Bartholomew's Notes

On Thursday evening the BBC broadcast Louis Theroux and the Ultra Zionists, a documentary about Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Theroux is always worth a watch, although there are few surprises this time: the settlers come across for the most part as passive-aggressive (or just plain belligerent) and self-righteous, citing their divine “chosenness” by God as the reason for their presence in East Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories. Theroux spends some time with Daniel Luria of Ateret Cohanim – an organisation which has featured on this blog previously – and they make a trip into Silwan, an area I blogged on here.

Of particular interest was a segment filmed at the Mount Blessing winery at Har Bracha (the location wasn’t named in the programme). Here, American evangelicals arrive by coach to work for free for a month at a time, bringing in the wine harvest. They explain their reasons for coming; according to one volunteer, Martin from Denver:

This is a labour of love for the nation of Israel and for the people here, to see that they prosper in the West Bank and help them fulfil the prophetic calling that’s on this land.

A second volunteer explains further:

It’s about acting out the love that we have. The bible talks about not just loving in word but also in deed and in actions. And so when you pick a vine and a cluster of grapes and you get to hold them in your hands, it’s like, it’s like you’re part of prophecy, you’re part of scripture. You’re part of the promises that God has made.

A third – a young man – expresses a wish to join the IDF:

They’re the chosen people, you know… it’s kind of something I’m coming into, just with the revelation you get being here. It’s good stuff.

The vineyard’s owner, Nir Lavi, explains that the Christians can bring the grapes to the factory, but are not allowed inside, since the process of wine-making has to be kept kosher. Lavi agrees that for the Christians, their wish to “serve” him is spiritual (“through this they are redeeming themselves”), but that they have less understanding the politics (“they don’t come on the political side”). Some photos taken around the same time as the programme was made can be seen here.

The programme does not mention which group organised the Christians’ involvement, although a New York Times article from July has the background:

Various strains of American pro-settlement activity come together in Har Bracha… Nearby, a winery was built with volunteer help from HaYovel ministries, which brings large groups of volunteers to prune and harvest. Mr. Ha’Ivri’s charity promotes the program.

The winery’s owner, Nir Lavi, says his land is state-sanctioned. But officials in the neighboring Palestinian village of Iraq Burin say part of the vineyard was planted on ground taken from their residents in a parcel-by-parcel land grab.

Such disputes are typical for the area, as are the opposing accounts of what happened that February day when HaYovel’s leader, Tommy Waller, and his volunteers say they came under attack and the shepherd was shot.

“They came up screaming, slinging their rock-slings like David going after a giant,” Mr. Waller said. A Har Bracha security guard came to the rescue by shooting in the air, not aiming for the attackers, he added.

…In the last year, he said, he brought 130 volunteers here. This coming year, he said, he expects as many as 400.

The HaYovel website is here.* “Mr. Ha’Ivri” is David Ha’Ivri, who is regularly puffed by WorldNetDaily, and the NY Times notes his Kahanist background. The charity discussed in the article is Shuva Israel; according to its website, Ha’Ivri is now on the board of advisers, alongside a number of Christian Zionist figures.

Last week I noted how an evangelical television station was supporting the creation of a forest on the site of a Bedouin village which the Israeli authorities have deemed to be illegal, and in 2008 I blogged a BBC documentary about a Christian Zionist coach tour to Israel.

*UPDATE: Based on a cursory browse, I originally incorrectly identified this site as belonging to Waller. Apologies for the error.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Alarming news, tucked away on page 7 of the Evening Standard and on-line here, via political editor Joe Murphy:

Foiled: plot to devastate capital with a radioactive ‘dirty bomb’

…Terrorists based overseas made detailed plans to smuggle a device into Britain and detonate it in the heart of the capital, to create panic and undermine the economy.

Their plot was foiled by an operation involving British, American and Pakistani intelligence agencies. Had it succeeded, the impact on London could have been devastating.

However, several paragraphs later, one finds oneself groaning:

Former shadow security minister Patrick Mercer confirmed the existence of the abortive plot, which was kept secret. “I’m aware there was a plot to use a dirty bomb in London in 2004 that was foiled before the material got near the UK,” he told the Evening Standard.

“This led to a great deal of work by the then government on resilience planning, and the plans to evacuate not just London but also other major cities.”

Mercer, it should be recalled, has a history of “revealing” terrorist plots that wither under scrutiny: in June 2010 he claimed that the Taliban had developed HIV-bombs.

The way the report is written, it’s not clear whether Murphy was briefed by Mercer for the whole story, or whether Mercer is simply confirming something Murphy had been tipped off about. However, Murphy doesn’t name or imply any other source – and the only other outlet to follow up so far is the Daily Express, which purports to have extra information from the police:

The bomb would have included the highly toxic chemical osmium tetroxide which blinds, damages the respiratory system and turns the skin black.

But the plot was foiled in 2004 following months of surveillance by MI5 and Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command. Police believe the gang had been planning to detonate the “dirty bomb” at a major shopping centre in the South-east.

Curiously, however, the outlines of the above appear to fit perfectly with “Operation Crevice”, a March 2004 police raid which was widely reported at the time and which led to several high-profile terrorist convictions in 2007. The Islamic militants pondered the Bluewater Shopping Centre in Kent as a possible target, and there were initially reports that there was a plan to use osmium tetroxide. According to the Daily Mail in 2004:

Security services have foiled a terrorist plot to launch a “dirty bomb” attack on Britain.

