If anything should arouse deep concern it is the politicisation of the British judiciary and its opposition to the interests of the British people.
Since the rise of the New Left in the 1960s judges routinely make political decisions, not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an 'ideological caste', united by central ideas like anti-white racism, bias for the EU and globalism. They have not transcended prejudice and discrimination, but changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The two main issues are the protection of terrorists and, disgustingly, the protection of child molesters, euphemistically known as 'paedophiles'. This was not always so â€“ it has developed in the last thirty or so years.
Lord Thomas Bingham expressed support for the cultural Marxist concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as "intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion."
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people, but there are more sinister forces at work here. Judges who take political stances against traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the British people.
In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, later a High Court judge, described all British people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1998 until 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing 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".
Another morally corrupt judge who helped turn the police into an institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, when he introduced Soviet-style techniques to repress white people in the recommendations of the Macpherson Report.
Recommendation 12. That the definition [of a racist incident] should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
Recommendation 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.
Investigate "non-crimes"! This totalitarian ploy 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 heavily multi-racial society can only work with totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 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 British people.
Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 38 requests the "power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented". 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 enabled "face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter" to be investigated for "anti-Soviet" thoughts. The recommendation 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."
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Mr Justice Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers â€“ he discriminates in their favour! In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in "Damning verdict on judge".
War on the Family
The judiciary also attack the family. Lady Hale, Britain's first female Law Lord, has publicly supported gay adoption, improved legal rights for cohabiting heterosexuals and no-fault divorce. These are ideological positions and show that there will be no impartiality on this front of the 'culture wars'.
In 1999, the Law Lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Leading family judge and promoter of sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family, saying that "family" need not mean either marriage or blood relationship.
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Human 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 twisted thinking means is that they were not born what they were born but what they say they were born.
The feminist/ socialist hate campaign against the traditional, heterosexual nuclear family has been ongoing since the 1960s. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media-led feminist movement wants and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironically, the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges support the pro-father sharia courts!
They support outside groups against people with property. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled that gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws 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 all supposed to obey. That was a court legally encouraging law-breaking. The ruling was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
Promoting Sharia Law
As part of the elite's Islamification programme, in November 2008 Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced.
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.
Also 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 that sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
Who is going to decide the meaning of 'severe'? It is against the law to smack a naughty child, so clearly there could not be any Muslim law involving physical punishment that would not come into conflict with current law.
Applying sharia principles to marriage arrangements would create two systems of divorce. Any Christian male who was divorcing would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally, a Muslim woman being divorced could choose a 'Western style' court (in expectation of fairer treatment). Who then would decide which court has superiority?
The appeasement of Islam inevitably leads to conflict with Western values. The two systems are diametrically opposed and cannot be run in parallel, as much as the cultural Marxists like to think they could.
Britain â€“ World Centre for Terrorists
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 promoting political union in Europe.
They acted ideologically and challenged national governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When New Labour, who shared the ideology, came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn Britain into a world centre for terrorists. The human rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so judges stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where they thought or pretended such treatment was practised.
They also began to 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.
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but prevailing political orthodoxy. 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 gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us, claiming they would be in danger if returned to their countries of origin.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. The moral corruption is exemplified by the case of the Taliban soldier who had fought against our troops and was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the London terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers â€“ proof that the judiciary have breached national security. Two of the failed bombers of 21 July are said to have obtained asylum under false passports, names and nationalities.
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred on the streets of Finsbury Park even though the Yemen had requested his extradition for terror offences. The judges refused to extradite him because of his 'human rights'. Britain has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists due to human rights legislation bias in their favour â€“ legislation that protects them and keeps them in comfort on the welfare benefits that we pay while they carry out recruitment of terrorists.
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 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 the judges thwarted it. He lived in North London and busied himself posting videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encouraging Muslims to join the jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the government's attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial â€“ which was introduced after 9/11 â€“ in the Belmarsh Judgment. Such detention is customary in war, but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman 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 not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
Lord Phillips's speech at the University of Hertfordshire in support of the Human Rights Act and against control orders showed sloppy, illogical thinking. Control orders were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled that 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!
Defending Child Molesters
The one issue that does show the British judiciary as corrupt, immoral and at war with the British people is their repeatedly taking sides with child molesters against the victims. There have been several sickening examples.
After child molester Stuart Hall had admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986, the youngest just nine years old, Judge Anthony Russell sentenced him to only 15 months prison, saying: "You have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It's A Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator."
After the announcement, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: "I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims."
On 2nd August 2012, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was appointed resident judge at Exeter. He is serially lenient with child molesters, handing out light sentences, bail, and overturning verdicts.
On 13th July 2011, six footballers imprisoned for raping 12-year-old girls were released after a ruling that their 2-year sentences were "excessive". The men had admitted charges of rape against two 12-year-old girls in a park late at night. Judge Gilbert ruled that prison was inappropriate as it was a 'difficult' case.
Only sixteen days later, Anthony Milsom, described by the trial judge as a "manipulative and predatory" sex offender, was jailed indefinitely for the public protection. Milsom admitted a series of offences dating back to the early 1990s including sixteen counts of possessing indecent images of children, twenty-one of making indecent images, and five charges of indecent assault on a little girl when she was aged between four and eight. Milsom had newspaper cuttings of murdered children Milly Dowler, Sophie Hook, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and of the disappeared Madeleine McCann. His sentence amounted to life but Appeal Court judges including Gilbert cut it to just three-and-a-half years.
The way to protect children is by imposing severe sentences that signal to sickos that this sort of crime is not worth trying. But rather than protect children the judiciary protect child rapists. We must campaign against the morally corrupt British judiciary if we are to restore law and order to this country.