Muslim 'surprised' that wife-beating is illegal in Canada

Muslim 'surprised' that wife-beating is illegal in Canada July 28, 2017

An Iranian immigrant who systematically brutalised his wife, and was subsequently given a light prison sentence by a Canadian judge, has been sent back to jail by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
According to this report, the man expressed surprise at his original trial that there were serious consequences in Canada for beating one’s wife. He was jailed for 18 months by Judge William Gorewich, who cited a “significant cultural gap” while discussing his reasons for imposing the light sentence.
The man was released from prison after serving less than half of his sentence.
Earlier this month, a three-judge appeal panel found the sentence to be “manifestly unfit” and ordered that he be arrested and sent back to prison for a total sentence of four years, minus one year’s credit for time and parole already served
The convicted man, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, moved to Canada with his family in 2009. The judges found he sexually assaulted his wife three to four times a month, forcing her:

To have sex with him by hitting her, pulling her hair, pinching her and forcefully removing her clothes. The sex was painful. She cried out quietly so the children would not hear.

He also violently abused her and their two sons, slapping, kicking and punching them and hitting them with a belt.
The judges added:

On one occasion he locked them outside on a snowy winter day while they were wearing nothing but shorts and T-shirts. They waited barefoot for 40 minutes until their mother arrived home.

The assaults, which began in Iran, continued in Canada and came to light when the youngest son confided in a teacher at his school.
The appeal judges noted that the man did not use his cultural background as a defence for his actions; he denied the violence entirely. Yet Gorewich still referred to cultural issues twice in his sentencing.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Gorewich erred by finding that the wife and children had “no injuries”;  the man was at no risk of re-offending, and the sentences should be concurrent. But the judges reserved a page and a half of their 14-page ruling for refuting his use of cultural considerations in sentencing.

Cultural differences do not excuse or mitigate criminal conduct. To hold otherwise undermines the equality of all individuals before and under the law, a crucial Charter value. It would also create a second class of person in our society – those who fall victim to offenders who import such practices.
This is of particular significance in the context of domestic violence. All women in Canada are entitled to the same level of protection from abusers. The need to strongly denounce domestic violence is in no way diminished when that conduct is the product of cultural beliefs that render women acceptable targets of male violence.
If anything, cultural beliefs may be an aggravating factor enhancing the need for specific deterrence in cases where the sentencing judge is satisfied that the offender continues to maintain those views at the time of sentencing.

The man, who operates a carpentry business, was released after serving six months in prison and now lives with another woman and his sons.
He has no insight or awareness of the seriousness of his actions, the appeals court judges wrote, nor is there any evidence of rehabilitation.

"The child molesters are CHILD MOLESTERS. Not all gays are child molesters. They're not the ..."

Prominent Vatican official, Cardinal Pell, is ..."
"It'll be the standard boilerplate whining about anti-Catholic bullies, slander of LGBT, and fetus-person whataboutism. ..."

Prominent Vatican official, Cardinal Pell, is ..."
"You're really a paid shill, aren't you? And, you have nothing to contribute. Blocked."

Prominent Vatican official, Cardinal Pell, is ..."
"Offer him a deal where he spends the rest of his life in a cabin ..."

Prominent Vatican official, Cardinal Pell, is ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pingback: Muslim ‘surprised’ that wife-beating is illegal in Canada | SecularNews.Org()

  • Harry

    Ignorantly Primitive or just a Specious Liar?
    And here is more appalling behaviour towards women … but in this case the victim of rape and institutionalised mysogeny is only 10.

  • Angela_K

    Ignorance of the law is not a defence. As this vile excuse for a man is unaware of his actions the Canadians should deport him back to Iran, he is a danger to women.

  • Broga

    Our own government prefers to look the other way regarding Muslim atrocities. FGM, or the slicing of a baby girl’s vagina, being a particularly vile practice leading to a lifetime of suffering. How many prosecutions have led to prison for the criminals who do this? Very few, I think. Why?

  • Paul

    I can’t wait for the comments that ‘she deserved it’ or culturally or religiously she is his property and she must accept and therefore endure this.
    As to his bewilderment that it’s a crime in Canada well there is a cure for that – leave.

  • L.Long

    Its amazing that he was found guilty of anything! They way the women & kids are indoctrinated with fear & pain from a very young age, it tends to be accepted as normal!

  • John the Drunkard

    While the initial sentence is shockingly lenient, and justified in terms that should get the judge pulled from the bench, it is still unsettling to see that a convicted person could be re-sentenced for a crime after they’ve served out their time.
    If such crimes are prosecuted in the future, can the prosecution include provisions in parole terms that would better protect the victims and the public?

  • Paul

    John the drunkard
    His sentence was full but he was released early he did not complete his sentence so there is nothing wrong returning him – he would have been released on licence which means he could have been returned to prison in some circumstances.
    There is nothing wrong in an Appeal and that his sentence was corrected. And corrected is the correct term as the Public Interest in sentencing correctly (namely a stiffer sentence) far out weighs his right to get what he got first (a light and incorrect sentence for the crime). Sentencing is the punishment must or ought to fit the crime and the Court of Appeal rightly concluded the original judge got it wrong and increased the sentence it could easily have reduced it. That is the role of Appeals.
    The real issue in increasing the sentence is the Public Policy issue that we feel that courts get it right, and when they don’t that we have faith that an Appeals process puts the wrong right as it has in this instance.
    (Hope this helps).

  • tonye

    I am not ‘surprised’ at the gullibility of the Judge.