April 23, 2006
Ignorance of the Law is no Defense unless...Issues
…unless you’re a Bangladeshi Muslim Woman in the UK. Then it’s all good -
A BANGLADESHI woman who shook a baby boy so violently that he suffered brain damage walked free from court yesterday because a judge conceded that she did not know how to behave in the West.Rahella Khanom, 24, caused the five-month-old boy in her care to suffer fractures to his breast bone and ribs as she tried to rid him of evil spirits, Southwark Crown Court was told.
The injuries inflicted on the child over several weeks had caused one side of his brain to shrink. It was believed that the boy would have been screaming in agony for eight weeks because his injuries went untreated.
…The court was told that Khanom, a Muslim, did not understand that shaking a helpless baby would not exorcise an evil spirit.
The judge issued a verdict which is almost its own caricature of a relativist, multiculturalist world gone astray -
the judge said that Khanom’s strong cultural and religious beliefs, and the fact that she had been forced by her husband to live in isolation since coming to Britain from Bangladesh, meant that there were exceptional circumstances in her case.
One can only imagine other, future defenses inspired by the socio-cultural isolation tank argument.
vinod on April 23, 2006 08:38 AM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
minority appeasement. Cangressi sthyle.
this is a very serious issue and a joke of a judgement. what did the liberal brit media make of it all?
what bulls*it!
people in the desh don't know not to violently shake a baby? that's crap. this just further perpetuates the wild barbarians perception people have of those not from the "advanced" west
I have to wonder what kind of precedent this sets as a "culturally-relative" defence against other crimes?
Just the usual appeasements for "honor killings", "offensive cartoons", school uniforms, banning toy pigs on people's desks at the workplace. Nothing special...
This is crazy! The judge is saying that not shaking babies is a Western thing, unknown to the barbarians from the East; and that cultural differences are sufficient excuse for this kind of thing. The only thing in her defence could be that her husband-imposed isolation led her not to know where to turn for help.
I like how the reporter took it a step further and felt the need to include Muslim in the same sentence that 'exorcise an evil spirit' is written. (rolling eyes) Way to go on perpetuating. It's so sad, shaking a baby to the point of disability is never ok...
I'd like to think the same wouldn't fly in the U.S. - any thoughts?
This is almost bad as the excuse that muslims men in europe and australia use for all there rapes of local women. They say that the way women dress they got what the had coming. And of course the idiot liberal media try to bring up excuses for their behavior.
Could someone explain to me why Europe let into many backward muslims from places like Pakistan, bangdelash, and some of the backward arab conutries just cause they needed cheap labor. They are over billion people in China and over 900 million non-muslims in india who would have loved the chance to live in the west. And they would have being doing many of the stupid things that the educated muslims do.
like they say, the most harmful racists you will encounter nowadays are unlikely to be the neo-nazi types, but the ones who are closeted racists but pretend to be sensitive.
It's because some Muslims here in the UK have specifically religiously-derived reasons for believing in possessions by evil spirits.
Jai, as far as I can see all beliefs in possession by evil spirits is religiously inspired, and is not exclusively Muslim,or bangladeshi.
Foxy,
Probably correct, but the point is that in this case the belief is specifically being derived from the person's interpretation of Islam.
If this had also occurred amongst (random example) an evangelical Christian woman, who held this belief specifically because of her perspective of Christianity, the media would have mentioned her religious affiliation too.
The woman's religious background, and her interpretation of her religion (rightly or wrongly), was the direct reason for her actions. I don't see the controversy here with regards to mentioning this -- it's just stating a fact.
Hmmm. I'm not sure if such a black-and-white picture is really conducive. We had the same debate on this incident here. The article also mentions the severe stress she was under, having been brought over from Bangladesh and being ignored by her husband.
The judge foolishly attributed this to cultural differences, but should have used his brain a bit more to explore whether she was just blaming djinns in her baby instead of her husband, who maybe the real culprit in all this.
I concur. If the woman were Hindu, Christian or Wiccan, they would've mentioned that in the news story. I don't think it's "perpetuating".
