Irish Judges-soft touches for immigrants

pete

Delboy05 wrote:

operation!!!!!! with a razor blade....please....

what would you suggest be used? a blunt butterknife?

note to those on high horses: male circumcision is generally not considered "genital mutilation".

Laumann et al. (1997) used data from the National Health and Social Life Survey.1 That survey questioned men who were born from 1932 through 1971. Laumann reported that the overall incidence of circumcision in U.S. born men was 77 percent - ranging from a low of about 31 percent in 1932 to a high of about 85 percent in 1965 and declining to about 77% in the last year of the survey.

The 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000) found that 15.8 percent of British males aged 16 to 44 reported being circumcised. The incidence of circumcision was highest in the men aged 40-44 at 19.6 percent [born 1956-60] and lowest in the group aged 16-19 [born 1981-84] at 11.7 percent.

But it's no skin off my nose.

Captain Trips

Wicknight wrote:

Judges will also reduce sentences if they believe that a particular person has cooperated and will have an exceptionally hard time in a prision, for what ever reason. A foreign national, especially a black foreign national, will have a harder time in an Irish prision than an Irish person. Thats just the way it is.

Says who? Where are the studies showing black people get worse "treatment" in prisons compared to Irish people? That's just hypothetical PC nonsense.

A crime was committed and the sentence was lower than that what would be for me simply because I am not black.

So to ensure fair treatment of prisoners and no special treatment, surely there should be special black-only prisons - which is the logical conclusion of giving him a reduced sentence, as opposed to say, letting him out into the public community earlier.

Freelancer

John Doe wrote:

I've always thought this, and I'm glad it's actually been acknowledged. Could you point me towards the Cory report please?

Google the Cory report and Myers, Myers made claim that there was colusion between Dundalk Garda and the IRA which led to the murder of senior RUC men, he was later under criminal investigation forced to admit his conclusions were based on speculation, and hypothesis , and he would not consider writing them as facts "today".

Also, nobody here knows why this man got a reduced sentence. We do know, however, that there are plenty of reasons to reduce a sentence in drugs cases, most of which can't then be announced. So this probably isn't about giving black people preferential treatment.

Yup thats what were saying.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote:

What nonsense. Judges reduce sentences for "natives" all the bloody time, especially if they plead guilty and cooperate with the police. It is standard practice.

You seem to think that because he is a black Nigerian we should throw the entire book at him. I think that shows more your prejudice than the irish Judicial system.

Not if this is true - this is the very type of thing that is breeding racism in Ireland. Imagine if the words 'black Nigerian man' were used under different circumstances. It's this type of positive discrimination in favour of immigrants (and particularly CRIMINAL immigrants - which is what he is) which is maddening people.:mad:

Freddie59

Freelancer wrote:

You call that manslaughter the DPP call it reckless endangerment. You're not the DPP, so I think their opinion of what the crime was carries a tad more weight than yours.

Have you ever considered that there would be a moral description of this heinous crime or act? The DPP are not infallible you know.

Hobbes

Delboy05 wrote:

'make up a claim'.....how condescending and petty can you get.

Reading is not your strong point. I said "make a claim", not make up a claim.

I am not calling you a liar either. However your links are inaccessible to the majority here.

If you are looking for links for sun/mirror.
Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/
Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/
(though I wouldn't call the Sun+Mirror bastions of the media as replacements).

All I am asking you to do is to look at the news report yourself, as you appear to be able and just copy out the names of the parties involved or a paragraph from the start. This is more then enough to start googling for other reports on it. I tried last night based on your original post and could find nothing. So I would be intrested in reading the story.

Hobbes

Ok I can get to your unison court case story. Quite sad, however that report is from October of last year and said the trial was still ongoing. Do you have any update regarding this court case? I can't believe this guy (or the parents for that matter) would of been let off.

Still looking for report on your original post though.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

Ok I can get to your unison court case story. Quite sad, however that report is from October of last year and said the trial was still ongoing. Do you have any update regarding this court case? I can't believe this guy (or the parents for that matter) would of been let off.

Still looking for report on your original post though.

