Day 10; Friday 27th January
Day 10 - the end of a second whole week on trial - begins at 10.45 am as Nick takes the stand again. We had an adjournment and a day off yesterday as the prosecutor had a previous engagement in the Court of Appeal. This allowed us a welcome break to re-charge our batteries. As Nick takes the stand we move straight into the examination of his Jury bundle - the key items showing how he formed the basis of the beliefs he expressed in his speeches. When talking about the situation in Keighley, Nick states the only reason that Keighley MP Ann Cryer began talking of the problem of grooming was to "head us off at the pass," in effect stealing our thunder.
As a part of the bundle the Jury will be seeing a number of pages of the Koran of which Nick has marked the pages as he studied it. That particular copy is the recommended copy by the main strand of Islamic thinking, Nick draws attention to the passage where the Koran states that Muslim males are allowed to take women from other peoples. This he points out directly relates to the issue of grooming in Keighley - as he stated in his spech it is acceptable "as their good book tells them it's ok". The Koran states that Muslims can take any woman that their "right hand can own."
Nature of the Koran
Nick states that the Koran is not like the Bible, regarded by Christians as having been written by mortal men. Rather, to Muslims, it is the literal word of God It is undating, unchanging and a guide to how to live one's life. This is in stark contrast to the way that modern Christianity sees the Bible. The Koran he points out is current law to Muslims and always will be. Nick effectively pulls apart the phrase Tony Blair used to state that the Koran is a peaceful and peace loving religion. Blair cleverly left out a small part of the verse, which when put back in place changes the whole meaning of the verse.
He states that all the tolerant verses written by Mohammed were written at the beginning of his career when he lived in Mecca and had only a small number of followers. When he fled with his small band of followers to Medina he gained significant power and the nature of the verses changed. These later verses were completely different to the earlier verses and called for violence and the use of force to spread the religion. What's more the later passages, the ones containing the calls for violence, override the earlier verses. These verses, Nick says, help explain the tide of racist attacks against whites, as well as Hindus, Sikhs and Blacks, in areas where Muslims are a significant portion of the population. A later verse talks of nine sinners and enemies of the Prophet, and goes onto say that their whole city is destroyed, including everyone in it, simply for the ill-doings of those nine individuals. This, Nick said, was the verse he thought about when, post 9/11, other politicians and 'moderate' Muslims kept telling us that the Koran forbids the killing of innocents during Jihad.
He says that verses in the Koran strictly forbid Muslims to follow the laws in the secular democratic countries. In effect, he says, Islam is a complete contradiction of our parliamentary democracy - 'good' Muslims must never follow our laws. A later quote - "Sedition is worse than murder" that means anything that undermines Islam or gets in the way of spreading it is worse than murder, so for example selling alcohol and or advertising posters featuring scantily clothed women are in fact worse - under Islamic law - than murder.
In a way I really do feel privileged to be sat here having a front row seat at this spectacle. Nick's delivery throughout this has been superb and his excellent de-construction of Islam is wonderfully well thought out. I honestly wish this had been televised as it would have been if it were in a US court, if only everyone in Britain could be presented with these clear calm arguments as to why our nation is at such great risk.
Nick goes on to say that Mohammed is talked of as "the perfect man", who example in life remains the source of the hadiths, the collection of verses about his life that are second only to the Koran as a source of guidance for Muslims. At one point in these Mohammed rejoices as one of his followers hacks off the head of one of his adversaries. This he states is no different to what is going on when Muslims hack off the heads of their hostages in the Middle East, it specifically glorifies that method of killing. He goes on to say that Mohammed himself raped female prisoners of war - this is the example that the Koran sets out as the 'perfect' human being. The real twist to this he says is that it is the rape victim who is at fault under Islamic law for having sex out of wedlock and she can - and in Islamic states does - face being stoned to death for the 'crime' of being raped.
After we were shown sections of a TV documentary shown on Channel 4 (Al Qaeda UK) about Islamic extremism you can see Islamic clerics interpreting the Koran in the same way that Nick put forward earlier. The difference he says between Christians doing bad things and Muslims doing bad things is that Christians doing those things are 'bad' Christians, but Muslims doing them are 'good' Muslims by the definition of their book.
