Here's a judge that got taken of a case, a divorce case involving the rich Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid al-Fawaz:
... Mr Justice Singer, a family division judge, had said during the private hearing that the sheikh could choose "to depart on his flying carpet" to escape paying costs.
The judge also said the man should be available to attend hearings "at this, I think, relatively fast-free time of the year".
The court of appeal said the judge had said the sheikh should be in court so "every grain of sand is sifted", and called his evidence "a bit gelatinous ... a bit like Turkish Delight"....
The judge tried apologizing:
"My comments were poorly chosen. They were not intended to be racist, nor have I ever intended any disrespect or disregard for the tenets of Islam, or for the Sheikh's Saudi nationality and Arab ethnicity.
"My judicial work and public speeches clearly demonstrate that I am in no sense racist."
Apparently not. Singer put some élan and comedy into his remarks, but that's no excuse. If you want to horse around, don't be a judge.
Posts
10 comments:
Clearly, the judge should not have said those things.
That said, imagine what it's like to be a Saudi wife, knowing that your husband can "replace" with you a younger, prettier model (or two or three), if he can afford it, and cast you off into the shadows.
Of course, your job opportunities are rather limited, and you can't drive yourself home to mother. And, of course, you're probably living in your mother-in-law's home, which makes life even more fun.
And since slavery was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1964-65, it's not unusual for imported maids to be treated like slaves. So imagine how lots of wives get treated.
Finally, while I'm on my high horse, notice that King Abdullah recently gave the Pope a sword. Hmm. The sword appears on the Saudi flag underneath the Muslim creed and symbolizes evangelism by armed conquest. I mean, can you imagine a Christian leader giving a weapon as a gift?
I don't see it as being problematic that a judge tries to inject a certain amount of wit into an opinion; perhaps Singer went too far (and presumably therefore failed to accomplish the goal of wit in judicial opinions), to the point where his impartiality could perhaps be questioned. But for sake of argument, how's this is different to Judge Easterbrook's summary of a case decided earlier this week (U.S. v. Partridge) wherein he described the defendant's motives as "mak[ing] life hard for the revenooers"? That, too, seems designed to mock and belittle a litigant. What's the difference - is it just that Easterbrook's joke is funny while Singer's falls flat?
Lastly, I thought George's last para was rather good - one can imagine the reaction if Bush presented the President of Iran with a (purely ceremonial, you understand, draw no inference) Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Doesn't a judge have the right to let off steam in this fairly benign manner? If a judge can't fend off insanity by yucking it up every now and then isn't his judgemanship apt to go awry?
Forget apologizing. Go into rehab.
Simon- Wouldn't it be an entirely ceremonial gift if there were no rabbits in Iran?
The judge probably shouldn't have said those thing, but if your going to do an improper thing, shouldn't it be funnier?
You're. Sorry.
There is a little confusion, because if you read the article, the divorce case involves yet another dumb Brit who married a wealthy Muslim - but the guy is Egyptian. Somehow, the Saudi Sheikh is involved as a 3rd Party.
The UK is hypersensitive about PC, especially the liberal democratic party and the left wing of labour. They believe in the curative powers of multi-culti and continually apologizing to perpetually outraged, offended, and aggrieved radical Muslim activists.
Peace and appeasement through the power of groveling and turn-the-other cheekism - I guess.
That said, Queens Counsel Singer looks like he went over the line, even by our less PC society in America's standards. Imagine if a black woman was a 3rd party in a US Family Law case and being difficult to get in court. Would we accept the judge joking about opening a watermelon and setting out fried chicken to drive her to fire up her pimped-out 20 year old Cadillac to drive herself to court?
******************
George - Finally, while I'm on my high horse, notice that King Abdullah recently gave the Pope a sword. Hmm. The sword appears on the Saudi flag underneath the Muslim creed and symbolizes evangelism by armed conquest. I mean, can you imagine a Christian leader giving a weapon as a gift?
Nice catch, George. I missed that story. After John Paul II avoided anything but groveling apologies to Muslims after standing up to the Commies - Benedict is very refreshing about having open dialogue in which both parties are honest, and seeking recoprocity. King Abullah is a pretty good guy as well - he has been very straight on what issues and policies divide Islam from the West, and also about Islamic states needing to modernize and expand certain rights. His constructive Peace Plan - hated by terrorists, Zionists, and US right-wingers - is the most logical conclusion to the Israel-Palestine mess.
Abdullah's sword is a wonderful gift. An honest statement that the sword is part of Islam. An honest statement and gift of reciprocation by the Pope would be a book on the travels of certain distinguished Christian missionaries - that were soldiers as youths but then went as unarmed
missionaries into strange lands because they recognized that the purest way to have someone embrace Christianity is voluntarily through Free Will.
Such a counter gift reminds Muslims that once they dispose of pabulum-puking, craven "weakness is holy" Christian pacifists - they find the remaining Christians will resist slaughter and Dhimmitude fiercely. And that Christianity's peaceful veneer and lip service to non-resistance masks lethal steel underneath. The story of Christian warriors turned into peaceful advocates is a good lesson for Abdullah and Saudi clerics. They know the other side of the story - when militant Islam presses, and presses - next thing you know - you've got Turks, Mongols, Crusaders, or Americans in your back yards.
If you want to horse around, don't be a judge.
Yeah, if you want horse around, join the commentariat.
That stupid ass of a judge. As it is noted that Mohammed had red hair, I state that he had Celtic ancestry -and I say that he was "one of us". As people of Celtic ancestry constitute one of the largest national/ethnic componants of the USA -including many of its greatest warriors and politicians- I think the judge was an incompetent fool, playing with facts and prejudices of which he has no real knowledge. However as to women, I'll help him out. See below:
Women love conversation...words even more than actual sex, many times. Men are the opposite...that orgasm is the key. Appropos of that, I re-post a previous post:
"breast-beating hysteria" ? I love all womens breasts -and,of course,vaginas, for that is where the real pleasure/elevation to "God" lies. But I am, unavoidably, first attracted to big natural breasts (and I can tell the difference with near unerring accuracy...especially when I see them swing -or not- when she bends over...). But all women's breasts always have something fascinating about them...even the little ones.
9:45 PM
tc said... I got so excited thinking about women's breasts, I forgot to post this:
jewsyonkersislam # 440 Address on Yonkers schools to Yonkers Board of Education and supporting newspaper documentation (see jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com
Don't tell Revenant I'm here, please.
Post a Comment