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

[SonicWaffle]

Anyway, thats kinda the point. This whole thread and all my posts were about basic rules in society being violated or ignored without just punishment because LOL ITS MA RELIGION!!! This is what pisses me off about the whole thing.

Wasn't this whole thread more about the fact that a tabloid newspaper ignored all other considerations and claimed that Muslims could could away with anything because "LOL ITS MA RELIGION"?

Depressingly, this was then echoed by quite a few posters, but the case in question doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion. The girls simply used their religion to explain what they considered mitigating circumstances, ie a low tolerance for alcohol. I fully agree with you that religion is all-too-often used as an excuse and as justification for behaviour that is disagreeable or downright anti-social, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Triaed]

I think that every single report of abuse, battery or assault should begin with stating what religion the perpetrator is.

It will be so much fun to read the crime note from now on and it will shine a light on those religious naysayers, especially those who like to throw the first rock

 

[SonicWaffle]

I did not say these things. If we're going to have a real conversation, don't mis-quote me.

If I did, then I'm sorry. When I break a post up into sections and reply to it piece-by-piece, I copy/paste the opening "

As far as folks in your corner being the root of the problem, yes, you are. If there really is demographic warfare being waged, and people of a certain ethnic and religious group are milking the system and being given special treatment by your government, it is in your hands to stand up to your government in order to keep things fair for everyone.

Sure. However, the idea of demographic warfare is pretty much pure fantasy. The percentage population of Muslims in Europe is just over 3%. The claims that they receive special treatment above and beyond that of other citizens is largely scaremongering by those with a grudge (be it religious, a racist perception of Muslim and Middle Eastern being interchangeable terms, or whatever) or those who need to sell papers and are aware that attention-grabbing headlines about "Islam is taking over Europe!" will sell more copies than headlines like "Some Muslims live in Europe, most are generally just getting on with their lives but some are obnoxious dickheads"

These ideas - Islam gets special treatment, Britain is going to institute Sharia law, there are no-go areas where local Muslims forbid the police entrance - are nothing more than propaganda. Muslims are just the target of the day. Once it was black people, before that it was the Irish, but there will always be someone that certain antagonistic groups can point to and say "Those bastards are the ones to blame for our problems!". Doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Or you just follow an easy religion. Nothing about religion itself has to be hard. I follow the religion of the Chosen Ones: Be excellent to one another and party on, dudes!

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.

Then maybe the religion should fall by the wayside. If an all-encompassing spirituality cannot endure a modern century, then the problem is with the religion. It is inherrently flawed.

Recondiling your faith is merely sticking your head in the sand.

"We only want the good stuff" is also a problem, in that it justifies other selective interpretations. Hell, the beauty of Christianity is a weapon is that so many people claim to be it. You can, in America, claim moral majority for hate because 80% of the country is Christian

Validating a part of the book is hurtful, even if it's the "good stuff."

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.

that is a problem, but it's far from the only problem.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Socipathy seems to be a trend here, and really the internet in general. I'm not surprised racism is a thing here.

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?

People won't even look for a legit source for their gripes....Why would they try and learn?

We should start a club.

With Blackjack.

And hookers.

In fact, forget the club!

Wasn't this whole thread more about the fact that a tabloid newspaper ignored all other considerations and claimed that Muslims could could away with anything because "LOL ITS MA RELIGION"?

Depressingly, this was then echoed by quite a few posters, but the case in question doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion. The girls simply used their religion to explain what they considered mitigating circumstances, ie a low tolerance for alcohol. I fully agree with you that religion is all-too-often used as an excuse and as justification for behaviour that is disagreeable or downright anti-social, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Sadly, the lie is catchier than the truth, and people are looking for an excuse to hate.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Or you just follow an easy religion. Nothing about religion itself has to be hard. I follow the religion of the Chosen Ones: Be excellent to one another and party on, dudes!

So when something awful happens, and the one who caused it is right in front of you, and all your animal urges are screaming at you to smack him upside the head with a spanner - you stop yourself, ponders what young masters Preston & Logan would do, and you're forced to be excellent to the guy instead. Sounds quite hard to me. It's still refusing your own urges to do something because your beliefs run contrary to that desire.

