Friday 30 November 2007

Finally the Law catches up with Reality.

One of the primary reasons I joined the BNP was after suffering racist abuse at university by a bunch of racist black Nigerians who did not like me talking to a blond female that one of them fancied.

It was at this point I realised that racism cuts both ways, and contrary to the liberal propaganda whites also suffer racist attacks.

I was put in the position where if I gave them a slap then all they needed to do was say I was the racist, and the politically correct staff would have taken their side.

This is why I welcome the news today that someone in Wales has been convicted of racism after calling an woman an 'English bitch'.

The English are registered as both an ethnic group and a racial group under the Race Relations case dicta.

Therefore we as English people can suffer racism on the following grounds ;

1) The English are a racial group in law

2) the English racial group is a racial nation.

3) The english racial nation may also be an ethnic group

4) the english should be an ethnic group for ethnic monitoring purposes

5) the english should be on all ethnic monitoring forms as an ethnic group not as an national identity group

6) only the english racial group have english nationality

7) english national identity is a political concept and not a legal concept and therefore has no validity in law

8) people who only racial group identity is white have the least rights under the Race Relations Act.

The fact is that whites suffer the most amount of racist attacks, are the least protected in law and also are the most under-educated group about their rights in law about the race relations acts.

The comments by the idiots on the Daily Mail comment section here ;

demonstrate that even those who despise Political Correctness are woefully ignorant about their rights in law.

It is this failure to educate us about our rights under the race relations acts that ensures we remain ignorant of our rights and responsibilities.

The Equality Commission has a duty in law under the Race Relations Acts 2000, 2001 and 2003 to educate the public about their responsibilities under the law and the race relations act.

The failure to educate the public and spend money on campaigns to highlight the issues of inter-racial racism between ethnic groups is a massive failure of the commission and the CRE in the past.

It is hardly fair that people who are ignorant of the law are convicted of crimes under the public order act.

The European Convention on Human Rights requires that individuals be aware of the law and their responsibilities under the law, and the failure of the CRE to previously do this can be used in any criminal appeal of the conviction.

The case of The Sunday Times V United Kingdom 26th April 1979, Application No.6538/74para 49 states ;

" A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct; he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice- to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given situation may entail ".

As the law on the position of the English under the Race Relations Acts has not been codified properly and also because the CRE has never undertaken any public campaigns ( in direct breach of their duty under the race relations act to promote good race relations ) to educate the British people about inter-racial racism, then this man should not have been convicted.

It is the failure of the CRE to educate the public that is leading to inter-racial racism amongst whites - and this has to be stopped by the Commission for Eqaulity beginiing a campaign to educate whites about their responsibilties under the act as regards each other - and not just banging on all the time about racism directed at ethnic minorities.

1 comment:

alanorei said...

Excellent set of posts, Lee, thanks

Re: your initial comment on this post.

Genesis 12:14b.

"The Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair."

A similar episode is described in Genesis 20.

In both passages, the males (Egyptians and Philistines) were Hamitic, i.e. dark-skinned. The woman, Sarah, Abraham's wife, was Shemitic, i.e. light-skinned.

Baptist pastor Dr Peter S. Ruckman says in his Commentary on Genesis, p 331, "The most natural thing in the world would be for an unsaved Pharaoh, from Ham, to desire to get his hands on a light-skinned Jewish woman."

You will see media pressure exerted repeatedly in this respect, with the 'pairing' e.g. on newscasts, of a Caucasian woman, e.g. Sophie Raworth, with a black or dark-skinned male, e.g. Darren Jordan.

It is another tactic in undermining this country's racial identity.

Historically, even into the 1950s, Britons knew the scriptures. That is why the traitors in parliament had to impose mass immigration - the electorate would never have submitted to it otherwise.