Sun, Telegraph And Daily Mail Use Rhea Page’s Attackers To Bash Muslims With Dishonest Reporting
The Daily Mail states this as a fact:
The four girls had screamed ‘kill the white slag’ as they kicked her.
The four Somalian girls are Muslim.
Page was with her boyfriend, Lewis Moore, 23, waiting for a taxi when she was attacked by Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, Hibo Maxamed, 24, and Ifrah Nur, 28.
“We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ‘white bitch’ and ‘white slag’ at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground. They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me… Even after the police came and they all ran away, one of them came running back to kick me in the head one last time. I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can’t think of any other reason.”
In court, each of the women admitted actual bodily harm.
The criminals were not jailed. They were handed suspended sentences, each sentenced to six-month jail terms, suspended for 12 months, at Leicester Crown Court last month. Hibo Maxamed also received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am, while the others were ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.
The Mail says:
Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes.
The Mail sees the Muslim angle as a key element to this story. Its headline runs:
Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling ‘kill the white slag’ freed after judge hears ‘they weren’t used to drinking because they’re Muslims’
What the court heard was Gary Short, mitigating for Ambaro Maxamed, saying:
“Although Miss Page’s partner used violence, it doesn’t justify their behaviour. They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.”
None of the defendants was charged with racial aggravation. The court did not believe race to be a factor.
The Mail writes:
Nur claimed Mr Moore, a fence builder, had been racially abusive, but this was not accepted by the prosecution.
So. Both sides alleged racial abuse. And both sides’ arguments were dismissed. But the Mail has its story. It needs to push the Muslim angle. The opening line of the Mail’s story reports:
A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion.
Are they a gang because they are Muslims? No. Did the judge pay any heed to the defence’s argument about religion affecting their tolerance to booze? There is no sign that he did.
Compare that to the Telegraph’s opening line:
Rhea Page, 22, had been walking home with her boyfriend after a night out when the drunken women attacked her, knocking her to the ground and taking turns to kick her in the head.
The Telegraph story does not mention the word “Muslim” once.
The Sun, however, agrees with the Mail. Its headline goes:
Muslim girl gang who kicked woman in head freed after court hears they were ‘not used to drinking’
The paper than connives to produce this line:
But the judge handed the girls suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.
We do not know that the judge paid any heed to defence’s argument. But the Sun makes a direct link. This smacks of dishonest reporting.
It smacks of this on the Gates Of Vienna blog:
The judge let Ms. Page’s assailants off with suspended sentences. He said that they were not used to the effects of alcohol, due to their religious and cultural background.No. He did not.
On this forum, readers are told:
Racist gang go free – because they ‘weren’t used to drinking’
Only, race was not a proven issue in the crime.
But the story builds, and the Telegraph then produces a second report that notes:
Muslim women not used to drinking walk free after attack on woman… However, the judge handed the women suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.
The lie gathers momentum.
The attack on Miss Page, though frightening, was not life threatening. Perhaps this influenced the judge? The Mail writes:
Miss Page was treated for bruises and grazes after the attack in June last year…
Our intention is not to play down Miss Page’s suffering, rather to ask why this story made it to page 5 of the Daily Mail and is worthy of a Sun editorial that says the girl gang “screamed racist abuse… The poor dears were Muslims and not used to drinking, you see“. This was not about Broken Britain, the Sun’s pet cause. Why not? Why isn’t this presented as just another grim case of mindless, drink-fueled violence? Why is this about Muslims attacking a white woman?
The Mail then recall the words of Judge Brown, who said that “those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside”:
But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence.
Says Hibo Maxamed: “I’m not proud of it, it’s not something I want to talk about. I just want to get on with my life.”
As a Muslim…