Amir Majid is blind. “They should have sacked him years ago, but I suspect they were worried he’d bring a disability discrimination case.”
Not just that: “Judge Majid promotes himself as an expert on Islamic law and previously came to public notice when he won £15,000 compensation for himself for racial discrimination from London’s Guildhall, where he lectured.”
If he were removed for his manifest incompetence, he would almost certainly cry “Islamophobia” and claim he was removed for being Muslim.
This is another instance in which the “diversity” that is supposed to be our “strength” is actually our weakness, as in the case of Mohamed Noor, the Minneapolis cop who was only on the force because he was Somali and Muslim, and who ended up shooting an unarmed woman. In reality, “diversity” is killing us.
“You couldn’t make it up! Immigration judge ‘has little idea of the law’: UK’s second-ever blind judge is condemned for bungling 13 cases,” by Neil Sears, Daily Mail, October 3, 2017:
A ‘shambolic’ immigration judge ‘with very little idea of the law’ was condemned over 13 cases.
In an unprecedented ruling, a tribunal chaired by three senior judges found Dr Amir Majid was ‘wholly failing to meet the standards demanded’.
In nine of the cases the 63-year-old judge, who is blind and uses a wheelchair, unlawfully ruled that migrants and asylum seekers could stay in Britain.
A senior immigration barrister last night told the Daily Mail he suspected Dr Majid, who remains a judge, has long avoided the sack because the Ministry of Justice fears he would claim discrimination.
The tribunal considered 13 rulings made by the immigration appeal judge at Taylor House, in Islington, north London, that were later successfully overturned….
The senior judges, led by Judge Mark Ockelton, vice president of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), said of the 13 cases: ‘Every one of the decisions shows error of law, in most cases serious error, in most cases multiple serious errors.
‘To be frank, in none of the decisions under appeal does he give the least reason to suppose that he is aware what the relevant requirements of the immigration rules are.’
They added: ‘Judge Majid’s decisions give the impression that the judge has very little idea of either his own (limited) powers or the content of the law in issue. They are full of observations many of which are of dubious correctness, some of which are of dubious relevance, and a few of which are wholly inappropriate.’
Most of the cases involved Judge Majid accepting appeals by migrants against Home Office orders to leave Britain.
He accepted one key witness was British simply because they recited aloud what they claimed was their passport number – without giving any documents as proof….
Even a lawyer who won his immigration appeal heard by the judge made an official complaint, saying: ‘It was extremely difficult to understand what Judge Majid was saying, which caused significant confusion on numerous occasions.
‘His comments and questions were of tangential relevance and it was difficult for the witness and legal representative to grasp the points he was trying to make.
‘He became angry with both witnesses and legal representative as a result of the strained communication and frequent misunderstandings. I would go so far as to suggest that the nature of the proceedings before Judge Majid were so shambolic as to bring the tribunal into disrepute and undermine public confidence in an effective judicial system.’
Dr Majid was hailed for becoming Britain’s second blind judge 20 years ago, and as a result of his disability has an assistant to help him grasp cases. After going blind while at a university of agriculture in his native Pakistan, he became a lawyer and lecturer….
A senior immigration barrister said: ‘He’s a nightmare … He is hard to understand, can’t understand what is said, and it takes 20 minutes just to establish what case it is and who’s in court.
‘He still thinks we’re in a time when judges had a lot more discretion to let asylum seekers stay. When I represent asylum seekers in front of him I have to warn them they will have a surreal experience. Even if they win … the Home Office will almost certainly appeal.
‘They should have sacked him years ago, but I suspect they were worried he’d bring a disability discrimination case.’
Judge Majid promotes himself as an expert on Islamic law and previously came to public notice when he won £15,000 compensation for himself for racial discrimination from London’s Guildhall, where he lectured….
Dum Spiro says
Justin Trudeau would probably welcome him into Canada to help implement and interpret any new anti-Islamophobia laws.
Canadians still can unite in pushing back against any further inroads by M-103 in order to preserve, protect and defend their current rights…
— Spero
fbijihadidefender says
Not sure all Muslim are stupid. But in general, Muslim are not as smart as kafirs. Why don’t Muslims move away from Islam and increase their intelligence for the sake of Allah ?
