Muslim Wins Dietary Discrimination Claim

[Calanen]

Muslim jail-diet ruling may open floodgates

A CHILD *** offender fed vegetables, nuts and "fatty and salty" tinned meat because prison authorities would not provide him with fresh halal meat prepared in accordance with Muslim religious laws has won a discrimination case against the Queensland Government.

In a ruling the Government fears could trigger an avalanche of claims from other prisoners denied special dietary requests, the Supreme Court found Sharif Mahommed, who was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment in 2000, had been discriminated against.
He will be allowed to keep $2000 in compensation and will not need to contribute to a legal bill of tens of thousands of dollars, which will be funded from the public purse unless the Queensland Government attempts to take the matter to the High Court.

Mahommed, now out of prison, said he had suffered stress and lost weight behind bars because he ate more vegetables and nuts to make up for the denial of fresh halal meat. He blamed prison authorities for their "lack of knowledge in understanding my religious beliefs, poor training skills, coupled with a no-care and negative attitude to inmates in general".

The Supreme Court defined halal meat as "meat which has been blessed and slaughtered by Muslim slaughtermen and prepared, cooked and stored in accordance with religious law".

The finding on Friday by judge Ann Lyons in the Supreme Court is an embarrassing defeat for Police and Corrective Services Minister Judy Spence. Ms Spence, who has predicted the opening of floodgates "to other prisoners requesting all manner of special diets", had instructed Crown Solicitor Conrad Lohe and barrister Christopher Murdoch in a bid to quash an Anti-Discrimination Tribunal judgment by barrister Jean Dalton SC.

Ms Spence said yesterday she found Justice Lyons's decision surprising.
"I have asked Queensland Corrective Services to review the judgment to consider grounds for appeal," she said.

"At the moment, Queensland Corrective Services provides diets requested on the basis of cultural or religious needs where possible."

Ms Dalton, who heard the original case, found that Mahommed "received substantially more than his fair share of unacceptable meals because he was put on a vegetarian diet when he was not vegetarian (and) at the time fresh halal meat was difficult to source and extremely expensive, so he was provided with canned meat instead".

The vegetarian diet consisted of salad and a protein replacement at lunch, with hot lunches such as vegetable patties or vegetarian sausages three times a week. At night the vegetarian dinners include lasagnas, curries, pizzas and kebabs.

"They'd send me down a salad with chicken in it, they would send me down a pie, they'd send me down a salad with luncheon meat in it," Mahommed said.

While rice and noodles were provided to Asian prisoners and special diets - gluten-free, low-fat and low-cholesterol - were granted to inmates with health concerns, no allowance was made for Mahommed's religious preference for halal meat.

Ms Dalton ruled: "There was evidence that nutmeat was served with regularity. He actively disliked some of it, such as the nutmeat and the sausages. He was served more salad and tinned meat than was provided on the general menu and found this unacceptable. It is not a matter of being fussy, or expecting restaurant quality food; no doubt he had to endure his fair share of poor meals, just like every other prisoner."

A Corrective Services spokesman said yesterday: "Where possible, fresh halal meat is served in our prisons."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21209531-2702,00.html

[Silver Cup]

Awe, that's bull s***.

[LRPV]

A child *** offender? Where was this guy with his "rights" bullsh1t when the child was being molested?

I have absolutely no compassion for him. I hope the prison officers slipped him some pork.

Beyond these thoughts...I understand a muslim can eat non-halal under dire circumstances. Therefore his health was never at risk, only his comfort.

Hope the filthy rockspider chokes on his two grand.:bash:

[Pekhota]

A child *** offender? Where was this guy with his "rights" bullsh1t when the child was being molested?

I have absolutely no compassion for him. I hope the prison officers slipped him some pork.

Beyond these thoughts...I understand a muslim can eat non-halal under dire circumstances. Therefore his health was never at risk, only his comfort.

Hope the filthy rockspider chokes on his two grand.:bash:

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

[Miles.]

He blamed prison authorities for their "lack of knowledge in understanding my religious beliefs, poor training skills, coupled with a no-care and negative attitude to inmates in general".

I blame this weak-stomach ****head for his "lack of knowledge in understand my cultural beliefs, poor social skills, coupled with a no-care and negative attitude towards women in general."

**** him. He should be executed for child molestation. He should count himself lucky that he can still enjoy food.

Aww, poor ****ing you...a Muslim has to eat more vegetables. Somebody pick up his legal tab. Hell, give him a 14-year-old girl to rape.

[Miles.]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

He molested a child. He didn't steal a candy bar.

Why should he dictate what food is provided to him?

*lets the inmates run the asylum*

[Kilgor]

Mahommed, now out of prison, said he had suffered stress and lost weight behind bars because he ate more vegetables and nuts to make up for the denial of fresh halal meat. He blamed prison authorities for their "lack of knowledge in understanding my religious beliefs, poor training skills, coupled with a no-care and negative attitude to inmates in general".


What disgusts me is that our country cant even look after elderly people in nursing homes, the disabled and the mentally ill correctly, and we are giving human bags of sh!t like this special treatment.

All child molesters deserve in prison is repeated 'special treatment" in general population from the other inmates.

[rolls]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

You sir, are an Fooking Wankermite.

Fook him and his halal food. Get what the rest of the inmates get as far as im concerned.

[Kaapeli]

This reminds me of a scene in the movie Naked Gun 33 1/3 when Frank Drebin is in a prison cafeteria trying to start a riot.
"And this Chateau le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are, animals? "

[LaoSexMachine]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

hahahahah. You are too funnyrofl. Eff him he aint special!

[LRPV]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

Your first sentence, ie the quote is correct and it is a general admonishment to be considered in our actions. To this extent I agree with you.

His suffering has nothing to do with his religion. Unless you are saying islam encourages paedophilia?

Yes, it is hard to obtain halal or kosher food in most Australian cities outside of the areas where citizens requiring those foods reside.
You should also understand the impost this requirement makes upon the justice system. Prison food is purchased in bulk to minimise costs. Providing halal food requires a new purchase system. Also there is the separate storage and cooking facilities. The expense is far beyond just a piece of meat.