I can.

Zombrex

Delboy05 wrote:

you see...certain people here argue,shout, put you down, take the high moral gorund and they don't even know the basic facts of the argument they're defending.........the kid was a BOY. not a GIRL.

As i said I'm not very familar with the case... Silly me for assuming when constitutionus said this was genital mutilation (something that is largely carried out against women in Africa, designed to do anything from scare the woman so no man will want her to prevent her from having children) he wasn't actually talking about a girl... he was talking about a boy, getting a standard circumcision... silly me :rolleyes:

Delboy05 wrote:

Would I, a culchie, get a year off my sentence if i was going to jail 'cos it's full of dubs? No I would'nt.

I doubt it, and you wouldn't get a year off your sentence if you had blonde hair and were going into a prision full of black haired men.

You would probably get time taken off your sentence though if the judge had a valid cause for concern about the time you would spend in prision. But then it would be up to the judge. He might just not like you very much.

How about you sell some drugs and we see what happens...

Delboy05 wrote:

but here is a man getting a year off because he's a "black nigerian man in an Irish jail". So yes, the Judge did treat him differently than a "native" as you say above.

As soon as you present any evidence that judges are not lenient on sentencing to Irish people I will listen to your point Delboy about Judges being unfair to "native" people.

So far all you have is your rather ill-informed views on judges and lack of understand of how the Irish legal system works. Hardly a convincing argument now is it.

Hobbes

Freddie59 wrote:

I can.

You can what?

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

Not if this is true - this is the very type of thing that is breeding racism in Ireland. Imagine if the words 'black Nigerian man' were used under different circumstances. It's this type of positive discrimination in favour of immigrants (and particularly CRIMINAL immigrants - which is what he is) which is maddening people.:mad:

Its not possitive discrimination, Judges have to right and responsibility to be lenient in certain cases. "Native" Irish white criminals are always having sentences reduced, for a wide wide range of reasons. You can argue "special treatment" in all of these cases. But when a black man gets this special treatment, especially a Nigerian, well that just ain't on is it.

As far as I can see, and taking Delboys assessment of the case at face value (haven't read the article in question) the Judge in this case believed this person would have an acceptionally hard time in the prision he was being sent to because he was a foriegn national and a different skin colour.

Do you agree or disagree with the Judges assessment? Do you think this guy would not have had a harder than normal time in prision?

Zombrex

Captain Trips wrote:

Says who?

The Judge, obviously ..

The_Minister

I have great respect for Kevin Myers. He is funny, wiity and takes a different slant on things.

Dyr

Wicknight wrote:

What nonsense. Judges reduce sentences for "natives" all the bloody time, especially if they plead guilty and cooperate with the police. It is standard practice.

Judges dont reduce sentences for natives because they're from Sutton and wouldnt really fit in with the prison population, which is what seems to have happened here.

Sounds like a smokescreen to me. Guy probably co-operated with the cops and ratted out his supplier or customers, so for that reason he received a reduced sentence. In addition, if he co-operated, possibly naming Irish people, part of any intelligent deal would be to spend as little time as possible in this country.

Linky? or is that all in the realms of pure speculation? Call me naive but when a judge stands up in a court of law and says he's reducing someones sentence due to his nationailty i believe he's not telling porkies

it doesnt seem to me that the poster is very concered about the soft sentences of all drug crimes. if this was the case he would be posting everyday about all the criminals who get off lightly. what pisses this guy off is the fact that he was black.

Different things get different peoples goat. Some people here get hot under the collar about IRA murders but never seem to mention loyalist murders, it's their perogative what they post. Interesting to see how many people implied that Delboy was motivated by racism in posting this. The old race card is a great way to stifle a debate.

:v: < kick racism out of sentencing!!

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I have great respect for Kevin Myers. He is funny, wiity and takes a different slant on things.

That's nice, utterly irrelevant but nice. The Cory report proves he pretty much fabricated evidence about Dundalk Garda. While his sniveling backpeddling about "not meaning to offend" over the "bastards" incident last year (when he clearly and unequivable was trying to offend) makes me loath the man.

