racism

George Galloway – the man who praised Saddam Hussein at a time when the Iraqi dictator was known to be murdering his fellow Iraqis – has always denied being either an antisemite or a racist and has on a number of occasions threatened to sue people for calling him either. Yet he has recently (and not so recently) shown his true colours by making statements that attack people not for what they have done or  even what they have said, but rather for what they born.

The first occasion was when he walked out of a debate with an Israeli, at Christ Church College, Oxford, claiming falsely that he had been “misled.” Galloway had already spoken in the debate, but when his eloquent opponent, Eylon Aslan-Levy, started his response with the words “We wanted peace, we got war. We mustn’t make the same mistake again,” the ill-mannered Galloway interrupted him by asking rudely “are you an Israeli?” Now of course, if Galloway had genuinely thought the question to be relevant, he could have asked it before, at the time when the debate was being arranged. He chose not to do so.

Whether he merely assumed that the person speaking for Israel would not be an Israeli or simply didn’t think about it at all, I cannot say. But as soon as the opposing speaker used the word “we”, the rather excitable Galloway became agitated and interrupted to ask his obnoxious question –  a question that no right-thinking person would have thought relevant. The opposing speaker innocently and honestly replied: “I am. yes.” At this point, Galloway got up and said: “I don’t debate with Israelis. I’ve been misled.”

Now first of all, it was Galloway who misled the organizers of the debate, by not stating his terms and conditions up front. Secondly, Galloway then walked out, refusing to participate in the debate any further. And this was of course, rather conveniently, after he had made sure to have his own say before the ostentatious walk-out. In other words, he knew that he was out of his depth and was beating a hasty and cowardly retreat.

But what is interesting is that at no stage did Galloway ask his opponent if he was an Israeli by birth or by naturalization. That means that Galloway was equally unwilling to debate with Israelis whether they be born Israelis or became Israelis by choice. Now  of course, even if they became an Israeli by choice it would be silly to refuse to debate with them, because a debate – by definition – involves arguing one’s case against an opponent. And Galloway knew that he was there for a debate, so  he knew that he would be facing a man of differing opinion.

The fact that Galloway agreed to the debate at all, meant that he was ready to face off with a person who held a different view to his own. But the fact that he walked out only when he discovered that his opponent was Israeli, without so much as inquiring if that citizenship was acquired by birth or by choice, means that Galloway was showing prejudice against a fellow human being because of a fact of that other person’s birth. (It does not in fact matter whether Eylon Aslan-Levy was born an Israeli or became one. The fact that Galloway didn’t ask, is sufficient grounds to characterize Galloway as a racist).

But could this have been a one-off? Well not if Galloway’s most recent outburst is anything to go by. In a recent speech he said with customary arrogance and malice: “We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone. We don’t want any Israeli goods. We don’t want any Israeli services. ” Now if he had left it at that, – referring to “Israeli” rather than “Israelis” and “goods” and “services” rather than people – he might just have got away with it. But Galloway – ever the bully – went on to say: “We don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the University or the college. We don’t even want any Israeli tourists.” By referring to people who possessed Israeli citizenship – again without specific reference to whether their citizenship was by birth or by  choice (as adults) – he was showing prejudice towards people because of what they were born. And this is classic racism. He didn’t even specify that he meant Israeli residents. From his phraseology, he could even have been including Israeli citizens who were not resident in Israel.

And for these reasons it is clear that George Galloway is a racist.

 

Once again another criminally-friendly British judge has demonstrated her readiness to pervert justice in order to spare a vicious thug the prison sentence that any honest judge would know that she deserved, because she felt sorry for the thug’s children. She also let off the slag’s “partner” and cousin – who were also guilty – despite the fact that there were no legitimate grounds for her to do so.

The slag in question is 26-year-old Amanda Lowe.

The incident, that occurred at 8:15 pm on May 21st of this year, began when the slag Amanda Lowe shouted verbal abuse at Khuram Nisar calling him a “fucking Paki” and “terrorist” when he was minding his own business in Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester’s city centre. Mr Nisar responded by telling 26-year-old Wesley Earls (i.e. the partner of the slag) to control the rude aggressive woman.

At that point, Earls and Lowe (who have had a baby together but haven’t bothered to get married) viciously assaulted Khuram Nisar, assisted by Lowe’s cousin Daniel Wray (a twenty one year old little boy who feels safe pretending to be a man when he has the backing of another man and a woman! ) Earls punched Mr Nisar to the ground while Wray punched him in the head. Rowe kicked him viciously in the head, leaving the innocent man with cuts and bruises both to his body and his head.

