"The Prison Service last night said it was seeking to ensure the programme was 'sensitive to the diversity of religions within the prison context' ."
Because sensitivity and not getting sued by a prisoner is so much more important than evaluating and attempting to rehabilitate criminals, and preventing future crimes.
"Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment," by Ben Farmer for The Telegraph:
Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.
The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others.
Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups.
Ahtsham Ali said he would now urgently raise the issue with prison policy makers, raising the prospect of an exemption or special rules for Muslim prisoners.
However, union leaders warned that as treatment is used to assess whether prisoners are suitable for early release, Muslims who have to serve longer terms because they did not take part could sue the Prison Service.
Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.
Muslim sex offenders who do not take part in the course may spend more time in prison, experts say.
The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others.
Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups.
Ahtsham Ali said he would now urgently raise the issue with prison policy makers, raising the prospect of an exemption or special rules for Muslim prisoners.
However, union leaders warned that as treatment is used to assess whether prisoners are suitable for early release, Muslims who have to serve longer terms because they did not take part could sue the Prison Service.
The prospect of a dispensation for Muslim prisoners emerged after an unnamed prisoner wrote to a prison magazine asking for clarification of the position of Muslims on the programme.
He wrote: "I have always insisted that it was against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone, let alone act it out within a peer group."
Mr Ali said the issue had been raised before and told Inside Times: "I will be taking it forward as a matter of some urgency with colleagues, including those with policy responsibility for the SOTP programme."
The Prison Service last night said it was seeking to ensure the programme was "sensitive to the diversity of religions within the prison context".
Mark Leech, the editor of the Prisons Handbook, said: "Muslims who don't want to take part in the course may have to spend more time in prison, because their risk of re-offending will not be assessed as part of the treatment programme."
"This would be quite right, because we have to think about the victim."
"I think it is feasible there may be a judicial review so that Muslim sex offenders get a dispensation from the rules."
Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of probation union Napo, described the situation as an "intractable problem".
He said: "The logic is that Muslims cannot take part in offender programmes and therefore their offending behaviour cannot be assessed and they are unlikely to be granted parole."
"They may then seek legal redress through judicial review on the grounds that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of religion."
A spokeswoman for the Prison Service said the programme was suitable for all sex offenders."
She said: "Membership of a particular religion is not a bar to participation in accredited programmes."
"The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others."
How conveeeeeenient.
What is the koranic root of this claim? Anyone know?
Why don't they just get it over with? Give the keys to the muslims and lock up the gaurds.
"...the next stop...the twilight zone."
This is a non-story concocted by The Telegraph on a short-news day. I mean, for heaven's sake, where is the Home Office, the Justice Ministry, the Prime Minister's office, or the spokesmen, and women, for the relevant parliamentary committees - well, nowhere, because this story is a cartload of night-soil invented by journalists to sell papers.
Look at the cast of characters, for God's sake:
The Prison Service's Muslim advisor [whom?]
Ahtsham Ali [whoever the hell he he is, some minor flunkey, no doubt]
union leaders ['nuff said]
an unnamed prisoner [really, how interesting!]
Mark Leech, the editor of the Prisons Handbook [never heard of him, in common with almost everyone else]
Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of probation union Napo [like who cares what these bleeding heart liberals think, or think that they can think for thought, in any rational way, eludes them - as it always has - and who on Earth is he, anyway?]
A spokeswoman for the Prison Service [well, at last, how wonderful. What did she say? Precisely nothing!]
She said nothing for there is nothing to be said. This is a non-story. It's a puff piece. It says more about the appalling state of Telegraphic journalism today than it does about the state of Britain and its sex-laws and its convicted of sex-crimes felons. And they know it.
Weak. Of course it is.
Designed to make you think that Muslims can 'get-away-with-it'. Certainly it is. Maybe they can or maybe they can't. We do not, as yet know - and this piece tells us precisely nothing.
This is just rubbish journalism - and God knows there is enough of that.
There are so darn many things that are un-Islamic, I just can't keep track of them all. Just another such example seems to be taking responsibility, accepting consequences, and leaving "uncovered meat" unmolested.
Obviously, as from surah 4 (Women), sexual offenses in and of themselves are not against their religion.
Simply make a new law! Those who refuse to join the programme should be castrated!
OliverPCamford
Accepting what you post as 100% right, which you may well be, there is a problem here that the Authorities are dodging.
