Day 4: Thursday 19th January
URGENT UPDATE: Due to prolonged legal issues the trial has been adjourned until Monday 23rd. Demo planned for Friday 20th cancelled.
Busy speaking at a meeting in Manchester last night, so a team of us nipped over the Pennine moors to Red Rose country as soon as I'd finished the short interview for BNPtv. Jackie and our three younger children (though at 17 and with a crushing bear hug our Richard doesn't really qualify any more) travelled up from Wales to meet at a very cosy pub owned by one of our people. Only together properly for an hour, but a quiet meal and a drink (very fine real ale from the Moorhouse brewery up near Pendle) with them in the 'snug' is deeply satisfying.
In the back of my mind afterwards, however, it brought home just how close Mark and I could be to finding out in grim reality the truth of what my old friend Joe Pearce told me after his own Race Act sentence for Thought Crime back in the '80s: "In some ways the family visits are the worst. You want so much to see them but then they're gone so soon."
So then to the second half of the meeting, already well underway under Derek Adams and Tony Wentworth. A good turnout of seventy or so had just enjoyed the buffet and now gave us a wonderfully warm welcome. Spoke for a good half hour. Not a great speech - as I said right at the start, I felt that people would want to know what was happening in court, and such accounts by their very nature are difficult to turn into gripping listening.
I did, however, explain that the headlines produced by the case were the result of "the prosecution's best shots. That's it, that's all they've got. From now on it's our turn."
I reminded everyone that the case was started while the neo-Stalinist crank David Blunkett (the man who celebrated getting elected to run Sheffield by ordering that the Red Flag - stained with the blood of at least 60 million white Christian Europeans - should be flown from the flag pole on top of the city hall) was running the Home Office. "In his last few years in power Blunkett lost the plot and made some terrible blunders. In historical terms, this is going to turn out to be the worst."
Lose-lose situation for the Establishment
Lose-lose situation for the Establishment
Not least of the Establishment's problems is their too-clever-by-half scheme to put Mark and me on trial - for telling the truth and advocating peaceful political solutions to genuinely pressing problems and dangers in our society - at the same time as Abu Hamza, with his 'justification' of suicide bombings and the indiscriminate murder of Unbelievers. The prosecution now just can't win.
This case is now the talk of the land. What happens next? Either we walk free, in which case millions of other decent Brits will breath a huge collective sigh of relief and feel personally much more at liberty to speak their own minds. Such moments of sudden relaxation of clumsy attempts to supress popular dissent are always extraordinarily dangerous for totalitarian regimes. A couple of months ago I read a fascinating account of the last few years of the Soviet Union, Delerium (I can't remember the author's name offhand). Gorbachev's attempted Glasnost 'liberalisation' developed an irresistable momentum of its own as people who had been frightened into silence by decades of brutal repression saw others getting away with speaking out and finally plucked up the courage to follow suit.
There are extraordinarily close parallels between the ideological origins and psychological motivations of the crazed attempt to impose an utterly anti-human, unnatural and innately unworkable Marxist social and economic experiment on the peoples of East Europe between 1917 and 1989, and the no less crazy, anti-human, unnatural and innately unworkable Marxist social, cultural and genetic experiment known as 'multi-culturalism'. And, since history always repeats itself, the time will come when everyone will be able to see the extraordinarily close parallels between the eventual collapse of the brutal and destructive tyranny of the Soviet Bloc, and the death of the less brutal but even more genocidal tyranny of 'PC' and multi-culturalism in today's West.
If, on the other hand, the prosecution 'win' and throw us in jail, millions of decent Brits - and huge numbers of freedom lovers in other countries as well - will be deeply shocked and mentally radicalised by the sight of our being persecuted simply for speaking aloud the truths that so many people think. On the issue of the Islamic threat in particular, the parallel would be if, instead of merely being ridiculed as a 'war-monger' throughout the 1930s, Winston Churchill had been imprisoned for "inciting hatred against Nazis and Germans." I write that not as a worshipper of Churchill - I'm not an imperialist, for a start - but simply to point out the non-ideological historical similarities.
Such a turn of events won't help us personally in the short term, of course, but enormous political capital for our movement will be created when the terrible events that lie ahead of all the once-free nations of the West prove that we were right all along. Looking at today's papers especially - including The Times, still the "paper of record" - I believe that, in this respect, we have already won this case. The verdict is irrelevant, save that a guilty verdict will only add martyr status for both of us to my growing reputation as a prophet!
Court itself resumed at 11.20 am, with reporting restrictions reimposed on account of the need to keep the legal discussions out of the knowledge of the jury, who return tomorrow. During this verbal tennis match, I was once again struck by the brilliance of these lawyers' minds. I'm no fan of their kind - I freely tell all of them, my excellent Defence Counsel included - of my instinctive tendency to agree with the potential rebels in Henry IV: "First thing we'll do is hang all the lawyers". But the speed with which these men and women assimilate ideas and think on their feet, their verbal and mental agility, and their subtle, dry humour (the mincing and unlamented now-departed Patrick O'Connor QC excepted) never fail to impress me. Not just my and Mark's team, but the prosecution and, especially, the Judge, who faces us so that we can see the concentration not only on his face but also in the way he holds his thumb and forefinger together as if to pick up a tiny pin when he addresses particularly subtle points.
The court room is lit soley by artificial neon light. The air is recycled, stale and surely unhealthy. Day after day at this time of year it is dark outside before they leave; they don't see much more daylight than most nightshift workers or coalminers - a hardy breed of truly productive men now sadly outnumbered by parasites. Which is what, at a certain level, the entire legal system is in a healthy society. Even the best of them, the fairest of them, the most considerate of them, are - at one level - parasites. Their profession creates nothing anyone can eat, or wear, or use to keep warm or dry, or to fly, or use to make something else that is either useful or beautiful.
