"He who does not offend cannot be honest". - Thomas Payne
Introduction
It is a sad reality that people in the United Kingdom (and other European countries) are severely limited in their ability to speak freely about the threat of Islamification and the overall Islamic Supremacist agenda. Unlike the U.S., those in the United Kingdom and other European nations are under the thumb of what are called "Hate Speech" laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ). The effects of the U.K. laws are not limited to British citizens. In fact, U.S. citizens can be barred entry to the U.K. on the basis of things they have said about Islamification while outside of the U.K.. U.S. radio talk show host Michael Savage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator) ) serves as evidence.
Obviously, we would be demanding a lot of British citizens to risk arrest and imprisonment for speaking freely. However, there might be something which U.S. citizens can do to tweak the noses of appeasement-minded British officials.
British territory within the U.S. or immediately adjacent to it.
This presentation will put forth a manner in which U.S. citizens may legally gain access to British territory by simply taking one footstep. Once they gain access to British territory, one wonders what they might have to say and record on video for eventual internet posting (or live television or radio broadcast) regarding Islamic Supremacists. If, by some remote chance, they happen to say something which "offends" the Leftists in British government, it would be interesting to see what the British government would do to address it. Would they compel the similarly appeasement minded U.S. President (as of 2010) to take some form of action for them? No one knows.
The following sites within or adjacent to the U.S. are of particular interest, since some of them definitely constitute official British territory.
First, we have the site of the Winston Churchill statue at the British embassy in Washington DC. As the pictures indicate in the following link, it is easily accessible ( http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0001472.htm ). One foot is in British territory (the embassy grounds) and the other is in the U.S.. The symbolism of standing next to this statue and speaking freely would be ideal. The disadvantage is that embassy staff would have the legal right to oust anyone from the British side for speaking freely. Therefore, any anticipated actions should be planned with that possibility in mind.
Next, we have the grave site of four British sailors from World War II, located on Ocracoke Island, North Carolona. Details may be found here: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/lestweforget/HMTBedford/1942_hmt_bedfordhsire_speech.htm ; http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/lestweforget/HMTBedford/1942_hmt_bedfordshire.htm ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F136421?thread=310605 ; http://www.ocracoke-nc.com/cemetery/ ; http://www.ncgenweb.us/hyde/cemetery/index_british_ocracoke.htm ; http://www.offbeattravel.com/british-cemetery-outerbanks.html ; http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=2073156&mode=1 ; http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=cr&GRid=11431258&CRid=46935& ; http://www.hydecounty.org/attractions/cemetery.htm ; http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/veteranstales4.htm As indicated in the preceding, this gravesite for crew of the HMS Bedfordshire is official British territory. There is another British World War II gravesite at the Oak Grove Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, for three crew of the HMS Kingston Ceylonite and one crew member of the HMS Bedfordshire, but it does not seem to have official British territorial status ( http://www.rnpatrolservice.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=166&p=474&hilit=alfred+dryden ). It also appears that there might be a site in Buxton, North Carolina for two crew members of the British merchant vessel San Delfino. However, this, too, does not appear to constitute British territory ( http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=32129 ).
With respect to someone gaining access to British territory in the form of gravesites, standing as close to the periphery as possible and happening to speak freely before a camera regarding the Islamification of the UK, we must acknowledge that such an act may be deemed disrespectful in some quarters. Therefore, we are not in a position to give a full endorsement. However, this charge may be tempered with the reality that the speech of this nature would pertain to a defense of British territory from a violent ideology of a form which is not too far removed from what these sailors were fighting in World War II. In addition, no "Hate Speech" laws existed during the lifetimes of the deceased individuals. It should be noted that there does not seem to be any laws against vocalizing anything in a calm manner within such sites. Nor do there seem to be any prohibitions against gaining physical access. 1683 AD has not concluded whether or not such an action concerning the above sites would be appropriate or not. We are simply putting it out for public discussion and evaluation.
Another plot of interest is in Hawaii, in the form of a memorial to Captain James Cook ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/captain-cooks-little-corner-of-hawaii-under-threat-from-new-golf-course-623120.html ; http://www.jstor.org/pss/1794586 . Its status as British territory has not been fully ascertained.
Other than the above-mentioned sites, our other opportunity for quick access to British territory is at the water boundary between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Virgin_Islands ). Admittedly, getting in a boat and going to the boundary between these two territories would not be convenient for most U.S. citizens, but it exists as an option. There does not seem to be any restrictions against boat travel between the waters of these two territories. It is hard to perceive how anyone who "speaks their mind", so to say, in the boundary waters of the British Virgin Islands could be pointed to as being disrespectful.
It is unknown whether the British Embassy in the U.S. owns any extensive plots of land or estates within a reasonable distance of the embassy proper. If so, those properties might be worthy of study.
Please bear in mind that although 1683 AD has not directly advocated a violation of British laws in this post, we can't help what people may infer and choose to do on their own. We will leave the content of any speech within any form of British territory as described above up to each individual.
Perhaps there are similar examples of European nations having territory within the confines of the U.S. We would welcome news of any such sites.
Comments