The first chapter of another of my books that will never be written. A fiction today. But one hopes that one day the important parts of it will be fact.
“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in perfectly fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at the Hague before one judge from Alsace, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.
“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench. He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain pat of the neat rectangle of papers on the table in front of him, began his work for the day.
“Learned judges will be fully aware that this is a complex and, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and to future interpretation of Article 2.
“Mindful, therefore, of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present you with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissable and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers.”
by Michael Kuehl
Lamentably, what happened to Cassandra was not a one-time travesty much less an aberration. Only five years later, another young white teacher, Melissa Bittner, was charged with “sexually assaulting” a black predator who sexually assaulted her. As with Cassandra, her “victim” was the aggressor. And, in some ways, this case is even more sickening, more execrable, more appalling, more iniquitous than Sorenson-Grohall. Unlike Cassandra, Melissa wasn’t raped by her de jure “victim” and de facto victimizer. But, also unlike Cassandra, she was totally innocent, a victim of false accusations, and she never assented, willingly, to coitus or fellatio or any other sex-acts with her tormentor.
And on June 25, 2002, also in Milwaukee, the 22-year-old ex-music teacher was sentenced to a year in prison for allegedly initiating and/or consenting to 15-20 acts of “sexual contact” with the 16-year-old delinquent who assaulted her. First, let’s quote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the same reporter who covered the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case:
The specific crime for which she was convicted and imprisoned was “sexual assault of a student by school staff.” Under Wisconsin law, in punishing sex between adults and teenage “children,” violent and/or recidivist male criminals who have sex 50-100 times with 16-year-old girls in non-criminally abusive and coercive relationships are guilty of misdemeanors, but women teachers who engage in even one act of “sexual contact” with 17-year-old male students are guilty of felonies.
by Michael Kuehl
Even if roughly half of these sexual assaults are not violent penile-vaginal rapes, or penile-anal rapes, that still means that black males rape over 40-50 white females a day, on average, and have raped some 700-800 thousand white females since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Conversely, white-on-black rapes are rare by comparison. And, moreover, it’s possible that most of these crimes are in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics” who, surreally, are classified as “white” when they commit rapes and other felonies but as “Hispanic” when they’re the victims of serious crimes. So when “Hispanics” who are wholly to partly Amerindian rape or sexually assault black-mulatto and Mestizo-Amerindian females, such crimes are defined as white-on black or white-on-“Hispanic” rapes and sexual assaults. Most absurdly, when “Hispanics” who are purely to partly black rape or sexually assault black females, such offenses are classified as white-on-black rapes or “sexual assaults.” *
As for gang-rapes: the peremptory hysteria and outrage of blacks and white leftists over the Duke rape hoax and their urgency to believe the unbelievable, to exploit this hoax as symbol and evidence of white “racism” and malevolence, is explained by the paucity of such enormities. Lamentably, for purposes of activism and propaganda, white-on-black gang-rapes are exceedingly rare. And, statistically, virtually nonexistent. And what percentage of these “white-on-black” gang-rapes were in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics,” including those who are wholly or partly African, who are classified as “white”?
White-on-black sex crimes are so rare, comparatively, that from 1996 to 2002, in Milwaukee, it’s conceivable that the only white-on-black sex crimes were in fact black-on-white sex crimes; it’s possible that over a span of 5-6 years only two whites were convicted of “sexually assaulting” blacks and, as incredibly as ironically, both were women teachers, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall and Melissa Bittner, who were raped and/or molested by their definitional “victims.”
From the editors of National Review, a dire warning to women who visit the Islamic world:
An integral case demonstrating the discourse positioning Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as the hand of restraint and Chief Justice Earl Warren as the overly daring progressive (but still “reasonable centrist, whose position was amicably settled for by”..)
In Justice for all, Earl Warren and the Nation that He Made
Jim Newton, a revolting hack on behalf of Jewish interests at the Los Angeles Times, portrays former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Earl Warren, the prime “Activist.”