Anonymous says
Not as smart as the clever kafirs who saw fit to make a blind, incoherent muslim a judge who now rules on immigration cases. Indeed!
gravenimage says
Yes–this is not just stupidity, but *willful* stupidity, which is harder to cure.
mortimer says
STUPID? No… carelessness.
HERE’S A LIST OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT MAJID
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2017/AA069062014.html
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments
“True Ignorance is not the absence of knowledge bu the refusal to acquire it.” – Karl Popper
gravenimage says
Mortimer, carelessness beyond a point is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Besides, I do not believe this is simple carelessness–barristers in the story above note that authorities are afraid to deal with this case due to the certain charges of “Islamophobia” and “racism” if they do.
Pam says
Because they are brainwashed from birth, nothing comes before allah. It’s punishable by death if anyone leaves Islam. Amazing how many people can be so brainwashed by a dead man.
thesailor says
I believe the average IQ of Muslims ranges from 64 in Somalia to the dizzy heights of 82 in Egypt, where the prestigious Al-Azhar University is situated. Wikipedia says its mission is “to propagate Islam and Islamic culture”. And virtually nothing else, apart apparently from teaching the phases of the Moon, of which, if memory serves me correctly, there are four.
Hot hach says
You are right by virtue that Islam are against inovation.
Emilie Green says
“who is blind”
And therefore can’t see the text of the actual statute or case law precedent. Can’t see the demeanor and expressions of witnesses who are giving testimony which is an essential is measuring a witness’s credibility.
It’s said he has an assistant. Does it really matter? Yikes!
Jayell says
Wouldn’t have thought that being blind would have made much difference if the rest of the cranial equipment is a bit naff.
gravenimage says
Yes–that is the real problem, not his sightlessness.
DRHazard says
Incompetent, angry, makes bizarre and confusing statements, doesn’t know what integrity means, becomes enraged when questioned – sounds like the average social justice warrior. Maybe the Green Party can put him in charge.
Frank Anderson says
Ms. Green, think of the denial of due process arguments that would be possible on appeal in the US considering his demonstrated inability to fully measure the demeanor of the parties and witnesses. But, UK does not have a written constitution and the law is pretty well what they say the law is today.
J M Joyce says
Not entirely true. The UK does have a written constitution of a type and it is embodied in Acts of Parliament that are known as the ‘Constitutional Acts’ and in various conventions that have been written into law as they evolved over the centuries. The first such convention is generally reckoned to be the Magna Carta. These acts and conventions would, in practical terms, be well nigh impossible to repeal or get rid of. It is much more accurate to say that the UK has an uncodified constitution rather than an unwritten one, but even that isn’t strictly true as there are many authoritative collections, codifications if you will, of all the elements of the British constitution that are routinely referred to and accepted as legally valid.
What confuses people who don’t know anything about the UK constitutional set-up is the way that Parliament (the monarch in Parliament as it’s frequently phrased in this context) can add to the existing corpus of constitutional law by passing new Acts that become part of the constitution; Acts such as those that set up the Scottish so-called parliament and the Welsh assembly are examples of this process. Such a constitutional system is often touted as being responsive to modern needs and flexible in the face of changing mores, but in practice it is neither of these things.as it is inconceivable that a constitutional Act once passed could ever be repealed.
In reality the rigidity of the UK constitution and the constraints that it places on the daily lives of individuals is giving rise to increasing concern about the preservation of our traditional liberties. It vests so much power in Parliament that has been hijacked by an increasingly authoritarian and left-wing executive (aided by an equally left-wing and increasingly arrogant civil service) that many of us worry that our current constitutional arrangements are no longer fit for purpose and no longer support our much vaunted, but increasingly illusory, freedoms and our putative, but in reality practically non-existent, democracy.
Frank Anderson says
J M, I sincerely appreciate your explanation. It does look like with a “constitution” that is enacted and changed by Parliament pretty much without limit, the UK “constitution” is pretty much what they say it is today and does not limit what it can say and do tomorrow. I apologize to you. The United States Constitution is also subject to change by amendment, requiring votes in Congress and approval by a super-majority of states, or by interpretations of the Supreme Court. There is a process in the US where Congress and the President are limited by the Constitution and are thankfully limited in their ability to re-write it at will. Is there a similar process available in the UK where an action of Parliament can be overturned because it is unconstitutional? Respect and best wishes.
