This is a guest post by Danny Stone, Director of the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism

For a long time now I have been buying Q magazine. I saw it as an in-depth, broader publication than the NME which I also enjoy.

I had been saving it for some light reading before bed and finally got round to looking at this months issue before bed on Tuesday. I had been particularly keen to read the feature article on the pop sensation Lady GaGa, I didn’t know much about the story behind her eccentric appearance and was interested to learn more.

I was one column through the article when the author, Sylvia Patterson, started to describe the singer’s appearance:

She stares straight at you with enormous brown eyes, bewitchingly younger and prettier in the flesh, with a glorious Jewish nose.

I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest of the article and put it down in disgust, only picking it up the next morning to a) check that I had read it right and b) try and get past it and satisfy my original intention of learning about Lady GaGa.

There were certain questions I find I ask myself – rightly or wrongly – in these cases. So I consulted with colleagues on whether I was being over-sensitive – the general consensus was not – although it is fair to say there was some uneasiness with the level of my objection. So, on consideration, I decided to write to the magazine and was given the email of the editor-in-chief Paul Rees. I noted my concern, the offence I had taken and the laziness of the stereotyped description. There were two points I made which I felt were of particular concern:

• It is irrelevant what Lady GaGa’s cultural or religious heritage is, the use of the word ‘Jewish’ to describe someone’s nose is classic ethnic antisemitism.
• Would a similar description applied to any other ethnic minority have passed the edit? You can imagine the crass examples I might have cited?

My email finished by asking that Q prints an apology and avoids such careless stereotyping in the future.

To Paul Rees’ credit, he replied very quickly reassuring me that the comment ‘wasn’t meant in a derogatory way, but as something celebratory, hence the use of the word ‘glorious’’. He went on to explain ‘It is used in the same way as we’d use ‘glorious Roman nose’ as a description.’

He apologised profusely and, given I thought his words to be genuine and that he had noted my concern (and was unlikely to let it go through again) I said I accepted  but noted my continuing concern. He thanked me for my understanding.

This is one that will continue to eat away at me. Maybe I should have notified the Press Complaints Commission, or sent him an email back pushing for a printed apology but I don’t think, on this occasion, I would have succeeded. Ultimately, this is a music magazine where similar comments are unlikely to appear often, if ever, and they’ve said sorry…

What I find very hard to come to terms with is that in 2010, ‘glorious Jewish nose’ can pass the edit of a successful magazine article. Perhaps more sad is my (and others) lack of certainty on whether I should have felt offended and taken action.

Well, I cannot read such words as anything but derogatory and whilst I don’t want to be part of any language police, I do want to tackle such stereotyping which feeds a wider carelessness in our use of language about Jews. For all those that want to join, well, bless you.

A meeting was held in Parliament on Tuesday, organised by the Stop The War Coalition (STWC), Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), to protest about the fact that people who committed crimes on the anti-Israel demonstrations in January 2009 have received what they consider to be heavy sentences. The meeting was also “supported” by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

According to Andrew Murray of the Stop The War Coalition, “This is political justice for a political purpose of the most brazen sort. These sentences are extraordinary for the crimes alleged to have been committed. Every single protest had some degree of police harassment beyond the scale we have had before.”

According to the Liberal Democrat Baroness Miller, “people’s right to protest should be recognised by the courts and I think they have not caught up with what is a new attitude to legitimate protest.”

One of the main speakers at the meeting was George Galloway, who condemned the British police for what he considered to be unduly rough treatment of demonstrators. Yet Galloway works for Press TV, which is owned and run by the Iranian regime – which has in turn killed large numbers of political protestors in Iran in the past year. The idea that STWC’s meeting was called to defend democratic rights for all is a rather sick joke.

