Worsceter edl counter rally message Racist Not Welcome.

Excellent turnout. Worcester, small town but big on unity. Unite and Fight.

Video credit: P. Hussain


No to racism message went out from Worcester community in an excellent carnival style, supported by drum/Dhol beats lead the happy rally crowd to its loud and clear message of the day to (EDL March) Racists Not Welcome in Worcester.


Like Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984, Vajpayee will go down in history as a prime minister who preached the virtues of tolerance even as he turned a blind eye to the massacre of innocent citizens.

Let Us Not Forget the Glimpse We Got of the Real Vajpayee When the Mask Slipped

Like Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984, Vajpayee will go down in history as a prime minister who preached the virtues of tolerance even as he turned a blind eye to the massacre of innocent citizens.

Siddharth Varadarajan
Credit: Siddharth Varadarajan    The Wire

Perhaps the most significant elaboration of the Golwalkar-Savarkar thesis of India as a Hindu nation beset by Muslim trouble-makers in recent times was that provided by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in hisspeech to the BJP national executive meeting in Goa on 12 April 2002.  The speech is remarkable for the manner in which a prime minister attempts to justify the murder of Muslim citizens in Gujarat by referring to Godhra and contrasting the supposed ‘traditional tolerance’ of Hindus with the alleged ‘intolerance’ of Muslims.

Like Golwalkar, who believed only Hindus were true Indians, Vajpayee uses ‘us’, ‘our’, ‘Hindus’ and ‘Indians’ interchangeably throughout his speech. He begins by making an observation about Hindu kingdoms in ancient Cambodia.

“No king destroyed a temple or damaged the deities’ idols at the time of attacking another king. This is our culture. This is our outlook, which treats all faiths equally.’ India, he said, was secular before Muslims and Christians set foot on her soil. Once they came, they had freedom of worship. ‘No one thought of converting them with force, because this is not practiced in our religion; and in our culture, there is no use for it.”

Here, Vajpayee was trying to contrast the ‘tolerance’ of Hindus and Hinduism, which he described as ‘our religion’, with the supposed intolerance of Muslims and Christians. The reference to the destruction of idols and conversion ‘with force’ is a standard part of the RSS arsenal. At the root of major incidents of violence, he said, was ‘growing intolerance’. Since Hindus are, by definition, tolerant, the obvious inference is that this ‘growing intolerance’ is on the part of the Muslims. Turning immediately to the burning issue of the day, he asked:

“What happened in Gujarat? If a conspiracy had not been hatched to burn alive the innocent passengers of the Sabarmati Express, then the subsequent tragedy in Gujarat could have been averted. But this did not happen. People were torched alive. Who were those culprits? The government is investigating into this. Intelligence agencies are collecting all the information. But we should not forget how the tragedy of Gujarat started. The subsequent developments were no doubt condemnable, but who lit the fire? How did the fire spread?”

Here, in as unsophisticated a fashion as Narendra Modi had stated it earlier, we find Vajpayee presenting his own version of Newton’s Third Law. There is no remorse about the killing of hundreds of innocent people, no apologies for the failure of the government to protect its citizens. He makes no attempt to distinguish between the criminal perpetrators of the Godhra attack and the innocent victims of the ‘subsequent tragedy in Gujarat’. For him, Muslims are an amorphous, undifferentiated lot who collectively ‘lit the fire’. They were to blame, not his party men who took part in the ‘subsequent developments’.

Going from the specific to the general, Vajpayee then launched a frontal attack on Muslims. He asserts that ‘For us, the soil of India from Goa to Guwahati is the same, all the people living on this land are the same. We do not believe in religious extremism. Today, the threat to our nation comes from terrorism’.

Who is this we and where exactly does this ‘threat to our nation’ come from? The Hindi text provides a clue. Vajpayee deliberately uses the Urdu word mazhabi for ‘religious’ (rather than the Hindi worddharmik) when he says ‘religious extremism’. We do not believe in religious extremism; it is the Muslims. His exact words were ‘Hum mazhabi kattarta mein vishwas nahin karte’. The fact that mazhabi is the only Urdu word used in the sentence is not accidental. In Sangh parivar literature and propaganda, whenever a positive reference to religion is made, the word used tends to be dharm, implying Hinduism; when the reference is negative, the word used tends to be mazhab. And terrorism, of course, is synonymous with Islam, or ‘militant Islam’, as Vajpayee chose to put it. But having first made a distinction between militant Islam and tolerant Islam, he then makes a sweeping generalisation about all Muslims:

“Wherever Muslims live, they don’t like to live in co-existence with others, they don’t like to mingle with others; and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats. The world has become alert to this danger.”