That is exactly what government officials in Amsterdam also feel now. Maybe somebody is finally realizing that these "culturally sensitive" ideas of the past have led to the current situation in Europe:
I dunno if it's perpetuating a specific (Muslim) prejudice, but a "cultural sensistivity" can be (and is) deployed to perpetuate injustices in minority communities, and the image of minorities as "wild barbarians"
Another instance of idiocy related to sensitivity:
A canadian judge gives a (south asian, muslim) man a lesser sentance for sodomizing his step? daughter - he was showing "cultural sensitiviy" in not raping her (because of the stigma attached in the community). Completely wrong! The baby shaking is very sad, and falls in the same category.
and Vikram, the thing in Amsterdam - women in some countries that have legalized prostitution are having trouble getting unemployment/welfare, if they refuse to enter into what are now "legitimate" sex-related occupations. Not sure about specifics, but idiocy in the same line as you've mentioned.
Cultural defense is indeed used and successful in the US. Usually to justify battering and wife-killing and letting murderers get away with manslaughter, or rapist get off because 'the Hmong culture practices marriage-by-capture.' Recently, cultural defense was raised by guy the Hmong immigrant in Wisconsin who killed six hunters -- but he was found guilty. In 1991, a Chinese mother killed her son because he was born out of wedlock and unwanted by the father. The court cites expert testimony that she believed "that she was not exactly killing but, through death, both of them would be reunited in the next world where she could provide the kind of caring he didn't get in this world." She ultimately won a reduced charge of manslaughter and a mitigated sentance.
In the present case, of the Bangladeshi mother, and in the 1991 US -- rather than look to 'culture', the courts ought to look at the subjective mental state of being all alone having to take care of a child in an isolated environment -- this need not depend on 'culture.'
I agree with all here that cultural defense is ridiculous -- it assumes cultures are stagnant and would fall apart at the slightest touch of any outside critique. Cultural defense is used in the same way 'temporary insanity' and 'heat of passion' defenses are used -- and while it pretends to show sensitivity to minority cultures, its really condescending and patronizing.
I'm sick of immigrants who refuse to intergate into there new country and I'm glad to see what Holland is doing with its backward newcomers.
Can anyone else tell me why these backward muslim problems don't happen in the U.S as they do in Europe.
Being of punjabi sikh background I have seen some of the same problems, but not to the level as muslims. Yet I have no problem speaking out against the backward people in my community, I just wished the so-called moderate muslims what do the same.
I have a great idea for an educational campaign:
Ladies, when your babies are crying, it's because they need a tonic, not because they have a djinn! Remember, babies are better stirred, not shaken.
Christian Scientists have been around for a long time:
Lots of other groups do the same, and are similarly protected:
PearlJamFan --
I could be wrong, but this baby-shaking was just one incident of such happenings in the muslim/bangladeshi community -- my previous post gave several examples of similar problems in other immigrant communities. And I'm sure you've heard of new borns left in garbages by AMERICANS.
so cool down that racism just a tad.
Expressa -
Yes there a several cases of problems in other communites. But just you can't tell me that the problems of muslims living in the west are the same as other races.
I'm looking for some examples - there are multiple cases of White American Christians beating children to drive out demons in them. It happens all around.
I think it's human interest to know the details of the story that they are reading.
But I would have thought that metioning that she was Bangladeshi would have been more racist, since 'muslim' is not a race.
I completely agree with PearlJamFan. People need to assimilate or go back to their original country. Keeping your culture is one thing, but to refuse to show your face for an ID? Stuff like that is ridiculous. The religion excuse is the worst thing in the world. How many times I've heard of people commiting horrible acts of violence because it's their "relidion." In my country law comes first!
PearlJamFan,
If you're referrring to cartoons or headscarves or terrorism -- whole 'nother topic. I don't want to rehash it here but these are a sample of my general sentiments about the cartoons. Other than those, and the racism that spins off, I think yes, the problems of muslims are indeed similar to those of other groups.
@ 26
But I would have thought that metioning that she was Bangladeshi would have been more racist, since 'muslim' is not a race.
well, neither is Bangladeshi, really. We're an ethnicity. In fact, race isnt really anything --- other than an artificial way to lump together groups of people to disparage them efficiently, conveniently. So, given this common purpose, both Muslims and Bangladeshis can be subject to racism, i'd say.
