It doesn't exactly fit with what the average Guardian reader want's to hear! Racism goes both ways.

I remember people saying the same shit when i the Nina, Pinta and Santa-maria dropped anchor in the " New World " some of the indigenous people told me that multiculturalism would not work and politely asked me to " fuck off back to Europe " so i either butchered them or took them back to the " civilized world " as slaves ,when there were no more natives to do the white mans work because we are such lazy exploitation fuckers we just shipped millions of Africans over to the colonies in four star slave ships. the African slaves did not seem to be too impressed with multiculturalism, or the when the British arrived in India and i am sure the hearts of the real Australians sunk when whitey arrived on their shores!! us white folk spread throughout the world like a plague exploiting and plundering in the name of civilization but now the tables are turning with these filthy people coming over here and wiping us out in the thousands and setting up small businesses that we work in as slaves chained up like cattle oh the horror...before this Britain was the land of plenty where everyone lived just like the queen and the streets were paved with gold! the squalor of working class life described by George Orwell in his novel " The road to Wigan pier " was just a horrible fairy tale! so all non- white people must leave now so we can live in a magical utopia just like the olden days when the empire ruled and filthy niggers new their place in the social order.

The question is why is the Kriss Donald case being ignored by anti racists?

When the murder happened there were a couple of posts here on Indymedia, but some got pulled and for the rest anyone who dared suggest that the young lad was killed in a racist murder was accused of being a fascist/racist/BNP-supporter.

I posted at the time and got accused of being a racist - which is pretty sick considering I'm not white. The fact remains that there are lots of people who claim to be on the left in this country who refuse to attack racist violence if the victim is white. The hypocrisy is disgusting and does nothing but drive people into the arms of scum-bags like the BNP.

Compare the silence on this case to the mass publicity in those cases where the victim isn't white. Why the difference? I can't work out whether it's fear of being labelled racist or a simple refusal that black people can be as racist as whites.

It was reported at the time in the Scottish Daily mail, that the accused in this case were running amok in Glasgow guilty of drug dealing, intimidation and violence- but the police were reluctant to pull them in and put them behind bars where they belonged lest it affect community tensions. I bet this was not the first time and not the last. Organisations like UAF throw themselves wide open to their critics by refusing to condem this murder. They are being RACIST by cherry picking what murders to condem by the victims colour. Until this stops the mass of people will not take them seriously.

PS. The rich elite who made money from slavery and raping Africa and asia etc are the forefathers of the rich elite today who make money from cheap labour coming into Europe, maximising their profits. Instead of kidnapping people from the third world and forcing them into slavery, they are now giving them the absolute minimum to live on and doing the jobs that indeginous people cannot afford/be bothered to do. Is mass immigration the new slave trade??

Krypto was brutally murdered.

BNP prick Nick Griffin came up here to try and capitalise on it, no-one wanted him here.

Kriss's mum told him to keep out of it.

At the time of the 1st trial this same nonsense was posted, attacking anti-racism groups for non-involvement. There isn't even a UAF group in Glasgow.

M'on tae fuck! Numpties.

Why don't you start a UAF group then you 'Bampot' and protest about the Kriss murder. There was a similar case years ago. A black man was attacked and set on fire and everyone in the Anti Nazi League was initially up in arms about the attack until they discovered the attack was by some Turkish men, then they dropped it like a stone. COMPLETE HYPOCRACY.

...and no desire here to stir up racial tension.

Kriss's mother said at the time she didn't want it treated as a race issue.

The only people who do want it treated that way are the BNP and fringe rightist groups.

We want a peaceful community. People are standing trial for the murder.

Whether folk like it or not, it WAS about race.

Kriss was murdered because he was WHITE, because of the colour of his SKIN that is racism whether people like it or not.

This was one of the most horrific race crimes this country has ever had and it is being covered up by the PC brigade, yet when Stephen Lawrence was murdered it was front page news and dragged on for months even though his death was no where near as horrific as Kriss's was.

Doesn't the moronic media realise that if you only report murders of non whites and 'hush up' the race murders of whites, they are only causing the deaths of more whites? With their constant one sided reporting they are spreading a false truth and adding fire to the feul of hate.

And I laugh in the face of the moronic left wingers who whenever a non white dies, report about it, talk about it, demostrate about it but when the right wing do the same then we are just using it for 'political interests', according to the UAF and other left wing loonies. Grow up you hypocrites, if I want to be angry because yet another white person, in the incredibly long list of race murders on whites, then I will - the same as you hypocritical lot do everytime a non white is murdered.

Forget the right/left wing politics for a moment and just concentrate on the real issue: a 15 year old was brutally and horrifically murdered because of the colour of his skin and no one gives a toss about it, least of all the UAF and Indymedia.