Another point which has not been brought out is that this fellow is unlikely to be observant. If he was a devout muslim I daresay he would be less likely to have committed the molestation. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
It first needs to be established if he is devout. If not....no need for halal as he is just trying to get back at the justice system. Not all muslims eat halal only just as I know Jews that don't follow the dietary laws.

Your sentence about him being a criminal and therefore not human is a childish idiocy. I never said that. Nor did I imply it. So take a kick in the arse.

Likewise this business of execution for petty theft...where did that come from?

What began as a reasonable post degraded to an immature diatribe that went off in an absurd tangent.

I'm happy to debate perspectives with you and I don't mind the odd shot at me personally, but try to keep to what has been written, not what you invent.

[Silver Cup]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

He is lucky to get three meals a day.

[LaoSexMachine]

He's lucky he was convicted in a western country where indugence of such 'rights' is our weakness. I wonder what will happen to this ass munch if he committed this crime in a Muslim country?

[LRPV]

He's lucky he was convicted in a western country where indugence of such 'rights' is our weakness. I wonder what will happen to this ass munch if he committed this crime in a Muslim country?

I believe in Saudi rape is a capital offence.


No problems with requiring halal then....:)

[rolls]

Just throw him into general population, end of problem.

(Hope he likes to get spiders tatooed on his forehead)

[D-gin]

He's lucky he was convicted in a western country where indugence of such 'rights' is our weakness. I wonder what will happen to this ass munch if he committed this crime in a Muslim country?

A bit off topic but I remember seeing a story years ago, A man raped a Muslim woman. A few days later he was caught and tried and found guilty with a sentence of death, The authorities then let her male family members proceed with his sentencing and gave the victims brothers some rifles and let them execute the man.

[Kaapeli]

Then there are those cases in Saudi Arabia when the rape victim gets 90 lashes for being in the company of a strange man. And womans word is always worth less than a mans as evidence so better have another man as a witness if you get raped there.

[Abolith]

Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.



yup pretty much,, don't do the crime if you can't handle the time. his sorry arse giave up his right when he screwed over some poor liitle kid... He should be dead and buried as far as I'm concerned.

[asch]

you, westerners, become too soft.



p.s. i'm not sure i am joking.

[Miles.]

you, westerners, become too soft.



p.s. i'm not sure i am joking.

Dumbass comments are welcome, too. Don't feel like you have to hold back.

[asch]

Dumbass comments are welcome, too. Don't feel like you have to hold back.

care to explain?

[Calanen]

A bit off topic but I remember seeing a story years ago, A man raped a Muslim woman. A few days later the was caught and tried and found guilty with a sentence of death, The authorities then let her male family members proceed with his sentencing and gave the victims brothers some rifles and let them execute the man.


I think this would be what you are talking about:

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=231597
(http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=231597)

[ex Strathcona]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

he is a child molester you tard! he should suffer in any manner that is available.
preying on children is not the action of a human in my opinion.

[Lazy Lob]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

A stunning trot to the end of the board, a beautiful two and a half somersault with a full twist……………and he’s in the deep end. Pure elegance. 10/10.

Where is Freibier with his baking utensils when you need him.

[D-gin]

I think this would be what you are talking about:

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=231597
(http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=231597)

Basically the same exact thing but the case in which I was referring to had only one person being executed and I know it was in the middle east, but this was years ago, Regardless though that video shows the same situation.

[Kilgor]

Dumbass comments are welcome, too. Don't feel like you have to hold back.

This time, he is absolutely right. Its a cancer.

[Fiber]

One would think molesting a child is against Islam. If he want's halal food he should be tried before a Sharia court first and let them judge if his actions are those of a true muslim.

If he is found not guilty in the deadly sin of beeing an infidel...Bon appetit!

[Calanen]

One of the few freedoms we do have in our constitution is freedom of religion, being that the govt cannot pass any law that prohibits the free practice of religion. It is possible that the Federal government or the States passing a law saying, you can't have religious type food in prisons would be impermissible for this reason, putting to one side the question of discrimination which is what he went for.

My own view is - that you eat whatever you are given in jail. Or you don't eat. I don't think that not offering Halal meat prohibits the practice of religion, it just means you are not getting the food you would like. How can it be discrimination to offer everyone the same food? If he just eats rice every day, he is still a Muslim, and can still pray.

[alfigel]

he is a child molester you tard! he should suffer in any manner that is available.
preying on children is not the action of a human in my opinion.

Wow, you are a bunch of fricking idiots. The goal of imprisonment is not revenge or having the inmate suffer, but atonement and resocialization. Even imprisonment is covered by human rights, and inmates must not be deprived from them. That means that even the worst murderer and child molester must be able to freely exercise his religious beliefs. Heck, this even works on Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are deprived from basically all rights, but what they are allowed to do is exercise their belief.

Fortunately we have a legal system and independent courts that protect felons from lynch mobs like you would form one.

[ex Strathcona]

Wow, you are a bunch of fricking idiots. The goal of imprisonment is not revenge or having the inmate suffer, but atonement and resocialization. Even imprisonment is covered by human rights, and inmates must not be deprived from them. That means that even the worst murderer and child molester must be able to freely exercise his religious beliefs. Heck, this even works on Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are deprived from basically all rights, but what they are allowed to do is exercise their belief.

Fortunately we have a legal system and independent courts that protect felons from lynch mobs like you would form one.
you can take your atonement and re socialization touchy feely sensitive to their needs and rights of child molesters and shove them up your yoohoo.
its not about revenge it is about retribution
there is, or rather should be a steep price to be paid by anyone who destroys the life of a child like that.

[PeterG]

I've seen hardened criminals, who happen to be muslims, on TV here in Norway as well, demanding to have a prison-imam, halal food etc. So they can serve their sentence in accordance with their religion. Funny enough, none of them seem to demand that they also be punished according to islamic laws..? I wonder why.

