Race Relations Acts

After the Second World War ended in 1945 men came back to a land fit for heroes without having heard of Racism. In 1965 Her Majesty's Government inflicted its first Race Relations Act on us, alleging that racism is evil. So something changed in those twenty years. People with influence decided that the Patriotism that held us together when we were fighting the Germans had become Racism, a great evil.

It was used as an excuse to inflict millions of Third World aliens on us by those who hate us. They used the greed of Capitalist Swine who wanted cheap labour. They used the corruption of the Labour Party that wanted to get their Votes by bribing Third World parasites on the make. They are creating a Trojan Horse, an Enemy Within in order to destroy England. It is Ethnic Fouling, to be followed by Genocide. They are doing the same to the rest of Western Civilization

One aspect of the Immigration industry that does not attract much comment is the fact that it makes a lot of money for Jews who are lawyers. But see  #Beneath the mask of the Human Rights industry Prominent British Jews Advocate Increases in Refugees. Lawyers do very well out of legal aid. Dragging cases out where there is no case is standard procedure. They were worth £2,000 to £3,000 some years ago. It will be more now. It beats doing honest work.

Her Majesty's Government has, yet again proved that it cares nothing for the Consent Of The Governed, which is the minimum requirement for any serious claim to Democracy

Notice that successive Acts become more oppressive. It is a reality that this Act only applies to English people like poor little Emma West. Vicious foreigners are exempt. One such is 'Lord' Ahmed, a greasy little Pakistani racist. He was written up in The Times as a racist. The police allowed him to get away with it precisely because he is a Pakistani racist. That is why he got to be a 'lord' in the first place.

Perhaps the most pernicious is the #Public Order Act 1986.

 Race Relations Act 1965
Race Relations Act 1968
Race Relations Act 1976
Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Public Order Act 1986

Race Relations Act 1965 ex Wiki
The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first legislation in the United Kingdom to address racial discrimination. The Act outlawed discrimination on the "grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins" in public places.[1]


Race Relations Act 1968 ex Wiki
The Race Relations Act 1968 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom making it illegal to refuse housing, employment, or public services to a person on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins.


Race Relations Act 1976 ex Wiki
The Race Relations Act 1976 was established by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race. Items that are covered include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, education and public functions. The current version is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74 - Race Relations Act 1976


Race Relations ( Amendment ) Act 2000 ex Wiki
The Wiki write up does not exist yet.


Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 ex Guardian
(i) outlaws race discrimination (direct, indirect and victimisation) in public authority functions not covered by the original Race Relations Act 1976;

(ii) defines "public authority" widely for the purpose of outlawing race discrimination, so that it includes public functions carried out by private sector organisations and has only limited exemptions;

(iii) places a general duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality;

(iv) empowers the home secretary to extend the list of public bodies in the act that are subject to the general duty to promote race equality to include other bodies exercising public functions;

(v) empowers the home secretary (or Scottish ministers where appropriate) to impose specific duties on public bodies which are subject to the general duty to promote race equality to ensure their better performance of the general duty;

(vi) gives the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) powers to enforce specific duties imposed on public authorities;

(vii) gives the CRE powers to issue codes of practice to provide practical guidance to public bodies on how to fulfil their general and specific duties to promote race equality;

(viii) allows race discrimination claims to be brought against educational bodies direct to a county or sheriff court without, as now, a two month "cooling off" period of notification to central government;

(ix) makes chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of discrimination carried out by officers under their direction and control and provides for compensation, costs or expenses awarded as a result of a claim to be paid out of police funds;

(x) removes the power for a minister to issue conclusive certificates in race claims to the effect that an act of race discrimination was done for the purposes of national security and was therefore not unlawful.


Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 ex Wiki
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.

The Act is notable because two amendments made in the House of Lords failed to be overturned by the Government in the House of Commons. Most of the Act came into force on 1 October 2007.


Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 - Legislation.gov.uk


Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 - Legislation.gov.uk

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/contents - Proxy - Highlight

Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 - Legislation.gov.uk

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/contents - Proxy - Highlight

Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.


