So What Is Rascism? What defines a race crime in the UK.

Yet again we see the British Justice System saying that if a white attacks a black its a race crime, yet if a person of colour attacks a white its not a race crime.

Man killed in race attack?

Sajid Zulfiqar, 25, Zahid Bashir, 23, and Imran Maqsood, 21, of Ilford, east London, will be sentenced on Thursday.
The court heard that after the attack Zulfiqar shouted, in Urdu: "We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business."
Mr Yates's head was stamped on and he died from multiple injuries to his face, said Anthony Leonard QC, prosecuting.

These are evil men and people like this should not be free to roam about our streets hurting innocent people

These are the words of the family, yet the judge said this when summing the case up...

While the attack on Mr Yates may have had the hallmarks of racism, judge Martin Stephens said the evidence suggested otherwise.
"Between you that morning, you attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian," he said.
"These, in my judgment, were random attacks carried out on people who had the misfortune to come across you in your drink-fuelled rampage."

Yet in the recent case of two whites killing a black, the race card was played through the whole case by both the police and the media.

Lets look at the punishment that they got for both of these...

• Two white men who murdered an innocent black youngster were sentenced to life imprisonment but the judge ruled that the two killers must serve 24 years and 18 years for the racist attack.
• A week earlier (24th) three Pakistani men who murdered an innocent white man were sentenced to life imprisonment but because the judge decided that the attack was not racially motivated the three killers could be free within 15 years.

This blatant discrimination based on what the respective judges thought was going on in the minds of the killers at the time of the attack raises fundamental questions about the value of human life. Is one victim’s life worth more than another victim simply because one attack is deemed to be racially motivated and another is not?

The sentence for a crime has traditionally been handed down for the act of the crime itself and not the motivation for the crime. That tradition changed when the nonsense of “racially motivated” or “racially aggravated” was enshrined in law (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) when the political decision was made to ensure that crimes carried out with a “racial motive” would carry a higher maximum penalty than the basic offences.

Good article on this - part copied above at Unbalanced scales of justice and a good article on this at rottweilerpuppy

.