Vickrum Digwa, the Sikh who fatally stabbed and maligned white 18-year-old Henry Nowak in the U.K. in December, was convicted of the teen's murder last week and sentenced on Monday to a minimum of 21 years in prison.
The British public now wants accountability for the police officers who responded to the scene of Nowak's murder — those who reflexively accepted the Sikh's false claim that the dying teen was a racist aggressor, arrested and handcuffed Nowak based on those false accusations, and then dismissed his final pleas.
'They just hate white people.'
Following the release of bodycam footage showing Nowak's undignified death in the custody of members of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary — one of whom has resigned — hundreds of Britons took to the streets of southern England in protest. Politicians, meanwhile, sounded off about the discriminatory policies and practices that lay the groundwork for the teen's mistreatment.
Amnesty International decided to chime in on Tuesday with a tone-deaf statement that critics seized upon as further evidence of the organization's ideological capture and moral bankruptcy.
Rather than condemn the police's treatment of Nowak, Amnesty International — a London-headquartered NGO that is purportedly committed to challenging "injustice wherever it exists," confronting "uncomfortable truths," and pushing for "transformative change, even when it's unpopular or politically inconvenient" — condemned the reactions from right-leaning politicians.
"At a time when hate crimes are rising, and violence and fear are becoming a daily reality for people of colour and migrants, calls for 'cold, hard rage' are completely reckless," stated Amnesty International.
RELATED: Two-tier Britain finally has its George Floyd moment
The "cold, hard rage" quote derives from a statement from Reform U.K. Party leader Nigel Farage: "The fear of being called racist was greater than dealing with Henry Nowak's murder. We should respond to this with pure cold rage. Britain's historic way of life is being thrown away."
While acknowledging that Nowak's murder "is an awful tragedy," Amnesty International said that "irresponsible narratives of two-tier policing seek to sow division and fly in the face of decades of evidence of institutional failure within policing and disparities faced by racialised communities. This includes many cases of deaths in police custody for which meaningful steps towards accountability are long overdue."
Amnesty International filed this reality-averse statement under "racial justice."
Charlie Weimers, a Swedish member of the European Parliament, said in response to the NGO's statement, "Amnesty has been morally bankrupt for a long time. A pure left-wing organization."
"Amnesty International lost its moral compass many years ago," wrote former Canadian Defense Minister and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. "Sad that an organization that used to be hugely effective in advocating for prisoners of conscience was coopted to become a boringly predictable voice for the left's omnicause."
Amnesty International has in recent years expanded its advocacy to include championing abortion, pushing climate alarmism, and advancing the cause of LGBT cultural imperialism.
Turning Point USA contributor Jack Posobiec emphasized, "It's not complicated. They just hate white people."
Amnesty International was hardly alone in its effort this week to gaslight the public about two-tier policing in the United Kingdom.
Nigel Farage demanded in parliament on Wednesday that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer "end this divisive practice of two-tier policing and make sure that all British citizens are treated the same."
The leftist prime minister, who briefly expressed horror this week over Nowak's mistreatment by police, responded by saying, "I don't believe there's two-tier policing in this country." He proceeded to accuse Farage of attempting to exploit the tragedy.
While Starmer is evidently keen to pretend the U.K. doesn't practice two-tier policing, the National Police Chiefs' Council has announced it is reviewing its anti-racism guidance that, as currently worded, explicitly calls for treating people differently on the basis of race:
Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances, and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind" (racial equality).
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Bodycam footage from the United Kingdom has turned Henry Nowak’s death from a local outrage into a national indictment. The footage appears to show officers handcuffing an 18-year-old stabbing victim, dismissing his pleas for help, and treating him as the suspect while he bled to death.
Nowak, an 18-year-old from Essex, reportedly told officers, “I can’t breathe,” and “I’ve been stabbed.” Officers mocked him, denied that he had been injured, and debated whether they had any obligation to check. The case has drawn comparisons to George Floyd in the United States. The comparison is imperfect, but the contrast is obvious: In Nowak’s case, the police had every reason to believe the man on the ground needed urgent medical care.
The purpose of a system is what it does. British police no longer appear organized to protect the people of Britain, but rather to eliminate them.
