The white and the black of it
Jacqueline Woodhouse has been jailed for 21 weeks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18251807) after she admitted racially aggravated intentional harassment on a train in January (23/1/2012). Her crime? Well, let Ms Woodhouse speak for herself about the iniquities of mass immigration – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZK5ooA1uiI. She summed up her case succinctly with “I used to live in England. Now I live in the United Nations”.
Her diatribe appears to have been provoked by someone pushing against her – this is her initial complaint as the youtube recording begins. Hence, there is the usual YouTube problem of not having the full story. Much of what follows is provoked by comments from non-white passengers. Had they not made the comments it is unlikely Woodhouse would have said most of what she said because there are significant silences between her comments. This indicates she had no intention to go on a sustained complaint.
The woman had taken a drink but was far from being stupid drunk. Rather, she was angry, initially at the push , then at the other passengers who spoke with her and finally by the thought of what has happened to her country. Here language becomes more expletive laden as her anger grows, but there is nothing extraordinary in the effing and blinding she falls into. You can hear worse everyday in London. Much of her complaint is directed specifically at the Government, Ms Woodhouse has been jailed for in effect publicly complaining about the effects of mass immigration.
Ms Woodhouse is a 42-year-old white working class woman whose origins lie in London or its environs. In short, she is a prime example of someone who has had the consequences of mass black and Asian immigration. This immigration has been thrust onto them by a political elite which respond to any criticism of the policy with laws to criminalise dissent and multicultural propaganda which asks the likes of Ms Woodhouse not merely to keep quiet about what is happening to their world, but to acquiesce in the eventual obliteration of their own culture and society. She has more cause than most to make such a public complaint.
Ms Woodhouse’s public complaint was raw kin its delivery which will alienate some who share her complaints. But the police response would have been similar regardless of how the ideas were voiced or where they were voiced. Anyone who doubts this should go down to down to Speakers Corner and try to make a speech using middle class language and a civil manner in which you complain about the fact of immigration, immigrants drawing benefits, the double standards relating to what ethnic minorities may say with impunity and what the native white England man or woman may say and so on. The police would, at best, immediately intervene and threaten arrest unless the person ceased to speak or, at worst, quite probably immediately arrest the person. What is being punished in Ms Woodhouse’s case is the breaching of the politically correct censorship of matters relating to race and immigration, not the particular manner in which she acted.
The other recent c which illustrates the fanatical nature of the politically correct on matters of race is that of the Swansea U student Liam Stacey who was jailed for 56 days after making comments deemed to be racist on Twitter (http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Community&F=1&id=24467). His is a particularly interesting case because the offending comments were not published by the media. His initial post which sparked the exchanges was referedd top the Bolton footballer Patrice Muamba who suffered a heart arrest in a match with Spurs: “LOL f*** Muamba. He’s dead. #Haha”. This was not part of the prosecution evidence because it was not racist. The charges against Stacey related to exchanges with other people so for all anyone outside the court knows his later tweets may have been innocuous. Not only that but there is the strong possibility that the tweets to which he replied in allegedly racist fashion were themselves racist, but again these were not reported by the media, whether because they were not mentioned in open court or reporters who attended refused to quote them. It could be that the remarks directed at Staecy were more crudely racist than those he posted. The problem is that no one has access to the tweets so we do not know. Victoria Coren wrote an interesting piece on the subject regarding the question of open justice – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/08/victoria-coren-liam-stacey-tweets.
Despite making an abject apology to the court and having no previous racist history, Stacey received not only a custodial sentence, but draconian action by his university: “Swansea University said in a statement, “The student concerned remains suspended for the remainder of this academic year and is not allowed to return to campus, but he will be given the opportunity to sit his final exams as an external candidate next year at another venue and, if successful, to graduate in absentia. He will remain excluded from the campus.”
Whatever someone thinks about the Ms Woodhouse or Mr Stacey’s behaviour, I doubt whether many would consider it more serious than a serious and prolonged assault committed by multiple assailants. Yet that is precisely what is happening in English courts. Here are two cases concluded within the last six months. Compare the custodial sentences for Woodhouse and Stacey with the non-custodial sentences imposed on black assailants of white women who engaged in gangs attacks sustained over many minutes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p). The attack was vicious and sustained – the attack can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgIN4kBsNRg.
In both instances, the judges made allowances because the attackers were drunk, something that was ignored in the cases of Woodhouse and Stacey and which is routinely disregarded as a mitigating plea in English criminal cases. The black assailants were not accused of racially aggravated offences despite the broad facts of the case – black assailants on white victims – and, in the case of Rhea Page, the shouting racist epithets such as white bitch. Woodhouse and Stacey pleaded guilty which attracts a lesser sentence, whereas the defendants in the Rhea Page case pleaded not guilty (which supposedly carries a heavier sentence) and one of the defendants in the legal secretaries case pleaded not guilty and went to an Old Bailey trial. The double standards in what is supposed to be English justice where it is black on white crime rather than white on black crime are so glaring that they scarcely need comment beyond saying that equality before the law is the only real law there is; everything else is simply partiality.
As for Ms Woodward and Liam Stacey, what has happened to them undermines what English society is meant to be, a place where people can express themselves without fear of a knock on the door by the authorities. The criminalising of speech is incompatible with a free society and free expression is a necessary part of democratic politics. The laws which prevent people protesting about the effects of mass immigration are simply tools of those who committed the most fundamental act of treason by permitting the immigration. People like Ms Woodhouse are not engaging in mindless or vicious abuse. They are engaging in the most basic form of political protest in which they say my national territory has been invaded with the collusion of traitors in the form of the British political elite. That is the most valuable political message any person can give for it goes to the heart of what it is to be a nation and have a secure territory under the control of the nation.