The weight-for-age championship of Australasia primes more memories than other majors because of the atmosphere created by the in-the-round environment.
The aunt of a young girl who took her own life after the man accused of sexually abusing her was released on bail, says the abuse her niece allegedly suffered mirrors that experienced by many children in Western Australia’s Indigenous community.
- Investigations are underway into the suicide of an 11-year-old girl
- The girl had allegedly been abused by a man who was later released on bail
- Her aunt says too many Indigenous children are being sexually abused
Life support for the woman’s 11-year-old niece Annaliesse Ugle was turned off earlier this week.
The man accused of abusing Annaliesse, Peter Frederick Humes, is due to appear before the courts in early December. He is yet to enter a plea.
For legal reasons, Ms Abraham cannot speak about the details of that case because it will soon be heard in court.
However she said she wanted to break the cycle of silence within the Indigenous community around child abuse generally.
“We are still not dealing with the real issue, the real issue why all these young kids are taking their own lives is because we have had family thinking they can touch you, abuse you, sexually, molest you,” Ms Abraham said.
“The shit like that we had to grow up with it becomes normalised and you get told to ‘hush hush’ and not make trouble because you will start a turf war within families.”
Ms Abraham said she was sexually abused as a child, by a different man, and did not report her own assault until her early twenties.
“My cousins who were also victims couldn’t come forward with me, they were either too scared or had been talked out of it,” Ms Abraham said.
“It wasn’t until my other cousin got the courage to come forward that we got justice, but when you’re that one voice on your own, you don’t get justice.”
‘Fly-in fly-out approach’ leaves victims vulnerable
Noongar woman and Curtin Law School Associate Professor Hannah McGlade said previous investigations into sexual assault within Indigenous communities had done little more than left victims vulnerable.
Ms McGlade said findings of the 2002 Gordon Inquiry were initially viewed as a watershed moment for the Indigenous community, but it was still waiting for the implementation of many of its recommendations.
She said one of those key recommendations which had not been implemented was the creation of a ‘one-stop shop’ department to deal with reports of abuse.
“This fly-in, fly-out approach where non-Indigenous police come in and bring out the abuse in communities and then leave does nothing to improve safety for victims,” Ms McGlade said.
“The primary support needs to be the investment into community-based response and the one stop model. We have not been assisted by our state governments to take those appropriate responses.”
WA Police vow to take ownership
Regional Assistant Police Commissioner Jo McCabe said on Wednesday that an early assessment of Annaliesse Ugle’s case indicated police bail should not have been granted to her alleged abuser.
“In general, bail is considered on a case by case basis and aligned with the bail act, however an early assessment of this case, and the seriousness of the offences, tells me that police bail should have been opposed and not considered,” she said.
“This will ultimately be a matter for the coroner, but I’m here today to say that WA Police will take ownership of any issues where we can improve to prevent something like this occurring again.”
Communities Minister Simone McGurk said it was a priority to find out what supports were in place for the girl and what went wrong, while Health Minister Roger Cook said the Government was likely to review the handling of the case.
The Baseball Writers’ Association of America recently announced that it would remove former Major League Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis’ name from the plaques awarded to the American and National League MVPs.
The decision came after a number of former MVPs, including Black award winners Barry Larkin and Terry Pendleton, voiced their displeasure with their plaques being named for Landis, who kept the game segregated during the 24 years he served as commissioner from 1920 until his death in 1944. The Brooklyn Dodgers ended the color line when they signed Jackie Robinson to a contract in October 1945, less than a year after Landis’ death.
Landis has had his defenders over the years. In the past, essayist David Kaiser, baseball historian Norman Macht, Landis biographer David Pietrusza and the commissioner’s nephew, Lincoln Landis, have claimed that there is no evidence that Landis said or did anything racist.
But in my view, it’s what he didn’t say and didn’t do that made him a racist.
In my book “Conspiracy of Silence: Sportswriters and the Long Campaign to Desegregate Baseball,” I argue that baseball’s color line existed as long as it did because the nation’s white mainstream sportswriters remained silent about it, even as Black and progressive activists campaigned for integration.
However those who ran the league possessed far more power than sportswriters. Landis, along with the owners, knew that there were Black players good enough to play in the big leagues. If he wanted to integrate Major League Baseball, he could have.
Instead, he did all he could to prevent the rest of America from knowing just how talented Black baseball players were.
