Islam versus Europe

Yesterday, two men were found guilty of murdering the negro Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Those outside of Britain probably have little idea of how politically consequential this case has been. It has been turned into a veritable political cult, used to drive the "Diversity Macht Frei" agenda and push the British peoples' dispossession of their own homeland.

Lawrence was not the first young black man to have been murdered by racists, nor was he the first black murder victim to have been failed by a seriously botched police investigation. But he was the first black murder victim whose tragic demise was cynically milked by the cultural elite and used as the lynchpin of a moral crusade against Old Britain and its foul, backward inhabitants. In a triple whammy of murder-milking, Lawrence’s death was used by the elites to demonise the white working classes as the new ‘brutes within’; to redefine racism as a disease of the brain rather than as a relation of power; and to dismantle long-standing legal principles that were once seen as central to the justice system.

Source

One of the first things Labour did when it came to power in 1997 was commission an inquiry into the incident. This resulted in the MacPherson report which raised racism to the level of heresy and led to an inquisitorial thought-crime apparatus being installed throughout British society. MacPherson offered the absurd definition of a racist incident as:

The definition of a "racist incident" will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".

This definition has now been adopted by the EU.

MacPherson also came up with the ethereal concept of "institutional racism". No one has ever produced a clear definition of what institutional racism is but it seems to be some kind of mystical racism that an organisation may be guilty of even if none of its members think racist thoughts or perform racist actions.

In the wake of the MacPherson report, all major British institutions sought to purge themselves of "institutional racism" in advance of anyone actually accusing them of it. In fact, most creepily of all, MacPherson claimed that the clearest sign that an organisation was guilty of "institutional racism" was its refusal to admit that it was! This resulted in a ridiculous but sinister wave of pre-emptive confessions from major British organisations.

The trial itself was a travesty of justice. A previous trial had already resulted in acquittals. So to even stage this second trial, the ancient "Double Jeopardy" rule that prevents the same person being tried twice for the same offence had to be set aside. Normal principles don't apply in cases of heresy!

The political cult built up around this case made a fair trial impossible. It resembles the bizarre cult the Nazis built up around Horst Wiesel.

I don't doubt that the people convicted were fairly dodgy characters, undoubtedly involved in various kinds of crime. They may even have been involved in the murder. But I don't see how anyone could conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt.

The new trial was based on a spot of blood found on an item of clothing. It was clear that the items of evidence had not been stored properly in police custody, creating a risk that the clothing had been contaminated by contact with other objects smeared with the victim's blood.

An astonishing £50 million was spent on the police investigation during which they:

Bought a house next to the suspects and had an undercover police officer move in there in an attempt to befriend them and coax an admission of guilt from them

Bugged conversations between the five prime suspects while they prepared for a prime-time television interview with celebrity broadcaster Martin Bashir

Recorded their conversations as they played golf during a holiday in Scotland that followed the interview. Their comments were relayed by satellite from tiny microphones hidden in their golf trolleys

With the permission of the Home Secretary, bugged thousands of their telephone conversations. Separately, a top Yard officer authorised bugging operations on their homes, cars and workplaces. Even their pubs and snooker halls were bugged

During the bugging, the suspects actually talked about the Lawrence murder in terms that made it clear they were not responsible for it.

During an apparent discussion about the Lawrence case, Neil Acourt says: "I fancy they've had a crack deal me self [sic]."

Norris replies: "Yeah came down to get a bit of toot or something or had a bit of crack, it's all gone wrong, the c---'s" got knackered up and all of a sudden four innocent people are getting done for it."

Norris adds: "Every time it comes on the news the real people are sitting laughing their nuts off."

Luke Knight adds: "Thinking they've got away f------ scott free."

"Yeah," Acourt adds. "They're definitely doing that."

Source

The police dismissed this, insisting that they must have suspected they were being bugged.

Even after conviction, one of the men convicted protested his innocence to the jury.

“You have condemned an innocent man here today. I hope you can all live with it.”

His father also shouted "Shame on you" at the jury. This raw emotion suggests to me that he genuinely was not guilty of the crime.

Even if the spot of blood is accepted as having been uncontaminated by the evidence process, how is it possible to conclude that it had splashed on to the clothes of the murderer rather than someone who just happened to have been present at the scene? Obviously, it's not. But that doesn't matter. As the judge's verdict made clear, they were being convicted as much for their heretical attitudes as their actions.

"You were both members of that gang. I have no doubt at all that you fully subscribed to its views and attitudes."