@ 6
i really doubt disabling the baby was the mother's intent. American law looks very heavily at intent, especially for homicide, if the requisite mental state isn't there, you can't be convicted of the crime. i htink its entirely possible that a woman was so distraught that she didn't realize her actions were harmful to her child. the problem is suggesting this lack of awareness is inherent in a culture.
soooooooooooooooooooooooo not funny.
white americans who do this may be tolerated my mainstream white american culture But in indian/pakistani/bangladeshi scenario they are accepted by mainstream cultures there. The number of people who beleive in superstition/supernatural is much less in white american culture sure you will be able to dig out some such stuff but walk around accross india and pakistan you see a different picture. You just need to flip thorough the advertisements like i mentioned before These people wouldnt be selling stuff if the buyers were not buying it.
But i have not seen a white dude on TV offering to get rid of evil spirits.
The pitch goes literaly like this
"Are you having difficulty in your business, your marriage, do you think it could be the work of evil spirit, call ajmeri baba he will resolve it in 8 days. Black majic evil sprits all will be removed" while this is being said they video they show is that an down on their luck couple, the man surrounded by papers and calculator not interested in his wife, then while they are talking about removal the man is shaking hands w/ another man marking a closed business deal, and heads to his wife for a hug.
I dont think any one can sell this to the mainstream white culture resorting to spirits.
Tony Robbins does the same but he uses a different sales pitch. ie you will be athletic
and rich if you are just motivated enough.
But TR does not advertise on US channels during prime time, its late night infomercial
while ajmeri and others have small advertisements direct it towards housewives.
They also have small advertisement in print
These things exist cause there is a market for these things in different societies.
The market is the sucker who buys it.
75% of the American public believe in Angels. You don't see such TV ads b/c the mainstream believes mainly in good spirits not bad.
I remember reading about that. Though am curious if the government forced any non-Christian/non-Atheist women into taking up a sex-related profession, since they(the govt) wouldn't have to fear reprisals from those groups... cultural relativism again I think.
that was funny.
clearly, this problem is not unique to Bangladeshis, Muslims, immigrants... "In America every year an estimated 1,200 - 1,400 children are shaken for whom treatment is sought." www.dontshake.com
The moral of this story is that if you are an atheist or belong to a rational faith, you are SOL if you have to appear in court for any offense, as you do not have any kind of a religious excuse or crutch to fall back onto to get acquitted/excused. I wonder what the courts would do if somebody could come up with some obscure religious clause that prohibits them from paying taxes ? Now that might be an interesting experiment.
you are looking to "pentecostal" if you want to know about americans who accept lot of the demon possession bullshit. i didn't say white because the cases i know of involved black american women, the case i recall is a woman who thought she was possessed by satan, so her "friend" gouged eyes out. the stories i saw reported went into detail about the pentecostal beliefs to explain what happened her (the woman without the eyes didn't want to press charges, the moron actually thought a demon had possessed her and the lack of eyes helped somehow).
Are there any pentacostals in south india or NE?
seriously...my garndmu was catholic, and brought up by her roma auntie, and man....you wnat some wierd beliefs.....it's more what family has tough, or ertain parts of society than a certain faith or place.
come to certain part of allentown, and whatnotennis dear, you'll find all kinds of excuses used for beatings...and you'll find alll kinds of people, including white, latino, black, etc. christians, athiests, etc. and you're right - it does indeed happen all over.
and the minority appeasement thing also goes all over. heck, look at the food shelves in the gorcery store. you see two laungues on a lot fo stuff...if you're lucky, 3.....that's a real stretch...
re: primitive barbarians. many of the earlier immigrant groups were superstitious primitives when they came to modern countries. the key was that primitivity was not tolerated and it was slowly squeezed to death by assimilation to the mainstream culture. i'm not sure that's totally true today. if the numbers of immigrant groups are small enough they still be swallowed...the problem is with an alternative cultural matrix emerges and is accepted by the mainstream. in the USA the amish, and christian scientists are examples. they basically get a "pass" from the legal authorities (christian scientists via legal sanction, amish through benign neglect) when it comes to issues that would rise to criminality in the case of other groups. but, both groups are not very numerous.
as for the comment about muslims in europe vs. USA, muslims in the USA skew toward being educated, and, they are ethnically diverse (that is, one ethnicity does not = muslim). in europe many of the nations have a dominant muslim ethnicities (eg., arab in france, turk in germany, pakistani in norway and 'asian' in the UK) which results in a coopting of ethnic and religious ties in the interests of group cohesion, and, they aren't selection biased as strongly for education.
