Cherie Blair spares man who broke another's jaw in bank queue jail because he was "religious"

[removeduser_487563287433]

Cherie Blair, wife of the former PM and judge, has let a man who broke another person's jaw in a bank queue free on the reasoning that he was "religious".

Why does every other day bring a new story about a religious person abusing their position of authority? Might convert myself and see what I can get away with. I think it's disgusting that in this situation I would have been imprisoned for my lack of religious conviction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm

[Viking Prince]

From the article:

She added: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour

I am not as certain that it was because of his religion (yes I do know that is a part of her statement).

Is it unusual for people involved in assault cases with no criminal record to be given suspended sentences? If it is the usual practice, then it is a poor choice of words and nothing more. If it is the usual practice to serve some time for a first offence of this type, then she should not be in her position of authority.

Short answer -- a bit more information is needed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You are assuming that statement is not an addition to her not giving a prison sentence because he was religious.

I am not saying that the guy should have got a prison sentence for the crime - I don't really care. What I do care about is that Blair is implying that an atheist or an agnostic would have been sent to prison.

[Visna]

She added: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

She forgot to add "and yet you did it anyway, so I see no choice but to send you to jail"

If anyone should walk away from such a crime unpunished it should be the non-religious. According to the honorable judge they don't know what's acceptable and what's not.

[Manco]

So, knowing what you did is wrong, yet still doing it is somehow less bad than not knowing what you did is wrong?

I knew faith wasn't logical.

[Monarchist]

I knew faith wasn't logical.

Would you put a cap on the Logic-Arrogance, already? "We atheists are so bluddy smat nd gud that nuthin in the wuld is maekin' us illogicul, so it is them religious peepol who make the wurld bed."

I am absolutely sick of the nonsense like that. One immoral religious person lets another immoral religious person off, and suddenly every religious person "isn't logical". Faith itself is not in question, but this particular faithful person's judgment is. Why don't we just look at her and how much she ignores her own religion's teachings about justice, rather than use her to show how evil her religion is? You're completely turning the argument on its back from what it ought to be.

Being a person who is absolutely convinced that God is obvious in His existence, I am also a person who thinks Mrs. Booth made a rather silly miscarriage of justice. Assault is assault, regardless of the perpetrator.

[Arch-hereticK]

Would you put a cap on the Logic-Arrogance, already? "We atheists are so bluddy smat nd gud that nuthin in the wuld is maekin' us illogicul, so it is them religious peepol who make the wurld bed."

I am absolutely sick of the nonsense like that. One immoral religious person lets another immoral religious person off, and suddenly every religious person "isn't logical". Faith itself is not in question, but this particular faithful person's judgment is. Why don't we just look at her and how much she ignores her own religion's teachings about justice, rather than use her to show how evil her religion is? You're completely turning the argument on its back from what it ought to be.

Being a person who is absolutely convinced that God is obvious in His existence, I am also a person who thinks Mrs. Booth made a rather silly miscarriage of justice. Assault is assault, regardless of the perpetrator.

One person says faith isn't logical and suddenly all religious people are being attacked?

But yes, I concure that Mrs Booth is in the wrong.

[Manco]

Would you put a cap on the Logic-Arrogance, already? "We atheists are so bluddy smat nd gud that nuthin in the wuld is maekin' us illogicul, so it is them religious peepol who make the wurld bed."

I am absolutely sick of the nonsense like that. One immoral religious person lets another immoral religious person off, and suddenly every religious person "isn't logical". Faith itself is not in question, but this particular faithful person's judgment is. Why don't we just look at her and how much she ignores her own religion's teachings about justice, rather than use her to show how evil her religion is? You're completely turning the argument on its back from what it ought to be.

Being a person who is absolutely convinced that God is obvious in His existence, I am also a person who thinks Mrs. Booth made a rather silly miscarriage of justice. Assault is assault, regardless of the perpetrator.

Nice rant, but faith is by definition not logical. That's why it's faith and not knowledge or something.

[War lord]

Wonderful so if british forces capture the Tailiban leader they will let him go because he sould know better?

What?

[removeduser_487563287433]

OSAMA Bin Laden would find himself at the sharp end of a £200 fine if he was tried in a British court, Cherie Blair said last night.

Mrs Blair, who is actually a judge now, said the mass murderer would feel the full force of the law as it applied to people who believe in freaky sky magic and a massive, omnipotent super-being with glowing eyes and a beard the size of Texas.

