Anne Marie Waters
|
activist
Anne Marie Waters
|
activist

Response to ITV’s “Exposure”

October  2017 / 30 No Comments

My response to the bias of ITV’s “Exposure”, the letter I received – which includes the relevant bullet points – can be read here

Dear Mr Henshaw,

Thank you for your letter and for making me aware of your documentary.

While I realise that my response will not alter your intentions to smear my character, and that you don’t intend to provide unbiased information to the public, I shall indulge you – for the sake of “exposure”.

I will address your points in turn.

You believe me to be a far right extremist, many do not. Many believe (rightly) that I oppose the very racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and oppression usually associated with the far-right, and usually associated with the religion of Islam. I’m unclear what is meant by “entire religion”. Does it mean every Muslim? If so, you’ll no doubt report that I have clearly and consistently maintained that I do not blame all Muslims. Perhaps “entire religion” refers to every verse of the Koran? Please clarify. It would be beneficial also if you understood that “Islam” does not equal “every Muslim”. If you understand the difference between a book and the readers of a book, you may grasp the difference between Islam and Muslims. I’m criticizing the book, and it is my fundamental right to do so.

Yes I did. Am I to congratulate you for your “exposure” of something I said on Twitter?

I didn’t say Muslims want to kill us and enslave us, I said those who committed the slaughter in Manchester (and who commit slaughter in the name of sharia all over the world) want to kill us and enslave us. Presumably, you’ll include this in your report. What others say at an event is not my fault or responsibility.

Yes I did. Once again, this is in the public domain. I’ve no doubt you’ll ensure the viewer understands that you did not “expose” this; I said it in public.

I didn’t “appoint” Jack Buckby to any role. He put together the initial website and has worked alongside me throughout the campaign, along with other people. If what he did constitutes a “campaign manager’s” role, then so be it, I’m unconcerned what title Jack has. The quote you place here is from Jack, not from me. Presumably, while you allege I tried to hide that Jack and I were working together, you’ll include the fact that he was present, and even spoke, at my campaign launch. Hardly the actions of people trying to conceal our involvement with each other.

I do not “closely associate” with Jordan Diamond, he is – or was – a supporter who came to my events, and along with many others, often socialised afterwards. He is not involved in For Britain, and never was, and now that I have become aware of some of his comments, he will not be welcome in the future. His association with Generation Identity is his, not mine. I am no more responsible for their comments or beliefs than you are for mine.   I offered Jordan Diamond and another activist Jonaya English a sofa in my house after the Last Day of Silence event in London because they had missed the last train to Manchester; it is a civil and hospitable thing to do. You may imply this means that I am responsible for every comment he has ever made but I doubt the British public will agree. What Jordan said “at the same table as me” is not my responsibility, nor am I aware of all that is said. His views on the future of white Europeans are his to hold – talking about the future of the white race in Europe is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and it doesn’t imply any hatred of any other race. I did say I know of Generation Identity, and that one of the things I had heard about them was that some neo-Nazis were associated (I still don’t know if this is true). This made them a concern to me, but as I’ve stated many times, until I see personal evidence of Nazi-sympathy for example, I will not make any judgements. I have learned not to believe all I hear when I myself am subject to lies and smears. I did not have a problem speaking at the same event as Martin Sillner (once again, I’ve never met him), as I do not know him, nor do I need to agree with every view in order to speak at an event – something I said publicly at the Traditional Britain event itself.

Your undercover reporter witnessed me attending and socialising at events. That’s absolutely fine.

I’ve said many times that Britain is becoming an Islamic state; in speeches, on Twitter etc. I have no idea what the Mohammed “thick as shit” comment means. I do want to reduce Muslim birthrates, overwhelmingly by empowering Muslim women and girls. I stand by it.

I’ve said this in public many times too; the only difference is the language used – I do not swear in public. I reiterate; I can’t bear the idea that British girls will be treated in a future UK as girls are treated in Muslim countries today. I can’t bear the idea that mass numbers of people would come from Muslim countries and impose their religious values on a free Britain. I make no apology for this. Once again, you’ve exposed nothing.

No, I was going to point out to him specific aspects such as child marriage and death for blasphemy. Once again, you expose nothing but desperation to portray me as dishonest for saying in private what I routinely say in public. I have made a public speech, recorded by the BBC, where I explained that any religion that scripturally condones the evil of child marriage (among other horrors) can rightly be described as evil. I have refused to backtrack or apologise for this at any point, so suggesting I’m trying to hide it is frankly absurd.

I sent out a tweet that day saying that Jihad had won. Once again, you have exposed me saying something I said on Twitter. Great work. If I did say it was a fix, it was likely through ill-thought-out emotion at the time, but I don’t believe it was a fix (but as I’ve also said in public, nothing would surprise me about party politics).

Also all of it in public. That you describe Tommy Robinson as “far-right” does not make him so. I also said publicly that people from proscribed groups would be considered on a case by case basis, and that Tommy Robinson had no interest in joining UKIP. I said this many times, publicly, so once again, nothing “exposed”.

I don’t work closely with Rebel, they sometimes report on my events – they are reporters. Even if I did work closely with Rebel, I see no problem with this and no reason to try to hide it.

I have never met Martin Sillner. Given that I am consistently smeared, I tend not to make judgments on people I don’t know – I’m aware of the lies we are subject to. I spoke at the same event as he did. I will speak at most events (again as I’ve said in public) even when I don’t agree with every view of the organisers. I do not share many of the views of Traditional Britain (as I said at the speech I gave at their event).

I didn’t, I said Western culture.

Yes, in public, and I stand by it.

Yes, in public, and I stand by it.

Yes, and I stand by it. I also stand by my assertion that Islam is a source of child rape and mutilation.

Yes I did, in public, and I stand by it.

Yes, in public, and I stand by it.

Yes and I stand by it. All of the above comments are on Youtube for the world to see. I knew they would be on Youtube when I said them. I also post these to my Facebook page/Twitter etc.. But yet you’ll allege I tried to hide it. Rather unconvincing if I may say so.

The rest of your letter merely demonstrates further arrogance, prejudice, dishonesty, and bias. You allege I am a “danger”. By what criteria? I would argue instead that it is your dishonest behaviour placing me and others in danger. My friend was recently physically attacked by people while labeling her a fascist. Therefore, I suggest that you are promoting an extremist and dishonest rhetoric: one which implies that those of us who oppose religious tyranny are “far-right”. In doing so, I would argue that you are knowingly increasing the probability that we will be subject to violent attack, merely for utilising our right to criticize a religious ideology.

Furthermore, you argue that my determination to utilise my democratic rights “could potentially inspire violent activity”. That’s quite an assertion, do you suggest we all stay quiet because there’s an off-chance someone might be violent? Are people’s words responsible for all violent crime? I’m afraid I’m unclear on your position. It would also be helpful if you would provide any thoughts on what potentially inspires violent activity from jihadis.

I shall leave with one final point – your uninformed, prejudiced, and biased opinions do not constitute facts.

I can only finish by thanking you both for the publicity and for confirming to the public that the only ammunition you can fire at me, despite months of deception on your part, is to “expose” what I continually and repeatedly state in public.

Thank you once again.

Anne Marie Waters

34 1 0 0 1


Comments are closed.