The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for an attack on Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
Yet The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954 reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss.Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:
“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)
In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)
In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
(India Mail 02.03.95).
Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — “What Next In the Law.” The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. He wrote: "The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out." Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.
Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste.” It is united by central ideas like anti-White racism, Internationalism and abstract beliefs like social justice and progress where prejudice, discrimination are transcended. Their fantasy is flawed because these qualities are ineluctably part of human nature; far from transcending prejudice and discrimination, they have changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and is “intrinsically counter-majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people. However, there are clearly far more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments counter to our traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the majority. The judiciary are supposed to be independent from Parliament but some of them have shown themselves to be highly politicised with a clear anti- British agenda. This cannot be tolerated any longer. They have forfeited their right to be judges, in my opinion. During the Nuremberg trials the German judiciary who had enacted Nazi laws were prosecuted and in some cases executed for their crimes. Others were given very long prison sentences. In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, but now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”
The judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. This introduced Soviet techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations -
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 13 is even more mendacious: investigate “non-crimes”!!! This totalitarian device criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.
Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.
The Recommendation states:”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.”
All seventy recommendations were presented by BBC News in “Lawrence: Key Recommendations.”
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”
The judiciary attack our society by undermining the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption , legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family(anti?) judge.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.
The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironic that the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges fully endorse the very pro-father Sharia courts, given that if Muslims take over this country, the 'British' judiciary will be among the promoters.
They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
As part of the elites Islamification programme, many Judges are campaigning for the introduction of Shari law. In December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.
Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce. Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? Again we see the appeasement to islam leading to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the liberals would like to think it would.
Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Prime Minister. I remember Tony Benn at some point enquiring what criteria were used when judges were selected. The whole process was then apparently secret - and I'm sure it's as bad or worse now. As you say, saxonian, it's no surprise we have such useless rubbish in charge of "justice". Maybe there is something to be said for the US system of elected judges (except then there would be financed campaigns by vested interest groups in favour of the 'correct' judges).
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.
Our nation was our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy that had treated other races as less than us, but this is our country. The nation had protected individuals as part of a bigger community, was replaced by interest groups defined by group identities - race, gender and orientation and religion other than Christianity which was replaced by multi-racialism.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn once pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. They use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!
They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Some terrorists were protected by the judiciary - Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!
In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”
Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is a classic of sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.
The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"
The judges have undermined our way of life, protected terrorists and are now attacking Jewish people to Islamify Britain. This is the nexus of Western elites and Muslims against White and Jewish communities known as Eurabia.
Paula Sladewski, and Anne Pressley