[Kaapeli]

Every criminal tries to fight the system and gain from it. They all have demands and complaints. It's not just muslims.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The fact that the prisoner is a Muslim should be a non issue unless you so happen to be a religious bigot, the UK HMPS gets hundreds of bullsh*t claims for perceived injustices every year and most of them are binned, there was a story in the Scottish press this week about the general prison population complaining about the lack of curry dishes on the prison menu. Frozen Halal chicken from the Netherlands sold in the UK is actually dirt cheap in fact it’s cheaper than domestic non Halal chicken.

[oldsoak]

Not down my Asian it isnt.

[alfigel]

you can take your atonement and re socialization touchy feely sensitive to their needs and rights of child molesters and shove them up your yoohoo.

Yeah, you won't believe it, but murderers and child molesters have rights, too.

Oh, BTW, telling somebody to shove something into ones "yoohoo" is just plain stupid. I actually expected a higher standard of discussion here.

[alfigel]

I've seen hardened criminals, who happen to be muslims, on TV here in Norway as well, demanding to have a prison-imam, halal food etc. So they can serve their sentence in accordance with their religion. Funny enough, none of them seem to demand that they also be punished according to islamic laws..? I wonder why.

Probably because the right to freely practice ones belief is granted in Norwegian law, but Sharia criminal law is not?

[ex Strathcona]

Yeah, you won't believe it, but murderers and child molesters have rights, too.

Oh, BTW, telling somebody to shove something into ones "yoohoo" is just plain stupid. I actually expected a higher standard of discussion here.

sorry but your socially conscious tolerance and understanding for the reprobates that rape children gives me a rash, and it is too early in the morning for me to be arsed to use more sophisticated language on you.

[Lazy Lob]

Probably because the right to freely practice ones belief is granted in Norwegian law, but Sharia criminal law is not?

I think you may have missed the point he was making.

[PeterG]

Probably because the right to freely practice ones belief is granted in Norwegian law, but Sharia criminal law is not?

Or perhaps because these 'pious muslims' know full well how the religious laws they pretend to adher to, say they should be punished? Personally, in the spirit of multicultural understanding, i would support their right to have their hands and feet chopped off, or even to be beheaded.

[alfigel]

Or perhaps because these 'pious muslims' know full well how the religious laws they pretend to adher to, say they should be punished? Personally, in the spirit of multicultural understanding, i would support their right to have their hands and feet chopped off, or even to be beheaded.

i.e. this thread is nothing but the next iteration of the usual anti-Muslim slander by the usual suspects.

Just reassess the mentioned cases in a Gedankenexperiment if the convict wasn't Muslim, but Jewish. Nobody would deny him kosher food in prison, and nobody would come up with some stupid idea like expecting him to ask for being punished how the Tanakh says for the committed crime.

[digrar]

I'm seeing more anti child molester than anti muslim in this thread.

[Miles.]

i.e. this thread is nothing but the next iteration of the usual anti-Muslim slander by the usual suspects.

Just reassess the mentioned cases in a Gedankenexperiment if the convict wasn't Muslim, but Jewish. Nobody would deny him kosher food in prison, and nobody would come up with some stupid idea like expecting him to ask for being punished how the Tanakh says for the committed crime.

PeterG makes a good point.

Aside from that, whether or not the guy is Muslim shouldn't matter, he's a human being first and he should be treated accordingly.

So if he needs food, food will be provided for him.

If he doesn't like the food that he gets for free, tough ****.

[ex Strathcona]

i.e. this thread is nothing but the next iteration of the usual anti-Muslim slander by the usual suspects.

Just reassess the mentioned cases in a Gedankenexperiment if the convict wasn't Muslim, but Jewish. Nobody would deny him kosher food in prison, and nobody would come up with some stupid idea like expecting him to ask for being punished how the Tanakh says for the committed crime.

you are mistaken if you think i am advocating harsh punishment only for Muslim child molesters and that i would advocate a Jewish offender getting his kosher food.

he can eat dog food as well as far as i am concerned, this is not about religion.

[houdakye]

Put him in with general population (in the prison), convicts have their own rule behind bars. The other inmates will take care of the problem.

[alfigel]

PeterG makes a good point.

Aside from that, whether or not the guy is Muslim shouldn't matter, he's a human being first and he should be treated accordingly. [/QUOTES]

PeterG makes no point. PeterG wants to see child molesters of Muslim belief punished like they were e.g. under a Sharia law, that's all.

[QUOTE=Miles.;2322979]So if he needs food, food will be provided for him.

If he doesn't like the food that he gets for free, tough ****.

Why are you guys so absolutely ignorant towards religious beliefs? Probably only because Christian belief has no such strict rules on food, unlike Islam or Judaism. So, face it: religious discrimination can also happen via the deprivation of certain types of food. Even on Guantanamo Bay the inmates get halal food.

[mi35d]

O.k. I'd like to know if Christian prisoners in Muslim jails get fish on Fridays?

If not, SUE IN THE WORLD COURT!

[PeterG]

[QUOTE=Miles.;2322979]

Why are you guys so absolutely ignorant towards religious beliefs? Probably only because Christian belief has no such strict rules on food, unlike Islam or Judaism. So, face it: religious discrimination can also happen via the deprivation of certain types of food. Even on Guantanamo Bay the inmates get halal food.


'Religious discrimination'? Yes, my heart just bleeds for these imprisoned scumbags who feel their particular 'religious needs' are not being met.. And that is exactly what these people are: Scumbags. Let them eat, or choose not to and starve in prison. The issue is that they are criminals, locked up for their crimes. Their dietary preferences are a complete non-issue as far as i'm concerned - No halal-meat? Eat the potatoes then.

[Miles.]

PeterG makes a good point.

Aside from that, whether or not the guy is Muslim shouldn't matter, he's a human being first and he should be treated accordingly.

PeterG makes no point. PeterG wants to see child molesters of Muslim belief punished like they were e.g. under a Sharia law, that's all.

PeterG makes the point that if this Muslim prisoner is concerned that his food is not in accordance with his Islamic beliefs, why is he not demanding that his punishment also fall in accordance with his Islamic belief?



Why are you guys so absolutely ignorant towards religious beliefs? Probably only because Christian belief has no such strict rules on food, unlike Islam or Judaism. So, face it: religious discrimination can also happen via the deprivation of certain types of food. Even on Guantanamo Bay the inmates get halal food.

