Who We Are

Our intention is to inform people of racist, homophobic, religious extreme hate speech perpetrators across social networking internet sites. And we also aim to be a focal point for people to access information and resources to report such perpetrators to appropriate web sites, governmental departments and law enforcement agencies around the world.

We will also post relevant news worthy items and information on Human rights issues, racism, extremist individuals and groups and far right political parties from around the world although predominantly Britain.

Saturday, 24 April 2010


The sketch was published last year in response to the infamous Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The AEL, a Pan-Arab organisation active in Belgium and the Netherlands, hoped its counter cartoon would demonstrate the "hypocrisy" that it felt was commonplace in public debate. The cartoon shows two figures standing beside a stack of corpses marked with a sign that says ‘Auswitch’ [sic]. "We have to get to 6,000,000 somehow," one character exclaims. The other responds by saying: "I don’t think they are Jews". The AEL wanted to prove that, while cartoons offensive to Muslims are accepted in the Christian West, drawings depicting religious themes that are deemed controversial are not. In its ruling, the court called the AEL drawing grievous, insulting and bad taste. The context in which the cartoon was created however, convinced the judge that its publication punishable. In its ruling, the court took into account that the AEL believes the genocide of the Jewish people is an historical fact. The AEL pointed this out in both a press release and a disclaimer it printed beside the cartoon. The public prosecutor had proposed a plea bargain that required the AEL to take the cartoon off its website. After the AEL failed to comply, charges were brought against it. The prosecutor sought only minor fines. In his ruling, the judge took into account that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to shock, offend or insult others through public expression. Governments are only allowed to prohibit this type of expression if specific laws exist to govern it and as long as the restriction is "necessary for a democratic society" to function. The context of an expression as well as the proportionality of censorship are important considerations in this respect. The judge found that the AEL drawing was part of a "cartoon campaign" conducted by the AEL against the perceived double standard prevalent in the West. "In this case, freedom of speech weighs more heavily than the right of others not to be discriminated against," the court stated. The AEL's right to publish an offensive cartoon "should be guaranteed" in light of the specific context and the AEL's intent, the court ruled.