The Court of Decency vs. Amnesty International

Interim Report

(With the Decent Jihad on Amnesty International well underway, the Court of Decency has issued its interim findings on the latest witchhunt against a human rights organisation...)

1. Amnesty International is in partnership with and promoting CagePrisoners

Status: UNDETERMINED.

Amnesty vehemently deny any official relationship at all with CagePrisoners, a foolish gambit given we all know that they are literally in cahoots with the Taliban and praying for the victory of fundamentalist Islam.

2. The head of Amnesty Asia has condemned the organisation

Status: UNDETERMINED.

Sam Zafiri, Amnesty's Asia Pacific director, was reported by the Times journalist who first broke the BullshitGate story to have called upon Amnesty to "admit it had made a mistake" by allowing Moazzam Begg to speak. Zafiri has since said he was misquoted, which means he must surely have called upon Amnesty's UK directors to commit suicide by disembowelling themselves instead.

3. Amnesty is giving Begg a platform to espouse his nutty beliefs.

Status: FALSE.

Begg has only ever spoken about the secret black prison network in which he was held, and into which an unknown number of innocent and guilty individuals have vanished, many of whom have been tortured for false confessions or murdered. Amnesty has no place drawing attention to the legitimate torture and national security operations of western democracies, and referring to the US black prison network is surely just as bad as Amnesty calling for Jihad on western democracy itself.

4. Amnesty is soft on Islamists in general and the Taliban in particular.

Status: FALSE.

Amnesty's latest work on the Taliban is available here and is, admittedly, somewhat short on kisses and hugs and long on documenting human rights violations. Mind, you'll notice they Condemn the Taliban, but the question is, do they Denounce them? Do they Castigate and Excoriate them?

5. Gita Saghal was suspended for objecting to Amnesty's promotion of Begg.

Status: FALSE.

The sequence of events leading to Saghal's suspension is clear. She took part in an internal debate at Amnesty on their decision to allow Begg to speak, which she lost. Rather than resign or accept Amnesty's decision, she took her complaint to News International. Thus, Saghal was suspended for attacking the organisation in the Murdoch press, which is almost exactly the same as being suspended for her moral rectitude.

6. As a whistleblower, Saghal should be protected from victimisation.

Status: FALSE.

All of the relevant information was already in the press before Saghal spoke to the press, thus she is not a whistleblower. Nor is she being victimised, since every organisation on Earth would suspend an employee in this situation.

The Court finds that Amnesty should, however, hold itself to far higher standards than every other organisation on Earth and allow its employees to denounce it in the national press. After all, we all remember how it was totally fine when Katherine Gun leaked news that the United States had been bugging UN delegations in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, to pick a random example.

Conclusion

On the above evidence, the Court Of Decency has no choice but to find Amnesty International hideously guilty of all charges. The fiends.

Amnesty International is hereby sentenced to twenty years of re-education by Oliver Kamm in respecting the human rights of all individuals not currently being bombed, shot, tortured or extrajudicially detained by the armed forces of the United States of America, Great Britain or Israel.

The Court also commends the following agents for building this airtight and in no way misleading case against Amnesty: Denis MacShane MP; Christopher Hitchens; Harry's Place; David Aaronovitch; Martin Bright; Nick Cohen; Norman Geras; The Times; Melanie Philips and others.

Without your sterling efforts comrades, this patchwork of misleading claims, bald deceptions and outright hysterical lies would never have reached the international press.

(Cheers are due to Pickled Politics)

You Are The Decent Ref - Human Rights NGO Edition

1) A Humanitarian NGO that does fine work exposing the crimes and atrocities of dictatorships worldwide has recently begun to criticise the Departures From Universal Principles of nations that are uncritically supported by the Decent Left.

You then discover that a hideous gaggle of despicable right-wing lunatic bastards have unearthed proof that a military analyst who works for the NGO collects World War II memorabilia, including German army issue kit and insignia, and are engaged in a wingnut circlejerk of the utmost ferocity aimed at damaging the NGO as badly as possible.

What do you do?

a) Nothing. Jesus, a military analyst who's also a massive World War II geek with a fetish for uniforms? What next, a football fan who likes lager and pies?

b) The NGO risks harm to its reputation, thus harming its ability to publicise human rights violations by tyrants and totalitarians. Type up a short blog post expressing your concern and calling upon the NGO to investigate and, if necessary, discipline or fire the analyst in question.

c) Publish post after post after post furiously denouncing the NGO, feigning concern for its reputation and good works while actually striving to inflict as much damage upon it as possible, while inviting a massive crowd of baying right wing fuckheads to defecate liberally over the NGO by painting it as a malign conspiracy of Jew-hating, anti-western Nazi bastards?


