By Max Musson:
A case publicised on the Daily Mail website today illustrates two clear examples of mechanisms through which anti-Semitism is provoked.
We are told that Danielle Morris, an assistant solicitor, has been forced to pay thousands of pounds in fines and court costs and has endured a three-and-a-half year investigation in front of two legal tribunals, almost losing her career, because of one thoughtless act on her part in 2009.
Based upon this information one might wonder quite what it was that she did?
Surely, Danielle Morris must have committed some serious act of professional negligence, or worse, one might suppose, but in fact all she did was to make an off the cuff remark in front of two office colleagues that she presumably thought of as friends.
It appears that Danielle Morris had attended the Bardoc Medical Centre in Bury in Lancashire with her baby and was infuriated by a man dressed in Orthodox Jewish attire, who caused a scene at the surgery and was as a result seen first by the doctor. The man had presumably thought that he was more important that the doctor’s other patients and by causing a scene had been able to effectively jump the queue.
Back at the office, Mulderiggs Solicitors in Rossendale, Danielle Morris relayed the incident to a receptionist she shared her office with, saying: “I cannot stand Jewish people.”
However, what Danielle had not realised is that a cashier who also shared the office, and who had overheard her conversation, was Jewish.
The cashier named only as Mrs S, said: “Please do not say that”, but Danielle went on, “I don’t care, I cannot stand them ever since an incident at Bardoc.”
Danielle had made an unfortunately ill-considered remark, rather like thoughtlessly blurting out due to momentary frustration, “I hate fat people”, only to find one of your rather overweight friends standing right behind you. However in our very PC world replete with a whole battery of ‘race hate’ legislation, Danielle had had not just made an embarrassing remark, she had technically committed ‘an incitement to racial hatred’.
Had Mrs S been a more reasonable person she might have said, “But I’m Jewish, and you don’t hate me do you?” in much the same way the overweight friend might have said, “Well, I’m a bit overweight, you don’t hate me do you?” and if she had, Danielle would almost certainly said, “No, of course not, I’m sorry, I don’t hate all Jewish people, but that man got right up my nose!”
Had Mrs S responded in the way a more reasonable person might have done and Danielle replied in the way I have suggested, then that would have been an end to the matter. Mrs S might still have felt somewhat affronted, but she would have promptly and publicly corrected Danielle in a constructive way and Danielle would have gone away feeling some remorse for her thoughtlessness, and with a more positive view of Jewish people in general.
The Mrs S however, made a formal complaint to the law firm’s senior partner and it emerged the matter ‘snowballed’ despite the Danielle trying to apologise on three occasions – only for the cashier to refuse to meet with her.
In May 2011 a four day employment tribunal was held in which Danielle Morris and Mulderiggs were found to have racially and religiously discriminated against Mrs S and she was awarded an undisclosed sum in damages.
Danielle was then hauled before the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority after a further complaint of discrimination by the cashier and yesterday, in a ruling made public for the first time, it emerged that Danielle has been fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £5,250 in costs.
Danielle told the hearing that she did not know Mrs S was Jewish and had not intended to insult her.
The outcome of this situation is that Mrs S is now somewhat financially better off than she might otherwise have been; the partners of Mulderiggs Solicitors are now somewhat financially worse off than they would otherwise have been, despite having done nothing wrong themselves; and Danielle is considerably worse off than she would otherwise have been and now has a black mark against her name with the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority.
Mrs S may feel very pleased with herself, having demonstrated that as a Jewish person she can use this county’s draconian race hate legislation to extract money from her ex-employers simply on the basis of an ill-considered remark made by one of her ex-colleagues, and has been able to pillory that ex-colleague disproportionately for her simple mistake, but at what cost to Jewish/Gentile relations in that part of Lancashire?
Danielle appears to have formed a dislike for Jews based upon the rudeness of the man at her doctor’s surgery, I wonder how she and her ex-employers feel about Jews now?
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
This story just highlights the need for an organisation which will give both moral and practical support to the British people as they face increasing oppression from organised minorities. A charitable organisation equivalent to the Free Masons but wholly dedicated to our own Aryan interests is what’s required.
Steve
- Edit
I think the phrase “You doth protest too much” comes to mind, it becomes bullying & it seems to get results as far as they’re concerned but at what cost in the end?
I agree the woman was stupid to say “I cannot stand Jewish people” because of one ghastly man but then the non obvious Jewish woman seems to have behaved like the original man to make a vindictive point.
Steve
- Edit
“…she had technically committed ‘an incitement to racial hatred’.”
Eh?
So Jews are a race, all one race?
Of course they’re not.
The same has been said with moslems too.
It should have been ‘an incitement to religious hatred’, if such an offence exists.
I bet the Jewish woman & the solicitor are of very similar racial backgrounds & she should have fought that point.
Anyway I thought in law it was gypsies & travellers that could queue jump in doctors surgeries?
The doctors should have told him to calm down or leave but gave into being bullied, like we all do at the moment.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Another point that seems to have been overlooked is the behaviour of the queue jumping Jew. If Jews want to earn the respect of their host countries they’ve got to earn it, not insist that the goyim put up with their arrogant behaviour. I’m sure there’re many Jews who understand this very well.