Besides, there's a limit to how long you can party on. I know I'm getting old (only a month until I turn 25!) but I can barely party for a whole night these days. To party on forever, without end, would leave me a broken wreck of a man within a week. I just don't think it's do-able.

Then maybe the religion should fall by the wayside. If an all-encompassing spirituality cannot endure a modern century, then the problem is with the religion. It is inherrently flawed.

Spirituality tends to come within a framework, of deity and myth and all those other things. Much of religion seems to me to be an appeal to authority; "I'll be a good person, because I've been told to be" is just an excuse to behave well and be decent. I'd like to think that a lot of people don't need the excuse, but they may need the encouragement.

Have you ever read a book called Join Me, by Danny Wallace? He was the guy who played the snarky tech dude in AC 2 and Brotherhood, and looks exactly like him in real life. He's much, much nicer though. Anyway, Join Me is a story of how he accidentally started a cult and then had to figure out stuff for them to do. So he started challenging them to do nice things for other people, complete strangers. He comes to the odd realisation that people like doing these random acts of kindness, but without him telling them to do it, they wouldn't be doing it. It's very interesting.

Recondiling your faith is merely sticking your head in the sand.

No, I think sticking blindly to your faith is sticking your head in the sand. Reconciling it to the world you live in is an attempt to take what you believe and make it work around real life. Reality disagrees with your belief system, but at least you're admitting that and trying to find a compromise rather than stamping your foot and saying "No, there is no such thing as evolution, the Bible says so! Everything works the way my ancient text describes it and anyone who disagrees is a heretic!"

"We only want the good stuff" is also a problem, in that it justifies other selective interpretations.

True, but would you rather have people who were selective about the good lessons or people who were emphatic that the entire world should work according to the way a 2000-year-old book describes it? Religion, for the time being, is here. It'll be around for a good long while yet. I'd much rather have people who tried to use it to do good things than people who refused to interpret at all.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Well, im not so sure. Maybe I should be more wary of english newspapers. Its been ages since I was in Britain so I dont really know which newspapers make up stories for the lolz and which dont.

That would be the Sport, it's hilarious. They were the ones who revealed the other week that Gaddafi was secretly a woman, and that all her sprees of violence coincided with her period. They don't give a fuck, and make up anything for the hell of it because they know nobody takes them seriously.

Other papers tend to report the truth, but massage it or only shows a single angle. Like the article that sparked off this thread - it was treated as a "Muslims get preferential treatment!" issue when it was actually nothing of the sort. They don't usually make things up, they just report them in a really misleading fashion.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

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?

THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY!

Do you not know what a suspended sentence is? It means that they were found guilty, sentenced to time in prison, but that sentence is suspended for a period of time (depending on the crime, judge, etc), and will only come into effect should that person commit another crime and be found guilty, in which case both sentences (the suspended one, and the new one) would be cumulative.

Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?

 

[SonicWaffle]

Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?

Speaking as one who does that all the time, it's because my life is empty and I'm sad so I reach out desperate for any human contact even if it is negative. Now, how about that local sports team you like? I hear they suck.

 

[Savryc]

Erm, this is England remember? Pathetic slaps on the wrist are pretty much the default sentence these days so yeah, just because they are Muslims means this is newsworthy?

Typical tabloid bullshit.

 

[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,

Muslim is not a race. In fact I don't actually remember anyone reporting on their race.

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

Instead of pulling speculation out of your ass why not read the articles.

Multiple kicks to the head from multiple people, black and blue all over, a bald spot from having her hair pulled clean out, and covered in blood. Oh yes this is barely any injuries at all.

Yeah that sounds like the injuries you'd sustain from tripping ... directly onto a cactus.

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.

So I really can go to England, get drunk, beat the shit out of someone and then blame the alcohol? England has a fucked up judicial system then.

The law in the UK equates racism and insults/discrimination based on religion as one and the same. So yes, they are being the religious equivalent of racists.