The jury were shown surveillance videos on which the suspects made racist comments that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

And what is the claim that this was a racist murder based on? Lawrence's friend, Duwayne Brooks, claimed he heard them say "What, what nigger" while they were running over to where he and Lawrence were standing. Duwayne Brooks is a proven liar. His testimony has been contradicted by other witnesses at the scene in other respects. Even the prosecutor admitted this in the trial that has just concluded!

Parts of a dramatic account of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence given by his best friend should be treated with “great caution” because it conflicts with other eyewitnesses, a court was told yesterday.

Duwayne Brooks told the Old Bailey last month that he was chased by a man armed with an iron bar after a gang of white youths shouted racist abuse while he waited for a bus with Stephen in Eltham, south east London, in April 1993.

Giving evidence for the prosecution he described how he saw Stephen, 18, surrounded by the gang and went back to help his friend, who had been stabbed twice.

But other eyewitnesses described how he had fled and that Stephen had run after him before collapsing.

Mark Ellison, QC, for the prosecution, told the jury yesterday: “His description of events simply do not fit that of all of the other eyewitness.

“It is evidence you should treat with great caution. We don’t rely on what he has to say about these events once he turned and ran. But what he said he saw before turned and ran away is another thing.”

Source: The Times (£)

Indeed, during the previous trial, Brooks failed to identify the suspects he claimed he had seen. He has also been in a fair bit of bother with the police himself. In the course of his life he has been charged with or suspected of numerous offences including attempted rape, carrying weapons, theft and even terrorism. Most of these charges have eventually been dropped, although he does have previous convictions. Brooks' explanation of all this is that he has been persecuted by the police. Maybe. Another interpretation is that he is a habitual criminal who has been repeatedly let off by the powers that be in order not to tarnish the politically useful Stephen Lawrence cult.

On the question of whether this was a racist killing, it is relevant that the same people accused of the Lawrence killing had also (both formally and informally) been suspected of involvement in various other stabbing incidents where there was no suspicion of a racial motive.

So this whole "race-crime" cult is built on a wafer-thin foundation of evidence.

One of the ironies of this case is that it was his mother, who has been the one driving the public agenda related to the murder, who was principally responsible for his death. Apparently, she was in the habit of imposing a curfew on her son. If he wasn't home by a certain time, he would be locked out of the house all night. That's why Lawrence and Brooks took a shortcut through a dangerous area. If there had been no curfew, he could have taken a longer and safer route home. The woman effectively killed her own son. Perhaps that's why she felt it necessary to create a political cult in his memory, with a little help from Nelson Mandela.

Former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw boasted today about how the cult had been used to transform Britain:

Mr Straw, who ordered the Macpherson Inquiry into the case in 1997, said progress had been made in the years since the murder.

But he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We have still got a lot further to go because if you are black or Asian and you are young, your sense of how you are treated is very different and more adverse and is very different from anybody else.

"I think we've probably got most of the legislation we need in place. It's about ensuring people are less tolerant of racism, whether it's explicit – of which I think there is much less these days – or just implicit, lazy, uncaring, intruding remarks made in the heat of the moment, on the football field and so on.

"I think everybody accepts that the terrible murder of Stephen Lawrence and, yes, the inquiry I established, have produced a sea change in British society."

Trevor Phillips, the Grand Inquisitor himself, also couldn't resist a gloat about how complete the defeat of the British indigenes has been in the wake of the Lawrence case. He boasts of destroying them "in the most permanent way of all".

And the best news of all is that we are steadily transforming what it means to be British in the most natural and permanent way of all. As many families gathered for their Christmas dinner, the faces around the table would no longer have been the uniformly cheery pink-and-white of Dickens’s Yuletide.

Nearly one in 10 children are growing up in households where at least one parent is of a different race to themselves. Millions of us have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cousins, uncles and aunts who bring a new flavour to our table. In at least one household I know, the traditional goose, turkey, bread and cranberry sauces shared the space with Guyanese garlic pork and black cake.

The British people recognise that this trial has been more about politics than justice. It's notable that the Daily Mail, which claims to have played a significant part in events by openly accusing the suspects of murder at an early stage, was massively censoring comments on the story and then shut them down altogether.

All in all, this was one of the biggest politicised travesties of justice since Joe Stalin walked the earth.

Finally, compare the different media and political response when British indigenes are murdered by alien colonists. See just a few of the many examples here, here and here.

PS: This from a Daily Telegraph comment:

I have just discussed the case with my son's 19 year old black friend.

I remain stunned to have heard the following:

"I am gutted. We was hoping that they would get off so riots could happen and I could get myself some new gear".