Child rapist goes free.......because he's a Muslim

unkel

Sickening that is :mad:

Article

genericguy

unkel wrote: »

Sickening that is :mad:

Article

Islam is peace.

endacl

genericguy wrote: »

Islam is peace.

Peace is peace. Everything else isn't.

notting shocks me anymore

homemadecider

Deleted User wrote: »

notting shocks me anymore

That Hugh Grant movie was shockingly bad, in fairness.

bizmark

Ah now dont be racist we have to be tolerant and understanding of these people and their child rapeing women hateing ways for diversity sake making the world a better place ya know

Zebra3

unkel wrote: »

Child rapist goes free.......because he's a Muslim

Nice OTT thread title. :rolleyes:

You make it sound all muslims are now free to go out raping girls.

Good attempt at sh*t stirring. :rolleyes:

Holsten

I agree, a bit OTT... 18 and 13. Shouldn't have happened at all but I wouldn't call the chap a child rapist.

Well its not that OTT when you read the article.

Firstly, I was amazed that the judge accepted ignorance as a reason to let him off.

Secondly, he is 18 and received his education in the UK, not in a village in Pakistan. The Uk (maybe us too) has serious issues if its education system (and private schooling comes under this) produces 18 year olds who don't know the basic rights and wrongs of British law.

Juicyfruit

Statutory rape, yes. But calling him a child rapist or implying the girl was forced to have sex, is incorrect.
Even the article is saying he raped her. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

1ZRed

Holsten wrote: »

I agree, a bit OTT... 18 and 13. Shouldn't have happened at all but I wouldn't call the chap a child rapist.

I would, she's only 13. I don't know the full ins and outs of the story but he did pressure her into having sex when she was reluctant.

I'm not sure if it was quite 'rape' but it was still wrong, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Fukuyama

Statutory rape is a far cry from actual rape.

If a 17 y/o has sex with a consenting 15 y/o I place him in the wrong. However, I will never refer to him as a rapist.

It's an injustice to those who have had the horrible crime visited upon them.



That said, in this case he shouldn't have been let off. Naivety cannot be an excuse in law. It's a citizens duty to understand the basics of law. If he chooses to wrap himself in an extreme minority of a religion and ignore civilisation, fine.

But civilization cannot ignore the fact that he had sex with a minor.

StormWarrior

He says his school taught him that women are as worthless as a lollipop that's been dropped on the floor. Yet I see no mention of this school being thoroughly investigated and preferably closed down.

wes

He should go to jail, IMHO.

As for his excuse, its pretty piss poor, and I am surprised the judge bought into him being ignorant of the law.

Fukuyama

1ZRed wrote: »

I would, she's only 13. I don't know the full ins and outs of the story but he did pressure her into having sex when she was reluctant.

I'm not sure if it was quite 'rape' but it was still wrong, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

The judge said she was well up for it apparently.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Well its not that OTT when you read the article.

Firstly, I was amazed that the judge accepted ignorance as a reason to let him off.

Secondly, he is 18 and received his education in the UK, not in a village in Pakistan. The Uk (maybe us too) has serious issues if its education system (and private schooling comes under this) produces 18 year olds who don't know the basic rights and wrongs of British law.

I read the article.

The thread title has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

biko

I think the problem is separatist Muslim education and teachings:
Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.
In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

efb

Daily Mail slant

bleg

I thought this thread was going to be about muhammad.

StormWarrior

wes wrote: »

He should go to jail, IMHO.

As for his excuse, its pretty piss poor, and I am surprised the judge bought into him being ignorant of the law.

I thought that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Next time anyone here gets a speeding ticket or whatever just try claiming you didn't know it was illegal and see how far that gets you.

Annasopra

efb wrote: »

Daily Mail slant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ludo

Links to the daily mail... Enough said.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Well its not that OTT when you read the article.

Firstly, I was amazed that the judge accepted ignorance as a reason to let him off.

Secondly, he is 18 and received his education in the UK, not in a village in Pakistan. The Uk (maybe us too) has serious issues if its education system (and private schooling comes under this) produces 18 year olds who don't know the basic rights and wrongs of British law.

It is OTT.

The judge didn't let him off because he was a muslim, he let him off because of ignorance.

I don't agree with the what the judge done, but the thread title is still incorrect.

StormWarrior

mango salsa wrote: »

The thread title has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

I don't agree with the people who are saying this. He was brought up, apparently, knowing nothing of life besides what his Islamic school and culture taught him, and for that reason he was let off.

This is a very good example why "mitigating factors" shouldn't be taken into account in law. It's a slippery slope leading to people getting away with crimes for the stupidest of reasons.

KamiKazeKitten

Didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old (outside marriage which his religion isn't too keen on afaik) but knew enough to have safe sex?




Not as sheltered as he was letting on imo.

Odysseus

Deleted User wrote: »

Well its not that OTT when you read the article.

Firstly, I was amazed that the judge accepted ignorance as a reason to let him off.

Secondly, he is 18 and received his education in the UK, not in a village in Pakistan. The Uk (maybe us too) has serious issues if its education system (and private schooling comes under this) produces 18 year olds who don't know the basic rights and wrongs of British law.

He was convicted, so he did not get off. He is not in custody but that does not mean he he was let off. No every sex offence results in a jail term, but that does not mean he was not convicted of a sex offence.

From what I read in that article the judge did not accept his claim of ignorance.

Just because the article states
"A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless."

That does not mean that was the reason why the Judge went for a suspended sentense. I think this had more to do with the Judges decision than anything else
"Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters."


I personally would have like to see futher probation as part of the sentense.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html#ixzz2J6C2QShO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Siuin

Since when is ignorance of the law a valid defence? If he wants to bring his perverse brainwashed ideology to a civilised western nation where it's not acceptable to screw kids, he should deal with the consequences of his actions. What a completely illogical excuse for 'political correctness'.

1ZRed

Dean0088 wrote: »

The judge said she was well up for it apparently.

My mistake I missread it as 'she' was initially reluctant but it was he that was until she seduced him.

Either way I'm surprised something like this could be dismissed in the UK. What kind of special breed of ignorance does that school spawn at all?

Time for them to cop on a bit and join the 21st century and teach the appropriate attitudes and laws towards women and sex. It's the UK, not the Middle East ffs.

StormWarrior

Also, the people who are saying it's not that bad because she consented.... would it be alright if he'd screwed a 9 year old kid if she consented?

Chucky the tree

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old (outside marriage which his religion isn't too keen on afaik) but knew enough to have safe sex?


Not as sheltered as he was letting on imo.

Maybe he didn't but the 13 year old did.

Siuin

StormWarrior wrote: »

Also, the people who are saying it's not that bad because she consented.... would it be alright if he'd screwed a 9 year old kid if she consented?

Technically he would be emulating the acts of their 'Prophet' :P

dr.bollocko

BS thread title leading us nowhere good so we'll leave it at that.