2) A Humanitarian NGO that does fine work exposing the crimes and atrocities of dictatorships worldwide has recently begun to criticise the Departures From Universal Principles of nations that are uncritically supported by the Decent Left.

You then discover that the NGO is hosting public appearances by a former inmate of a massive American black prison network with a long record of disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and murder; the former inmate, however, holds deranged and unpleasant Islamist views.

What do you do?

a) Nothing. Jesus, the whole point of human rights is that they're universal. It's entirely obvious that states will crack down on extremists and nutters as much as they will on peaceful democratic dissidents, and any human rights org worth its salt will take both cases equally seriously. Plus, what the fuck? Torture and black prisons?

b) The NGO risks harm to its reputation, thus harming its ability to publicise human rights violations by tyrants and totalitarians. Type up a short blog post expressing your concern and calling upon the NGO to investigate and, if necessary, discipline or fire anyone found to have taken actions that are in conflict with the organisation's founding principles.

c) Publish post after post after post furiously denouncing the NGO while feigning concern for its reputation and good works and actually striving to inflict as much damage upon it as possible, while inviting a massive crowd of baying right wing fuckheads to defecate liberally over the NGO by painting it as a Jew-hating, Jihadist-fellating anti-western conspiracy and, further, using the issue as a stick to beat your political enemies and launching a fucking Facebook campaign?

3) A large number of Humanitarian NGOs that do fine work exposing the crimes and atrocities of dictatorships worldwide have recently begun to criticise the Departures From Universal Principles of nations that are uncritically supported by the Decent Left.

You then discover absolutely any scrap of pissweak propagandistic horseshit that may damage the NGO and discredit their attempts to hold Democrats to minimum international humanitarian standards by implying that war, torture and murder may not be entertaining and laudible activities.

What do you do?

a) Nothing. Jesus, you may not agree with everything that NGOs do and may strongly disagree with some of it, but you appreciate that launching a series of vindictive and spiteful hate campaigns against the world's leading humanitarian organisations would be counterproductive and wrong-headed.

b) The NGO risks harm to lunatic, bloodthirsty and disastrous military misadventures unconditionally supported by the Decent Left, thus harming western nations' ability to launch insane and murderous bombing campaigns against heavily populated urban areas and to operate a secret network of black prisons. Type up a short blog post expressing your concern and calling upon the NGO to consider whether war, surgical strikes, arbitrary detention, torture, murder and disappearances are really worth getting all steamed up about, in the midst of a Global War on Terror.

c) Immediately seize upon any old bullshit that damages the NGO in question by pretending that the International Red Cross may have collaborated with terrorists to bomb their own ambulance, using a risible pack of wingnut lies published by a hideous shower of evil right wing bastards as evidence; Reprint a pack of dubious What If? bollocks from a well-known Republican cretin implying that Human Rights Watch conspires with the Saudi regime to falsely attack Israel; Reprint a mad Israeli wingnut's attempts to hurl huge handfuls of shit at HRW by accusing one of its employees of loving terrorists and terrorism; Instantly shit your pants in terror when an Amnesty official compares the Americans' secret torture, murder and arbitrary detention network of black prisons the Gulag; Issue a full-throated defence of international disappearance and arbitrary detention or a masturbatory Real-Men-Ain't-Afraid-Of-Torturin'-a-Bad-'Un display of belligerent machismo; call for "morally serious" people to have a debate on torture, an issue which deserves careful consideration, and generally make it clear that opposition to western human rights violations is the preserve of ivory tower-dwellling pro-Islamists who pray for the destruction of western civilisation?

Answers

Mostly a)

If you like Jihadistan so much, why don't you fuck off and live there, you relativist, genocidal Osama Bin Liberal bastard?

Mostly b)

There's a time and place for level-headed, rational discussion, and it's never and somewhere else.

Mostly c)

Congratulations - you are a morally serious, level-headed Decent. Our deranged plan to suicide bomb every left-wing organisation and institution on the face of the planet into submission, in the insane hope that a new, more politically acceptable network of human rights organisations will automatically spring into existence on the day of the Rapture, proceeds apace. Onwards to an ill-defined and probably fantastical victory, comrades!

