timeimmortal

Count Roland writes in with a comment about this article, concerning one Chaudhry Rashid, who stands accused of the honour killing of his own daughter, Sandeela Kanwal.

Rashid demanded to be served a halal meal in prison, to which I remarked that some of the cooks I know, upon hearing of the man and his request, would go out of their way to fry his every meal in bacon grease.

Writer, from our legal heritage one is innocent until proven guilty. This man is only, as of yet, accused of the murder. Now, it may be very clear he did it, but he is not guilty, legally, until a judge or jury says so. As such, as a legally inocent man, he ought to get the same rights any other legally innocent but accused man gets. That may not include control over dietary options, but we ought to defend the presumption of innocence if we are to defend our classical liberties. Is not the abandonment of the legal presumption of innocence one of the bugaboos we rail against as it respects our kangaroo court HRCs?

The good Count has a point, but I would suggest that any (ahem) “guest of the state” — whether merely accused or formally convicted of a crime — is in no place to demand control over his or her dietary options. Presumption of innocence is paramount, but that by no means implies that the kitchens at the institutions at which such men as Rashid are incarcerated should necessarily cater to every obscure culinary demand that comes their way.

I’m a fan of being tough on crime, and I believe that the experience of incarceration — before, during, and (if it comes to that) after the trial — should be humane, but not pleasant. The government is obliged to feed each person in its charge, but that in no way implies that the cooks at the jailhouse are obligated to take requests.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

~ by Kenneth on July 15, 2008.