In December, Nowak was walking home from a pub while recording himself on social media. He encountered Vickrum Digwa, a 22-year-old Sikh immigrant, who claimed Nowak intentionally bumped into him. The recording stopped during the initial encounter, so the exact sequence remains unclear. When it resumed, Nowak called Digwa a “bad man” before Digwa grabbed his phone and the recording ended.
Digwa then allegedly stabbed Nowak multiple times in the jaw, legs, and heart with a ceremonial dagger. Britain imposes strict anti-knife laws on its native population, yet Sikhs receive exemptions to carry kirpans. That fact turned Nowak’s death into a symbol of Britain’s two-tier society.
Digwa did not immediately summon help. He recorded himself mocking Nowak as the wounded teenager tried to escape over a fence. Nowak told his attacker more than once that he was dying. Digwa’s brother eventually called police with a story that Nowak was a violent racist who had insulted and assaulted the Sikh man before injuring himself while climbing a fence.
The police appear to have accepted that story instantly. They treated the bleeding English teenager as the threat and the immigrant suspect as the victim. They handcuffed Nowak, and he reportedly choked to death on his own blood in police custody.
Even before the bodycam footage emerged, Nowak’s death had become a flashpoint in a deeply divided Britain. Despite the clear wishes of voters, British politicians have allowed mass migration to transform the country. Immigrants have strained the welfare state, crowded the job market, driven housing pressure, and changed the country’s culture. But nowhere has the transformation become more obvious than policing.
The Pakistani grooming-gang scandals revealed the pattern. English girls were raped across the country while police, terrified of being called racist, ignored or minimized the crimes. In some cases, victims were treated as the problem. In others, fathers who tried to protect their daughters faced the law instead. The message was clear: The state feared accusations of racism more than it feared the destruction of its own people.
Immigrant stabbing attacks have also helped justify sweeping bans on defensive weapons, including knives and pepper spray. Yet Nowak died from a ceremonial blade Digwa was permitted to carry. Immigrants enjoy exceptions while native Britons face disarmament. That is not equal justice. It is hierarchy.
After a stabbing spree last year left three young girls dead, riots broke out across Britain. The government response was brutal. Authorities did not merely arrest violent offenders or street protesters. They escalated social media arrests so aggressively that Britain now jails people for speech and political offenses at levels no free country should tolerate. At every turn, the government has privileged the comfort of foreign communities over the safety and dignity of the native population.
Americans often fail to grasp how deeply George Floyd’s death reshaped the Anglosphere. Britain, despite lacking America’s domestic history of slavery, endured its own Black Lives Matter revolution: protests, policing struggle sessions, and attacks on statues of figures such as Winston Churchill. Keir Starmer, now prime minister, bent the knee for a foreign criminal. A country convulsed itself over an American drug addict, yet struggles to muster the same moral energy for murdered English children. The implication is dark.
The Nowak footage poured gasoline on a smoldering fire. Officers assumed the white teenager was guilty without evidence. They joked as he begged for help. They placed him in cuffs when he posed no threat. One image now circulating shows officers shackling Nowak’s pale hand, ghost-white from blood loss. It captures the moral condition of the British state.
RELATED: Free speech in Britain is worse than you think
The purpose of a system is what it does. British police no longer appear organized to protect the people of Britain. Too often, they protect the regime’s migration project and punish anyone who resists it. When mass migration produced predictable violence, the government minimized, excused, or concealed it. When victims and their families protested, the government disciplined them. When citizens took to the streets to demand justice, the government crushed them.
The British state has made mortal enemies of the English people. That may sound extreme, but what better explanation fits the evidence? The system treats white Britons as permanent suspects and immigrants as protected classes. It uses “racism” not as a neutral moral category but as a weapon to silence, disarm, and destroy the native population.
One officer involved in Nowak’s death has reportedly resigned. According to the Telegraph, the other three remain on duty and have not been suspended.
White lives matter. Henry Nowak’s life mattered.
A real price must be paid for his death, and radical reforms must follow. If British elites attempt to bury this case, they will be playing with righteous fire.