D.S

The fact is that someone is already doing time for the murder of Kriss Donald. Nobody is doing time for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and a lot of the story is in that.

Anyways, oakleaf - tell us what you think we should doing about this death.

How many candlite vigils have the anti racist groups done for Kriss compared to Anthony Walker. As far as SL, is it possible to have anymore much publicity for one murder for him that there already has been, non stop for over 10 years, it could be a surprise for some if they do find who his killer was, and not to anti racists liking.
Compared to SL, how much publicity has there been for Gavin Hopley who was kicked to death by a pack of Asians? No one has been charged with his murder, just a few who got a few months who left court laughing.

Based on the evidence, the Murder of Kriss was almost certainly a racist murder.

So why not the same level of outcry from ant-racist groups as there was when Stephen or Anthony were murdered?

Could it be that he was white?
Could is just be that these so-called 'anti-racist' groups are themselves racist?

Amazingly, these last two posts appeared after a post on Stormfront begged them to pop over and support this thread. Not even hardcore nazis can be bothered to push this issue because there isn't any issue to push.

Quit with the Left-Wing/Right-Wing SWP/BNP Socialist/Nazi Indymedia/Stormfront bullshit and get to the point:

Kriss was murdered because of his Skin colour by racists.
Anthony and Stephen were murdered because of their skin colour by racists.

Why do you think the murder of Kriss recieve far less outcry and far less coverage than the murders of Anthony and Stephen?

I just want want to know your raw opinions, just sit and ponder the question for a while without replying off your emotions.

It's not suprising that people are wary of a story that has BNP bootmarks all over it.

The witness who is the main source of the 'racist motivation' claims seems a leetle beet dodgy imho:

"David Burns, QC, for Imran Shahid, said Mohammed had done a deal with the prosecution by which he received a five-year sentence and agreed to give evidence against others. "You knew you would get life imprisonment if convicted of murder, and much less if you pleaded to something less?" asked Mr Burns.

Mohammed said: "Yes."

Donald Findlay, QC, for Mushtaq, accused the witness of being "a liar, pure and simple" and someone who was "cunning and conniving". The witness denied it.

Mr Findlay continued: "Co-incidentally, you were released from prison [in England] the day before you give evidence and got a lift here from the police."

He said on Mohammed's account, he might have supplied the weapon which killed Kriss. "Up to your neck in it is an understatement," suggested Mr Findlay.

Mohammed agreed with Norman Ritchie, QC, for Zeeshan Shahid, that he had been granted parole at the first time of asking and a police agreement that offered him a new home and a new identity when the trial ends."
 http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1478452006

5 years, a new home and a new identity.

He must be an honest guy..........

"Anyways, oakleaf - tell us what you think we should doing about this death."

Treat it in the same way that you would treat the death of a non white person because of racism.

It beggers belief that the trial of the alleged murderers of Kriss Donald is being all but ignored by the national news programms.I am just left wondering why.............................?

I cant believe the some of the comments here accusing reasonable posters with reasonable questions of being involved with the BNP. The simple question is being asked why weren't "rent a mob" and "bash a fascist" out for the murder of Kriss Donald? The police tiptoed around this problem with Asian gangs for ages despite local Muslim people begging them for help in dealing with these neds. Because they were asian (racist) the police did nothing and even pulled an operation to curb their violence.Just because it doesn't fit the profile of the SSP and the rest of the gang doesn't mean it wasn't a racial killing, because it was and its not being reported with the same glee reserved for racist attacks by whites. Get over it local resident, just because it upsets your sweet dreams of racial harmony doesn't mean its not true. And no I'm not a member of the BNP but a Glasgow mum who wants scumbags who abduct children and torture them to death locked up, no matter which racial group they belong to. This is the problem for the Hard Left strangely silent about Kriss's horrible murder, if its not in the manual, it cant exist?
incidentally one of the group Zahid Mohammed is out already (in the middle of an ongoing trial) but then he only "assaulted" Kriss. Which is what we're calling it nowadays.

The media an legal system loves to blur the issue of racism by treating attacks against white people as racist. But the thing is, the context is entirely different.

I am not surprised that anti-racists don't take up these issues, because the issues aren't really about racism. It's easy to say "he was singled out because of his skin colour, therefore it's racist". Well, on one level it's true that racial division (as a result of pervasive white racism) was the reason this person was killed. But it was not motivated by mere prejudice, it was motivated by a misgidedly generalised reaction to racism against Asians. Actually I don't think it's ever been proved that he was killed ONLY because of his skin colour - it's more likely that he was wrongly identified as involved in the earlier racist attack. But even if it was only because he was white - it's inversion - NOT the same as primary racism.