J M Joyce says
Basically, you are quite correct. However I would like to point up the actual subtleties, drawbacks would be a better word, of the British approach to our constitution. The worst of these is that Parliament never, but never, repeals any Act deemed, by general consensus, to be a Constitutional Act. What it does is simply pass new Acts into law which may or may not tamper (clarify is the term usually used, amazingly) with the provisions of any particular Constitutional Act. That new Act in itself can be deemed to be Constitutional and therefore sacrosanct — and so it goes on, year after year, century after century. The result is a veritable maze of Constitutional provisions that is impossible to navigate through, even for the finest legal minds — and such minds are few and far between in today’s UK.
The mess is incredible — but profitable for lawyers.
The drafting and passing of an Act generally takes a significant amount of time so our system of a Parliamentary Constitution is not exactly what one would call responsive to national needs in any meaningful time frame. This, believe it or not, just makes the mess worse, for the Act that is finally passed into law is all too often sheer gobbledygook drafted as such in an effort to appease the opposition to it or to try to achieve some spurious, and usually unnecessary, consensus.
Add to that the fact that the upper chamber of Parliament — the House of Lords — has been deliberately denuded of its Constitutional experts (all of whom were hereditary peers) by the so called reform enacted by the last socialist government of my country. That move has been revealed as deliberate so that a series of Acts, the provisions of which seriously breached the Constitution and the citizens’ constitutional rights, could be passed easily into law. Two of those Acts are now considered to be Constitutional Acts in themselves despite their provisions being wholly contrary to the pre-existing Constitution.
It is the considered opinion of this writer and of many, many others that we no longer have an effective constitution — that the executive acting in Parliament has effectively removed, confused, sabotaged and rendered meaningless or impossible all Constitutional protections. The citizen is now, as never before, wholly at the mercy of the executive with no Constitutional protection whatsoever.
Unlike in the USA where, as you pointed out, “there is a process in the US where Congress and the President are limited by the Constitution and are thankfully limited in their ability to re-write it at will” no such protection now exists in the UK. Is freedom dead in my country? Not quite, but it’s certainly flat on its back and on life support.
Thank-you for taking the time to read this.
Frank Anderson says
J.M. I would hate to live under such arbitrary rule. I believe that was one of the major reasons the American Revolution was started, principally by Masons, to give some protection from that uncontrolled tyranny. Then, once they won, they tried the Articles of Confederation, which did not work; leading to the Constitution, drafted by a majority of Masons, and adopted by every state legislature in the process of joining the union, again with a substantial Masonic participation. Like many institutions with storied histories, this is a good time to reflect on past accomplishments and work toward renewal of commitment to goals. Also, please note, Simon Bolivar, Benito Juarez and many other leaders of revolutions against tyranny in Mexico, Central and South America were Masons. “Those who cannot remember. . .” The modern Masonic Lodge was started in the UK about 1714. It has included many devoted and honorable members from many walks of life, including many royals. The current Prince Charles is one of the few that has not for reasons unknown to me become a Mason.
The 3 simple options for individuals in the UK are the change the system and introduce a constitution with checks and balances, learn to live with arbitrary tyranny, or leave. At the pace that muslim invasion is taking over, I don’t see how anything other than leaving is possible in time to “save” the country. Jews faced the same problem and decision before WWII, with half getting out (some not far enough) and half denying what they witnessed every day, many paying for their denial by their death.
gravenimage says
UK: Muslim immigration judge has “little idea of the law,” isn’t removed for fear of discrimination claim
…………………………
More suicidal insanity.
I’m sure there are blind and disabled barristers and judges who are competent; this is not one of them.
Moreover, the fact that he is overseeing immigration cases is especially disturbing–it sounds as though he has a bias toward allowing Muslims in.
Georg says
A blind Muslim guy in Britain? Good luck firing him. If he were in a wheelchair he’d be Prime Minister.
Michael Copeland says
He uses a wheelchair: see above.
Move over, Theresa May.
Georg says
Good grief. Couldn’t make it past Robert’s initial comments as the whole thing is too infuriating. He is definitely the face of Islam in Britain.
