How calling someone a "white bitch" is not racist and being a drunken Muslim saves you from jail
The defence of the drunk Somalian women was that they were Muslim and so weren't used to drinking. The judge suspended the sentence.
This week's news story about the twenty-two year old care worker beaten senseless by a drunken gang of Somalian women would have sent chills down the spine of anyone who defends the rule of law as applicable to all. They were spared a jail sentence after their defence lawyer claimed that as Muslims they were unused to drinking.
In a society where we’ve recently railed against our representatives and corporate types for "corruption", "greed" and for appearing to believe that "the rules don’t apply to them" – we’re apparently still making excuses for our citizens based on gratuitous or farcical claims to "extenuating circumstances", especially where some of those circumstances can be fitted inside a politically correct agenda. The rules still apply.
One instance that springs to our minds is that of Edward Woollard, the eighteen year old who hurled a fire-extinguisher from a seventh-floor window as "students" ransacked 30 Millbank Tower in London in November 2010.
Instead of charging him with attempted murder, he was convicted of violent disorder and will likely serve a little over half of his thirty-two month sentence. It’s also unsurprising to note that Trade Union Congress supporters and the Socialist Worker Online are supporting Woollard, the latter referring to him as a "political prisoner" and insisting you send him a Christmas card.
Another instance where we let ourselves down was in our response to this past summer’s rioting.
While harsher than usual sentences were doled out, following the initial shock and outrage thieves, looters and arsonists weren’t effectively condemned or shamed by society. Instead, we’ve been preposterously seeking out their rationale or intimating that "we are all to blame"– as one recent BBC Newsnight guest argued.
The parents won’t take the blame and the Guardian and LSE insist that somehow it is anyone’s fault but the rioters. So what message does this send to wider society?
Got a problem? Find an excuse.
And this is precisely what happened in the afore mentioned court case of Ambaro, Ayan and Hibo Maxamed and their cousin Ifrah Nur.
Not content with calling care worker Rhea Page a "white bitch", the Somalian women set upon her, leaving her "black and blue" and subsequently ushering her into unemployment due to the substantial mental trauma she suffered. Miss Page commented: "I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can't think of any other reason."
But seventeen months later, Judge Robert Brown dismissed such claims and the women were not charged with racial aggravation. Judge Brown said, “I’m going to suspend the sentence” and that he accepted the attackers’ claims that they felt Miss Page’s partner used unreasonable force to defend her. In our estimation, from the video below, he was more restrained than we might have been.
Gary Short, who defended the attackers said: “They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.”
This is what qualifies as a legal defence in twenty-first century Britain. No need to worry about the law. No need to be concerned with the consequences of your actions. If you can find an excuse, especially if it is in a minority religion, then you’ll be free to go.
The attackers’ actions look no different to many other racial hate crimes that go on across the Western world, sadly on an almost daily basis. But you can bet that if white girls set upon a Somalian woman in the street, calling her a "brown bitch" they’d have the book thrown at them (and rightly so).
Racial violence and drunk and disorderly behavior have no place in our society – that’s why those things are illegal.
To suspend such notions on the basis of race, religion or circumstances other than clinical insanity is a sure fire way to hammer home what seems to be the nation’s new, nihilistic motto: “Britain – do whatever”.
Editor's note: Interestingly, Matthew Parris cites an instance of double standards in The Times yesterday (£) when he argues that when Jeremy Clarkson says that public sector strikers should be shot, albeit in a jocular fashion, he is viewed with mass opprobrium, whereas if someone went on a BBC show and said ‘bankers should be shot’ (or maybe if an MP says he would have assassinated Margaret Thatcher)… well… you get the picture.
Follow The Commentator on Twitter
Print
Presumably "they're not used to drinking" can now be used to defend any teenager that gets drunk and beats up someone / smashes something / steals something ?
One thing that has also outraged me about this very serious news story, is that the BIG news agencies (like bbc and sky) have made no mention of Rhea Page at all this week. I think it is disgraceful to simply ignore this and not even bother mentioning it.
Of course the Somalian gang should be freed and compensated, after all only white folk are racist. The white population of the West deserve every bit of abuse they get, better still if they collectively roll over and die, actually, in reparation for the sins of colonialism and Empire. The rest of the World would be living in utopia were in not for the British.......at least this is what the BBC would have us believe! Truthfully, these Somalians should be deported forewith to their Islamic paradise.
Absurd. A disgrace of justice, an insult to the victim, and an offence to the entire nation. It's exactly this sort of stuff the BNP uses to lure people into its grasp.
The message this will send to every inner-city is chilling: white people are fair game.
How did this shoddy defence work? I'm vaguely aware of criminal law but I can't see what precisely this would come under; perhaps involuntary intoxication? Would an appeal stand a chance of success?
