18 year old Muslim immigrant Adil Rashid was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl he met on the internet.
When he went to be sentenced, he told Judge Michael Stokes that he didn’t know it was illegal. He said he attended private Muslim school in Britain and that they had not educated him on British law.
Stokes said that was good enough for him and freed the Rashid with no punishment. TopConservativeNews
Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order, instead of a more normal 5 year prison term. 2
Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law;
Even for a normal well informed citizen, being up to date on all underage sex laws is quite difficult.
Would you know the legal ramification of a 6 year old an and 8 year old playing doctor in your state and the nearest 2 adjacent states or countries? Or of two 25 year olds kissing in Abu Dhabi? Would you know You can have sex with your legal 17 year old wife. But just don’t photograph her! Or else risk 15 years in jail!.
Feminist language abuse has caused such utter confusion like
- Teacher Sex with 14 Year Old: 40 year Prison in USA, Acquittal in Germany
- "Hot for Teacher", Paedogeddon: "Pedophilia" Comedy Videos
besides, his education had taught him to believe that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground”.
This is a very different issue, though feminists might want to confound it. We have great respect of women, so much that we think a 13 year old knows what *consent is, knows to say yes and no. Even more so 17 year old "children" know to say yes or no.
If the fresh-faced Rashid had picked up that view in a madrassa in Karachi it would be profoundly depressing, though not surprising. But the school he attended was in Birmingham, for heaven’s sake! Although it cannot be named for “legal reasons”, the school is voluntary-aided – mainly funded by the taxpayer. At this hugely popular Islamic school, where a majority of pupils are from a Pakistani background, boys and girls are taught in separate classes; a segregation policy no normal comprehensive could get away with.
Again, another issue. Muslim "culture" that does not integrate at all with British culture but remain a parallel culture.
This leads to more serious problems, if Muslim boys that despise inferior women use real non-consensual *rape-rape on young British girls.
Oxford grooming gang: We will regret ignoring Asian thugs who target white girls
What a god-awful mess this country has got itself into over multiculturalism, and once again our fear of racism will lead to the betrayal of hundreds of young girls
Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground”.
If the fresh-faced Rashid had picked up that view in a madrassa in Karachi it would be profoundly depressing, though not surprising. But the school he attended was in Birmingham, for heaven’s sake! Although it cannot be named for “legal reasons”, the school is voluntary-aided – mainly funded by the taxpayer. At this hugely popular Islamic school, where a majority of pupils are from a Pakistani background, boys and girls are taught in separate classes; a segregation policy no normal comprehensive could get away with.
Rashid’s barrister said: “The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community.” So, the defence against a rape charge by a young Muslim living in 21st-century Britain was not just ignorance of the law (which should be no defence at all). It was that the law and, indeed, the values of the wider country, were irrelevant in his Islamic school, even though it was a state institution funded by citizens who would go straight to jail if, for instance, they tried to have sex with a child.
Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail
- Adil Rashid admitted travelling to Nottingham and having sex with the girl
- He met the 13-year-old on Facebook and they communicated by texts and phone for two months before they met
- He was educated in a madrassa and ‘had little experience of women’
- Said he had been taught ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’
- Added he was reluctant to have sex but that he was ‘tempted by [the girl]’
Rashid’s barrister said: “The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community.” So, the defence against a rape charge by a young Muslim living in 21st-century Britain was not just ignorance of the law (which should be no defence at all). It was that the law and, indeed, the values of the wider country, were irrelevant in his Islamic school, even though it was a state institution funded by citizens who would go straight to jail if, for instance, they tried to have sex with a child. Telegraph
Compare another case
She added: ‘The victim said she started to kiss him and that he initially pushed her off.
‘She then tried to kiss him again and he kissed her back before they had sex.’
The court heard that the youngster told her family she had unprotected sex with Arendse.
Defending, David McIntosh claimed that Arendse’s response to finding out the girl’s true age was one of ‘shock’ and he decided to return to London.
He said: ‘She was the one who insisted on following him to London and in his defence he didn’t want her to come with him.’ 5
See also
- Teenagers who aggressively seek sex are always rape victims
- Lower age of consent to 13. Who is in support of Barbara Hewson?
- Pedophilia everywhere, in 1970ies Europe. Green Party Daniel Cohn Bendit’s quagmire
- teenage sexuality (60 posts)
- child sex trauma myth // disclaimer
I agree that the main trauma comes from the societal reaction, and it’s fair to point out that that is probably true even when it comes to toddlers, but you need to show some common sense here as well as logic.