The people at Keithley in Yorkshire had to put up with muslim men grooming schoolgirls for years and the Police doing nothing to avoid damaging “community relations”. The only people to support the parents were the BNP and the local Labour Party promptly accused them of racism. They claimed that not only muslims were targeting the girls therefore by picking on muslims the BNP were racist. But like this story the Labour people never gave details or explained why the Police did not act against the white paedophiles. This was about 7 years ago and story was covered on the BBC but not of course in such detail as to damage community relations. The parents actually had to go to London and see the Home Secretary of the day, David Blunkett of execrable memory. Maybe something was done but I do not believe it involved roundups, prosecutions and prison, I suspect they pleaded with “community leaders” to get their young men to desist but if anyone knows otherwise please say.
This is much what is happening in Blackburn, Lancashire, at the moment where the story was first covered in the Sunday Times and has been the subject of a BBC documentary in the last month. Given the BBC’s sensitivity on these matters and its commitment to our rich multicultural society, when the BBC reports these things the situation has to be pretty bad. The latest on Blackburn was a soft approach with reported meetings of Police, Social Workers and Community Leaders to look at the problem. Then within the last 2/3 weeks we were told representatives of a muslim group said the Police were being oversensitive and should act. As the problem has gone on for years I would guess they are finally going to prosecute or at least stop them so this smells of a damage limitation exercise.
Finally to get back on thread, there may be a hidden story here. I worked with a man who was on the technical staff of a major prison who told me all sex offenders are given a hard time by other cons and child molesters are given a very hard time. My friend said “The screws don’t run ********* Prison the cons do” so they cannot protect these people and they have to ask to be locked in their cells the maximum 23 hours a day. By exempting muslims from treatment programmes – which may only serve to keep social workers in jobs anyway – they are concealing their offences and protecting them from the wrath of the cons?
Just a thought.
OT To lighten up, 30 years ago a TV programme showed a sex offender who volunteered for aversion therapy. They put a wire around his male member and showed him dirty pictures. When he got aroused it closed a circuit and gave him an electric shock. Do they still do this anyone?
This story simply highlights how ridiculous religion is.
The prevailing view seems to be that if you adopt some arbitrary beliefs, which you justify on the grounds that they originated from some unproven divine source, then you have those beliefs respected and pandered to.
The only reason that Muslims are accommodated is because their death cult is 1350 years old. But just because beliefs can be traced back many years does not in any way validate them or prove the existence of their alleged divine source.
Neither does the fact that 1.3 billion people share those beliefs give them any more credence. Once upon a time the majority view was that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
The big difference between a scientific fact - such as the Earth not being the centre of the universe - and a religious belief, is that the non-existence of a deity cannot be proved. This is of course because a negative cannot be proved, which is why defendants in court are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If courts were to insist that defendants prove their innocence, then many completely innocent people would be convicted. How many people can prove that they've never murdered anyone?
Whilst it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God/Allah/Jehovah, the onus should be on those who espouse their existences to prove it.
Therefore, if Muslims want special treatment in prison they must firstly prove the existence of Allah. If they can't prove it then their beliefs are invalid and their wishes should be ignored.
The only reason except they are violent, litigioius, and linked to extremely wealthy political figures.
This sounds more like a potential lawsuit coming up and they want to see what the reaction will be to find out if it stands a chance of winning before it is actually filed.
And the Telegraph is not the only paper to run this story.
Oh, great.
Another smug smart-ass athiest telling us that religion is the problem.
I'm opting out for the day.
Enjoy.
But before I go...
In criminal law there is such a thing as 'negative evidence.'
If I did not give permission to anyone to drive my car and yet it's not in my driveway where I left it 10 minutes ago, that is a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed.
The absence of the car is negative evidence.
Something that's supposed to be there but is not.
A matter of settled law. Not an opinion.
From Infidel Pride -
"Obviously, as from surah 4 (Women), sexual offenses in and of themselves are not against their religion."
Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. These dhimmis have a lot of nerve to arrest Muslims for practicing Islam.................
Muslims also should not have to serve time for their crimes in an infidel prison.
We need halal Islamic prisons.
Like the one in Morocco.
Revolving door optional.
"Simply make a new law! Those who refuse to join the programme should be castrated!"
Posted by: Sencit
Say this could be done. The crime of rape is not committed to assuage the sexual urges of the rapist. Rape is about hatred and control of the hated by the hater.
A rapist might be castrated, chemically, at least, but his craving to express his hatred against the type of people he likes to rape will still exist.
A castrated rapist will resort to the use of an object, if he cannot use his body. If anything, castration would increase the rapist's urge to "avenge" himself on those who "made" him a rapist, to begin with.
The UK is finished.
