Saturday, 9 October 2010

Bread buttered both sides.

A pregnant Muslim woman was ordered to remove her veil in court and was all upset and weepy afterwards.

The case was one of alleged abuse and violence from her ex-partner.

Okay, she wants it the Sharia way, here we go -

One, her evidence is worth half that of her ex-partner.

Two, men bashing women is fine and legal under Sharia so there is no case to answer.

Well, that saved the taxpayer some money. Keep the veil on, dear. Your adopted culture, your rules, your choice. Or take it off and try British law. Up to you. We can't appear in court with our faces covered here. It's our culture, innit? You want yours, fine, but take it all, not just the bits you like.

Oh, and the relevance of the pregnancy to the veil is simply this - if your pregnancy was not the responsibility of your partner, or even if it was and you're not married to him, then under Sharia law you get stoned to death.

In this country, bread is buttered on one side or the other. Choose your side.


JuliaM said...

"... or even if it was and you're not married to him..."

Looks very much like the latter: "Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera...

No-one so devout as a convert, eh?

joe said...

No sympathy.Mrs Richards,vail,3 kids and a fourth on the way?That cunt knows how to work the system.

MTG said...

I am more concerned that this shy young Muslim girl may have been denied the traditional test which determines whether she is old enough to marry.

This involves standing her in the witness box. If her chin was over the top, she would be deemed old enough. If it wasn't, the witness box is cut down until her chin is over the top.

Lady Virginia Droit de seigneur said...

Hard to argue with this.

Chuckles said...

However imperfect and compromised, I'll stick with the English version thanks.

Charles James Napier springs to mind.

Anonymous said...

Wife Beating in Islam - The Rules

subrosa said...

I would go even further LI and insist a Muslim signed a document stating they will adhere to British law if they use our legal system. In other words, their cultural laws would mean nothing.

microdave said...

Good post, Leg-iron.

Wouldn't it be nice if this straightforward analysis appeared in one of the newspapers? Oh, I forgot, we aren't living in a "Free" society any more, and this would probably count as racist, or a hate crime....

Anonymous said...

The dirty bitch must have like the ex-partner at least 4 times.
Or perhaps she just tolerated him in order to get 4 lots of child benefit and a nice 4 bedroom council house.

Norm Rosenheim said...

We should allow the Islam fanatics to carry out a couple of Sharia Show trials and then televise the punishments. That would wake people up to the realities of this geo-political movement - it ain't no religion.

BBC 1 3:30. LIVE from Leicester Magistrates Court. Coverage of proven whore to be stoned to death for sex outside marriage. Keith Chegwin takes a light hearted look at Sharia law in the UK today and will participate in the burial of the guilty whore up to her waist. The finest of Leicester's Muslim community will then use a selection of locally quarried stone to splatter her brain over the City centre. Stereo.

BBC 1 4:15 Islam, The Religion of Peace.

BBC 1 5:00 LIVE. Release of Ismail Muhammed from Wormwood Scrubs. Political prisoner released early after conviction for burning his wife alive and leaving her body in a skip after she left home without her gloves on. Triumphant return home to Harringay for this much wronged man.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - Wife beating in Islam - the rules...

...don't matter here. We only have one rule concerning beating of wives or children or anyone else, and it says 'no'.

Or rather, it should. In practice, if you beat up a burglar who invades your home and threatens your family, you are in the wrong.

If you beat up someone who calls you an offensive name, you win. Providing you are in an approved group.

The law was always an ass but there was a time when it made some kind of sense, on the whole.

banned said...

Norm Rosenheim, nicely put.

"Georgina Richards" seemingly converted to the religion of peace and then wants to pick and choose which parts of their 'laws' and ours she wishes to adhere to.

As many Mail readers comment, wearing the veil is not an Islamic thing, it is an Arabic, desert thing but used in the West to emphasise 'otherness' not unlike gay people who choose to camp it up in order to provoke and then get 'offended' when the normos react.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Hee hee, nice one.

killemallletgodsortemout said...

No victory in this.

The court allowed her to gice evidence from behind a screen so the bitch was only visible from the bench.

One rule for us...........

Leg-iron said...

Killemall - the screened witness is part of British law and that's fine. Where a witness might not want to be identified or where they might be intimidated by the evil glower of the accused, a screen is fine. The bench can see their facial expressions and can be sure that the person talking to them is the right one.

This woman wanted to be hidden from all. If she had succeeded, then if I was called into court I could get an expert lawyer to don my hat and 'be' me for the day. Or I could get a homeless guy to take the fall with the promise of free room and board for a few years, and five whole British pounds in his hand on release.

I've been to that place where five pounds is a fortune and I'd have seriously considered it. If masks were allowed in court, it really would work.

The screen is okay. If she had been allowed to set a precedent of hiding your face from the whole court, that would have been very dangerous indeed.

It could lead to one Mafia don being arrested and imprisoned five times in a week in five different countries, while the real one is still free.

It's not about Islamisation so much as de-Britishisation.

opinions powered by