Judge calls it

Hitchens

A judge has caused outrage after saying he thinks "Muslims feel they can actually beat their wives" during the trial of a Somali man accused of burglary at his former wife's house.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/outrage-as-judge-claims-muslims-feel-they-can-beat-their-wives-30133991.html

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it, fair dues to him whether you agree with him or not.

Canis Lupus

Hitchens wrote: »

A judge has caused outrage after saying he thinks "Muslims feel they can actually beat their wives" during the trial of a Somali man accused of burglary at his former wife's house.

Link to follow

Fearless

Are talking talking culture or religion here because I know plenty of muslims who think it's abhorrent regardless of what the koran says.

super_furry

This is going to be a well reasoned and thoughtful debate.

sillyoulfool

Judge should be sacked, or at least suspended.
The defendant was not accused of any form of assault but the racist judge went on a rant.
Whats worse the defendants ex wife withdrew her case after the judges intolerant and insulting outburst.

Plazaman

Stereotyping at it's worst. The majority of muslims men are ordinary blokes living their life normally just like everyone else. They're not planning Jihads, walking around slapping women randomly or burning American flags. If a Judge in another country said "all Irish think they can go out and get drunk and smash up the place", there'd be uproar here. Obvious that Irish vs Muslim is not like with like but you know what I mean.

Hitchens

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Judge should be sacked, or at least suspended.

No, it won't happen, guaranteed

Cian92

If it was a derogatory mark aimed at Catholics nobody would moan about it. He called it as it is. Fairplay. I hope he doesn't give into pressure and censor his comments as no doubt the goody two shoes will want him to.

Judge Anthony Halpin seems to have a better grasp of reality than most Judges, Earlier in the year he said there was 'a total breakdown of social order' in Tallaght.

D1stant

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."


That said, you can find some fairly medieval stuff in the Bible too

Rubberchikken

i dont think it comes down to being a muslim or not in domestic violence. its only some men, and women, who behave like this.

can see what the judge was saying, he probably just needed to say it in a different way.

Gatling

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Judge should be sacked, or at least suspended.
The defendant was not accused of any form of assault but the racist judge went on a rant.
Whats worse the defendants ex wife withdrew her case after the judges intolerant and insulting outburst.

He broke into her house ,he broke a barring order and was carrying a knife ,
The protection/ barring order certainly wasn't issued for nothing ,
The ex wife didn't withdraw the case because of the comment ,

A deportation order should be a choice if the now ex husband keeps this crap up

sillyoulfool

The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

Cian92

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

Today we will learn a thing or two about statistics.

If 80% of the country is Catholic, you would expect 80% of the wife beatings to be carried out by Catholics. :rolleyes:

Bio Mech

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

I assume you have proportional statistics to make you point actually relevant do you?

baldbear

 "I hear you're a racist now father".

sillyoulfool

Hitchens wrote: »

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it, fair dues to him whether you agree with him or not.

Fair dues to him for what?
He has now publicly displayed an irrational bias so wrong that he will have to either choose to recuse himself from any trial involving a member of the Muslim faith, or be removed from hearing any such case by a superior court.

Canis Lupus

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

Don't be silly. The majority of catholics in Ireland are white so your logic doesn't apply.

Gatling

sillyoulfool wrote: »

The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

Personally I prefer human trait religion has some blame but in a situation where wives seem to be considered 3rd class citizens in certain cultures

ThisRegard

Cian92 wrote: »

Judge Anthony Halpin seems to have a better grasp of reality than most Judges, Earlier in the year he said there was 'a total breakdown of social order' in Tallaght.

Are you for real ? He also said the "civil defence" should be sent out on the streets of Tallaght. He's cracked.

sillyoulfool

Bio Mech wrote: »

I assume you have proportional statistics to make you point actually relevant do you?