The website of the Manchester branch of STWC carries a report of the meeting, written by one of their supporters. According to this report, the meeting decided on the following set of demands:

• Release all those already in prison
• Drop all charges
• Hold an independent enquiry into the policing of the demonstrators
• Hold an independent review of all complaints raised against the police from the demonstrations
• End the criminalisation of the Muslim community
• Defend the right to peacefully demonstrate

(my emphasis).

If this is an accurate record of the official position of the meeting organisers then it is, frankly, a disgrace. Calling for all charges to be dropped goes much further than questioning the sentences: it is a call for complete immunity. Any responsible organisation whose activities led to over 70 arrests for violence ought to be undergoing a serious bout of introspection and a review of their working methods, to try to ensure that the same thing does not happen again. If not, then you have to question whether they should be allowed to organise similar events in future.

The right to peacefully demonstrate is indeed a fundamental right in any democracy, but the only people undermining it are the ones who think it should include the right to throw missiles at policemen and smash up branches of Starbucks. The idea that this kind of violence represents “a new attitude to legitimate protest” that the rest of us are just a bit slow to catch on to is farcical.

David Aaronovitch has it right:

In January 2009 someone sent me a link to footage taken at one of the Gaza protests in London. Taken by a demonstrator, and 10 minutes long, it showed a thin cordon of policemen being, in effect, chased from the edge of Trafalgar Square to the Hyde Park end of Piccadilly.

For the entire distance, men with faces covered were throwing traffic cones, sticks and anything that came to hand at the retreating officers, while shouting “Run, you f**** cowards!” The only time this mantra changed was when the police, briefly, put up a fight, when the shout became “you racist bastards!”

I don’t know whether it was at this demo, or a subsequent one, that a crowd laid siege to the Israeli Embassy, an occasion that ended in the trashing of a Starbucks and battles between police and demonstrators, who used metal crash barriers and sticks as weapons. When I saw those scenes I knew – as an old demo-person – that, if caught, someone would go to prison.

The CPS guidelines lay out “aggravating and mitigating factors” in sentencing for public order offences. Aggravating factors include a setting in a “busy public place”, a large group, people put in fear, injuries/damage, violence towards the police and disguises (ie faces covered). The only mitigation would be the impulsive nature of the action.

Sure enough, a number of those convicted of taking part in these disturbances have received short jail terms. The result has been a triumphant yell of “Islamophobia” from parts of the old Left.

The most egregious example was provided by Seumas Milne in the Guardian. In an article characterised by more than the usual amount of elision, evasion, lack of evidence and amnesia, Milne asserted that the sentences confirmed that “young British Muslims” were being singled out for “special treatment in the land of their birth”.

In a comment on this piece, the former MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala drew a parallel between the “disproportionately stiff sentences” given to “young Muslims”, and the immunity of Israeli officials from arrest in Britain.

It is clear from the original footage that those who took part in violence at the Gaza protests were operating under the assumption that their “anger” created some kind of impunity. But the British state has never allowed such a feeling to persist. Were the officers who were accused of brutality towards Countryside demonstrators in 2004 ruralophobes? Or, when they arrest EDL anti-Muslim thugs, are they Islamophobiaophobes?

Of course not. So whatever the intentions of Messrs Milne and Bungawala, their words are practically incitements to further violence.

I don’t know precisely which videos David Aaronovitch saw last January, but they are likely to be similar to the ones below, all of which are from anti-Israel demonstrations in January last year:

STWC and the rest must take people for complete fools, to argue that their supporters should be able to attack police officers and destroy random shops without being prosecuted, while self-righteously claiming to be defending the right to peaceful protest! Generations of political protestors, and football fans for that matter, could have told them that attacking the police is not a cost-free exercise. I doubt there are many ordinary members of the public who have any sympathy with those violent demonstrators who now find themselves before the court.