The statement is classic hate speech, but after it generated a huge controversy, Vajpayee claimed his remarks were aimed not at all Muslims but only ‘militant Muslims’.

The Prime Minister’s Office subsequently issued a doctored version of the speech in which the word ‘such’ was inserted between ‘Wherever’ and ‘Muslims live’. Many newspapers subsequently printed this version. It was not until a privilege motion was raised in Parliament — for Vajpayee had made the mistake of claiming on the floor of the House on May 1, 2002 that the doctored version of the speech was the true version — that he was forced to admit the word ‘such’ had been deliberately interpolated.  However, he reiterated that ‘no one who reads my entire speech and takes note of the tribute I have paid to the tolerant and compassionate teachings of Islam, can be in any doubt that my reference . . . is only to the followers of militant Islam’.

The allegation of Muslims not living in co-existence with others and not mingling with others is such a standard trope in RSS propaganda that Vajpayee’s claim of intending to refer only to militant Muslims does not seem very convincing. Earlier in his speech, he had equated militant Islam with terrorism. ‘Not mingling with others’ is a peculiar charge to level against terrorists. In any case, it was a bit odd for the prime minister to talk about terrorism and militancy as if they were the preserve of the adherents of Islam— especially at a time when his own Sangh parivar was heavily involved in acts of terror in Gujarat. But there was a deeper level of dishonesty in the charge against Muslims, for it is precisely the policy of the RSS to ghettoise and isolate the Muslim community. As sociologist Dhirubhai Sheth has argued, it was not accidental that the Muslims who bore the brunt of the Sangh parivar’s violence in Gujarat were those who chose to live in Hindu-majority areas. The communal killings in the state, he says, have exposed the dishonesty of the ‘Hindutvavadis’ who reproach Muslims for not entering the ‘national mainstream’ but then beat them back into their ghettos whenever they do emerge.

In another attempt to soften the impact of his Goa remarks, Vajpayee told parliament that he was as opposed to militant Hinduism as he was to militant Islam. ‘I accept the Hindutva of Swami Vivekananda but the type of Hindutva being propagated now is wrong and one should be wary of it.’ Having said this, however, he went back to square one by adding that although there were laws to deal with such an eventuality, he was confident no Hindu organisation would become a danger to the country’s unity.  In other words, only Muslim (or Christian or Sikh) organisations have the potential of endangering the country’s unity. After maligning Vivekananda — who never spoke of Hindutva but of Hinduism — Vajpayee went straight back to the teachings of Golwalkar and Savarkar.

Apart from reverting to the usual chauvinist line of the Sangh parivar, Vajpayee was also diverting the debate into a dead end. The issue is not whether he personally opposes militant Islam or Hinduism but whether, as prime minister, he is prepared to defend the constitutional rights of all Indians. Regardless of his own views and beliefs, a prime minister cannot speak for only a section of citizens. Do the Muslims of Gujarat have the right to physical security? Is he prepared to punish those who have committed crimes regardless of their political or ideological affiliation? Rather than dealing with these questions, Vajpayee is trying to cover up his own political failure and culpability.

Survivors of the Gulberg Society visit their building. Credit: Reuters/Ahmad Masood/Files

Survivors of the Gulberg Society visit their building. Credit: Reuters/Ahmad Masood/Files

It is remarkable that Vajpayee’s first televised address to the country was only on March 2, 2002 — after the seventy-two hours of apparent freedom enjoyed by the Sangh parivar in Gujarat expired — and even then, all he could do was appeal for calm and tolerance.  In fact, his attempt to blame the ordinary people of Gujarat — and their supposed lack of ‘harmony ’— for the mass killings in their state was a disingenuous manoeuvre aimed at absolving himself, his party colleagues and the state machinery they control, of any responsibility for the crimes. Like Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984 and Narasimha Rao in January 1993, Vajpayee will go down in history as a prime minister who preached the virtues of tolerance even as he turned a blind eye to the massacre of innocent citizens. Instead of using national television to tell the people of Gujarat that the genocidal mobs would be put down with a firm hand — and that policemen failing to protect the life and liberty of all would be punished — Vajpayee delivered a sermon on the need for religious sadbhavna.