Razib - most of the faith healing xtians I've met have been white. They go to Africa, tell people not to take their anti-biotics if they have TB, or their AV if they have AIDS (I've walked right by them), because God will heal them but only if they believe. They also believe in what is known as the prosperity ministry, a literal interpretation of the bible passage that says "give and ye shall receive tenfold". It's not a small movement either. If you live in a red state, you see it more often than if you are in a blue state.
Razib - most of the faith healing xtians I've met have been white.
sure, the majority are white. but a large minority are not. the charismatic movement started out in the black american community and spread to the white community. i'm just pointing this out because when people say "white american" it seems to imply that trailer-trash magico-christianity is just limited to dumb crackers, when this is a strong commonality between lower class whites and blacks.
this isn't about race, it's about primitive beliefs in the modern world.
And it's not just some fringe group - I have heard main stream evangelicals defend it on the radio. I wish I remembered the names more, but at the level of the oral roberts of the world ... yes, he may be fringe to you, but not to America.
Gulab, you can find plenty of endorsement for superstitious nonsense in the mainstream American media; there was Miss Cleo hawking her spiritual powers on late-night cable TV a couple of years ago, and 'psychics' Sylvia Browne and John Edward are regularly invited onto daytime talk-shows. If anything, this sort of bullshit is should be less excusable in the most powerful and prosperous country in the world than it is on the Indian subcontinent; the denizens of the latter at least have the excuse of poverty and lack of education.
"The number of people who beleive in superstition/supernatural is much less in white american culture sure you will be able to dig out some such stuff but walk around accross india and pakistan you see a different picture."
the claim can be made that all religions amount to a belief in superstition, so all religious societies (and America is one) are inherently superstitious. when it results in harm (and i know many atheists who think any belief in religion means you're mentally unbalanced and doing yourself harm), then it's a problem.
I do feel that its possible that the woman was totaly clueless.
Most women dont want to kill their babies...
This is why i dont think one should interpret this ruling as law doesnt apply to you if youre a bangladeshi.
I think most cases where a mother accidentaly kills her child are where people make deals....
Its not like she was on drugs and baby cried and she threw it accross the floor or something
the worst case is she was criminaly negligent and probably on the stupid side of general intelligence, and the judge gave her a pass.
In march i got a ticket unfairly and went to the court demanding trial(the prosecutor offered a no point ticket w/ a 450 fine i refused
and he was shocked...apparently every one goes their for pleabargain).
But i noticed 4 plea bargains were done for drunk driving, none for a desi dude,
but if a desi dude got such a bargain is it law doesnt apply cause you are indian....
I am not a lawyer but any lawyers who have seen NJ courts please speak up...
I was surprised to learn that a prosecutor does not even listen to what your situation was and immediately as you walk in offers
a no point ticket... Is that a delran township thing only or all accross NJ
This is my only run in w/ the law.
Whats the situation on the other side of atlantic.
So when the President of the United States makes major foreign policy decisions based on prayer AND America doesn't think its a problem ...
"So when the President of the United States makes major foreign policy decisions based on prayer AND America doesn't think its a problem ..."
given the resultant harm, one would think that's problematic.
From the article:
i can almost hear my Nani yelling at me when i was 8 and running around like a crazed monkey: "kee jinn thoresey!" (apologies for bad transliteration.) I wonder how much of the woman's story was twisted by language barriers. Even if you translate the words correctly, you often miss the essense. My Nani didn't really believe I was possessed (I think), but thats a common expression for general frustrations.
this actually makes a lot of sense. in rural Bangladesh, the village raises the child. a frustrated mother would have help from the neighboring mud hut (i LOVE the mud huts) to calm down a crying child. Suddenly, she's alone in the UK with no help.
The title of the article in Leniency for 'ignorant' woman who hurt baby. Except for the "...Khanom, a Muslim, did not understand..." I think the article is fair. I also think the court's verdict is fair.
Yes, and you also can find people lampooning such nonsense, (Christian) religious figures, American symbols and presidents and not being threatened by death too.
without knowing the stats on british courts i cant be sure
but i think the courts in such cases would have offered most offenders(not just B'desi/Asian/whatever) some kind of plea bargain/lineant sentencing
But the discussions here show kind of dichotomy. ie the libby row getting their chaddis in a knot over bangladeshi/muslim having strange beliefs or saying its not them but everyone the conservative side saying how dare they do minority appeasement.
Hey, didn't Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] talk to Djinns and Fairies ?