But there is something more dangerous at work here than an infantile refusal to take responsiblity for their own misbehaviour. Underlying these complaints is the idea that events in Gaza somehow legitimised or excused the violence in London; that there is a continuum between the prosecution of violent British protestors and the non-prosecution of Israeli politicians, and that all are parts of the same wider conflict. This is the same kind of thinking that fed the wave of violence and intimidation against British Jews in January last year. It is irresponsible and dangerous, and  it has to stop.

Ernst Zundel, veteran Holocaust Denier and the author of The Hitler We Loved And Why, was released from Mannheim Prison in Germany on Monday after serving five years for Holocaust Denial. He was greeted by a small gathering of friends and supporters, as you can watch here (Zundel appears after about 5 mins):

You won’t be surprised to see that Michele Renouf was present and gave Zundel a big bunch of flowers to celebrate his freedom.

If you had been at all taken in by the BNP’s efforts to rebrand away their neo-Nazi, Holocaust denying heritage, you might be surprised to see BNP Advisory Council member Richard Edmonds taking photos of Zundel as he emerges (at about 7:10, with glasses, a bald patch and a dark green jacket). Edmonds’ presence is confirmed by a report on Zundel’s website [warning: link to offensive website].

The 11 February 2010 edition of the New Statesman, ‘Everything You Know About Islam Is Wrong’ was devoted to demanding clarity, precision and understanding in the way that the media and public discuss issues concerning Muslims, Islam, political Islamism and extreme Jihadist terrorism. Its editorial stated

 Fear and ignorance are a toxic combination, and myths and misconceptions abound.

Any hopes, however, that the New Statesman would heed its own advice when it came to representations of Zionism appear to have been dashed with its publication of John Pilger’s latest rhetorical assault on Zionism, Israel and “Jews in western countries”.

When considering where fear, ignorance, myths and misconceptions can lead, the New Statesman and John Pilger need look no further than the current relatively high levels of antisemitic race hate attacks; and the manner in which in some extreme political circles, the word “Zionism” has increasingly become synonymous with a global conspiracy variously headquartered in Washington and / or Jerusalem, supported by co-conspirators in New York, London, Paris and other western power centres.

This global “Zionist” conspiracy is dedicated to the pursuit of oppression, war and profit, and is therefore set against the rest of humanity. The conspiracy is concealed, but reveals itself in its alleged control of finance, politics and media. The conspiracy is not exclusively staffed by Jews: but (real) Zionism is a Jewish construct and Jews are of course its likeliest adherents – and are therefore the ones who get it in the neck when people physically attack these dastardly Zionists. Jews have heard all of this before and have suffered from it all before. The themes of hidden Jewish conspiracy, wealth and power lie at the core of antisemitism and were codified within the notorious Tsarist forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Where once the mythical antisemitic image of “the Jew” ran rampant, now we have the image of “the Zionist”. Arguments rage over whether or not this image of “the Zionist” is legitimate, mythologised, antisemitic, or whatever. The issue is made yet more complex by the fact that many dedicated anti-Zionists self-define as philosemitic: they are fighting Zionism because it is in the best interests of Jews that Zionism is defeated. (Never mind the details of this argument, such as what would have happened to European Jewry in the 1940s had they been able to flee to Israel.)

Regardless of the endless philosophising and the irrelevant ivory tower distinctions, at street level two things are very clear:

1. If Zionism is depicted in exclusively hateful terms, then all Zionists will be hated.

2. Large numbers of Jews self-define as Zionists. (In the REAL sense of the word.)

 It follows, therefore, that when mainstream media, journalists and political activists write about Zionism and Jews, that they should do so with caution and precision. One of the worst failures to do so was the infamous 14 January 2002 edition of the New Statesman which depicted a golden Star of David piercing a supine Union Jack, with the headline “A kosher conspiracy?”. Beneath this headline, the cover read “John Pilger and Dennis Sewell on Britain’s pro-Israeli lobby”.

