• Recent Comments

    operationblackvote on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    David Stuart on No, not again: Jimmy Mubenga d…
    David Stuart on National Black Police Ass…
    Marvelous on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    Regina Nyametscher on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    Marcus on The Apprentice: in defence of…
    James Odoi on The Apprentice: in defence of…
  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

Former minister in court on inciting racial hatred charge

Philip Woolas in court

Philip Woolas has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Oldham East and Saddleworth since 1997, and was the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration in the Home Office, as well as being the Minister of State for the Treasury.

Woolas a Labour MP and former immigration minister has been accused of inciting
white people to vote against his opponent in the general election.

High Court judges began hearing the case yesterday, in the first attempt to
overturn an election result for almost a century.

Read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/13/phil-woolas-accused-racial-division

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. This is another sad legacy left from the last racist New Labour government; a government that was never fit to lead; a government made up of racists and dishonest people. I hope this man is found guilty and thrown out of government for good. I have always argued the case of New Labour being a racist government. This man has greatly helped my case. The chickens are now coming home to roost.

  2. “Woolas a Labour MP and former immigration minister has been accused of inciting
    white people to vote against his opponent in the general election.”

    This was a New Labour policy planned by an all white cabinet in 1997 and put into force after their 2001 victory where they used the Commission for Racial Equality to gag all politicians – especially the Conservatives – from playing the race card and went on to doing it themselves. Good riddance to a rotten New Labour government.

    I just hope there is justice at the end of this case.

  3. “The court was also told of an anti-Woolas campaign led by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in which Woolas was portrayed as a devil with horns and Muslim voters in the constituency were urged to vote Liberal Democrat.”

    It appears that Phil Woolas had a subjectivist come-uppance over a subjectivist opinion if intent. Is that not a balanced (and closed) case?

    Why has the Liberal Democrat MP made these allegations? is it out of moral principles or because he wants to win in a by-election?

    Such things cannot be settled in an objective court of law.

    “Woolas a Labour MP and former immigration minister has been accused of inciting
    white people to vote against his opponent in the general election.”

    This is a flimsy argument. A (white) person has tried to persuade (white) people to vote against a (white) opponent.

    If we remove the redundant (and subjective) word “white”, we are left with:

    A person has tried to persuade people to vote against a opponent.

    Isn’t that what all parliamentary candidates attempt to do?

    If there is a problem, he should be punished by the electorate next time (subjectively) and not by an authority right now (objectively).

  4. Joshua,

    “Why has the Liberal Democrat MP made these allegations? is it out of moral principles or because he wants to win in a by-election?”

    I have no idea. Shouldn’t we as citizens be waiting for the outcome of this case? If found guilty, shouldn’t we as citizens be expecting those in authority to set the right example? Has it not occurred to you that the courts have not found it vexatious or trivial and that they have chosen to hear it?

    “This is a flimsy argument. A (white) person has tried to persuade (white) people to vote against a (white) opponent.”

    That unfortunately has been a New Labour tactic in order to hold on to power since they came in in 1997; playing the race card. One notable example of this atrocious act was to immediately make amendments to the Race Relations Act on 27 August 1997, lay it before Parliament on 5 September 1997 and force it through on 1 October 1997. This same racist government made a further 28 Amendments within the space of their thirteen years in power. Racism has been on the increase since.

    “If we remove the redundant (and subjective) word “white”, we are left with:

    A person has tried to persuade people to vote against a opponent.

    Isn’t that what all parliamentary candidates attempt to do?”

    That would be covering up the truth.

    “If there is a problem, he should be punished by the electorate next time (subjectively) and not by an authority right now (objectively).”

    If the whites are the majority within his constituency, they are highly likely to punish him at the poles; considering that he is favouring them. The authority can bring in and enforce regulations that would make politics fair and weed out corrupt pratices.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: