Defence League); and professional Islamophobe, Tarek Fatah (Columnist for Toronto Sun), were all quick to explain away his [Davies’] actions, as a Muslim plot to ‘Islamificate’ the West, with ‘Moozlamic rayguns’ and ‘Shakira Law.’

Taz.png

Robert Doggart, a 63-year-old Tennessee resident, is an ordained Christian minister in the Christian National Church, who plotted a violent attack against a Muslim-American community in New York state, was released without charge. The Daily Beast labelled him as a ‘lethal threat.’ Doggart only faces a fine (yes, a fine) for his actions.

doggart.png

As Charles Kurzman, and Dan Schanzer have noted, the real terrorist threat, ‘is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists’ (NY Times, June 2015). The question is, when will the world wake up, and stop victim blaming Muslims, and Black people, for all that is wrong in this world? Kurzman and Schanzer’s own research found that only 3 percent of anti-government extremism recorded, was severe by law enforcement agencies came from Muslim extremists.

I restate the question: when will politicians, the media, and law enforcement stop scapegoating Muslims and members of the Black community as extremists and thugs? When will they start treating their ‘own’ as an equal threat to the function of mainstream society and the cause of its systemic problems? When will Western governments, and societies, learn, and accept, that they are as much responsible for radicalised, home-grown terrorism, and the rise of Daesh, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram, in the Middle East, and Africa? Especially, as Western governments have created and proactively fund and support terrorism.

 

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/18/guess-why-this-christian-terrorist-plot-against-muslims-isn-t-getting-any-press.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

http://njtoday.net/2015/05/17/report-claims-america-created-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-syria-isis/

 

 

 

Article by: Jason Schumann, 2016

Jack Wilshere Debate: Can Foreign Football Players and Sports People Represent England or Other National Teams?

11 Oct

As reported in the media, Jack Wilshere, English football midfielder, 21, recently said: “If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English.” His comments were made in relation to the number of foreign players who currently play in English football and his (Wilshere’s) belief that ‘only’ ‘English-born’ players should have right to represent England in its ‘national’ football team. There are no immediate or further reports about whether Wilshere was also referring to the number of foreign players in English football in general. Though, one could argue; that this is clearly a reasnonable assessment of his views to make. His comments have sparked some debate about culture and national identities and equal outrage in both the media and society; particularly in relation to race and ethno-cultural relations; what being English and English identity actually means, and whether there are too many foreign players playing in English football.

Let’s break down and analyze Wilshere’s remarks shall we: “If you live in England for five years, it doesn’t make you English.” Wilshere was referring to the number of years it takes for a foreign player to be considered to represent the English national squad. It also makes clear that he believes no-one- whether a football player or not- can and should ever be permitted to call themselves English if they have lived in England for 5-years or less. From this, we can also reasonably assert that Wilshere has (his) personal views about the number of other ‘foreigners’ who were not born in England, but have settled in England and contribute to English society. His statements about ‘Englishness’ could be considered to be a rather nationalistic, in this respect.

In a way though, he is right… to some, limiting degree. The fact is, that living in England for 5-years does not necessarily make you English. Why? Firstly, one has to define and associate one’s identity (and national allegiances) as such. Secondly, one has to be accepted as being or identifying one’s self as English. However, because those who consider themselves ‘rightfully’ English- as Wilshere does- Wilshere says it is unacceptable and we (immigrants and foreign residents) cannot be- simply because of our birthplace. A rather xenophobic and hateful stance in my view. At worst, Wilshere’s remarks are indeed akin to xenophobia… in the least, a stupid and ill-considered rant. Far from attacking Wilshere, my view it that his stance clearly appears to me that of an individual who is either intolerant of immigrants and foreigners- who do not have equal rights to play national football in their resident or adopted country- or that he himself is struggling with his own identity issues because of the presence of foreigners in what he perceives to be his country. I will leave you to make your own minds up.

As with Wilshere’s view of residency and status; it still appears that there are many racist elements within English society; particularly within football, and from more intolerant sections of society, who clearly consider themselves as having more rights than immigrants who have adopted England as their home.

Sadly, we ‘foreigners’ and ‘immigrants’ can ‘only’ call oursleves ‘British’, because we are not permitted to call ourselves ‘English.’ Even that is a privilege for some of us. The important thing to remember, is that we are who we believe and assert ourselves to be; not who others (like Wilshere) say we are, and/ or would tell or attempt to dictate us to be. Wilshere, in my view, is a firmly in the closet of xenophobes, but hides himself from being open and direct!

For further thoughts on identity, please refer to this article: English and British Identity.