Grudgingly and belatedly, the New Statesman apologised for its cover: but neither this, nor its rightful concern for clarity of reporting in Muslim-related issues, has prevented the magazine from running numerous further articles by John Pilger in which he vociferously condemns Zionism. This most recent edition and article, however, keenly illustrate the choices that both Pilger and the publication need to make when it comes to defining just what they mean by Zionism: and what they mean by anti-Zionism. Get it wrong and they place themselves at the service of antisemites. Get it right and they do the rest of us favour.

The latest article is entitled “Listen to the heroes of Israel”, and the heroes in question are Rami and Nurit Elhanan. Pilger writes

Whenever I am asked about heroes, I say Rami and his wife, Nurit, without hesitation.

The Elhanans helped found Parents Circle. This is a joint initiative by Israelis and Palestinians who have tragically lost loved ones in the lengthy conflict between their respective peoples. Parents Circle website states

 Parents Circle – Families Forum (PCFF) is a grassroots organization of bereaved Palestinians and Israelis. The PCFF promotes reconciliation as an alternative to hatred and revenge.

Pilger’s article, however, is not about reconciliation. Rather, it is furiously anti-Israel and anti-Zionist: premised upon quotes from the Elhanans; and the dreadful stories of two child casualties of the conflict, Smadar Elhanan and Abir Aramin.

CST is not concerned with Pilger’s criticism of Israel, but the conclusion of his article goes far further than this. It ends with a blanket condemnation of Zionism; approvingly quotes Gilad Atzmon; and warns that the silence of Jews “renders them culpable”. He writes as follows

…proof of the murderous, racist toll of Zionism has been an epiphany for many people; justice for the Palestinians, wrote the expatriate Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon, is now ‘at the heart of the battle for a better world’.

However, his fellow Jews in western countries, such as Britain and Australia, whose influence is critical, are still mostly silent, still looking away, still accepting as Nurit said ‘the brainwashing and reality distortion’.

And yet the responsibility to speak out could not be clearer, and the lessons of history – family history for many – ensure that it renders them culpable should their silence persist. For inspiration, I recommend the moral courage of Rami and Nurit.

As explained here at Times Online Blog by Oliver Kamm and here at Z Word Blog by David Adler, Pilger’s depiction of Atzmon as merely an “expatriate Israeli musician” beggars belief. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Atzmon’s writings will immediately appreciate the ludicrous and self-defeating irony of writing “fellow Jews” in relation to a man who has such an extreme and elaborate hatred of Zionism, along with an apparent rejection of his own Jewish identity and “Jewishness”.

Next, we have Atzmon’s actual assertion, so warmly quoted by Pilger, that “justice for Palestinians” is “now at the heart of the battle for a better world”. It is not uncommon for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be cited as emblematic of the global struggle between oppressed and oppressor, but it is another matter entirely for Pilger to go from this to laying the collective blame for the conflict at the feet of world Jewry: “fellow Jews in western countries…still mostly silent…renders them culpable should their silence persist”.

Jews have extensive and bloody experience of what happens to them when they are collectively blamed for preventing the birth of a better world. It is deeply troubling that a journalist and activist of Pilger’s reputation and knowledge seems impervious to such matters. Why the New Statesman should uncritically publish such material is another, but not unrelated matter. Ignorance? Excessive anti-Israel fury? Lack of concern for mainstream Jewish – potentially “Zionist” – worries? Probably an unthinking combination of all three.

Where, however, did Pilger find this particular quote from Atzmon? As mentioned above, it is not an uncommon claim, but a Google search of Atzmon and “now at the heart of the battle for a better world” suggests that it is taken from Atzmon’s article of 19 February 2010, entitled “The Tide Has Changed”. It includes the following paragraph – and even if this is not the actual source of Pilger’s quote, it gives a decent indication of Atzmon’s perspective on these matters. By wicked coincidence, the 2nd and 3rd sentences would have fitted gloriously with the infamous New Statesman ‘kosher conspiracy?’ front cover

The truth of the matter is tragic. The British political system is paralysed by the Israeli Lobby. Like in the USA, British national interests are sacrificed for the sake of dirty Zionist cash. If Britain wants to liberate itself from the Zionist grip and have any prospect of a future, it must move fast and clean the entire list of Zionist infiltrators from its political ranks, Government offices and strategic positions. I am not talking here about Jews. By no means do I mention ethnicity or race. I am talking here about a political and ideological affiliation. Considering Zionism is a murderous, racist, expansionist ideology, it is natural to stress that people who are affiliated with Israel and Zionism must be removed immediately from any political, government, military or strategic posts and so on.

