The Labour Party are desperate to force sub-standard and inferior judges onto the British people. They are preparing for what they call the ‘nuclear option’ which I presume is so called because of the devastation it will cause to the already corrupt and ineffectual courts.

Instead of judges being picked for their high intelligence and knowledge of law, they want to see them picked on the basis of their race or gender, ‘to reflect the composition of the population’.  Regardless of the fact that women think emotionally and not logically and Blacks are a full 15 points lower in IQ than Whites, why do they see it as so important that positions reflect the composition of the population?

The majority of the population are incompetent. Does that mean the majority of judges should also be incompetent? A small portion of the population are mentally disabled, surely they should get a chance to play at being a judge too? But why stop there, a sizable minority of people have criminal records and they already have extensive knowledge of the system.

The whole premise of equal opportunities is flawed and does nothing but punish excellence and reward mediocrity.

From The Guardian:

A Labour government would be prepared to introduce the “nuclear option” of quotas for female and black and ethnic minority judges to avoid a 100-year wait to achieve a judiciary reflecting the composition of the population.

The shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said reform had slowed to a snail’s pace and called for radical thinking to ensure judges were selected from beyond the “male, white and Oxbridge” world.

Khan, who accused the government of harming progress towards a diverse judiciary with swingeing cuts to the legal aid budget, has appointed Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Karon Monaghan QC, two of Britain’s leading progressive lawyers, to “think big” on how to achieve a balanced judiciary. “Nothing is off the table,” he said of the remit.

Khan said: “This is such a big issue that I don’t want Geoffrey and Karon to be afraid to recommend anything.”

Bindman and Monaghan are expected to focus on practical proposals such as introducing a mentoring and talent-spotting scheme to identify talented women and black and minority ethnic (BME) legal figures early on in their career.

But the two QCs will be free to recommend the introduction of positive discrimination along the lines suggested in a speech this year by Lady Hale, the only woman who sits in the supreme court.

Khan believes it is important not to rule out introducing quotas for women and BAME judges as a last resort. “Let us see what Geoffrey and Karon come up with,” one Labour source said. “You would want to keep the option of more radical measures like quotas on the table as a last resort. It would be the nuclear option.”

The introduction of quotas would be controversial because they were rejected by the House of Lords, which in a report in 2012 laid bare the poor representation in the judiciary of women and BME candidates. The committee heard evidence from the association of women solicitors that quotas would send out a message that a candidate had been chosen solely on the basis of gender or race.

But the Lords committee did call for non-mandatory targets after five years if little progress had been made towards a more diverse judiciary. It said 22.3% of judges were women – the fourth lowest rate in Europe – while 5.1% had BME backgrounds.

Khan said radical action was needed because insufficient progress had been made in the two years since the committee’s report was published.

He said: “If we just sit back and do nothing, it’ll take a century for our judges and magistrates to reflect wider society. I’m not prepared to sit by and let things move along at a snail’s pace.

“Too many judges are still drawn from too narrow a background. An overwhelming number are male, white and Oxbridge. People’s differing backgrounds and experiences bring different and rich perspectives that improve their decision-making as judges. If we achieve this it’s my view that we’ll see a dramatic impact on the public confidence in our justice system.”

One of Britain’s top judges has said it is not difficult to see why British Christians “feel their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected” in a speech about the clash between the rights of believers and sexual equality.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, questioned whether a “hard-line EU-law approach” to some forms of discrimination could be sustained and if it might not be “a great deal simpler” to require employers to make a “reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of others”.

Her remarks, in a speech at Yale Law School in the US which was posted on the Supreme Court’s website, come after a string of legal cases in which Christian people have protested about not being able to wear a cross at work or have refused to provide services such as a double room in a B&B to gay people.

In the speech, titled Religion and Sexual Orientation: The clash of equality rights, Lady Hale said: “It is not difficult to see why the Christians feel that their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected.

“Other religions with stricter dress codes or dietary laws are demanding concessions which Christians feel that it is harder to claim because they cannot point to equivalent religious requirements.”

She said European Union laws had produced many “technicalities”, adding: “Would it not be a great deal simpler if we required the providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of others?

“Then employers might have to make reasonable accommodation for the right of their employees to manifest their religious beliefs and suppliers of services might have to make reasonable accommodation for the right of their would-be customers to use them.”

Read More

The Bulls, a Christian couple who run a bed and breakfast, have been ordered to pay damages to a homo couple who they didn’t want sleeping in their house and eating at their table.

Mr. Bull is 74, his wife 69, and they have been told by the supreme court of England that it is against the law to not allow homosexual sexual deviants to rent a room inside of your own house.

The Cornwall couple was likely renting the room just for a little extra money to cover costs, given that they are retired and the economy is not particularly good, and were likely looking for a students or young heterosexual couples that they could get along with well to stay in their bed and breakfast.

Once again: this was a room inside of their own home.  It is a Bed and Breakfast, where the gays would be eating at their dinner table.  These queers are now demanding a right to live inside of our homes, and the governments of the Jew-dominated West are backing these demands, and punishing old people who refuse to accept it.

How long will it be legal to refuse to have gay sex to homosexuals?  I’m serious.  That is literally the next step.  I can see it now: “the court has found that if the gay who had propositioned you for sex had been a hot chick of the same age, you would not have refused him entry into your bedroom – now you must pay him thousands of pounds, and you should think twice before you discriminate against potential sexual partners based on their sexual orientation.”

Right is now wrong and wrong is now right.  We are living in a hell.

Someone has to stop these Jews.

From the BBC:

The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.

Hazelmary and Peter Bull refused to let civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall stay in a double room at Chymorvah House in Marazion in Cornwall in 2008.

The couple, who had already lost cases at Bristol County Court and the Court of Appeal, said they were “saddened”.

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a “sin”.

Note here that, yes, the BBC has put the word “sin” in quotes. Why have they done this? Is this some type of ironic sin? Or is it a nonstandard usage of the word sin? Are they confused about why someone would use the word “sin” to describe homosexual sex?

This is how far we have come, White Man. And in such a short time!

The article continues.

The Bulls denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, who are from Bristol.

Sixty-nine-year-old Mrs Bull and her 74-year-old husband said their decision was founded on a “religiously-informed judgment of conscience“.

[…]

Mrs Bull said: “We are deeply disappointed and saddened by the outcome.

“We are just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Our B&B is not just our business, it’s our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof.”

We’re sorry, Mrs. Bull, but your conscience and ancient moral values do not matter anymore. Though maybe in ye-olde-timey land where you were born, you could refuse to allow two men to masturbate in each other’s feces in your home, this is no longer acceptable, because of human rights or tolerance and multiculturalism and freedom or something.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: “Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.”

Yes, you see – this is science. They have to put their penises in each others anal passages because it is a core component of their identity. If that doesn’t make sense to you, it is because you are filled with hatred.

Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, said after the hearing: “What this case shows is that the powers of political correctness have reached all the way to the top of the judicial tree, so much so that even the Supreme Court dare not say anything against gay rights.”

Good point, Mike Judge. But who is responsible for this? Why has our ancient morality, which stretches back to our pagan roots in Scandinavia and Germany, been switched on its head and replaced with the opposite?

Who is behind this insane change in the order of society, which could not possibly have come about as part of a natural progression of social norms?

The Jews have destroyed the basic foundations of our society, and they are now proceeding to hunt down and crush any remaining individuals who dare put up resistance to their agenda.

The Bulls are casualties of the endless Jewish war against the White Christian European people.

We are on our knees now, White Man.  Are you ready to stand up and fight?