Hence, the masters of discourse have set the parameters of debate.
With that, Newton stealthily sets Frankfurter’s Jewish machinations into the taken for granted norm while representing Warren as a maverick - rather than as a reactionary dupe, steered by Frankfurter’s designs.
A recurring subject within nationalism is the possibility of bringing a case for the genocide of peoples of European descent by coercive replacement before the International Criminal Court. The attractions of doing so are very great. If it were to be successful even in relation to one of our peoples, governments in the West would be forced to develop demographic policies incorporating protective measures for all, or face legal challenge themselves. Not only would new immigration without thought for the security of our existence have to come to an end, but the population mechanics of generational replacement would have to be addressed. And for that, large-scale programmes of repatriation would have to be instituted.
Further, the post-colonial economic model of the West, built on debt payable out of growth in GDP consequent upon population increase, would have to be substantially amended. The debt model itself would be open to question in a new way, and the lineaments of a new and free life for European men and women might be glimpsed.
Even if European governments contrived to win the judgement, the demographic crisis of the West will have been aired in the most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially. Political correctness, anti-racism, and the legal war on discrimination will, for the first time, have been accurately cast as strategies of coercion. The nationalist worldview will have slipped its bonds. The gateway to free speech and participation in public discourse will stand open.
That is the theory, anyway.
Anders Behring Breivik appeared before the Oslo City Court today. He was remanded by District Court Judge Thorkell Nesheim for a further twelve weeks, for the first four of which he will continue to be disallowed newspapers or television, and for eight weeks he will be prohibited visits.
The police had sought tougher conditions, including a twelve week ban on letters (of which he has been receiving many, including some which are threatening).
The Daily Telegraph reported:
It is still not established that Breivik can be held criminally responsible for the bombing in Oslo and the massacre at the Labour Youth League summer camp on Utøya. If a psychiatric examination confirms that, his trial should begin on April 16.
The police investigation, meanwhile is scheduled to conclude in February. No evidence of accomplices has been found. The principle line of investigation, however, is into the question of radicalisation. The police are interested in what happened in the period from 2002, when Breivik was “knighted”, to 2009, when he started planning the bombing.
Now, this assumption that the forms of dissent Breivik encountered are “radicalising” is very liberal-centric. Breivik made the point in court that he admits his actions but does not take responsibility for them, that responsibility belonging to the elites who have visited multiracialism and its attendant “hate ideology” on Norway and Norwegians. What, after all, could be more radical than the race-replacement of a European people with Africans and Asians - a process driven by a morally insular and socially insulated elite whose own familial future consists, apparently, in training their children to carry on their “work”?
Without this unparalleled extremism in Norwegian political life, Breivik would never have conceived the balancing idea that the elites were at war with Norway, that they saw the heirs to the cause in their own children, that the terrible costs they incurred on Norwegians were not paid by them, and bringing those costs home in the most brutal and absolute way was the logical response.
Obviously, the police are not going to stray from their liberal-centric mentality. So they will look determinedly at Breivik’s online life and at his travels aboad for the mysterious “radicalisation”, making him a victim of some evil “out there” rather than the self-actualised historical fulcrum which he imagines himself to be.
Meanwhile in London the latest twist in the story of Stephen Lawrence has finally come before Mr Justice Treacy at the Old Bailey. We now await details of the new forensic evidence which, it seems, places David Norris and Garry Dobson at the scene of the crime in 1993. ITV News mentioned that the defence rejects this evidence vigorously, which makes one wonder whether it is as robust as the race industry would like.
And that, really, is what this trial is about now: the blind, implacable will of the race industry to finally justify all the millions of words written and spoken in the anti-white war it has generated over this death. Norris and Dobson are doubtless not the most appealing white men one might meet, and the Metropolitan Police were a dubious bunch before the anti-racist disease ever caught hold. But on to these slender foundations the moral worth of the English people was somehow manoeuvred, along with the proposition that only a repentance from our “racism” and a committment to “diversity” would make us fit for the modern age.
Frankly, I hope the new evidence is very weak, cross-contamination all too likely, and the jury are unable to convict.
by David Hamilton
Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about. She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.
Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities. It is, he said:
Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us. For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.
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 judge. Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.” In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be 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 required to obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking.
Human rights law is the reforming judiciary’s principal weapon. The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he/she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born. Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!
From the Daily Mail:-
So Dr Toben has been returned to his cell, pending his meeting the bail conditions and appeal by the German authorities. Round one in this particular fight against the globalisation of Jewish justice is in the bag.
But the appellant will certainly now review the grounds for dismissal and the prospects for modifying their warrant. It is interesting that, initially at least, they were so shy about making too much of the Adelaide Institute. They are attempting to create a very wide legal precedent, whereby it’s not just that the accused can be extradited for an offense committed in Britain which exists only under German law, but he or she - we should never forget the splendid Sylvia Stolz - can be extradited by the British courts for an offence committed anywhere which exists only in German law.
If my memory serves me right, this might have been much more straightforward for the German authorities had the Lisbon Treaty not been sidelined by the Irish “No” vote, and had the British government not secured an opt-out - I think - from the extradition provisions in the Treaty. In that sense, then, the Germans really are trying their luck. I suspect they know they are not going to win, and they will not appeal. Unless, of course, there is so much malice, they will do it anyway just to punish Toben.
But the final outcome should be clear to them. Without the defining elements of the Lisbon Treaty in place, and since the British courts do not promiscuously extradite people just anywhere for an offence which does not exist under British statute, an appeal must fail. Otherwise, it would open up the chaotic possibility that states with legal codes completely different to ours - Sharia, for instance - could similarly try their luck. That’s a direction the court could never take.
And all this before any consideration of the court’s duty to uphold freedom of expression!
The loss of a future leading architect and a light for peace and humanity everywhere can never be brought to our attention enough, obviously.
Yes, Stephen Lawrence, the anti-racism industry’s one-man Holocaust, is back in the news. And the Metropolitan Police Service, aided by LGC Forensics, the pioneers of Low Copy Number DNA manipulation, are promising an exciting new round of liberal self-flagellation, English guilt by association, and monkey shit-throwing of all kinds:-
You know how these things go. Five years on, a judge allows the appeal of those convicted on the grounds of fresh doubts about the forensic evidence. Too too sensationally, it is successful. And to the unbearable chagrin of the race hucksters and associated Stephen canonisers, the five untermenschen walk free. The Met lets it be known that it is not seeking anyone else in connection with the martyrdom. The freed men’s lawsuit against the Home Office is thrown out by a liberal judge. Things rumble on much as they always did, except more English people tire of the very mention of St Stephen, and a politically-aware few even begin to get the point of the whole thing.
The Economist writes:
Here‘s William Anderson on the Duke no-rape, Black-on-White lynching case:
One wonders what sort of standards of justice whites can expect in a future Multiculti state, in which they have been reduced to a minority. Will a Libervention be necessary? And from whence will it come, once Condi Rice and Paul Wolfowitz will be happily retired in the nation that they helped make into a mirror image of Black-Apartheid South Africa.
The other city is London, where prosecutor David Perry QC told the Old Bailey that Mizanur Rahman had said:-
Well, no doubt one Muslim a faith does not make. But in the absence of a clear poll of naive Moslem opinion (ie not tailored for consumption by the kufrs) ... in the absence of knowing how many “British” Moslems want Coalition Forces defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many in their hearts root for the “Mujahideen”, how many greet the home-coming dead, the flaming tanks, the shot-down aircraft with thanks to Allah or at least with indifference ... in the absence of all this how can one conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mizanur Rahman is at odds with his co-religionists. Or that Griffin was wrong?
If Griffin is found guilty it will not only be because the liberal Establishment desires it so but because, in our secular humanitarian fog, we assume that the Moslem mind is much like our own. We assume that religion to Moslems must be as religion is to us, though we make no allowance for their mean IQ, their general temperament, their mores, their social and racial histories.
Simple-minded humanitarian presumptions are not proof. They are prejudice. But under British law they are not enough. The burden of proof, not presumption, rests with the prosecution.
Griffin’s silk should have demanded that to prove his client guilty the prosecution must prove Islam pacific. He must prove that there is insufficient wickedness and viciousness along its bloody borders to render Griffin’s statement untrue, and therefore truly nothing but incitement to racial hatred.
(Yes, I know by heart the meme that truth is no defence against the slippery charge of “using words and behaviour likely to incite racial hatred”. But this stratagem is about proving Islam as it is practised by ordinary Moslems is not as described by Griffin. Only the presumption of innocence attaches to him, which means that to remain within the law when he gave that speech at the Reservoir Tavern Griffin would have had to knowingly lied, on which basis no jury would convict.)
Jennifer Gratz sued the University of Michigan in 1997 for discrimination because she could not attend the university, because preferences were given to minorities. In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case that satisfied no one. The university could take race into consideration for the purpose of diversity but could not use rigid formulas to do so.
Since then, Gratz has been active lecturing on the unfairness of affirmative action, and now the public will vote on Proposal 2 on November 7. It will amend the State Constitution to “outlaw consideration of race and gender in deciding which applicants get into college, who receives government jobs and what businesses secure state and local contracts.” As of today it is a tight race.
Vibrancy has truly ascended to the highest reaches of public service in England ... the judiciary. Constance Briscoe was our first female black Court Recorder (ie someone who works as a part-time judge in the crown and county courts), so a certain interest from the press was to be expected. One might also expect that a wise head would reflect upon that, consider her responsibilities to the Crown and choose caution in all things.
But nope. Not for Constance the grey, parchment-dry pursuits of the legal soul. She desperately wants the world to know she is a tenacious spirit overcoming adversity. And a successful mother. And the main woman.
So she wrote “Ugly”.
Now, perceptive readers will guess straight away that this ain’t no legal opus. Rather, it is a harrowing tale of abused childhood, attempted suicide, courage and what-not, arriving at a triumphant crescendo of something or other. Lots of sistas bought it - “bought it” being the operative phrase according to some of the Amazon reviews.
One would think that a judge, for pity’s sake, would know about little things like libel trials. Expensive. Risky. To be avoided at all costs. But England’s first female black Court Recorder apparently did not consider any such possibility, and now she and her publishers, Hodder & Stoughton, are being sued by her alleged childhood tormentor - her mother - in an attempt to clear the family name.
Casualties of the self-defence laws
“The people shouldn’t fear the government. The government should fear the people” goes the oft-quoted libertarian motto. Whilst there is some truth to this, in saying this we should not forget that it is even more crucial to a free and ordered society that something other than the government should fear the people: the criminal class.
Once, this was virtually an axiom in the West-Northern Europe countries which pioneered modern constitutional government. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of Common Law had, as one of its most basic assumptions, the principle that each man has the right and duty to take measures to protect himself, his property, family and the wider community from anti-social and dangerous individuals. Weapon rights were sacred, men were men, women were unmolested and social deviants and vagabonds were scared.
In the modern day, quite the opposite can be assumed. I need only mention the case of Tony Martin, a farmer whose farm was invaded and vandalised frequently by several common hooligans. One night, fearing for his life and wishing to defend his land, he fired at his nocturnal invaders, scaring them off and fatally wounding one of them. He was sentenced to five years in prison (the surviving hooligan got only two), where once he would have been applauded for standing up to bullying criminal low-lives.
We might also consider the more recent case of Mr. Kirby, on which I have already commented. He assaulted a thug when the latter was harassing a lady on the tube. The conductor, deaf to both the lady’s and Mr. Kirby’s earlier pleas for help, was only too willing to listen to the siren wail of the poor,
deprived harassers. He ended up getting community service and having to pay the lout £1000 to assuage his hurt feelings.
If we can detect a common strand, it would have to be that in both cases the original perpetrators of a crime were punished less severely (if at all) than those acting in legitimate self-defence. Both Tony Martin and Mr. Kirby had good reason to fear either for their own life or for the well-being of another innocent. Both the ‘victims’ were thugs and criminals who were attempting to commit some injustice. What is the point of all the West’s much-touted rights to life and liberty if we are denied the means to protect these?
Anti-self-defence laws are a suicide pact, made by those who won’t have to commit suicide for those who will.
One matter that really should not go unreported on this page is last week’s Senate ratification of the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Due to pressure on time I have only had the briefest look through the original Convention. It has no direct reference to “hate speech”. But under its common provisions it appears to provide a catch-all of “other criminal offences committed by means of a computer system” (Article 14 – Scope of procedural provisions, 2b).
Legal opinion, anyone?
It must be hard being a feminist. You preach about the equality of the sexes (sorry, genders). You give lectures explaining in great depth the oppressive nature of marriage and courtship. You heckle happily married neighbours into admitting that they’re “socially unfulfilled”. You take part in group readings of Virginia Woolf. And at the end of it all, some bloke with a belt comes along and upsets the whole (progressive, gender-free) applecart:
Talk about yer commies. One hopes the Supremes will give this the smackdown.
A bit of good news:
... in tears, as it happens.
As a result:-
This exciting, go-ahead development in the great fight for individual liberty means that criticism of immigration is steadily becoming impossible in the British workplace. You may perhaps consider such an affront to grown-up living came about only through the wilfull exploitation of some pretty disingenuous behaviour, to whit:-
But moral fibre has no place in the modern British courts. And it sure can’t when self-professed race lawyers and victimology artists boast about “Fearless & Innovative Litigation” and about winning “the largest race claim in the history of the UK”, all via “affordable representation, whatever the actual cost to our firm”.
Oh for the days when an employer could turn around and say, “Look, sweetheart, if you can’t handle that you’d better find yourself somewhere else to work”. This one, I should add, felt obliged to send the benighted Kilroy-Silk supporter to race awareness classes.
Of course, as an MRer I believe we should all be made fully aware of race. But I doubt if that was quite the intention in this lady’s case.
Full story here. The application of laws under New Labour makes for an interesting case study. Muslim mullahs who have preached murderous hatred for years in this country have received nothing but silent approval from the British establishment.
While no one should defend the actions of these misguided fools (assuming the allegations against them are true), the double standard in the application of laws in Britain is astonishing.
Feminism is not quite the force it once was here in Victoria. Still, it has a powerful friend in the Attorney-General, Rob Hulls.
Mr Hulls believes that there is an entrenched bias against women in the law and he has set about rectifying it. In particular he believes that an outmoded, misogynistic legal system has sheltered men who commit acts of domestic violence.
So he has enacted a variety of legal reforms, including giving police the immediate power to detain a man accused of domestic violence for six hours.
Given all this, it was a surprise to read the following in the Melbourne Herald Sun:
“Police are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.
“Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.”
The Australian State of Victoria seems to be unique so far in having laws that forbid religious vilification. Britain however seems to be on the brink of following suit. In 2004 a prosecution of two Christian pastors under the Victorian law held that even quoting the Koran was vilification of Muslims! The idea of Islam as a self-condemning religion is certainly an interesting one but nonetheless seems an extraordinary basis for punishing non-Muslims. That case, however, is still to go to appeal. See here for a full discussion of it. In the meantime, another case under the same laws has been decided which gives some confidence that sanity has not entirely vanished from the Victorian legal system. A “Wiccan” had claimed that the teaching of Christianity vilified him. His case has just been summarily dismissed by the senior judge. Below is an excerpt from a media report of the latest case.
In 2003 a leader of a Swedish gay rights group, Susanna Gustafsson, decided to “have a pash” with her girlfriend in a Stockholm restaurant. The restaurant owner asked them to leave.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa