Monday, 27 October 2014

THE MIND READERS OF GARRON HELM



Whatever happened to freedom in Britain? Simple answer: multiculturalism came along and gave it Ebola and it died. The recent jailing of a young British man for making a "tweet" shows you the present state of liberty in the island that was once synonymous with it.

Garron Helm was sentenced to four weeks in jail after he was convicted of "sending a grossly offensive anti-Semitic tweet" to Liverpool Labour MP Luciana Berger. The actual tweet included:
  1. A picture of Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger with a Jewish symbol
  2. A slogan "Hitler was right"
  3. An allegation that she is a Communist Jewess
  4. A statement that said "You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually"
This we are told is "grossly offensive," "anti-Semitic," and grounds for imprisonment. But the question has to be asked: wherein lies the offence?

Is it a crime to call someone a Communist? Is it a jailing matter to refer to someone's ethnicity? Does having an opinion on historical figures require incarceration? Are we not allowed to alter pictures with symbols of nationality? Looking at Helm’s "grossly offensive" tweet bit by bit, it soon becomes ridiculous that a man was jailed for this.

Never mind the balaclavas.
Also, it has to be emphasized that this is a tweet by a man described in media reports as a "loner." In the normal course of things, how many people would see it? I would guess two or three at the most, and one of them would definitely not have been Ms. Berger.

She is obviously too busy being fast-tracked. She has been parachuted into a safe Labour seat and given a shadow minister portfolio, despite being a comparative political novice. It also seems that, as someone shagging her way up the greasy pole of Labour Party politics, she has serious character issues that would preclude her from such prominence.

The 33-year-old is an ex-girlfriend of Tony Blair’s son Euan but is also romantically linked to another non-British, fast-tracked Labour high flyer, the half-Irish/ half-Nigerian Chuka Umunna, frequently dubbed "Britain’s Obama," often spoken of as a favourite to succeed the party’s Jewish leader Ed Milliband when he steps down.

By the way, it is interesting to note that Labour hasn’t had an ethnic English leader since Michael Foot in 1983 – Blair and Brown were of course Scottish – and now it seems set to move into even more exotic leadership material as it increasingly becomes the party of ethnic replacement. But back to that shocking little tweet...

Point One: Helm created a picture of Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger with a Jewish symbol. Is that really as terrible as it sounds? Let’s look at some popular political cartoons for comparison:


This is from the British Sunday newspaper The Observer. It shows German chancellor Angela Merkel as a Wagnerian Valkyrie, as obvious an ethnic symbol of Germanity as the Star of David is of Jewishness.


Next we have another obviously racist cartoon. This one is by Brian Adcock from The Independent, showing Gordon Brown, the former Scottish Prime Minister of the UK. He is shown as Britannia, but with some clear visual symbols of his Scottish ethnicity – red hair, Tam O' Shanter head gear, and the haggis impaled on his trident.


Dave Brown, also of The Independent, can also make brutal references to ethnicity, as in this cartoon depicting the Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond as a cross between bagpipes and a haggis killed by hunters.

When it comes to being "grossly offensive," mainstream British 'quality' papers do a good job. Here is how Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell depicts Tory leader David Cameron:


Yes, as a used condom! If you despise Cameron, as I do, you will naturally find such "grossly offensive" images highly enjoyable. But back to the main point, if it is a crime to be "grossly offensive" and refer to a politician's ethnicity in an obscure tweet, why aren't the cartoonists and editors of these national newspapers also in jail?

Point Two: Helm’s slogan "Hitler was right." This is extremely problematic because Hitler, as a major historical figure is associated with thousands and thousands of decisions and opinions. If Hitler was right, as Helm tweeted, the question remains what was he supposedly right about? This has yet to be ascertained. Once it has been decided which issue is referred to, then surely it is a mere matter of debate, not an excuse for imprisonment.

For example, Hitler seems to have believed in locking up critics or those who disrespected his power. If that is the issue, then perhaps Ms. Berger is in full accord with Helms as she seems to believe that imprisoning people over a choice of words and opinions is entirely justified.

Point Three: Luciana Berger is a Commie. OK, it may be wrong to call a Blairite member of the Labour party a Communist. Some Communists might get offended! But, of course, the Left is on very thin ice here. As we know, they immediately try to label anybody opposing mass immigration or gay rights or any other of their pet projects as a Racist/ Fascist/ Nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-million-Jews, so calling a Blairite a Commie is hardly a big deal.

Point Four: You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually. This almost sounds like a compliment, unless you actually assume that JEW = something very, very bad. While the phrase may imply an element of deception – hardly unjustified given the long history of Jews downplaying their ethnic affinities – it could also be seen as pointing to a final self-realization and authentic expression of ethnicity.

But why should any reference to ethnicity be seen as insulting? If I refer to someone as a Jew, is that in itself an insult, and if so why is it an insult? I have no problem being referred to as British or White. In the same way we should assume that Ms. Berger is a proud Jewess and thinks that there is nothing wrong with being a Jew. If this in the case, any reference to her ethnicity should rather be a source of pride rather than something distressing, unless Ms. Berger wishes to convey that she has a low opinion of her constituents, and thinks that they would not vote for her if they became aware that she was Jewish rather than English.

*************

The law is supposed to employ forensic thinking like this and the principle of reasonable doubt. By closely examining Helm's supposed offence, it is apparent that it does not warrant imprisonment, even in a country with Draconian "hate laws" like the UK.

The reason he has been jailed, however, is not for his essentially harmless tweet, but for the unpublished thoughts that Helm can be inferred as having, and also to make an example of him.

Accounts of Helm’s arrest show that his home, computer, and online accounts were thoroughly searched by police, and that this provided the basis for his conviction, even though the charges only referred to the contents of the tweet.

With all the evidence their arrest allowed them to collect, the police would have been able to build up a reasonably clear idea of Helm’s secret opinions. Presumably these involved a desire to remove or possibly exterminate Jews in Britain, or statements that could be interpreted that way. This is hardly surprising for a member of National Action, a group that defines itself as National Socialist and has an affirmative attitude towards the worst excesses of the Third Reich.

But there is something of a cyclical paradox here: A man is arrested for a tweet that in itself is not sufficient grounds for conviction, but the arrest then allows the police full access to his home, computer, and online accounts, giving them enough material to see or infer that he has opinions that if publicly stated would be grounds for criminal conviction. He is then convicted for these invisible crimes. In essence Helm has been jailed for unexpressed or private thoughts stolen from him by an over-intrusive police state.

No comments:

Post a Comment