Freddie59 wrote:

Have you ever considered that there would be a moral description of this heinous crime or act? The DPP are not infallible you know.

Jesus henious crime? Moral description?

Say it again. He commited this with the consent of the parents and post trial, stated clearly that'd he'd prefer the health boards to offer circumision to children in hosiptial.

Delboy05 wrote:

you see...certain people here argue,shout, put you down, take the high moral gorund and they don't even know the basic facts of the argument they're defending.........the kid was a BOY. not a GIRL.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant delboy, constitionious was trying to muddy the waters talking about female circumision.

operation!!!!!! with a razor blade....please....

Again what should he have used? As pointed out in the post trial he said he'd prefer if the "operation" or "procedure" was available in hospitials.

The rest of your posts are the same mismash of mispresenting what others are saying.

However I'll ask you again where do you think "this country is going" You made this claim and refused to elaborate in any real manner, and it's the point of your Original post, if you continue to post on this thread, I'll continue to ask this question.......

Zombrex

Bambi wrote:

Judges dont reduce sentences for natives...

They would if they had a genuine concern. It happens all the time.

Look, a lot of people might disagree that this person would have a hard time in prision, but then thats the judge's call. A lot of people think that the Nally case the judge was too lenient. A lot of people think Wayne O'Donoghue sentence was far to lenient.

If someone wants to argue that this man will not recieve any harder a time in jail because he is a non-national and African thats fine. Personally I would tend to trust the Judge that he knows what he is talking about in this case, but judges can make stupid decisions like anyone can.

But the bit where the discussion turns to nonsense ranting is when someone tries to use this case to show how the "liberal" justice system is actually prejudice against "native" (I assume that means white) Irish people.

As I have said a few times, judges make lenient sentencing calls to (white) Irish people on a day to day basis, for a wide range of reasons.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote:

Do you agree or disagree with the Judges assessment? Do you think this guy would not have had a harder than normal time in prision?

100% DISAGREE. Personally I don't agree with ANY criminal having a sentence reduced (unless it's proven that the person was victimised in some way). Whether he/she is black/white/yellow/red is irrelevant. The issue of how hard a time he/she has in prison is also irrelevant - prison is supposed to be a DETERRENT - the harder the time the better - for ALL of them.

I note that you avoided commenting on as to what the reaction what be if the term 'black Nigerian man' was used elsewhere. I think 'racism' (that well-worn term) would be the cry.

Freddie59

Freelancer wrote:

He commited this with the consent of the parents and post trial, stated clearly that'd he'd prefer the health boards to offer circumision to children in hosiptial

And that makes it right? Let's say I travel to another country and commit an offence against an infant. I bet you that both I and the parents would be prosecuted (and rightly so). I'll also bet you won't see the regulations changed to accommodate me.

constitutionus

Freelancer wrote:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant delboy, constitionious was trying to muddy the waters talking about female circumision.

excuse me? where did i say "female" taking a razor to someones genetals is genital mutilation, its fairly self evident. be it male or female is irrelevant. particularly if i need remind you again the kid died. you accused me of scaremongering, well if having your kid die at the hands of an unregulated practice conducted by quaks doest scare you then you need to re evaluate your priorities

freelancer wrote:

Again what should he have used? .

a scalpal? in the presence of a nurse or health care professional such as a surgeon or doctor? in a hospital or clinic enviroment? is this too hard to comprehend?

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

100% DISAGREE. Personally I don't agree with ANY criminal having a sentence reduced

Well there you go, you have an issue with all reduced sentences. Throw the book at them so to speak. Thats fair enough, but since the race of the criminal is irrelevant to that position, and since its established that white "natives" get reduced sentences too, and you are equally opposed to that, then this isn't an issue of race or immigration as Delboy seemed to want to turn it into, now is it.

Freddie59 wrote:

I note that you avoided commenting on as to what the reaction what be if the term 'black Nigerian man' was used elsewhere.

I "avoided" commenting on it because I have no idea what you want me to say.

Without any idea of the context of "elsewhere" is I can't answer that question. Do you mean in a immigration news letter or on a flyer for a neo-Nazi rally?

Simply saying 'black Nigerian man' isn't racist.

Terry

ok, so the guy has his sentence reduced from ten years to two years. what is going to happen in those ten years that couldn't happen in two? this kind of action will only result in even more hatred from Irish prisoners. if it was reduced because he revealed others involved, then surely they could have given a better reason fro shortening his sentence. i would rather do ten years than have my sentence reduced to two because i'm a black nigerian. he'll get a kicking regardless.
i think it was quite stupid of the judge to reduce the sentence on the grounds that the man was black and nigerian. will all black nigerian criminals have their sentences reduced in this way? you know that this will set a precedent. the judge has already given this as a valid reason for reducing a sentence and any solicitor worth his salt will use this in defence of every black nigerian client they take on.

also, circumcising a child is wrong. it should be up to the person getting the circumcision to decide whether it is done or not and ritual circumcision will not wash on this island. that is, in and of itself child abuse. think of the pain these children go through. leave your archaic practices behind you if you want to live here.

Zombrex

constitutionus wrote:

taking a razor to someones genetals is genital mutilation, its fairly self evident.

And taking a knife to someone nose in a plastic surgery clinic in Dublin 4 is technially facial mutliation.

What this case didn't involve is "genital mutilation" as understood as a form of assult very common in parts of Africa and Asia especially done to young women to prevent them having sexual relations and children, which many refugees flee from.

You seemed to be tring to link that form of genital mutilation to this case, when in fact no link exists as far as I can (now) see.

I can only assume you were trying to show some form of hypocracy amoung African immigrants, though this point was largely lost to me once it because clear that this case had nothing to do with any form of assault on the young boy.

constitutionus

Wicknight wrote:

And taking a knife to someone nose in a plastic surgery clinic in Dublin 4 is technially facial mutliation.

What this case didn't involve is "genital mutilation" as understood as a form of assult very common in parts of Africa and Asia especially done to young women to prevent them having sexual relations and children, which many refugees flee from.

You seemed to be tring to link that form of genital mutilation to this case, when in fact no link exists as far as I can (now) see.

I can only assume you were trying to show some form of hypocracy amoung African immigrants, though this point was largely lost to me once it because clear that this case had nothing to do with any form of assault on the young boy.

first off you wouldnt use a knife youd use a scalpal, in an operating theatre with a complete medical team and if you died on the table and it turned out i didnt have a medical liscense id go to jail.

and exactly how is what happened to that boy different to what happens to girls in africa? he died, correct me if im wrong but you seem to be making assumptions about the procedure involved. im open to correction but in all the time we've had a jewish community in this country ive never heard of a kid dying at a bris (please correct me if im wrong, im not au fait on that issue)
IMO there was something incredibly dodgy about that whole case.

Zombrex

constitutionus wrote:

and exactly how is what happened to that boy different to what happens to girls in africa?

Its like asking whats the difference between rape and making love is.

I suggest you read up on genital mutilation if you can't see the difference.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote:

Well there you go, you have an issue with all reduced sentences. Throw the book at them so to speak. Thats fair enough, but since the race of the criminal is irrelevant to that position, and since its established that white "natives" get reduced sentences too, and you are equally opposed to that, then this isn't an issue of race or immigration as Delboy seemed to want to turn it into, now is it.

But it is. Imagine if the judge had done the opposite and said that he was jailing him for an extra two years BECAUSE he was a black Nigerian Man who should not have been involved in this kind of crime in a country where he is 'seeking asylum'. I'm sure 'racist' would have been cried then.

Wicknight wrote:

I "avoided" commenting on it because I have no idea what you want me to say.

Without any idea of the context of "elsewhere" is I can't answer that question. Do you mean in a immigration news letter or on a flyer for a neo-Nazi rally?

Simply saying 'black Nigerian man' isn't racist.

I think I've covered that above.;)

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote:

And taking a knife to someone nose in a plastic surgery clinic in Dublin 4 is technially facial mutliation.

