Multi-culturalism gone mad: lentils for dinner, murder for dessert

Defense attorneys say some pretty crazy things to get their clients off the hook, or secure a lenient sentence.  The defense of 75-year-old Pakistani immigrant Noor Hussain, who fatally beat his wife into a “bloody mess” with a stick because she served him lentils instead of goat meat for dinner, is one for the books.  From the New York Post:

“Defendant asked [his wife] to cook goat and [his wife] said she made something else,” the court papers indicated as Hussain’s murder trial opened on Wednesday.

“The conversation got louder and [his wife] disrespected defendant by cursing at defendant and saying motherf-?-ker, and . . . defendant took a wooden stick and hit her with it on her arm and mouth.”

Defense attorney Julie Clark admitted Hussain beat his wife — but argued that he is guilty of only manslaughter because he didn’t intend to kill her. In Pakistan, Clark said, beating one’s wife is customary.

“He comes from a culture where he thinks this is appropriate conduct, where he can hit his wife,” Clark said in her opening statements at the Brooklyn Supreme Court bench trial. “He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife.”

Prosecutors, however, said Hussain meant for his wife to die.

“His intentions were to kill his wife,” Assistant District Attorney Sabeeha Madni said in court. “This was not a man who was trying to discipline his wife.”

Even if his “intentions” were to discipline his wife, wouldn’t we still have a huge problem here?  Nobody from any cultural background should even momentarily believe it’s acceptable to beat their wives, for any reason, with any desired outcome in mind.

According to people who lived in their building, Noor’s wife suffered beatings for years, and evidently no one put a stop to it.  The nonsense from this defense attorney really isn’t that much more outrageous than a lot of the multiculturalism and Islam-is-different stuff we get from the dominant academic and political regime.  Neither is the tendency to appeal to foreign constitutions and judicial codes as if they’re somehow relevant in American courtrooms.