If I recall my hadiths correctly, he even said the Djinns sleep in our nostrils at night.
pearljamfan
i have a problem with you addressing these people as 'backwards'.
backwards in relation to what?
just because you come to live in a country different from your country of origin, does not mean that you need to denounce where you've come from. i agree that many people try not to assimilate and the ghettoization of communitites really contributes to this. hell i get mad when people come into my job and try and speak to me in _____ because they see brown skin or try and get a deal out of me for the same reason. but using the word 'backwards' feels really offensive because it seems to imply that you, or the west, is somehow better than these people.
there was Miss Cleo hawking her spiritual powers on late-night cable TV a couple of years ago, and 'psychics' Sylvia Browne and John Edward are regularly invited onto daytime talk-shows.
lmao! omg.....my mum loved john edwards for awhile..she actually believed him. and my grandmum was for sylvia...what a luagh...
Apuna
I'm sorry for calling people backward, but it due to years of frustration at some immigrants who are take pride in being backwards. These people give the whole community are bad name.
And yes this might upset some people the culture of the west is better then other parts of the world. Yes we in west have our faults, but I still would not ever want to live in a non-western country.
re: superstition & religion, there are shades & grades here. the early christians campaigned against "soothsayers" and "oracles" because they opposed such magic (manifestations of demons, etc.). most american doctors are christian, but they don't agree with the older ideas promoted by christianity which derive from galen and the greeks about the cause of disease. some christians believe the "time of miracles" is over, while others do not. some buddhists are agnostics whose non-materialism seems a matter of semantics, while other buddhists (the term is usually 'folk buddhists') are believers in magic and godlings.
in other words, there is a lot of diversity in religion. as an atheist i think the whole lot of it is silly, that being said, i do have personally silly beliefs too. the key is not to let the silly beliefs get in the way of proper functioning in a 'modern' society. my personal experience is that many 'modern' religionists believe in silly things, but nicely partition the silly implications away from their day-to-day activities. some of the silliness does bleed over, we just spend $2.6 million here in the united states to see if 'prayer' aids in recovery from illness (statistically it doesn't, though that doesn't stop people's belief in prayer). this was a stupid waste of money, but since most people are religious and believe in such silly things it is a compromise that those of us who aren't believers in such things have to accept.
the key, for thorough materialists is to forward the constraint of silliness to manageable portions. muslim fundamentalists are silly beyond compare, they will kill you if you reject their own view of silliness. evangelical christians aren't as bad, they'll just talk silly shit at you constantly and divert funds that should go to real research, or help egg on foreign wars over silly impulses (though some economic interests are necessary), at least in the USA, but won't threaten death. some religionists espouse silly beliefs, but rarely seem to act silly in their normal activities, so i don't really care about this sort.
the problem with many third world religionists, especially muslims, is that the religion's balls haven't been cut off yet by an enlightenment. another key is that religionists need to think that the balls getting cut off is how it should have been. see, it is great that modern christians, in the majority, think that freedom of religion was the true christian way, that killing in the name of god is a no-no, and equal rights for women, at least legally up to voting and etc., is the true christian way. just ignore 2,000 years of history (*wink*). just got to get muslims on board with thinking that allah really wants you to be a liberal democrat.
question. don't general 'good thoughts' have psychosomatic effects? if so, isn't prayer a type/vehicle for such thoughts? and if so, how do you separate general 'good thoughts' from religiously inspired/prayer-like good thoughts in any statistically testable way?
Ignorance of the Law is no Defense unless...Issues
unless youre a Bangladeshi Muslim Woman in the UK.
Is there a relation here with the fact that she was a Muslim and the incident. Would it have been any different if she was a rural christian woman from Bangladesh? One would imagine the SM bloggers would not make such gratuitous references to Muslims. Of course that would be expecting too much from people who usually pick up their stories from LGF or fuckmuslims.com.
is it really AMfD or has sumone else co-opted that id?
fuckmuslims.com.
this redirects to a place holder site with the title "Adult Shopping."
question. don't general 'good thoughts' have psychosomatic effects? if so, isn't prayer a type/vehicle for such thoughts? and if so, how do you separate general 'good thoughts' from religiously inspired/prayer-like good thoughts in any statistically testable way?
the key is that they were looking at the effects of prayer from person A to person B, when B didn't know that A was praying for them, and A didn't know who B was (except their name or something dumb like that). i believe the current study showed that people who had strangers pray for them were actually more likely to be ill. i guess god was pissed (there seems to be a study like this every 5 years).