Petitions go ignored
By the time Landis became commissioner in 1920, baseball had been segregated ever since a so-called “gentlemen’s agreement” took place among team owners in the 1880s.
However, it was common practice in the 1920s for Major League teams to earn extra money in the off-season by playing Black teams in exhibition games. Landis put a halt to these games because he wanted to end the embarrassment of the Black teams’ winning so often.
It is worth noting that Black athletes competed with white ones in other sports in the 1920s and 1930s, including boxing, college tennis, college football and, for several years, the National Football League. Black athletes also represented the United States in the Olympics.
During the 1930s, Black sportswriters like Wendell Smith and Sam Lacy, along with white sportswriters for the Communist newspaper The Daily Worker, intensely campaigned for the integration of baseball.
In their editorials and articles, Worker sportswriters chronicled the accomplishments of Negro League stars and told readers that struggling Major League teams could improve their chances by signing Black players. Meanwhile, Communist activists organized protests and circulated petition drives outside the ballparks of New York’s three Major League teams – the Yankees, Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers – demanding that teams sign Black players.
The petitions, which had, according to one estimate, a million signatures, were then sent off to the commissioner’s office. They were ignored. The Daily Worker regularly focused on Landis as the person responsible for the color line, while the Black press derisively called him “the Great White Father.”
Don’t ask, don’t tell
Landis suspended Powell not because the ballplayer used a slur, but because it was heard by fans, and Black activists pressured the commissioner to do something. While Landis ended up punishing a racist player, he did nothing to end racial discrimination against Black players.
Furthermore, Landis refused to allow players and managers to speak on the issue. When Brooklyn manager Leo Durocher was quoted in a 1942 Daily Worker article saying he would sign Black players if he were allowed to, Landis ordered Durocher to deny that he made the statement.
The following year, Landis again subverted the campaign to end segregation in the sport.
[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]
Sam Lacy, who was then working for the Chicago Defender, repeatedly asked Landis for a meeting to talk about the color line. When Landis finally agreed, Lacy asked the commissioner if he could make the case for integration at baseball’s annual meeting.
Landis, without telling Lacy, invited the Negro Newspaper Publishers Association. Also invited to speak was Paul Robeson, the onetime college football star who had become an actor, singer, writer – and avowed Communist. Lacy was incensed that Robeson would be asked to address the conservative white owners about the sensitive issue of integration.
To Lacy, the presence of Robeson meant that Landis could plant seeds of suspicion with white owners and sportswriters that the campaign to integrate baseball was a Communist front.
Lacy wrote in a column that Landis reminded him of a cartoon he had seen of a man extending his right hand in a gesture of friendship while clenching a long knife that was hidden in his left hand.
Landis died in December 1944, and Lacy finally got a chance to address team executives in March of the following year. Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey ended up signing Jackie Robinson to a contract several months later, thus ending segregation in baseball.
Lee Lowenfish, Rickey’s biographer, was convinced that Landis would have tried to stop the Brooklyn executive from signing Robinson.
I believe it is no coincidence that baseball remained segregated during Landis’ reign as commissioner – or that it became integrated only after he died.
Broncos star Kotoni Staggs has spoken publicly for the first time since his season was derailed by a sex tape police matter.
The 21-year-old was a shining light for the Broncos on the field this season as the club crashed to its worst ever year, but off the field was engulfed in a revenge porn storm.
McKenzie Lorraine Robinson, 18, appeared in Brisbane Magistrates Court last month charged with distributing the illegal footage.
The teenager stands accused of sharing footage of herself engaged in an intimate act with the star Broncos centre between June 14 and August 5 without his consent.
Watch the 2020 NRL Telstra Premiership Finals on Kayo. Every game before the Grand Final Live & On-Demand with no-ad breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly >
Robinson, who now goes by McKenziana Skye on social media revealed through her lawyer that she would explain how the sex tape was leaked at a later court appearance.
The matter is now scheduled to appear before the court again on October 16.
Staggs was cleared of any wrongdoing by the NRL’s integrity unit after the video was released and has commended Queensland police for their handling of the matter.
Now Staggs has revealed to The Courier-Mail he has been left “embarrassed”
“It wasn’t my fault (the video leaked), but I was still involved,” Staggs said.
“I was embarrassed it came out. I didn’t want my family to see it, that was the one thing that I was worried about. I didn’t really want to tell them but I had to.