In Muslim countries, much of Sharia law isn't on the statute books, because it doesn't need to be. It's 'culturally enforced' because it's normal behaviour. Increasingly in The West, Sharia law is becoming 'culturally enforced', as is the case here. One set of rules for Muslims, and another set of rules for non-muslims, but that is, of course, the whole point of Sharia law in the first place. One comment I must make after watching the video is that the boyfriend is pathetic.
So Emma West is in prison while blacks who attack whites serve no time. Besides for this attack there was the black guy who attacked a 97 year old veteran and did no time. Why is society angrier at the West incident than these two incidents where violence happened?
Never have I felt such utter despair. GREAT Britain no longer. A legal system, once the envy of much of the world, now a total and complete laughing stock. Judges are paid a handsome sum to impartially uphold the laws of this country. This particular judge is clearly unable to do that and should be dismissed immediately (some hope!). It is deplorable that this has been ignored by so much of the media.
I remember my first taste of alcohol; I got pretty drunk and silly; but I didn't go on the hunt for people to kill! To kick in the head! You have to be a pretty nasty piece of crap to do that already; alcohol doesn't make a Dr Jekyl into a Mr Hide alone; that kind of chump already exists. This was attempted murder and those disgusting women ought to be jailed for years to be corrected, to reflect, to be rehabilitated, re-educated, until they are SAFE to be let into society. How can their RELIGION be used as an excuse to attempt to kill an innocent young girl?! If they've disrespected their own religion by first drinking alcohol and second by attempting murder then it damned can't be used to help them escape sentening for their horrendous crime! Or is killing a white girl a good thing in their religion - I forget! That so-called judge! He is a dispicable outrageous injustice-driven four letter word! I hope Rhea Page will appeal this. I'll protest with her, and I know quite a few people who would too! We the people ought to stand up against this injustice! The British Constitution Group will get involved. It's clear that the dishonourable Judge Robert Brown has been told to do this, or he has serious interests to; he's been ordered to give them suspended sentences, the traitor! How could he come up with this crap otherwise? He should be in jail for aiding and abetting, actively encouraging violence and racism on our streets! What would the sentence be if he was the victim? To do as one would be done by, Brown, is a most logical and philisophical motive! As for racism, the powers that be want to balance things out by picking on the white guy now. But people should know that it was the Africans that started their own slave trade, selling their own tribe people to whites who landed on the shores for RUM. And white people were snatched by Moroccan pirates on the sea and from the south coasts of Britain, namely Cornwall, to be slaves to the Sultans donkeys years before the Africans were shipped off to the Americas. I think it is all disgusting - as is most of the worlds history! But balancing by extremes is no balance at all.
Meanwhile Emma West is incarcerated in prison over the Christmas period for "her own protection" after receiving death threats !
'KILL THE WHITE BITCH', BOOTED UNCONCIOUS,HAIR RIPPED FROM HER SCALP, LOSES HER JOB, STILL KICKING HER IN THE HEAD AFTER THE POLICE ARRIVE...result, not charged with attempted murder or racial assualt.
Conclusion to this grotesque crime..set free to then post on twitter the next day...' happy happy day, I am so going out tonight'
The Country I used to love I have grown to hate
The perverted view of PC is that we Anglo/Celts should show respect to immigrants, which at the courteous level I agree with. However, it is not this form of respect that PC is talking about but a form that demands the subordination of our nation identity, traditions and culture etc to the likes of these culturally and socially backward types that assaulted this young English woman. I despise the PC infested creatures who have ruined this country and who have turned logic on its head. It will take a powerful individual of Cromwell's stature to rid the country of this poison and the vile creatures who dispense it from our midst
You free-market types wanted these people here because, as you claimed, it was "good for the economy". And this is the result. Well done you.
Can something be done about the judge?
He clearly is either inept or corrupt, and perhaps both.
At a minimum the contrast between the Emma West thought-crime case and the physically murderous somali street thugs, clearly displays the judiciaries systemic hypocrisy and standard bungling and/or, more likely, the overt treacherous corruption of our social fabric
Because of the subliminal drip-drip-drip nature of our torture it's now become the default social setting
By tearing up any presumed social contract and having taken their velvet gloves and the mask of fairness off, the establishment loudly declares it is no longer properly concerned with, or afraid of, White people and they now insist we fear them
Never mind the actions of a few somali thugs, or the verbal rant of a woman pushed to the brink, and never mind waiting for protection from our own authorities, at some point together we will HAVE to somehow wrestle with an entrenched and extremely psycho-sociopathic establishment, that delights in holding a knife to our collective white throats.