ha!
so.. you would concede that praying for a loved one, the way many of us do, might possibly be effective? perhaps even to the degree of statistical significance?
you would concede that praying for a loved one, the way many of us do, might possibly be effective?
if they know you are praying for them, yes. prayer as a factor in psychosomaticism seems fine, prayer as god-vibrations emenating from a big dude in a sky who listens to everything and sees everything seems rather silly though :) but we'll keep spending money every few years to check on it i'm sure.
they sell hallal whips & leather suits there.
just got to get muslims on board with thinking that allah really wants you to be a liberal democrat.
LOL.. that seems to be the ideal solution to avoid a lot of bloodshed. Invent some hadith (like the latest Judas gospel) saying so.. I know hadiths carry less weightage than Quran, but worth the effort..
LOL.. that seems to be the ideal solution to avoid a lot of bloodshed. Invent some hadith (like the latest Judas gospel) saying so.. I know hadiths carry less weightage than Quran, but worth the effort..
i'm being serious. i'm pretty convinced people have a cognitive bias to believe in supernatural agents. so, if they are going to believe in them no matter what (repeated experiments which have shown prayer doesn't work doesn't convince them in the lower p value of supernatural agents), just make sure they believe that these agents want them to be people who are nice to atheists :) i think a pretty plain reading of most religous texts implies that one has to do pretty fucked up shit. i mean, theodicy anyone!?!?! but who cares, most people don't get that far, they just believe, so take life as it comes.
I don't think anybody talked about this. But this was another example of a muslim women being kept locked up by husband after she came to west.
The good new is that in europe now several of the countries with a backward muslim problem are now making it harder for these kind of marriages to happen now with there new immigration policy. All I have to say it's about time.
MANY baby shakers get lenient sentences.
But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good savage immigrant bashing festival.
The main reason why people shake babies is because they just want them to stop crying. It's a problem in ALL socities, not just primitive ones. It's amusing that when Westerners shake their babies to death or disability it is because they are suffering from post natal depression and just want their baby to stop crying. But when Eastern woman do the same it is because they are stupid, inferior savages and primitive barbarians who aren't assimilating.
Anyhow, maybe the main reason why the judge was lenient in this case was because:
The judge make mistake on by going easy on her. All this will do is encourage more backward muslims to remain backward.
Lots of folks seem to be missing the point here. Although pointing out that she was a "Bangladeshi Muslim" may have been a harmless detail to provide texture to a story, we have to read between the lines a bit. Were the woman Christian, the article would not have simply referred to the woman as a "Christian woman," but rather would have pointed to a particular sect and likely have called her a "fanatic" and "fundamentalist," thus separating her from the majority of sane Christians. The article did not call her an aberration amongst Muslims, but rather simply referred to her as "Muslim". Taken in light of a general climate of hostility towards Muslims, the implication here is that it is typical practice in the Bangladeshi Muslim community to shake babies vigorously to rid them of evil spirits. I think it's important for Christians to own up to the element of privilege and power that comes with being Christian in this country.
if the defense set the tone, is the article really to blame?
in ilight of general climate of hostitily towards muslims
Can you really blame the british, I think the muslims have to take alot of blame for that and in rest of europe for so called islamophobia
PearlJamFan:
Oh for fcuk's sake dude. Shaken Baby Syndrome is not monopolised by muzzies. Every society does it.
Espressa - I had the same feeling when reading the article.
is it really AMfD or has sumone else co-opted that id?
Well, LGF could very well be called f***muslims.com. I think the opening line in this article is symbolic of the visceral dislike some on SM hold for all Muslims. Nothing gets them more excited than to see some Muslim involved in some crime/wrong doing before their start beating their collective chests in mass hysteria over dhimmitude, pc, multiculturalism and lament over the oh so liberal laws which give equal protection to everybody.
This is almost bad as the excuse that muslims men in europe and australia use for all there rapes of local women. They say that the way women dress they got what the had coming. And of course the idiot liberal media try to bring up excuses for their behavior.
Could you give us some examples of the idiot liberal media making excuses for the Muslims hordes raping all those White women in Europe.
