Shamso Miah got into an argument over who was next in line at a store and broke another customer's jaw. He fled the scene and was eventually caught, at which point he lied to the police by claiming that he only acted in self-defense -- but a CCTV camera caught the incident and showed that Shamso Miah was to blame for the entire mess. Nevertheless, Miah walked out of court a free man simply because he is "religious" and, apparently, because Cherie Blair believes that religious people deserve special legal rights in British society.
Miah, a devout Muslim, had just left his local mosque when he became enraged and grabbed victim Mohammed Furcan before punching him, the court heard. The thug ran outside but Mr Furcan chased after him and demanded to know why he had been struck. Miah then punched him again, connecting with the right side of his face and causing him to collapse to the ground in East Ham.
Source: Daily Mail
This looks like it should be an open-and-shut case, but in Cherie Blair's courtroom it seems like a religious person can get away with almost anything:
Yet despite saying violence on our streets 'has to be taken seriously' Mrs Blair, a QC who professionally uses her maiden name Cherie Booth, let him walk free from court.
She told him: 'I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.'
Miah was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for two years, and was ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service.
Giving a religious person a lighter punishment because they are religious means, necessarily, that non-religious people deserve harsher punishment because they are non-religious. This says quite publicly and deliberately that the state officially considers irreligious atheists to be less moral, less honest, and less trustworthy. Imagine the complaints if Cherie Blair had given someone a lighter punishment simply because they were Christian, were white, or were male?
AC Grayling writes:
Let me pick through the logic of Mrs. Blair's view carefully here. She cannot consistently think that non-religious people have a tendency to be of good character because they are non-religious. If she did, she would think all people, whatever their beliefs or non-belief, have a tendency to be of good character. But this generous thought is precisely not what her statement says.
On the contrary, her remarks to the jaw-breaking 'devout Muslim' (so the newspapers described him) Shamso Miah imply that she thinks that religious people have a greater tendency to be good than non-religious people. What justifies this assumption? Is it the fact that self-avowed non-religious people commit atrocities against other all other people, religious and non-religious alike, explicitly in the name of their non-religion, indeed driven to such actions in service of their non-religion? Of course not.
So on what basis other than prejudice and religious sentiment can Mrs. Blair claim, in a judgment made in a British courtroom, that someone ought to be more leniently treated because he is religious?
Source: RichardDawkins.net
I don't think that any secular atheist could ever appear in court before Cherie Blair and feel confident that they would get a fair hearing or be treated equally. In fact, I question whether all theists would be justified in feeling that way -- once a person starts discriminating against secular atheists, what's to stop them from dividing up "good" and "bad" religious theists? What's more, I'm not sure that anyone can trust Cherie Blair will adhere to the principle of equal justice before the law.
The question I have then is how long it will be before Cherie Blair is reprimanded or just removed from the bench entirely? I don't think she'd remain a judge for very long if she gave lighter, favorable sentences to whites or Christians, so why should she be allowed to do so with religious theists? If she suffers no serious consequences for her behavior, people in Britain should assume that her message of favorable, special legal rights for religious theists has official approval from her superiors.
I think her words speak for themselves. It’s just inexcusable. Parsing on religious basis is unbelievable. But you can get away with it 9 times out of ten if your parsing in favor of belief. But could you imagine if she’d have said, “As you’re not Jewish, and you know this is not acceptable behaviour…” Seriously. What would response have been to that? But to basically say, “As you’re not nonreligious/an atheist…”
If religous people are supposed to know better/act more morally than nonreligious folk, wouldn’t it be more logical to hold them to a higher standard and give them harsher punishments? This ‘better person therefore lower standard’ thing does not compute.
Dean: You’re forgetting the mantra: They’re not perfect, just forgiven.
Dean -that point was made.A complaint has been made by the UK National Secular Society.The outcry was strong with hardly anyone backing her position.Learn more ,and hear AC Grayling wipe the floor with a catholic apologist for Blair here-http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2010/02/are_religious_people_more_like.shtml
What else can one expect from a Blair. I’m sure the treasonable acts committed by her effete husband have rubbed off on her.
Blair himself is the most hated person in Great Britain today. His wife is close behind.
When Blair turned over the reins of government to that idiot Gordon Brown, he immediately declared his affiliation with the church of his wife, the Catholic church, which explains a lot.
He didn’t have the guts to do so while in office, fearing rejection
The duplicity and insincerity of this pair is legion, so her bringing religion into a secular court does not surprise me.
It should also be noted that husband/wife teams often complement each other, certainly in this case.
On the basis of this one irresponsible and totally unfair ruling alone, it is patently clear that she is not fit to make further judicial pronouncements!
Dean made a very good point!
Jeez this is a worry. In this country, Australia, you are given the option in court of swearing on a bible, or taking an oath without the bible. It seems, if you were to express your right and decline using (what Bill Maher describes as) the “old book of Jewish fairy tales” that would perhaps suggest that come out second best. That can’t be right for any supposedly secular rule of law legal system. I was disappointed with Tony Blair announcing that he was silly enough to embrace catholicism. It’s such a croc.
The point has been made as well,that this calls into question ALL her previous judgements,not only because of bias against the accused but also of possible bias against some witnesses.How does anyone know that,in her summing-ups,she gave less weight to the evidence of someone who made a secular affirmation,rather than swore on a Book Of Magic?
Judges take various things into account in passing sentence. The fact that this was his first offence is certainly one. If he had some evidence of belonging to a group that would keep him on the straight and narrow, that would be another. A priest, rabbi, imam, or a teacher or councelor speaking up for him would be one thing, but, in this case, Cherie Blair seems to be saying that he went to the mosque, therefore he’s a good person.
The religious joke that goes with this is that going to church doesn’t make you religious anymore than standing in your garage makes you a car. In a way this is like the Old Boys Network – “he’s part of a prominent family, let him off”, but he’s only self identified as part of the prominent family.
What they have here is a weak mitigation (the judge considers him religious) against a strong offense (a violent assault that caused injury). It’s just not good enough.