The International Criminal Court is racist; so why do...

Imagine if there were a criminal court in Britain which only ever tried black people, which ignored crimes committed by whites and Asians and only took an interest in crimes committed by blacks. We would consider that racist, right? And yet there is an International Criminal Court which only ever tries black people, African black people to be precise, and it is treated as perfectly normal. In fact the court is lauded by many radical activists as a good and decent institution, despite the fact that no non-black person has ever been brought before it to answer for his crimes. It is remarkable that in an era when liberal observers see racism everywhere, in every thoughtless aside or crude joke, they fail to see it in an institution which focuses exclusively on the criminal antics of dark-skinned people from the "Dark Continent".

Yesterday, the International Criminal Court delivered the first verdict in its 10-year history, finding Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga guilty of recruiting child soldiers. Lubanga is black, of course. Despite having pretty much global jurisdiction to investigate war crimes, and despite having received complaints about alleged crimes in 139 countries, the ICC has only opened investigations into seven countries, all of them in Africa: the Democratic Republic of Congo (where Lubanga committed his crimes), Uganda, the Central African Republic, Darfur/Sudan, Kenya, Libya and the Ivory Coast. Full story...

Related posts:

1. The real story about the "KONY 2012" viral video...
2. Kony 2012 screenings stopped in Uganda following public outrage...
3. The white Madonna’s burden (Must-read)
4. British teenager arrested for "racist" Facebook comments on Afghansitan killings...
5. European Union propaganda clip withdrawn for being "racist"
6. Black people face ethnic cleansing in Libya...
7. History becomes "globalised" as political correctness dumps France's past in...