Are you ignorant toward religious beliefs? Many Christian denominations have strict dietary standards.

The prisoner is being provided the same food as the other prisoners. He is not being discriminated against, in my opinion.

___________________________________

I provided reasons for my opinion. If you'd like to continue calling me and others Islamophobes, we can just hang it up here.

[CG51]

[quote=Miles.;2322979]PeterG makes a good point.

Aside from that, whether or not the guy is Muslim shouldn't matter, he's a human being first and he should be treated accordingly. [/QUOTES]

PeterG makes no point. PeterG wants to see child molesters of Muslim belief punished like they were e.g. under a Sharia law, that's all.



Why are you guys so absolutely ignorant towards religious beliefs? Probably only because Christian belief has no such strict rules on food, unlike Islam or Judaism. So, face it: religious discrimination can also happen via the deprivation of certain types of food. Even on Guantanamo Bay the inmates get halal food.

So you are saying that because of the religion that he chooses to practice or follow he should recieve special treatment? The food served is to sustain the population (so as to live and be so called rehabilitated) and is not a religious issue.

[alfigel]

PeterG makes the point that if this Muslim prisoner is concerned that his food is not in accordance with his Islamic beliefs, why is he not demanding that his punishment also fall in accordance with his Islamic belief?

Because nobody but extreme masochist will demand an ever harder punishment than they already get. That's the instinct of self preservation.


Are you ignorant toward religious beliefs? Many Christian denominations have strict dietary standards.

The Christian habit of eating fish on Friday is not a dietary law. Nowhere in the bible does it say, "thou must eat fish on the day before Shabbat" or anything similar. Eating fish on Friday is a tradition, not a religious dietary law.


The prisoner is being provided the same food as the other prisoners. He is not being discriminated against, in my opinion.

You don't want to read what I write, do you? When you have prisoners of a certain religious belief with certain dietary laws, and you deprive them from the type of food they are required to eat after that dietary law, then this is a clear case of discrimination.


I provided reasons for my opinion. If you'd like to continue calling me and others Islamophobes, we can just hang it up here.

You know, I have followed a few "discussion" on this board, recently, and whenever something Islam-related comes up, e.g. when a Muslim actually exercises his rights, a bunch of people comes up and calls Muslims "pieces of ****", demanding that they should "assimilate or go home", or similar stuff. But none of them gets that we, the Western world, are actually better than the average Middle eastern country because we give _all_ people equal rights, no matter what their belief is, and that everyone is free to exercise the same fundamental rights. And one of these fundamental rights is the right to freely exercise ones religion. Maybe the majority of us Western people doesn't understand it, but we must give the same fundamental rights to everyone, or else we are betraying our very values.

A situation as described by the famous "Animal farm" quote "all animals are equal, but some or more equal than others" is exactly what we would be heading to if we didn't allow other religions, even if they seem strange to us, the same fundamental rights as we give them to "domestic" religions like the different Christian movements or Judaism that both have a greater tradition in the Western world than other religions. Such a situation would make quite a few people more comfortable, because there would be one strange thing less they would have to worry about, but that's not the point. The point is that there are several fundamental rights, one of them being the freedom of religion, that are universal, no matter whether you're Muslim or not, no matter whether you're a free man or currently imprisoned for theft or murder or ****** assault against children or white-collar crime.

[Firetxmi]

How to Be Religious in Prison
by Gaby Wenig, Staff Writer

California state prison inmate Raymond Morrison was forced to wear paper clothes, had his personal property taken from him, spent months in "the hole" (a.k.a. administrative segregation), was denied telephone calls and family visits, all because of his adherence to a halachic tenet.

Morrison became Orthodox while serving his 10-year sentence for assault with a semi-automatic weapon, and he decided that in accordance with the biblical commandment, "You shall not destroy the edge of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27), he would not shave his facial hair.

But growing a beard violates prison grooming requirements, and consequently Morrison’s insistence on his facial hair has resulted in all manners of disciplinary actions against him.

Morrison’s beard crusade raises questions about treatment of inmates in the state prison system. Is the system discriminating against Morrison because of his religion — as he believes — or, in acquiescing to every religious or cultural demand of its inmates, will the prison system go too far in accommodating them?

Morrison’s strict adherence to the Leviticus verse, which many halachic authorities say can be circumvented by using scissors or an electric razor instead of a straight razor to remove the beard, leads to a more personal question about how far inmates should go in adhering to their religious beliefs. Is Morrison’s beard really worth the price he is paying for it?

Some 10,000 Jews are incarcerated across the United States according the Aleph Institute, and advocacy organization for Jewish inmates nationwide. They receive approximately 7,000 applications for their services every year with requests range from wanting religious rights in prison to seeking protection from persecution and discrimination.

"Most of them want kosher food, of course, and to obey the work proscription days [the ability to abstain from work on Shabbat and Jewish holidays] and to be able to break the fast [on fast days] with a meal at sundown," said Robert H. Burns, director of prison services for the Aleph Institute.

However, Aleph estimates that approximately half of those requests come from "wannabes" — people who are not Jewish but are either sincerely drawn to the religion or want to take advantage of the respective benefits offered to Jewish prisoners. It is this second group of people who essentially abuse the system that make conferring religious rights on prisoners a murky area.

The grooming standards that require prisoners to shave were instituted in 1998 mainly for reasons of security — so that prisoners won’t alter their appearance by shaving and then escape. Other reasons for the ban on facial hair were so that inmates would look neat and clean, and not be able to hide contraband or weapons in their beards.

But while California and some other states prohibit prisoners from growing a beard, inmates in federal prisons are allowed to grow beards, and in certain cases in state prisons, inmates have successfully sued for their right to grow beards.

In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported 300 Muslim inmates at Solano State Prison challenged the constitutionality of the ban on beards in a class-action lawsuit, which they won when U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton invoked the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUPA). President Clinton signed the bill in 2000, and it forbids state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of persons residing or confined to certain institutions." Since Jews were not included in the class-action suit, they were also excluded from the victory.

