Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Muslim Girls Freed after Judge Buys "We Weren't Used to Drinking" Defense

Strange. Muslims keep telling us they're "no different" from anyone else. Yet they keep getting special treatment (in this case, a free pass to savagely beat a non-Muslim woman).

United Kingdom--A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion.

The group – three sisters and a cousin – allegedly screamed ‘kill the white slag’ as they set upon Rhea Page as she waited for a taxi with her boyfriend.

Miss Page, 22, was left with a bald patch where her hair was pulled out in the attack and was left ‘black and blue’ after suffering a flurry of kicks to the head, back, arms and legs while motionless on the pavement. (Read more.)

13 comments:

Radical Moderate said...

In the source there is a video,watch it to the end.You can see one of the Attackers comes running back as the police are there. She is shouting and yelling at the victims as the police try to secure the scene.

She is pushed back several times by a female police officer.

I can just imagine what was being said. Blame the Kaffir, it's all the kuffar white slags fault. Didn't she know they where Muslims and they are supposed to walk in the gutter when Muslim approach.

Samatar Mohamed said...

I agree 100 percent. They definitley should have been penalized for their acts. The fact that they do not usually drink does not in any way recompense for what they did. That was definitely not in any way justice to the young women, I am dissapointed in the judge first of all for not penalizing the women, but mostly my muslim sisters who went to the bar and attacked the women. Now that is a good example of why you avoid alcohol and bars in general.

simple_truth said...

There must be something done about this. Those lowlifes deserve to be in jail for a while for what they did. I do hope that this judge is reprimanded for the silly ruling that should be commonsensical to the rest of us who are law abiding individuals. This is totally unacceptable!

Michael Schueckler said...

The judge should hope he doesn't meet any like-minded individuals on the street against him who might use the same defense.

aaron said...

WOW I never have drank alcohol in my life. If i went and got drunk first time and did that the judge would not be so lenient. Besides differances is not all who drink alcohol gets drunk. they should have limited themselves from taking so much.

Nakdimon said...

No Samatar,

It is a good example of how to avoid alcohol ABUSE! Alcohol is not bed in and of itself. ABUSE of alcohol (getting drunk) is. Just like food isnt bad in and of itself, but ABUSE of food (gluttony) is. Many examples can be brought where something is good for you (Yes, alcohol is actually good for you, so is garlic. VERY healthy!) but abuse of that particular thing is not.


I applaud you, tho, for your comment on the fact that the woman didnt receive any justice. The judge should be fired immediately.

Joe Bradley said...

This confirms that the United States does NOT have a monopoly on brain dead judges.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" I agree 100 percent. They definitley should have been penalized for their acts. The fact that they do not usually drink does not in any way recompense for what they did. That was definitely not in any way justice to the young women, I am dissapointed in the judge first of all for not penalizing the women, but mostly my muslim sisters who went to the bar and attacked the women. Now that is a good example of why you avoid alcohol and bars in general."

I don't have much against your position this time; but, I must set you straight on your last sentence. Drinking alcohol is not a problem as long as you know how to control the amount that you intake over any given time so that you won't become intoxicated and/or inebriated. In all things, moderation is a requirement. Abuse or misuse is a personal issue and is not the fault of that which the person partakes of. Just think of driving too fast or unsafely, for example. There is no inherent problem with automobiles; but, the person driving must have a sense of safety and control over the vehicle before and doing driving.

I have the same argument against having Muslim women covering their entire bodies; for, they are not responsible for the man's lack of self control. They are only responsible for their own self control. Similarly, men are responsible for their self control independently of whatever the women do.

You don't seem to understand that because you have bought into a system (religion) that forces you to think outside of what I would call common sense and rationality. You belong to a system where adultery has been redefined to make what societies have called adultery for ages as permissible. Your religion has redefined marriage to include more than one woman whereas the most societies over the ages have seen this as adultery. Your religion has redefined sexual relations that would normally be called fornication and adultery as sex with right hand possessions. Such examples show that your religion is indeed missing the understanding of morality as understood by most societies over the ages.

Anyways, I just wanted to point that out at the expense of changing the subject. I hope not.

Radical Moderate said...

Samatar

I'm curious what would of been the penatly for these woman under Islamic Law?

Tatersalad said...

Explain this then Mr. President since you support Unions and socialism alike! No wonder the country is in the shape it is. Your Transformation BS is really working but in the wrong way.

Teamsters Union dues are representing this action. The people who are non-Muslim get to work harder why the Muslims are praying on company time:

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/25-somali-muslim-asslifters-sue-hertz-for-not-giving-them-several-paid-prayer-breaks-per-day/#comment-206916

bobby said...

Surely one is much less than innocent, when *deliberately* committing a criminal act against someone whilst drunk; and more innocent than *that* were you to *accidentally*, drunkenly, hit that same someone with your car.

According to the logic here, I suppose the only reason for not getting sauced before burglarising a home is it would increase your likelihood of failure; but at least, if you failed, you're not accountable?

Oh wait... UNLESS YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM DRINKING ALCOHOL DUE TO YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS! There you go. See?

Sharia trumps Western law again, and common sense, through doubling down on dumb. I'd be livid if I were the victim.

bobby said...

I should say....

**SO LONG AS** YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM DRINKING ALCOHOL DUE TO YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS

Traeh said...

When you watch the video, you can realize one reason why so many people are in denial about Islam and jihad.

I did not like watching that violent video, even though it wasn't that intense. But there are lots of people more sensitive than I am to such scenes, people who cannot hardly bear even to think about violence. Those people are probably over-represented among the population in denial about jihad and Islam. People who cannot bear the thought of physical conflict anywhere near at hand.