7 thoughts on “Claire Khaw nazi conservative”

  1. Without meaning to be a pedant, that’s not an AK47. That is however a very scary woman – and not because of the gun.


  2. I came here to say this. An AK 47 is just a rifle. No, this is a Light Machine Gun. Even more intimidating/illegal/dangerous


  3. I really don’t think it was a light machine gun. It was an old thing with some bit that kept flopping out which I am sure wasn’t gunworthy, if there is such a word. I am really not that scary once you get to know me!


  4. I wish you would stop calling me a Nazi. I am no more a Nazi than I could be a policeman if I was photographed outside a police station.


  5. What happened to all the other previous comments? Have they been deleted?


  6. Tom Pride said:

    The comments haven’t been deleted – these comments are on the page for the photo only – the other comments are still on the main article here: https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/ak-47s-and-swastika-flags-the-face-of-todays-conservative-party/


  7. Extracted from page 2 of my Statement of Grounds at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-conservative-party-has-filed-its.html

    (d) It is irrational for the Defendant to complain of the photograph of the Claimant or to assume she is a Nazi or an anti-semite simply because she was photographed with a swastika flag behind her. It is her contention that it is impossible for her to be Nazi on the following grounds:

    (i) The Claimant is not a member of the Aryan race.
    (ii) The Claimant is not German or German-speaking.
    (iii) The Claimant is not a German national.
    (iv) The Claimant is not a member of the German Nazi Party.
    (v) The German Nazi Party is no longer in existence.
    (vi) The Claimant is not anti-semitic.
    (vii) The Claimant, unlike Hitler, is against foreign adventurism and has been known to oppose the involvement of British troops in Muslim countries.
    (viii) The Claimant does not believe in the racial superiority of any race.
    (ix) The purpose of the Claimant posing for that photograph was to court controversy and then refute accusations through the use of reasoned debate that she is or was a Nazi.
    (x) The Claimant is no more a Nazi for being photographed with a swastika in the background than it is for her to be a policeman if she were photographed with a police station in the background and a policeman’s helmet on her head.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.