“They actually took it really well. They stuck by my side. They had my back through it all. I was surprised by how well they took it and that made me feel a bit better.
“There’s always ups and downs. You learn from your mistakes.”
Staggs also said he is ready to move on with his life while McKenzie Lorraine Robinson will return to court this month.
“She is doing what she has to do now and is facing court,” he said.
“Whatever happens, happens.”
A painful ACL injury in the Broncos final game of the season has cost Staggs his potential State of Origin debut for NSW with the Broncos star forced to go under the knife this off-season. The surgery will keep him sidelined for nine months.
It came after Blues coach Brad Fittler indicated Staggs was in line to be selected in his preliminary squad for this year’s Origin series.
Ellen DeGeneres has directly addressed the allegations of a toxic work environment that have plagued her show in recent months.
Penrith Panthers centre Brent Naden has spoken for the first time on the moment he was allegedly racially abused by a group of young spectators, with the NRL closing its investigation into the matter.
The Herald can reveal Naden recently spoke over the phone to one of the men involved and received an apology. The incident saw eight fans ejected from Central Coast Stadium during the Panthers-Warriors game on August 14.
“I’ve never had to deal with anything like that in my life until a few weeks ago,” Naden told the Herald on Monday. “That’s why it hit me so hard.”
Naden accepted the apology and the NRL subsequently closed the investigation. The 24-year-old Indigenous outside back, who hails from country NSW, has spoken of how some of the most influential Indigenous athletes of the modern era gave him the courage to speak up when he copped the tirade from the stands.
Top seeds including Novak Djokovic overcame eerily quiet stands as a “weird,” spectator-free US Open started Monday with heightened safety protocols for some players following a positive COVID-19 test.
Several competitors were placed in what one of them described as a “bubble within a bubble” after France’s Benoit Paire was withdrawn from the men’s draw Sunday for testing positive for coronavirus.
“It was made clear that the infected player was not adhering to the health protocols that have been approved by the State of New York,” a spokesperson for the United States Tennis Association told AFP.
A person familiar with the matter said Paire had been lax about wearing a face covering.
Djokovic and top women’s seed Karolina Pliskova were among the big names to shrug off the deathly quiet at Flushing Meadows and progress to the second round of the first Grand Slam of the COVID-19 era.
Match-winning points went uncheered, ball persons wore masks, and players had to reach for their own towels in a tightly controlled environment that made for a opening day Slam unlike any other.
“The conditions are strange, we miss the fans,” said France’s Kristina Mladenovic after a 7-5, 6-2 win over American Hailey Baptiste.
Mladenovic was one of several players forced to adhere to stricter safety measures after compatriot Paire was withdrawn.
Several competitors including Richard Gasquet, Adrian Mannarino and Edouard Roger-Vasselin had been in contact with Paire, according to French sports publication L’Equipe, leading to doubts about their participation.
The USTA confirmed that a number of players were now being tested on a daily basis, rather than every four days.
They are now also only allowed to leave their hotel room to travel to the US National Tennis Center. Previously they had been allowed in communal areas.
“We got some bad news two days ago and since then I’ve been living in a nightmare,” said 30th seed Mladenovic.
“I wasn’t even sure if I would able to play. We’ve been in a bubble inside a bubble. So I’m very grateful that we were able to play today,” she added.
Paire meanwhile was preparing to leave the tournament questioning the protocols put in place in New York.
“I’m fine for now I have no symptoms .. I hesitate to tell what is really going on in this Fake Bubble,” Paire wrote on Instagram.
Djokovic defeated unheralded Damir Dzumhur of Bosnia-Herzegovina 6-1, 6-4, 6-1 as he launched his bid for an 18th Grand Slam with a win at an Arthur Ashe Stadium devoid of 23,000 screaming fans.
Pliskova made light work of 145th-ranked Ukrainian Anhelina Kalinina 6-4, 6-0 in one of the early matches.
And German Angelique Kerber, the 2016 US Open champion, also progressed to the second round, thanks to a tightly fought 6-4, 6-4 victory against Australia’s Ajila Tomljanovic.
“It’s a little bit weird to play without fans and without the support and the atmosphere on the center courts,” Kerber said.
There was disappointment for US starlet Coco Gauff, the 16-year-old who lit up Wimbledon last year with a run to the fourth round. Gauff fell at the first hurdle, losing to Latvia’s Anastasija Sevastova 6-3, 5-7, 6-4.
Black Lives Matter banners are on display in the main arenas and fourth seed Naomi Osaka wore a Breonna Taylor mask, days after she threatened not to play a semi-final to protest the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man.
Osaka, of Haitian and Japanese heritage, said she had six other masks bearing the names of black people killed by police that she hoped to wear throughout the Grand Slam.
“So I have seven and it’s quite sad that seven isn’t enough for the amount of names,” said the 22-year-old after defeating Japanese compatriot Misaki Doi 6-2, 5-7, 6-2.
“Hopefully I’ll get to the finals and you’ll see all of them,” she added.
In the men’s draw, fifth seed Alexander Zverev was made to work hard in a three-hour-long tussle with 2017 finalist Kevin Anderson, the German ultimately prevailing 7-6 (7/2) 5-7, 6-3, 7-5.
Fourth seed Stefanos Tsitsipas eased through with a 6-2, 6-1, 6-1 win over Spain’s Albert Ramos-Vinolas.
The absence of defending champion Rafael Nadal and Swiss legend Roger Federer gives Djokovic a prime opportunity to gain ground on his rivals in the chase for the all-time men’s Grand Slam singles title record.
Djokovic currently has 17, behind Nadal on 19 and Federer on 20.
The US Open is the first Grand Slam since the Australian Open in January and February, after the global pandemic wiped out much of the season, including Wimbledon.
Serena Williams starts her bid for a 24th career Grand Slam women’s singles crown to match the all-time record set by Margaret Court on Tuesday.
“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.
In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.
When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.
There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.
I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.
As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).
Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.
Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?
Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist
Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:
Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:
Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).
Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.
And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”
Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”
Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain
Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:
non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.
In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:
It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews. One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.” Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.” One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”
But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.” From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.” So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.
One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.” He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”
But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins. Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966. Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.” Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”
In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.” The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”
The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.
 M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.
 Donnelly, 115.
 Honeyford, 93.
 Ibid, 94.
 I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.
 W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.
 Ibid, 22.
 C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.
 P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.
 Ibid, 323.
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.
The police shooting of Jacob Blake was shocking.
As the Republican Party convention prepared to roll out Donald Trump’s vision for America, the actual vision from Wisconsin cast an ugly, distracting shadow.
The full facts surrounding the police shooting of Mr Blake, a black man, are still to be established.
But the details already on public view were enough to prompt Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to say the seven shots fired pierced “the soul of our nation”.
His call for “an immediate, full and transparent investigation” came easily to him.
From the president, it didn’t come at all.
This at a time when the Trump narrative shaped by his Democratic opponents is around a lack of character, empathy and ability to lead.
Systemic racism is an issue threaded through this election campaign – and the president’s silence on Wisconsin will be deafening for a large constituency in America.
No one needs a rush to judgement, but acknowledgement would convey, at least, some sense of commitment to address the incident and its implications.
In an unfortunate juxtaposition, one of the headline contributions on the first night of the Republican convention was from the McCloskeys of St Louis.
They are the couple who waved weapons at Black Lives Matter protesters who marched past the McCloskey’s Missouri mansion in June.
Their appearance at the convention was an accident of scheduling, albeit an accident waiting to happen.
As the human embodiment of the president’s capital letter “LAW AND ORDER” twitter posts, they won’t have been a pretty sight to many Americans, not now.
But Donald Trump might consider that his government isn’t for the many, but for the many others.
The Republican base is his audience-in-chief, and his challenge is to retain the voters at its core and reclaim those straying at its edges.
Donald Trump needs a performance.
Consistently trailing in the opinion polls, his convention began off the back, not only of events in Wisconsin, but of a bruising week that saw the personal ratings of Joe Biden rise after a Democrat convention that clobbered Trump on character and credentials to lead.
There was the arrest of former adviser Steve Bannon and then, at the weekend, news emerged that his older sister Maryanne, a retired judge, called him cruel and without principles in a secretly recorded conversation.
The bad news rolled into convention day one, as the president stepped on stage to accept his party’s renomination during the opening event – the New York attorney general was revealing a new investigation into financial dealings at the Trump Organisation.
No matter, he had a crowd.
“Four more years,” they chanted, as a fist-pumping president lapped up the rare luxury of a live audience.