Finally, the next time that Pilger and his publishers repeat their blanket condemnations and demonisations of Zionism, they should very seriously contemplate: do they mean Zionism as explained above by Atzmon – or do they mean Zionism as it is basically understood and felt by millions of Jews throughout the world. For Jews at least,  there is a vital distinction between the two positions: and if neither Pilger nor the New Statesman can grasp that fact, then things are even worse than many of us had feared.

To help them decide, they can contrast Atzmon’s above description with that of Pilger’s hero Rami Elhanan, explaining why he himself is a Zionist (despite his criticism of Israeli politics and actions). It is taken from the “I am a Zionist” section of his powerful and impassioned autobiographical article, “Turning Pain into Hope”

I am a Zionist

I am a Zionist in the sense that I deeply believe that the Jewish people, like any other people in the world, deserve their right to self-determination, in their ancient homeland. Now, that brings very big and problematic questions. What does it mean to be Jewish? What are the real Jewish values? What makes one a Jew? What does it mean having a Jewish State?

Being Jewish is part of me. I’m a Jew as my eyes are green. It’s a destiny and an identity which I cannot escape. It’s because of the my own history, my forefathers, my roots, and because of the fact that I fill deep emotional connection to this people that was murdered and persecuted and victimized throughout history. Never the less, I believe that this huge and successful revolution of the Jewish people in the form of its national liberation organization, the Zionist movement, was accompanied with some great mistakes. The idea of “a land without people for people without a land” was terribly wrong and totally blind. Even so, I think you can not correct one evil or a wrong by creating other evil and more wrong. Today after all the blood that was spilled and the heavy price that was paid by the two sides, all the mistakes, all the brutality by the two sides the only way out of this endless cycle of violence, is the “Two states” solution…

Sheikh Qaradawi has been in self-righteous mode on al-Jazeera recently. According to MEMRI (free registration required), he has criticised preachers who call for Jews and Christians to be killed:

I denounced some contemporary religious preachers, who curse the Jews and the Christians, saying: “Allah, annihilate the Jews and the Christians.” Where did this come from? There are Jews and Christians in our Muslim countries. There are Copts in Egypt, and Christians in Syria. So how can you curse them? Not only that, but they curse: “Allah, turn their children in orphans,” “Allah, destroy their homes.” Who sanctioned such prayers? The Koran does not call to turn children into orphans or to destroy homes. There are no such things in the prayers of the Prophet Muhammad.

Who on earth are these “contemporary religious preachers” who say this? Where indeed did this idea come from? Perhaps the answer can be found in these quotes from sermons given by Sheikh Qaradawi himself, at the Umar Bin-al-Khattab mosque in Doha, Qatar, and translated by BBC Monitoring:

O God, support our brothers in Palestine. O God, protect them and show them the right path. O God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile Crusaders, and infidels. O God, destroy them along with their supporters. (13 June 2003)

O God, deal with the treacherous, usurper, and unjust Jews. O God, deal with them and their supporters with your power. O God, blow away their wind, remove their states and rule, and do not make them affect any of Your faithful subjects. O God, O revealer of the book, O mover of the clouds, and O vanquisher of the infidels, defeat them and grant us victory over them. (13 February 2004)

O God, support our mujahideen brothers on the land of Palestine. O God, strengthen them, unite them, and help them score a victory. O God, turn against the arrogant, usurper, unjust, aggressor Jews and their wicked Crusader allies. (20 February 2004)

O God, deal with your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O God, deal with the usurper, oppressor, and tyrannical Jews. O God, deal with the plotter and rancorous crusaders. (4 June 2004)

O God, deal with the usurper, aggressor and treacherous Jews and their allies. O God, turn against them and spare us their evil. (25 November 2005)

It should go without saying that antisemitism, like all forms of racism, cannot be fought unless people recognise it, understand it and are prepared to challenge it.