Author: Jason Schumann

The Differences and Perceptions of a Europe under Threat: Islamisation and Islamofascism in Context

5 Oct

In a constantly changing world and a post-modern Europe, the author, David LaBoon (2011) expresses the view that there exists a cultural and religious struggle to reterritorialize the European political and cultural space in response to globalization and increasing geopolitical issues and the shifting borders of Europe (p. 50). Indeed, there is a clear perception that the primacy of Eurocentric conceptions of identity; or Eurocentrism, are held as ‘universal or natural’ and perceived to be under attack from what is defined as the ‘Muslim problem’ or ‘Muslim other.’ It is clear that these perceptions are influenced by issues such as the global movement of people (immigration); the veil in the public space; acts of Islamist terrorism; and over a decade of international tensions arising from civil wars and Western invasions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The world media’s role has also ‘politicized’ perceived threats against European conceptions of group and collective identities, and pit the Christian ideology against Islamic, increasing tensions between the two, resulting in a ‘power struggle’ that has significantly harmed the space of intercultural dialogue and inter-religious relations. Even political, civil society, Far Right and cultural organizations have fanned the flames of difference. Individuals fight it out on social media, daily. It combines to whip a storm and set the scene for proxy wars based on the politics of identity.

This fear and hatred of East against West, is a self-perpetuating cycle of vicious atrocity after atrocity and endless violence and social, cultural and political hyperbole and scare-mongering by deluded knuckle-draggers on both sides. At its least harmful, it is blatant political rhetoric and manoeuvring and prejudicial tat-for-tat nonsense, that has pit community against community; government against government; and people against people. The cycle appears endless and doomed to destruction; because no-one has offered a viable solution to resolve the issues to bring about peace and understanding between the two, or appears willing to listen to the other side and the solutions and proactively work toward them. Thus, in order for Muslims to fit in with European and Western ideals of secularism, equality, and liberalism… it is maintained that ‘Muslims’ must adapt and conform to the legitimized European notion of national unity. In contrast, Muslims claim this is proscriptive and enforced abandonment of their cultural and religious identities; resulting in the rise of the Islamist movement, increasing politicization of Muslim presence and identity and also home-grown terrorists in Europe and the West. Many Muslims are hyper-sensitive about this and see themselves as the ‘victims’ and crusaders against Western totalitarianism.

Europeans fear the increasing presence of Muslim immigrants setting up homes in their green and once ‘white only’ communities, and unwanted changes to their traditional landscapes and architecture with the building of mosques and minarets. European communities have become increasingly intolerant of the Muslim presence and ascribe to the notion of B.A.N.A.N.A (building absolutely nothing, anywhere near anyone); because Islam is viewed as incompatible and not part of European society, values, or identity. If the building of a mosque is proposed, then it is immediately challenged through legislation or the planning process because the ‘minaret is (and shouldn’t be) higher than the church spire.’ The presence of Muslims and Islam are always challenged as being detrimental to ‘my’ sense of identity and what ‘I’ perceive to be ‘relevant, acceptable and tolerable to me.’ And so it goes… ‘I don’t like the clothes you wear, so you should dress like me if you wish be a part of this society.’ In much of Europe, this pathological and schizophrenic resentment of Muslims has encouraged governments to introduce laws that increasingly restrict the rights of Muslims, giving special protections to the rights of European communities and cultural values. For Muslims, this is an intolerable attempt to enforce conformity and marginalize their faith and identity. Coupled with US and European invasions and assaults on MENA countries, resulting in hundreds and thousands of needless Muslim deaths and clear evidence of torture and rendition; Muslims have responded with violent acts against Europe nations and governments and challenged the laws of governments they perceive to be intolerable and a threat to their civil liberties.

Neither Muslims nor Europeans are willing to accept the positive contributions of the other. Both constantly attack one another and believe they are under constant attack and that their freedoms, history and identities are being eroded by the presence of the other. Muslim terrorists have acted with extreme forms of violence and terrorist acts such as with the bombing of London in July 2005 and the crashing of two planes into the World Trade Center in September 2001. Europeans turn to violent protests and choose to burn down mosques, because they fear their presence and that of Muslims is polluting their society and slowly taking it over and that soon they will be powerless and forced to live under Sharia. Even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the retaliatory attacks of Al-Qaeda on Western society; Muslims and Europeans consider the other an invader. So the cycle of intolerance continues and there appears little sign of abating or of coexistence.

Indeed, Muslim terrorists are fascists of today, as the Germans and Italians were in the 20th century. Radical Muslim terrorists are intent on the destruction of Western society. But they will never succeed. In tackling radical Islam, Europeans should not fear the presence of peaceful Muslims who simply wish to settle and live in the abode of the West. It is Muslim fascists who despise Europe and the West for its perceived neo-imperialist efforts to control and profit from the Middle East and defeat Islam so that Western values hold social, cultural and political dominance on the world stage. These Muslims are Islamofascists and fascism is fascism, as neo-imperialism is capitalist with some elements of fascism. However, the largest and most persistent faction of fascism in Europe is the rise of the Far Right. But all forms of fascism should and will be routed out by governments and their security services. Islamofascism has little or no presence in Europe; it is largely present in Middle Eastern and African countries, as a counter-response to Western incursion into predominantly Islamic countries and persecution of Muslims in those countries.

