After her husband former Prime Minister Tony Blair declared secularists to be an equal or greater danger than terrorists (here), his wife Cherie Booth is under fire for granting leniency to a man accused of criminal assault because he is religious. Her statement in court would suggest that, if the man were an atheist or agnostic, such leniency might not be appropriate.
Shamso Miah, 25, of east London broke a man’s jaw following an argument in a bank line. Sitting as a judge, Booth granted a suspended sentence based at least in part on the fact that he was religious. Miah had just been to a mosque when he broke the jaw of Mohammed Furcan. Booth noted that Miah had no prior record and was religious as the basis for the leniency, adding “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
It is astonishing to see such reliance on claimed religiosity as a basis for leniency. However, some judges in this country have ordered felons to church (here) and some religious parents receive lighter sentences when they kill their children in the name of God, here. What if Miah was an athiest? If it would not matter, why state religiosity as an express mitigating factor?
For the full story, click here.
16 thoughts on “The Good Faith Defense: Cherie Booth (Wife of Tony Blair) Under Fire For Sparing Man Due to the Fact That He is Religious”
Stupid bitch. Religion under islam MEANS VIOLENCE. Not only doe he not know it’s wrong, he believes he is perfectly in compliance with his religion.
Maybe it’s due to my religiosity, but this makes perfect sense to me. The fact that he attends a mosque, indicates that he might be more likely (than the average man) to concur that his act was wrong and partake of a mea culpa. Most of secular society would also agree that this act is wrong, but only because it is steeped in religious values. Left to their own devices the irreligious man would quickly revert to incest and cannibalism if not for the civil laws against such things.
This reminds me of the George Tiller murder case. Scott Roeder’s attorney wanted the charge to be manslaughter instead of murder because his religious beliefs made him think that he was defending the unborn and therefore George Tiller’s murder was somehow justifiable. And where is the study that shows crimes committed by “non-believers” are proportionally higher than those of their oh so holy counterparts?
Sounds like a great religion, I must assume that your Goddess allows you to practice your faith!
I would like to make it clear at this time that my religion requires I get to kiss Rachel Weisz. Just a kiss. A little peck on the cheek. That’s all my “faith” requires.
Just in case I am ever arrested for such know that my kissing banditry is based firmly in religious zeal.
In the words of J.G. Thirwell, “An ounce of protection beats a pound of cure.”
Coming from a Christian perspective, it is immoral for a Christian to believe that a person should avoid lawful punishment just because (or in part) he or she is a Christian.
This is because Christianity teaches that law (and just punishment) are authorized by God.
Naturally, a Muslim shouldn’t get favored either.
OK, as an Englishman with a funny Greek name, let me clear this up for you.
Tony Blair is a dick. And so’s his wife.
“You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
What if I told you Judge that my religion requires me to break jaws on a regular basis when standing in line … que up, knock out … it’s a way of getting ahead in life.
I always felt that Tony Blair was an idiot ideologue. Now we see it runs in the family.
One would think that the the branch of government in any secular society that would toe the more or less existential line would be the judicial branch. Developing two de facto justice systems, one for people of faith and one for others is IMO repugnant to the concept of fairness and justice.
I’m not denigrating the concept of justice being nuanced by the totality of circumstances surrounding a crime or a defendants history but to make a judgment founded on presumptions that certain beliefs held by defendants are more worthy of judicial mercy is literally a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Or not, depending on the esteem or disfavor certain beliefs are held in by a judge.
The justice system may respond with mercy or harshness given a set of particulars regarding an act and the defendants character but shouldn’t broaden those mitigating factors to encompass an entire class of defendant. It’s discriminatory on it’s face.
Tangential: My ghod is better than your ghod:
“Christians Desecrate Wiccan Religious Site at Air Force Academy”
“…if the man were an atheist or agnostic…”
Those two are not mutually exclusive. One deals with belief, the other knowledge.
One onlyneeds to look at the sins of her husband and his co-conspirator, George Bush, to realize that being an alleged “religioius man” doesn’t mean much anymore.
He’d been in an airplane? I don’t know what?
A funny thing happened on the way from the mosque…
Just think how he would have reacted if he wasn’t religious.
“Miah had just been to a mosque when he broke the jaw of Mohammed Furcan. Booth noted that Miah had no prior record and was religious as the basis for the leniency, adding “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
I note a logical disconnect when considering that some mosques, like some churches, serve as the breeding ponds for militant scum hell-bent on violence. Call me ir-religious. Mohamed Atta had no prior record either and was a decidedly religious man.
Ok,this is Blairs wife. She must believe in hell right?
Or she must believe that there are some redeeming qualities in everyone, to wit she is married to Blair.
By the way, has anyone seen their marriage license? How do we know that this is really Blairs wife?
Comments are closed.