Yes, it's a problem that some people respond n this way to racist oppression. The answer is to step up a struggle against white racism which breaks down the barriers which causes ths kind of misguided blowback, and channelling anger against racism in more constructive drections.

As horrific as this killing was, it
1) is not part of an ongoing pattern of systematic oppression of one group by another, and
2) is a retaliation attack as a result of an earlier racist attack by whites. It is thus just NOT THE SAME in any way as racist killings like Steven Lawrence etc.

Racist chauvinism among the huge numbers of ignorant white people is a BIG POLITICAL PROBLEM in Britain. "Violence by Asian gangs against whites" is NOT a big political problem - it's an isolated incident which sadly claimed a life in one locality.

In other words,the case is being ignored by anti-rcists because
it is NOT in a full sense racist, but rather inversional (an inappropriate reaction AGAINST racism); it thus falls outside the remit of the anti-racist movement,
it is NOT symptomatic of a broader problem in the way racist murders by white people are,
it does NOT reflect a major problem but is simply an isolated incident.

Racists are exploiting this issue by trying to make out that this one killing somehow establishes an equivalence between the situation of white people and minorities. They're pretending that white people are under general attack in the same way that black people really are under attack systematically from white racists. Or else that the real problem of anti-black racism is only as bad as this kind of isolated tragedy, when in fact it is a general problem. It's a good example of "truth used to demonstrate falsity".

To 'f*ck nazis',
I am a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white male who grew up in a very multicultural area. At school I was a minority, in my sports teams I was a minority, in my friendship group I was a minority. I didn't have a problem with that and I got along well with most people around me. BUT, there was a significant percentage of people in my school (and community) that showed an underlying resentment towards me. It wasn't always overt, but it was always there lurking in the background. Sometimes it surfaced in name-calling ("you blonde ***), sometimes it resulted in intimidation (asserting group dominance), exclusion (often for cultural reasons) or on a few occasions violence.

You justify racism against whites as a justifiable reaction to institutional white racism. But try and tell a young lad who's being bullied at school that it's his fault, and his bullies are justified in what they are doing. Racism hurts just as much whether you're white/black/asian whatever. You say anti-racist activist should ignore anti-white racism because it is not a 'big pollitical problem'. But it is a big pollitical problem. Many white people are siding with the BNP because they feel threatend by racism and no one is listening to them. This IS a problem.

You argue that by attacking white racism, the causes of anti-white racism will dissapear. That is such a simplistic and biased argument. In my experience white people are no more racist than any other ethnic group. I know a lot of people will argue with that, but it is my honest opinon from life experience. I've met a lot of white racists and a lot of black/asian racists. I hear a lot about 'institutional racism', 'white-skin privelage', 'colonial legacy', etc. But I can tell you one thing, neither myself or any of the white lads I grew up with benifited from it!! If anything, I think that being white has prevented me getting certain jobs, because the employers were seeking to ethnically diversify their workforces.

But my point is RACISM is RACISM. To imply that either the racism I have sufferd during my life, or the racism Kriss Donald suffered was justifiable because we are/were white, is extremely offensive and hurtfull. I have not oppressed anyone and I am not benefiting from 'white privelage'.

I really think the left-wing 'anti-racism' movements have lost a lot of legitimacy by taking such a one-sided view. You'll never erradicate white racism if you don't attck it's polar opposite simultaneously. Racism between ethnic groups is a circle of perpetration and victimhood. You have to criticise all perpetrators equally, otherwise the cycle will continue (and you are practicing racism yourself). The result of that will be the opposite of your intentions: white people will feel ignored and look to the BNP to stand up for them. Is that what UAF wants?

Remember:
VICTIMS OF RACISM ALL BLEED THE SAME COLOURED BLOOD.

J.

"You justify racism against whites as a justifiable reaction to institutional white racism. "

WHERE exactly do I "justify" any of the things you term "racism against whites"?

What I do say - which you apparently can't understand - is first that these patterns are a (misplaced, inappropriate) reaction to pervasive white racism, and second that they are inversonal not racist - in other words that the motivations and context are quite different.

Of course I'm opposed politically to acts of inversion which potentially target innocent people. I'm opposed to human rights violations regardless of who commits them. This doesn't mean I treat these actions as equivalent to those of systematic exclusion and persecution committed by groups which monopolise institutional power. For me - unlike for those who can't think outside the system's categories - opposing something doesn't necessarily mean passing over into an irrationalistic logic of condemnation and denunciation, still less that it stops me from looking at what causes social problems.

