Tuesday, 13 June 2006

Some people are more equal than others

THEY have been putting the immigrant first in the land that the British made for a long time now.

That’s why the race laws were devised. To keep us subdued as our country was being overrun by aliens. You do know what George Orwell said in Animal Farm, don’t you?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Orwell is commenting on the hypocrisy of a government that proclaims equality whilst, in fact, according power and privilege to a corrupt elite.

Let's have a look at just how p***-takingly Orwellian those who create our laws have been in recent times. On 12 April 1994, the Criminal Justice And Public Order Bill was debated in parliament.

During the debate, Gerald Kaufman, MP for Manchester, Gorton, said this:

It is such a good new clause, that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people… BECAUSE YOU COMMITTED THAT CRIME, WHICH HAD A RACIAL CONCOMITANT, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE, to teach you and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that… THEY SHALL HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION’…


Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that PARLIAMENT HAS A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THEM."
In other words, folks, as Orwell might have said, if he'd been a creep like Kaufman:
"People are equal, but some people, especially ethnic minorities, are more equal than others."
Barbara Roche, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green at the time of the above debate, said this:
"Our new clause says… that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, ‘YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME… BECAUSE YOU COMMITTED THAT CRIME, WHICH HAD A RACIAL CONCOMITANT, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE."
Sir Ivan Lawrence, MP for Burton, had this to say in the same debate:
"Most of us believe that we may be able to deter racist attacks by the threat of greater punishment… We believe that… an assault motivated by racism is more socially divisive and corrosive of the very fabric of our tolerant society and, for that reason, is itself more serious.

The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee believe that the matter is so… that the present state of the law is simply not enough. We therefore suggest that new clause 127 should create five new offences of racially motivated assault… the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure…

Is there a need for a new offence of racial harassment to deal with the drip, drip, drip effect of constant harassment? THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS, THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY, THE ANTI-RACIST ALLIANCE AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS ALL SAY YES.

There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, PARTICULARLY FROM THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS."
Many of those who would later slither to the top of New Labour's parliamentary pole voted for this bill.

These include: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Alstair Darling, Chris Smith, Nick Brown, Ian McCartney, Frank Dobson, Margaret Beckett, Ron Davies, Paul Boateng, Estelle Morris, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Gavin Strang, Ann Taylor, Paul Murphy, Andrew Smith, Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

All of the above would subsequently rise to Cabinet rank in Tony Blair's government with the exception of Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he decided to give the job of Europe Minister to Vaz. Which is interesting. You see, Vaz is an African Asian. Not exactly the kind of man most of us would have chosen to represent the will of the vast majority of those whose ancestors are buried in Europe, wouldn't you say?

Tony Blair would make Barbara Roche Immigration Minister. In this position, she was the first to tell us that we NEEDED another 150,000 LEGAL immigrants entering the country every year in order to help us out. It's pretty easy to see why Roche would have little sympathy for those who wanted to keep Britain British. Her grandparents were a fascinating mixture of Polish, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese. And all of them were Jewish.

Just like the New Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman. And the Tory MP, Ivan Lawrence.

And the New Labour MP, David Sumberg, who said this in the aforementioned debate:

"The Government have tabled new clause 125, which I warmly welcome. It will make the publication of racist literature an arrestable offence…We must tackle the evil…
It is unacceptable for there to be a rise in membership of the hard right in Britain… a society that has welcomed immigrants to its shores for many years."

Keith Vaz said this:
"We live in a multicultural society…
We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that we are not prepared to do nothing. Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens."
The MP, Diane Abbott, said this during the debate:
"Racism is a phenomenon, a social and political manifestation, that our society will not tolerate. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically, a threat to the stability of society that no amount of individual attacks on elderly, poor or disabled people could ever represent."
If anyone out there thought that such Brit-bashing Orwellian activity was a new phenomenon, as you can see, the Jew, the Black and the African Asian were at it in earnest 18 years ago.

On 29 July 2008, The Daily Mail reported thus:
"In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer… should be offered new partial defences of provocation. They include those 'SERIOUSLY WRONGED' BY AN INSULT. Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours… Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction. (As Habib Khan did.)

Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused Ministers of introducing 'gang law' into the legal system saying: 'To take someone's life because they say something that offends you is the law of gang culture. Are we really going to introduce into our criminal justice system that it is a defence to say ‘I was insulted'?... By creating all these special categories, THE GOVERNMENT ARE MAKING SOME PEOPLE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS before the law. It seems SOME LIVES ARE WORTH MORE THAN OTHERS’...

Lyn Costello of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression described the changes as 'utter madness'. She warned… 'You will have some VERY CLEVER LAWYERS WHO WILL TWIST THIS AROUND TO SUIT THEIR CLIENTS.'

Officials, however, denied they were creating any loopholes... Justice Minister Maria Eagle gave an example of where the new defence could apply as a 'serious neighbour dispute' in which the provocation of one person had reached a 'very high level'. 
She also cited A PERSON WHO HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO REPEATED RACIST ABUSE. (Habib Khan?) Her officials stressed later that any neighbour dispute would have to go 'QUITE BEYOND what an ordinary person should be expected to deal with'."
Quite beyond? Not a long way beyond? Just a bit beyond? And you get away with murder? Yeah, well. That’s what happened when Habib Khan went indoors to get a knife and, subsequently, stabbed Keith Brown in the back with it. The 'very clever lawyers' played the race card, saying Khan had been subjected to 'repeated racist abuse.' (Keith’s family said it was the other way around - Khan’s behaviour had been reported to the police on several occasions)

This law has the fingerprints of the Keith Brown murder all over it. THEY do not want their immigrant pets being done for murder when it’s only a BNP man who got seen to.

I don’t really see why THEY need a new law. THEY managed to find Khan guilty of manslaughter only and he is as obvious a premeditated murderer as it’s possible to be. Perhaps they just want it to seem less embarrassing. Less of an anti-British fit-up.

Anyway, folks, it going to be official very shortly. If an immigrant stands up in a court of law and declares that he was 'seriously wronged by an insult,' he may very well get away with murder. Come to think of it, why on earth would a man capable of murder not instruct his lawyers to use this defence, whether it be true or not?

Do stop voting for your own destruction, folks. The people you keep on putting in parliament need stringing up not voting for. In the olden days, if you betrayed the British people, you were found guilty of treason and executed. Nowadays, we are routinely presented with such creatures at election time. As often as not, if there isn’t some first or second-generation immigrant standing against them, this treacherous type will be all there is on offer.

If you want your country back do you think you’re going to get it by electing for those who 'are making some people more equal than others' and insisting that 'some lives are worth more than others?' Do you believe such Brit-loathing Orwellians are going to do the right thing by you? Ever?

Stop Press:

On 26 July 2008, The Sunderland Echo reported thus:
"A graduate has been spared jail for stabbing a man in response to racial taunts. Amar Burton, 27, lashed out after a group of stag night revellers hurled racial abuse at him and his pal in Newcastle city centre.

Newcastle Crown Court heard how Burton, who claims he had never been the victim of racist behaviour before, became ‘incensed’ by their treatment and stabbed and slashed Christopher Linden… Prosecutor Alec Burns told the court… ‘He was clearly incensed by what had happened and the racist abuse they had received. He went back to confront them… Christopher Linden began scuffling with the defendant. The defendant produced a knife he had with him and stabbed Christopher Linden a number of times and slashed him across the chin’…

Defence barrister Carl Gumsley said… ‘This is the first time he has received racist abuse. He was upset by the racist abuse’…

Recorder Neil Davey sentenced Burton to nine months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months… He told him: 'Normally, as you know, the court would be looking at an immediate custodial sentence for offences of this type. But this is a highly unusual case and I can take a different course. Your record is exemplary."
Ah, the exemplary immigrant stabber thing. Let’s not jail him, eh? Especially when he goes back to his car to get a knife and then stabs and slashes a white bloke 'a number of times.' That really is no big deal. especially when the Amar Burtons are more equal than the Christopher Lindens.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, as I said earlier, 'I don’t really see why THEY need a new law' seeing as how they’re already able to find murderers not guilty of murder and attempted murderers undeserving of anything more than a suspended sentence.

I wonder how long it will be before the indigenous victim is imprisoned for upsetting the non-indigenous attacker? I wonder how long it will be before the Black is handsomely rewarded every time he attacks a White? If the British people keep voting for those who most despise them, it won't be long.

You can bet your neighbourhood on that.

No comments:

Post a Comment