There was little passion or feeling in what he said, no words of succour for the victims, no anger or opprobrium for the killers. He said the violence was a ‘black mark on the nation’s forehead’ but he couldn’t bring himself to say that retaliatory attacks on Muslims for what happened at Godhra would attract the same punishment as the burning of the train. Here was a violent disturbance that had made a mockery of state power as it is supposed to operate, yet the prime minister issued no dire warnings to those who were challenging his authority and power as chief executive. In the US, President George W. Bush and his senior aides publicly warned citizens against attacking Muslims, Arabs and other immigrants following the World Trade Centre terrorist strike. In less than a year since 9/11, a man in Texas was sentenced to death for the ‘retaliatory’ murder of a Sikh immigrant. To date, however, Vajpayee has yet to even publicly acknowledge that Muslim citizens of India were victimised in Gujarat or to threaten the attackers with the severest consequences.

Indeed, Vajpayee was later to demonstrate that he was so loyal to his party and parivar that he didn’t mind undermining the majesty of the state and his own office. On April 17, 2002, he said that if only parliament had condemned Godhra, the subsequent massacres would not have happened. The fact is that he is leader of the House and could have ordered a discussion and condemnation of Godhra on the day it happened — instead of the scheduled presentation of the budget.

In early May, he made another curious statement, this time on the floor of the Rajya Sabha: That he had decided to remove Modi in April but didn’t act fearing a backlash in Gujarat. ‘I had gone to Goa making up my mind on changing the ruler in Gujarat but according to my own assessment, I felt that the change in leadership will only worsen the situation.’  At the time, the only people opposed to a change in leadership were the RSS and VHP. Removing Modi may or may not have provided temporary relief for Gujarat’s beleaguered Muslims but it was odd for the prime minister to admit being held hostage to the threats of criminals and goons. “Vajpayee,” wrote B.G. Verghese, “placed the diktat of the mob above his oath of office . . . the emperor has no clothes, stripped of the last shred of moral authority.”

Aurangabad’s Syed Mateen Sayyad Rashid was attacked by several corporators and sent to judicial custody for a year for citing the Babri Masjid’s demolition as a reason why he did not wish to condole the former PM


Geplaatst door Hate Racist Monitoring Group op Zondag 26 augustus 2018


Credit: Sukanya Shantha       The Wire

Mumbai: In an incident that raises serious questions not just about the fate of freedom of expression in India but also the rule of law, an elected official in Maharashtra’s Aurangabad has been sent to prison for a year for declaring that he would not be participating in a condolence meeting for former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Prior to his arrest, he was assaulted by fellow corporators but despite the violence getting recorded on video, the persons who attacked him have managed to avoid being taken into custody.

On August 17, a group of BJP corporators attacked a Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) corporator in Aurangabad after he refused to participate in the condolence meet organised for Vajpayee. Syed Mateen Sayyad Rashid, a 34-year old corporator elected from the Town Hall constituency, was attacked by several corporators including deputy mayor Vijay Autude and a lady corporator.

Curiously, Rashid was later booked and arrested under three different cases for rioting, inciting communal disharmony and also under the stringent Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers & Drug Offenders (MPDA) Act, 1981, and sent to judicial custody for a year.

The City Chowk police confirmed that a case of rioting was registered against the five BJP corporators also, but they were all let off immediately on bail.

Soon after Vajpayee’s death, Sanjay Kumar, a professor at the Mahatma Gandhi Central University in Motihari was also assaulted by a group angered by critical comments he had posted on social media about the former prime minister.

The corporators of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation had assembled at the corporation office on August 17 to pay homage to Vajpayee, who had passed away a day before. Mateen, who was present at the meet, decided to register his protest in the standing committee meeting and announced: “I have not forgotten Babri Masjid. I shall refrain from participating in the condolence meet.” Mateen was hinting at the demolition of the Masjid that took place in December, 1992 and the alleged role played by BJP leaders in inciting the mob of Kar Sevaks and the subsequent demolition. Soon after his statement, several BJP corporators leapt on Mateen, punched him on his face and even beat him with slippers. The commotion was recorded on the house’s CCTV camera, and the footage was soon made public.

