|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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.
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 (2) See Paul Gottfried. The Strange Death of Marxism. (3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/61
" This will come as a surprise to many of our friends based overseas but Great Britain is now one of the most repressive regimes in the world. We operate under the tyranny of political correctness which is just a floppy term for the repressive implementation of one single, dare we say, rather twisted, view of human society, which doesn't allow for dissent or opposition. The regime creates the framework within which they declare views are either acceptable and tolerated or unacceptable and repressed. It is a framework which defies common sense and is one which even declares that in a court of law, the truth shall be no defence. "
|