Number of declared RC members in last Census=80%
Simple extrapolation from that indicates the majority of crimes are committed by members of that group.
Like I say it is a highly unfair way to describe Roman Catholics, but that is the crazed and deluded logic that this yolk of a judge used to insult Islam.
My point was not an attack on Catholics it was to show how dangerous and intolerant it is to make sweeping and insulting generalizations.

sillyoulfool

Gatling wrote: »

He broke into her house ,he broke a barring order and was carrying a knife ,
The protection/ barring order certainly wasn't issued for nothing ,
The ex wife didn't withdraw the case because of the comment ,

A deportation order should be a choice if the now ex husband keeps this crap up

No he didn't.
Can you link to where he was found guilty of anything?
Thanks to the lunatic actions of a racist judge he left court without any conviction.
Actually, she did withdraw her case immediately after the comment, but sure the judge has just insulted her faith as well.

gallag

Did a Muslim mod on here not voice his belief it was Ok to show the little lady the back of the hand? Unfortunately a lot of Muslims do believe this and should not be ignored like other religious barbarity like female genital mutilation! It's not that Muslims are more likely to be at this simply because of their religion, more they are slightly less educated on equal rights between the sexes!

Our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters are our equal (except for time management) and every person, regardless of belief will conform to this belief, non negotiable!

Cian92

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you for real ? He also said the "civil defence" should be sent out on the streets of Tallaght. He's cracked.

It's been a few months since I was in Tallaght but I can see where he is coming from. Last time I was there. there were even posters up all around the place asking us to dial a certain number to stop drug dealing! My only concern is how effective would the civil defence be.

Gatling

sillyoulfool wrote: »

No he didn't.
Can you link to where he was found guilty of anything?
Thanks to the lunatic actions of a racist judge he left court without any conviction.
Actually, she did withdraw her case immediately after the comment, but sure the judge has just insulted her faith as well.

No he didn't ?????

How did you come to that conclusion ??

And no she didn't immediately withdraw after the comment

Where you did you read that ??

Oink

Hitchens wrote: »

[...] he thinks "Muslims feel they can actually beat their wives" [...]

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it, fair dues to him whether you agree with him or not.

OP, you don't actually say what YOU think. You only say that a lot of people agree.

Do YOU think "Muslims", meaning all of 1.6 billion of them, "feel [men] can actually beat their wives"? Because the judge didn't say "some" or "most". He said "muslims".

Santa Cruz

D1stant wrote: »

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."


That said, you can find some fairly medieval stuff in the Bible too

It's me culture that allows me bate the wife boss.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Couldn't you legally rape your wife in this country because of laws arising from 'our' Catholic faith.

Let's hate all religious indoctrination equally.

Kum bay ya, kum bayfucking ya!

Plazaman

Thread has reminded me of Sean Connerys quote years ago

I don’t think theresh is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman–although I don’t recommend doing it in the shhame way that you’d hit a man. An openhanded shhlap is justified–if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman ish a bitch, or hyshhterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it.

I've deliberatley added a few extra "sh"'s and "hh"'s as it needs to be read in his Shhcottishh accshent.

ThisRegard

Cian92 wrote: »

It's been a few months since I was in Tallaght but I can see where he is coming from. Last time I was there. there were even posters up all around the place asking us to dial a certain number to stop drug dealing! My only concern is how effective would the civil defence be.

You need to get out more often if those signs, seen the country, nay the world, over, scare you.

sillyoulfool

Gatling wrote: »

No he didn't ?????

How did you come to that conclusion ??

And no she didn't immediately withdraw after the comment

Where you did you read that ??

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

GalwayGuy2

Originally Posted by sillyoulfool View Post
The overwhelming number of cases of wife beating in this country are carried out by non Muslims, indeed since 80% of those who responded to the last census described themselves as Roman Catholic, one could argue, albeit unfairly, that it appears to be a Roman Catholic trait.

Eh, I agree with what the point you are trying to make, but I genuinely hate the way some people make those points.