…Security services in the UK were alerted to the plans when conversations about the chemical were picked up at the GCHQ listening centre.

Details of the gas plot were also intercepted by the National Security Agency in the US. They passed on the tip to MI5.

The phone call they overheard is thought to have taken place between Peshawar in Pakistan and Crawley in West Sussex.

Mercer is quoted in that report; so if he’s now told Murphy that he’s “aware there was a plot to use a dirty bomb in London in 2004”, he must have been referring to this rather than to a second abortive plot, “which was kept secret”. Perhaps a previously unknown nuclear element has now come to light in relation to Operation Crevice, but if so we need a bit more than just an ambiguous quote from Patrick Mercer. And the timing is rather suspicious; Murphy’s report ends by noting that

New WikiLeaks revelations underline the threat posed by dirty bombs. Diplomatic files show al Qaeda is trying to secure nuclear material and rogue scientists to create a device.

Might it be the case that the 2004 chemical “dirty bomb” story has now been recycled as nuclear threat, as a convenient journalistic hook?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

With uncertainty in the Middle East, prophecy hawkers inevitably see a new opportunity. Step forward Joel Richardson at WorldNetDaily:

While no one knows the future, I believe that through a general understanding of the various geopolitical actors and atmosphere in the Middle East and surrounding regions, and a solid understanding of what the Bible says about the future, it is fair to make some general observations and predictions about what will happen next in that part of the world.

And we’re off:

…In the midst of the shift, I expect Turkey (again, with the full support of the U.S.) to be the most actively engaged and visible actor in the region. If things destabilize enough, we could even see Turkish military action, but this is doubtful.

…Surrounded on all sides by hostile and now a well-organized power, and with the United States remaining relatively neutral, Israel will be forced to accept some form of regional “peace plan.” This comprehensive peace and security initiative will include the establishment of a Palestinian state. And to the surprise of some, after the initial chaos and tumult settles down, there will emerge a period of calm. To the surprise of many religious Jews, Israel will even be offered a concession to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount. The Mount will be shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, causing some to herald this development as the sign of a new monotheistic age.

…In Africa; Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Somalia will clasp hands and pledge support tothe new Turkish-Iranian-led alliance.

And so on – alarmist prognostications extrapolated from current events, mixed in with well-worn fantasies about a “Third Temple” in Jerusalem. It’s a scare story that WND has pushed for some time, even at the expense of being mindful of the Ninth Commandment.

Richardson also has a follow-up piece on his blog, railing against “the Leftist-Islamist Revolutionary Alliance” which will usher in the Islamic anti-Christ:

But there is another interesting element to Mahdist belief that is quite relevant with regard to the present revolution is in the air. According to Islamic tradition, under the reign of the Mahdi, the Islamic religious community will finally achieve the “economic justice” that both the Leftists and the Islamists have been yearning for. So whether we are speaking of the recent violent socialist protests in Greece, the anti-Capitalist revolutionary operatives here in the United States, or the violent revolution boiling in the Arab world, they are all part of a larger collectivist revolution.

While the idea of Antichrist as wealth redistributor is likely new to some, it is certainly not a novel observation. This view was also well-established in the early church. In his celebrated work, “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus, a bishop from the early third century wrote that the “[Antichrist] pretends that he vindicates the poor.”

Of course, this is all in a grand tradition of reading into the ancient text of the Bible not just clues about an uncertain future, but a vindication of one’s political perspective. Previously, self-styled “prophecy experts” have assured us that the anti-Christ would emerge as a result of the belligerency of Saddam Hussein or the machinations of the Soviet Union. Probably ten years from now it’ll be time for books about the Chinese anti-Christ.

Richardson’s book The Islamic Antichrist has been endorsed by Robert Spencer (who in turn was recently commended by Douglas Murray as a “brilliant scholar”). According to Spencer’s blurb:

A fascinating and provovative work. Joel has broken fresh ground in the ongoing exploration of the relationship between Islam and the rest of the world. A must-read for priests and pastors, students and lay readers everywhere. Bravo!

Incidentally, that quote from Irenaeus (who died c.202; he’s more of a second-century figure) has been used by Richardson before, such as in a 2009 WND article entitled “What Obama and the Antichrist Have in Common“. The text comes from Book 5 Chapter 30 of Against Heresies, and forms part of a discussion about how the number 666 may be misapplied to various proper names. This larger point is ignored by Richardson, who wants us to believe (following Walid Shoebat) that “666” was a mis-transcription of the Arabic for “In the Name of Allah”, as copied by the author of Revelation from a vision.

Here’s the context:

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves… [A]mong our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation… This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed…

The Greek original of this section is lost, and the translation has come through the Latin:

Certius ergo et sine periculo est sustinere adimpletionem prophetiae quam suspicari et divinare nomina quaelibet, quando multa nomina inveniri possunt habentia praedictum numerum, et nihilominus quidem erit haec eadem quaestio… neque enim eorum regum qui secundum nos sunt, aliquis vocatus est Titan, neque eorum quae publicare adorantur idolorum apud Graecos et barbaros habet vocabulum hoc;… et ostentationem quandam continet ultionis, et vindictam inferentis, quod ille simulat se male tractatos vindicare.

