The Judges’ War on Britain
By David Morris — The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge Ian Trigger for his attack on Britain’s immigration system. What is Justice Trigger’s crime? He said that “hundreds and hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system.
Justice Trigger made the comment as he sentenced a drug dealer to jail. One might have thought that this perfectly sensible passing remark would be supported by any reasonable person, but to the rest of the judiciary who encourage the asylum swindle, remarks such as these are regarded as “inflammatory” and need to be suppressed.
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 and discrimination are transcended.
Their fantasy is inherently 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 legal means.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter-majoritarian . . . (this) should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”
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, was largely responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force which policed 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 an institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. His report contained overtly Soviet techniques to oppress white people:
“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” through 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 report 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.”
In other words, judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of ‘asylum seekers’, actively discriminating in their favour. He is so well-known in this regard that The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he “hate this country?”
The judiciary-led attack our society also deliberately sets out to undermine 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 cohabiting heterosexuals and the concept of removing fault from divorce law.
This is an ideological statement which revealed that there will be no impartiality in the cultural war against our society. Lady Hale announced before she had even heard a single case what her position on these traditional values was going to be.
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 law, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that homosexual couples should also adopt children.
Lord Slynn in turn has attacked the traditional family unit: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship,” he said.
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 judiciary also support the interests of outside groups over those who have worked to acquire fixed property. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Gypsy families in Chichester, encamped on land they acquired in contravention of planning laws, must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.”
This ruling put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law which everyone else is expected to obey. In effect, this was a court ruling which legitimised the breaking of the law. Although the ruling was later reversed, it was a significant indicator of the judiciaries’ bias.
As part of the elites’ Islamification programme, many judges campaign for the introduction of Sharia 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 as 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 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.
“The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different,” he said, almost as an afterthought.
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles which have subsumed national laws.
Even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU, it is seen as helping political union in Europe and encouraging the move to one-world government. It has acted ideologically and has challenged many national governments’ policies. The court has become a political force and the Labour Party has incorporated the EU’s Human Rights Convention into British law.
During the 1960s, Liberalism changed its focus from individual rights to that of group rights. This is actually cultural Marxism which has translated today into active discrimination against white heterosexual males.
Our nation was always our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy. The nation protected individuals as part of our bigger community but this has now been replaced by interest groups which are defined by group identities: race, gender, orientation, and religions other than Christianity. Our homogeneity has been replaced by multi-racialism.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn the once-pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. These people use Britain as a base from which to attack other countries.
Human Rights laws prohibit “degrading treatment or torture.” This has been interpreted to mean that illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, cannot be deported to their home countries where our judges decide (or pretend) that such practices exist. During 2008, at least two high-profile terrorists were released from detention under these circumstances.
British judges also interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (in other words, with prejudice against the indigenous population) than in other countries. They have changed 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 in Britain, it is clear that white Britons are threatened by this group.)
International law is not based in national habits, conventions or 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 have given “asylum” to countless people who are a clear danger — but who face “persecution” if they were to be returned to their countries of origin. It goes even further. An “asylum seeker” cannot even be deported to a third country where they might face the possibility of being sent back to their country of origin where they might be in danger.
The granting of asylum to Taliban soldiers in Britain on this basis reveals the true depth of this perversion of our legal system.
Home Office figures released in December 2005 showed that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted to Britain since the terrorist incidents of 21/7 were asylum seekers.
In reality, the judiciary has breached national security. Two of the failed 21/7 bombers obtained asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Some terrorists were even protected by the judiciary. Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995. Eight people were killed and 150 wounded in that attack. He was 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 this attempt was thwarted by the judges. He lived in North London and was allowed to post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the Government’s attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial (introduced after 9/11) in what is known as the Belmarsh Judgement. Such a move is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war.
Lord Hoffman even 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 in Brent is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. A boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. 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, promoted the Islamification of Britain and have now taken it upon themselves to even decide who is Jewish and who is not.
When the final history of traitors and the subversion of our nation is written up, the judiciary will feature prominently on the roll of shame.
