to think the legal system should not place white victims of sex crimes below Asians

[oldshilling]

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/17/asian-child-sex-victims-suffer-more-than-white-children-court-rules

There has been a lot of news about certain Muslim men choosing to sexually abuse white girls rather than members of their own community, because of cultural differences making white girls often easier targets, and perhaps because perceptions of about non-Muslim women.

In this case, however, a Muslim man chose to sexually abuse Muslim girls, and was given a longer sentence on the basis that Muslim/Asian girls will suffer more than white girls, a decision that the Court of Appeal has confirmed.

AIBU to think that this is disgusting, particularly given the targeting of tens of thousands (at a minimum) of white girls by Muslim men.

Limited The article quotes the original judge, the Court of Appeal, the chair of the Bar Association and the protest by the NSPCC.
I just don't believe all those separate quotes were invented by the Guardian. Even the Fail wouldn't do that.

So, is raping white or non-Muslim BME children to carry a lesser sentence in future ?
If females are chattels, will there be lighter sentences if they come from low income families too, where the chattels are of lesser value ?

Women and girls are NOT property
I do NOT accept a return to the 19th century

*lessens not lessons

Unforgivable. Inexcusable.

Flip it around, it's obvious: what if the ruling had suggested white native girls suffer more because of their expectations? The inference being that assault to women of other ethnicities matters less, so deserves more lenient sentencing? Because that IS the inference.

We are all equal before the law - the sentence MUST be about the crime, not the victim.

It reminds me of the 'no great trauma' sentence in an infamous rape case in the 80s.

Is inimitable me flat?

This case wasn't held in camera and there don't appear to be any special reporting restrictions.

The offender is named. I'd expect his victims' identities to be shielded, not just their names but including any relationship to him that would identify them.

But you don't have to be a genius to guess.

This is not bad practice by judges.

This is lazy journalism.

And I am a journalist.

No, it was to an earlier poster, although I do agree with what you have said!

I don't think you can easily separate the crime from the victim and it would often make the law a very blunt instrument.

A 17 year old having "consensual" sex with a NT 15 year old, or a 15 year old with severe SN are pretty different in my mind.

BigChocFrenzy I'm looking at this link offered by the OP here

The comments from the Bar Council and the NSPCC are neutral.

There is no protest from the NSPCC.

That is in your head.

Read it again.

Oh, okay flat. My mistake. Sorry

Also, slightly off topic/perhaps not relevant, but worth noting as a general comment that judges have to follow the sentencing guidelines, not just "do what they think". These are set by the sentencing council (ie MOJ). It really frustrates me when you see relentless negative comments about judges' decisions, when in fact they're given little freedom to deviate from what the sentencing guidelines and the government say they have to do!

No need to say sorry

The comments of the judge in the recent trial of Asian men raping white girls in Buckinghamshire were naive and crass.

He repeated the trope that they abused only white girls from troubled backgrounds. I'm sure they raped any girl they got their hands on regardless of creed or colour but maybe the Asian girls didn't come forward.

Similarly the rapists of Rochdale.

They are all rapists.

But despite the comments of that judge in Aylesbury, at least they got put away.

I think people in higher parts of the judiciary are able to work it out.

And jurors, of course.

This is beyond belief. This judge has actually reinforced the view that the asian girls are now 'damaged goods'. This view has no place in the UK.

Limited You seem to be claiming that the sentence was not longer because the children were Muslim. This didn't "come out of my head:"

Appeal Court Mr Justice Walker said "it was right that Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir had been given a longer spell in prison because his victims were Asian."

Original judge, Sally Cahill QC "specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an aggravating feature when passing sentence."

Bar Council: "The judgment reflects the duty of judges to take proper account of the extent of the harm suffered by individual complainants when deciding on the appropriate length of sentence in each case.”

So, the brittle bones argument is in fact justified by the recent law change: the focus is on the degree of harm to the victim. The judges decided Muslim girls suffer additional damage

Raped children are NOT damaged goods, whatever their race or religion.

He specifically said the opposite Pixel

Read it again.

It is a very poor report though.

The white girls in Rochdale and Bucks may have been regarded as damaged goods. They weren't. But maybe that is why they were chosen.

Did he get a longer sentence though than an abuser of white girls would get?

I read it in the mail and it came across to me that this guy got sentenced. His lawyers are now appealing, saying that the sentence was excessive. The judge is pissed off at the appeal for a lighter sentence and in his mistaken cack handed way of sending them off with a flea in their ear - he has listed just how awful and damaging this abuse was and the possible future effects on the victims to justify the original sentence. He would possibly do the same for white victims if the abuser tried to appeal the length of sentence, just perhaps the words are tailored to each victim.

I can see two sides here, excuse my repeated use of 'stereotype' but it wouldn't be accurate/fair to generalise.

One side is the stereotypical Muslim victim's family who turn on the victim as a result of being attacked believing the victim has brought shame on the family (yes WTF) and no other 'good' family will ever want to be tainted with their name ie they are no longer marriage material and therefore have zero prospects. Let's not forget in some country's this is actually followed up with a so-called 'mercy killing'. This is in contrast to the stereotypical non-muslim family who would be figuring out how to support the victim, instill an assurance that it was NOT their fault and any future serious partner would probably be told about the attack and want to provide support and understanding too.

And then there's the simple effect that this ruling, from the attackers point of view, says that attacking a 'white' girl carries a lesser sentence.

The problem is the the attack and for some victims ALSO how the community reacts. I believe the judge was trying to take this into account but the message this sentence sends is dubious - why not ensure the community are punished or at least exposed instead of adding more years to attacker's sentence. I'm not trying to comment on what length of sentence the attacker should have just the principle of apportioning blame and punishment at the relevant source should be paramount surely?

Neither the original trial judge or the appeal judge accepted that the girls were damaged goods.

Their fathers said they were but their claims were rejected. As they should be. It's right for our courts to uphold the fact that victims of crimes are wholly innocent.

Meanwhile, their rapist tried to get a bit off his sentence on the grounds that he was somehow racially discriminated against. They didn't go for that either.

So what is your beef?

It's a very poor report but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to spot that.

The Yorkshire Post among other papers report similar statements by the Appeal judges and the original judge:
"Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile, Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, to have been given a tougher than normal sentence, because his victims were Asian."

They also report criticism by NSPCC and also by a charity for "honour" crime victims.

Did he get a longer sentence though than an abuser of white girls would get?

He was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child under 13 and four further counts against a child who may or may not have been the same person.

I'd say that was worth seven years in prison.

Wouldn't you?

Huddersfield Examiner reports same comments by both sets of judges.
This can't be wished away by pretending it's just a sloppy journalist.

That Yorkshire Post article is a joke. This is my job. Do you expect me to respect that?

That is a completely bland statement by the NSPCC - not a protest.

The English and Welsh judiciary are not out to put young white girls in the clutches of evil Asian men.

I doubt the Scots want to do it either, but they have a different set up.

It's from the same agency report. Or do you think local newspapers have the money to spend to send their own reporter to court?

If only.