My Latin is very rusty, but a literal translation seems to me to be along the lines of “because he pretends to vindicate those who have been handled wickedly”. However, “the poor” better fits Richardson’s aim, which is to demonize those with socio-economic views that he finds disagreeable (he’s more flexible when it comes to actual theology – Glenn Beck, who is a Mormon, is regarded by Richardson as “prophetic”).

Filed under: Uncategorized | 17 Comments »

Tim Ireland is a blogger who has a fairly reasonable request: that those who use the internet or the media to influence public discourse, or to promote themselves as public figures, ought to be accountable and to take responsibility for the things they publish or write. His main area of interest is British politics, but although it is obvious that he takes a progressive stance he is no mere party hack: for example, he was prophetically critical of Derek Draper’s strategy with Labour List some months prior to Draper’s exposure as a manipulating rumour-monger.

However, it is in dealing with various MPs and activists connected with the Conservative Party that Tim has discovered the most egregious abuses: unsurprisingly, given that he has been the target of them. Tim’s latest post on the subject is comprehensive rather than concise, but the guts of it can be summarised easily: as a strategy to deflect and discourage critical scrutiny, various individuals have chosen to smear Tim as a “stalker”. It’s not a conspiracy, but, as with other playground taunts, the accusation has quickly gained momentum among a group of like-minded people with overlapping interests. It’s also self-reinforcing: if Tim complains about it, this is itself evidence of stalking; if he lays out his defence, he’s an obsessive. Worse, however, is that Tim’s researches have earned him some more sinister enemies, who have been subjecting him to real harassment: personal details have been posted on-line about his home and smears about his family, there have been threats of violence, and anonymous attack blogs have been set up with slanderous accusations. Those who indulge in this self-debasing behaviour use the “stalker” accusation as cover, as self-justification, and as a means to incite others.

My interest in this dates back to early 2009, when Tim looked into a Sun newspaper story about an terror plot against Alan Sugar. Tim showed that the evidence had been concocted by a freelance “terror-tracker” who had made postings to a Muslim web-forum under an Islamic pseudonym. The “terror-tracker” had links to Patrick Mercer MP, who is often quoted in the tabloid media as an expert on terrorism; this raised the question of to what extent other tabloid stories about terrorism may have had tainted origins (for example, here). I did some follow-up work on Tim’s discovery, and we both found ourselves being contacted by former associates of the “terror-tracker”. It turned out that these persons wanted to manipulate us for their own interests (they wanted us to attack a third party), and it was when this attempt fell through that the sustained campaign of harassment began (the “terror-tracker” had himself earlier reacted to exposure by writing anonymous comments accusing Tim of being a paedophile, but that was eventually sorted out). The harassment has mostly been targeted at Tim, although I’ve also been on the receiving end of some abusive attacks and misinformation.

At the time all this began, I was aware of Tim’s disputes with some other Conservative Party figures; although I took a general interest, I regarded these as separate matters and I was not inclined to mention them on this blog. However, it eventually became evident that a full understanding of the situation required taking these other conflicts into account: it was also appalling to see just how far some people are prepared to go to smear someone they find to be inconvenient.

Tim’s post is a J’Accuse addressed to Steve Hilton, who is the Conservative Party’s director of strategy. Tim names a number of persons:

Steve Hilton: Hilton has known about the situation but has failed to act.

Anne Milton MP: Milton is Tim’s local MP, and she didn’t appreciate various criticisms of her campaign in 2005, including his claim that “many if not all of the people posing as average members of the public in her campaign literature were in fact average members of her campaign team.” Milton, says Tim, “at this stage… began to dismiss queries about my blog and its contents with mild implications and then quite specific claims that I was stalking her.” Worse, two of her activists then set about attacking Tim at a personal level through anonymous sites and blogs. These activists also allegedly smeared another political opponent of Milton as a paedophile.

Jonathan Lord MP: As Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association, his duty was to investigate any activity that might bring the party into disrepute. However, Lord declined to act on Tim’s evidence on the grounds that the target of the “paedophile” smear had not himself complained, that no criminal law had been broken, and because Tim had contacted him by email rather than on paper.

Iain Dale: Dale is a leading Conservative-aligned blogger, pundit, and activist. He dismissed Tim’s evidence about what had occurred during Milton’s campaign, and then allowed pre-moderated comments to appear on his site accusing Tim of stalking Milton and Nadine Dorries MP. Dale also accuses Tim of stalking him, as I discussed here.

Patrick Mercer MP: Once it had become clear that Mercer’s relationship with the “terror-tracker” and his associates was problematic, he announced that he would be “looking carefully” into his “dealings”. However, the extent to which Mercer’s office had handled dubiously-source material remained unclear, and when Tim pressed the point, Mercer took the lead from Dale. Naturally, any criticism of Mercer’s judgement could be deflected by claiming that Tim is an “electronic stalker”. Incidentally, Mercer also used a “stalker” smear to discredit his ex-lover, who shares his workplace.

Nadine Dorries MP: Dorries is of course notoriously vicious when dealing with anyone who crosses her: in recent months she has outed her lover’s estranged wife as alcoholic who is disliked by her own children (perhaps true, but cruel and unnecessary to reveal) and accused a critical constituent of pretending to be disabled (a complete fabrication). She is also notorious for admitting that her blog is “70 per cent fiction”. Dorries hates Tim’s continued scrutiny of her astonishing behaviour on the public stage, and she has been the most aggressive in accusing him being a “stalker”:

Dorries stood up in front of a hustings meeting in May 2010, claimed that I had stalked Patrick Mercer, claimed that I had harassed Anne Milton to the point that police became involved, and further claimed that I had stalked and harassed her to such an extent that a police investigation was currently in progress.

