Gerrymandering Justice

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” It’s not one of the most beautiful lines in Shakespeare, but it’s one of the best-loved. If you want a good reason for that, I can supply one in two words: Tony Blair. Like his money-grubbing, little-kiddies-with-cancer-exploiting wife, he’s a trained lawyer – and by God it shows. Still, at least Whites have to be trained to be as devious and dishonest as “Bliar” Blair: Jews, like Blair’s suspected former lover Peter “Prince of Darkness” Mandelson, are born that way. This explains why lawyers and Jews are both massively over-represented in Western governments. Under our present system, you have to be devious and dishonest to succeed in politics.

With Jews and lawyers running a country, massive corruption is sure to follow. One of the worst examples in the UK is what has happened to our laws. The old personification of justice used to be a blindfold goddess with a balance and a sword. She would weigh the evidence impartially and execute the sentence without fear or favor. Nowadays the personification of justice would have to be a gum-chewing slattern without a blindfold and with a megaphone instead of a sword. She weighs evidence on its propaganda value and then uses the megaphone to broadcast her judgment if it meets certain criteria – that is, if she can use it to attack the White majority.

A case in point: the recently ended trial of two Whites accused of murdering the black teenager Anthony Walker in Liverpool. Thanks to new laws brought in by Jews and Jew-loving lawyers in parliament, sentences for murder are increased if the murder is “racially motivated”, which meant that the combined sentence for the Whites went up from 27 years to 40 years. If they’d both been adults the combined sentence would have gone up to 60 years or more. This has nothing to do with justice: it’s part of the Jew-inspired propaganda campaign against Britain’s White majority. Some kinds of murder are worse than others, you see. If you kill someone because of his hair-style or his accent or his favorite sports team, that’s not so bad. If you kill someone because he belongs to a different race, that is very bad and you must be punished much more severely, because you’ve not only committed murder, you’ve committed a thought crime too.

And of course in practice “a different race” almost always means “a non-white race.” That’s certainly the intention of the new laws, as was proved by the Christopher Yates trial. It took place at the same time as the Anthony Walker trial but because Christopher Yates was White, the trial of his murderers, like the murder itself, received far, far less publicity. Despite the clear evidence that his murder was racially motivated, the judge – a trained lawyer, naturally – did not accept it and did not increase the sentences of the three Pakistanis who attacked him without provocation and kicked him to death. They were then overheard saying in Urdu: “We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman [or: a white man] to interfere in Paki business.”

Now, imagine if three Whites had kicked a Pakistani to death and been overheard saying: “We have killed a brown man. That will teach a Pakistani to interfere in white business.” Clearly, they would have been expressing a racist sentiment and claiming that brown Pakistanis, by virtue of their color, must be prevented from “interfering” in white business. And they would therefore have received a heavier sentence for what they thought as they carried out the murder. The judge in the Christopher Yates trial did not accept this argument and even claimed that other attacks by the Pakistani defendants proved the murder was not racist and that they were selecting targets “at random.” They’d attacked a black and an Indian waiter and racially abused a black as well, therefore – the judge said – their attack on Christopher Yates couldn’t have been motivated by racial hatred of Whites.

To see what’s wrong with that reasoning, imagine three blacks raping a White girl – I doubt you’ll have to try very hard – then robbing a shop run by Chinese and kicking a Pakistani to death. Would it be reasonable to claim that the rape of the woman hadn’t been sexually motivated, because the three blacks had also robbed a shop and murdered someone? Or to claim that the crimes were committed “at random” because they couldn’t all have had the same motive? No, it would be ridiculous, because different crimes can have different motives. Christopher Yates was clearly attacked and murdered for racial reasons, but even so I don’t believe that his killers should have received a heavier sentence because of this. We should be punished for what we do, not for what we think, and there is no legal justification for making some murders “special” in this way. If the longer sentences for “racist” murders are intended to deter “racists” from attacking members of other races, then why not increase the sentences for other kinds of murder, to deter other kinds of murderer?

The answer’s simple: because “racist” murders are being punished more severely not to deter them but as a form of propaganda directed at Whites. You can prove this by noting that the black victims of such murders do not always receive special attention. During the Lozells riot in Birmingham in October 2005, a gang of Pakistanis went hunting for blacks and murdered a completely innocent man called Isiah (sic) Young-Sam like this:

Officers from the West Midlands police said [that the] victim was innocently walking home with his younger brother, Zephaniah, and two friends, when three cars pulled up alongside them and launched into a furious attack. Detective Superintendent Dave Mirfield said: “The group was approached by three cars. Those cars contained, we believe, between 10 and 11 men. These men got out of the cars, armed with knives, and attacked Isiah and his friends.”

Yesterday it emerged that Mr Young-Sam, described as a gentle and deeply religious man who read the Bible each day, was oblivious to the febrile atmosphere that had developed in the Lozells area of Birmingham on Saturday. He and his brother had spent the late afternoon and early evening in the cinema. Afterwards they caught a bus from the city centre and were just a few hundred metres from home when they were set upon. Mr Young-Sam, an IT analyst at Birmingham city council, was taken to hospital but was dead on arrival. (The Guardian, 25th October 2005)

This murder was racially motivated and was at least as serious as the murder of Anthony Walker in Liverpool, but the ultra-liberal Guardian has given it much less attention. Here are the search results for the two names at The Guardian ’s website:

Isiah Young-Sam: 11 (+ 2 for “Isaiah Young-Sam”)

Anthony Walker + Liverpool: 126

At www.bbc.co.uk the search results go like this:

Isiah Young-Sam: 2 (two)

Anthony Walker + Liverpool: 255

Anthony Walker has been turned into a martyr not because of who he was but because of who murdered him. Isiah Young-Sam, another victim of our insane and deadly multi-racial experiment, was also black and also murdered by racists, but his murderers weren’t the right color and he is now joining White victims in oblivion. The constant message is that only Whites can be guilty of the uniquely wicked sin of “racism”, and the intention is to instill guilt in British Whites and destroy their resistance to the invasion and occupation of their homeland.

Identical or near-identical laws exist in other White nations and the same kinds of Jew and Jew-loving lawyer are behind them. The police and legal system are being politicized and used to control thought and crush dissent. If you thought communism – © Jew Karl Marx – collapsed at the end of the twentieth century, think again, because the same Jew-invented ideologies of “Innocent Oppressed vs Evil Oppressor” are now taking over all institutions in the West. In typical communist fashion, crime is rapidly becoming a matter not of deed but of thought:

POLICE WARN AUTHOR OVER GAY COMMENTS

An author and broadcaster condemned as “sinister” yesterday an inquiry conducted by police over comments she made about homosexuals on a live radio programme. Lynette Burrows, an author on children’s rights and a family campaigner, took part in a [radio] discussion about the new civil partnerships act. During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”

A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a “homophobic incident” had been reported against her. “I was astounded,” she said. “I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents. They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable.” Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme. A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were “priority crimes”. (The Daily Telegraph, 10th December 2005)

So there you have it: certain crimes have “priority” because of the heretical thoughts that accompany them. In the West, justice is now a whore turning tricks for her Jewish pimps as they make free White nations into totalitarian police states. The aim is that Whites should have no rights to anything but obedience to Jews and their traitorous white collaborators, like Tony Blair and all the other greedy, crooked and utterly selfish lawyers in governments across the Western world.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---