According to Burns, a Jewish inmate from Ohio and a Jewish inmate from Kentucky both sued their respective prison systems for the right to grow a beard, and they won because of RLUPA.

"In the federal system you can grow beards, and if it is not a security risk in the federal system, then why should it be a security risk anywhere?" Burns asked. "If [Morrison] really is Orthodox, then it becomes a religious issue. Security takes precedence, and I agree with that, but just because [prison officials] cite the ‘catch-all’ security problem, doesn’t mean it is a security problem."

Morrison’s refusal to adhere to the grooming requirements resulted in him accruing 130 disciplinary "points," which meant he was classified as a C-Status inmate — a "program failure" who was denied privileges like packages from home, prison jobs, telephone calls and family visits, and was transferred to a maximum-security facility. It also means that he is not eligible for parole, despite having served 85 percent of his sentence.

"They scream at his face and tell him to cut his beard and push him and shove him and they want him to get angry so they can put him in ‘the hole,’" said Donna Goldstein, Morrison’s mother, who is trying to lobby the system from Chicago for a "compassionate transfer" for her son to an Illinois prison where beards are allowed. "Raymond is paying the price for his religious belief. I can’t understand that he is classified as a ‘program failure’ and the same as someone who does drugs [and worse]."

But officials disagree that Raymond is being punished for his religion.

"We absolutely allow inmates to practice their religion while in prison," California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Margot Bach said. "We provide rabbis and priests and spiritual advisers, we have services and we do provide for synagogues on Friday night. This is his [Morrison’s] call. If he does this knowing it is going to violate the rules of the institution he needs to be prepared to suffer the consequences."


Link: http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12272

[Firetxmi]

The U.S. Supreme Court established the current standard for inmate First Amendment cases under a pair of 1987 decisions, Turner v. Safley and O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz. In Safley, the Court examined restrictions on inmate correspondence and inmates’ right to marry. The Court established the following standard: “When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

The Court identified several factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of the prison officials’ actions:

1. Whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. The Court noted that the “governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.” “Prison regulations restricting inmates’ First Amendment rights [must be] operated in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”
2. Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates.
3. Whether accommodating prisoners’ constitutional rights will infringe on the rights of guards or other inmates and on the allocation of prison resources generally.
4. Whether there are alternative methods of accommodating prisoners’ rights at minimal cost to valid penological interests. The existence of easy alternatives can show that the regulation was an “exaggerated response” to prison concerns.


link:http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/free_exercise/topic.aspx?topic=prisoner_rights

I know this particular case didn't happen in the U.S. But similar has happened before.

[Miles.]

Because nobody but extreme masochist will demand an ever harder punishment than they already get. That's the instinct of self preservation.

So not everything has to be in accordance with Islamic law? ;)

Only what the prisoner demands so? :)



The Christian habit of eating fish on Friday is not a dietary law. Nowhere in the bible does it say, "thou must eat fish on the day before Shabbat" or anything similar. Eating fish on Friday is a tradition, not a religious dietary law.

How about those who are not Catholic? ;)

Mormons, for instance, have a dietary component in their religious doctrine.




You don't want to read what I write, do you? When you have prisoners of a certain religious belief with certain dietary laws, and you deprive them from the type of food they are required to eat after that dietary law, then this is a clear case of discrimination

It is OK for him to eat non-Islamic food, even the religion says so. He won't die from it. It's not harming him physically.

Allah surely won't hold a couple non-Islamic meals against him, considering he's a child molester. ;)




You know, I have followed a few "discussion" on this board, recently, and whenever something Islam-related comes up, e.g. when a Muslim actually exercises his rights, a bunch of people comes up and calls Muslims "pieces of ****", demanding that they should "assimilate or go home", or similar stuff. But none of them gets that we, the Western world, are actually better than the average Middle eastern country because we give _all_ people equal rights, no matter what their belief is, and that everyone is free to exercise the same fundamental rights. And one of these fundamental rights is the right to freely exercise ones religion. Maybe the majority of us Western people doesn't understand it, but we must give the same fundamental rights to everyone, or else we are betraying our very values.

I don't think anyone described him as a "muslim piece of ****" but if it makes you feel better, just keep imagining that is what I think.

A more accurate description would be "child-molesting piece of ****."



A situation as described by the famous "Animal farm" quote "all animals are equal, but some or more equal than others" is exactly what we would be heading to if we didn't allow other religions, even if they seem strange to us, the same fundamental rights as we give them to "domestic" religions like the different Christian movements or Judaism that both have a greater tradition in the Western world than other religions. Such a situation would make quite a few people more comfortable, because there would be one strange thing less they would have to worry about, but that's not the point. The point is that there are several fundamental rights, one of them being the freedom of religion, that are universal, no matter whether you're Muslim or not, no matter whether you're a free man or currently imprisoned for theft or murder or ****** assault against children or white-collar crime.

The prisoner was equal when he was receiving the same food as the rest of the prisoners.

Now he is a victim of "religious discrimination" because he doesn't like the food that is bought and paid for, and brought to him each day by Christians or Australians or whoever.

His problem with the food is his problem. It shouldn't be blamed on Western Christians, or me, or anybody else.

[Laworkerbee]

He's lucky he was convicted in a western country where indugence of such 'rights' is our weakness. I wonder what will happen to this ass munch if he committed this crime in a Muslim country?

Tough to prove rape in a Muslim country, more likely the family of the victim would have killed him

[Hollis]

Tough to prove rape in a Muslim country, more likely the family of the victim would have killed him

or (honor killing) killed the girl for allowing herself to become raped. Never really understood that line of thinking.

[Miles.]

or (honor killing) killed the girl for allowing herself to become raped. Never really understood that line of thinking.

You'd have to be centuries behind in your concept of human rights. ;)

[Laworkerbee]

or (honor killing) killed the girl for allowing herself to become raped. Never really understood that line of thinking.

Yes I didn't want to go there and be accussed of being an anti-Islamist :|

[alfigel]

So not everything has to be in accordance with Islamic law? ;)

Only what the prisoner demands so? :)

As I already wrote: that's the instinct of self preservation. No Christian would ask to get tortured by the Holy Inquisition because his criminal offense was also an act of heresy, so why would a Muslim ask to get beheaded because Sharia law says so?