Nick has been ticked off by the judge for straying from explaining how he formed his views and into making political speeches. He is particularly concerned when Nick comments that his researches had shown that so-called 'moderates' in groups like the Muslim Council of Britain follow the very same hardline ideological mentors as the open 'extremists' such as Hamza and Bakri, and are financed by the fanatically fundamentalist Saudi Arabians. "The so-called moderates are are in the pockets of the same people as financed the Taliban," Nick points out, before the judge interrupts and he is forced to move on.
We are given a ten minute break at 12.20 pm as the prosecutor says it was a long morning and everyone, including him, needs a few minutes' break. In fact, it wasn't for him, as everything so far has come out in exchanges between Nick and his own defence counsel. More to the point, Jameson clearly needs to consult with his colleagues. It is almost inconceivable that he didn't have some questions ready to put about Nick's understanding of Islam, by now, however, he must have realised that if he takes Nick on on this ground he is going to be eaten alive and spat out in little bits.
At 12.36 pm the Judge returns. I've been looking forward to this, Nick's cross examination by Jameson, I'm expecting real fireworks. Jameson begins - he wishes to sum up Nick's stance as not being 'critical of Asians as a whole or individual Muslims - but instead being critical of Islam, the Media and the Establishment - Nick agrees. Jameson says there was once a time when the BNP policy was based on race and asks is that not now still the case. Nick comes back with the reasoned answer that race and ethnicity are still very important to the BNP but the emphasis of the party has changed.
He goes on to talk of the repatriation of ethnics who commit crime, as was mentioned in my speech in the Resevoir Tavern. Nick says we have not worked a standard 'cut off point' for how many generations they have been in this country. It is clear now what Mr Jameson is doing, he is trying to tie my speech into Nick's and thus create divisions between us. Jameson goes on to ask whether Nick thinks my speech could have been misconstrued by the audience, Nick says 'No'.
The prosecutor asks if it is offensive to refer to Stephen Lawrence as 'Stephen Bloody Lawrence', Nick states that is may be thought of as in bad taste by some but certainly not offensive. He goes on to talk about the way that the media edit the photo of SL to cut out the clenched fist black power salute in order to make him look softer. The prosecutor is now clutching at straws over issues of what Nick is trying to infer to the audience - Nick clearly states he doesn't have to infer things, if he wanted to make a point he would have made it.
The prosecutor tries to pull Nick into the argument over where he got this information over SL being a drug dealer, Nick boldly refuses to call the policeman in question who gave him this information as he tells Jameson "we both know he would be sacked if he was called to give evidence". Jameson asks if Nick was making the situation worse for the Lawrence family by using their son in this way, he points out that if it wasn't for this case and the BBC then they would never have of heard what was said in a private BNP meeting. The fact all this has come out in court "is you and your bosses fault, Mr. Jameson, not mine." Excellent point and a great slap in the face for the BBC and the prosecutor. The mumour that runs through the public gallery shows that Nick has scored a direct hit.
Nick turns this round on the prosecution further, pointing out that SL could have been killed by another black, as was suggested by the Met source and althougth still tragic this would probably make his death a result of his suggested involvement in drugs and thus explainable as something other than the racist attack "which has been used as an excuse to turn our policing system on its head."
"Offensive" cartoon dragon decapitated
During the lunchbreak we go outside to meet the BNP free speech demonstrators and Christian Council of Britain demonstrators who habe been there all morning. The media crowd round as we shake hands with a splendid 'St. George', who has spent the morning 'killing' a six and a half foot green Islamic dragon! Apparently the police had earlier made him take off his Arab headscarf in case it 'offended' a passing Arab. The afternoon session commences at 2.30 pm.