They're used to drinking alright. And they blame Christian culture for their alcoholism now. They had Islam for an excuse...again. And it worked.
And the same crap is happening here in America as well... except it just isn't Muslims that can be racist, but blacks and Mexicans as well.
If we had sharia law in this country those Somali girls would have been in jail after having been given 100 lashes for drinking alchohol. The fact that they're not is because we so liberal in the west.
So it is Britain's fault Mr.Turner ? The lady deserved to be beat for being in her country and minding her own business because her country helped refugees?
This was pure,unadulterated racism and hate.Justifying it with alcohol is even worse.Telling violent criminals their acts are excusable due to the use of alcohol just compounds and encourages more of the same crimes.
The judge needs to be removed and his history investigated.At the very least he denied the victim her rights at the worst he was bribed and is an extremist.
Reminiscent of a case here in Australia, where a Muslim Libyan received a reduced sentence (of a min 3 yrs custody) for sexually assaulting 7 women and girls (youngest 13), because - as the judge put it - "It seems you were very ill prepared to deal with cultural differences" - referring to the way women and girls dress here in Oz, compared with Libya. (Reported in our leading broadsheet - and political bedfellow with The Guardian - 'The Age' last 31 May) Incredibly, the Minister responsible for letting men into our country who rape girls for cultural reasons was NOT fired, NOR have men from these cultures been banned from entry into Australia on the grounds that it is now acknowledged by our judiciary there is an *expectation* they might want to rape Australians, and feel themselves justified. I'd suggest if the man had been a member of a KKK-type group, and had been taught to disrespect and sexually abuse black women here - or Muslim women more to the point - the result would have been very different. (Fyi, I'm a leftist who actually cares about human rights.)
yet again,more mis-information by mr shepherd/mr kassam and their propaganda machine.
The original sotry appeared in the local newspaper and reveals the real truth. Suprisingly!! DAily mail and their ilk decided to distort the whole story to make out as if the "muslims" got away with it.
Where did MSsr Shepherd and Mr Kassam and the Mail get the information for the report that provoked such a frenzy?
The original story and real facts appeared in a local newspaper and then distorted by the right wing brigade to support their own agendas. In this instance the Mail's piece was essentially a rewrite of a report published in the Leicester Mercury back on 24 November, combined with quotes from an interview with Rhea Page, who of course held her assailants entirely responsible for the violent confrontation and claimed that she and her partner Lewis Moore were blameless. If you examine the Leicester Mercury report you can see how it has been manipulated by the Mail. It was the lawyer for just one of the defendants, Ambaro Maxamed, who raised the issue of their faith. He said: "Although Miss Page's partner used violence, it doesn't justify their behaviour. They're Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn't something they're used to."
BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION in the Mercury report that the religious affiliation of the accused had anything to do with the judge's decision not to jail them:
Sentencing, Judge Robert Brown said: "This was ugly and reflects very badly on all four of you. Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I'm going to suspend the sentence." He said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from the victim's partner. A researcher from Full Fact contacted the Judicial Office, who referred her to the Mercury report as accurately reflecting the facts of the case and pointed out that "the role of the victim's boyfriend was the one which impacted on the judgement". This was no doubt reinforced by the fact that the main object of Lewis Moore's violence was Ifrah Nur, who it appears had initially intervened to try and stop the fight, only to be punched in the face by Moore. The Mail was clearly aware of this hole in its story. Hence the weasel-worded sentence that opened its report: "A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were 'not used to being drunk' because of their religion" (emphasis added). Chronologically speaking, this is of course strictly true. The Mail's objective, however, was to mislead its readers into concluding that the judge decided against jailing the women because they were Muslims. The actual cause of the violent clash is itself obscure. The Mail quoted Page as saying:"I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can't think of any other reason." She added: "We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting 'white bitch' and 'white slag' at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground." Page repeated this accusation in her Sun interview: "they all came from behind me shouting, 'White bitch' and 'White slag'. I had done absolutely nothing to them, I hadn't even looked at them." But the Mercury report states that the assault on Page followed a verbal altercation: "after words were exchanged, Ambaro Maxamed had grabbed Miss Page's hair, causing her to fall on the ground" (emphasis added). Which obviously conflicts with Page's account. The Mail has posted CCTV footage of the incident on its website, but this has been edited so that the events leading up to the attack have been omitted. Even on the basis of this truncated version, however, it looks as though Page was involved in a verbal exchange with two of the four women before they attacked her. Exactly what was said, and why it provoked a violent reaction, the Mail obviously had no interest in establishing. They preferred to whip up the anger and indignation of their readers with a tale of Muslim thugs attacking a random stranger solely because she was white. The claim that the attack was racially motivated is also dubious. The Mercury reports that only one of the defendants was accused of using such language: "During the hearing, James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said Ambaro Maxamed, who started the violence, had called Miss Page a 'white bitch' during the incident." But Page's account has all four of the women calling her a "white bitch" and "white slag" before attacking her. If that was indeed the case, it is difficult to understand why the Crown Prosecution Service failed to charge the accused with a racially aggravated offence. The Islamophobic right of course have a ready explanation for that. It wasn't because the police and CPS were unconvinced that the assault was racially motivated or felt there was insufficient evidence to prove this (just as they refused to accept the allegation by Ifrah Nur that Page's partner Lewis Moore had himself been racially abusive towards her). It was because the state systematically discriminates against white citizens in favour of ethno-religious minorities. And that, we are told, was also why the defendants were not sent to prison. Indeed, the central claim of the racist right in relation to this case is that the sentencing of the four women was part of a general pattern, with the legal system giving preferential treatment to non-white minority communities and Muslims in particular.
