Majorityrights News > Category: Law

Not much.  But it’s a win and it appears to be unusual.

However, is it unusual that a case like this appears on the front age of the Telegraph website, or are these cases unusual?  Is it that the media have not really reported them or do indigenous Brits simply put up with arrogant big mouthery from non-whites in positions of authority over them?

Worker told ‘English people are lazy drunks’ wins discrimination claim
A transport company employee who was an ethnic minority at his workplace has won a discrimination claim after his colleagues jeered that the English were lazy drunks.

James Heeley, an administrator at Birk Holdings, was repeatedly teased about his nationality by his co-workers, who asked whether he was “still drunk” when he came to the office.

His boss, Gurvinder Singh Birk, was overheard saying English employees are “lazy and only interested in claiming benefits”.

Mr Heeley was one of five white British employees at the company of 16 - making him a “minority”, the employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds heard.

... Mr Birk was ordered to pay Mr Heeley £2,500 in compensation for injury to feelings, and a further £961.74 for breaching employment law.

Mr Heeley began working at Birk Holdings in Peterborough in October 2017 and was sacked in March 2019 by Mr Birk, who cited concerns about his performance, attendance and time keeping.

The tribunal panel, chaired by Employment Judge Jennifer Bartlett, found that he was subjected to numerous derogatory comments.

Senior employees said “English drivers do drive slowly” and accused Mr Heeley of not working hard because “he’s English”, the tribunal heard.

On one occasion, two colleagues sneered: “Can tell you’re British as you don’t have your coat on. Are you still drunk from last night?”

After Mr Heeley took a few days off sick, an employee said: “Oh, the lazy English worker has decided to come back to work”. The same employee commented: “Lazy English workers are always off sick”.

Mr Birk was said to have told a senior employee not to hire British workers because they “can turn you down easily and claim benefits”.

The tribunal panel agreed that Mr Heeley had suffered race discrimination and harassment.

It concluded: “We consider that the comments are serious such that they create a hostile and/or intimidating environment because they are by a number of reasonably senior individuals, over a period of time, repeated and in a workplace in which the claimant was a minority.

“We do not accept that the fact that he called some of the comments jokes undermines their effect on him. Many extremely unpleasant behaviours can be dressed up as jokes but it is no excuse.”

This is very good news:

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination under equality laws, judge rules
People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination in the same way as followers of a religion or those who hold philosophical beliefs, a judge has ruled.

People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws if they believe they have suffered as a result of their opinions.

However, publicly expressing anti-Muslim sentiments disqualifies them from protection because it infringes on the rights of others.

These conclusions were reached by employment judge Christiana Hyde at a London tribunal involving the political figure Steven Thomas, who was attempting to sue the NHS for discrimination.

Mr Thomas, who has campaigned for the English Democrat Party, claimed he was sacked as a consultant from Surrey and Borders NHS Trust in July 2018 after just three months due to his political views.

...

The 56-year-old from Kent claimed his nationalistic views are equivalent to a philosophical belief and should therefore be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hyde concluded that Mr Thomas was entitled to claim for discrimination under the Equality Act as his nationalistic views could qualify as a philosophical belief, but his opposition to multiculturalism and Islamification undermined his claim.

To qualify as a protected characteristic, a philosophical belief must be: genuinely held; a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint; a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Judge Hyde ruled that while Mr Thomas had succeeded on the first four points, his anti-Islamic views meant he had failed on the fifth.

...

“He clearly had a very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English.

“(His) belief included views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered.

So, some thoughts ...

Potentially, the judge introduced two important caveats.  First, the relentless and pointless anti-Islam garbage one encounters so frequently among Britain First members, civic nationalists such as For Britain, and Tommy Robinson fans is disqualifying.  But criticising what has become known as Muslim grooming ... criticising the criminality of that part of the Muslim male population which has groomed, trafficked, and abused or prostituted for abuse underage girls ... cannot be so.  It really does require only a modicum of intelligence to stay the right side of the law.

The second caveat is that the law is indeed crafted to defend multiracialism and multiculturalism, as we all know.  But it does not state that the English people are in any part a non-white people.  On the contrary, government itself confirms the specificity of the English people in its ethnicity choices for the 2011 Census form for England and Wales:

White: Total Š English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British Š Irish Š Gypsy or Irish Traveller Š Other White Š Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Total Š White and Black Caribbean Š White and Black African Š White and Asian Š Other Mixed Š Asian/Asian British: Total Š Indian Š Pakistani Š Bangladeshi Š Chinese Š Other Asian Š Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total Š African Š Caribbean Š Other Black Š Other ethnic group: Total Š Arab Š Any other ethnic group

So the judge’s comments conceding Mr Thomas’s supposed “very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English” cannot reasonably extend to the question of English ethnicity.  Her further remark that Mr Thomas’s “views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered” likewise is at odds with the law’s support for Jews in Jewish organisations, say, to advocate for the import of more and more refugees and impose stricter and stricter hate speech laws.  The fact that the interests of a native people must differ in multiple ways from those of non-native peoples, and that will impact upon “the way in which a society ... should be ordered” cannot reasonably be held as grounds to exclude advocacy of the former from legal protection.