Inquiry

Beacon/Travesty of Justice

1. Enlightened group of Solomonic Solons gathered to pass impartial judgement upon the innocence and ironclad moral rectitude of the Prime Minister and to sentence fork-tongued reporters and mendacious public service broadcasters to hard labour in the grim Gulag of journalistic disgrace.

Unimpeachable tribunes of even-handed justice, investigating and rejecting out of hand grotesque litanies of false accusation against pure-hearted politicians in the spirit of non-partisan free inquiry, whose decision is final.

2. Despicable kangaroo court of politically-motivated liars, con men, mountebanks and bastards gathered to orchestrate the public lynching of the Prime Minister in an epic assault upon truth and justice.

A great troupe of cackling, pro-terror chimpanzees gathered to hurl great handfuls of faeces into the wide-eyed, trusting faces of pure-hearted politicians, unless their report absolves the Prime Minister of wrongdoing, in which case see 1.

Democracy

Contradictory Plebiscitory and Representative Process

Electoral procedure whereby citizens vote for candidates ostentatiously supported by Decents.

Not to be confused with totalitarianism, whereby citizens vote for candidates ostentatiously Condemned by Decents.

Democracy in Action - A Quick Guide To National Elections

1. Formal procedure by which Iraqi democrats appoint Islamists with links to unsavoury terrorist groups as their official representatives and rulers.

The ultimate expression of the will of the Iraqi people, demonstrating their immense hunger for freedom.

Supported!

2. Formal procedure by which Palestinian fascists appoint Islamists from unsavoury terrorist groups as their official representatives and rulers.

The ultimate expression of the will of the Palestinian people, demonstrating their immense hunger for genocide.

Condemned!

3. Formal procedure by which a US-installed and supported former Unocal oil consultant and ex-CIA asset appoints himself as the Afghan people's official representative and ruler.

The ultimate expression of the will of Hamid Karzai, although of course not representative of the will of the government of the United States nor their intelligence services, who frown upon election-rigging in countries that they militarily occupy and over which they exercise de facto control.

Condemned!

4. Formal process by which Iranian democrats appoint the clerical fascist former prime minister of the Islamic Republic and right-hand man of Ayatollah Khomeini, and actually get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as their official representative and ruler.

The ultimate expression of the will of the Iranian people, contingent upon the Iranian opposition remaining out of power. Should the opposition actually take power, they will instantly cease to be democrats and revert to being horrifying, totalitarian fascist monsters thirsting for war and genocide.

Supported! unless they actually win, at which point they will be immediately Condemned!

5. Formal process by which Venezuelan idiots vote for the terrifying socialist monster Hugo Chavez as their Supreme Dictator-For-Life.

The ultimate expression of the will of the people, demonstrating their immense thirst for a Thousand-Year Reich of bloody Bolivarian horror.

Condemned!

6. Formal process by which Lebanese democrats appoint whichever Armani-suited warlord or gangster shares their ethno-religious identity as their official representative and ruler.

The ultimate expression of the will of the Lebanese people, demonstrating their immense hatred for Hezbollah and warm, near-sexual affection for states that periodically invade, strafe and cluster bomb their country.

Supported!

7. Formal process by which Spanish pussies are intimidated into appointing anti-war appeasers of fascism as their official rulers and representatives.

The ultimate expression of the cowardice of the Spanish people, demonstrating their pitiful, wimpish inability to take a few terrorist bombings and bullshit government propaganda efforts without going all weak at the knees and bowing before fascists.

Condemned!

Note

Final analysis of the Afghan election is contingent upon the outcome of Hitchens vs. United Nations, currently being heard before the Court of Decency.

Case summary: Hitchens observes blatant electoral fraud perpetrated by a US-installed and supported former Unocal oil consultant and ex-CIA asset in an epic campaign of ballot stuffing, and concludes that said fraud is entirely the fault of the United Nations. Hitchens further commends the ultimately futile efforts of the Americans to prevent the theft of the election by the candidate that they have both financially and politically backed for decades.

Judgement pending; Full text of Hitchens' petition here.

Case Law

Proceedings Of The Court Of Decency

Session 2009/10, CoD 22

James & Cohen vs. Western Feminists, Australian Local Intelligentsia, Australian Multiculturalist Ideologues, Legions of Australian Female Pundits, Western Female Thinkers, Writers In The Serious Newspapers, The Experts In Our Feminist Movement, The Irresponsible Semi-Intelligentsia, The Pampered Intelligentsia & Anti-Western Feminists

This fascinating case recently called before the Court of Decency, having been raised by journalists Clive James and Nicholas Cohen in the noted left-wing periodical Standpoint. The case has opened several legal cans of worms.