There's no need for the judge to base a lenient sentencing on the grounds of cultural relativism. The more relevant circumstances have to do with the woman's isolated living condition.
example of liberal media protecting the muslim rape of white women in europe
here it is ">http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20552
i actually think Red's take and Areem's, even Deepa's partial agreement are problematic. If we, minority communities, will use culture as a defense, we have to be willing to deal with the consequences. the fault rests not with the judge or the reporter, but with the defense attorney.
PearlJamFan --- are you serriiouussllyy citing a David Horowitz resource?!?!?!?!? you just lost the slightest drop of credibility i was anxiously holding out for you.
Sorry the link didn't work.
Then just go to yahoo.com and type in Muslim rape in europe and its the 1 search result titled Frontpagemagazine.com Muslim rape wave in Sweden by Fjordman
I'm saying that we shouldn't be using culture as a defense.
Pearljam:
The article you posted from frontpagemagazine.com does not lend any support to your earlier assertion that 'And of course the idiot liberal media try to bring up excuses for their behavior'. I would love to see some examples of the liberal media rape enabling.
Also from the brilliant article (which by the way is not an example of what I requested) which you posted, I found this paragraph interesting.
Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty
(1) I am presuming you subscribe to the view stated above.
Maybe you could disabuse me of such a presumption, though I am pretty sure you are in complete agreement.
(2) Also I am still waiting on examples for your assertion of the liberal media bringing up excuses for the rapes of European women by Muslim men.
agreed... but in this instance, we did.
Well in that article the women was raped by somali muslim immigrants, yet the swedish medie reported it has 2 men from Sweden, 1 men from Somlia and 1 men from Finland. That was media protected the rapist from there true identy from coming out.
I see...yeah, I agree with you that the defense attorney (with or without the client's collusion) is the one who chose to shape the defense this way.
So when you made the assertion that 'And of course the idiot liberal media try to bring up excuses for their behavior', the reason behind this assertion was the fact that you had once read an unsourced assertion in that beacon of objectivity aka frontpagemagazine.com that an unnamed Swedish newspaper had allegedly incorrectly identified the nationalists of 3 of rapists and so from that you obviously extrapolated to the liberal media trying to bring up excuses for all the rapes of white women by muslim men.
Shit! it all makes sense now. Sorry for bothering you with these tedious questions.
nationalists* = nationalities
It must be hard out there for a brown sahib.
Espressa - my comment had far less to do with culture as a defense (whether the judge, the defense attorney, or we come up with the defense) and more to do with the media's labeling of the woman as "Muslim". Were the woman Christian, the media would either have not included her faith or, if her Christianity were relevant, taken the care and courtesy of distancing her from mainstream Christians. The press did not extend the same courtesy to the Muslim community here. As a wide disseminator of popular culture, the mainstream press does have a responsibility to provide balanced coverage, rather than imply villification of a group already subject to unwarranted villification. The article should have just villified the woman, rather than the entire Muslim community.
walking home from the library (on days when i post incessantly, you can assume i'm at the library "studying") i was struck by a few of Al Muj's comments. Is SM villifying muslims/bangladeshis? From the article itself I didn't get the impression Vinod sells in his post. As I said above, i think the article is fair (except for the ",a Muslim," clause -- distaste for which goes away if read in a British accent) given the fact that the defense raised culture and religion.
So, Red, I don't think the article villified the community. I think the defense did. But I don't think the woman deserves to go to jail, because I think isolation in a new world is a good excuse. I just wish the defense didn't rest it on culture. And I wish Vinod took a litle more care in writing this post. The poor woman wasn't ignorant of the law. She was scared, alone and ignorant of how to deal with such a drastic change in her life. i wouldn't villify her at all. I would villify her husband.
Al Mujahid asks some important questions which bear thinking on.
Pearl Jam Fan
Could you be any more obtuse, unpleasent and arrogant in your rhetoric? I don't think so.
Red,
Not necessarily. The majority population here in the UK is far less religious than their counterparts in the US. "Strict" Christians are frequently ridiculed in the media (the phrase "Bible basher" is a common term of abuse in this country). Hell, there was even a minor uproar some time ago over Tony Blair's attempt to include "God bless you/God bless the United Kingdom" (I can't remember exactly which of these phrases it was) at the end of one of his public speeches in the mode of a US President-style "God bless America". He was actually forced to drop it due to the disparity between US and the UK with regards to the public perception of -- and reaction to -- such behaviour.
