Lord Sadly and Lord Wall Struck out HHJ McMullen QC's Racist Comments
Dr. D'Silva v UCU, Michael Scot, & others ( A2/2009/0258, A2/2009/0275, & A2/2009/0276 )
On October 2009 Court of Appeal headed by Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Sadly struckout HHJ McMullen's stereotype racist comment about the Council for Ethnic Minority (CEM) from his Order. It was an unusual hearing in which first permission was granted and then the appeal was heard on full merit. Although the University College Union & others request an oral hearing they did not have much to say or oppose Appeal Court's decision to struck out HHJ McMullen's Racist nonsense from his Order. At the end of the hearing their Lordships complimented the skeleton arguments on bias by prepared by Dr Deman saying that, "you should become lawyers".
On October 2009 Court of Appeal headed by Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Sadly struckout HHJ McMullen's stereotype racist comment about the Council for Ethnic Minority (CEM) from his Order. It was an unusual hearing in which first permission was granted and then the appeal was heard on full merit. Although the University College Union & others request an oral hearing they did not have much to say or oppose Appeal Court's decision to struck out HHJ McMullen's Racist nonsense from his Order. At the end of the hearing their Lordships complimented the skeleton arguments on bias by prepared by Dr Deman saying that, "you should become lawyers".
Prior to making their judgment Lord Wall informed Dr D'Silva, Dr Deman (a McKenzie friend) and others present that Lady Smith who was initially scheduled to hear his appeal recused herself because she was Chancellor of the Manchester Metropolitan University although his appeal was against UCU and its Labour Party mafia. Therefore, it no longer safe not to step down even if there was remote possibility of conflict of interests Although Mr Justice Underhill, Mr Justice Elias, HHJ McMullen, HHJ Peter Clarke, etc have been flouting this very principle for a fair hearing for a very long time.
On the 29th August 2008, the CEM sent to Pauline Donleavy, Registrar EAT, Dr Suresh Deman and Mr Andrew J. Graham's affidavits in support of his grounds of appeal on bias. In the penultimate sentence the CEM expressed its view about the conduct of the tribunals as follows:
"In view of above background we strongly urge you disclose members of the Judiciary and your connections with Zionist Labour Party mafia and employers.”
HHJ McMullen gave racist interpretation to CEM's request and said as follows:
“ Before I make orders in this appeal I will expressly dismiss the applications made by the Council for Ethnic Minority for disclosure of Judges’ interests. I reject as repugnant the unspecified stereotypical racism in their letter of the 29th day of August 2008 concerning Zionism and party politics”
CEM’s request in regard to the disclosure of Judges interests and connections with the Labour Party Zionist mafia should not cause offence as it was consistent with the aims of the EHRC (formerly known as CRE) who at parag 17 of their submissions to Ministry of Justice said as follows:
“A New way of Appointing Judges” state that the following principles should underlie the procedure for appointing judges: independence, transparency, quality and accountability. Further the document goes on to state that it acts as a check on the Executive demands that judges are free and seen to be free from political interference, influence and patronage.
This is essential to secure public confidence in the judiciary and its legitimacy. HHJ McMullen’s dismissal of the application for disclosure goes nowhere in securing public confidence in regard to transparency or securing freedom from political interference, influence and patronage given the House of Lords has become a caucus-run body of the Labour Party.
Further a request of the racial origin is important in view of a study carried out in Pennsylvania in regard to Institutional Racism in the judiciary and in the administration of justice by Dr Deman's friend who was the Executive Director of the Program sponsored by the Federal Courts.
HHJ McMullen’s second statement that he considers the use of the term Zionism and party politics as unspecified stereotypical racism reflects his own stereotype mind set and he chose to to put in his order to prejudice the Judge who would eventually hear the claimant’s appeal.
In Dr. D’Silva v NATFHE [UCU], Michael Scott & Others EAT/PA/1161/06/LA, Mr Justice Elian the he was drew Counsel, Mr Dale Martin's attention to CEM’s letter in which they complained that he belonged to a Zionist-Labour Party Mafia. Mr. Justice Elias said that he was not a Jew. On this, Mr. Martin’s told him, “Your ethnicity is irrelevant as you could still support the Zionist regime” (see para 24). Mr. Justice Elias accepted Mr. Martin’s submission without taking any offence.
CEM’s request was for disclosure of his connections with “Zionist Labour Party mafia and employers”. The recent scandal of fund raising (see article by Gilad Atzmon, Jewish: Bundle 2; pages 3-4) of the British Labour Party undertaken by Lord Levy “cash for honours scandal”, Abraham and Mendelssohn and their connection with “Friends of Israel” shows that political influence, patronage and indirect racism practised by such a movement influences the Labour Party. No reasonable person with an independent mind could characterise the CEM request, “as repugnant the unspecified stereotypical racism”. Further a well known MIT Professor, Noam Chomsky, Jewish also condemned Zionism being the highest form of racism and a UN resolution could not become a reality outlawing Zionism as Racism because of US threat of Veto.
2 comments:
Sedley.
Post a Comment