She said: "Commissioning the murders of thousands of people is something I generally frown upon, especially when it is done by agnostics and so-called 'scientists'.

"But Mr Bin Laden at least believes most of the same things that I believe and knows that an all-powerful creator is watching over us, preventing wars and natural disasters with his all-embracing love and making sure complete maniacs aren't appointed to the bench in what is supposed to be a civilised country."

Mrs Blair stressed that until he started organising a systematic campaign of devastating suicide attacks against western targets, Mr Bin Laden had never been in trouble before.

She added: "Recruiting hundreds of disillusioned young men and training them to become mass killers is not acceptable behaviour, but he's a religious man and so obviously he already knows that.

"I would probably fine Mr Bin Laden £200, maybe even £300 if his QC was one of those posh bastards that turned me down before I met Tony.

"I'd let him pay it off at £7.50 a week, but it really depends on his other commitments.

"How much are bombs and stuff these days?"

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/w...-201002042438/

[Viking Prince]

Another tae on this bit of religious discussion and leniency:

Cherie Booth unfair to atheists? The Guardian

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Cherie Booth unfair to atheists?

Cherie Booth has been accused of discrimination against atheists after letting a Muslim off with a suspended sentence

Everything we know about the case of Shamso Miah seems to come from one agency report of the court case. The same phrases are repeated in all the coverage, from the Daily Mail to the Independent, though there is a slightly different version in the local paper and they tell a sparse story: he was queuing in a branch of Lloyds TSB last August, after a visit to a mosque; there was a row about who was next in line, and he hit Mohammed Furcan twice before leaving the bank. Furcan ran after him out into the street, and Miah hit him for a third time, breaking his jaw.

He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and came up before Cherie Booth, on 24 January this year. She suspended his six month sentence for two years, on the grounds that he was "a religious person and have not been in trouble before … you are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

So Terry Sanderson of the NSS has complained that this is discrimination against atheists:

"What would have happened if he had been an atheist? Would Mrs Blair/Booth have refused to suspend the sentence on the grounds that non-believers have no guiding principles that tell them that smashing people in the face for no good reason is not the right thing to do?
This is a very worrying case of discrimination that appears to show that religious people get different treatment in Cherie Blair's court."

But the point isn't discrimination. Judges are paid to discriminate among prisoners before them, and to distinguish those for whom prison is the right treatment from everyone else. Defendants of otherwise good character should obviously get different sentences to habitual recidivists.

The real disagreement is whether being a devout Muslim (or Christian) is in itself a sign of good character. Cherie Booth seems to be arguing that it is, though less important than his previously spotless record. For Sanderson and those who think like him, being a devout believer is quite the opposite. It's evidence of bad character.

In Sanderson's world, judges should say things like "Although you have no previous convictions, you are none the less a follower of Pope Benedict XVI and so unable to tell right from wrong. I therefore find myself compelled to impose a custodial sentence"

I don't myself think that "religion" or even being a Muslim, or a Christian is a distinction fine-grained enough to be useful in this context. Some sorts of religious belief make some crimes more likely; some positions of religious authority add to the gravity of offences committed by their holders. It is reasonable for a judge to say "You are a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki and therefore especially dangerous"; or even "You are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so should set an example. Your sentence will therefore be heavier."

But if some religious beliefs make crimes more likely or more serious, it follows that there are others which have the opposite effect. It would be absurd not to take those into account when sentencing. Someone who is part of a supportive congregation is knitted into society in a useful way. The beauty of the case of Shamso Miah is that we have no idea which he is. Nor is it clear whether first-time offenders of his sort are usually jailed, whatever their beliefs. So everyone can enjoy their opinions entirely from first principles, as we call our prejudices.

If I can dig out from the Home Office any statistics on the correlation between religious belief and re-offending rates, they would add some facts to the discussion. I will try. If they showed that religious belief made it less likely to re-offend, would judges be justified in taking it into account?

I still do not know where I sit on this, but I am certain all partisans with a dog in the fight will make the most of this before the facts come out.

[War lord]

Does any report say why he hit him?

And is it just me or have my posts of late just been ferrets' posts execpt badly spelled and thought out?

[removeduser_487563287433]

An argument over who was first in the queue, apparently.

