Poll: Muslim female "gang" beat up English women, but not jailed

[4173]

The whole thing reeks of fake or blown up by the Daily Mail, but I will say this...

So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?

I think we shouldn't trust the Daily Mail. Reading the article, it says that that was brought up in their defence. It also says:

"But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence."

Looks to me like the Daily Mail is doing its best to imply that was what got them off, without actually saying it, in order to get more copies by provoking racism.

how can that be racist, their defense was because of Islam, not because of their race/ethnicity

I see them wearing make up and not covering their hair.

They obviously dont follow Islam, so it should not be a valid defense for them.

Gwah? If you don't adhere to all tenants [of a particular interpretation] of a given religion you aren't religious?

Well, I wouldnt say you arent religious, you just dont follow that particular religion.

Explain to me why someone should have the right to pray during work hours because his holy book tells him too, although his holy book also tells him not to drink, eat certain food, sleep with women he is not married to, not to shake a womens hand, not waste his time with trivial things such as video games or movies, and he ignores all of that.

Dont even start with the interpretation bullshit. "Oh, it says right here that a woman who dishonors her family should be killed, but what it really means is women are wonderful beings and the world is a super happy fun time!"

Not interpretation like that. Interpretation as in "well, that section is bullshit, but this other section is pretty nifty." The book doesn't necessarily need to be the be all and end all of a religion.

But no, I don't really have an answer for any specific question; with any belief system an outsider can come by and say it's all arbitrary gibberish. I doubt either of us wants to try to hammer out what reasonable accommodation means, it is too context dependent.

Of course in this case the ruling is stupid. Abstaining from booze because of religion is no different than abstaining because of age or anything else. It isn't a defense, but that doesn't mean the girls hadn't been following their version of Islam. (or for that matter, that breaking a rule precludes being of that religion. I can't speak specifically of Islam, but human weakness/sin/redemption/atonement/forgiveness etc. aren't uncommon themes in religions.)

See, this is what I mean. There is no "Their version of Islam". Islam has a straight set of rules. You either follow all of them, or you dont. I am fed up of this mix your own religion bullshit.

But fuck it, since it seems to be the new thing, I want to be able to beat my wife and treat her as my property (Jehova), invest in slave trade and gas jews (christianity), take an hour out of my work day to chill out and be able to break strict dress codes in multiple situations (islam). But I dont want to follow any of the other teachings.

What? Its my own version of Christianity. Respect it.

Really? You're arguing in favor of cultism, and more specifically, the most extreme versions (and against history, but I digress).

Yes, you could have your own religion that believes those things, but unfortunately for you many societies have decided their laws supersede religious beliefs in slavery, murder and assault and even dress in certain circumstances.

I mean, I get it, you hate religion, but why not cut to the chase and just say it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

If this situation was reversed, and a gang of non-muslim British girls attacked a Muslim girl, can you imagine the situation being anything like this afterwards? Of course not, they would have been strictly punished. I am a liberal and believe in a liberal immigration policy and I despise the BNP and their ilk, but I often read of Muslims in this country being able to get away with almost anything using their religion as a shield. Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs. And the fact that we tip-toe around it, so worried about "offending" them means we end up with an affront to the Rule of Law, where Muslims are given special treatment rather than equal treatment under the Law.

As a fellow liberal, I do somewhat agree with you. There certainly are cases where people tread more carefully around supposedly "protected" groups such as religions (I wouldn't limit it to just Islam), and this is not a good thing. However, incidents like this get my back up because so many idiots seem to take what you've said here, crank the volume up to eleven, and conclude that "Muslims are in control of the UK and non-Muslims are second class citizens".

On this thread alone, which in terms of anti-Islamic sentiment has actually been fairly mild compared to somewhere like Moonbattery or Free Republic, there have been posters using the logic that "Muslims get special treatment" to advocate banning the religion, throwing all Muslims out of the country, and so on. Of course, most of those protesting would be overjoyed if they were given special treatment in the eyes of the law; it's only wrong when someone else gets an advantage.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because I am dim, I am unsure whether or not you are pointing out some hypocrisy of my own which I cannot see. I do hope you're not, because that would make me sad :-(

Nope. Congratulating you on nailing the usual Christian paradigm of "Well, I don't follow that part."