AIMIM’s MLA from central Aurangabad Imtiaz Jaleel told The Wire that Mateen was singled out and attacked. “Mateen had, without using any unparliamentary words, registered his protest against the standing committee’s decision to pay homage to Vajpayee. He was targeted by a mob of BJP corporators. But the police booked them under bailable sections and let them off within less than two hours but booked Mateen under three separate cases,” Jaleel said. City Chowk police said the five BJP corporators were booked under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting) and 149 (unlawful assembly with common object) of the IPC.

Mateen was arrested soon after the commotion at the corporation’s standing committee meeting. He was initially booked under section 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code for ‘promoting enmity between two groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’ and sent to police custody for a day. “That same evening, a few men went ahead ransacking a few private vehicles belonging to BJP leaders from Aurangabad. The next day, when Mateen was released on bail, he was booked again for the violence,” Jaleel said. Finally, the deputy commissioner of Police issued proceedings against Mateen under the MPDA sections and ordered for his judicial custody for a year. This law, mostly used in political cases, does not allow bail for a year, and the only appellate authority is the three-member advisory committee comprised of former high court judges. AIMIM plans to move the high court against Mateen’s arrest.

The Aurangabad police later issued a press statement, alleging that Mateen had been involved in several criminal cases including inciting mob violence. Police inspector Madhukar Sawant told The Wire that the proceedings under the MPDA were begun after taking Mateen’s behaviour into consideration and the several charges against him. “He has around nine criminal cases registered against him; some three of them were registered in last three months,” Sawant told The Wire. Jaleel claimed those cases were politically motivated and were mostly filed by BJP cadres and local leaders.

Mateen is not new to controversies, though. In the past, too, he has been vocal against the corporation’s stand to build a memorial in the name of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray. Mateen had objected to the decision and had pointed at the Sena’s “communal politics” and asked for the money to be spent in the welfare of common people from the city. He had also opposed to the singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ in the corporation office and sought to exert his right to ‘freedom of speech and expression’. His acts of defiance such as these have been construed as a crime and an attempt to incite communal disharmony in the city. “He has been unnecessarily taking difficult stand against the establishment. It has been his habit to disrupt the normal course of events in the corporation office,” Sawant added. Municipal commissioner Nipun Vinayak said a resolution has been passed by the corporators recommending to the government to disqualify him as a corporator.

Mateen’s move to oppose the condolence meet on August 17 did come as a surprise to his party too. “The party had issued a condolence note as soon as Vajpayee passed away. All 25 corporators of AIMIM were to participate in the condolence meet. I do not know why he decided to defy the party, but that is a separate matter. What happened to him was absolutely unfair and unconstitutional,” Jaleel added.

Continue reading Aurangabad’s Syed Mateen Sayyad Rashid was attacked by several corporators and sent to judicial custody for a year for citing the Babri Masjid’s demolition as a reason why he did not wish to condole the former PM

UK Muslim Community Living in Fear Under Tory Rule. Two Mosques In Birmingham Attacked.

Muslim Community Living in Fear.

The heart of Birmingham has been targeted once again.

Administration for now rule out any motive other than a Racist attack. Head admin of the Qamarul Islam Mosque, Imam M Khalil Mirza has expressed his disappointment at elected community leaders doing naught.  

However he was grateful for the local community showing their support.

Qamarul Islam and Al-Hijra Mosques both attacked. Windows were shot at with powerful air guns using steel ball bearings. Weaponry used here indicates towards it being most likely a gas loaded air gun. Commonly used in war games and easily available in UK without any hassle.

BALL BEARING vs Book your perception and Physics. Ball bearings are easily available in UK. These are and can be very deadly. There is an urgent need to make them illegal.

There is a strong case amply demonstrated here that these weapons should be banned.

“Will it make a significant difference if we shoot a book that is free to move backwards than if the book is secured with a sand bag? Many people have brought this up this since we often shoot things both ways. It’s natural to assume that a FIXED object would suffer more damage than a “free-floating” object. If you try to punch a balloon in the air, the balloon is just pushed away no matter how hard you punch it. If you secure the balloon to keep it from moving, you are more-likely to pop it. Does this apply to objects -AS MUCH- when they are travelling as a high velocity? Inertia is the resistance of any object to any change in its motion. The resistance in this case are the pages of the book. Momentum is a body’s mass multiplied by its velocity. The momentum in this case, is the steel ball bearing travelling just above supersonic speed.”


Supt Damian Pettit said: I would like to thank the communities of Worcester for their co-operation and patience

Communities thanked following protest events in Worcester
Worcester’s police chief has thanked the local community following demonstration events in the city centre this afternoon (Saturday, 21 July).
Supt Damian Pettit, Policing Commander for Worcestershire South, said: “I would like to thank the communities of Worcester for their co-operation and patience during our operation to police the demonstrations that took place in the city centre this afternoon.
“While a small minority of people were more confrontational in their attitude than we wanted, this was a successful operation that saw the majority of people able to participate in peaceful protest and our communities and businesses protected from harm.
“Extensive planning went into today’s operation and I would also like to thank our partner agencies and my officers for ensuring the safety of our communities on the day.
“There were reports of items being thrown into the EDL group and this is now being investigated.
“Three people were arrested for minor public order offences. Two police officers were injured during the event but thankfully neither is thought to be seriously hurt.
“We will be meeting with our partners in the local community to talk through the events of today. Worcester enjoys positive relationships among its diverse communities and we will continue to work with our partners to build on this in the future.”
The English Defence League staged an event in the city centre in protest at plans for a new mosque. A number of other groups staged counter demonstrations. The activities took place between 1pm and 3.30pm.

We Don’t Tip Terrorist


No automatic alt text available.
Khalil Cavil

Last night at work I received this note from one of my tables. At the moment I didn’t know what to think nor what to say, I was sick to my stomach. I share this because I want people to understand that this racism, and this hatred still exists. Although, this is nothing new, it is still something that will test your faith. All day I’ve had to remind myself that Jesus died for these people too. I have decided to let this encourage me, and fuel me to change the world the only way I know how. So to all the haters out there, keep talkin, your only helping me step into my destiny!


Continue reading We Don’t Tip Terrorist

Theresa May’s Government is in Deep Shit Trouble. Theresa May is No More Fit Enough to be Governing the Country

SACK Michael Fabri cant Now.

Tweet Targeting Muslims Throughout the World. Make no Mistake Normal people and Muslims all over the world will be offended. And some of you may wonder why Tories are having probems signing trade deals.
Racism at its Extreme. This is Deeply Offensive. Theresa May is No More Fit Enough to be Governing the Country.

This picture below is from a mentally evil sick Tory MP Michael FabriCunt’s tweet of Sadiq Khan, cannot be more Evil Racism.


It translates to evilest face of Fascism
Why has he not been sacked?

Top marksman? ?????

Against women in general or a case of Racism.    Extremely offensive.

It is long overdue Show Racism the Red Card.

It is long overdue Show Racism the Red Card, thank you Jo Stevens for Cardiff Central for your excellent chairing of the Parliamentary group.


Stephen Miller, When he was in high school, he was literally booed off of the stage in a speech he gave running for class president


The news just broke that white supremacist Stephen Miller was the primary person advising Donald Trump to begin having children and parents forcefully separated at the border.

I’ve tracked Stephen Miller for years. When he was in middle school, he was a known bigot against Latino students. They went on record about this.

When he was in high school, he was literally booed off of the stage in a speech he gave running for class president when he made his whole speech about his hate for immigrants. People have gone on record about this. I’ve seen it.

People said in high school he regularly mocked, taunted, and teased immigrant workers at the school.

In college, he protested Maya Angelou being a guest speaker.

In fact, when Trump made him his chief policy advisor, people from his middle school, high school, and college years each said they could not believe it because he was literally the worst human being they had ever met.

He also was the chief author of the Muslim ban.





KING: Stephen Miller is the latest insufferable liar and bigot on Team Trump – NY Daily News

Lets build tomorrows priceless treasures. A better world is possible together!