Firstly, while James and Cohen charged the entirety of western liberalism with crimes against the oppressed women of Islamic countries, a strict reading of their twin indictments revealed that their many synonyms for "western feminists" were in fact a cunning code for "Germaine Greer," and that the repeatedly-invoked "Pampered Intelligentsia" was a euphemism for "Timothy Garton-Ash and Ian Buruma".

Secondly, one need only examine the charges to recognise that this test-case has proved to be a watershed in the evolution of Decent Law.

1) That "Western Feminists" (i.e. Germaine Greer) think female genital mutilation is brilliant and, like, totally ethnic and shit;

2) That "Western Feminists" (i.e. Germaine Greer) are guilty of complaining too much about the status of women in western society, rather than Condemning the Muslims;

3) That "Western Feminists" (i.e. Germaine Greer) are in fact guilty of Not Condemning the Muslims regularly enough to avoid suspicion;

4) That several unnamed book reviewers are guilty of authoring unenthusiastic reviews of a book that Condemns the Muslims, and

5) That the "Pampered Intelligentsia" (i.e. Timothy Garton-Ash and Ian Buruma) are guilty of uttering mild criticism of Somali neo-conservative thinktanker Aayan Hirsi-Ali.


Analysis - The Court of Decency has set a revolutionary precedent by finding against the defendants on all counts.

The ruling means that in future, anonymous and possibly allegorical individuals can now be arrested, prosecuted and convicted for the arguments they don't make with unspecified regularity and at non-specific times in unnamed publications. Further, all western feminists are henceforth required to cease and desist with their yakking gossip about the status of women in western society, and are bound to restrict their empty gabble to Condemnations of the Muslims, preferably penned whilst performing menial tasks in The Kitchen.

It also establishes that even mild criticism of neo-conservative thinktankers is now a capital offence, as is the heinous and unforgiveable crime of penning unenthusiastic reviews of books that Condemn the Muslims.

Further, the ruling establishes that all western feminists are to be automatically presumed guilty of Germaine Greer in the first degree. This ruling is in stark contrast to the ruling in a 2006 case which found the Decent Left entirely innocent of Martin Amis with menaces.

Most importantly, the case will have the inevitable effect of clogging the Court of Decency with millions of cases against individuals who have failed to Condemn the Muslims with sufficient enthusiasm to escape suspicion. This analyst's research indicates that western liberals can and do spend as much as 99.9% of their waking lives Not Condemning the Muslims, and it may take years to track down and prosecute each and every one of these treacherous individuals for the arguments that they don't make.

Case Carried - Defendants Garton-Ash and Buruma sentenced to horsewhipping in the public stocks, followed by beheading; Defendant Greer to be buried and stoned to death by a ravening Decent mob. All costs to be paid by The Guardian, as is customary.

Case Law

Proceedings of the Court of Decency

Session 2008/09 CoD 22

Reality vs. Hitchens

Virtually an open and shut case, Reality vs. Hitchens is in fact the textbook example of the Conficamus (lit. "Fuck - It") principle in Decent Law.

The case hinged upon the following statement, published by the defendant Christopher Hitchens in defence of a certain ongoing military disaster ostentatiously supported by him -

"Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves."

Justice Geras, presiding, made short work of his verdict -

"There are things (those contending the statement) could say - he must know that. I mean, honest things, reasonable things. But so many of those who opposed the Iraq war have given voice, and for so much of the time, to the denial that there could have been any good reasons on the other side that his drawing attention to good news is very much to the point."

Analysis - Justice Geras does not mince words - in his judgement that "(Hitchens) must know that (there are honest and reasonable responses)" he clearly acknowledges that the defendant Hitchens is legally Plenus Stercoris (Lit. "Full of - shit").

Justice Geras then deftly dismisses the defendant's transgression by noting that, since some nasty people have previously called him (Geras) some unpleasant names, the Conficamus principle is invoked - the defendant's contention must therefore be utterly valid. All charges are summarily dismissed with no case to answer, all costs to be paid by Reality.