As I said, if the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) had thought she had suffered serious injury, they'd have charged the girls with Grievous Bodily Harm. They didn't, which suggests that the article (which is the Daily Mail, and therefore prone to hyperbole and lies) is being hyperbolic over the injuries.

As for the the "drunk" mitigation - no. Voluntary intoxication can only be used as a mitigating circumstance if it is judged that the effect that the intoxicant had on the defendant was greater than normally expected, or it effected their behaviour in a greater way than expected. In this case, it was judged that, because the girls had never drunk before, the alcohol effected them in a greater way than an average person, and so that was taken into account.

This is based on my knowledge of British law (being a graduate in it myself, as well as currently studying a Masters in the subject), and the way the judicial system usually operates. In this case, since you seem to suggest that you are not British, I would humbly put forward that I would know more about my nation's legal and judicial system than yourself, which is obviously not a fault of your own, but means that you seem to not fully understand how our justice system works.

Obviously, neither of us can have a conclusive view of the case until such time as the transcripts or case files are released, and I look forward to reading them if/when they are released for reading. I'd certainly like to see exactly what was said in court, so I can make an informed decision upon my opinion of the judge's findings.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?

Speaking as one who does that all the time, it's because my life is empty and I'm sad so I reach out desperate for any human contact even if it is negative. Now, how about that local sports team you like? I hear they suck.

I don't actually like sports all that much - politics and law are much more interesting to me.

I know, I'm a bad Englishman... *hangs his head in shame*

I do sort of support Liverpool though! And yea, they do suck sometimes, but they're doing better!

 

[Fleischer]

OP: I've watched the video a few times. It's a disturbing event; however, I have yet to see a news report from a trustworthy source. Until then, I am not putting any credence into what the Daily News is reporting.

Ive met wonderful and nice people who are arabic and muslim. But in my experience, throughout my school years and observations made throughout life to his point has been negative. Prime example, the said wonderful people are our family friends. So they brought my mom along to their mosque for some big get together. Because they were friends, thats what friends do. Sure she got some odd looks, acceptable, she was the only non-muslim and white person present. However afterwards when my mother had left. A group approached her(My mothers friend) and told her never to bring her again. When she asked why, they said because she is swedish. Being a person of strong principles she left that congregation/group shortly thereafter, effectivley becoming excommunicated for not being a bigot like the rest.

On plenty occassions arabs and muslims will curse or taunt white/swedish people as they walk past them in arabic wearing serpent smiles. Same woman again stood up for my mom. 2 arab young men walked by the two and one faced them and called her a "Swedish whore" a very common term used every day by immigrants to describe swedish women, more often than not to peoples faces. Whereas her friend scolded them. Not that it changes anything. She's a good person, they are not.

Prime example from my younger years would be the daily berrating(spelling?), violence and threat of violence from muslim arabs towards whites, almost specifically always. Apart from the occassional gang vs gang crap (not common here, but is basicly the only time they don't pick on or mess with people of european descent).

Schools do not do anything about it. Nor does the government. If a white person retorts to an immigrant after being insulted or offended racially/ethnicaly or religiously that person will get punished for being a racist and then stigmatized for it. But if you are brown/black and muslim you can do whatever you like because no one will lift a single finger in fear of being labeled a racist.

And you can look on norwegian police reports and statistics of who commit the vast majority of gangrapes and aggrevated assaults upon innocents. Arabs, somali's and muslims. That is when its racially motivated, wich it always is. Don't bother with swedish media though, they cover up everything all in the name of political correctness, because only swedish people can be racist. If a swedish person commits a violent crime, their face, name and age will be in the newspaper. If a non-white immigrant commits a crime ,no info at all. Only "A young male adult with an accent bla bla bla". They are also immune to criticism and everyone who even questions anything about their culture or religion or anything whatsoever is censored and silenced.

Are all of them like this? Ofcourse not but increasing numbers of them are. Shit, jews have all but left Malmö due to persecution by the muslim immigrants. If anything, they are intolerant nazi'esque scum who get preferrable treatment by the government. They are also usually rude, loud and obnoxious, so if you wish, we can trade them for yours. They seem much more pleasant people.