Otherwise, the Bible would be quite problematic for most Christians.

But hey, selective ignorance is really important, especially if you're going to wage war on our PC culture (American or British) or the special priveleges minorities all lord over us.

 

[boyvirgo666]

Ugh. I'm Jewish and that's like me getting off of murder by saying "I killed that hooker because I'm not used to eating pork. I mean, what the hell?

Pretty sure pork doesn't have the same effect on people that alcohol does, even in large quantities

You sure have apparently never had chocolate covered bacon, last time for me i woke up with my mouth covered in chocolate with 3 dead calfs and charles bronson

 

[SonicWaffle]

You dont know me nor what ive seen, and I do not have the time or amount of "Give a shit" to write everything down for some Puppet Internet Hero wannabe. So don't think you can judge me you sanctimonal prick.

So what you're saying is, you haven't got anything remotely credible to back up your bigoted statements so you'll just throw insults around and storm away, in the hopes that it'll make you seem like you took the moral high ground?

Well played, sir.

 

[Verlander]

Yet another group of people who read the papers and believe them. Yawn.

The quality of British, nay, WORLD media is such that the actual event was a bloke in a car beeping at a bicycle. But changing the details to favourite British past times (women, drinking, xenophobia) made for a much more interesting story...

 

[Infernai]

It is either that the judge is being secretly threatened or the judge is being a real life troll.

Or, option 3: Judge is actually related to one of those gang members and more or less bailed them out?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Aahahha, you're reading way too much into it

No, I'm addressing exactly what you said. You made several statements with nothing to back them up, which I personally believe to be the highest grade of bullshit. To whit;

1) Muslims are more racist than anyone else
2) Muslims can get away with being racist because of their religion
3) You see Europe as so fully dominated by Muslims that you refer to it as "Eurabia"

All I did was ask you if you had any way to support these claims. If, like you suggest, all three are true then finding proof would be an easy task, no?

get a life.

I have one, and it's pretty good. Thankyou for your concern!

Governments are just sucking up to them and bending backwards to get fucked by them while screwing their own people.

Once again, can you please provide citations for this claim? As a citizen of the United Kingdom, in no way do I feel that Islamic residents of my nation are given any preferential treatment over myself that members of other religions do not get. If I were to tell people that I heard voices in my head, and that these voices told me to wrap women in fabric or to eat wafers which are symbolically the flesh of a long-dead arab, I'd be sectioned. If I say that Allah or God is telling me these things I get a free pass for my madness. That is unfair, but at least it's equally unfair; religion in general is given leeway, not Islam in particular.

And the muslims i refer to are the ones in Europe. Whom are in vast majority arab or african. Ive observed them my entire life and they are the biggest bigots and racists ever to taint Europe. Nobody even comes close.

Yet again, proof please? Beyond anecdotal evidence ("I saw this black guy, right? He was probably a Muslim. He said something racist, ergo all Muslims are racist") do you have anything that would actually convince me that Muslims are more racist than anyone else? Having spent two years as a non-religious white guy living opposite a mosque and experiencing absolutely zero racial prejudice from anyone in the area, I find your claims to be at best suspicious and at worst complete and total bullshit that you're using to try and justify your own prejudices.

You dont know me nor what ive seen, and I do not have the time or amount of "Give a shit" to write everything down for some Puppet Internet Hero wannabe. So don't think you can judge me you sanctimonal prick.

Ah, the good old 'I have no evidence but I've seen things' ploy, followed by the 'and I don't have time to tell you, so I'm bailing on this debate because I'm losing' ploy.

It's an oldy, but a goody

 

[SonicWaffle]

Nope. Congratulating you on nailing the usual Christian paradigm of "Well, I don't follow that part."

Then I am unsad! Once more I frolic about the meadows, flowers braided into my hair and a smile on my face.

Otherwise, the Bible would be quite problematic for most Christians.

It is. It probably should be - if all your holy rules are easy to follow and require no sacrifice, you're probably not making the amount of effort a deity usually requires.