Interestingly this is, by this court reporter's estimation, roughly the 14,732nd occasion on which the defendant Hitchens has been found to be legally Plenus Stercoris, and the 14,284th time that a Decent Judge has dismissed all charges with a declaration of Conficamus.

n.b. Please note that Justice Geras' reference to "Good news" should not be taken to imply the existence of any actual, meaningful "Good news". In this instance, the "news" is "good" in the same sense that stepping in a large, fresh dog egg with a penny in it is "Good news" - your shoe is still covered in dog dirt, and what precisely are you going to do with a penny?

Full text of the judgement here.

Case Law

Proceedings of the Court of Decency

Session 2007/08 CoD96 - F.O.I. Request 08/34/2

R. Thomas vs H.M.G.

(Rush transcript - 11.32 27/2/08, Justice Brown presiding)

(Transcript begins)

Justice Brown: "...Turning to our next case, let's see... Ah! That bloody information commissioner, what? Thomas, isn't it? Still banging on about that Iraq nonsense I see... Oh well, I suppose we might as well just bash through it, make it look good..."

"...So, you want the transcript of the pre-war cabinet meetings released. Ho ho, you never give up, you nasty little terrier you... Let's see... 'The decision to take military action against another state is so important that accountability... etcetera etcetera, public interest and so on and so forth...'"

Well, this looks an open and shut case to me, Thomas old boy. You've clearly failed to understand how British democracy works, eh? See, in Britain, what we do is elect a party to represent our interests - that party elects a leader, and that leader is then free to do whatever he sees fit, without having to answer a lot of impertinent questions from jumped-up quill-pushers such as yourself."

"Indeed, I see a further difficulty here - this 'transparency and accountability' malarkey sets a jolly bad precedent. If we start auditing government decision making, that'll hardly encourage them to be more open about their true intentions in future, will it?"

Thomas: "I object your honour, I - (Inaudible) - in the interests of full public disclosure - (Inaudible, "public trust", "governance", some such nonsense)

JB: "Yes, that's all well and good, Thomas, but what if ministers were unable to get their story straight in private before presenting a pack of half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies to the public? If Johnny Taxpayer is going to stick his oafish nose into every cabinet meeting, it carries a real risk that ministers will be less open and transparent when preparing to mislead the public over future foreign policy disasters."

Thomas: (Inaudible, 'pre-emptive' this, 'war of choice' that, 'misleading the electorate' etc. etc... i.e. much the same prating foolishness as before)

JB: "Overruled, Thomas, you contemptible little scrote. What's all this about 'Pre-emptive war', then? Surely that's the whole point, you clot. One goes to the great trouble of shooting first precisely so that one can ask questions later, or preferably never... I'm satisfied that this will all come out in the fullness of time, by which point everyone will have forgotten what the problem was, and there'll be no unpleasant prosecutions - case dismissed."

"Now you, Thomas, Information Commissioner or not - I'm of good mind to fine you for wasting the court's time this morning, you meddlesome little turd. What's your interest in overturning the basics of British governance, eh? For let us not forget that Liberty, If It Means Anything, Is The Right To Elect a Prime Minister Then Slavishly Obey His Whims Without Getting Ideas Above Our Station, eh?"

"Get out of my sight, you despicable oaf... Now, what's next... What? Lunchtime already? Good show, I'm ruddy starving, and I've got the Common Man vs. the Liberal Intelligentsia to do first thing tomorrow morning..."

(Transcript ends)

Full text of written judgement

Case Law

Proceedings of the Court of Decency

Session 2007/08 CoD 33

Professor Geras vs. Your Intelligence

An interesting case just placed before the court, in which the plaintiff, Professor Geras, attacks the defendant, Your Intelligence, by extrapolating from an anecdotal account.

The facts of the case are clear -

1) That some guy with a website had that Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), in the back of his Decent Taxi, wherein he did single out the Americans for special treatment, to whit -

2) That, in the back of some guy's Decent Taxi, Roth did categorically and maliciously state that American human rights violations will encourage nasty regimes to violate international law.

3) Hence, that in the back of some guy's Decent Taxi, Roth did state that America should be held to a higher standard than other nations. Thus -

C) Kenneth Roth is guilty of the crime of moral equivalence by effectively stating that it is more acceptable for tyrannical regimes to violate human rights.

Your Intelligence contends that it has been grievously insulted by Professor Geras's argument.

Analysis

The case is yet to come to court, and may prove to be a landmark in the evolution of Decent case law.

Firstly, the court will likely accept hearsay evidence obtained in the back of a Decent Taxi without independent corroboration.

Secondly, and controversially, a brief Google search reveals that HRW has repeatedly made some form of the following argument -

"It is highly damaging to the cause of international human rights when the nations that conceived, drafted, signed and have pushed for the enforcement of human rights laws are caught in flagrant violation of them. It is doubly damaging when those nations actively seek to exempt themselves from such laws with mendacious claims of exceptionalism and point-blank refusals to improve their behaviour.

This encourages people all over the world to believe that human rights are merely a stick for beating international pariahs, rather than strict laws which should be adhered to by all nations. The damage this causes may well be irreparable.

In short, the leader of the free world must possess the moral authority to castigate China's human rights record without facing an outbreak of sniggering."

Your Intelligence refuses to accept that a Professor Emeritus of politics is incapable of grasping this simple idea. Further, by implying that this argument means "it is to some extent all right for nasty regimes to violate human rights," Professor Geras has clearly insulted Your Intelligence.

Since Professor Geras has grievously insulted Your Intelligence on numerous occasions in the past, this may seem an open-and-shut-case. Readers are reminded, however, that the Court of Decency has a history of bizarre rulings against Humanitarian NGOs generally and Human Rights Watch in particular.

Full text of Professor Geras's musings here.

Case Law

Proceedings of the Court of Decency

Session 2006/07 CoD 14

European Thuggery vs. European Fascism

A noteworthy test case for all students of Decent law, Thuggery vs. Fascism is the benchmark for assigning culpability following acts of mob racism and violence.

The court considered two instances of football-related civil disorder. In the first, French football fans racially abused then physically attacked an Israeli supporter - in the second, Israeli football fans disrupted a "minute's silence" for an assassinated former Prime Minister with racist chants.

Justice Zitver, presiding, overruled previous legal precedents requiring all acts of racist hatred to be judged by the same standard, creating a new two-tier hierarchy of prejudice. This new legal test, Israelum Accuso Non Potest, allows for the precise allocation of culpability.

In the first case, Justice Zitver held the nation of France responsible for the racist behaviour of a small group of French football supporters.

In the second, he held the continent of Europe responsible for the racist behaviour of over ten thousand Israeli football supporters.

Case closed, all costs to be paid by France.

Analysis - The judgement is notable for its refusal to adhere to the principle that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". In effect, Justice Zitver's ruling deliberately exempted the inhabitants of one nation from culpability for their actions.

While this proved controversial, it is entirely consistent with his previous rulings on the use of indiscriminate violence, collective punishment and human rights abuses, thus conforming with the principles of Decent law.

Full text of the judgements can be read here and here.

Case Law

Proceedings Of The Court Of Decency

Session 2006-07 - CoD 43

The Liberal Intelligentsia vs. Manning

The plaintiff held that the defendant, Bernard Manning (deceased) was guilty of the crime of racism. Supporting its case, the plaintiff presented documentary evidence showing the defendant engaged in racist behaviours, video evidence of same and anecdotal evidence from numerous eye-witnesses.

The defendant offered no rebuttal, having recently died.

Justice Brown, presiding, found against the plaintiff and declared the defendant not racist based upon mitigation.

Firstly, Justice Brown held that the defendant's extensive charity work should be counted in his favour.

Secondly, he held that Mr. Manning's alleged racism was mitigated by his British origin. Justice Brown clarified that he would not have applied such leniency had Mr. Manning lived in the American deep South during the 1950's.

He also exempted the defendant from blame on grounds of his profession, holding that comedians should benefit from a wide margin of appreciation not afforded to politicians.

Finally, in summing up, Justice Brown found Mr. Manning prima facie working class, and admonished the Liberal Intelligentsia for it's braying, snobbish condescension of an honest, hard working man.

Case dismissed, all costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

Analysis - The judgement is unusual for it's stark departure from established practice - several aspects of the decision seemed contradictory to previously accepted case law, in particular Justice Brown's advice that the plaintiff should "...turn off (its) racist antennae".

Experts were nonplussed by the verdict of not racist, since the court saw video evidence in which the defendant answered the question "Are you racist?" with the word "Yes."

Additionally, the notion that defendants can claim protection from charges of racism on the grounds of "not being a politician" is highly inconsistent with previous rulings.

It remains to be seen whether this judgement has established the precedent of Homo Laborum Intactum, which could grant immunity from prosecution to any person capable of carrying off a convincingly proletarian accent.

Full transcript of the judgement.