Mr Jameson moves straight into Nick's Keighley speech. Nick begins again by pointing out that it is not as simple as the media say it is, it is not Asian males, it is Muslim males. Jameson tries to make out that Nick is being unfair by not stating in his speech that not all Muslims carry out these attacks, Nick states it is not necessary for him to point this out, like it is not necessary for the press to point out that not all whites are racist thugs when they talk of white racist attackers.
Jameson's case becomes weaker still, he is not drawing on evidence, nor is he drawing on the totality of the speech. Just like he did when cross examining me he is simply turning this into a word play, trying to manipulate the slightest thing when it is pulled right out of context. Nick bites back and points out that when he does use the word Asian he is using the correct term again, as the Muslims in Keighley that are the perpetrators of the crimes in question are Asian. He then says this might well be happening elsewhere and the Muslims might be of other colour.
The case becomes weaker still, and Nick really rips into him, the prosecutor tries to get a grip of him over saying that these particular Muslims come from Pakistan, when they could have come from Bangladesh. Nick replies "well I could have said Pakistan and Bangladesh but then you would say why didn't I mention other places where Muslims come from". Nick asks him why he is playing on words and taking things out of context.
Again we are into wordplay, and Jameson asks why Nick said these Muslims beat white lads and not 'non-believers'. Nick says the audience were white people in a white working class area and it is the whites in that community that are getting beaten. He is talking directly about this area and it must relate to these people and this area. As we move on Nick again puts things into context and points out he identifies other races and religious groups that have been victims of the 'anti-kuffar hatred' at the root of Islam. Again we see the prosecutor going back on his opening statement and simply taking things out of context and viewing them in a vacuum.
Nick goes on to accept that not all Muslims are involved in these kind of crimes, and that there are moderates, but states that these people are overpowered by the radicals and this is played to by the media and the Establishment. Jameson goes on to say why don't we allow these moderates to join us, and Nick says we don't because we don't need them because we won't bend to these PC notions of having an ethnic on the arm of every white like happens in the media. Nick goes on to say that moderate Muslims are also scared of coming forward and we can't just pluck them out of the air because they're more scared than the white are.
Jameson tries to make our party look racist by attacking the fact that Rajinder Singh is not allowed to join the BNP, Nick is more than capable of answering this an immediately takes him on, pointing out that human diversity is something that should be treasured, yet our Establishment, by promoting race mixing is destroying races. That is why we only let white people in our party but we are more than willing to work with those of other races to help retain our cuture and their culture and not to destroy racial diversity. Friends not family. Nick also points out that if it were anything other than the white race being wiped out then Greenpeace and the like would be doing something.
Greatest show on earth
This is the greatest show on earth. Watching Nick debate with this over paid little man is wonderful, for all his money and the many many times he has stood in court he simply can't get a grip of Nick whatsoever. Nick sounds cool and calm throughout, barely phased by the constant barrage of questioning. Jameson even spots that Nick can see what questions he is going to ask next, he is being outclassed. Nick points out that Jameson has had to trawl very carefully though these speeches to find sentences and phrases to couple together to try to prove points.
Nick knew the next thing was coming, as Jameson brings up his use of the term 'Paki Street Thug'. Nick deftly points out that Paki is used by both Muslims and Whites and is not a solely abusive term. Nick says that a 'paki street thug' is a certain type of Muslim that the entire audience knows about, and says clearly that he is not branding all Muslims as this, again as the media brand whites as racists.
And here's what we've all been waiting for, the assertion Nick made that he could get 7 years for saying what he said. Nick states that he had seen a report about new religious hatred laws and believed them to have come in already. Nick destroys Jameson. He points out that in his earlier use of the term he related it to a sentence just about the Koran. Jameson is trying to tell the Jury that Nick is using the word Muslim as a cover for all Asians. Jameson says why didn't he make this point clearer? Nick says he knows it's a flaw of his to talk too much, but he tries not to bore people with technicalities. Everyone laughs - except the hapless Mr Jameson. Nick is now motoring through this and his confidence goes up and up, Jameson points out that Nick could have made his point better then, and proposes a perfectly worded alternative. Nick agrees and thanks him, saying he will use Jameson's phrase in future. Everyone laughs again.