And im not a racist, this isn't inherent genetical traits we are talking about, they are caused by tradition and culture (i use those terms loosely). Call me a bigot if you wish, couldn't care less. I have nothing but contempt for them and little will make that change.

The list goes on, but thinking about it puts me in a foul mood and takes away energy I could've used to watch porn or eat something. Take my word for it that ive tried to like them and meet them with an open mind. But he more I meet them, the less I like them.

The story of your mother and her friend warmed my heart. I'm glad some people, such as your mother's friend, are brave enough to stand against intolerance, standing for their beliefs more than public opinion. From the ending of your post, I am hearing you are feeling unwelcome by people. I may be an educator an ocean away from you, but I would not tolerate such behavior. My school district has a firm policy against bullying.

If people only followed that damn simply rule - do onto others as you want others to do unto you, we'd have a lot of this crap sorted out.

Also, I think you were trying to use the word "berated."

 

[Mark Chipperfield]

I think that if they are going to live in my country then they should abide by the rules, if they don't then they should gtfo.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

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.

I'm glad that a little injection of actual legal knowledge is appreciated. Thank you, yourself, for not then deciding to jump on me and start making unfounded accusations.

Thank goodness there are at least some escapists who actually appreciate reasoned, informed debate.

 

[Buccura]

Yet another reason political correctness is cancer. And don't try to tell me that isn't what this is about.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Yet another reason political correctness is cancer. And don't try to tell me that isn't what this is about.

That isn't was this is about.

Courtesy of Jordanmillward_1

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.

 

[Charli]

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

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

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

Truth, what a terrible misjudgment, I hope they're properly vindicated by the community because that is just despicable. As would the crime be in a reversed situation.

Law and Religion do not encroach on one another in England, no Christian can plead bible commandments when committing a wrong doing so this is just in terrible taste. I don't care how Zealous the Islamic people are, about their religion, if they don't like how our practices work I suggest they adjust or move to a country that has it's laws and society based around Islam. Not enjoy the benefits and dangers of our arguably more relaxed views on Holy Writ from over 2000 years ago and then turn around and use religion as an excuse afterwards.

Drinking? Exposure of Skin and Hair?

Ladies please. You'd have your hands cut off and faces disfigured before being stoned before you knew what was happening. You want to go down that route? Okay girls, lets do it right.

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"

Being Islamic should have played no part in the plea then. And true the daily mail does tend to jump on religion as a rule so until I know what took place, not that I'm probably going to, I'll reserve judgement but I still feel the ruling was a mite dumb.

 

[Phoenixlight]

What the fuck, I thought yeah ok it's because it happened in a piece of shit country like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia but ENGLAND?!!? There's no way this should have happened.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

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"

Being Islamic should have played no part in the plea then. And true the daily mail does tend to jump on religion as a rule so until I know what took place, not that I'm probably going to, I'll reserve judgement but I still feel the ruling was a mite dumb.

You misquoted - I said that.

And it didn't take part in the plea at all. All that has happened is, from what I've read, that they made the plea for mitigating circumstances based on intoxication, and when asked why voluntary intoxication should be accepted, they indicated that they had never drunk alcohol before, because they were Muslim. It was merely used as a qualifying statement, as a reason for why they'd never drunk alcohol before.

Sure, they could have left it out and it'd have been the same, but why not point out the reason for you never drinking before? It's just the same as saying "My parents were strict Baptists", or "My parents were teetotalers, and never allowed us to drink". Why should it just be Muslims that aren't allowed to give reasons for not drinking previously?

If all of the article never mentioned that they were Muslim, I can guarantee there wouldn't be nearly this much bigoted uproar on the forums, and the Daily Mail wouldn't have printed it (and no one else would), because it would have been entirely un-newsworthy.

The only reason this has been printed is because the Daily Mail knew it could spin it into "THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT COS THEY ARE MUSLIM!", and the majority of people here seem to be dancing away to that tune without a care in the world, despite the judgement having nothing to do with them being Muslim, and they were still found guilty, which means the Mail got what it wanted - more people saying nasty things about non-white people and being bigots.