There have been a few examples recently of the failure to do this in mainstream circles. The complete lack of response, for instance, to Michele Renouf’s anti-Jewish outburst in the House of Lords last month, as highlighted on this blog on Wednesday. The allegation on the BBC that up to a million Jews worldwide form a support network for Mossad, which passed without challenge. Nick Clegg’s refusal to withdraw the Liberal Democrat whip from Baroness Tonge or force her to end her association with Palestine Telegraph, despite that website’s repeated promotion of vicious and open antisemitism. So much for ‘zero tolerance’: all too often, antisemitism is tolerated or just ignored, probably because it is not recognised or understood.

Barry Rubin has an interesting anecdote which sheds some light on why this might be the case:

Bertram Wolfe, an expert on Communism and the USSR who died in 1977, wrote an obscure little book in 1965 entitled, Strange Communists I Have Known, with fascinating personal profiles and anecdotes about his experiences.

In “The Strange Case of Litvinov’s Diary,” Wolfe recounts a marvelous little scholarly mystery. Shortly after the death of former Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov in 1951, a manuscript purporting to be his secret diary surfaced. A prestigious British publisher asked Professor E.H. Carr, the famous historian, to examine it for authenticity. Carr strongly endorsed it as genuine, even offering to write the preface about its historical importance.

A well-known American publisher gave Wolfe the same task. Wolfe found dozens of flaws showing the manuscript was an obvious forgery. Moreover, by comparing it to things written earlier by the former Soviet diplomat who supplied the manuscript, Wolfe even proved that this man was the forger. If you read the details you can see that Wolfe’s case is air-tight.

But what interests me (and you) most is Wolfe’s first reason for finding the manuscript phony:

“The opening pages…began with the first of a series of visits from a rabbi…who comes to Litvinov as one Jew to another to complain [that Soviet authorities] had looted two synagogues and arrested the rabbi of Kiev….Litvinov promises to intervene, though he knows that Stalin `doesn’t like me to interfere in questions concerning the Jewish religion.’”

Indeed, the “diary” claimed, when Litvinov had previously tried to help imprisoned Jews, Stalin threatened to try him before a high Communist party committee. But, Litvinov supposedly wrote, “I couldn’t help smiling at the threat” because the committee’s head Soltz “is the son of the rabbi of Vilna.”

[...]

Wolfe was flabbergasted. He explains: “Thus, the opening passage presented Litvinov” as a loyal Jew, “ready to defend any and every Jew against his government and his party.” The same characteristics absurdly and falsely, are attributed to the committee’s head, Soltz, a “fanatical” Communist.

But, Wolfe writes, “Litvinov and Soltz had rejected their Jewish heritage in their youth. Their Jewish origin tended to make them more rather than less hostile toward religious and anti-Communist Jews.” Yet Litvinov, Soltz, and other Soviet Communist leaders of Jewish background are portrayed throughout the diary as pro-Jewish and even pro-Zionist.

[...]

Wolfe concludes, referring to the manuscript: “I realized I was dealing with something I have frequently met [a supposed revelation of]: the ‘international Jewish conspiracy,’ the myth of Jewish solidarity overriding all political and other differences.”

Wolfe warned the British publisher, which ignored him and published it, and the American publisher, which rejected the manuscript.