How about those who are not Catholic? ;)

Mormons, for instance, have a dietary component in their religious doctrine.


LDS is not recognized as Christian religion by the ecumenism. It's a syncretistic religion, like Islam is. Besides that: what's the deal with providing imprisoned Mormons with the food their religion requires them to consume if they demand it?


It is OK for him to eat non-Islamic food, even the religion says so. He won't die from it. It's not harming him physically.
Can you cite any sources on that, please? Especially a sura on that would be interesting.


I don't think anyone described him as a "muslim piece of ****" but if it makes you feel better, just keep imagining that is what I think.

A more accurate description would be "child-molesting piece of ****."
I wasn't just referring to this thread. It happened before on this board, quite a lot of times, by some of the people who post in this thread, too.


The prisoner was equal when he was receiving the same food as the rest of the prisoners.

He was treated the same as the other prisoners, but he wasn't treated equally. Do you get the difference, "same" vs. "equal"? Linguistically, it may be subtle, but it's crucial in this case: treating prisoner A exactly the same as prisoner B can be perfectly fine for prisoner A, but discriminating against prisoner B, because that treatment is against certain religious beliefs of prisoner B.


His problem with the food is his problem. It shouldn't be blamed on Western Christians, or me, or anybody else.

Of course it's his problem. But that doesn't mean that his problem can simply be ignored by those who provide him with food, especially since this is a religious issue. Again: you obviously don't understand this whole problem because you've never been confronted with it, because there is no such fundamental law even vaguely similar to the Muslim dietary law that is common in the Western, Christian-dominated world.

[Miles.]

Can you cite any sources on that, please? Especially a sura on that would be interesting.

source:http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547042

QUESTION:

I often go out for lunch and dinner with professional and personal friends, and I often find myself in an awkward position of stressing over what to order. I only eat halal, but at most restaurants, the only thing I can eat are either vegetarian and fish dishes, which are not to my taste at all, or chicken and beef items that are non-Zabiha (not slaughtered according to Islamic rites). Is it okay for me to eat the non-Zabiha chicken and beef on such occasions only? Jazakum Allah khayran.

ANSWER:

Responding to the question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:

In conditions you have described it is not at all forbidden or haram for you to partake of such meats occasionally so long as the meats are coming from the People of the Book and so long as they do not contain pork or its by-products, and so long as they are not cooked in wine or other ingredients that are considered purely haram.

Most scholars of the past, belonging to the four schools, have ruled that meat of the People of the Book are lawful for us to consume - based on the Qur’anic verse - (This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 5)

This verse, according to Ibn `Abbas, refers to the meat slaughtered by the People of the Book (i.e., Christians or Jews). We find in the sources that the Prophet’s Companions used to eat the food of the Christians and the Jews whenever entered their territories.

Having said this, however, I must add: If you have a choice of going for meats provided by Muslims and those that are served by non-Muslims, you should definitely go for that which is provided by Muslims.

May Allah help us to be steadfast on the straight path.

I'm pretty sure Islamonline.net isn't a hate site.

Now I know it is not the same exact situation, but I found that an Islamic scholar did say that eating Christian and Jewish people's food is permitted, so long as it does not contain pork, alcohol, or certain portions of a halal animal.

The scholar added that there is precedent in Islam, stating that there is evidence to support the assertion that the Prophet Muhammed's companions ate Christian and Jewish food in Christian and Jewish territories.

[alfigel]

Now I know it is not the same exact situation, but I found that an Islamic scholar did say that eating Christian and Jewish people's food is permitted, so long as it does not contain pork, alcohol, or certain portions of a halal animal.

First of all, this seems to be "only" a Fatwa, i.e. an advise based on the interpretation of the Quran, and not a direct advise by the Quran itself. But I'm not an expert on that, so people with more knowledge on that, please correct me if I'm wrong. Second, it mentions that it's occassionally OK to eat food that isn't stricly non-halal, not permanently over a long time.


The scholar added that there is precedent in Islam, stating that there is evidence to support the assertion that the Prophet Muhammed's companions ate Christian and Jewish food in Christian and Jewish territories.

This is relativized by the fact that (a) _all_ food that is kosher is also halal (e.g. embassies of Muslim countries in the GDR used this fact to get their meat delivered from a butchery that slaughtered the animals in a kosher way), and (b) early Christians, especially in the Middle East, were quite ascetic. Several apocryphal documents about some of the apostles document pretty well that they lived on a strict diet, some of these early Christians nourished on nothing more than water, bread and vegetables.

[Laworkerbee]

First of all, this seems to be "only" a Fatwa, i.e. an advise based on the interpretation of the Quran, and not a direct advise by the Quran itself. But I'm not an expert on that, so people with more knowledge on that, please correct me if I'm wrong. Second, it mentions that it's occassionally OK to eat food that isn't stricly non-halal, not permanently over a long time..

Most Muslims I know say "Bismilallah" and continue eating, only the most strict are a pain in the ass ( as are most strictly religious people ).

[Lazy Lob]

As I already wrote: that's the instinct of self preservation. No Christian would ask to get tortured by the Holy Inquisition because his criminal offense was also an act of heresy, so why would a Muslim ask to get beheaded because Sharia law says so?

Because he's a Muslim and not a hypocrite using double standards?


We are dumb pricks falling for this sort of crap.

[alfigel]

Because he's a Muslim and not a hypocrite using double standards?

C'mon, this is so totally absurd. Nobody wants to die, and those few who do, commit suicide or do suicide bombings. But demanding from a person to ask for punishment under Sharia law because _you_ believe that's what a "real Muslim" is supposed to do and calling any other behaviour "hypocritical using double standards" is just plain ridiculous. Applying the same standards to Christian belief would mean that you'd demand from any Roman-Catholic who committed a deadly sin to immediately commit suicide so that he can get the punishment of Second Death, and anyone who does otherwise would be considered a "hypocrit with double standards" by you.