To quote the right wing diatribe that "if a Somalian Muslim girl had been kicked to the ground by a group of white brutes, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police would have taken a tougher approach." This is the so-called "two-tier system" that the EDL endlessly bangs on about. This myth was demolished in a recent Guardian report, based on an analysis of over a million court records, which found that:
"black offenders were 44% more likely than white offenders to be sentenced to prison for driving offences, 38% more likely to be imprisoned for public disorder or possession of a weapon and 27% more likely for drugs possession. Asian offenders were 41% more likely to be sent to prison for drugs offences than their white counterparts and 19% more likely to go to jail for shoplifting. One expert, who is working with the Magistrates' Association on disparities in sentencing, told the Guardian that the "disproportionality appears to be getting worse".
better next luck next time Kasshepard
@Eric "I'm a leftist who actually cares about human rights" Cor Blimey - Bless You, You Sir are a genuine medical marvel, have you considered letting science turn you into a vaccine in order to help your not so fortunate leftards and so save the world and us all from them? ;)
------------------------------
@nadeem - Cor Blimey - I read every 1100 words of drivelling truth twisting prattle - you, whatever you are, must be a medical marvel if you can be so wilfully blind as to write half that page of junk without succumbing to the need to chop your own deceitful fingers off, I would even place that effort of yours almost on a par with the 9-11 commission report, and can see see an ignoble career for you either as a 'politician' or maybe 'Psudo-journalist' for The Mossad Zionists - That is assuming your not one already and if Eric's magic secret cant cure you first.
I just don't get this. I've watched the video a few times now and just cannot understand how these young "ladies" cannot be in jail. It just makes no sense. Even after cops arrive they continue to assault this girl. What if she had died? And yes, the boyfriend was seriously lame. Those girls should have had to be taken to the hospital. Boyfriend lame, cops pathetic, judge ridiculous. Is this normal in UK?
As much as I loath the left wing policies of the B_N_P, I have just written them a cheque. A big one.
I despise the liberal left who have turned England into this multi culti hell hole.
When we regain control of our country there will have to be a reckoning for the pc liberal left.
Lengthy prison sentences & regular psychiatric evaluation for them - just like political prisoner Emma West is experiencing now in this glorious EUSSR satellite republic.
Editor's Note: Left wing, extremist, racist parties most certainly aren't the solution to this. Education a la Commentator is! Write *us* the cheque... this website doesn't run itself!Jo Brand: My personal opinion is that you can't be racist towards white people. You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn't an illegal act whereas being racist can be.
Phil Williams: Don't you think racism is just being derogatory about a race, regardless of the colour?
Jo Brand: No I don't. I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can't be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.
Behold 250 lbs of wisdom has spoken.
And the politicians wonder why the vast majority of the British public are firmly against immigration!
Much more of this, and we will see a violent backlash. British tolerance is admirable, but can only be strained so far. My personal opinion is it is now close to breaking point, and as the economy continues to suffer, tempers will fray. If I were a Muslim I would be seriously thinking of packing my bags.
-
Leaving the politics aside, Scotland deserves freedom
-
Bad week for The Guardian
-
Cameron loses to Miliband, but beats the Speaker
-
Noam Chomsky’s half-truths and distortions are still loved by the British Left
-
PMQs: Luckless Miliband won for the third time in a row, but there was one rather large problem
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
This story and that of Ms West has left me shaking with anger. It seems racism is alive and well in this country, as long as it is directed towards white people then that's fine. Perhaps if I took crack before going out and beating the living daylights out of some religious minority I'd get away with it because I'm not used to crack! Oh, sorry, no chance, I'm not a muslim. Your conclusion should have read, 'Britain, if you're muslim, do whatever'. One law for us and another for them. How long before we are all paying the Jizya? Disgraceful.