A tale of two judges in the UK

www.americanthinker.com

Today, two judicial rulings came out of the UK, one sane and one, well, insane. They represent the knife’s edge on which the UK is balanced, with the British people having very little time left to choose between returning to sanity or opting for total destruction.

In the past thirty years, the British left has done its work well: It’s inundated its population with millions of immigrants, both legal and illegal. That’s hard enough for an ancient island country with a population that had been stable for a thousand years. Worse, though, is that the new migrants have come from countries with values completely antithetical to British values.

Image created using AI.

The effect of these hostile migrants, many of whom manifestly came only for the welfare benefits, might have been mitigated had Britain used its education system to assimilate migrant children into British laws and values. However, the British establishment oozes self-loathing and, instead, ensured that the children of its native population and the newly arrived or first-generation children all learned the same thing: The UK is a vile country, steeped in wicked colonialism, racism, misogyny, and all other bad things. That the immigrants’ home countries are infinitely worse is irrelevant. Coming to Britain isn’t a step up; it’s a form of degradation for these new arrivals, to whom the British establishment and British people must make humble obeisance.

This toxic self-loathing has a single source: leftism. Once the left took over Britain’s government, it set itself on a path that included abiding and omnipresent self-loathing, coupled with rising antisemitism and disdain for its Christian heritage. Both these have been fed by the non-stop inundation of immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, East Africa, Yemen, Somalia, and, since 2015, all of the Middle East. All these countries practice fundamentalist Islam, complete with extreme sharia and jihadist ideologies.

In addition to trying to wipe out Britain’s native population and values, the left has also been on a climate change rampage. In pursuit of the elusive “Net Zero” (which really means a return to the cold, darkness, famine, poverty, and slavery of the pre-modern, pre-fossil fuel era), England has abandoned fossil fuel and embraced renewables—which can never fulfill the needs of a modern nation. But for leftists, nothing is ever enough, and it has an aggressive climate activist cohort that likes to deface artworks and ancient monuments to showcase its message.

These two leftist movements—aggressive immigration and climate change—saw two trials recently take place, and the outcomes show the two directions that Britain can take moving forward.

The first involved Tommy Robinson (born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), a fearless opponent of mass immigration to Great Britain. For his efforts in a land that once gave birth to the idea of free speech and the right to petition the government, Robinson has been relentlessly harassed by the police and frequently imprisoned.

Most recently, he was charged in July 2024 with a form of terrorism when he refused to allow police to look at his telephone. However, in a surprising moment, given the UK’s political trajectory, a judge acquitted him today. Instead, the judge accused the police of political targeting:

In his ruling, District Judge Sam Goozee told Robinson: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your beliefs that acted as the principle reason for the stop.”

He added that those beliefs were legally a protected characteristic when it came to determining whether Robinson was a person falling within the relevant scope of the legislation, “namely a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

There was cheering from Robinson’s supporters in the public gallery as he left the dock after the acquittal.

In his ruling, the judge said he had found it concerning that the police officers involved in Robinson’s detention had “no real recollection” of the questions they had asked him.

“I accept it may be impossible to drawn a line between your political beliefs, philosophical beliefs and terrorism as there can be a clear overlap,” he added.

However, before you get too excited about Robinson’s well-deserved victory, consider what happened to the climate activists who defaced Stonehenge, which was built over an interval from 3,000 B.C. to 1520 B.C. It is one of the most ancient and amazing human structures in existence, but that didn’t stop the “Just Stop Oil” people from proudly attacking the monument with an orange-dyed corn flour mix that kills the lichen that protects the stones from erosion.

One would think that attacking one of the world’s most extraordinary human achievements would rouse a judge to some level of outrage, but that would be wrong. Instead, the judge concluded that, because the vandals’ hearts were in the right place, they shouldn’t be punished:

The free speech bit of that ruling is good, but the complete pass for causing damage to one of the UK’s greatest treasures? Well, that’s just crazy. After all, speech and property destruction are not the same thing.

The British people have before them two choices: Leftism, complete with the abolition of their rights, the looming shadow of Sharia law, and a cold, dark world, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, a robust Reform Party (which seems to be the only conservative game in town) that will restore normalcy to what was once a truly great Great Britain.