Heck, even simpler: all Christians who don't go to church every single sunday are hypocrits with double standards, because going to church once every week is what every real Christian has to do! This kind of simple logic is what you build your arguments upon, and this kind of simple logic is what absolutely doesn't work when examined closer.


We are dumb pricks falling for this sort of crap.

We are _not_ "falling for this crap". In Western societies, nobody is required to justify one's own personal beliefs or to what degree he practices his religion. And yet, exercising these beliefs, even only partially, is protected by the constitution to a certain degree. Accept that and get over it, or move to a country where other religions than Christian ones are forbidden.

[Lazy Lob]

.................. Accept that and get over it, or move to a country where other religions than Christian ones are forbidden.

Ok...I'm over it, but only coz you say so. I've got my tamborine and sandals ready, just show me the way....

[Miles.]

We are _not_ "falling for this crap". In Western societies, nobody is required to justify one's own personal beliefs or to what degree he practices his religion. And yet, exercising these beliefs, even only partially, is protected by the constitution to a certain degree. Accept that and get over it, or move to a country where other religions than Christian ones are forbidden.

Where is this place?

[Laworkerbee]

Ok...I'm over it, but only coz you say so. I've got my tamborine and sandals ready, just show me the way....

I'm curious as well, PLEASE SHOW ME THE LIGHT !!!

[Resurrection]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8996/westsuicidews5.jpg

[imohammed2]

where in the body of the article does it say he was a child *** offender???/

I know it says that in the subtitle, but proper format requires that information in the title/subtitle be corroborated and elaborated upon in the body of the article.

DESPITE that, it's the principle here that matters most, that you can't mistreat some depending on the severity of the offence, and that if you don't follow the law exactly, u cannot expect others to do so.

[LRPV]

Wow, you are a bunch of fricking idiots. The goal of imprisonment is not revenge or having the inmate suffer, but atonement and resocialization. Even imprisonment is covered by human rights, and inmates must not be deprived from them. That means that even the worst murderer and child molester must be able to freely exercise his religious beliefs. Heck, this even works on Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are deprived from basically all rights, but what they are allowed to do is exercise their belief.

Fortunately we have a legal system and independent courts that protect felons from lynch mobs like you would form one.

Listen up cocksmoker. I for one am fed up with your liberal nonsense. Who are you to call members here fricking idiots when you have no idea of the situation?

Speak for Austria if you must, but you have no idea of the underlying ethos in Australian justice systems. Have you any idea of paedophilia criminology? How about you research it, then come back to the forum with data on the rehabilitation of paedophiles? Even a drongo like you might be surprised to find that paedophiles have a low percentile for successful rehabilitation.

Ergo, part of the reason for imprisonment is the protection of the wider community.

[LRPV]

you can take your atonement and re socialization touchy feely sensitive to their needs and rights of child molesters and shove them up your yoohoo. YES, Full marks.

its not about revenge it is about retribution
there is, or rather should be a steep price to be paid by anyone who destroys the life of a child like that.

Full marks again.

I wonder if our Austrian member knows the difference between revenge and retribution?

[LRPV]

I've seen hardened criminals, who happen to be muslims, on TV here in Norway as well, demanding to have a prison-imam, halal food etc. So they can serve their sentence in accordance with their religion. Funny enough, none of them seem to demand that they also be punished according to islamic laws..? I wonder why.

Love your thinking PeterG

[INAT]

The second you commit such a horrible crime as child molestation your rights as a human i don't care what f***ing religion you are go out the window.This is just
gonna open the fllod gates for more bs from felons.
That is utter bs.He should be dead already.He should not be fed at all!

[LRPV]

Yeah, you won't believe it, but murderers and child molesters have rights, too.

Oh, BTW, telling somebody to shove something into ones "yoohoo" is just plain stupid. I actually expected a higher standard of discussion here.

You never cease to amaze me alfigel. In Austria, do convicted criminals in jail vote? When they are released do they become academics? It seems like you are a naive product of such a system.

[LRPV]

[quote=Miles.;2322979]PeterG makes a good point.

Aside from that, whether or not the guy is Muslim shouldn't matter, he's a human being first and he should be treated accordingly. [/QUOTES]

PeterG makes no point. PeterG wants to see child molesters of Muslim belief punished like they were e.g. under a Sharia law, that's all.



Why are you guys so absolutely ignorant towards religious beliefs? Probably only because Christian belief has no such strict rules on food, unlike Islam or Judaism. So, face it: religious discrimination can also happen via the deprivation of certain types of food. Even on Guantanamo Bay the inmates get halal food.

Ignorant tosspot. I happen to be reasonably well versed in the dietary laws of one religion. But because I will not grant full social rights to a paedophile you deem I am ignorant. How about debating me on PM you twerp?

(I only invite that because I can see this thread closing, maybe at my fault as my vitriol increases with my blood pressure to read your rockspider sympathies)

[sferrin]

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Whats the point of making him suffer for this crap through his religion, is it really that hard to get him some halal food? Oh but no he's a criminal so he is no longer human. You're probably one of those people who think we should execute people for petty theft.

My religion demands filet mignon, cavier, HDTV, and and X-BOX. Do you think they'd respect mine? No? Then why should they respect his? Let him eat the same as everybody else and let him be thankful he wasn't tried under Shiria law.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Wow, you are a bunch of fricking idiots. The goal of imprisonment is not revenge or having the inmate suffer, but atonement and resocialization.

Well I don't know about in Australia, but in the US, punishment is exactly what prison is for. That's the official purpose.



Even imprisonment is covered by human rights, and inmates must not be deprived from them. That means that even the worst murderer and child molester must be able to freely exercise his religious beliefs.

Says who? Where is it written in stone that basic human rights include the accommodation of all religious dogma? What if mine requires freedom? Or the continued commission of crimes? Or expensive food / materials for worship?



Heck, this even works on Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are deprived from basically all rights, but what they are allowed to do is exercise their belief.

Gitmo must be excluded from any objective assessment of what a prison is supposed to be. It operates purely on the basis of political expediency.



Fortunately we have a legal system and independent courts that protect felons from lynch mobs like you would form one.

