Traditional hatred of women
Why does he not get some time in a cell?
A man berated three women [as] “prostitutes” for not wearing traditional Asian dress and [for] putting on make-up, then violently attacked them, a court heard.
Muhammad Hassan, 26, assaulted the victims after spotting them at a petrol station in Bradford.
In a 51-second attack captured on CCTV, Hassan grabbed the driver and slammed her head on to the dashboard of her vehicle. He then grabbed another woman’s hair and punched her in the head before hitting the third woman.
By “traditional Asian dress” the inept reporter means Muslim or Islamic but of course it’s taboo to spell out that this is male religious bullying in action. The religious belief here is that women are all whores and must wear bags in public to conceal their whorish bodies. That’s the “tradition.”
Hassan, from Bradford, was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years.
Why suspended? Was the violent attack not violent enough? It seems plenty violent enough to me.
That could be 1. a good behaviour bond of two years duration, or 2. two years credit, to be deducted from any future sentence. So if he keeps his criminal activities trimmed well enough, he can do up to two years worth of crimes and not have any punishment at all.
Dr Johnson reputedly told his mate Boswell: “The Law, Sir, is an ass.!” But the ass (donkey) is a very sensible animal, and not deserving of any such insult.
It may be different where you are Omar, or in the UK, but in Queensland “suspended for X years” means the offender must comply with the terms of the suspension order for X years (so like a good behaviour bond on steroids). As far as I understand it the suspension order can include whatever the law deems reasonable but always includes not being convicted of a serious crime (though that’s ultimately up to the judge in the new case). I can’t, though, think of many conditions that wouldn’t mean the thug got off lightly. It’s hardly the first instance of this kind in the UK (there was one where a man hit a woman employee in a restaurant and the two cops who were there just shrugged and went on with their meals) so actual prison time is needed to make everyone clear this is not OK.
Agreed, a suspended sentence means the penalty is looming over the person for the stated time, and will come into effect if the person offends within that period.
And oh my god, another Strayan.
The Beadle in Oliver twist said: ‘If that’s the law, sir, then the law, sir, is an ass.’
The UK is desperately short of prison space, either at 98% capacity or about 9% over, depending on how you calculate it – with the difference being the number of spaces where accommodation is acceptable for long-term confinement. Every diversion mechanism you can think of is being used to the greatest possible extent. Starting in September, inmates will only serve 40% of their time.
Naif, I don’t know about the UK, but in the US part of the problem is that they imprison people for lots of things that shouldn’t carry prison time – drug use, ignoring traffic tickets, etc. No one should be locked in prison unless they pose a threat to society; if we followed that rule, we would have a lot of space. I don’t know if the UK is so free and easy with prison time as all that.
Of course, in the US, there is also a drive to keep the prisons filled because many of them have been privatized, and the owners need to make a buck.
Minor side note: In all honesty, I would guess in the UK context “Asian Dress” is understood to
mean SOUTH Asian, which in their context is understood to
mean Muslim. Especially in Bradfordibad?
That’s what I said – “By “traditional Asian dress” the inept reporter means Muslim or Islamic.”
but my point is that in the UK I am not certain it would be necessary to say “muslim”. ach. I’m
just being pedantic!
It’s certainly how Rowling describes them; not sure ineptness applies.
I’d say this kind of behavior warrants deportation but a) he’s probably a local lad and b) see Rwanda for an example of why deportation is difficult.
Brian M, but that’s the whole point: it IS necessary to say it rather than euphemize it. Nationality or regionality is morally neutral; religion is not. There’s clearly a taboo in journalism on mentioning the religion, and there shouldn’t be, because the religion is loaded with content, much of which is harmful to women and girls.
Trans “rights” are handled with kid gloves too, but not to the same degree. Genderists certainly have form for harassment and bullying, but Islamists kill people. I’m sure that the desire not to appear to be bigotted is tempered with a sense of self-preservation instilled by memories of the attacks on Salman Rushdie, the violent response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre.