Should the guilty go free *UPDATE*

If you haven't read my last post, read that one first. Go on.

Now, the Daily Express used to not bother including their editorials on their website, but they do now. Via Islamophobia Watch, we can also see the headline above.

Of course, the front page is another illustration of painting Muslims as 'not us'. Presumably, this means that Muslims' taxes pay for special Muslim courts that 'we' have to go to sometimes, which is why these courts are ours. Except it doesn't.

It's also an illustration of another common tabloid cheat. The infuritaing use of the word 'now'. It's not just like a pub drunk saying it as if everything else weren't bad enough, like, 'they used to just give away council houses to black people. Now they've only gone and started givin' 'em gold plated BMWs as well!' although it is like that too. And there's something about that word 'now' that sends a clear signal that what follows it is utter, utter shite.

The other thing it does is give the impression that something new is happening. But you know what? It isn't. Not really. The guidance says:
A number of judges have provided helpful accounts as to how they have dealt with such situations themselves, and to which we have had regard in formulating the following guidance.
See, the whole guidance is based on what the JSB considers good practice based on things that that have taken place in the past. Muslims always could wear veils in 'our' courts. There was never a rule saying they couldn't.

The editorial 'Disgraceful veil rule will fuel further anger' pushes the false impression further, by saying:
In this country we have always believed that justice must be seen to be done and that jurors should be able to see the reaction of defendants and witnesses to allegations that are put to them.

Equally, defendants should be able to gaze upon a jury of their peers summoned to decide upon their guilt or innocence. For the legal establishment to abandon these principles in the face of pressure from a tiny minority of extreme, politically motivated Muslims is a disgrace.
That's just utter nonsense. There is no principle that is being abandoned. Muslim women could always wear a veil if the judge thought it was appropriate, just as these guidelines reccommend. Remember, the original case that sparked this resulted from a reactionary judge telling a lawyer to remove her veil after she'd been wearing it in tribunals for years without any trouble. It's the Express that is calling for the abandonment of principles.

Nothing has changed. If you're an Express reader - now this might come as a shock to you, if nobody else - your paper isn't exactly telling you the truth.

I'll be referring to the Express as Der Sturmer from now on. Sod Godwin's Law. This is why:
On Monday the Treasury announced it will set up sharia-approved financial products especially for Muslims. Yesterday the legal establishment took the first step towards allowing British Muslims to regulate their interactions with the courts according to sharia law.

The British people will not put up with these crazy acts of cultural surrender for much longer.
A misdirection and exaggeration about a minority group followed by a call to arms that could incredibly easily be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Where have wee seen that sort of thing before?

In answer to the editorial's headline: only if you're successful in making it happen, you bunch of fucking goons.

No comments: