Taking Care of the Womens

Fresh off the story of a Saudi cleric paying only a fine for murdering his 5 y/o daughter (he thought she might not be a virgin), we have this story:

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail.

Yeah. It was a British judge who decided this.

I can see what the judge is getting at: that Rashid was not raised properly to know the law and basic morals. But that is largely irrelevant. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for this sort of thing. And, if anything, his upbringing makes him more of a danger in general society. I’ll also give you three guesses as to whether or not a man raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment would be let off for grooming and raping a 13 year-old girl because he was “naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters”.

Comments are closed.

  1. pfluffy

    I’ll also give you three guesses as to whether or not a man raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment would be let off for grooming and raping a 13 year-old girl because he was “naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters”.

    They seem to be somewhat tolerant of it in the Southwest regarding LDS churches. There are horror stories about LDS cults marrying off 14 year olds. Admittedly, if they every get to court, punishment is meted out.

    Thumb up 0

  2. stogy

    This is another Daily Mail article. Consequently, I have absolutely no idea whether any of the facts or quotes are true. They might be, but then this is the Daily Mail. You might as well be quoting from the Onion.

    Thumb up 1

  3. CM

    This is another Daily Mail article. Consequently, I have absolutely no idea whether any of the facts or quotes are true. They might be, but then this is the Daily Mail. You might as well be quoting from the Onion.

    So very true. It wasn’t long ago that people were accepting, on faith, that it was now legal for Egyptian men to have sex with their dead wifes.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Xetrov

    They seem to be somewhat tolerant of it in the Southwest regarding LDS churches. There are horror stories about LDS cults marrying off 14 year olds. Admittedly, if they every get to court, punishment is meted out.

    LDS Church = No Polygamy or marrying 14 year olds since the 1800’s.

    Carry on.

    Thumb up 4

  5. Xetrov

    Xetrov, I used the term “cult” instead of “church” for a reason.

    Because it’s a stupid, misunderstood term and brings emotion into it? “Cult” is “A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” Sounds a lot like any religion to me. You confused disgusting groups like Warren Jeffs (who have not had anything to do with the LDS church for more than a century) with the LDS Church. That’s all I was saying.

    Carry on.

    Thumb up 1

  6. pfluffy

    You confused disgusting groups like Warren Jeffs (who have not had anything to do with the LDS church for more than a century) with the LDS Church. That’s all I was saying.

    Actually, I wasn’t, but I guess I may not have been clear. Jeffs was FLDS and I omitted the ‘F’. My apologies. I am not disparaging Mormons. There is a decent sized Mormon presence in Atlanta and they have always been very nice people.

    Thumb up 1

  7. pfluffy

    Well you sure fooled everyone that read your comment on that issue.

    Yea, well most people don’t really seem to be actually reading posts. I can (and have) admit to mistakes in posting. I left off the “F” in my original post and I corrected that and apologized to Xetrov. I wasn’t talking to you, but if your feelings were hurt, then I am sorry.

    Thumb up 1

  8. mrblume

    Also, this was statutory rape. I think that from time to time I see Hal talking the talk about criminal justice reform, so Hal, I would suggest that you consider whether a suspended sentence might not be adequate, regardless of the Muslim angle that may or may not be the Daily Mail’s imagination. It may well be that there is no particular reason to assume that he is a great danger to society, and a suspended sentence is not nothing. Would it be preferable to have the taxpayer finance the guy for 7-years, so that when he is released, he’ll hopefully be a real criminal?

    You might think that it would be really nice if we could lock up disgusting sex people forever, and be all rehabilitationy otherwise, but idiology doesn’t work like that. There’s a straight line from Aaron Swartz, to three strikes, to sex offender registries. You either get people to care about the fates of the guilty, or you end up with a system running amock, precisely because no one cares.

    Thumb up 0

  9. balthazar

    Yea, well most people don’t really seem to be actually reading posts. I can (and have) admit to mistakes in posting. I left off the “F” in my original post and I corrected that and apologized to Xetrov. I wasn’t talking to you, but if your feelings were hurt, then I am sorry.

    Except that we did read it, after you dumb ass was called on it you backtracked, not its everyone elses fault that the READ AND UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY what you wrote.

    Goddamn you are a self delusional ass.

    Thumb up 2