At the same time, Dorries was under investigation for expenses claims relating to a property that she officially classified as her second home, but had difficulty explaining why she had made repeated entries on her blog that gave the impression that it was her main home. It is on record and entirely clear from the subsequent report that Dorries told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that she had deceived her constituents about the location of her main home for entirely political reasons (i.e. to give the impression that she lived primarily in the constituency). She thought this put her in the clear and was entirely unprepared for the backlash that followed this revelation. She responded by again claiming that I had stalked her, and further claiming that police had specifically advised her to give misleading accounts of her whereabouts for reasons of security.

I have no history of stalking Nadine Dorries in any physical sense, and she had no cause to believe this, even if she is so dim-witted as to have allowed herself to be convinced that I was stalking her electronically. Worse, Dorries used my attendance at a public meeting in May 2010 to defend her claim that I had physically stalked her in the many years/months previous to this, and used Conservative activists aligned to her to spread this claim on blogs and in the media though a series of entirely strategic claims and distortions that not only stretched the truth to breaking point, but challenged the very notion of time and space.

Months after her hustings outburst, after being challenged to provide evidence to support her claim that a police investigation was in progress, Dorries sought to initiate a police investigation after the fact, and succeeded to a small extent in that police are now investigating my presence at a public meeting that I was invited to. This alone, while it is a complete waste of police time, did not cause me alarm… but Dorries then went on the leak news of this to a supportive local newspaper, leading to an entirely biased article that has set off my attacker(s) all over again, and once again allowed them to base their ongoing revenge attack on the word of a Member of Parliament who is in turn endorsed by a mainstream party (i.e. your party).

Further background here. Dorries has also mocked Tim as a “nutter” – the same jibe was used by Adam Macqueen, a Private Eye journalist who didn’t like Tim calling him to account for using his research uncredited. Macqueen is a friend and former employee of Dale.

Rachel Whetstone: Whetstone is European Head of Communications for Google:

Rachel… cannot or will not explain why, when Blogger.com staff claim to have a turnaround time of 48 hours for removal of sensitive data such as home addresses published in bad faith, why it took over 3 months to remove the data in my case, not just on Blogger.com, but on YouTube as well. Further, she cannot explain why their search database with continue to store and distribute this data long after it has (eventually) been removed from Blogger.com/YouTube pages under their control.

By remarkable coincidence, Whetstone used to be Political Secretary to former Conservative leader Michael Howard, and at the time Howard’s wife wrote a diary piece for a Conservative website carrying Milton’s claim that Tim’s critical blogging amounted to “stalking her with a website”. Hilton may be able to get a quick answer to this, given that Whetstone is his wife.

Tim concludes:

I sincerely hope to hear from you well within 48 hours so we can settle this matter as cordially as possible soon after that. If this cannot be done, I hope you recognise why I will be pulling out all the stops and dedicating myself to the task of clearing my name while exposing the rot at the core of your party, and I wish you luck in the inevitable attempt to smear me in response, because you are going to need it with the paper trail I’ve got and the fair warning you’ve received.

This is surely not too much to ask for. It’s no secret that this blog takes a progressive perspective on the various things I discuss, but I’m well aware that it is possible to be a Conservative and to argue aggressively in good faith. I’m sure that many Conservative-mined people, if they can penetrate the fog of misinformation and self-serving spin, will be appalled that this kind of repellent carrying-on is able to pass for political activism. Any short-term advantage that may be gained by dismissing the above as part of the “Tim is a stalker” meme will, in the long-term, lead to payback of one kind of another. This may take the form of exposure and opprobrium, or the result may be a completely debased political culture. I’m taking a stand against it, and I hope others will too.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Back in October, I blogged on Nadine Dorries MP’s attack on MsHumprheycushion, a critically-minded constituent who has used a blog and Twitter to register her discontent. Ms Cushion was off work on sick leave, awaiting operations on her feet for arthritis so that she can get back to her job as a carer. Dorries – helped by party-hack blogger Paul Staines (and perhaps Tory Bear) – decided to smear Ms Cushion as a “benefits cheat” who was pretending to be disabled in order to get welfare payments she should not be entitled to receive.

Ms Cushion explained the true situation on Twitter and in a local newspaper, although Dorries was having none of it:

She has twittered that her disability is due to the Coalition Government cancelling operations she is waiting for on both of her feet.

Really? An operation on both feet for arthritis? Let’s put aside that surgeons never operate on both feet at the same time. This is a medical breakthrough. Hips and knees, yes, now feet! Amazing.  Twitter followers conned again.

……Sue Cullen is also absolutely not disabled, although she clearly gives that impression on her twitter account. Indeed, half of twitter was conned into thinking she was a poor disabled wretch, not the local Labour party organiser, under attack from a bad Tory MP. Not the case. Ms Cullen attended my local hustings. She stormed around the hall after me, shouted a great deal and even followed me outside, pacing up and down whilst I chatted to constituents.