For God's sake...........a licenced medical clinic with licenced staff, where adults go of their own free will......versus.......????

Freelancer

Freddie59 wrote:

And that makes it right? Let's say I travel to another country and commit an offence against an infant. I bet you that both I and the parents would be prosecuted (and rightly so). I'll also bet you won't see the regulations changed to accommodate me.

What regulations are you suggesting were changed? The fact is he commited an act with the consent of the parents or guardians.

xcuse me? where did i say "female" taking a razor to someones genetals is genital mutilation, its fairly self evident. be it male or female is irrelevant. particularly if i need remind you again the kid died. you accused me of scaremongering, well if having your kid die at the hands of an unregulated practice conducted by quaks doest scare you then you need to re evaluate your priorities

No you claimed that he was commiting the exact act that people were fleeing africans countries from. I corrected you that no female gential multilation was something women were fleeing from, and for you to suggest this was allowing someone to commit an act which people were claiming asylum from, was simply scarmongering. Which is incidently what you are still doing. In your Helen Lovejoy "Oh won't someone please think of the children mode"

a scalpal? in the presence of a nurse or health care professional such as a surgeon or doctor? in a hospital or clinic enviroment? is this too hard to comprehend?

Theres two points here. One rabbi's commit this act without being a health care professional in this country, and the man after being aquitted stated that he'd prefer that the Health board covered this. By the sounds of it, its a failure of the health board not the man who commited the surgery.

shuushh

are rabbis legally allowed to carry out circumcision in Ireland without being licensed ?

i was under the assumption that this was a procedure that was available through surgery in a hospitial aswell ?

Flex

Freelancer wrote:

Theres two points here. One rabbi's commit this act without being a health care professional in this country, and the man after being aquitted stated that he'd prefer that the Health board covered this. By the sounds of it, its a failure of the health board not the man who commited the surgery.

In Jewish circumcisions, a specially trained person called a Mohel conducts the circumcision. A Mohel's sole purpose is to carry out circumcisions and he is specifically trained to do so.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/12-Kids/section-4.html

....The infant is given a little wine, and the ritual is performed by a specially trained Mohel, whose sole function is to perform circumcisions.

Traditionally, the father is supposed to perform the Brit. As most fathers do not have the appropriate training, a Mohel performs the Brit. It is customary, that if possible, a Mohel will perform his first Brit on his own son - under the supervision of an experienced accredited Mohel (his teacher).....

......often, the Mohel is a practicing M.D...

So that isnt a fair comparison really.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

But it is. Imagine if the judge had done the opposite and said that he was jailing him for an extra two years BECAUSE he was a black Nigerian Man who should not have been involved in this kind of crime in a country where he is 'seeking asylum'. I'm sure 'racist' would have been cried then.

You seem to not understand what the term "racist" actually means.

If this Judge had said this man will commit more crimes in the future, and should recieve a harsher sentence, because he is a black man and as we all know all black men are criminals, that would be racist

Equally, if this judge had said this man is harmless, he will not commit any more crimes in the future, because he is a black man and as we all know all black men are nice law abiding people, that would be equally racist.

Saying this man will have a harsher time in prision, and possibly recieve racist treatment in an prision, because he is black and and because he is a Nigerian, is not a racist statement since it is making no judgement at all about the person himself based on his race.

It would not be racist statement to say that in 1955 a black man would probably not be welcome in a dinner in Alabama, or not welcome to ride up in the front of the bus in Carolina, because he is a black man.

It would not be a racist satement to say that in 1980 a black man would find it hard to get a job in South Africa as a banker or doctor or Prime Minster of the country, because he is a black man.

Now you might not agree that a black Nigerian is going to have any harsher a time in an Irish prision than anyone else. Obviously the judge disagrees, and he acted accordingly, as Judges do every day of the year in and out with "native" Irish people. And a lot of those decissions people disagree with or think are too lenient.

But there is no racism going on here, positive or otherwise. As far as I can see no statement on the individual himself has been made with regard to stereotypes of his race.

Freddie59 wrote:

I think I've covered that above.;)

Not in the slightest...