It's kind of like saying:

'Look, we can't generalize by religion. Muslim people are different and they're not all burnin' bibles. And, who are we to talk? Our countries full of pedo chaotlichs. ****in' catholics'

@SeanChonery qoute

That sounds bizarely egalitarian. The word 'hysterical' makes me dubious, but he does seem to treat both men and women the same.

Couldn't you legally rape your wife in this country because of laws arising from 'our' Catholic faith.

I keep hearing that. Can anybody qpute the law that says a man can rape his wife or a woman cannot not consent?

sillyoulfool

sillyoulfool wrote: »

the racist judge went on a rant..

It's a religion not a race

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I keep hearing that. Can anybody qpute the law that says a man can rape his wife or a woman cannot not consent?

The law has been changed since then. It was somewhere around the 70s-90s IIRC
Before that, spouse rape did not "exist" in the law

reprazant

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I keep hearing that. Can anybody qpute the law that says a man can rape his wife or a woman cannot not consent?

It didn't exist as it was deemed a husbands right.

It was abolished in Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

5.—(1) Any rule of law by virtue of which a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife is hereby abolished.

(2) Criminal proceedings against a man in respect of the rape by him of his wife shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions

GenieOz

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

Looks like you're incredibly biased too, just the other way around.

Uriel.

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

I don't think the poster mentioned anything about convictions.

The article quoted in the OP states that the man in question:

1. Broke into the House
2. Had a knife
3. Had an active barring order against him (such orders are only laid down by the courts)

GalwayGuy2

The law has been changed since then. It was somewhere around the 70s-90s IIRC
Before that, spouse rape did not "exist" in the law

It didn't exist as it was deemed a husbands right.

It was abolished in Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

I was kind of curious, but I'd more lean towards Bluewolf's explanation.

Unless someone can point out the law that said a) A woman did not have the choice to not consent, or the husband has a right to take a woman even if she does not consent.

I'm being pedantic, but i have heard the aforementioned marital law ALOT.

I don't want toe derail the thread, but if anybody can find the law they can send me a pm with the link?

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I was kind of curious, but I'd more lean towards Bluewolf's explanation.

Unless someone can point out the law that said a) A woman did not have the choice to not consent, or the husband has a right to take a woman even if she does not consent.

I'm being pedantic, but i have heard the aforementioned marital law ALOT.

I don't want toe derail the thread, but if anybody can find the law they can send me a pm with the link?

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

Grayson

bluewolf wrote: »

It's a religion not a race

Well, I guess that's ok then.

I really hate grammar nazi's who feel that they need to interject with "that's not racism" because it's an ethnic group instead. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Ok, so racism has become a catch all term to describe discrimination based on ethnic, cultural or religious grounds, but do we really need to be reminded constantly what the origins of the word were. everyone knew what was meant. there's no need for disambiguation.


Regarding the original story, the judge was bang out of line. I'd have no trouble with him saying "I feel that you feel you can justify your actions because of your religion" but to state that all or even most muslims are like that is wrong.

reprazant

Grayson wrote: »

Regarding the original story, the judge was bang out of line. I'd have no trouble with him saying "I feel that you feel you can justify your actions because of your religion" but to state that all or even most muslims are like that is wrong.

Completely agree with is. It is a mass generalisation that some people will agree with as it suits their own narrow view point.

Also agree with your first point as well.

GalwayGuy2

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

Interesting. I didn't quite think of how laws are wrote.

I guess there's two interpretations of the lack of that law.

A) There was a lack of awareness about sexual violence.

It was seen as a situation where a woman could not say no.

Oh well, I know what people mean when they say that qoute that started this slight derailment.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

The Marital rape thing is much more complicated than that. (Historically - as it's largely sorted now, legally anyway).

It stems back to judgments made in the 1700s in the English courts and deals with presumed consent and contract of marriage etc. It largely outside of the scope of direct reference in statute.

Uriel.

