View Full Version : "Judge Cherie Blair spares devout man from jail"
Rrose Selavy
4th February 2010, 09:50 AM
Probably not thst relevant to this case, but for those unaware Cherie Blair is the wife of former British PM who converted to Catholicism after leaving office.
Cherie Blair has been reported to the office overseeing judges' behaviour for apparently sentencing a man convicted of assault more leniently because he was religious.
The National Secular Society wrote to the Judicial Complaints Office on Friday complaining that Mrs Blair — a prominent Roman Catholic — suspended the six-month prison sentence passed on Shamso Miah, a Muslim who broke a stranger's jaw in row over a bank queue, on the ground that he was devout.
"We think this is discriminatory and unjust and we wish to make a formal complaint about it," wrote Terry Sanderson, the president of the NSS.
Today Mr Sanderson told The Times that the complaints office had acknowledged his letter and confirmed that it was going to investigate the case.
"The man was incredibly violent and broke someone's jaw for no apparent reason. She said that he would have got a six-month sentence but was suspending it because he was a religious man and would know he was doing wrong, which we feel implies that a non-religious person wouldn't know it was wrong.
Sentencing him, Mrs Blair — who practices law under her maiden name of Cherie Booth — said that violence on the streets had to be taken seriously.
But she added: “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.”
More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7014701.ece
Hux
4th February 2010, 10:32 AM
She was always a disgrace.
Ladewig
4th February 2010, 10:35 AM
Is asking for actual jail time for breaking a stranger's jaw too much to ask for?
Fiona
4th February 2010, 10:38 AM
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.”
It is true. Atheists go about breaking people's jaws all the time but you can't jail them for they know no better......oh, wait...er....how does that work again ?
Rrose Selavy
4th February 2010, 11:22 AM
In other words :
"you had the fear of an all powerful wrathful retributional imagined entity and despite this you committed this crime but he/she/it didn't punish you and so neither will I".
-
geni
4th February 2010, 11:26 AM
Is asking for actual jail time for breaking a stranger's jaw too much to ask for?
Yes or it would make friday nights even more expensive for the state.
Vic Vega
4th February 2010, 12:38 PM
She should be disbarred.
(whatever the UK equivalent is)
hgc
4th February 2010, 02:33 PM
The thing that burns me, other than the obvious stupidities and theocratic nature of this whole thing, is that she has no way of knowing if someone is actually religious. To profess religiosity provides scant evidence of actual belief.
Achán hiNidráne
4th February 2010, 04:26 PM
It is true. Atheists go about breaking people's jaws all the time but you can't jail them for they know no better......oh, wait...er....how does that work again ?
That raises the question of what Ms. Blair would do if she had an atheist before her bench. What sort of judicial discrimination laws does the UK have?
Hux
5th February 2010, 01:41 AM
Since when did a judge decide if a fractured Jaw was 'mild' or otherwise?
fagin
5th February 2010, 05:22 AM
She should be disbarred.
(whatever the UK equivalent is)
Disrobed? Uggh
Filippo Lippi
5th February 2010, 05:26 AM
Might not be safe if your workplace is particularly prudish -
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/
shandyjan
5th February 2010, 12:17 PM
The thing that burns me, other than the obvious stupidities and theocratic nature of this whole thing, is that she has no way of knowing if someone is actually religious. To profess religiosity provides scant evidence of actual belief.
This!
It may be dressing up in religion the way people dress in a business suit for a trial. It may be a different judgement call if it was based on character witnesses and being sorry. To bring religion into is nulled by the fact he committed violence! Thats how religious he was while queuing at the bank!
Fiona
5th February 2010, 12:46 PM
"A good lawyer knows the law: a great lawyer knows the judge" ;)
Achán hiNidráne
5th February 2010, 12:53 PM
"A good lawyer knows the law: a great lawyer knows the judge" ;)
Is that "know" in the Biblical sence of the word? :D
KingMerv00
5th February 2010, 12:55 PM
Just posting to show my disgust.
Fiona
5th February 2010, 12:56 PM
Certainly not!! Go wash your brain out with soap :mad:
Achán hiNidráne
5th February 2010, 01:07 PM
Too late! I thought it. I can't un-think it!
Fiona
5th February 2010, 01:08 PM
"Be careful what you let inside your head, child: for once it is in there you will never get it out"
SusanB-M1
6th February 2010, 12:45 AM
And then subsequently out trotted the apologists being interviewed, trying to explain C Blair's behaviour....yuk!
Fiona
6th February 2010, 08:31 AM
Usual suspects. Ann Atkins was the one I heard :rolleyes:
SusanB-M1
7th February 2010, 12:53 AM
Usual suspects. Ann Atkins was the one I heard :rolleyes:
Yes, me too! I can't remember who the others were. When Ann Atkins is doing TFTD, I dive for the off switch!
Professor Yaffle
23rd February 2010, 09:43 AM
A blog post/article from Jack of Kent on this story:
Cherie Booth QC, sitting as a judge, has been criticised severely by the media and the blogosphere for her reported remarks about a defendant’s religious beliefs when sentencing him for actual bodily harm.
