Meet the first (possible) racist.

He's an architect by the name of Pawel Uczciwek. This man is accused of having “racially abused a woman” and then of “trying to pull off her hijab” in a London Tube station.

Yet the accused man (or “Islamophobe”) also said that his black girlfriend was under a “racist attack from three other random females”.

Pawel Uczciwek also said that the allegation against him is “completely false.” He continued:

“I would like to confirm I never hit or attacked anyone I simply defused the situation by separating them.”

What's more, Uczciwek stressed his own anti-racist case by stating the following:

“The police is fully cooperating with me and will be able to obtain CCTV footage showing the three women attempting to attack my partner because we are in an interracial relationship.”

Perhaps the Muslim woman -- Aniso Abdulkadir -- didn't like the idea of a black woman going out with a white man. And that's why she verbally attacked her. That's certainly what Uczciwek hints at. The means that Aniso Abdulkadir bit off more than she could chew. That is, she verbally abused Uczciwek's black girlfriend and then he did indeed physical attack her.

Another possibility is that, as a Muslim, Aniso Abdulkadir didn't like the fact that Uczciwek's girlfriend was wearing a short skirt.

So here an attack on a Muslim has been classed as “racist.” Yet even if there was physical contact, that doesn't automatically mean that it was racist simply because the victim (if she is a victim) is a Muslim.

It's certainly the case that's there's been a hell of Muslim-on-non-Muslim (or Muslim-on-white) violence in the UK. Some of it has even been featured in our newspapers. In addition, according to many sources, black-on-white violence (as in America) is higher than white-on-black violence.

Now meet the second (possible) racist: Aniso Abdulkadir.

This Muslim woman wasted no time at all in advertising -- on Twitter -- the alleged attack.

Aniso Abdulkadir posted an image of the man who attacked her. She wrote:

“This man at Baker Street station forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off and when I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf he hit me.”

She continued:

“He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spitting in her face.”

Not surprisingly, this tweet earned more than 24,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon.

It also seems that she already had a strong political position on racism. Or at least her friend Lux had. The latter also tweeted the following words:

“Racism is a real thing people choose to ignore, we really do live in a pathetic society where people are all talk and completely useless.”

A British Transport Police spokesman said the incident is being investigated. It's being investigated as a “hate crime” rather than a simple fight or physical attack. The spokesman said:

“Behaviour like this is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

“This incident has been reported to us and we’re investigating.”

One wonders why the British media seems to have taken Aniso Abdulkadir's side. After all, there is equal evidence on both sides. For one, it's hard to class a white man as “racist” if he has a black girlfriend! And why (as yet) hasn't the media done any research on the Muslim black woman who claims to have been attacked?

Judging by her name and photo, I'd say that Aniso Abdulkadir is of an African -- rather than an “Asian” -- background; possibly Somalian.

Not to put too fine a point on it, African-heritage blacks (including Muslim blacks) have a reputation for violence in the United Kingdom; especially in London. (This is particularly true of Somalians.) This reputation also includes black women. However, unlike the case of the architect, the news pieces I've read haven't provided us with any details about Aniso Abdulkadir.

Many have said (in various ways) that anti-racism has been demeaned by many anti-racist policies and actions. There's also the omnipresence and overuse of accusations of “racism”. When people state these things, however, pious and puritanical anti-racists either laugh or foam at the mouth. They claim that the people who say such things are racists anyway therefore such a claim simply must be bogus.

This is certainly the reaction to the claim that anti-racism often causes racism. Yet these knee-jerk reactions simply prove the point!

One aspect of the eternal war against racism is that any criticism whatsoever of that war (or its anything goes tactics) is also deemed to be racist. Thus, the war will carry on and become more extreme and more puritanical. It will continue in this manner until the endless war against (often-fake) racism implodes in some way. Or it'll continue until anti-racists begin to eat their own children. In fact, this is already happening!

In addition to all that, anti-racism is a primary weapon in the armoury of left-wingers. It's also a means to further one's career or to sell one's pure credentials. It is everything to everyone.

This story highlights the problem. Both sides claim that the other side is “racist”. Thus, what we often have is this:

I'll place my anti-racism against your anti-racism.

Who wins? Both sides? None?

We also have the I'm-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition which white left-wingers seem so keen on. As I said, the anti-racism revolution is eating its own children.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He's had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here.