Badge Andrew Brown Blog

Cif belief

Cherie Booth unfair to atheists?

Cherie Booth has been accused of discrimination against atheists after letting a Muslim off with a suspended sentence

Everything we know about the case of Shamso Miah seems to come from one agency report of the court case. The same phrases are repeated in all the coverage, from the Daily Mail to the Independent, though there is a slightly different version in the local paper and they tell a sparse story: he was queuing in a branch of Lloyds TSB last August, after a visit to a mosque; there was a row about who was next in line, and he hit Mohammed Furcan twice before leaving the bank. Furcan ran after him out into the street, and Miah hit him for a third time, breaking his jaw.

He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and came up before Cherie Booth, wife of former prime minister, Tony Blair, on 24 January this year. She suspended his six month sentence for two years, on the grounds that he was "a religious person and have not been in trouble before … you are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

So Terry Sanderson of the NSS has complained that this is discrimination against atheists:

"What would have happened if he had been an atheist? Would Mrs Blair/Booth have refused to suspend the sentence on the grounds that non-believers have no guiding principles that tell them that smashing people in the face for no good reason is not the right thing to do?

This is a very worrying case of discrimination that appears to show that religious people get different treatment in Cherie Blair's court."

But the point isn't discrimination. Judges are paid to discriminate among prisoners before them, and to distinguish those for whom prison is the right treatment from everyone else. Defendants of otherwise good character should obviously get different sentences to habitual recidivists.

The real disagreement is whether being a devout Muslim (or Christian) is in itself a sign of good character. Cherie Booth seems to be arguing that it is, though less important than his previously spotless record. For Sanderson and those who think like him, being a devout believer is quite the opposite. It's evidence of bad character.

In Sanderson's world, judges should say things like "Although you have no previous convictions, you are none the less a follower of Pope Benedict XVI and so unable to tell right from wrong. I therefore find myself compelled to impose a custodial sentence"

I don't myself think that "religion" or even being a Muslim, or a Christian is a distinction fine-grained enough to be useful in this context. Some sorts of religious belief make some crimes more likely; some positions of religious authority add to the gravity of offences committed by their holders. It is reasonable for a judge to say "You are a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki and therefore especially dangerous"; or even "You are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so should set an example. Your sentence will therefore be heavier."

But if some religious beliefs make crimes more likely or more serious, it follows that there are others which have the opposite effect. It would be absurd not to take those into account when sentencing. Someone who is part of a supportive congregation is knitted into society in a useful way. The beauty of the case of Shamso Miah is that we have no idea which he is. Nor is it clear whether first-time offenders of his sort are usually jailed, whatever their beliefs. So everyone can enjoy their opinions entirely from first principles, as we call our prejudices.

If I can dig out from the Home Office any statistics on the correlation between religious belief and re-offending rates, they would add some facts to the discussion. I will try. If they showed that religious belief made it less likely to re-offend, would judges be justified in taking it into account?

Latest posts

Today's best video