Americans have become strangely accustomed to driverless cars. In cities like San Francisco and Austin, people casually summon Waymo robo-taxis the way they once called Uber.
Now imagine the same technology attached to an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer moving at highway speed.
My fellow truckers already know the problem. Modern collision-avoidance systems have been triggered by shadows, weather conditions, lighting changes, and animals.
It’s happening; large carriers are already purchasing hundreds of robotically operated highway trucks as they prepare to eliminate one of the country’s most common occupations: the truck driver.
Those pimping the technology tell us it is the necessary solution to a catastrophic shortage of truckers, with the additional benefit of making the roads safer. As I explain in my new book, "End of the Road: Inside the War on Truckers," neither claim holds up under scrutiny.
This hardly matters, as the demand for more road robots is hardly organic. Instead, it is the product of a massive marketing campaign designed to acclimate us to a radical new future, one that may ultimately curtail the rights of all American drivers. Picture something like the “motor law” envisioned in the classic Rush track “Red Barchetta.” The late Neil Peart was a man who understood the precious freedom of the open road.
Waymo robo-taxis already roam San Francisco and Austin, while autonomous tractor-trailers test on Texas interstates. The technology, however, remains immature and heavily dependent on human oversight.
You won’t see this mentioned in recent paid content from Aurora Innovation, one of the leading developers of autonomous big-rig systems. Almost seamlessly inserted among actual articles on online news platform Axios, the piece’s headline promises to explain “the link between autonomous trucks and your grocery bill.”
The article opens with a bold claim: “Autonomous trucks — trucks that operate without a driver — could lower shipping costs, helping reduce grocery prices while improving safety and supply chain efficiency.”
But what the slick interactive video infographic and official-looking statistics fail to reveal is that the cost of trucking, in general, only represents between 1% and 3% of any consumer product. Consider that the industry has spent the last four years in a “freight recession” driven by weak demand, oversupply, and depressed rates. Did you notice your groceries getting cheaper? Of course you didn’t.
Aurora’s advertorial also employs one of the autonomous truck lobby’s favorite justifications: the so-called shortage of truck drivers. This “crisis” has been going on since the 1980s, when deregulation and the attendant sharp decline in truck driver pay and working conditions created massive turnover in the industry. Now it is being used to convince investors and lawmakers that we don’t need truck drivers at all.
The problem is that even the trucking industry itself has largely stopped pretending the shortage exists.
Bob Costello, chief economist for the American Trucking Associations, allegedly declared that the “truck driver shortage is gone” at a recent carrier conference in Florida; just prior to this, he told trucking media outlet CCJ Digital that “what we have in the United States is a quality problem around drivers, much more so than an absolute number.”
That distinction matters because the trucking industry, like much of the country, has spent years lowering standards. The Biden administration’s de facto open borders policy opened the industry to large numbers of illegal aliens, refugees, and dubious asylum-seekers. Truckers — and the motoring public — have been dealing with the consequences ever since.
RELATED: The deadly trucker crisis — and why mass migration is to blame
Road safety could improve overnight by revoking the questionable CDLs and driver’s licenses handed out to poorly vetted, poorly trained migrants in recent years. Instead, declining standards are quietly accepted while automation is presented as the solution. One doesn’t have to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to wonder whether a more chaotic and less trustworthy driving environment makes the public easier to sell on “safer” autonomous systems.
As mentioned above, however, these “driverless” systems still depend heavily on human oversight. Aurora, for example, requires remote operators to monitor its trucks. In a July 2024 investor report, the company promised to reduce the number of such operators by increasing the number of trucks under each assistant’s watch. In the report, that number is 100.
Most readers will understand how difficult it can be to keep an eye on all of the traffic around you while operating one vehicle. What Aurora is proposing here is that the company will hand off the responsibility for 100 tractor-trailers to one remote “driver.”
And what skills does it take to pull this off? Anyone with a CDL or actual road experience can move to the back of the line; apparently this is a job for gamers and flight simulator enthusiasts.
The autonomous taxi industry is no better. Waymo has admitted it uses remote operators in the Philippines. An insider tells me Kodiak Robotics, whose supposedly driverless trucks operate in Texas’ Permian Basin, does the same. America’s highways already resemble "Mad Max" often enough. Soon they may look more like "Grand Theft Auto: 18-Wheeler."
