ACHTUNG deutsche Leser: Bitte klicken Sie hier, um diesen Artikel auf Deutsch zu lesen. Danke.
Düsseldorf, Germany: Just how arrogant individual German criminal judges have become was revealed on Wednesday at the District Court. That is where an illegal asylum seeker, accused of groping, was given a judgment of probation, so that “the judgment won’t serve to please the expectations of an angry mob.”
In the early morning hours of January 6th, as she was waiting for a train, a 15-year-old girl was sexually molested by two men. “The suspect grabbed her and forced her to sit on his lap even though she tried to resist. He groped her private parts and he kissed her on the mouth against her will,” the internal police report writes. One of the perpetrators was a young Syrian, the other one was from Iraq. A third Iraqi stood by and ridiculed the victim: “Person #3 stood by and laughed, says the police report. A Moroccan observed the situation and informed the police, who then freed the girl from her two tormentors.
The attack was supposed to be concealed
This attack, too, was supposed to be concealed from the public. It’s thanks to Die Welt that the people of the state capital even heard about it, when the incident was reported four days after it happened. The police explained that the attack on the young girl was not reported by them for “reasons of protection for the victim.”
One of the suspects, the now 22-year-old Iraqi Mohammed A., had to face juvenile court on Wednesday despite having reached legal age. Mohammed A. had confessed and admitted to have kissed the 15-year-old against her will and having massively groped her. But since the Düsseldorf district court had passed increasingly mild and seemingly sympathetic judgments for offenders lately, which caused a bit of indignation among the population, a harsh judgment against the asylum seeker, who entered Germany illegally, was not expected.
A “judgment that won’t serve to please the expectations of an angry mob”
But what came next was a new low point even for this court: The judge sentenced Mohammed A. to 20 months for sexual assault. But because this nation of law, after the incidents on New Year’s Eve, “should not slide into a downward spiral, in which we let ourselves be harnessed in front of the wagons of certain political groups” and we should not “pass judgments that please the expectations of an angry mob,” the judge suspended the 20 months and gave him probation instead. Under the requirement that the Iraqi, who lacks even a fixed address, complete 150 hours of community service, the court was ready for the man’s immediate release.
It is only thanks to the prosecuting attorney that Mohammed A. was not immediately released from custody. He doubted that the Iraqi would live a crime-free life in the future in Germany, and he spoke of the fact that Mohammed A. had lived and tried for asylum in many different countries under many different names. In Sweden he was even granted legal residence, and yet “he still had nothing better to do than to commit a heinous act here,” once he had crossed illegally into Germany. The court granted a deadline to the prosecuting attorney to file an appeal against the immediate release of the offender. But even so, this won’t change anything about the fact that the citizenry has already been ridiculed and mocked by being called “angry mob” by an impotent criminal justice system.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
We are now beginning to witness “self-imposed” Sharia Law in the Western Judicial Systems.
Think about this:
These ‘verdicts’ of NO JAIL TIME for rapists and child-molesters are the verdicts that a Muslim rapist (or) child-molester would receive in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. according to Islamic Sharia Law. As we know, according to the tenets of Islam, the ‘victim’ of the rape or molestation is perceived as the ‘guilty’ party, responsible for the crime. Thereby yielding little or no punishment for the actual perpetrator.
Today, we are beginning to witness the Western Judicial Systems impose these same verdicts of ‘sharia law’ on us. We are seeing this in verdicts issued in Britain, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the United States and elsewhere.
It is vital that we understand this principle:
For Sharia Law to exist in the West, it is not necessary that we be under the establishment of a designated Islamic Khilafah. But rather, it is only necessary that our own judges and judicial system are acting on behalf of Islam, themselves, through the adjudication of our laws according to Islamic jurisprudence.
– jsm @ sharia unveiled