""Migrant rights trump women's rights" and "migrant rights trump children's rights" and (in some of the most grisly cases) "migrant rights trump disabled rights". It's not that there's only three or four - or seven or twelve, or 29 or 97 or 236 or 1,768 - rapes. It's not the "small" number of cases, but the fact that, in a fainthearted age prostrate before the multicultural pieties, these "few" cases are changing us. So that the most eminent jurists in Austria feel obliged to assimilate with their invaders: hey, how was poor old Amir supposed to know the cute l'il moppet wasn't consenting to anal rape?"
Descent into Evil
by Mark Steyn Steyn on Europe
"Migrant rights now trump children's rights." Hold that thought:AN IRAQI asylum seeker who confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool, claiming it was a "sexual emergency", has had his conviction overturned.This was a Viennese rape case that received quite a bit of coverage a few months ago, mainly because of the accused's defense that he was undergoing a "sexual emergency": Like almost 80 per cent of "refugees", Amir is a fit young man. He'd scrammed out of the country leaving his wife behind and therefore had not enjoyed conjugal relations for four months. Hence the "sexual emergency":
When the youngster went to the showers, Amir A. allegedly followed him, pushed him into a toilet cubicle, and violently sexually assaulted him.Amir was convicted of rape and serious sexual assault of a minor and sentenced to six years. However, the Austrian Supreme Court has now quashed the verdict. But hang on, didn't the guy confess? Ah, yes, but...
Following the attack, the accused rapist returned to the pool and was practising on the diving board when police arrived, after the 10-year-old raised the alarm with the lifeguard.
The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children's hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer's claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no...You might think the screams would have been a clue there, but apparently not:
The appeal court said the initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will.-go to links-
No comments:
Post a Comment