UNCONSCIOUS BIAS IS A FALSE TOTEM

Everyone knows what prejudice is.  Many of us will have enough self awareness to know that in some form or other there is a possibility, probability or certainty that on some every day topic or  subject of minor interest we are prejudiced or in the words of some psychologists who think they have all the answers, we have a conscious bias for or against said topics or interests.  My wife, for example, is biased towards purple.  Her house plants are dictated by the colour as is her car, her wardrobe and long ago the paint chosen to cover walls in the hallway. She is also biased against intellectual snobbery and doesn`t suffer fools gladly.  

However the spreading tentacles of human resources departments and their university psychology departments` academic sources have fostered the concept of "unconscious bias".  This concept has  infected the western world without challenge.  It has infiltrated the working and academic lives of millions.  It is within the legal profession that, in my opinion,  it has been the most devastating to freedom of thought and the corruption of what constitutes reality.  Politicians have been quick and eager to jump on this bandwagon for their own nefarious ends. Unconscious bias as defined by Edinburgh University is  The tendency of us as humans to act in ways that are prompted by a range of assumptions and biases that we are not aware of.   This can include decisions or actions that we are not consciously aware of, as well as hidden influences on decisions and actions that we believe are rational and based on objective un-biased evidence and experience.  Unconscious bias can be present in organisations and groups as well as influencing the behaviours and decisions made by individuals.  

Civilisation has developed from primates learning from their and others` actions and reactions which are beneficial to their survival and which are detrimental.  The most active benefit to the individual is the bond of the family.  The bias toward family is natural and rewards such affinity with longer life and happier offspring.  We learn continually who, what, when and where  love, safety, danger and misery lie.  These are conscious and  unconscious thoughts, feelings, actions and reactions to maximise our lives, loves and livelihoods and to diminish the dangers we had and have to face from sabre toothed lions to telephone scams.  

But now the lines are crossed.  Those who refuse to accept the mantra of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) as a requirement to rid themselves of unconscious bias are labelled fascist, racist or similar epithet.  And those within the legal profession who have fallen for this artificial fabrication and the politicians who empower them have failed to realise that within that mindset the need for inclusiveness also must encompass acceptance of ideologies which are the very antithesis of western civilisation and are indeed a suicidal call for what has been the Judeo Christian foundation on which our society has been built.  Nothing exemplifies this attitude more than the disgraceful and disgusting verdict on the successful appeal by David Miller against his expulsion from his tenure at Bristol University. Astoundingly an employment tribunal decided that "The claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010 at the material times."  The full 120 pages of the judgement are available here.  Building on the incessant anti "Zionist" propaganda of the past year in which clear anti semitism has been expressed using the term Zionist as a cloak the tribunal has ratified that a belief in a Jewish homeland held by a large [60%-80%] of Jews here and worldwide is not protected in law from those who would preach in a manner directly based on activities in pre war Germany.  Indeed by substituting Zionist in their diatribes in place of Jews Miller and his ilk  can continue to spew their hatred to those who are the children to his Pied Piper.  I would argue that if unconscious bias does exist it existed in the minds of that Tribunal. It has been offered as the reason for another forum to castigate a magistrate [see below].  Unfortunately but unsurprisingly it has taken a marxist orientated publication to offer a riposte to the Tribunal`s decision to which I understand an appeal is in hand.  There are those who would defend Miller and that verdict.  The professional judiciary are government paid and pensioned civil servants. There is always a significant cohort who would put their own careers and well being above the requirement to uphold the law where the two come into conflict.  In the Miller case it might be said that the Tribunal members revealed their own unconscious bias against Jews.  Now that is  paradoxical. 

Closer to home a magistrate has recently been investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for making antisemitic remarks in a court setting. To quote the particular paragraphs;

 "A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud. {my bold}

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes."

The complete report can be accessed here. 

I would opine that there was nothing "unconscious" about the prejudice that Ms Lynn Killoran JP expressed.  It was a deliberate anti Jewish slur of which she was fully aware.  The implication of the judgement is that she was not responsible because it was unconscious bias.  Just as the fashion for the gender bending of children has been demonstrated to be against all logic and laterally illegal so it will be, concerning the concept of unconscious bias. That change in perception cannot come soon enough.  Academics and pseudo psychologists have weaved their dangerous patterns for far too long. Soon reality must resurrect itself and prevail.  Unconscious bias is a false totem. 

