Man spared from jail sentence because he was a practicing Muslim.

[Gromit]

A Judge gave a man a suspended sentence for a violent attack because he was "a religious man".

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust. They have complained to the Office for Judicial Complaints, suggesting that the Judge acted in an unjust and discriminatory way, and suggesting that she might have treated a non-religious person less leniently.

Is this not just a case of his previous good character being taken into account, and would happen if a christian had appeared before the Judge?

[McMouse]

The judge in question was Cherie Blair. Nuff said.

[jackthehat]

Not too religious NOT to have made the violent attack, though.......

[jno]

I suppose she'd spare Catholics and possibly Anglicans from jail, but what about atheists? There are some very devout atheists around, every bit as passionate and unswerving as believers, and I think they should get the same treatment.

Interesting comment here - that atheists think religious belief is a sign of bad, not good, character:

http://www.guardian.c.../religion-cherieblair

[LoftyLottie]

She has, by her actions, discrimated against agnostics and atheists and branded them of having no moral fibre. I consider that she should be reprimanded and then hung, drawn and quartered. I am not religious and consider myself to be a more moral and upstanding citizen than both her and her hubby.

[R1Geezer]

good job the septics didn't take that attitude when they where rounding them up post 9/11!

[fredpuli47]

She may mean that he may feel more guilt than we atheists would (some religions are strong on guilt; ask a Catholic) but more likely is that she thinks he will be exposed to lecturing from religious men in his community , and that's a punishment in itself and may keep him on the straight and narrow !
Seriously, it's part of saying that he's of good character, generally respectable and law abiding and that this was an isolated offence.Better not said, because it sounds so odd, as though he couldn't be that if he wasn't religious.Cherie Booth / Blair QC is a famously devout Roman Catholic.She may think that.She's not a practitioner in criminal law itself.Someone who is would be aware of how strange the statement sounds in sentencing.

[jake-the-peg]

There's a certain amount of manipulation of this story going on by people who want to make a "Muslims get special treatment" story out of it.

I find it interesting that he was charged with ABH and not GBH even though he broke the other mans jaw.

I suspect the major issue in his sentence being suspended was the lower charge that he was facing and his previous good character.

The reference to his religious faith may well have been designed more for him than for the public.

Had it been Richard Dawkins she might well have said you are a famous intellectual and should have known better

I suspect a number of people are deliberately reaching their own conclusions to this.

[BertiWooster]

Fine lot us christians

Three cheers for the Crusaders ...... hip hip ....hooray ....

[BertiWooster]

McMouse

I dont see what point you are making , in the judge being Cherie Blair .

Have you never seen what apperas to be inexplicable sentences handed down by judges , or have you just returned from a trip into deep space ?

[Gromit]

I deliberately did not name Cherie Blair as the Judge for the very reason that some would jumped to the "well what do you expect" line.

Apologies for the AOG-esque provocative title. Thank you all for your comments.

[ludwig]

It isn't what it looks like. The atheists are being grumpy unecessarily.

She wasn't lenient because he was religious, she was lenient because of his previous good character. The description of the man as 'religious' was thrown in unecessarily and unwisely because it implies special treatment for that reason, but that's not what she meant.

That's how I read it anyway.

[youngmafbog]

Well many people have been hung out to dry by making off the cuff coments like this. she should have known better and if its about previous good character she should have said so.
As it stands she didnt she quoted religion so she should be repremanded at teh very least.
It has nothing to do with muslim or being Cherie. I would feele the same if it was a Christian comment and another judge.

[ludwig]

//she should have known better and if its about previous good character she should have said so. //

She did. I think she said something like 'Because you are a religious man of previously good character..etc etc'.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

Why apologise for the title, you wasn't forced to word it in such a way?

In fact you didn't need to post the link-less question at all, unless of course you wanted to get in a little Muslim bashing?

Just leave these type of news items to me, you know I do them much better, and of course I am not scared to make my own comments, when I post a question, unlike you.

[Gromit]

AOG

Difference in our styles. I prefer to ask a question (sometimes straight and sometimes loaded) and let others comment. I give my opinions in other people questions. I do not see the point in doing a rant in a question and then labouring it with numerous replies throughout the thread.

You do not have a monopoly on asking Muslim related questions AOG. There is room for others to have a go, especially as yours are very predictable these days.