I’m not sure whether I’m more, or less disturbed by the complaint-provoking reasoning of Cherie Booth QC, in suspending the custodial sentence of a violent offender because he is “a religious man” who knows it was the wrong thing to do – because that’s not so much discrimination as privilege (‘positive’ discrimination?); it only becomes discriminatory if, at some point, she were to convict, for ruffling some antisocial youth’s hair under his hoody, an atheist, on the grounds that such a heathen couldn’t possibly possess any moral guidance code, and so ought to be banged up in order to protect society – than by something else she said:
“You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
“ Mild fracture”? Mild?! What, so the victim’s jaw would need to be hanging off for it to be really serious enough to imprison someone who might have avoided queuing if he could have brought himself to leave the mosque a bit earlier?!
I’m reminded somewhat of the BCA, over-reacting like some big mardy bully because it couldn’t bear to be dissed in public. But it seems the law can be sympathetic to such types: Justice Edict ruled in favour of the BCA; Cherie exempts an over-macho ego, seemingly with a “Tut tut”, a wry smile and a shake of the head. Well, boys will be boys, eh.
He broke the guy’s jaw, you Q ueen’s C retin!