These truly brilliant minds, some of the best our race can produce, fence with well-honed words as highly-paid intellectual gladiators in this airless, claustrophobic excuse for an arena. Even to be able to concentrate on their work, when every word has a precise meaning and a moment's loss of concentration could lead to disaster, is a mark of their extraordinary ability.
But what a waste! For sure, it gets them lots of money, but it is taken overwhelmingly from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and would be much better spent on education, hospitals and rebuilding British industry than being swallowed up prosecuting and defending vermin who have already forfeited their rights in any civilised society, lost youngsters who would never have gone off the rails in the first place if society was run in accordance with the realities of human nature, and the victims of an over-mighty state. And as for those who line their pockets by manning the socially, economically and morally corrosive machinery of compensation culture civil law, most of them - and most of the claimants - should be told to stop poncing and whining and go and do something useful and honest, like scientific research or cleaning toilets.
The only things I can say in favour of the English common law legal system is that it has the finest and most noble origins of any legal system in the world, and that even today it's not as bad as any of the alternatives, and much better than the dictats of any kind of sovereign ruler. So I suppose we'll have to put up with it, although we could take a look at the way the Japanese (cleverer, better organised, further-sighted and more cohesive than us on average) have organised their legal system so as to discourage people from going to law and to keep really good minds from going into it. Their much smaller, legal system is staffed by bright second-raters, while the top minds are encouraged to go into industry and science by a mixture of deliberately fostered social prestige and money.
Thinking of toilets, my mind strays briefly to an incident earlier this morning. I stayed last night at the home of a couple who, in addition to being valued party members, have also become good friends. We stayed up chatting about things and putting the world to rights until just gone one, then turned in. I woke up at just gone six, and after lounging around for a while decided to take a bath early so as not to get in the way. So by half six I'm lying in a very large and comfortable bath tub when I remember that it's a jacuzzi, so decide to switch it on and relax for a while longer. Which is fine until I come to get out and turn off, as the on/off button remains firmly stuck. Wondering if there's perhaps some link between the 'off' function and the knob that operates the waste plug, I fiddle briefly with that. Unfortunately, this makes no difference, save that the manic bubbling continues unabated, perhaps merely sounding louder now I'm not in it.
And now I've got an added worry: Not only do I appear to have broken the switch but I'm now not sure whether the water is running or out or not as the bubbling is so intense that I cannot see if the water level is dropping. My concern now is that, if it is, it will soon fall below the level of the jet holes, at which point my limited knowledge of water pumps (we have one at home on our borehole) suggests that it is likely to overheat and burn out or, even worse, catch fire somewhere behind the bath panel.
The passage of a couple more noisy minutes at least makes it clear that the plug's still in, and as it's now well gone seven I guess it's OK to get dressed and go and see if mine hosts are still awake. Indeed they are, since they haven't used the damn thing for so long that they couldn't even work out what the noise was, and had for some time now been sleepily wondering what on earth (more precisely, in water) I was doing.
So there's a dash to the garage for a thin screwdriver, and the stuck button is freed - only to come out of its socket completely, leaving the embarassingly scummy water (the main light is now on, and I spent the previous day in a Turkish Bath of a courtroom (I said Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith", not that its devotees never invented anything), a pub, a smoky meeting and several cars) to continue to dance and bubble and mock all three of us.
Call the bigger screwdriver. Strong enough to lever off the entire bath panel, although only after ripping up a chunk of carpet and the gripping strip underneath it. This brings the switch below the switch within reach and the bubbles die away and peace is restored. My friend gazes around. It is half-past seven. He sums up the situation in one classic, blunt Yorkshire sentence: "You've only been here a few hours and you've already shafted us whole bloody bathroom!"
All of which anecdote really only goes to prove that the prosecution barrister's learned voice is, I'm sorry to say, rather too monotonal to hold my attention completely as the discussions go on. The contrast betwen the crisp, lively presentation from Mark's Mr. Lawson-Rogers, and my Mr. King's controlled passion, is becoming more marked as the day goes on. That's not to say that the discussion necessarily goes our way, and it is interesting to watch how both our QCs can argue with the learned judge without getting up his spectacled nose in the way so entertainingly demonstrated by the prosecution's Mr. O'Connor in the first big hearing of this case back before Christmas.
One interesting point about the courtroom debates is the way in which the lawyers - including the judge and our defence counsel - when they want to give an example of 'racist' behaviour which would or would not break the law, all automatically provide hypothetical white perpetrators and non-white victims. If they did it the other way round the Race Relations Industry would sprout an entire new enforcement department. But as they're only making assumptions about "poor white trash", no-one even notices, let alone does anything about, this institutionalised racism.
During the breaks today, large numbers of police officers keep close by us on account of the presence of even larger numbers of young Asian men attending a case involving some of their number in a nearby courtroom. If our sly but somewhat excitable videographer friend Andy Ali hadn't assumed that the "adjourned until Friday" that he heard from the public gallery yesterday meant that we wouldn't be here today, he'd have had a field day - or have got himself arrested - trying to wind them up. We make an effort to keep out of their way, as the last thing we want is confrontation in the middle of Leeds Crown Court.
As the clock ticks on past four pm, it becomes clear that for yet another day we've overrun the time everyone expected this part of the case to take. At least some of what takes place tomorrow is going to be a continuation of these questions, rather than the trial proper in front of the jury. So tomorrow's blog may again be a little light on actual details of the trial itself, but please come and take a look.