Dorries’ post was called “She Writes Fiction”, which was ironic given that just a couple of weeks later Dorries admitted that up to 70 per cent of her own blog is “fiction”: Dorries had tried to explain away an expenses discrepancy by telling Parliamentary investigators that she liked to give the impression of being in her constituency when in fact she was elsewhere in order to “reassure” her constituents. When that failed to impress, she reverted to type and claimed “stalkers” were to blame for her need to lie to her readers.

I dealt with Dorries’ accusations in depth at the time, but I’m glad now to be able to report that Ms Cushion is on the mend following the first of her two operations. It sounds like it was a bit of an ordeal, though:

I don’t know what I had expected, as I said, I hadn’t given it much thought at all but AGHHHHHHHHHHH blimey the pain!  I think in all I had 15 injections in my ankle before it finally went numb enough for surgery.  I am good with pain though and tolerate it well so concentrated on my breathing like a good girl and imagined the tweets I would be sending had I been allowed my phone with me.  The woman in the next bed to me wasn’t nearly as brave as Humph though, screaming and flailing about like a man big sissy.

…Then I could hear bone breaking and realised it was mine. The sound of a drill vibrating on bone, mine.  The only way I could cope was by mentally picturing the faces of my loved ones and trying to remember the lyrics of a beautiful song I saw tweeted a couple of weeks ago.

Her posts on the subject also include photos, lest Dorries continue to insist that she’s making it up.

Nadine Dorries is a scoundrel and is not fit to hold office.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

The Daily Mail has a long interview with Caroline Green, ex-wife of Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who has accused him of abusive and controlling behaviour:

Caroline Green was often punished by her husband Stephen for failing to be a dutiful, compliant wife, but his final act of violence against her — the one that prompted her long-overdue decision to divorce him — was all the more chilling because it was coldly premeditated.

Stephen Green wrote a list of his wife’s ­failings then described the weapon he would make to beat her with.

‘He told me he’d make a piece of wood into a sort of witch’s broom and hit me with it, which he did,’ she recalls, her voice tentative and quiet. ‘He hit me until I bled. I was terrified. I can still remember the pain…’

According to her account, when she married Green he was “not remotely religious”. However:

Their wedding provided his first entrée into the religious world that now immerses him. He joined the choir, then the Parochial Church Council, then began to get involved with political groups. He became a vociferous member of the anti-abortion campaign Society For The ­Protection Of The Unborn Child, and joined the Conservative Family Campaign.

…But Green’s views were already becoming extreme. In 1992 he wrote a virulently anti-gay book, The ­Sexual Dead End, which Caroline says marked ‘the beginning of the end’. Two years later, he abandoned the Conservative Family Campaign, which he regarded as too moderate, and set up Christian Voice in order to pursue a more radical course.

Then, in 1997, when their children were 16, 14, 12 and ten, the family moved from the Home Counties to a remote small-holding in ­Carmarthenshire, west Wales.

Green’s activism has featured on this blog a number of times (for example, here and here). Details about The Sexual Dead End are scarce, although according to the British Library catalogue entry it runs to 482 pages plus 12 pages of photos. Somewhat inappropriately, the publisher was a company called Broadview: Amazon identifies this as the Broadview Press in Canada, which seems somewhat unlikely (alternative sources give a PO Box in London). According to Third Way, “it contains a good deal of information, some useful, some appalling. Best handled like blood from a Hapatitis B patient”, although Radical and Right was more enthusiastic:

The Sexual Dead-End’ is essential reading for every conservative and Nationalist as well as every Christian and every parent of young children… Green makes the case that there is no demarcation line between male homosexual activity amongst adults and the pursuit of ever-younger boys. Not all homosexuals seek sexual relationships with pre-teen boys, not all homosexuals are insatiably promiscuous and not all are driven to extremes of sado-masochistic rituals, but those that are not are on the fringes of the movement. The activists demand no limits on their appetites and their appetites are unlimited…

In 2009, Green called for gay people and adulterers to be executed, and commended efforts in this direction being made in Uganda.

Caroline gives an account of Green’s increasing extremism:

Caroline describes his state of mind at this stage as ‘hyper-manic’. She says: For years he’d been ­controlling, spiteful and self-righteous. But later he became delusional and completely uncontrollable.

This fits with Green’s character as observed on television. In 2008 I wrote a blog entry about a documentary in which he featured; I noted that

He comes across as rather unbalanced: one minute he is chatting and joking with the documentary-maker, the next moment he becomes aggressive, forcing away the camera and complaining about “persecution”. In one particularly bathetic moment in Brighton, just as he offers up a prayer a seagull leaves a prominent dropping on the front of his shirt; Green is not amused, and he demands that the documentary-maker not make fun of him – perhaps the fact that certain internet scoffers insist on nicknaming him “Stephen ‘Dog Shit’ Green” after he compared Jerry Springer to treading in dog excrement meant that this touched a raw nerve.

According to the Mail, “When invited to respond to his ex-wife’s allegations, Stephen Green made no comment.”

(H/T Harry’s Place)

UPDATE: John Walker’s Electronic House has an overview of Green’s close relationship with the Mail over the past two years:

The paper has been seeking comment from Green on every matter they can think of ever since his prominence in 2005. But today it’s all entirely forgotten.