  • Race Relations Act 1965
  • Race Relations Act 1968
  • Race Relations Act 1976
  • Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

    Disability Discrimination Act 1995


    Public Order Act 1986
    Deals with racial hatred - it applies to Englishmen but not foreigners

    Part III Racial Hatred

    1. Meaning of “racial hatred”

      1. 17. Meaning of “racial hatred”.

    2. Acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred

      1. 18. Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

      2. 19. Publishing or distributing written material.

      3. 20. Public performance of play.

      4. 21. Distributing, showing or playing a recording.

      5. 22. Broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service.

    3. Racially inflammatory material

      1. 23. Possession of racially inflammatory material.

      2. 24. Powers of entry and search.

      3. 25. Power to order forfeiture.

    4. Supplementary provisions

      1. 26. Savings for reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.

      2. 27. Procedure and punishment.

      3. 28. Offences by corporations.

      4. 29. Interpretation. 


    Beneath the mask of the Human Rights industry Prominent British Jews Advocate Increases in Refugees
    Stephen Sedley, a Jew and one time judge is an example.
    As a former member of the Communist Party, Sir Stephen Sedley is an unlikely champion for human rights. Nevertheless it is an industry that has been good to him, so it was not surprising that his signature appeared on a letter  in The Times calling for Britain to admit thousands more “Syrian refugees.” (Sedley is a prominent posturer among those discussed in Tobias Langdon’s “They posture, you pay.”)

    The retired court of appeal judge was one of more than 300 distinguished judges, senior lawyers and academics who demanded that Britain admit far more refugees than the 20,000 a year, currently planned. Sir Stephen himself says that “as a wealthy and prosperous country we should be doing more than we are.”

    He is used to having his views heard with respect, but even he must have been surprised at the anger of the pushback from an exasperated public. For it was soon pointed out that many from this privileged, unelected group were overwhelmingly drawn from “human rights” industry chambers and law firms that have grown fat off defending asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded deportation cases that are dragged out for years. Not only would these lawyers profit from any further influx, but, living in their fancy neighborhoods, their families would never have to cope with the resulting overcrowded schools or hospitals.

    But there is another aspect of that letter that has hitherto gone unmentioned — many signatories were drawn from the same clique of Jewish activist judges and lawyers who have been, for decades now, complicit in the opening of Britain’s borders and allowing a tsunami of foreign aliens to flood into the country.  At the top of the The Times letter, there is the most distinguished tier — the 12 retired judges. Of this group at least five — possibly seven — are Jewish. Moreover, it’s not as though these Jews are outliers from mainstream Jewish opinion. As noted in the previous link, the most important Jewish organization and the largest Jewish newspaper in the UK are also pushing for even higher levels of immigration. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to look at the ethnic commitments and political associations of these prominent Jewish figures. Think of it as a series of case studies illustrative of a wider phenomenon.

    This is a story of covert ethnic agendas operating at the highest reaches of British society. Ultimately, it raises the interesting question — can the doctrine of human rights be seen as a universalist mask for Jewish ethnic aggression, in the same way that psychoanalysis or communism was? Certainly it seems that ‘human rights’ have allowed many on the far-left, especially communists, to reinvent themselves by earning handsome livings facilitating the displacement of the indigenous Brits. Once again we see that the war on Whites is massively incentivised.

    The Left’s caricature of judges being elderly, choleric figures fulminating against modern Britain from the cossetted protection of their gentleman’s clubs is long out of date. Sir Stephen Sedley is part of a new cultivated and sophisticated judicial establishment that has been in place now for decades.

    He was born into a Jewish family steeped in communist politics. Sir Stephen’s father was Bill Sedley, a lifelong Party member, From the 1930s onward, Sedley’s law firm Seifert Sedley represented a string of far-left clients, including the Communist Party, the Moscow-backed Daily Herald newspaper, and eventually the African National Congress. The firm’s clients included Paul Robeson and various Hollywood figures who claimed they had been “blacklisted.”  Sedley senior’s faith in Moscow and Stalin remained unshaken long after it was known that untold millions had been killed in purges and the Holodomor.

    Sedley junior seems to have inherited the family politics.  After a private schooling and then Cambridge he joined the — very Jewish — Cloisters firm, once described as the most left wing barrister’s firm in Britain. It included notorious communist fellow-travellers, such as Denis Pritt (not a Jew),  who was awarded the Stalin Medal after attending the Moscow show trials in the thirties and submitting glowing reports about how above-board the proceedings were. (Pritt was described by George Orwell as the leading Soviet publicist in Britain).

    Like his father, Stephen Sedley threw himself into left-wing causes célèbres, such as representing the International Marxist Group and the family of a Trotskyist teacher killed at an anti-immigration demonstration.  But he was not always the model of controlled detachment.  During one cross-examination of National Front organiser Martin Webster, Sedley’s face was described as “being ashen and contorted with hatred and rage.” He was regarded as the most left-wing judge that Britain has ever had, and spoke of how judges should correct politicians.

    He seems to have tutored Communist summer schools in the seventies. According to one report, Sir Stephen Sedley was a diligent member of the Camden branch of the party although he is thought to have allowed his membership to lapse shortly before he became a High Court judge in 1992 when he was well into his fifties. (The CPGB was disbanded in 1991.)

    In 1984 Stephen Sedley — then 45 — penned a sharp criticism of George Orwell’s Animal Farm in a collection of essays attacking the anti-Stalinist author, called Inside the Myth. Sedley claimed that Orwell had succumbed to fashionable anti-communism, so not surprisingly his essay was praised in a The Stalin Society review.  Post-communism, he has specialised in human rights law and became president of the Institute of Human Rights.

    Another signatory to The Times letter was another retired Jewish High Court Judge with a communist family background. Sir Nicholas Stadlen’s mother, was from a wealthy Viennese banking family, and was a loyal globe-trotting Communist Party revolutionary through the 1930s and beyond.

    Stadlen seems to have retained not only something of his mother’s politics, but also an acute sense of Jewish identity. He has recently made a radio programme for the BBC about one of his heroes — a  long-dead leader of the South African Communist Party who was himself heavily implicated in terrorism and who helped defend Mandela at his terrorism trial.

    The most senior signatory is Lord Nicholas Phillips; a former President of the Supreme Court, former Lord Chief Justice and a former Master of the Rolls. In 2008 he caused outrage by suggesting that sharia law principles should be incorporated into the English legal system. Another notable contribution came two years later when Lord Phillips suggested that the Human Rights Act must be retained, otherwise the children of immigrants might attempt to destroy British society.

    Lord Harry Woolf is another former Lord Chief Justice and seen as one of England’s most liberal judges.  He has resisted proposals to shorten the asylum seeker appeals process which allows expensive cases to drag on and on. Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, Lord Woolf criticised writers and cartoonists who used their press freedom to offend Muslims.  He said they “need to exercise self-restraint, particularly in sensitive areas where religion is involved.”

    He says he is not religious. Nevertheless he is highly conscious of his ethnic identity and has spoken at length about being an Ashkenazi who married a Sephardi.  After some deliberation, he and his wife have chosen their plot in a Sephardi cemetery.

    And then there is Lord Steyn, another South African born Jew, thought by many to be the most liberal on a bench full of liberals. Identity is close to his heart but not, apparently, White identity. He says he left South Africa because of his opposition to apartheid and a passion for human rights.

    His memorable judgements  include a case where he judged that the Home Office were wrong to cut off the welfare payments to an asylum seeker who had been refused asylum, These are just the left-wing Jewish judges on the most senior level of that The Times letter!

    Right from its inception in post-war Europe the human rights industry has been the product of a uniquely Jewish vision. René Cassin, the French-Jewish co-drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said: “Human rights are an integral part of the faith and tradition of Judaism.”  It has all the hallmarks of a Jewish intellectual movement such as psychoanalysis.

    In Britain it was Jewish activist lawyers, marching under the banner of human rights, who drove through the legislation that has not only opened the UK’s borders to immigration but also served to prevent Whites from openly discussing the role of Jews in bringing this about.

    A Labour figure called Lord Tony Lester is a good example.  He campaigned for thirty years to make the European Human Rights Convention directly enforceable in British courts and introduced two Private Members’ Bills on the subject which became models for the Human Rights Act 1998. This helped trigger a tsunami of immigration and made the deportation of illegals immeasurably more difficult.