Michael Copeland says
“Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!”
The Red Queen,
Alice in Wonderland
Sarah says
God the COWARDICE of the British Judiciary.
So WHAT if he whines its discrimination? He’s a buffoon who has proven repeatedly that he is not competent. Sack the loser and IF he tries for a discrimination suit, throw every lawyer at your disposal at him and fight it.
How can you lose that case, given all the proof? And even if you do lose – SO WHAT?
Are you really so scared of being labelled with this? What will it change, exactly? None of you will lose your jobs. None of you will pay the compo – the taxpayer will fund that nicety if he wins.
You are effectively saying you are so scared of potentially being labelled as discriminators that you will effectively break the law by allowing this incompetent to work in a role where he is genuinely damaging and dangerous to the taxpayer and won’t dare terminate his employment which means as a result, innocent British people are getting their lives ruined – and the British taxpayer is coughing up for it all.
Cowards. Cowards. Cowards. Cowards. Cowards.
You know – being accused of discrimination is only powerful, if you let the accusation be powerful. You’re cowards.
Sarah says
God the COWARDICE of the British Judiciary.
So WHAT if he whines its discrimination? He’s a buffoon who has proven repeatedly that he is not competent. Sack the loser and IF he tries for a discrimination suit, throw every lawyer at your disposal at him and fight it.
How can you lose that case, given all the proof? And even if you do lose – SO WHAT?
Are you really so scared of being labelled with this? What will it change, exactly? None of you will lose your jobs. None of you will pay the compo – the taxpayer will fund that nicety if he wins.
You are effectively saying you are so scared of potentially being labelled as discriminators that you will effectively break the law by allowing this incompetent to work in a role where he is genuinely damaging and dangerous to the taxpayer and won’t dare terminate his employment which means as a result, innocent British people are getting their lives ruined – and the British taxpayer is coughing up for it all.
Cowards. Cowards. Cowards. Cowards. Cowards.
You know – being accused of discrimination is only powerful, if you let the accusation be powerful by behaving as though you are scared of being labelled by it.
You’re cowards.
Sarah says
Sorry. I do not know how I managed a double posting there.
I would delete it if I could.
steve says
Not just cowards, highly paid cowards. VERY HIGHLY PAID COWARDS !!!
Westman says
It would seem that the potential Jihadis remaining in the UK, due to Judge Majid’s declining ability, will ultimately have a cost far beyond any lawsuit judgement for Majid’s retirement. It looks like a case of pay him now to retire or pay much more for his decisions, later.
mortimer says
THE UK LEGAL PROFESSION WANTS AMIR MAJID DUMPED!
“Immigration judge “wholly failing to meet standards”, Upper Tribunal finds”
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/immigration-judge-majid-failing-meet-standards-upper-tribunal/
“Three judges of the Upper Tribunal have examined 13 separate decisions of the same First-tier Tribunal judge and found them “wholly failing to meet the standards that are demanded by the office of a judge and expected by the parties”.
A British lawyer who complained about Judge Majid wrote: “I would go so far as to suggest that the nature of the proceedings before IJ Majid were so SHAMBOLIC as to bring the Tribunal into disrepute and undermine public confidence in an effective judicial system.”
This is a damning indictment of a judge who is clearly GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.
Definition of ‘shambolic’: chaotic, disorganized, or mismanaged.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
He sits and continues to sit in his courtroom because the UK is owned by big middle eastern oil money.
MR up-side-down says
Well this would make for a great British comedy farce if it wasn’t so serious THE WRITERS OF MAGNA CARTA would be rolling in their graves OR Rolling round will laughter ….
They come here and think the standards they have in their country, are equal to ours in Britain ,..
mortimer says
They are all afraid of being called ‘racist’ while a grossly incompetent judge runs amok, causing immeasurable harm to people’s lives.
duh swami says
The UK is traveling on 40 miles of bad road..At the end is a gate with a sign that says, ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter here’…Register at the mosque 1/4th mile ahead,,,’try not to run over any jinn’…
That’s not a very good path but is is the one the uK is on…
BlueRaven says
I was talking to one of the UK guys about the Islamic problems in his country – he didn’t care. Either he left the country for good for some reason or he was a pro-I. Whichever option you choose, both are bad.