Meanwhile, David T has an interesting account in the Harry’s Place comments of a meeting with Green:

Years ago – in the late 80s in fact – I organised a debate at which Stephen Green was one of the speakers. I have a feeling that the other was Peter Tatchell, although I can’t be entirely sure!

Stephen Green struck me as a very strange man, lacking in ordinary social abilities. I did not warm to him on a personal level. This wasn’t to do with his politics – you quite often meet people whose politics you disagree with strongly who you oppose on a range of fundamental issues, but who are still absolutely delightful on a personal level…

Christians need not feel defensive in any way about Stephen Green. As with so many of these types, his religious and political conduct appears to be an expression of some very personal failings.

UPDATE 2: Green has responded with denials and an allegation of his own:

I never once had sexual relations with my former wife against her clearly expressed wish.  Secondly, in connection with the published allegations that I assaulted her, the truth, sadly, is the complete opposite.  I had to obtain a harassment order against her to stop a campaign of intimidation and on one of the occasions when she assaulted me, I reported the matter to the police and she received a police caution.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

A rare public statement from Rifqa Bary, who has been off the public radar for a while:

Would you please help my friend and lawyer John Stemberger? He defended me at no cost and helped me gained my freedom and is now being attacked by the Muslims lawyer who opposed me in court. Thank yo ufor supporting me. Will you now also help and support John?

Bary’s plea headlines the website of The Stemberger Legal Defense Fund, which explains its purpose in a blurb:

After Rifqa Bary’s legal team won her case and secured her freedom, Omar Tarazi, the lawyer who opposed Rifqa Bary and represented her parents in the Ohio case, retaliated against John Stemberger, who was Rifqa’s lawyer, by filing two separate actions against him. One was a federal defamation lawsuit for 10 million dollars in federal court.  The other was a complaint or a grievance with the Florida Bar asking for Stemberger to be disciplined.  Tarzi, who lost his client’s case and is disgruntled, is now using this frivolous lawsuit and merit-less charges as a means of “lawfare” to punish John.

This slightly glosses over the fact that the Florida Bar has already come to a conclusion about Stemberger; as the Orlando Sentinel reported in September:

The Bar on Thursday officially notified his attorney that, following an investigation, a grievance committee has concluded that Stemberger is guilty of professional misconduct and should be prosecuted at a trial-like proceeding that could lead to sanctions.

The Bar filed a complaint with the Florida Supreme Court on 4 January.

The Columbus Dispatch quoted Tarazi in September:

His complaint states that Stemberger falsely said that Tarazi was being paid by an organization with ties to terrorists and that, essentially, Tarazi was not a qualified attorney.

“Potential clients that do a simple web search to check on plaintiff’s credentials will find these accusations of perjury, conflict of interest, being unqualified as an attorney,” as well as claims that Tarazi was a member of Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the suit says.

“I’m saying I’m not going to take this,” Tarazi said today. “It affects my job, my career, it affects everything. It’s pushback to say that you can’t just call someone a terrorist with no basis and get away with it.”

The Stemberger website has quotes from various well-know Christian Right figures, including William Boykin (“the Islamic elements in America want to destroy him. Keep fighting, John”), David Barton (“The Founding Fathers created the First Amendment to protect exactly the type of political and religious speech involved in this case”), Tony Perkins (who blames “political correctness”), and Lou Engle (“I was thrilled to see John Stemberger’s courageous defense of Rifqa Bary, our precious sister” – background here). There’s also local support from Tom Trento of the Florida Security Council (“this insidious ‘lawfare’ attack from those who failed in their attack against Rifqa”) and from Pastors Blake and Beverly Lorenz, who took Bary in when she arrived in Florida. According to them:

John Stemberger played the role of a modern day hero in defending Rifqa Bary against Muslim enforced Sharia Law. He in fact, played a major part in saving this young girl’s life and helping to obtain her freedom in this country.

Also on the list is Newt Gingrich, whose shamelessly opportunistic identification with the Christian Right is one of the more laughable sights in American politics. This would the same Newt Gingrinch, by the way, who in 2008 said that Saturday Night Live should be sued for making fun of Sarah Palin.

However, one name is conspicuously absent: Pamela Geller, who is also being sued by Tarazi. Geller and Stemberger fell out a while ago, and she has denounced him as a “svengali lawyer” and as a “clown”. Geller’s take was supported by Jamal Jivanjee, a pastor who was in contact with Bary in Ohio. It will surely be galling for Geller to see such generous praise being heaped on Stemberger from these quarters: Boykin recently spoke alongside her close associate Robert Spencer at an event organised by Walid Shoebat’s handlers, and she and Spencer recently joined Gingrich at a David Horowitz Freedom Center event where she received an award. In the case of the Lorenzes, a year ago Geller wrote a typically vitriolic post defending them from censure by their church board, whom she heaped with her usual abuses and wild accusations.

As for her own defence against Tarazi, she has retained the services of David Yerushalmi (whom I blogged on here) and Robert Muise. The legal argument is long and inevitably difficult to penetrate, but the thrust of it is that she simply repeated things in good faith which Stemberger had assured her had been true:

Plaintiff informs us (under oath) that Defendant Geller’s statement that “it is being reported that Omar Tarazi perjured himself” is true because Plaintiff identifies the source of this statement as Defendant Stemberger, a Florida attorney, officer of the court, and a member of Rifqa’s legal team in the Florida litigation over jurisdiction. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges further that the Web site that actually started the “[I]nternet claim” was “the Jawa Blog.”

