Majorityrights Central > Category: Law

by David Hamilton
                               
The contribution of the British judiciary to the attack on our people and way of life has two main planks: undermining us through the culture and promoting Muslim extremism.  Here are some of the judges and the judgements that have made the law an instrument in the war against our culture, traditions and mores.

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:

“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”

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!

READ MORE...

From the Daily Mail:-

District Judge Daphne Wickham ruled the warrant invalid today at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, saying it contained inadequate detail about the offences.  It neither states the name of the website nor where the propaganda is said to have been published from - only referring to the ‘world-wide internet’.

After discharging Toben, Judge Wickham granted him bail pending an appeal after imposing strict conditions which include a £100,000 security.  Other conditions include residence at an approved address, written confirmation from the Australian High Commission of which passports he holds, and not to access the internet.  He is also banned from giving press interviews.

Judge Wickham added that she had not been required to decide at this stage whether the alleged crimes were valid extradition offences.

Grey wavy-haired Toben, smartly dressed in a suit, appeared pleased on hearing the judge’s decision from the glass-fronted dock at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court.  The public gallery was packed with supporters of Toben.

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:-

New DNA ‘will nail’ Stephen Lawrence suspects

Scotland Yard detectives investigating the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence 15 years ago believe they have uncovered enough new evidence to charge the key suspects with his murder for a second time.

Senior officers are saying for the first time they are confident that new DNA and other forensic evidence, missed in the original investigation in 1993, will enable the five original suspects to be tried for Lawrence’s murder.

It was disclosed in November that police had found fibres linking the suspects to the murder scene. Now the scientists have disclosed they are focusing on a fresh analysis of samples of paint, fibres and DNA – in blood and saliva – recovered from the murder scene and suspects’ homes.

... A retrial is permitted because the government repealed the so-called “double jeopardy” law in 2005, which had prevented a person from being tried twice for the same crime. A senior team of scientists at LGC Forensics, a firm in southwest London, has been working on the Lawrence case for more than a year.

Last November it emerged that fibres and possible DNA samples contained in clothing belonging to some of the suspects were being reexamined by the Met. Further evidence including DNA and granules of paint, missed in earlier police investigations, is now being examined.

Helen Newman, a spokesman for LGC Forensics, said: “It is true that things have been missed in the past. [Now] we are using different strategies. Previous investigations went down a slightly different route. I can tell you we are looking at DNA and fibres but we are also looking at other evidence such as chemistry and paint.”

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.

One city is Leeds, where prosecutor Rodney Jameson QC told the Crown Court that Nick Griffin had said:-

This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1300 years ago.

And if you read that book (the Koran), you’ll find that that’s what they want.

The other city is London, where prosecutor David Perry QC told the Old Bailey that Mizanur Rahman had said:-

Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, in Denmark, in Spain, in France ... all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them.

... The Mujahideen will destroy them and their freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Falluja and in Baghdad.

We don’t want to see them in Baghdad, in Iraq any more.  We want to see them coming home in body bags, we want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad, we want to see their blood running in Fallujah.

We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds.  We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags.

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.)

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.

READ MORE...

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?

... in tears, as it happens.

As a result:-

A branch of one of the world’s biggest banks has been found guilty of racism after a senior member of staff told a colleague she would be voting for Robert Kilroy-Silk at the last general election because she said he promised to “get rid of the foreigners”.

The remark was overheard by another employee, who sued the bank, HSBC, for race discrimination. Ruby Schembri, 35, a Maltese national, reported the remark. This week an employment tribunal ruled the remark could be construed as racist and ordered HSBC and the supervisor to pay compensation.  The case is one of the first to find that a comment not directly made to another person can constitute racism.

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:-

Ms Schembri added: “I found Debbie’s racist comment to be offensive and very hurtful.  I left the room and was on the counter.  I began to cry.”

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.

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.”

READ MORE...