Carr was a fine scholar and no antisemite. Yet he had missed entirely Wolfe’s opening point, something  Wolfe was more sensitive about being Jewish himself, though also a former Communist who had a great deal in common with Litvinov and Soltz. In contrast, the  British scholar and publisher didn’t comprehend the book’s antisemitic message, didn’t see how the claims made about Jews proved it to be a forgery, or didn’t care.

The contemporary point here is this: Despite decades of documentation and explanation about antisemitism, a large proportion of the Western intelligentsia doesn’t understand it. For them, Jews—at least those who aren’t almost totally assimilated intellectuals either indifferent or hostile to their backgrounds—are incomprehensible. They don’t subscribe to traditional antisemitic—that is, medieval Christian and Nazi–stereotypes but are blind to their permutations.

In other words, they don’t know antisemitism when they see it–or even practice it–unless it is in the crudest historical forms which they understand better since they were right-wing. What they don’t comprehend are the themes. If two American academics speak of pervasive behind-the-scenes Jewish influence using ridiculous sources, they can proclaim their innocence of antisemitism. If a former president uses traditional antisemitic themes but just changes the target from “Jews” to “Israelis,” or others use the word “Zionist” instead of “Jew” but employ all the old stereotypes they are baffled when someone tries to explain this point.

This Carr-style response thus manifests itself in two ways. The more obvious is the mere substitution of the word “Israeli” or “Zionist” for Jewish, that is not just being critical of Israel but doing so in ways that mirror the old categories of antisemitism: seeking world domination; having massive power behind the scenes to twist countries’ governments against their own national interests; dominating the media; being evil in nature or having evil intentions; murdering little children for organs (instead of the traditional blood); hating non-Jews and holding their lives to be cheap; and so on and so on.

Second, beyond all the specifics, Jews (or Israelis or Zionists) are seen as some strange form of life to whom the usual rules don’t apply. You simply don’t need the same level of evidence; the same standard of right and wrong; the same level of balance when dealing with this group.

The Centre for Social Cohesion and Nothing British have produced a report (pdf) on the neo-Nazi Blood & Honour network, which uses music to promote racism, antisemitism and violence.

It makes the case for Blood & Honour to be added to the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist organisations, summed up in the report’s Conclusion which we reproduce below.

The B&H organisation in the UK constitutes an undeniable threat to both security and community relations within the UK. Its propaganda is centred on an apocalyptic vision of racial conflict, and unambiguously encourages respect for, and glorification of, terrorist actions carried out in the name of furthering the cause of neo-Nazism. The B&H National Socialist Political Soldiers Handbook, in particular, provides information and advice that would clearly be useful in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism.

B&H is ostensibly a ‘political’ movement; but arguably it has far more in common with other violent ideological forms of extremism than it does with what is generally understood as ‘politics’, even of a nationalist variety. Certainly, as an explicitly anti-democratic, anti-liberal, fascist organisation, B&H constitutes an atavistic manifestation of the same venomous mix of racial hatred and a cult of violence that came to prominence in the original Nazi movement. B&H takes its name, its imagery and indeed much of its ideology from the Third Reich, which is exalted as the apotheosis of white European achievement.

As fervent followers of Nazism in a world that has, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, so clearly rejected this ideology, B&H supporters exist outside the bounds of normal social and political interaction. The group, therefore, acts as a magnet to those who feel disenfranchised and, in more extreme cases, to the pathological, who find in its message and its embrace of neo-Nazism as an ‘identity’, a vehicle by which to indulge their extreme prejudice and nihilistic hatred of the modern world. As such, B&H is less a genuine ‘political’ threat than it is an incubator for racially motivated violence, which has already spilled over on a number of occasions into outright terrorism.

For these reasons, the government must seriously consider proscribing B&H, or else take stronger measures to prevent the proliferation of the militant white supremacist ideology that, if left unchecked, opens up the very real possibility of the future loss of innocent lives at the hands of those who act in the name of reviving Nazism.