To be fair to the majority of Christians I know, though, most are simply well-meaning people. The parts they cherry-pick from the Bible are usually the parts about doing good, helping others and spreading Christ's love. I don't blame them for not following the parts about stoning your kids or avoiding shellfish, because they're good people trying to reconcile their faith with modern life. The world has moved on, and the rules that governed the people who wrote the Bible simply do not apply anymore.

The Christians that piss me off are the ones who claim to be Biblical literalists, yet still pick and choose the bits they want to follow. They're perfectly fine with "God hates fags" but will bend logic into a circle to avoid the parts about loving, forgiving and not judging others. They'll tell you what the supposedly literal truth is just an allegory for, or what they think God meant to say, which to me seems highly presumptuous and a pretty good reason for a bolt of lightning up the jacksie.

 

[SonicWaffle]

You sure have apparently never had chocolate covered bacon, last time for me i woke up with my mouth covered in chocolate with 3 dead calfs and charles bronson

I have had a bar of chocolate with bacon bits in it!

It was fucking revolting! My ex bought it for me last Christmas, we ended up taking it home for dinner to see how many of my family we could trick into eating a piece. My mum nearly puked

 

[JordanMillward_1]

This is what it must feel like when a doctor is sorrounded by people who are talking about medicine, when they have no fucking clue what the hell they're on about.

As a law & criminology graduate, the amount of ignorance and outright bigotry in this thread disgusts me.

Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist, which is a huge disappointment for someone who generally thought this community was relatively open minded.

1) In the UK, unless you have committed a major crime, you will almost always get a suspended sentence for your first offence, regardless of who you are, what your beliefs are, whatever;

2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries; and

3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.

Please, for the love of God (ironic in this situation, I know), please actually try to learn ANYTHING about how the British legal system works before going "f-ing Muslims, they should go back home! I hate immigrants!"... please?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

This is what it must feel like when a doctor is sorrounded by people who are talking about medicine, when they have no fucking clue what the hell they're on about.

As a law & criminology graduate, the amount of ignorance and outright bigotry in this thread disgusts me.

Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist, which is a huge disappointment for someone who generally thought this community was relatively open minded.

1) In the UK, unless you have committed a major crime, you will almost always get a suspended sentence for your first offence, regardless of who you are, what your beliefs are, whatever;

2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries; and

3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.

Please, for the love of God (ironic in this situation, I know), please actually try to learn ANYTHING about how the British legal system works before going "f-ing Muslims, they should go back home! I hate immigrants!"... please?

We should start a club.

With Blackjack.

And hookers.

All legal of course...

>_>

<__>

 

[SonicWaffle]

Ah, the good old 'I have no evidence but I've seen things' ploy, followed by the 'and I don't have time to tell you, so I'm bailing on this debate because I'm losing' ploy.

I've seen things, I've seen them with my eyes! I've seen things, they're often in disguise! Things like...Muslims, racists, evil brown people, KUALA LUMPUR!

Man, that takes me back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnXvhgrV8Q

 

[Reishadowen]

Sigh...I have a bad feeling I'm going to be getting a word or two with the mods after this post...

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".

Let me give you guys a hint: They weren't excused because the Judge believed their "We weren't used to alcohol!" nonsense. They were excused because a guilty verdict would upset the muslim population of England, and God forbid that we should treat them equally.

Yes, a verdict of innocent would upset the non-muslim group, but so far muslims as a whole seem to be the only ones who threaten "I'LL KILL YOU!" at the barest hint of every slight. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a muslim in America or Europe getting punished for a crime, and you heard something else besides muslim nations denouncing the decision, and the news footage panning over a crowd of a gajillion angry muslims with "death to the west"-ish signs?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Sigh...I have a bad feeling I'm going to be getting a word or two with the mods after this post...

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".

Let me give you guys a hint: They weren't excused because the Judge believed their "We weren't used to alcohol!" nonsense. They were excused because a guilty verdict would upset the muslim population of England, and God forbid that we should treat them equally.

Yes, a verdict of innocent would upset the non-muslim group, but so far muslims as a whole seem to be the only ones who threaten "I'LL KILL YOU!" at the barest hint of every slight. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a muslim in America or Europe getting punished for a crime, and you heard something else besides muslim nations denouncing the decision, and the news footage panning over a crowd of a gajillion angry muslims with "death to the west"-ish signs?

Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.

 

[Reishadowen]

Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.

*looks down in shame* uh, yeah....I only have a limited time to spend on this forum, so I normally read only the first page. If I don't I end up spending almost six hours on the forums, and I just don't have that kind of time.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.

*looks down in shame* uh, yeah....I only have a limited time to spend on this forum, so I normally read only the first page. If I don't I end up spending almost six hours on the forums, and I just don't have that kind of time.

The fact that you're willing to admit that your were hasty to judge makes you a better person than most others in this thread.

Be proud of that.

 

[maninahat]

Though I see it is too late to combat all the generalising, absurd remarks about political correctness gone mad, I'd like to make a couple of observations.

A judge is required to weigh up a sentence based on a number of factors. Is it a first offense? Was there provocation? Were the actions reasonable in context? Was the defendant in full control? Will a harsh punishment be of any use in preventing reoffence? Is reoffence likely? There are a lot of factors, many of which haven't been brought up by the Daily Mail. The only factor they have brought up is that the girl was a muslim. Is it asking too much to give the judge the benefit of the doubt? Somehow I doubt a judge would actually think to themself, "Nope, we can't persecute her. She is a muslim, and that is all that matters. And as we all know, we have never ever punished a single muslim for any crime in the history of English law." Don't be silly. How many muslims do you think get sent to jail? The number is more than zero.

Now here is probably how it went down: we don't know much about the victim, besides her side of the story. Often in bar fights, both sides will claim to be the victim - that the other started it. We know that the defendants made the claim that they were not used to alcohol, implying that they would not have committed the crime if they were not under the influence. The fact that the girls are muslim has no bearing on the case, beyond explaining why they drank too much alocohol. Claiming to be muslim isn't a get out of jail free card. It is just an explanation for why they drank too much. It doesn't excuse their actions, it just provides a reason for how they got into a state where they would do something so regrettable.

Therefore, what I suspect has happened is that the judge did not see any benefit in prosecuting the defendants to the full extent. This may be for a combination of reasons, but I find it interesting that the newspaper just assumes that it was because the girls mentioned they were muslim. As in, had they not said they were muslim, they would have got a maximum sentence? How could the paper assume that? On what grounds do we base the claim that judge is too stupid, prudish or cowardly to punish muslims when he must?

I am not denying the possibility of any of what is being said, but it seems to me that it only requires a basic trust in a professional's gumption to see this news story as a likely misrepresentation of the facts.

TLDR? Who do you trust more, a judge or a tabloid journalist? Bearing in mind that it is in the judge's interest to make the correct decisions, whilst it is in the journalist's interest to generate as much scandal as possible within 500 words.

 

[katsabas]

I am no expert in law, nor do I know if this thing went down like the tabloids said it did. But if it did:

These four are extremists. Everything is bad when you practice it at a high degree and religion is one of the first things that that should not be coupled with. This should not come as an engraved note that all Muslims are like that. I know Muslims and they are anything but violent.

I know the best and the worst of Muslims and these people deserve jail time. The fact that they are Muslims shouldn't play a part in ANYTHING. They beat someone, in public, no less.

Also, the statements of their lawyers are full of holes. Have they been staying in England for less than 24h ? Cause right now, that the only way I can think off for one to get shocked to the sight of someone drunk.

And even if they were shocked, THAT'S how they deal with it ?!

 

[maninahat]

This is what it must feel like when a doctor is sorrounded by people who are talking about medicine, when they have no fucking clue what the hell they're on about.

As a law & criminology graduate, the amount of ignorance and outright bigotry in this thread disgusts me.

Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist, which is a huge disappointment for someone who generally thought this community was relatively open minded.

1) In the UK, unless you have committed a major crime, you will almost always get a suspended sentence for your first offence, regardless of who you are, what your beliefs are, whatever;

2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries; and

3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.

Please, for the love of God (ironic in this situation, I know), please actually try to learn ANYTHING about how the British legal system works before going "f-ing Muslims, they should go back home! I hate immigrants!"... please?

Ah, you ninja'd me. And infar more eloquent terms, I might add.

Thank goodness there are at least some escapists who aren't knee-jerking idiots.