Did she speak the language? Did she have any friends? Family? What support do these women really have when they are brought over to marry? I saw a bunch of desi families at the beach recently. The men were wearing western attire like shorts, even swimming trunks, and totally blended in, but many of the women were covered head to toes in salwar kameez, some even with their heads covered. They were probably Punjabi, but I imagine the women may have been similar to what I imagine someone like Khanom may be: waiting for a weekend trip to the beach and cooped up all day at home without any resources from the community (either where they live, desi or not desi).
Does any one else think the outcomes of these less educated, poor immigrant families really do reflect on us as a whole when these news stories unfold? I agree, the defense attorney was stupid to have raised such an offensive argument, but ultimately stories like this focus and create stereotypes about how desi's treat their kids.
my comment had far less to do with culture as a defense (whether the judge, the defense attorney, or we come up with the defense) and more to do with the media's labeling of the woman as "Muslim".
Wait a second... Who labeled her a "Muslim?" The media or her defense lawyer/team? It seems that the article is reporting the judge's ruling on the defense's argument--which is entirely about her being Muslim and Bangladeshi--not bending the information to match popular bias.
I agree that the media often skews reporting to entertain the paranoia of its readers and that it has a responsibility to present an accurate & comprehensive view of its subject, but in this case it has no reason to qualify its report with "however, not all rural Bangladeshi communities are like this," as that would reflect a different form of bias (does the media, when reporting on the Ulster Movement, balance its reports with "however, not all Irish Protestants...?").
As someone pointed out, "culture as defense" and an appalling act of violence is the story and problem. If this were about an African American woman who beat a white child because of "black rage"; the boy who was excused for killing an Asian girl in California because he grew up with white supremacists; or the Romanian Catholic priests who let a woman die while performing an exorcism, it would be reported the same way. And in reading many of the posts here, it seems that most of us would report it the same way also.
GGK:
No no - I am not trying to lump formal education into the behavior - I do not at all think that something like a college degree has anything to do with her shaking the baby; that is something you learn best through a sort of social education.
The point I was trying to make is that there is another class of desi immigrants, a group that is not here discussing on SM and also has no connection to their community where they live through work, school etc. Most notably they are women and they are isolated. It takes a village to raise a child - that is my feeling anyway as a working mom. Yet, as a woman and a mom, I felt so sad and far removed from this woman. I perceived her to be very much on her own without the luxury of a group of peers, women or moms with whom to discuss her fears or anxieties. I think that is the basic problem and that the isolation will cause other problems too and there is a huge chasm between the desi immigrants who have a network and those who do not. The baby shaking is just one thing, there are many other outcomes that could potentially flow from this isolation.
i think...
the mistake some people make when looking at legal issues is in that thinking that their culture and their law is somehow universal and therefore superior to other people's. Vinod meant well in writing this article, but one of the key points is his title - "Ignorance of THE LAW"... Whose law? The law the the woman ignored is one rooted in Western European and North American 19th century liberal political philosophy. I'm not saying that its not a great legal system, I'm a law student myself in a commonwealth country so the next few years of my life are devoted to studying this type of law. i'm just saying its not the only 'law.'
yes, this woman had moved to a country where she was obliged to follow this law. but how can you argue that her ignorance due to her cultural background is not a defense? if we recognise that a legal system is inextricably bound to a specific society and culture then she didn't ignore THE LAW, she ignored a western legal system from a culture which she had obviously had little or no contact with, even after moving to britain.
when british people take drugs to thailand, people can stomach their ignorance of the tough thai legal system as a defense much more easily than if a thai person was ignorant of the law in britain. i'm not saying that some legal systems aren't better than others, it might very well be true that the common perception that western law is superior is true.
i'm just saying that its not the only kind of law, and when you look at it that way, maybe this woman did have a defense, even if what she did should have been judged against the more universal rule of common sense.
I kinda doubt shaking a baby is explicitly against the law. Meaning, I doubt there's a "don't shake baby" statute. She was probably tried for violating laws against child endangerment and I'd bet she knew that harming a child is "against the law." I would think "thou shalt not harm your child" is pretty universal.
The question is whether she knew (recklessness) or should have known (negligence)that shaking her baby was child endangerment.
If she didn't realize shaking him would cause harm -- its not ignorance of the law but ignorance of the fact that shaking a baby will cause harm.
The defense used religion and culture to explain why she cannot be expected to know the danger and was unaware of a better way to do things, but there were clearly other things the defense cou