Uriel. wrote: »

The Marital rape thing is much more complicated than that. (Historically - as it's largely sorted now, legally anyway).

It stems back to judgments made in the 1700s in the English courts and deals with presumed consent and contract of marriage etc. It largely outside of the scope of direct reference in statute.

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

Uriel.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Interesting. I didn't quite think of how laws are wrote.

I guess there's two interpretations of the lack of that law.

A) There was a lack of awareness about sexual violence.

It was seen as a situation where a woman could not say no.

Oh well, I know what people mean when they say that qoute that started this slight derailment.

There is that situation - where there are no express laws/prohibitions. But in the case of marital rape, the issue was much more complicated. Judges in the past dealt with the issue vis-a-vis presumed/automatic consent and the contract of marriage. It is very complicated and it largely developed via common law rather that statute. To put an end to the precedent that was set in common law, the legislature introduced the 1990 Act.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

It is interesting actually in the sense of reasoning and quite honestly it shows a sad reflection on the place of women in society and days gone by - common law generally reflects the mindset of society at a given time.

The Law Reform Commission looked at this issue extensively in the run up to the 1990 Act, they produced reports dealing with their review. Should be available on their site. I'll see if I can dig it out for you.

TwoShedsJackson

Hitchens wrote: »

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it...

Which, amazingly, does not automatically make it correct.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

Took a while but found it bluewolf.

it's quite long as it deals with law on rape generally but does have specific sections on marital rape.
There's another separate report as well, almost like a digest piece dealing with marital rape solely. But can't find it...I'll keep looking.

Here's the simplest summary of the historic position - obviously more complicated but it is a nice one liner that puts it all in a nutshell

The consent rationale traces its origins to Hale's statement. In effect, it argues that, when people marry, they are freely committing themselves to a life of intimacy with each other; an important part of that intimacy is sexual intimacy, including sexual intercourse.

Cian92

ThisRegard wrote: »

You need to get out more often if those signs, seen the country, nay the world, over, scare you.

I'm yet to see them anywhere in Munster.

projectgtr

I don't have an issue at all with what was said using personal experience, specially after hearing stories from Muslim women on the radio today. Do I think all Muslim men beat their wives? Not in the slightest, but I do believe there is an element of women being second class citizens that needs to be stamped out. Also as this being a "racist" issue, I'm definitely of the opinion its not and there's a big difference between race and religion. The world would be a better place without ANY religion.

sillyoulfool

GenieOz wrote: »

Looks like you're incredibly biased too .

Absolutely, I am biased towards the idea that every Muslim male in this world is not a wife beater.
I am also biased in that I absolutely believe the following:
All Priests are not paedophiles.
All Irish are not stupid drunks
The woman's place is not in the home
All Jews are not mean, all Nigerians are not scammers, all unemployed persons are not SW leeches etc..etc..

Shame on me

Sunglasses Ron

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Fair dues to him for what?
He has now publicly displayed an irrational bias .

Has he?

Over the last 15 years, the time in which our society became more multicultural, if someone can do an audit of his trials and find his opinion, compared to the cases of domestic violence he has tried, compared to the Muslim population percentage, is factually incorrect in comparison to his statement, the man should be sacked.

If not, well now :pac:

The political correctness in this country these days is left wing neo fascism, plain and simple. We had a stand up comedian/ singer in a dress whose faux pas on RTE led to his struggle being compared to the self sacrifices of Mandela and the men of 1916 the other month. Get a grip. Only last week on this board we were told we couldn't discuss the fact a traveller woman from a notorious traeller site in Athlone had obtained a questionable compensation payment from a notoriously common traveller compensation source.

Does anyone else feel a bit wary of where our society is going in terms of calling it how it is?

sillyoulfool

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Does anyone else feel a bit wary of where our society is going in terms of calling it how it is?

No.
I think our society should always and ever challenge those muppets /racists/ knuckedraggers who make sweeping generalizations based on race/religion/ethnicity, such as this judge made.