As set out below, my view is that her remarks are unlikely to have affected the sentence received in this particular case, and there seems no real force in the allegations of either discrimination or undue leniency.
But there may be what the defendant’s own solicitors call a “legitimate question” as to why she made the remarks in the first place, as I have been able to establish that the religious beliefs of the defendant were not actually part of his mitigation at all.
[snip]
http://www.thelawyer.com/a-“legitimate-question”-for-cherie-booth?/1003475.article
CriticalSock
24th February 2010, 12:46 PM
She should be disbarred.
(whatever the UK equivalent is)
Burned at the stake.
Fnord
24th February 2010, 12:53 PM
And some Christians wonder why rational people don't take them seriously.
Kimpatsu
24th February 2010, 06:59 PM
She should be disbarred.
(whatever the UK equivalent is)
Disbarred. It's not legalese; it's English. Lawyers are disbarred, doctors are struck off, and priests are defrocked.
Mashuna
25th February 2010, 12:39 AM
Disbarred. It's not legalese; it's English. Lawyers are disbarred, doctors are struck off, and priests are defrocked.
Especially if they get caught defrocking.
Mister Agenda
25th February 2010, 09:37 AM
I don't think there should be any religious discrimination, especially in court, but wouldn't the logic of discriminating based on the moral superiority of the believer dictate the believer should get a harsher punishment because they are supposed to be on a higher moral plane than the nonbeliever?
Us lost nonbelievers don't know no better, ma'am, now that you've pointed it out I won't go hittin' no one anymore!
Rrose Selavy
10th June 2010, 04:04 AM
Cherie Blair will not be disciplined after she was cleared over comments she made while sparing a violent offender jail.
Several complaints were made over a case Mrs Blair dealt with while sitting as a judge at Inner London Crown Court.
She told devout Muslim Shamso Miah he would not go to prison after breaking a man's jaw "based on the fact you are a religious person".
The comment provoked a complaint from the National Secular Society, who said it was "discriminatory", as well as several others who read media reports.
Mrs Blair, wife of former prime minister Tony Blair, was sitting as a part-time judge using her maiden name Cherie Booth.
The Office for Judicial Complaints said an inquiry was launched after "a number of complaints" were made about "comments reportedly made" by Mrs Blair.
A spokeswoman said: "That investigation has concluded and found that Recorder Booth's observations did not constitute judicial misconduct.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cherie-blair-cleared-over-court-comment-complaints-1996534.html
Filippo Lippi
10th June 2010, 05:53 AM
The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, was talking about the radicalisation of muslim prisoners in Britain's jails the other morning. It was stated that 10000 prisoners are muslims, which means they're over represented in prison compared to the proportion of muslims in the general population. Kind of kicks Mrs Blair's thinking into touch, don't it?
sgtbaker
10th June 2010, 06:04 AM
"Be careful what you let inside your head, child: for once it is in there you will never get it out"
With any luck it will get caught up in the wake of 9th grade math as that sneaks out the ear.
H'ethetheth
10th June 2010, 06:17 AM
Might not be safe if your workplace is particularly prudish -
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/
:eye-poppi
* ETA: I've been Poe'd, I guess?
Rrose Selavy
10th June 2010, 06:17 AM
The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, was talking about the radicalisation of muslim prisoners in Britain's jails the other morning. It was stated that 10000 prisoners are muslims, which means they're over represented in prison compared to the proportion of muslims in the general population. Kind of kicks Mrs Blair's thinking into touch, don't it?
Maybe they're just converting for "better food and conditions"
Inmates are converting to Islam in order to gain perks and the protection of powerful Muslim gangs, the Chief Inspector of Prisons warns today.
Dame Anne Owers says that some convicted criminals are taking up the religion in jail to receive benefits only available to practising Muslims.
The number of Muslim prisoners has risen dramatically since the mid-1990s — from 2,513 in 1994, or 5 per cent of the population, to 9,795 in 2008, or 11 per cent. Staff at top-security prisons and youth jails have raised concerns about the intimidation of non-Muslims and possible forced conversions.
All prisons offer a halal menu, which some inmates see as better than the usual choices. Muslims are excused from work and education while attending Friday prayers. Some converts, who are known as “convenience Muslims”, admitted that they had changed faith because they got more time out of the cells to go to Friday prayers. One quoted in the report said: “Food good too, initially this is what converted me.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7145784.ece
Filippo Lippi
24th June 2010, 10:30 PM
Public official gets a slapping over her public announcements, but "it's a secret."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10358121.stm
Filippo Lippi
24th June 2010, 10:38 PM
"All judges must, of course, be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues of equality and diversity (including religion, race and sex) so as not to create the impression that some individuals can expect more leniency than others."
Twaddle! Pious, violent offenders are clearly favoured in Blair's courtroom. Break someone's jaw and you won't go to prison if "... you are a religious person".
SanityGap
24th June 2010, 11:00 PM
I don't think there should be any religious discrimination, especially in court, but wouldn't the logic of discriminating based on the moral superiority of the believer dictate the believer should get a harsher punishment because they are supposed to be on a higher moral plane than the nonbeliever?
Beat me to it!
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.