RICHARD PAGE : THE SAGA GOES ON

No individual magistrate has figured in this blog more than Richard Page ex J.P.  Perhaps when the matter of judiciary and religion is discussed few will have heard of him  and that is shameful because his sacking as a magistrate shames us all;  believers and non believers alike.  In order to appreciate fully the current state of affairs it might be helpful for interested readers to read the posts on the following dates:- 18/3/16, 29/3/16, 13/4/16, 1/8/17, 15/2/18, 1812/18, 7/1/19, 21/6/19 and 19/7/19. For speedier but not chronological access type Richard Page in search box.  Last Tuesday his case reached the Court of Appeal. It is likely that he has expended considerable sums to date on his claim that he was discriminated against in being sacked from his position on the bench for his Christian belief and for no other reason.  He is a  father of three and has fostered five more children.  In 2015 told the BBC, "My responsibility was to do what I considered best for the child and my feeling was therefore that it would be better if it was a man and a woman who were the adopted parents". He was also suspended as a non-executive director of the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. The bottom line is that according to the required process he was sacked because he made his view public without telling officials.  Last December Lord Justice Underhill is quoted as saying, " the removal of a magistrate for making a public statement raises issues of public importance and sensitivity."  That is the official line.  In the last decade ever more numbers of magistrates have made public comments about personal and legal matters in all media.  So the essence of his actions i.e. his reasoning behind his decision making, according to officialdom, had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. He who believes that must also believe that there really are fairies at the bottom of their garden.   Of the dates above I would suggest for further comment the post of 13/4/16 be studied.  I cannot but believe that if it were a Muslim J.P. who was treated similarly there would be outrage from all the usual quarters but for a Christian: silence.  I must conclude as a non believer that the tail of legal wokism  is wagging the brain of the British legal bulldog.  Recent events surrounding the appointment in America of a new judge to the Supreme Court lead me to think that similar is going on beneath the horizon in this country.   The Muslim population of England and Wales is around 4.8%. It is ethnically diverse – 68% Asian (1.83 million of 2.71 million) and 32% non-Asian. 1 in 12 is of White ethnicity (8% of the Muslim population).  Judicial statistics do not require the religion of office holders to be stated; only whether an individual is of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) origin. Sooner or later this apparent concealment of religion will have to be questioned.  Notwithstanding the verdict in the Appeal Court re Mr Page the influence of religious belief on bench decisions must surely now be questioned.   

MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION REVEALS ITS WOKE APPROACH TO JUSTICE

The Kingdom of England can arguably be stated as having been founded in the last century of the first millennium perhaps a century after the founding of the northern part of the British Isles known as Scotland.  The 13th century saw the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Ireland was brought under English control between 1541 and 1691. A sixteenth century royal marriage led to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 leading to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.  The establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 led to the current designation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.  The underlying political sentiments of those involved particularly for the last 200 years have been that there is much more that unites us than divides us.  That is until the latter part of the last century.  Whether by benign neglect or the emergence of an anti colonialism mind set in Scotland and Ireland separatism as a target began to take hold in some philosophical/historical  minds and actions within both nations.  The modern tragedy of Irish nationalism is still with us and the Scots seem to be plunging deeper and deeper into a death wish of economic turbulence and possible collapse. So what has this to do with a blog written by a retired magistrate with an interest in justice and the law?  In the last few weeks the Magistrates Association has been following a singularly IMHO divisive line of its thinking as indicated by its Tweets. 