That Muslims are increasingly settling in Europe, is contributing to the reshaping of European social, cultural and political landscapes and our identities in many ways. It does not mean that European identities and values are being Islamized, eroded or altered inalieniably. Issues of population control are separate to issues of identity and should not be used to demonize Muslims in Europe. Society’s values and identities are not stagnant and rigid. This notion of a de facto singular sense of European identity is rather Cartesian in its concept and has already been debunked. The fact is, we all have many identities and they are always changing. These changes in society, our values, population and our identities are inevitable and increasingly due to the effects of globalization. Whether Muslim or Christian, we all have a right to protect our identities, values and beliefs. No-one has the right to suppress the other, or impose one identity on another. That Europeans perceive European identity as being Islamized is now part of a condition of known as block-thinking, in that the condition of perceived Islamization is paralyzing coexistence between East and West. If any part of Europe is being Islamized, it is largely Muslims who it effects and only affects Europeans if they become reactionary toward the presence of Muslims or wish to convert to Islam themselves. If European identities are in crisis, then it is because of religious abandonment, shifting global power dynamics and the decline of old imperialism. The core issue is not about the erroneous belief in the Islamization of Europe, but flexibly reimagining European identities in a new global context and not allowing the debate of Muslims in Europe to become polarized by inward-looking, religious and cultural agendas insistent on self-preservation. To do so, only serves to further the extremes of European and Muslim fundamentalism and mutual hostility.

Author: Jason Schumann

Golden Dawn: Greek Fascists and Murder

4 Oct

 

 

 

 

 

Image

There is absolutely no doubt that Golden Dawn is a fascist organization and just one of many Far Right groups across Europe that appear to be on the increase. Its history dates back to the 80’s when it was established by a group of Far Right supporters with military junta connections and who launched Chrysi Avgi magazine. The current Golden Dawn ‘party’ is evidently nationalistic and racist in its membership, following the ideals and admiration of Hitler and has 18 seats across the Greek parliament. Golden Dawn’s infamy has come to prominence in the world press after the assassination (by one or more of its members) of the rapper, Killah P.

Killah, whose real name was Pavlos Fyssas, was murdered because of his views and activities in protesting against the growing fascist sentiment in Greek society. As a consequence, the Government has been forced to act and has made a number of high-profile arrests of Golden Dawn’s membership, including several members of parliament and the party’s Head, Nikos Mihaloliakos. The BBC reports that Nikos Mihaloliakos has been remanded and that several other members have been charged or released on bail (with conditions).

In a recent blog I came across its author, Simon Darby, contests that the Greek government are ’rounding up at gunpoint’ Golden Dawn members and that this is a form of fascism? Oh, please, Simon Darby! Really? Are you serious? Rounding up those who are believed responsible for murder and corruption- at gunpoint- is fascism now? How do you suggest the police go about arresting individuals they believe to be violent extremists… with a pair of pink furry handcuffs and a ‘please come with us’?

Darby also tells us that Golden Dawn are hardly the BNP. Does he have first hand knowledge of this? Is this an admission that the BNP is far worse, Simon? I suggest they are the same in their fascist views and as abhorrent as each other. Fact is, Simon Darby is acting like an apologist for the Far Right. Self-evident, really (See my note below). Darby rambles on about how he believes the Greek government itself is illegitimate and ‘a totally corrupt and discredited regime.’ No, Simon, that was the previous government and Greek society in general. This Greek government- despite its faults, including any current corruption there may be and the diversity of political opinions of its parliament- is in fact a reforming government. Albeit, a government that is being squeezed by the EU and Germany into slashing public spending and instigating massive reforms to taxation and internal markets.

The ‘swindle’ and ‘greedy corporate/banking tyrants and a criminal ruling class’ Darby refers to are not this Greek Government. This Greek government has been elected to undo the damage of years of corruption, tax avoidance and criminality by all Greeks. Simon Darby already knows that Golden Dawn is a well documented, violent, facsist organization. No such organization or any individual proselytizing any such views has a rightful place in any inclusive, tolerant society or government. If Simon Darby is implying otherwise, I suggest he take a look in the mirror and think back to World War II. Never, ever, again, Simon Darby! Never!

A note to readers of this blog: Simon Darby is himself a member of the fascist British National Party.

Author: Jason Schumann

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Darby

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24359282

http://www.simondarby.net/2013/09/fluid-mechanics-and-greek-cradle-to.html?m=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28political_party%29#Allegations_of_Nazism

%d bloggers like this: