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!

A very important test case brought by 16 year-old Shabina Begun was decided in March 2005 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the school had denied her the right to manifest her religion in public under the Human Rights Convention.  The school had refused to allow her to attend in a full-length jibab but wanted her to wear school uniform which included shalwar kameez and an approved headscarf.  The headmistress explained that allowing this would expose other Muslim girls to recruitment by fundamentalists.  This was obviously a political wheeze to get more Muslim culture accepted.  In court, the defence was that the school only banned it to counter “vilification of Muslims after 9/11”.  Even though Miss Begum was supported by Hizb ut-Tahir, a group campaigning for Sharia Law here, the Court took her side.  The judgement was later overturned by the Law Lords in March 2006.  The Law Lords took the view that a person’s right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute, but that a person’s right to manifest a particular religious belief was qualified.  Three of the five Law Lords held that Begum’s rights had not been interfered with (Lord Bingham, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Hoffmann), and two held that they had (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Baroness Hale of Richmond).  All five agreed, however, that in this particular case there were justifiable grounds for interference, one of the grounds being to protect the rights of other female students at the school who would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form of dress.

But the proceedings had already hinted to Muslims that our way of life is open to Islamification: Miss Begum was represented in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords by Cherie Blair (Booth) QC.

Why the bias? Why, for example, are many judges campaigning for the introduction of Sharia Law.

In December 2008 the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council that 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.  This would extend to Muslims the rights created for Jews under the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, to prevent obstructive husbands withholding divorces from their wives.  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.” (1)

Saudi Arabia has a legal system that uses savage penalties.  Thieves get their hands chopped off!  Were the Muslim “extremists” who in their hundreds called for death to Gillian Gibbons, the teacher working in the Sudan who made the cultural error of permitting a pupil to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”, unrepresentative of any version of Islam?  In our own country we saw what they really think when they burnt Salman Rushdie’s books.

Its noteworthy that Judge Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009)  is being investigated for making political comments:

Judge Ian Trigger, a High Court judge, could lose his job after the Lord Chief Justice personally ordered an investigation into his 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 two years in jail last week.  He said the system was “completely lax” and a drain on public finances.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, referred the comments to the Office of Judicial Complaints to rule on whether it was too political. The OJC will now investigate the comments to determine whether he has overstepped the mark by making political comments.

Judge Trigger’s was clearly a political statement.  But most judges now make political decisions if not political statements.  This is what I mean when I call the Establishment an ideological caste.  It is all the elites who are united by central ideas like anti-racism, Internationalism and certain abstract belifs like social justice and progress towards a utopia where primitive things like prejudice, discrimination and oppression are transcended.  To speak against them means you have to publicly apologise like in the Soviet Union, or your career suffers.  Even Prince Harry was subjected to thought training for offending against the ideology.  Leading professor James Watson was sacked, and Jade Goody was publicly excoriated by media show trials.  This type of thought correction training originated after the Second World War in the American programme for re-educating Germans headed by Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School. (2)

The judiciary began its drift into overt political activity in the 1980s because Mrs.Thatcher attacked the cosy Social Democracy and introduced vulgar greed with vulgar people from working-class backgrounds making “loads of money”.  In the nineties 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, abetted political union in Europe and a move to One World Government.  They judiciary acted ideologically and challenged government on 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 had changed from individual rights to group rights, and from this we the people became the objects of liberal prejudice.  But because of a distorted version of our past (slavery, racism etc) we were seen as deserving it.  This is what is commonly known as Cultural Marxism.  But I think its more appropriate to call it cultural fascism.  In an case, we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler had disliked became privileged and treated as superior.

The sustained and deliberate deculturation of indigenous people opened the way for the promotion of the views and beliefs of minority groups.  For example, Democracy became power-sharing between the priviliged groups instead of majority rule among citizens.  Christianity was replaced by multiculturalism.  Our natural anger and will to resists was managed bythe imposition of guilt for imaginary evils in our history.  We were rendered passive so as to accept to be tolerant and non-judgmental of ther “lifestyle choices”.  Our traditions like monogamy, heterosexuality, Christianity and British identity became taboo, and were demonised as inherently prejudicial and discriminative towards minorities.

Human rights prohibit torture or degrading treatment.  So the removal of illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to where that judges belief torture might be practiced is also prohibited.  But the British courts applied the law more strictly than other European Courts.  Their interpretation of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees was more “tolerant” than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group.  This meant we gave asylum to countless people even when they were a danger to the state - as long as they said they were in danger in their destinations!  Even more foolish decisions were made under human rights law, like the ruling that stopping welfare payments to asylum seekers denied their rights to a family life.  The judges have used this legislation on many occasions to grant rights to people refused asylum and who then disappear into the ethnic communities.  As they could not be sent back to 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 interpret the prohibition of torture to protect people who are a threat to the state is political activity.  Arguing that if sending them back to a country that practices torture is like practicing torture yourself is an excuse for destroying our communitiesl.  There has even been a case of a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops yet was granted asylum because he feared persecution.

That the judges have breached our security was illustrated by Home Office figures in December 2005 revealing that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since 9/11 were asylum seekers.  Two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.  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.  In 1995 the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen.  After various failed attempts he lived in North London posting videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encouraging Muslims to join the Jihad.

International law is not based in national habits and conventions or even democratic jurisdictions but is current political ideology.  Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials.

If any judge has done his utmost to destroy our country it is notorious Judge Collins.(3)  Judges can pick the cases they sit on. Collins takes asylum types and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers (which usually means Muslims).  The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why he hates this country?  The key sentence is:

”The Daily Express caught up with the judge’s wife, an ex-barrister, outside their “large detached home in leafy Dulwich, South London”. “It’s outrageous to say he’s not in touch with the real world,” she exclaimed. “He goes shopping in Sainsbury’s, for goodness’ sake.”” (4)

It is not that he or the other judges are out of touch but that they are prejudiced against white British people and in favour of other races.

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173779/EU-judges-want-Sharia-law-applied-British-courts.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK—How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

(4)  http://www.thelawyer.com/ill-be-my-own-judge/100798.article