My hands are bound, because I feel compelled to report the scientific truth about sex at young age being non-traumatic when consensual.
And as I see it, if consensual sex of all ages is fairly harmless, then as a corollary, it is obvious that
Which are your arguments.
Now I understand that in today’s panic, my argumentation might, or actually will, backfire
My argument, simplified, reads:
If child sex is harmless, then teen sex and teen photos are harmless.
This is strong impeccable logic, but you are right, in today’s panic it will backfire and not add to your topic, rather detract from it. The logic will not be appreciated, not even taken into consideration.
See, as late as 1988, a minority of serious German politicians campaigned to have child sex laws rescinded. Of course, now these politician are in utter panic and denying everything they said then.
I spent weeks fine tuning my disclaimer, before I dared to voice these issues.
Still I am unwise. But I am a fanatic defender of truth, and academic freedom. So I end up saying things that are unwise.
I obviously accept that feminist’s definition of ‘consent’ is dicey and much abused, but I still have massive problems with the idea of a 5 year old being able to consent to penetrative sex, for example.
An adolescent is a sexual being in a way that a toddler is not.
Also, are you sure the Rind study even looked at toddlers? I always assumed it was looking at teenagers engage in willing sex with older partners. You are at risk of discrediting that study.
And you can pepper your comments with 100 disclaimers, the fact is that if you advocate for the legalisation of sex with toddlers then you are going to destroy any hope of society discussing rationally anything to do with the age of consent and teenage sex, especially within the men’s rights movement.
And again, if you’re going to advocate for the legalisation of sex with babies and toddlers, please don’t come on my site claiming that you don’t have any problem with the age of consent (with a disclaimer at the end of every sentence) and that the ‘real issue’ is the draconian punishments for mistakenly having sex with an underage girl etc.
Call me crazy to believe that people can believe objective scientific research in such issues.
I was surprised by the Rind study (yes it deals with prepubescent children too).
The consent issue takes care of some of the worst issues: well educated, well guarded children rarely consent to sexual activities, also activity that is painful and physically damaging will not gain consent.
That is even valid for post-pubertal adolescent girls: the presence of a watchful father makes well kept girls become pregnant at a later age then neglected girls.
Susan Clancy of my child sex trauma series was a firm believer in conventional wisdom. She was shocked that most adults that answered her ad reported that they did not feel traumatized at the time of the act, only later when they found out how traumatizing it OUGHT to be. And even as adults they feel guilty that they did not feel bad, or even mildly positive about the sexual experience.
So I am in a bind. Should I recommend extreme punishment for something that OBJECTIVELY is not very harmful? Just to satisfy the moral panic?
So it seems to me that minor legal sanctions, to discourage behavior that society deems morally perverted, could be justified.
We also have the issue of parent’s rights. I understand that parents should have a say, the younger the child, the more.
So old age of consent laws that required parental complaints make a lot of sense, They strengthen parent’s rights. But will allow for parental consent if the young teen daughter landed a good marriage prospect.
I think we are in more agreement as it seems.
I fully agree that adolescent post pubertal sexuality is NORMAL, and the reason that humanity still exists.
I also think that parents have certain rights, to prohibit as wall as to consent.
I agree that pre-pubertal sexuality is highly problematic. Not an issue I would fight for, but I have to say that it is a totally overblown panic.
And I can not but accept scientific research, that there does not seem to be much damage when it happens consensually. It is not my fault that every honest researcher arrives at that conclusion. I have to report it honestly, and then ask how we justify draconian laws.
It is discredited. Politically. By congress and senate.
Scientifically, maybe, but that is because no self respecting scientist can do research that would back the Rind study.
It certainly looked at pre-pubertal children.
I have not looked into the issues of toddlers, of children that are under 6 or so and clueless about life in general. But it seems there is no damage exactly because they are clueless. And, of course, they will never consent to activities that are physically painful.
All readers of this site are invited to come over to http://theantifeminist.com
Please feel free to comment there.
Not sure what you are saying here Human-Stupidity.
‘having sex with a consenting female of any age is not a crime’…..’the age of consent should be scrapped’.
Are you really saying that having sex with willing 5 year olds should not be a crime? Or are you assuming that 5 year olds can’t consent? In that case, why are you calling for the age of consent to be scrapped alltogether?
And why do you repeatedly come on my blog criticising myself and other commentators for simply questioning the high age of consent, with big clumsy disclaimers on your part that the age of consent is not the issue (in your opinion) but the draconian punishments?
I myself was shocked and surprised to know that science had found that no damage can be found when children of normal intelligence engage in consensual sexual activities. (Rind Study child sex trauma myth ). This is so shocking, even more so in today’s climate, that I always feel compelled to link to this disclaimer
I am sorry that science does not support sex hysteria at all. Not even with 5 year olds. It is not my fault. I just report the truth. Because saying the truth is so shocking, I feel compelled to always link to this Disclaimer.
You, the antifeminist yourself mention that the main trauma is not the *consensual sex "abuse", but the shocked reaction of society and the law. And that is even true for 5 year olds. Disclaimer
As late as 1988, important German politicians have espoused anti-authoritarian education, children’s rights to self determination, and planned to de-criminalize *consensual non-violent adult-child sex. Disclaimer
Causing Fetal alcohol syndrome, parental alienation, obesity (child food porn) are much more pervasive, dangerous, and are not criminalized.
I understand there is lots of discussion as to what the appropriate age of consent. Mine is a clear position: none is needed.
There is no scientific reason to have any age of consent laws, because there is no serious damage caused by sexuality at any age. On the other hand, I understand that society wants to outlaw behaviors for moral reason, though there is no scientific need for such proscription. Like eating horse meat, or dog meat, for example.
Hence, if society decides to bother the justice and prison system with outlawing non-dangerous behaviors, I suggest the penalties should be low.
So it seems you think there should be punishment for 100% *consensual fiddling with 5 year olds. I suggest the punishment should not be draconian.
The same, if society decides, without logical scientific reason, to outlaw sex of 35 year olds with 17 year olds, maybe the punishment should be like a traffic ticket. Repeat offenders could get a few days in jail. For good honest law abiding people like you and me, 1 day prison sentence is a serious deterrent.
AOC was raised a few years back (here), and the justification was to make it easier to convict people pimping young teens. For that purpose, I support AOC laws.
The problem, obviously, is that the AOC is now Age of Competence whereby they can’t even decide for themselves whether to give consent where pimping, drugs, force, or other coercion is not a factor. That is crap. The age difference alone is irrelevant ; age-appropriate teens are just as capable of rape as anyone and they have far more opportunity (and the statistics prove it).
If sex is not traumatic for 5 year olds, then by corollary, it is not dangerous for 15 year olds.
So all the antifeminist’s activity to legalize postpubertal adolescent sexuality is an obvious consequence, if child sex is inoffensive Disclaimer
Since when are you referring to consensual sex as “child rape” just because a Muslim did it? Not surprised Jew Among Me hates Muslims, Israel and the Jews want war with them, which is why we are over there in the first place.
Don’t be fooled by dirty Jews and their Islam hatred. Having sex with a consenting female of any age is not a crime.
This is PC squared. PC twice.
First of all, Yes means No, consensual sex with a minor is rape. Everyone already understood that, only you and me are still baffled.
And second, Muslims have special rights and privileges. And this time “Muslim” trumped “rape definition”. The judge understood it as consensual sex. People even forgave him the absolute misogynous attitude.
It is strange, whenever it is convenient people actually REMEMBER the OLD rape definition. If the guy had been white, if he were a 15 year old boy who also had no sex law education, a normal 15 year old boy who did not know that boinking a more then willing chick is rape: everyone would call it “rape”, like in the case of the guy who got 3 weeks in prison for “rape”.
Logic and consistency seem not to exist in PC.
Similarly, when women “rape” a poor willing 16 year old “child”, suddenly we revert to the OLD rape definition, and call it an “affair”.
PC is not hampered by make patriarchic logic.
it is, you know. We two agree it should not be, but that is only us.
And I don’t know if I have any support by anyone saying that Age of Consent should be scrapped completely. That is the only way to avoid discussion what the right age is.
Note the Disclaimer!
Read our text about the pedophile discussion regarding German politicians who wanted to legalize consensual adult child sex, as late as 1988. Now this haunts them. We will write more about that.
We are the only voice who does not attack them but says: Maybe they were right.
It is funny, that was when they fought to legalize gay sex. Gay sex became protected and coddled, consensual child sex was redefined as a logical impossibility and worst crime
Disclaimer
I just discuss that it should not be a crime. I don’t say that parents should accept this and not saying that this sexuality should be promoted.
This case is ridiculous on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start. You did a pretty good job of it though.