Oh, I can’t let this one pass.
Saudi Ehsan Abdulaziz was just tried on a rape charge in London. The alleged victim, an 18 year-old woman, says that she woke up to find him having sex with her. Supporting her accusation, traces of his semen were found in her vagina.
But wait! He can explain!
Abdulaziz says he met two women at a West End nightclub and took them both to his room, where they continued to drink. He had sex with one of the women; the other, the eventual accuser, fell asleep on the couch. Abdulaziz testified that he went into the room to see if she needed anything and she drunkenly pulled at him. He lost his balance and fell on her. His penis accidentally slipped into her, he guesses, and the semen found in the woman’s vagina must have been a left-over from the earlier sex with her friend. “I’m fragile, I fell down,” he told the jury, “but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl.”
The jury acquitted him in 30 minutes.
Ethics Alarms 
Maybe Britain is just quietly converting to Sharia to avoid bloodshed.
The woman needed 4 other witnesses.
Wouldn’t sharia give him the axe for drinking?
It’s a transitional thing. It’s in an interim thing…?
Work with my sarcasm here!
Come on!
Of course I’m sure sharia would gladly forgive the sins of a man for the opportunity to smack down women a little bit more.
Only if you Humpty Dumpty it so sharia means only what you want it to mean. Rigid religious based systems for controlling the populace save their exceptions for the clergy. That’s how authoritarianism works, if it’s religious it benefits the priests, if it’s secular it benefits the kings.
Which brings us back to the quote attributed to Jean Meslier
You get 100 Marshall brownie points for the Through the Looking Glass reference, one of my favorites.
But what do you call the name of this blog?
Ah! The name of this blog is called “The Windmill Delusion.”
Though you hate trendy Internet abbreviations, I can at least let you know that this is the first time *I* have ever used the abbreviation
“censored”since I began using the Internet as a dumb high schooler in 1996.Ok never mind. I won’t use the abbreviation:
Just understand that that made me engage in audible mirth.
Of the valorous Jack Marshall’s success in the dreadful and never before imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with other events worthy of happy record.
I have, however, wondered why the adjective is pronounced kwik-zotic when it ought to be pronounced kee-ho-tay-otic.
Brit speak. See, eg., “Don Ju-Ann” rather than “Don Whan.” I’m not making that up. Using NPR pronunciation of foreign words, particularly names, is verboten in Britain. They do it with French of course. “Jacque” is always just “Jack.” “Jean” always “Gene.” Just listen to the Brits announce a Formula One race. Hilarious. It really is thinly disguised cultural superiority.
You do know of course, that in the darkest of darkness, that a match, the smallest of burning objects, can be seen by the naked eye at 20 miles distant?
That’s over 100,000 feet.
That’s illuminating.
Can those be cashed in for friendship bracelets and candy like skeeball tickets?
When you have a thousand, you can get a free use of one rationalization.
#21.
Erm….I’m not sure if you checked recently or not….but sharia IS authoritarianism and in plenty of muslim countries the “wealthy” (read as this type of Saudi douche) are seen as kings (read as Sheiks)
Religious authoritarianism.
In Islam, reigion IS politics.
When is religion ever not political?
This is a question of who holds the power over the other, the kings or the priests. Both being convenient terms for English speakers. We can call them shielks and imams. You’re positing that Abdulaziz is a king, I’m saying that laws that come from the priests don’t put kings over them, It’s gods over kings and who’s conveniently there to represent the local god?
If you made an exception for the rich guy people might start thinking he’s in charge and listen to him over the priests.
It’s a question of who’s on the top rung and who’s on the second rung (third rung for bureaucrats.)
I really don’t think you understand just how interwoven it is in Islam. You really can’t analyze this with the western dichotomy of church vs state.
Unfortunately you really can’t. The West had the Thirty Years’ War which created the separation of church and state. Islamic society had no such watershed, ALTHOUGH Turkey made a pretty good separation between the two.
I think you overlook how militant members of other religions can be. From people who want the bible in schools and demand things their religion forbids be illegal for that reason. From militant Buddhists in southeast Asia who want to see all Muslims dead to countries outlawing contraceptives and condoms because the pope says they’re wrong. Uganda is 85% christian and passed laws to execute homosexuals.
Here’s the right-left divide. The right says we (the left) love Islam, we don’t love it, we don’t even like it. As a Jew living in this culture, I just don’t see a difference (And the bible isn’t particularly woman-friendly, Paul was a dick.) We’re prepared to let them do anything Christians are allowed to do because that’s fair. Seeing the right get all up in arms, it’s satisfying, it’s schadenfreude, it exposes hypocrisy. Now if they would just figure out the easiest way to keep Islam out of schools would be to stop pushing Christianity into them and instead stand for a strict interpretation of the establishment clause…
So there’s your answer. Anywhere you want to stop Islam, push to keep all religion away from that place, make that your argument. Not Islam doesn’t belong here, religion doesn’t belong here. When you target one that’s bigotry, as a good little SJW I have to say stop picking on them, when you tell them all to go back to their respective corners and leave schools, or laws, or the grounds of public buildings alone, that’s promoting constitutional principals and we can stand together.
I wonder how much a London juror costs? That’s clearly what happened here.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. I’m trying to recall some of the acquittals I’ve read about coming from Europe and they were…odd…to say the least.
But whatever, European justice often allows for double jeopardy. I wouldn’t call that a great system of justice…maybe a fair to middling. But great?
And yes the double jeopardy is unrelated to this post. It’s just an example.
Wouldn’t this case have been tried to a judge, like so many in the U.K?
I can think of one rational explanation.
That part of the world has a lot of cousin marriages. The rate of Intersex conditions due to genetic anomalies is pretty darned high.
The key is the 20 minutes of private evidence… he may not have had a penis in the usual sense, and his story may actually be true. Now if he was genitally lacking, then it’s not something that any man would want bruted about in open court, and it would also explain why the jury was so quick to return a Not Guilty verdict.
I could be taking 2+2 and making 79 million, but everything fits too well for this possibility to be dismissed unconsidered.
Well. It makes more sense than the way most people read it.
It’s either that or shenanigans… but you never know.
One lawyer in London did manage to persuade the court in 2008 that even though the defendant had stolen the victim’s money, travel card etc and video showed them to be the only ones entering or leaving the victim’s flat at the time of death… the victim must have strangled herself..
Though the victim did have time before expiring to cover her own body and face with a throw-rug
The lawyer in question has since been appointed a circuit court judge – and has proven controversial in that role.
He does look fragile. So sad. Those Middle Eastern men really need a lot of coddling. A whole culture has been formed around keeping them and their fragile savagery protected.
I’m just horrified that savagery has been allowed to consume a supposedly robust civilization in Europe, and is coming soon for ours. It’s not like we haven’t had warnings.
I would have her stoned. Seems like he operates in the best Kennedy tradition.
I see the Bill Cosby activities have worldwide traction.
I have an intelligent question:
WTF?
Good question.
When anyone can offer such a lame excuse for rape- and then be acquitted on its basis!- there can be only one of two explanations. One: That the jury is composed of total imbeciles. Two: That political correctness and appeasement trumps law and reason in the British courts. Both should be chilling to anyone living on those once acclaimed islands.