To be fair, language recently added to the proposed Build America 250 Act would require remote operators to possess CDLs and be based in the United States. Whether that language survives the lobbying process remains to be seen.
The industry’s safety claims deserve skepticism for another reason: Much of the confidence behind autonomous systems comes from “virtual miles,” simulations where AI software learns by effectively playing billions of miles of video games. Real-world highway testing – which subjects drivers to less predictable, more challenging situations — remains only a tiny fraction of that total.
Waymo, the current leader in autonomous cars, already accounts for most autonomous vehicle incident reports filed with the California DMV. Those are only the incidents publicly reported. What happens once thousands of autonomous semis begin operating across Texas?
Texas became the center of autonomous truck testing precisely because regulators took a light-touch approach. Investors certainly appreciate that; the public, unwittingly enlisted in the beta testing of this technology, may not.
A major potential danger is phantom braking, a problem the industry is barely willing to acknowledge. As Dr. Missy Cummings, a former Navy fighter pilot and director of the Mason Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University, recently warned the New York Times: “There is no identified solution on the horizon for phantom braking. And it will not be addressed soon, because nobody wants to admit that it’s happening.”
Cummings added that this malfunction — which has already caused incidents with robo-taxis — will likely have far more dangerous repercussions in significantly heavier class-eight semis.
My fellow truckers already know the problem. Modern collision-avoidance systems in human-operated trucks have been triggered by shadows, weather conditions, lighting changes, and animals, sometimes causing jackknife accidents.
Autonomous driving technology is clearly flawed, and there’s no reason to assume that more bugs won’t emerge in the future. Yet developers continue to insist that software-driven vehicles are safer than those operated by humans. The steady drip of dramatic dashcam crash footage on social media subtly encourages this view.
But human drivers are already remarkably safe overall. Automotive site Jalopnik calculated that autonomous vehicles would need to avoid crashes 99.999819% of the time just to outperform human drivers.
Even if autonomous driving were capable of meeting such a high standard, we would have to consider the economic impact. What is being proposed here is not some minor technological upgrade. Truck driving directly employs roughly 2.5 million Americans, while the broader trucking industry supports around 8 million jobs and contributes an estimated $200 billion annually in wages.
The math pushed by autonomous vehicle boosters is absurd. They tell us that every 1,000 autonomous trucks will “create” 190 jobs, while conveniently ignoring the hundreds — perhaps thousands — of driving jobs simultaneously eliminated.
If we take the inevitability of driverless vehicles as a given, at the very least the people pushing that inevitability should be much more honest about the consequences. Lawmakers ought be more concerned for their constituents, rather than pandering to tech investors or indulging in baseless fearmongering about China flooding the market with robot vehicles.
At least three bills currently before Congress seek to accelerate autonomous vehicle deployment. One of them, sponsored by Republican Rep. Vince Fong of California, would effectively prevent states from regulating autonomous vehicle technology on their own roads.
So much for federalism.
The name of Fong’s bill? The “America DRIVES Act.” Ironic, considering that the people behind these policies seem to want a future in which Americans no longer drive at all.
As a trucker who has spent nearly 30 years on the road without a single collision, I have one response to all of this: No thanks. I’m sure millions of Americans agree.
'The American people are tired of a government that treats their citizenship as cheap, their laws as optional and their generosity as an invitation to be exploited.'
Scott Pelley and the ICE detention rioters are raging because things aren't going their way. It's how they plan to win the midterms.
The U.K.'s censorship regime indulges the idea that people who hold certain beliefs do not deserve to live freely — or at all.
The forces driving Third-World immigration into the West don’t care about skin color nearly as much as they care about destroying the Christian foundation of modern society.
The Trump administration cannot stick to occasional prosecutions while allowing the broader ecosystem of anti-ICE extremists to operate with relative impunity.
The National Counterterrorism Strategy is a refreshing reset from previous misguided activities undertaken in the name of 'counterterrorism.'
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
FACT CHECK: Did Dan Goldman Call for Trump’s ‘Elimination’ After a 2024 Assassination Attempt?