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

#BlackHistoryMonth recommended reading: Influential Black Britons illustrated book (published by UK Parliament). This resource lists individuals who have impacted UK laws and equal rights. Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince, Claudia Jones, Lord Learie Constantine, Bernie Grant… (2/20)

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

11 Oct

It’s National Coming Out Day! Our LGBT+ Diversity and Inclusion Network provides a safe space for LGBT+ magistrates to discuss any issues which may affect them in court, as well champion equality and respect within the justice system. Find out more at - https://magistrates-association.org.uk/What-We-Do/MA-

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

2 Aug

Over on the

@JudiciaryUK

Instagram, Dan, our trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, talks about the importance of having a diverse magistracy and some of the transferable skills magistrates gain that can be so valuable to employers.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

27 Jul

Knife crime is a serious problem but there is no robust evidence that stop and search is the answer, while it could further damage the trust and confidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities have in the justice system.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

The MA’s disproportionality presentation provides information about the disproportionate over-representation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in the youth justice system, and what magistrates can do to address this in and out of the courtroom.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

16 Jul

It is encouraging that 18% of new magistrates are under 40, though there is still work to be done to attract more volunteers from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

14 Jul

‘Must-Listen-To’ Claxon: Hear MA board member & chair of our Young Magistrates Group,

@lukerigg

, talk on

@BBCRadio4

#FourThought about what it’s like to be a young magistrate, and why having more will improve justice. Luke you were excellent

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

9 Jul

Modelling for raising the retirement age to 75 projected that there will be 0.8% fewer BAME magistrates in any given year than at present. The MA has called for this impact on diversity to be mitigated by recruitment specifically targeting under-represented groups.

Magistrates Association

@MagsAssoc

 

·

29 Jun

'There is certainly no such thing as your stereotypical magistrate'.

Some retweets..

Magistrates Association Retweeted

 

Mawia Bin-Sufyan MStJ BCA

@MoawiaBinSufyan

 

·

19 Jun

Joining colleagues from across the UK for the

@MagsAssoc

inaugural meeting of the Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Special Interest Group. Speakers included the MA Chair

@BevHiggs

and new CEO @TomFranklinUK

Dan, MA trustee and deputy chair of our LGBT+ Special Interest Group, speaks to

@JudiciaryUK

as part of #PrideMonth

 

What those tweets indicate to me is that the Magistrates Association following the many examples of woke inspired separatism is functioning in the mistaken belief that representation of all manor of variations in the make up of society provides a better quality of justice for all those who come to court. In simple terms the so called life truths of a bench are more likely to  provide outcomes which suit the individual`s circumstances than the intellectual challenge of weighing up evidence so that the facts of a case are teased from all that the court must consider in coming to its conclusion. The practices of the M.A. in having sub committees for some of the very varied groupings in our society is inimitable to the cohesion which binds together those very same groupings. Undue emphasis on "diversity" risks a mockery of the judicial oath; “I, ______ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ______ ,
and I will do I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour , affection or ill-will." [my bold]. There will be those who will retort that it takes eg a "life truth" of living as an impoverished or racially abused member of a minority group to understand and appreciate circumstances of any offender`s particular actions but from my experience much thinking along those lines is in direct contradiction of the last eight words of the oath above. The continued emphasis on recruitment to supposedly represent society does no favour for selecting the best people to be sitting in judgement on their fellow citizens. For example in Bradford where the ethnic composition is that the largest religious group  is Christian (45.9% of the population) and nearly one quarter of the population (24.7%) is Muslim is that to be the target by the advisory committee charged with appointment of magistrates? 20.7% of Bradford citizens self declare that they do not follow a religion. Are they too to be represented on the Bench in that proportion?


When I was appointed in 1997 a question on the application form was for the applicant to state which political party benefited from his/her vote at the previous general election. I left it unanswered. In due course I received a letter enclosing my application telling me that unless I resubmitted the form with every question answered my application would not be considered. I duly filled in the name of the political party for which I had voted. That question was omitted from the form a few years later. The powers that be no longer want to know who their applicants vote for but now do want to know so much more about the essence of their very being.


All this might be considered under the term "woke or not woke". When universities and many institutions are afraid to issue firm declarations to students and others who foster hate at those whose opinions they oppose, who ignore antisemitism propagated at all levels of our society in the guise of "anti Zionism" there is a fear pervading many to whom society has bestowed influence that speaking out about any topic which questions current societal  mores is a career and/or reputation breaker. In simple terms it`s called self censorship. When fear is the basis of the way we conduct our daily lives proto fascism is appearing over the political horizon. Unfortunately the Magistrates Association is slowly but surely being dragged into this cultural morass.

QUESTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEES

I recently posted on the sacking of former magistrate Richard Page. It seems that for Mr Page trials and tribulations for his Christian view of homosexuality have not ended; indeed it could be said that they have been resurrected. He has now been suspended from his role as a non-executive director at a hospital trust for the very same reasons he was thrown out of the magistracy.  My general opinion is that until perhaps twenty years ago the hold of Christianity, indeed religion per se, within all levels of the way this country runs its institutions of all kinds had minimal effect upon the population in general.  That was before the increasing number of people self described as Pentecostals, the immigration of one million Polish immigrants many of whom are practising Catholics and three million Muslims  of whom arguably half would welcome the introduction of sharia to this country. It appears, however, that actions against Christians for their beliefs rightly or wrongly are disproportionate with regard to attitudes of authority in all its forms when it comes to Muslim positions when similar situations arise.  I have commented previously on opinions of Muslims in the magistracy.  If such individuals are "representatives" of their communities as we are forever being told it seems more than likely that hundreds of Muslim J.P.s hold opinions as "extreme" as Richard Page. Do Appointments Committees up and down the country who vet applicants on their views ever inquire of their attitudes  on homosexuality, sharia law, mixed marriage etc etc etc? or do they rely upon the generalisation that all people should be treated equally?   Should magistrates with so called extreme views be appointed as being representative of a growing segment of our multi cultural society? Is there a point where religious devotion is a factor which should prevent appointment as a magistrate?  

I fear that problems of religion are going to be an ever increasing disturbance to our secular way of life.  For somebody whose teenage years were in the swinging sixties this is very depressing.  The shackles thought destroyed in that decade seem to be re-appearing from the very sources it was considered had been consigned to the periphery except now we are too feeble to recognise them for what they are.

F.O.I.//JUDICIAL RELIGION//ELECTED SUPERVISORY BODIES?

Fact 1: When I was appointed in 1998 the application form had a section asking which political party had I voted for in the previous general election. 

Fact 2: That question has long been omitted from application form

Fact 3: Religious affiliation is not an admissible necessity  

Fact 4: Local Advisory Committees have some of these statistics

Fact 5: Freedom of Information Request to release those statistics not honoured.

Re Fact 5 above please find copied below reply:-

24 October 2022

Dear Ms 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 220927003

Thank you for your request dated 27 September 2022 in which you asked for the following

information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

Dear Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for London,

1.Please publish any material received from any other relevant authority relating to

the appointment criteria for those of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

2. How many JPs have been appointed in the last five years for which statistics are

available?

3. How many of of those re 2. above were of BAME identification?

4. How many of those re 2. above considered themselves Muslim on application?

Your request has been handled under the FOIA.

The MoJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because the

local Advisory Committees of Justices of the Peace are separate public authorities for

purposes of the FOIA. The MoJ may provide some services, such the provision of IT; but in

terms of recruitment (the subject of your enquiry) a Committee is its own public authority.

The MoJ (including HM Courts and Tribunal Services, which is an executive agency of the

MoJ) cannot answer for a Committee in this regard.

On November 21st 2022 an appeal against the refusal was confirmed.

On 22nd March 2023 there was an F.O.I. request as follows copied below: It seems that between November 2022 and March 2023 MOJ removed copy compliant facility of replies. This has necessitated using other publicly available means to paste relevant information:

So far so good or so it appears but further on there is this again copied below:-

Note the last two words above; "future publication". The final extract below from the reply is again by necessity a JPG from publicly available information.  The link highlighted is unavailable. 

The only conclusion is that the MOJ does not want we, the public, to know the religion if any of those who sit in judgement upon us. Richard Page ex JP was sacked for expressing his judicial opinion was based on his Christian beliefs. Until the early years of this century few of those involved in any way with the religious component of those on the bench high or low paid much attention to whether they worshipped a deity or not.  But  in 2024 a week before an election and eight months since an atrocity which has exposed the underlying hatred of Jews by many Muslims and the subsequent ouvert identity politics involving Muslims being persuaded by their peers and Imams to vote according to their preferred candidates` positions on the war against Hamas things are very different. The second most senior magistrate in the country, a Muslim,  has been subject to a formal warning of misconduct for his social media activities liable to indicate his partisan (Islamic) approach to justice. 