Similarly, I don't agree with bombings directed against Israeli civilians. But I don't think these are "the same as" similar atrocities committed by Israeli troops against Palestinians. This would be to completely elide the power-differentials, the relational situation, the motives. To try to understand a situation simply through the experience of "the victim" is to ignore the most basic principles of epistemology. Someone who suffers from AIDS may suffer much the same as someone whose immune system collapses because of famine; it doesn't mean the causes are the same, or that the responses in order to prevent this suffering should be te same. Similarly, victims of inversion attacks may suffer similarly to victims of racist attacks; it doesn't mean the causes are the same, and it doesn't mean someone is a hypocrite because their response isn't the same.

You could say in the same vein that someone "bleeds the same colour blood" if they're killed randomly by a spree killer, if they're killed by a member of a rival ang, if they're hit by a car, if they commit suicide... Ultimately it means nothing. You're adopting a narrow standpoint so as to elide the complexity of issues, responding to being called-out on your epistemological privilege by attempting to reassert the primacy of your standpoint by means of emotive examples.

As a matter of fact I have protested in various ways against forms of racism and discrimination which are certainly not "white-on-black", such as supporting the struggle of indigenous Papuans against Indonesian oppression, opposing the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, opposing Serbian ethnic cleansing of Croats and Bosnians and Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs, and supporting indigenous rights in Latin America, Botswana, etc. These are "real" racisms rather than inversions, because they involve a dominant group effectively silencing an ethnic group labelled as other, using violence as a means to this silencing. Inversion attacks - such as attacks on French settlers in Algeria, Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, and retaliatory attacks in other contexts - do not involve this kind of general silencing or oppression of an entire group; nor do they necessarily aspire to such a silencing. In the same way, I would not call Valerie Solanas a "sexist", or refer to lesbian separatists as "heterophobes".

Even if - which has NOT been proven in this case - the violence of the excluded is formally similar to that of the included - even if the excluded completely invert the dominant system and want to reproduce its terms but the other way up - it still remains the case that the biggest problem is the system which is in power NOW, and not the one which has no conceivable chance of becoming a general social power-system either in Britain or globally. Fascism is a real threat; white racism is entrenched in the police, judiciary, in racist immigration laws. Even if some Asian people wanted in some way to rule over white people (which I repeat again, there is NO evidence of in this case or any other I have seen), the threat would be absolutely minimal.

But the point is that the "truth" of this murder is being used in support of "falsity" - one of two general kinds of statement of which the case is wrongly being used as an example:

Fascist line: "White people are really the oppressed group here. Minorities get preferential treatment for things which really affect everyone. White people are the victims. Anti-racists are racist."
Liberal line: "Racism is just a matter of individual prejudice (not social structures). Everyone regardless of ethnicity is equally liable to perpetrate or be a victim of racism."

Both of these positions are absolutely false on a general level, failing to understand the basic structure of systematic racism either by denying/inverting it or by reducing racism simply to individual prejudice.

If someone is listening to the BNP, it isn't because the BNP is channelling some legitimate grievance against "racism" or anything else; it's either because they're racist, or don't see the racist Nazi BNP for what it really is. If you really think white people are discriminated against in employment, how do you account for statisics proving the opposite? If you don't believe in the colonial legacy, then do you really think you'd be no worse off if you'd been born in Rwanda or Bangladesh? In fact this kind of denial of systemati privilege IS white racism - this, and not just whether you hate other people because of their skin colour, is what in fact causes systematic inequalities and repression. There is NO legitimate reason for listening to the BNP or believing their racist lies.

Something else you are doing here is adopting a Eurocentric epistemology. Your criteria of assessment are narrow and are conditioned by the mainstream of British society. You talk with th pseudo-obviousness of a tabloid journalist. You use categories unreflexively, you use a model of personal responsibility which is specifically European, you pretend to be able to assess complex global questions from "life experience" - all of this involves a very specific privileging of a single standpoint of enunciation. And the false construction of generality - the way in which you act like this very particular standpoint equates to universal Truth - is the key to Eurocentric privilege.

Gayatri Spivak says that if white people don't like anti-white resentment, the answer is to fight against the kind of world which creates this resentment. In other words - the fight against anti-white "racism" is not served by discourses which reinforce white supremacy through false comparisons. It is better served by recognising these unfortunate incidents as the byproduct of a racist society, and devoting our efforts to overthrowing this society.

Incidentally - why were Pakistani police resources devoted to catching people who had fled from Britain, who were very unlikely to repeat their actions in Pakistan - when these resources could have been used to compensate victims of police terror in Waziristan or rebuild from the Kashmir earthquake? Why in a contrary case, has India been unable to obtain the extradition of the bosses of the company which causes Bhopal - where thousands of Indians were burnt alive because of colonial-capitalist power, despite that these people are living very publicly in America and could be extradited at very little cost by a police force which wastes most of its resources stitching up random environmentalists for trashing a few SUVs? Come on, tell me there aren't colonial power differentials at work here, that you really care just as much for brown-skinned people who are burnt alive - it's all falsified by the facts.