    Lester’s fingerprints are to be found in a number of laws which have undermined White Britain. In the sixties he was an advisor to Britain’s most liberal Home Secretary Roy Jenkins on race matters. Then he became a founder member of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination and was one of a large number of Jewish lawyers working through other proxy bodies such as the Fabian Society, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Institute for Race Relations and others, as well as, of course, the British Board of Jewish Deputies.

    Against overwhelming public opposition, this group eventually succeeded in passing the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 which removed the right of White people to serve, employ or mix with whom they liked. Lord Lester, incidentally, is a founder of Blackstone Chambers which contributed 32 signatories to the Times letter.

    Sir Geoffrey Bindman is yet another. He became legal adviser to the Race Relations Board, renamed the Commission for Racial Equality, from 1966 to 1983. A “civil liberty and human rights champion” Oxford-educated Bindman is quite open about how his Jewishness has affected his outlook. In one interview, he cited his background as the son of East European Jews and his personal brushes with anti-semitism as being crucial formative experiences. Both Lester and Bindman, together with the Board of Deputies, worked together to push through the Public Order Act of 1986 which further criminalised  White speech opposing mass immigration. They were assisted by another two notable Jewish lawyers; Conservative government ministers and QCs Leon Brittan and Malcom Rifkind.

    And of course we should not forget one of the most ubiquitous Jewish legal figures, former president of the British Board of Jewish Deputies and founder of the Holocaust Education Trust, Lord Greville Janner QC who, present legal difficulties  notwithstanding, has had a prominent role in much legislation affecting immigration and the concept of “hate speech.” He too is quite open about how his Jewish identity has a pre-eminent role in forging his political outlook.

    Of course any suggestion that these eminent Jewish judges act with anything other than Olympian detachment would be met with indignation. Indeed, we are invited to believe that this most ethnocentric of groups, so hypersensitive when it comes to their own group interests, somehow magically switch this facility off in court.

    Jewish activist barristers and judges as colour-blind dispassionate dispensers of justice?  Let’s put that idea where it belongs — in the dustbin of history
    UNQUOTE br> Q







    Islamic Preacher Incites Murder In England [  13 January 2015 ]
    Cleric Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, defended the brutal murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices, saying ‘insulting Islam…they can’t expect a different result.’........... Speaking to an audience in London which was streamed online to thousands of his followers, Rahman praised Al Qaeda and said ‘Britain is the enemy of Islam.’....... Rahman, who also goes by the name of Abu Baraa, is currently on police bail after he and others were arrested last year on suspicion of terror offences......

    He manages the Siddeeq Academy in Tower Hamlets, an Islamic tuition centre in East London. In May last year Rahman was investigated by police after a video showed him praising the Boko Haram militants who kidnapped more than 300 Nigerian schoolgirls........

    Rahman also had placards calling for the annihilation and beheading of those who insulted Islam.
    The Mail alleges that he is British. I allege that he is an enemy alien infiltrated by corrupt politicians of  Her Majesty's Government with malice aforethought. The fact that he operates in Tower Hamlets where corruption is gross and Vote Rigging is rampant does not prove his guilt but it is suggestive.


    Hate Law Is Bad Law  [ 3 February 2017 ]
    The Race Relations Acts were passed by Her Majesty's Government for reasons; one is to protect the Third World undesirables they are importing to help Capitalist Swine get richer. The other main one is that they were and are being manipulated by the Puppet Masters, by the Zionist crazies to cause Ethnic Fouling In England, to destroy Western Civilization.
    PS It was in Animal Farm that George Orwell wrote SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. Now Racism means equal opportunities but blacks are more equal than us.


    Sudanese Gets Seven Years For Raping Korean Tourist [ 3 February 2017 ]
    A Sudanese sex attacker who raped a tourist outside a railway station after he was granted asylum in the UK has been jailed for seven years. Salah Koubar, 20, threw the South Korean woman over the railings at West Dulwich Station in south London, dragging her into the bushes. The attack was only stopped after a passer-by found the woman running along the platform wearing only a t-shirt and knickers.
    Her Majesty's Government imports these thugs by the million. It is policy, it is Ethnic Fouling, it is Treason.