I agree that an eye for an eye is nuts - as is the "throw the molester down a well" reaction - but IMHO you're swinging too far the other way. Prison is supposed to suck. People there deserve only to be maintained in minimal conditions with adequate shelter, personal safety, healthy food, and good sanitary conditions. If they'd like a larger menu, I'd suggest they remain out of prison.

[Firetxmi]

Says who? Where is it written in stone that basic human rights include the accommodation of all religious dogma? What if mine requires freedom? Or the continued commission of crimes? Or expensive food / materials for worship?



2 sheds, all of these questions can be answered by the Supreme Court ruling I referenced earlier:


The U.S. Supreme Court established the current standard for inmate First Amendment cases under a pair of 1987 decisions, Turner v. Safley and O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz. In Safley, the Court examined restrictions on inmate correspondence and inmates’ right to marry. The Court established the following standard: “When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

The Court identified several factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of the prison officials’ actions:

1. Whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. The Court noted that the “governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.” “Prison regulations restricting inmates’ First Amendment rights [must be] operated in a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression.”
2. Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates.
3. Whether accommodating prisoners’ constitutional rights will infringe on the rights of guards or other inmates and on the allocation of prison resources generally.
4. Whether there are alternative methods of accommodating prisoners’ rights at minimal cost to valid penological interests. The existence of easy alternatives can show that the regulation was an “exaggerated response” to prison concerns.

[Calanen]

There are three official goals of prison under Australian law.

1) Protection of the public through incarceration of the offender.

2) Retribution or punishment through the imposition of penalty.

3) Rehabilitation.

Interestingly, the US Federal system abandoned the rehabilitation goal in the 70s because as was stated in one of their reports 'Nothing works.'

[alfigel]

You never cease to amaze me alfigel. In Austria, do convicted criminals in jail vote? When they are released do they become academics? It seems like you are a naive product of such a system.

Yes, LRPV, even felons have rights, not same amount of rights as those not behind bars, but still some, and one of them is the right to freely exercise ones belief. It's been that way for a long time, and now that somebody who was non-Christian actually demanded this right for himself. Initially it was denied to him, but was clearly discrimination, and that was approved by the court. The human rights are universal, so everyone has the right to a humane treatment, even inmates. If you don't want to acknowledge that, I'm fine with it, but don't bother other people with your total ignorance towards what makes Western societies so much better than others.

But, nevertheless, here's some food for thought about the rights of prisoners (especially these "what the international instruments say" sections are interesting, so this handbook doesn't only apply to prisons in the UK):
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/human_rights_prison_management.pdf

[Limeyfellow]

Someone should remind him that the dietary restrictions can be lifted if its a matter of survival and thats all they have and so on and its not considered a sin then by Islam. The same reason why I find it kind of weird when people think dipping bullets in pig blood would make Muslims anything other than insulted. The guy seems to have a lack of knowledge about his own faith, but its not like thats limited to any one religion.

[Kant]

The QLD Corrective Services knew that this chap was a Muslim, and fed him Pork anyway. Vegetarians/Diabetics/Mormoms etc can all get special meals in prison because of their beliefs.
This particular type of **** stirring/money grabbing was happening long before this guy, so try not to get to indignant everyone.

Anyway, like the presiding Judge stated in her rulings

: "There was evidence that nutmeat was served with regularity. He actively disliked some of it, such as the nutmeat and the sausages. He was served more salad and tinned meat than was provided on the general menu and found this unacceptable. It is not a matter of being fussy, or expecting restaurant quality food; no doubt he had to endure his fair share of poor meals, just like every other prisoner."

Also, depending where this Prison is in Queensland (Wacol etc.) there are plenty of places in which you can buy Halal meat, and the expense isn't really that much greater than normal meat.

But, I'm just a paedophile, sympathising liberal.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2 sheds, all of these questions can be answered by the Supreme Court ruling I referenced earlier:

Mmmm - based on that SC ruling, I'm not really sure what side you're coming down on here - pro or con. As I read that ruling, it says nothing about a requirement to give anybody anything. All it does is lay out the criteria that must/must not be used in making the decision, not what that decision must be. In fact, were I a warden, I'd cite that ruling to back up my decision to not provide all kinds of things.

Prisoner; "I want XYZ"
Warden; "No, because it's too expensive, or it's unsafe, or it will cause disruption, or you can have it if you pay for it yourself, or it's contrary to the interests of the institution, etc."

They're all perfectly valid reasons for a "no".

[LaoSexMachine]

2 sheds, all of these questions can be answered by the Supreme Court ruling I referenced earlier:


What I get from that is within reason and doesn't force the prison to go out of there way to accomodate one group or person. Just me.

In Texas a death row inmates last meal can be anything he wants.........................as long as the prison kitchen can make it or have it around.

[Miles.]

What I get from that is within reason and doesn't force the prison to go out of there way to accomodate one group or person. Just me.

In Texas a death row inmates last meal can be anything he wants.........................as long as the prison kitchen can make it or have it around.

Wrong. Give the pedophile what he wants.

After all, he's a Muslim and he might be on the next "Free Political Prisoner XXXXX" poster.

[Firetxmi]

Wrong. Give the pedophile what he wants.

After all, he's a Muslim and he might be on the next "Free Political Prisoner XXXXX" poster.


Or the Jew, or the Christian. FYI, he isn't the first prisoner to sue for rights, Jews and Christians have come before him...

[Laworkerbee]

Jews and Christians have come before him...

In that order too p-)

[Warlord]

I believe in Saudi rape is a capital offence.


No problems with requiring halal then....:)

Rape is a capital offense here in Saudi. But not before being raped by the prison guards too.

In the Philippines, rapists in jail becomes someone's b!tch. Or by the time he enters the prison, the guards tell the other inmates of his offense then that rapist is immediately violated - beaten up and then whatever.

Anything "haram" (forbidden) is made "halal" in certain circumstances. I believe his incarceration constitutes one of those circumstances.

I think Aussie prison food is a hundred times better than "rancho". A porridge of rice, veggies and peices of meat like, intestines, organs, ears etc.... served in Manila's city jail. Try eating that 3 times day if you're lucky.