To expand on this point, there is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

We must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.

Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian immigrant and Tory post girl for diversity, now serving as Equalities Minister in Boris Johnson’s government, has been in the news for her response in the Commons two days ago to a demand from Dawn Butler, Labour MP and the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, for the decolonisation of the school history curriculum.  Here is the guts of her reply:

Of course, the media are very excited about a black woman minister tearing into BLM; and it is good to see.  But the interesting thing is this passage at the end of the recording:

“Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.

No doubt she is referring to one of the Education Acts.  But from a nationalist perspective it is simple racism to speak of, in Ms Badenoch’s words, “whiteness as oppression”.  Any generalised, race-based accusation directed at our ethnic kind is simple racism.  The practise of anti-racism itself is racism.

There is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

The moment is nearing when we must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.

If action is taken one day and succeeds, the results will be felt across the polity, turning the tables completely on anti-racists, breaking their one weapon into small pieces, making us respectable at a stroke, and leaving them to stew in their own inexpressible hatreds.  The press will also be unable to mechanically employ the use of the same hateful and untrue terms, and could additionally be in breach of libel law if it does so.

Who Is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Expected Supreme Court Pick? | WSJ

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Some editorial first impressions of Amy Coney Barrett.

In the disciplined manner that she speaks of ruling, she indicates that overturning Roe v Wade is unlikely. That’s good if she cannot, but I say it without self righteousness. I can understand those who think abortion is barbaric and would never do it themselves. But then, that is what choice in the event is about.

Speaking of choice, as WN, we might hope that White girls be offered counseling, including the option of pre-natal care and adoption by a sponsoring adoptive couple.

And beyond the personal lives of those involved, it is a problem for White men if the consequence of pregnancy and the value of their seed can be terminated so easily; i.e., it certainly contributes to the slutdom and the general lack of caution in partner selection of contemporary girls, increased selection against beta males: while the old adage, beta males make families, alpha males make bastards.

Nevertheless, I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty: You can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

Again, if you think abortion is unconscionable then don’t have one. If you want to promote communities which heavily promote monogamy and group fidelity, practices which decrease unwanted pregnancy, counselling programs which offer the option of childcare assistance and adoption in the more rare event by implication, that’s well and good. On the other hand, if I had a daughter and she were impregnated by rape? Are you going to try to tell me that she can’t have an abortion you evil dirt bag?

Incest pregnancies and those which are known prenatally to have birth defects would be other easier cases for the pro choice side.

Finally, from a WN standpoint, with brown and black populations exploding, the ideal of “pro-life” puts White lives on the chopping block and not even all that indirectly.

Therefore, in this regard it is good that Barrett doesn’t seem as if she will be able to overturn Roe v Wade. It is good that Trump as opposed to Biden-Harris has the choice of the Supreme Court Candidate for reasons more broadly across the board, environmental issues being a marked negative against Trump’s picks. But for WN interests, the issue of Supreme Court Nominees has always been the strongest argument on behalf of Trump. And as WN we are not looking toward the continuation of the American project for decades anyway; we are looking to buy us a few more years for preparation.

As it is also true that WN is not prepared for the complete meltdown just yet and the kind of Supreme Court Justices that Biden-Harris would put in there, well, what happens when you think things couldn’t get any worse for Whites?

The problem is, while the Democrats and their politics on behalf of their voter base always do increase the YIN vertigo, the injustice for Whites and sadistic race-mix blender action, the Republicans (at least since I’ve been alive) always step in there for the YANG normalization of the resultant mix; “this is what real men, real Americans, real conservatives are about.” Trump is very much like that…

Amy Coney Barrett is very much of that ilk - conserving liberalism, from her Christian universal values which have her adopting two Haitians (!) when she already has five kids of her own; to her faithfulness to color blind American Constitutionalism. The best that she and the Republicans have to offer is a slower boil that will allow WN more time to organize, which we need. At worst, you know what they say about the slow boil and the frog.

The DNA Nations concept is the best option at this point for those who care about Whites and their means of extrication from this cataclysm to our EGI, as the border, demographic, power and rule structure of America has destiny already pretty much baked in the cake of its standard politics.

White House memo calls for ban on federal agencies conducting training on “critical race theory,” “white privilege” with taxpayer dollars.

CBS News 4 Sept 2020:

President Trump is ordering federal agencies to stop funding training on topics including “critical race theory” and “white privilege” with taxpayer dollars, according to a memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought that was released on Friday.

“It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” Vought wrote in a letter to the heads of executive departments and agencies.

Citing press reports that agencies have conducted training where employees are told that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” or that racism is “embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity,” Vought said trainings of that nature “run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our nation has stood since its inception.”

In the letter, Vought told the agency heads to identify contracts or other spending related to training on “critical race theory,” “white privilege,” “or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.”

He further instructed the leaders to find ways to cancel the contracts and move federal dollars away from “these un-American propaganda training sessions.”

And new to the portfolio of Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, is the introduction of a controversial bill to downgrade certain statutory rape cases not involving heterosexual sex–or vaginal penetration–if the act was deemed consensual. The new legislation would allow a judge to decide whether a potential sex offender who committed statutory rape against a minor who is less than 10 years younger than them must register as a sex offender. Democrat Assemblyman Lorena Gonzalez initially blocked the proposal, saying, “No sex between a 24 and 14 year old is consensual.”

In addition to the controversial bill proposed by Sen. Wiener and his involvement behind downgrading HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor; last year, the California Senator strived to allow illegal immigrants to run for Democratic Party seats.

Wikipedia: Wiener was born to a Jewish family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania… In 2017, Wiener originated three bills centered around HIV and LGBT issues. He co-authored Senate Bill 239, which lowered the penalty of exposing someone to HIV without their knowledge and consent from a felony to a misdemeanor. Wiener said that the laws had unfairly singled out HIV-positive people. The bill passed and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 6, 2017

California Senator’s Legislation Will Exempt Some LGBT Pedophiles From Registering as Sex Offenders

The same senator downgraded intentionally infecting someone with HIV to a misdemeanor.

National File, 2 Sept 2020:

The California Senator who was behind the move to downgrade of the intentional transmission of HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor now is now spearheading new legislation that would allow a judge to decide whether a potential sex offender who committed statutory rape against a minor who is less than 10 years younger than them must register as a sex offender.

The controversial bill introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, served to downgrade certain statutory rape cases not involving heterosexual sex–or vaginal penetration–if the act was deemed consensual. This law would allow judges to use their own discretion when determining whether, for example, a 24-year-old who statutorily raped a 15-year-old, must register as a sex offender.

“Last night the CA State Legislature passed #SB145 and it now goes to Gov. Newsom. It would lower the penalties for adults who have sex [with] willing same-sex minors. Judge could decide if adult has to register as sex offender if the offender is within 10 years of age of victim,” wrote California journalist Bill Melugin on Twitter.

Bill Melugin@BillFOXLA

Last night the CA State Legislature passed #SB145 and it now goes to Gov. Newsom. It would lower the penalties for adults who have sex w/ willing same-sex minors. Judge could decide if adult has to register as sex offender if the offender is within 10 years of age of victim.

10:37 PM · Sep 1, 2020

Via the San Francisco Examiner:

Currently, while consensual sex between 15- to 17-year-olds and a partner within 10 years of age is illegal, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require an offender to register as a sex offender. Other forms of intercourse such as oral and anal intercourse require sex offender registration.

That practice, according to Wiener, disproportionately targets young LGBT people, who usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.

Senate Bill 145 would put an end to “blatant discrimination against young LGBT people engaged in consensual activity,” Wiener said in a statement.

READ MORE...

Fox News Youtube.com 28 August 2020

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul opens up about being surrounded by protesters after leaving White House.

mancinblack:

The truth hurts, hopefully

Barrister Richard Booth QC tweeted “This is utterly disgraceful from the Home Office, painting lawyers as villains. A slippery and dangerous slope”.

It would be a “slippery and dangerous slope” for subversive, money grubbing “activist lawyers” if the government did the right thing and didn’t just talk around the problem.

MSN.com 27 Aug 2020

The Home Office has been accused of “painting lawyers as villains” amid a row over migrant crossings.

More migrants have arrived in Dover on Thursday morning as Britain shakes off the high winds of Storm Francis.

The new arrivals – brought in on Border Force speedboats – were taken ashore in the Kent port.

It comes as the Home Office faces criticism over its renewed attack on “activist lawyers” which it says are hindering their efforts to deport migrants.

A video posted to its Twitter account on Wednesday evening showed a moving graphic of deportation planes leaving the UK.

The clip has been branded “scandalous” and “utterly disgraceful” by senior law figures, and many on social media likened it to something from the TV show Dad’s Army.

More than 5,000 migrants have crossed to the UK in small boats so far in 2020, analysis by the PA news agency shows.

Home Office@ukhomeoffice

Small boat crossings are totally unnecessary and we continue to return migrants with no right to be in the UK.

Another flight left today with more planned in the coming weeks.

7:30 PM · Aug 26, 2020
7.2K people are Tweeting about this

The Law Society condemned the video, and president Simon Davis said: “Attacks on the integrity of the legal profession undermine the rule of law.

“To describe lawyers who are upholding the law as ‘activist lawyers’ is misleading and dangerous.

“We should be proud that we live in a country where legal rights cannot be overridden without due process, and we should be proud that we have legal professionals who serve the rule of law.”

READ MORE...