Ihateeveryone
- Edit
Surely in a free world you have a right to hate or love, someone might hate the person who raped them, someone might hate Germans/nazis because they killed his Fiance such as in the case of the esteemed late Astronomer Moore allegedly, someone might hate Jewish people because of Palestine and someone might hate muslims because they lost someone in 9/11 an act that was allegedly carried out by muslims.
Someone might hate the British because of their past and as is well known alot of Scottish, Welsh and irish hate the English because of the past.
And so it goes on……………..
BritishActivism
- Edit
I have not studied this case, yet off this analysis of it (and that from the Daily Mail), where exactly is the “incitement”? Where also is the “discrimination”?
.
If she had said “I hate all Jewish people, you should hate them all too, in fact, we should all get together tonight and burn their houses down” – then I can understand some “incitement” to get others to act illegally and share those emotions.
.
But she did not do this. She just expressed her own emotions – which in any society should be a freedom, no matter how “repulsive” or “stupid” they may be seen by others to hold.
.
If she had said “you are not getting this work, or this job, and I am not dealing with you because I hate all Jewish people” then perhaps there would be some ground for “discrimination”. The “victim” will have been denied or sidelined from something they should otherwise have received.
.
But again, I do not see evidence of this. So where is the “discrimination” and what “power” over this cashier did this employee have? Probably none.
.
Besides, in a free society, you should really be able to associate with, employ, deal with, etc, who you please for whatever reasons you please…..but I can appreciate how this is currently not the state of affairs in which we find ourselves.
.
The idea of an emotion being a crime is also preposterous to me. Emotions are part of what makes human life. Would you legislate against emotions of fear, or legislate against emotions of love, or anything else? I doubt it, and nor would it make sense to do.
.
So why should it be a crime to ‘hate’ something or somebody? It is human and surely a human right to hold your own emotions!
.
If that “hate” went on to cause a breach of the peace or some other ‘genuine’ law, then it is that transgression of the law which should be punished as required. If you “hate” Jews, as is suggested of the woman in this case, and that “hate” made this woman break the other woman’s nose, then the crime should be assault, not “hate” or “racial discrimination” or whatever else. That emotion or viewpoint that led up to breaking the nose should have no factor in it.
.
If a pickpocketter picks your pocket, steals your wallet and stabs you in the back when it is realised you have rumbled him, what difference does it make if you were targetted because you were white/black/fat/in a suit/old/young/….? Does it make the crime any more serious?
.
Why should it be more serious because of a ‘leftwing’ “societal construct” of what we are supposed to think and feel? But that is what we have at present, laws which can extend the judgement by 7 years because of the emotion or ‘thought crime’ behind the crime!
.
What is also irritating is that the lawyers and courts are probably making a mint out of this nonsense, and even more irritating than that is the way the holocaust is brought into it.
.
So…. you are not allowed to analyse, think, act or say anything against any Jewish person, or in earshot of one, at all, ever, at any time or for any reason, otherwise you are part of some fabled ‘goose stepping’ ‘nazi’ who is about to trot the said person off to the nearest camp for ‘termination’?
.
How convenient is that?
.
The only section of society that is not allowed such a Teflon coating seems to be European/Caucasian people. The rest wear this Teflon shield, where there can be no stains and nothing sticks – just by race-based association.
.
Is it nice to be on the receiving end of abuse? No. But there has been an infantilism of society to the point where it is like playground children taking huge offence at being called a name, and the equivalent of crying to mummy about it. What should be remembered is “sticks and stones my break my bones and words can never hurt me”.
.
As Max says, it is clearly an off the cuff remark that could have been applied to fat people, or short people, or any type of people. If the man at the hospital had been fat, and went on a tirade and hissy-fit to get seen first, she could well have said, off the cuff, that she “hates fat people” and that they are “all” as bad.
.
Obviously it is not tied to any sort of reality, she is just stating an opinion which is flimsy and generalising. I doubt she would ‘hate’ every single ‘fat’ person alive, and what is more preposterous is the idea that this woman has any insight at all as to why some people do have a problem with Jewish behaviour and Jewish people. It is hardly like she was speaking in an informed manner and offering the office her collected wisdom.
.
What is probably going to be a bitter irony from this case, is that I suspect Danielle Morris’s views of the Jewish people will hardly have improved as a result of this pantomime! If she didn’t like them before after that one incident at the hospital, I doubt she is going to love them now.
.
I don’t know if anybody here has seen the documentary “defamation” (which deals with this Jewish paranoia) but there does seem to be an awful lot pointing to how these people create a situation where they eventually become the orchestrate of their own persecution – directly because of a paranoia and narrative they have about persecution!
.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Well said, “Ihateeveryone”. Take away our right to love and hate freely and you lobotomise our individual souls. But that’s exactly what the neo-Marxists plan to do.
Ihateeveryone
- Edit
yes Michael, make everyone defenceless.
Steed
- Edit
Jewish woman SUING gentile woman because of generalisation and stereotyping. Oh the irony!
Steve
- Edit
I think it’s known as chutzpah, they’re very good at it.