Nick points out that although he could go to jail for this, he points out that what he has said in the witness box today is far more dangerous for him as Muslims might kill him. Before the startled rabbit prosecutor can get a word in edgeways or stop him, he gives a brief but gruesome account of the murder of Theo van Gogh, of Salman Rushdie's years under police protection, and says he knows that the Labour gvernment won't give him any protection. If he wanted to be safer he could have just broken the race law, because that carries a few years in prison, not the beheading he could receive for exposing Islam today in court.
Jameson is clearly on the back foot, and quickly moves on to the Morley speech.
We go through what Nick had to say about the murders of Gavin Hopley, Kriss Donald and Sean Whyte. Nick has already repeatedly pointed out how the "British Establishment" just doesn't seem to care when whites are the victims, and now makes the point, twice, with cutting asides requesting that the court reports should at least spell the victims' names correctly, then spelling out the proper versions to correct the mistakes in the speech transcripts and prosecution's documents. His anger at the way in which the authorities are so careless when white families grieve is palpable. The passion and emotion charge the court room.
Again the weakness of this case becomes apparent as we are back to the wordplay. The fact that Nick used the word Asian. Nick states he clarified it at the being of this speech when he said "Asians of the Muslim persuasion." But in this speech he was rushed, so rushed that he didn't have time to go into many little sub-clauses which he would usually do. But this speech, he states, was in any case not an attack on Islam or any ethnic minority, but on the mass media.
If it was, says Jameson, why did Nick go into such graphic detail over the deaths of the whites that have been ignored by the media. Nick says he did because it was necessary to illustrate the point in an interesting way. Nick says he wants people to get more involved politically and he wants to motivate them to carry out political activity and build an alternative. He goes on, huge sections of our population are cut off from the political process and they may only turn up at a political meeting as a last resort. Nick states it is his job to get these people involved, and in fact to not channel their energies into political activity would be the irresponsible thing. As for the speeches we use to achieve this: "It seems to me," Mr. Jameson, "that you are saying that we can have freedom of speech, but only if we talk in such flat dull monotones and such boring legal phrases that no-one will be able to keep awake to listen to what we say."
Sensing he is on weak grounds Jameson tries to get Nick on the fact that he has produced press clippings on these attacks, so it is not true that they were not reported. Nick snaps back by pointing out that these horrific murders do get a little coverage in local papers but are criminally under reported. Nick points out that if he wanted to stir people up to hatred, then surely he could do a far better job, he was not stirring people up and that is evident from what he said.
Now back to wordplay, again we are running around in circles over whether Nick was refering to Asians, Iraqis or Muslim fundamentalists. Jameson is clearly losing this battle, the mood of the court is now much lifted. Jameson's points seem to just be falling flat and he seems to be losing his place in the bundle.
Nick now starts assisting him! Not only does he help him find his place, but several times he provides the 'right' word when Jameson can't find it. From behind I can see Jameson wilt and shrink under this subtle humiliation.
I begin to see more parallels with my cross examination. Jameson's thrust of questioning seems to be based around why Nick has said 'criminal elements of the Muslim community' and has just referred to them as the Muslim community. Again simple wordplay and the proceedings slow whilst the Judge asks a question based around what Nick thinks about attitudes that permeate the Muslim community. Nick says that he thinks moderate muslims are a rarity and "a culture of casual contempt for and hatred of other peoples has permeated their community.
Nick states that the only way racial hatred could be stirred up is if these comments were taken out of context and not qualified with the alternative of political activity. It's showing people we understand their problems and that there are genuine social concerns and giving them the motivation to go and do something about them in a political sense.
Although there are many 'awkward' questions that we had identified still unasked, Jameson seems suddenly to lose the will to carry on. Before anyone even realises it, he has finished his cross-examination and sat down. No closing point, no acknowledgement that it was over, he just sat down, smelling of defeat. The judge thanks Nick for his evidence and tells him he can rejoin me in the dock. Nick leaves the stand at 4.05 am. Jameson hasn't earned his money well today.