[Horsa]

This is ridiculous. As for the whole "religious people get away with anything" I have NEVER got away with anything nor has anyone I know. So seriously dudes, stop moaning about stuff that hardly ever happens. If it does, you'll be sure to find news about it because it isn't the norm. If this was normal, people wouldn't be making a fuss about it now would they?

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is ridiculous. As for the whole "religious people get away with anything" I have NEVER got away with anything nor has anyone I know. So seriously dudes, stop moaning about stuff that hardly ever happens. If it does, you'll be sure to find news about it because it isn't the norm. If this was normal, people wouldn't be making a fuss about it now would they?

How anecdotal. Have you been tried by Cherie Blair for breaking a man's jaw?

No?

Your life experience is sort of irrelevent to the discussion, then, isn't it?

[Horsa]

How anecdotal. Have you been tried by Cherie Blair for breaking a man's jaw?

A little off topic I know, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

Why does every other day bring a new story about a religious person abusing their position of authority? Might convert myself and see what I can get away with. I think it's disgusting that in this situation I would have been imprisoned for my lack of religious conviction.

This is.

Maybe my own life life experiences are irrelevant. But there's still the point that if this was the normal everyday thing that you have to put up with, it would hardly make news now would it?

Cherie Blair and the other bloke are in the wrong, but there's no need to be so hostile to all religious people. We don't all abuse the law.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, but if you do you can expect more lenient treatment from Cherie Blair, judge, than I can. Following?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Are there any examples of the irreligious punishing the religious in such positions of authority? Nope. Worldwide the shamen oppress those with the courage to take a different course from their parents.

The fact is that the religious are dangerous. Their conviction and self-righteousness allows them to stoop to acts of evil, whether its raping children or waging war, because they have a mythical greater good to fall back on. The force of the law must protect people from them.

[Monarchist]

Are there any examples of the irreligious punishing the religious in such positions of authority? Nope. Worldwide the shamen oppress those with the courage to take a different course from their parents.

The fact is that the religious are dangerous. Their conviction and self-righteousness allows them to stoop to acts of evil, whether its raping children or waging war, because they have a mythical greater good to fall back on. The force of the law must protect people from them.

Any examples? What about the self-avowed atheists who controlled Communist countries and shut down churches specifically because they were churches? There's also the fact that those same lovely, charming atheist dictators who closed down churches also demolished them and killed whole congregations by burning them alive inside the churches. Stalin may have been raised a Christian by his parents, but he was almost certainly one of those rebellious youth you glorify, in that he abandoned his faith quickly. By 1913 we know he was a full-fledged atheist, and that he had made pledges to destroy the Church explicitly after his Atheist-Communist tendencies. I am not saying that the atheism is inherently Communistic, but I am saying that it is silly of you to claim that "there are no examples of the irreligious punishing the religious" through positions of authority. How can you say that, knowing elementary history as you do?

One person says faith isn't logical and suddenly all religious people are being attacked?

My reply was directly to him, the one who was attacking all religious people as illogical. It was most certainly "all religious people" - that is, generic "faith" - that were being attacked.

Nice rant, but faith is by definition not logical. That's why it's faith and not knowledge or something.

We have faith in what we know to be true. You call faith not logical "by definition", so what are all the apologists in history? Did John Henry Newman have absolute faith and no logic? Did Aquinas spurn science and refuse Aristotle, who he most obviously revered as a logician? Did C.S. Lewis and Boethius merely yell "GOD ARE REAL BELIEVE IN HIM NOW", or did they not write tomes-worth of treatises trying to prove God's reality with logic?

You're trying to change history to reflect your hatred for faith, as atheists are wont to do.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Any examples?

Um, yes? This? The Catholic Church protecting and enabling paedophilic Irish priests? The Pope murdering thousands by claiming condoms are useless in helping to stop the spread of AIDs?

What about the self-avowed atheists who controlled Communist countries and shut down churches specifically because they were churches? There's also the fact that those same lovely, charming atheist dictators who closed down churches also demolished them and killed whole congregations by burning them alive inside the churches. Stalin may have been raised a Christian by his parents, but he was almost certainly one of those rebellious youth you glorify, in that he abandoned his faith quickly. By 1913 we know he was a full-fledged atheist, and that he had made pledges to destroy the Church explicitly after his Atheist-Communist tendencies. I am not saying that the atheism is inherently Communistic, but I am saying that it is silly of you to claim that "there are no examples of the irreligious punishing the religious" through positions of authority. How can you say that, knowing elementary history as you do?

Wow! That wasn't a really predictable response!