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.