@ OlivePCamford:
1) this story was in other papers as well today, not just the Telegraph;
2) As it was very low-key I'd hazard the guess that there is more going on behind the scenes which the media are not telling, in order 'not to incite hatred';
3) There is a worrying wall of silence regarding muslim criminals - we aren't even told how many muslim sex offenders are in prison or waiting tial;
4) The - very brief - public announcement about school girls going missing from their schools, to be married by force in Pakistan, has completely vanished from view. well - it was only the small number of about 3.000 girls, so nothing to worry about, is there!!!
5) We should not be cynically saying these stories are only there 'to sell papers' - we should ask why they are given a less than prominent place, somewhere towards the back of the papers (hardly the way to sell more papers, I don't think!) - and why it is that all the MSM are avoiding to deal with muslims in our communities - excpt when these are complaining about something, or celebrating that their children can now get halal food for their school dinner.
Well - we don't really need to ask that last question, do we!
Fred said...
"OT To lighten up, 30 years ago a TV programme showed a sex offender who volunteered for aversion therapy. They put a wire around his male member and showed him dirty pictures. When he got aroused it closed a circuit and gave him an electric shock. Do they still do this anyone?"
Yes, it's called marriage.
Walter in Golden, Co.
/satire
Calon Lan
Actually the disappearing schoolgirls have been going on for years in all muslim areas.
The Sunday Times included it in a colour supplement feature about muslims in Sheffield at least 5 years ago. They got it from teachers who refused to be quoted on the record but the consensus is they do not disappear forever but return 6-7 years later with a husband and child/children to be added to their passports.
There was a particularly well known case 10 years ago were two mixed race girls (about 12 & 14) went to find their roots in their fathers country, the Yemen. Shortly after they arrived they were told they had been married to a couple of local boys. One said no-way and spent years trying to get out and eventually succeeded even though her "husband” raped her regularly. The other ended up pregnant and would not leave her children.
I listen to Radio 4 as I drive around and consequently hear Woman’s Hour. In the course of an item on forced marriages they let slip that the British government maintains 3 “safe houses” in Pakistan to help older girls escape. This is one of those rare moments of truth on the BBC that never make it to the news and when I mentioned it to a muslim colleague he was genuinely surprised and could not believe it.
The "legitimate Islamic position" on sex offenders is the same as that whuch applies Mohammed, i.e., he is revered rather then punished.
From above: Muslims also should not have to serve time for their crimes in an infidel prison.
We need halal Islamic prisons.
Devils Island comes to mind, is that halal enough?
duh_swami-
Only if Devil's Island is ringed by a vigorous great white shark breeding program.
Are Muslims halal to pelagian predators?
Let's find out.
"They may then seek legal redress through judicial review on the grounds that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of religion."
== == == == == ==
And they are correct, at least in their own world-view: Islam rejects Western "man-made" law. All of it. If it was proposed, debated in some legislative body, was voted on, approved, and printed in the revised statutes of whatever jurisdiction, it is man-made. They believe they only need to obey Allah's eternal laws and are only subject to judgment by a Sharia court. Anything outside of that is an infringement on their rights as members of the supreme religion; it's discrimination; hostile disregard for their religious sensitivities; intentional humiliation. Islamic "religion" is a totalitarian "entire-way-of-life" package. Everything you're supposed to do, think, feel, learn, believe, say; from rising in the morning to going to sleep at night, is mandated by Islam. Muslims must submit to its mind control or else they're not good Muslims. If any part of Western Civ (school, employer, prison) keeps any Muslim from doing what Islam tells him, when and how and to what extent Islam tells him, well then! It's obvious that the West is declaring war on Islam itself!
Whereas,
Muslim sex offenders are so "special" because of their religion
And
The UK fruitloop Archbishop has already said he thinks some form of Sharia in Britain is inevitable
And
Sharia law is heavy on "eye for an eye" punishments, such as lopping off the hand of a thief
Therefore
I propose we establish an appropriate "Sharia-style" punishment for Muslim sex offenders. This would allow for relatively quick release after the sentence was carried out, so the poor little fellow couldn't complain he was being held longer in prison due to his religion. He would be totally unable to "re-offend" (as the parlance goes), so the public-safety issue has been addressed. He would also not have to demean himself by discussing his mental-health issues with Infidels.
I can also see two more benefits to this plan: (1) He would no longer be able to contribute to the so-called Islamic population bomb in the West; (2) Other potential Muslim offenders, after learning of the new Muslim-specific punishment, might reconsider how closely to follow the prophet in regard to the "Infidel women are captives of your right hand" department.
Truly a win-win-win scenario!