In an apparent attempt, however, to establish “fault,” whether negligence or actual malice is not clear from the pleading, Plaintiff effectively implies in this that Defendant Geller had the affirmative duty to fly from New York City to Columbus, Ohio in order to inspect the juvenile court documents before reporting on what an attorney who had been directly involved in the case (and who was still publicly identified as an advisor to Rifqa) was saying publicly through Web sites about the ongoing Rifqa Bary legal battle…

Geller is not adverse to making legal threats of her own – back in June she threatened to sue the Washington Post for calling her “anti-Muslim”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Salem News is an on-line alternative news site based in Oregon. Recently, it received an unwelcome letter from London:

Salem-News.com is in a legal battle with ‘God TV’ in the UK because we published video from their TV show…

…Their beef is that we are allegedly guilty of a UK copyright infringement. Why? Because we carried a video clip of their own TV show that is publicly posted on Vimeo with an embed code denoting it is totally available to use. We used it within a news story as reference, something done as a benefit to the reader. As of now, the video has been removed from the story, though it continues to be available online irregardless of Salem-News.com.

News organizations are protected from this kind of onslaught in the United States (see Fair Use), but across the pond things are done a little differently and this particular group is taking advantage of that, ceasing the opportunity.

…For now we have to defend ourselves; not only are they trying to disrupt our relationship with our server group, they are also in contact with our domain server.

The clip referred to the story which I blogged on just yesterday: as an expression of its Christian Zionist beliefs, GOD TV is funding the creation of a forest near Beersheva on the site of a Bedouin village which the authorities deem to be illegal. The clip was incorporated into a critical video, entitled “The Jewish National Fund and God TV’s Forest of Hate”. This video has been embedded on a number of websites over the past month, and Salem News was not responsible either for its creation or for the article that accompanied it.

GOD TV’s letter, via its media lawyers Davenport Lyons, also objects to the publication of a screenshot and of a partial transcript (which comes to around 800 words).

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the claim of “copyright infringement”, which may be trivially true under UK law, is being pursued because GOD TV wishes to discourage critical discussion.

(Incidentally, Salem News insists on putting the cart before the horse by calling GOD TV “Israeli backed”.)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Over the past fifteen years, the satellite channel GOD TV has emerged as one of the most significant players in global charismatic Christianity. It began in the UK, bringing the likes of Fred Price and Creflo Dollar (whom I blogged on here) to British audiences, but its reach is now international and its founders – Rory and Wendy Alec – enjoy support that ranges from Benny Hinn, Rick Joyner (blogged here), and Cindy Jacobs (blogged here) in the USA through to RT Kendall, Colin Dye (blogged here), and Matthew Ashimolowo in the UK, Ulf Ekman in Sweden (blogged here), and Paul Dhinakharan in India (blogged here).

Although the Alecs were brought up in the Rhema movement in South Africa, which emphasises the Prosperity Gospel, their channel showcases a wider range of Charismatic beliefs. In particular, there is an apocalyptic drama penned by Wendy Alec entitled Chronicles of Brothers, which promotes “New World Order” conspiracy theories, and an emphasis on Christian dominion of society – Wendy Alec’s book Against All Odds includes a prophecy about the rise of a Christian ruler of Britain who will rule “with a rod of iron”, and that, following a “wave of prayer” on the east coast of the USA, there will be a joining of “the lion and the eagle”.

Rachel Tabachnick has some further background at Talk to Action (links added):

God TV is incorporated as a nonprofit in the U.S. under the name Angel Christian Television Trust, and has regional offices in the U.S. including a base in Grandview, Missouri, near  Mike Bickle‘s International House of Prayer (IHOP) headquarters (outside Kansas City, MO). The Alecs bought a historic estate in that area in 2009.

Directors of God TV’s U.S. entity include (according to their latest 990 tax form) Francis Frangipane, also an international leader and major thinker in the New Apostolic movement.  Frangipane teaches that believers can be perfected and take “dominion” over the earth through “spiritual warfare.”  (Ed Kalnins of Wasilla Assembly of God describes Frangipane as his “spiritual father,”  in New Apostolic lingo usually meaning that Frangipane is his apostolic authority.)

Several programmes broadcast by GOD TV have been noted by Right Wing Watch.

GOD TV’s HQ is Jerusalem; as a blurb explains:

As the only TV network to broadcast globally from Jerusalem, GOD TV recognizes the modern State of Israel as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and supports the Jewish people through projects such as its ‘One Million+ Trees for Israel’ campaign.

In particular, GOD TV gives a platform for John Hagee, whose apocalyptic Christian Zionism drips with conspiracy theories about the “Illuminati” and such, and whose theology infamously includes the notion that Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God to persuade the Jews to move to Israel.

GOD TV’s association with the “One Million Trees” campaign has of late become a source of controversy; Rabbis for Human Rights-North America and the Jewish Alliance for Change explain that:

At the beginning of the 1950’s, Israel evacuated by force the Bedouin living in el Arakib, north of Beer Sheba. The evacuees were told that their lands were needed for military exercises, and promised that within six months they would be allowed to return to their village. This promise that was not kept. Instead, by means of the Land Purchase Legislation of 1953, various government agencies used the forced absence of the Bedouin from the area to transfer ownership of their lands to the State.