For a politician who feeds off a crowd, the party preserved the renomination segment as a live event at the venue in Charlotte, North Carolina, with space for a few hundred delegates.
He had promised an upbeat, optimistic week, but went straight to grievance in an opening 50-minute salvo targeting mail-in voting at the 3 November election.
Once again, without evidence, he claimed it would lead to the “greatest scam in the history of politics”.
Republicans are pinning their hopes on this week being a pivot in a campaign that hasn’t yet cut through to the extent they need.
Donald Trump has cast himself centre-stage. Not for him the notion of being dripped, sparingly, into the content – this president will speak every night, touching up his self-portrait as a custodian of the American dream.
The sense of a one-man show has only been reinforced by the Republican Party’s decision to abandon the traditional process of laying out a new policy platform on which candidates will run.
Rather, it has issued a statement that it will “reassert the party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his administration”.
A president and party reaching out to its base and beyond will use this week to define its Democratic challenger as a hostage to the far left, who would deliver anarchy and chaos.
It will hammer the issues it believes can reinforce the core vote and claw back wavering Republicans – immigration, rebuilding the economy and in mounting a rearguard defence of its performance on the coronavirus pandemic.
There will be a wide spread of contributors, but not as famous as the collection of famous faces gathered by the Democrats last week.
The Republican event is less household name, more household Trump.
Across the four nights, we’ll hear from Donald Jr, Melania, Eric, Tiffany, Ivanka and Lara Trump.
The president will deliver his closing address from the grounds of the White House and the party has been given permission to launch fireworks over the Washington memorial after he’s finished speaking.
It’s the made-for-TV ending of a convention fortnight that coronavirus has forced onto the small screen in a Donald vs Joe reality show – a contest in which we all have a stake.
However, the back-rower defended himself over contacting Politis in the aftermath of being sprung for the bubble breach. The conversation was interpreted by many as evidence of a desire to jump ship from Anthony Seibold’s hapless Broncos but Pangai jnr maintains he was simply seeking advice from the long-time Roosters chairman.
“He’s like a mentor to me. I’ve known him for a few years now,” he said. “He brought my brother to the club. He played lower grades at the Roosters. He knows my parents and has watched some footy with my family. He’s a family friend of ours. My parents have known him for years.
“I just contacted him for some advice. Obviously I was going through a tough time at the Broncos – he’s a winner and I just wanted some advice on my footy. He gave me some advice. I’ll keep that conversation private but it was nothing to get out of the club.”
The Broncos enforcer also said he had no links to the Mongols bikie gang, members of which were at the Brisbane barbershop when he visited it in the most flagrant of his transgressions.
“I’m a pretty social person. I had a friend that goes to the barbershop. I usually go there to get my haircut. There is no association. I just go there for a haircut,” he said.
“I’ve never met any of them before. I have no association and I won’t be going back there again.”
While Brisbane have signalled an intention to terminate his contract on a range of fronts – including his indifference to the coronavirus restrictions, his call to Politis and his on-field disciplinary record – he has struck up a bond with Broncos director and club great Darren Lockyer.
The Tonga international said Lockyer had been helping him try to be competitive and “stay on the park”, a reference to his shocking run with the match review committee and judiciary. Over the past two seasons, he has been suspended four times for a total of 12 matches on the sideline.
He is now missing even more time on the field. When handing down the penalty to Pangai jnr, NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo said he would need to demonstrate a commitment that he could comply with the biosecurity rules before being permitted to play again.
In a move to satisfy those demands, the player said on Friday he could “guarantee that I’ll do the right thing now”.
He remains hopeful he can feature again this season for Brisbane, who he denied referring to as a basket case in his interview with NRL integrity unit officials.
“I was obviously disappointed,” he said of receiving a breach notice from the club. “But there are people there, the management, that have to make choices. My job is to play footy and do the right thing. I wasn’t doing the right thing and I put my hand up. I’m remorseful for my actions and my poor choices.
“I’m really passionate about the club. I owe it to the fans and the members. I came here as a young 19-year-old boy. I’m 24 now. In the five years I’ve grown to love the club. A few times I’ve come off contract I’ve had chances to leave and take a bit more money but I love the club so much.”
Sports news, results and expert commentary delivered straight to your inbox each weekday. Sign up here.
Chris Barrett is Chief Sports Reporter of The Sydney Morning Herald.