As readers will be aware, judges in USA are elected; the public has virtually the contenders` biographies and legal histories upon which to make a choice.  In this country such people are appointed by "the great and the good".  However we know to our shame and cost that supervisory bodies of all manner of industries and professions have been failing for decades with only the most heinous cases ever hitting the headlines Grenfell, Hillsborough and in the worst maternity scandal in the history of the NHS over two decades at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust hundreds of babies were left brain damaged or dead. Bereaved mothers were blamed for the deaths of their babies.  The Post Office and Blood scandals have yet to reach their public climax. Last week the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire was exposed as a liar and fraud in the qualifications he had submitted prior to his appointment.   Northamptonshire Police Fire and Crime Commissioner Danielle Stone, who was voted in to replace disgraced Stephen Mold – the man who oversaw the appointment of Mr Adderley – promised residents it wouldn’t happen again.  But this malfunction has happened in previous cases of Chief Constables being sacked. 

To conclude this post I leave readers with the question of whether in the light of current and historic circumstances supervisory bodies and those responsible for the appointment of the most senior responsible positions in society would do their jobs much more efficiently if they were accountable to being voted in or out by those over whom they have such onerous responsibilities. 

APPOINTMENT TO THE LAY BENCH AND WHAT BRITISH MUSLIMS REALLY THINK

On 29th March I posted with the heading  "QUESTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEES" and made reference to Muslim applications to become J.P.s and their being representative of the society in which they work or reside.........a requirement for appointment.  Last week was published a headline making survey on the opinions and attitudes of British Muslim citizens; "What British Muslims Really Think".  A programme on this subject will be shown tonight on Ch 4 T.V. 

Judicial statistics published by the MOJ have for some years categorised office holders by "ethnicity" but not by religion and for a century or more religion or lack of has had no bearing on appointment.  This admirable procedure was IMHO based upon the simple acceptance that only proven qualification and ability were necessary for interrogation as to suitability although inquiry until recently was made of political preference or membership of a masonic lodge. In my own application to the Bench I deliberately omitted answering those two questions.  My form was returned with an accompanying letter informing me that unless the questions were answered my application would be halted there and then.  I returned the form duly completed to the satisfaction of the Appointments Committee.  The core of the survey mentioned above is that eg 39% of respondents agreed that wives should always obey their husbands, 31% believe that it is acceptable for a British Muslim to have more than one wife, 23% support the introduction of Sharia law in Muslim dominated areas, 52% believe homosexual acts should be illegal. With increasing concern within the Labour Party over anti- semitism  is it a coincidence that the survey revealed that more than a quarter of respondents felt Jews were “responsible for most wars” compared to a 6 per cent average across the UK while almost four in ten felt Jews had “too much control over global affairs,” compared to a ten per cent average over the general population?

We are constantly informed that magistrates are or should be representative of their communities.  That being the case, of the 4.6% of magistrates who are self classified as "Asian" ie about 900,  many hundreds must be assumed as being Muslim.  

Richard Page ex J.P. is appealing against his removal from the magistracy. Whether or not he succeeds the issue of particular religious belief being compatible or not with sitting as a magistrate must be faced especially in the light of the survey.  Of course it is not unlikely that the cry of "racist" will be heard but this is nothing to do with race.  If a Christian acting on his belief re the suitability of same sex couples` suitability for adopting a child is chastised we are IMHO faced with the prospect of making inquiry of all applicants whether they hold beliefs that would preclude their being able to fulfil the judicial oath.  That Muslims generally according to that survey are more likely to hold opinions contrary to their more secular and/or free thinking non Muslim neighbours is a factor that cannot be ignored especially when such opinions are more suited to the 19th rather than the 21st century.  It is highly likely that Muslim representative organisations will seek to discredit this survey but there have been others including a previous Ch4 Dispatches programme with not dissimilar findings.  Until enough secular living Muslims and/or those who have an enlightened attitude to their religion  feel confident enough to speak out and interpret their religion for modern living, established Muslim spokesmen are liable to increase rather than decrease any prevailing or anticipated inter communal tensions.