…The Israel Land Administration (ILA) transferred by lease the lands of el-Arakib to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) for the purpose of forestation. Following approval authorized by the ILA, the JNF began land works of unprecedented proportions on the lands of el-Arakib resulting in massive changes in the region’s topography and the forestation of these lands. The JNF last week established a large new bulldozer camp just one kilometer from El-Arakib, and is now planting one million trees in Israel, including many near the village of Al-Arakib, as part of the “God-TV Forest.” JNF has accepted substantial donations from an evangelical Christian ministry called God-TV, who claim to have received “instructions from God…to prepare the land for the return of my Son…[to] plant a million trees.”

Nuri al-Okbi, the head of the Association for Protection of the Rights of Bedouins, is currently in prison for running a garage without a license – Judge Zachariya Yemini is quoted as having handed down a custodial sentence because “treating the defendant leniently would constitute a negative message to the public, and especially to the Bedouins”.

Max Blumenthal recently visited GOD TV’s studio  in Jerusalem and had a chat with one of the workers there, a man from the Netherlands named Klaas:

He told me that while they are planting a million trees to beautify the land for the Second Coming of Christ, he knew nothing about Al-Arakib. “The JNF hasn’t told us anything about that and we certainly wouldn’t be a part of anything that would do what you described,” he said. Then he demanded I support my claims with evidence.

Klaas allowed me to go online on one of GOD TV’s computers to show him my video of the demolition of Al-Arakib. Unfortunately, Google and YouTube were blocked by a search filter on all of the network’s computers…

As I was leaving, Klaas suddenly grew argumentative. “An Israeli friend who lives in the Negev told me the Bedouins have to be removed because they steal everything,” he said. “That’s their way of life — theft.”

I asked if he ever spoken to a Bedouin or gone to the Negev to see the situation for himself. He said he hadn’t… “I noticed in Holland a lot of people said they were Christian but they didn’t even go to church, so I realized that they were not really Christians. I mean, what kind of Christians are these Palestinians?” Klaas said. He seemed to be suggesting that anyone who was not born-again was not an authentic Christian.

According to the GOD TV website, “For every $25/£15/€20 you donate, GOD TV will plant one tree in either your name or in the name(s) of your loved one(s).”

Name variation: al-‘Araqib

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

A week ago I blogged on the results of Tim Ireland’s Freedom of Information requests to Bedfordshire Police and the London Met. As Tim explained:

…I made FOI/DPA request to both forces so I might see what they had on file about me. Last year, I blogged about the response from the London Met, who showed NO record of ANY complaint/report against me.

The result from Bedfordshire police is in… and they too show NO record of ANY complaint/report against me.

As has been previously blogged, the MP Nadine Dorries had claimed that she had made complaints about Tim to the police, although she declined to go provide reference numbers or other specific details. The background is that Dorries objects to Tim’s critical blogposts about about her public activities, and she has made the allegation that Tim is a “stalker” in an attempt to deflect scrutiny. Despite the fact that Tim has never impinged upon Dorries’ private life any way that could be described as stalking, the allegation has proved a useful taunt for some other opponents, ranging from certain Conservative-aligned bloggers through to unhinged cyber-bullies who get off on real harassment (one of whom Dorries has endorsed on her blog and apparently attempted to contact).

Tim made an update a couple of days after his original post:

It turns out there is, at present, a police investigation. Police had not contacted me about it until yesterday (19 Jan 2011). It relates specifically to the hustings event at Flitwick. There is no crime reference number for this as yet, because there is no crime. I was perfectly happy to speak with police and answer their questions (and I still am), but there is very little I can share publicly about it at this stage, and police didn’t raise anything that I haven’t already published/addressed (as text or video), so you’re not missing much.

Obviously, this revelation does not change or undermine the central thrust of this post or the vast majority of what I specifically assert in it. If it had, significant changes would have been made to the headline and body of this post to reflect this. For now, this update will suffice, as nothing has changed about the following:

Dorries made her accusation about there being an investigation in progress at a time when no relevant police force can confirm her ever having made a complaint. I still intend to hold her to account for that, as you should.

This has now been picked up by Dorries’ local paper, Bedfordshire on Sunday:

A spokesman for Bedfordshire Police said: “Officers from Bedfordshire police are currently looking into a complaint of stalking/harassment in May 2010.

“Officers are in the process of talking to both parties involved to determine whether any actual offences of harassment or stalking have been committed and if any further action needs to be taken.

“Inquiries are currently ongoing.”

The video below shows the event at which Dorries is claiming that a crime of harassment took place – no reasonable person could regard Tim’s behaviour as threatening or disruptive. Further background is provided here.

Dorries’ sense of entitlement is legendary – for instance, her response to a new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority guide to expenses was a mocking post on her blog with a photo showing how her copy of the document had supposedly been blown out of her office by a gust of wind (according to last week’s Sunday Times, a file on Dorries’ expenses was recently passed by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service). It is possible she sincerely believes that a persistent critic of her political activities ought to be restrained and suppressed by the police as a matter of principle. But surely even her most partisan hacks must baulk at defending such an obvious abuse of the law?

This is not the first time that the police have been obliged to follow up a meritless complaint against a blogger – in 2008 the journalist Oliver Kamm was contacted by the police after Neil Clark objected to Kamm’s scathing criticisms of Clark’s work on his blog.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »