Leese Pamphlets

REX versus LEESE "Not for Us the Silence of Suppression." (H.M. the King, speaking at the opening of the New House of Commons, 26th October, 1950.) WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT This is an almost verbatim report of the trial at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) on 12th December, 1950, known as REX versus LEESE in which a deliberate attempt to silence Arnold Leese's anti-Jewish efforts was defeated, although it had the full force of His Majesty's Government behind it. It is an outstanding victory for the patriotic anti-Jewish minority against the Jewish control of Democracy, and its importance can best be measured by the Loudness of the silence with which the Jew-controlled Press of London received the news of it. THE PEOPLE MUST NOT KNOW OF IT! To ensure that at least some people shall know of it, this pamphlet is now produced. The prosecuting counsel was a half-alien Buddhist, a fitting representative of the Britain of today; the defendant conducted his own defence. ARNOLD LEESE. IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (Old Bailey, London.) 12th December, 1950. REX v. LEESE (Adjourned from 5th December, when the Accused pleaded Not Guilty.) Before Mr. Justice Dodson, Recorder of London. Mr. Christmas Humphreys, K.C., for the Director of Public Prosecutions: May it please your Lordship I am instructed to prove that the accused is charged with what is thought to be criminal libel. When a citizen is guilty of libel on a high officer, such as the Commissioner of Police, concerning the way in which he carries out his public duties, it is obviously wrong for that individual to bring a civil action against the person concerned, or the persons concerned, and the right way to deal with the matter in order to stop a repetition of the offence is as a case of criminal proceedings. In these particular proceedings the accused man has been summarily committed to trial and he now stands before you. As to the nature of his offence, it is for you, gentlemen of the jury, to say when you have heard the evidence, whether he is guilty of this charge, whether this is a malicious attack, and whether the sense of the words is designed to defame a public officer. That he published this document is admitted: you may find that he maliciously published this document. You have to say whether the words set out in the indictment constitute defamatory libel. Therefore all that I have to prove to you is that the accused published a periodical called Gothic Ripples which includes the alleged defamatory libel. The accused in due course will tell you that you will not consider the words defamatory and you will say whether or not they are. Once therefore I can prove publication before you, my task is done. But let me just say this. The accused man has shown by the publication which he published that he is a fanatical anti-Jew, and the whole purpose of these publications it would seem to me, is an everlasting attack upon all Jews, because they are Jews. Let me read to you merely one paragraph out of this publication. The first of the two instances you will find on page 2 and the third and fourth paragraph. I take up this, gentlemen of the jury, merely to show his whole attitude of mind and his belief in relation to these matters so that against that background you may fairly interpret what he says in the latter part of the same document which is the part in this indictment. Having talked at some length about other masters he says: "It illustrates, in a way that even the Mug-in-the-Street can appreciate, the folly of the doctrine of race equality and the necessity of protecting the higher forms of civilisation from such people as Jews and Negroes by passing discriminating laws. Insurance Companies should protect themselves by racial discrimination when issuing policies. The Government should protect the Aryan and other white people of Britain by expelling the Jews. Insurance premiums would then be drastically reduced in harmony with racial realities." Because Jews are in Insurance Companies, therefore Insurance Companies should issue their policies accordingly. I merely mention that as the type of 'bee in the bonnet', if I may use that phrase, which the accused person has in relation to Jews. We are all entitled to have our ideas, but when the expression of a particular belief reaches the point where it is making grave allegations against a public officer in relation to carrying out his duties, of such gravity that were they true he ought to be dismissed from his office, then you may think that the authorities are right in saying that this has got to be stopped. That is all they want. This is not a punitive prosecution in a desire to stop this man's views, but he must not be allowed to express them to the point of criminal libel. Now to the facts of this particular case. Copies of two issues, that of 15th July and that of 14th August, in particular are before you. In fact, copies of all of these curious publications were bought by these officers for you to look at them: but these two in particular are before you. Gothic Ripples, Price 2d., Subscription Rates, etc. The aim is described as "An occasional report on the Jewish Question issued for the Jew-wise by Arnold Leese's Anti-Jewish Information Bureau, 20, Pewley Hill, Guildford, Surrey". So now we know exactly where we are, and in the issue of 15th July there was this particular sentence in addition to that which I have already read. He gives a list of Jews or alleged Jews in particular positions, and says: "The Commissioner of the Metro- politan Police, Sir Harold R. Scott, is an obvious Jew". He then goes on "The Secretary-General of the De Gaullist Party in France . .", so on and so on. He thinks it of importance even to list that some person is a Jew and elected to some office of some organisation. The importance of that phrase is that the Commissioner of Police is a Jew. In the issue of 14th August we have all the material, page after page; until we come to this item headed "The Soap Box". "Police in the East End of London appear to be instructed by their Jewish chief . ." Now you see why I read the earlier part because he said Sir Harold Scott was a Jew . "to knock off . ."—which you may agree is a strong term—"any street corner orator who dares to mention the word Jew in any derogatory sense. I take a hard view of Police Officers who, to earn pay, carry out such vile orders. It is all very well to talk about wives, children and pensions, but the functions of those ties were never to make an Englishman a traitor to his country and race, nor to make him an ally of the 43 Group". The prosecution are suggesting to you what those words mean in their ordinary sense, in what is the usual sense of the words, that the Commissioner of Police being himself a Jew has instructed police officers in the East End of London to make preferential distinction between Jews and other citizens. We have, in all that I have put to you, seen that it inevitably means that the Commissioner, because he is a Jew, has instructed his officers in the East End of London to protect Jews, and if anybody gets up to say a word against the Jews he is going to be knocked off. If that were so, if the Commissioner so discriminates between race and race, or party and party, or shows any other discrimination between any parties of citizens in the East End of London, do you not agree that he should be dismissed from his office, because the very function of the police is to preserve peace without the distinction of race and race, party and party, or politics, but to preserve the peace? Members of the jury that is all I have to say. The police in due course, having reported those particular issues to the authorities, were instructed, after careful thought, to apply for process and in due course, on 26th October Chief Inspector Hughes saw the accused man at his home at Guildford, told him who he was and asked: "Are you the producer and publisher of a document called Gothic Ripples?" The answer was: "Yes, I am." Then the officer went on: "I am told that the paragraph in the issue of 15th July and l 4th August will be considered as a libel against the Commissioner of Police and that proceedings will be taken against you." He pointed out the paragraphs to him and he only said: "I have nothing to say. I remember what I said and I take full responsibility for it." He added: "I only know I have been doing this work for 26 years and I have never intentionally libelled any individual. If I am prosecuted the Court will have to decide." The comment on that is that whether he intentionally libelled is outside the point. He publishes something which we define to mean defamatory libel. Then subject to any special defence l will call before you the only evidence I need call, the officer who bought these copies, Inspector Williams, and Chief Inspector Hughes who saw him. I will call on Inspector Williams.

Load more