Thursday, 13 August 2009

Ideological Judges - replacing our Culture with Islam.

By Mister Fox

The attack on our people and way of life by the British judiciary has two main planks: undermining us through the culture and promoting Muslim extremism. They undermine our way of life by using the law against our culture, traditions and mores.

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 hetrosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows that will be no impariality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes up as she has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and in any case will take sides

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 and is an “intrinsically counter-majoritarian....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 they are against us. It also shows that the majority is always wrong but the minorities never are.

Human rights is the main attack in the Culture Wars to destroy our country, and our children’s future led by ideological judges fighting the Culture War against us. They believe only in the state awarding group rights to ethnics and their only notion of duty is for the state towards ethnics.

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 a case Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family “family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship" which shows the judiciary are reforming families gor the utopia.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were 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 supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking.

It means that what is fought for by Christians and Conservatives is now outlawed.

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 her gender at birth was what 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 and that the defence was that the school only banned it to “ vilification of Muslims after 9/11 and though she was supported by Hizb ut-Tahir, a group campaigning for Sharia Law here, the Court took her side. This 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. 3 of the 5 Law Lords held that Begum's rights had not been interfered with (Lord Bingham, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Hoffmann), and 2 held that they had (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Baroness Hale of Richmond). All 5 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 Appeal Court had already hinted to Muslims that our way of life is open to Islamification.

She was represented in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords by Cherie Blair(Booth) QC.
Why the bias? Many Judges are campaigning for the introduction of Shari 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, 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.
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 (Muslim) has a legal system that uses savage penalties and 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.

This 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 embodying these beliefs 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 overt political activity against Mrs.Thatcher because she attacked the cosy Social Democracy and introducing vulgar greed with vulgar people from working-class backgrounds making “loads of money”.

Further, 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 it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged government in 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 which is granting rights to a group instead of individuals and from this we people became the objects of prejudice but because of our distorted version of our pasts in slavery, racism etc, we were seen as deserving it. This is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior I think its more like call it Cultural Nazism against us.

Our nation was our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy that had treated other races as less than us . But we were in our own country. The nation that protected individuals as part of a bigger community was replaced by interest groups defined by the group identities race, gender and orientation and religion other than Christianity.

The deculturation of indigenous people began to promote the views and beliefs of the minority groups. For example, Democracy became power sharing between the privileged groups instead of majority rule among citizens.

Christianity was replaced by multi-culturalism and we were managed by being made guilty for imaginary evils in our history and made to passively accept this by tolerance and non-judgemental and lifestyle choices. Our traditions like monogamy, hetrosexuality , Christianity and British identity became the taboos and demonised as prejudice and discrimination.

These human rights prohibit torture or degrading treatment so the removal of illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists to where that the judges thought it was practiced. But the British courts applied it more strictly than other European Courts.

British judges also began po interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” 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 then successfully battled with the government who share the ideology but have to take small measures to get voted in again, tried to end this.

The judges used this legislation on many occasions to grant rights people refused asylum who then escaped to ethnic communities. As they could not be sent back too 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 because if you send them back to a country that practices torture it is like practicing torture yourself is an excuse for destroying our communities. A Taliban soldier who had fought our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution. A intention is building up a force against us.

That the judges have breached our security was illustrated by Home Office figures in December 2005 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.

Courts kept terror suspects if the destination used torture. 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 does he hate 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.


(2) See Paul Gottfried. The Strange Death of Marxism.

He is a sponser of