The slag Lowe (who was pregnant at the time) even showed her total lack of responsibility for her children, aged eight and four months, by leaving them unattended in order to participate in the attack. This also showed her brazen disregard for the safety and health of her unborn child.

After the attack, the slag was so excited by her racist crime that she re-enacted the vicious kick for passes-by while wheeling along the four month old that she had previously left unattended while participating in the vicious assault. All three of the scum were arrested 20 minutes in Oldham Street nearby.

At the trial – faced with overwhelming CCTV evidence – Lowe pled guilty to Racially Aggravated Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, whilst Earls, and Wray pled guilty to plain Actual Bodily Harm. Needless to say, they all had form – and plenty of it. Between them the three scum bags had 21 previous convictions – that is, actual offences for which they have been convicted. (NB It is unusual for habitual criminals to be caught and convicted of all the offences that they commit.)

In the case of Amanda Lowe, this is her fourth conviction in six years. She has convictions for assault and disorderly behaviour going to when she was 17.  And it should come as no surprise that she committed such a vicious crime given that she has failed to comply with previous community orders. This in itself should have been enough for the slag to get a custodial sentence.

But what did judge – Lindsey Kushner QC – do?

Well before I answer that, let’s look at what did she said?

First she said that “It is fantastic to have this CCTV footage. It is good to see the events as they happened because they are horrifying when you see them.” So there was no doubt about what they did and what the judge knew.

Then she said to Lowe, “Your record is terrible for violence given that you are 26 years of age. The damage you are doing to your children – there at the time and seeing you drunk, the risk you put them at – is disgraceful.”

So much for the effect on the dirty little slag’s own children. But what about the effect on the victim of the violence. The ever-so -perspicacious judge noted that “People have been killed and maimed through being kicked in the head.”

So did she sentence the slag to a custodial sentence?

Er… no. Instead she gave Lowe a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to attend a programme for women offenders. She explained that she was not sending Lowe to prison because of the effect this would have on her children. In other words Lowe was getting a get-out-of-jail-free card because she had children – even though she was (and is) endangering her children and is clearly unfit to be a mother.

However the judge’s lenience also extended to the two men who were also given 12-month suspended sentences together with a community order each.

But the fearsome judge warned the three scum-bags that this was their last chance and if they re-offended they would go to prison.

To prison?

I doubt it. Especially if they come before another judge like Lindsey Kushner QC.

To read more and to see CCTV footage of the attack click here.

 

 

The prices of the Kindle editions of Mercy and No Way Out have been reduced to £0.99 – making them some of the most attractive bargains for summer reading. You can get to them by clicking on the links above. But they will only be held at this price for one month. In September they will go up to £1.99 – still a bargain, but why wait?

Just a brief recap on what they are about. Mercy introduces the lawyer Alex Sedaka, and his faithful sidekick Juanita, in a race against time to save a client on Death Row who is due to be executed in fifteen hours time! No Way Out has Alex pulling all the stops to defend a black man on a rape charge in a racially sensitive case in which nothing is quite as it seems.

 


 

Naomi Campbell has taken offence at an advertisement for a chocolate bar (called Bliss) featuring the words “”Move over Naomi – there is a new diva in town.” She has apparently decided the following:

  1. She really is the only Diva in (any) town, therefore the reference is to her and not any other Naomi
  2. That she is therefore being compared to a chocolate bar, and therefore
  3. That the ad is racist.

Now Ms Campbell had a similar problem in 2002 when she objected to being described as a “chocolate soldier” (i.e. some one who collapses under pressure).  This may in fact have been an inaccurate characterization of Ms Campbell.  A number of  cases have shown that she is more likely to lash out under pressure than collapse.  However, the inaccurate nature of the characterization, hardly made it racist.

Now, there are signs that Cadbury has sailed close to the wind on the use of racial stereotypes, if one looks at their past record of advertisements. Although in fairness to them, their usage has been humorous, to the point of parody.  But in any case, it is hard to feel any sympathy for Ms Campbell.  For she acts like a Prima Donna.  But she doesn’t have a monopoly on such behaviour and her actions hardly make her a role model – any more than Cheryl Cole’s violent episode in a nightclub made her a role model.  (She was Cheryl Tweedy in those days – and her antics were heralded by the brilliant tabloid headline “Girl’s a Lout.”)

It’s a thin line between “Diva and “Ladette” Naomi – even if one is from St Reatham.