The following article is taken from the Berliner Morgenpost of April 25, 2006, and was kindly translated from the German by Gates of Vienna reader Borussia in Berlin.
This is raw data; Dymphna may want to apply “I Could Scream” to it later. But what I notice is that the “youths”, needless to say, are Muslims, although the article avoids the M-word.
What was the motive to force such a violent abortion? Was fathering a kaffir baby just too much humiliation and dishonor for the family?
The original article (in German) is here.
UPDATE: Commenter defender has left some remarks that deserve to be quoted in full:
Eclipsed by the now almost common place horrors of the Religion of Peace, this article also provides some interesting insight into the upside down moral calculus of the progressive mind of Europe:
1. They were not convicted of robbery because the only reason they took her cell phone was to prevent her for calling for help! I suppose the robbery charge would have stuck had it been determined that they stole the phone for their own personal use e.g. perhaps to call out for pizza. Also note that the focus is on the supposed intent of the bastards, not in the actions that they chose to carry out. 2. Then, in the last paragraph, it appears that the boyfriend was given extra slack because... well... his family also wanted the unborn child to not exist.
Remember, there are justices sitting on the US Supreme Court that think European law should be the model for US judicial decisions.
Pregnant girl kicked in the stomach: Detention for youths
Judge speaks of insidious and exceptional brutality
Report by Michael Mielke
The initial shocking reports had not been exaggerated. The 16 year old Hassan El-Ch. and the one year younger Oktan P. * (names changed) had indeed tried to kick a fetus out of the stomach of a 15 year old girl on December 3, last year. Both received a comparatively high youth sentence in a criminal case held before the Berlin regional court, from which the public was excluded. Hassan El-Ch., who comes from a Lebanese family, was sentenced to three years and six months; Oktan P., of Turkish origins, received three years.
The verdict is not yet binding and the convicted have one week to appeal. The youths will remain in detention. The 16 year old El-Ch. showed no regret and flew into a fit of rage in the court room when the verdict was read.
According to the report by the chairman of the youth chamber, Bernd Miczajka, the two accused had lured their victim under a pretext to the yard of the Hedwig Dohm school in Moabit district on December 3. The German, Angelina R., was the girlfriend of Hassan El-Ch. and six months pregnant. What followed then seems incomprehensible: the unsuspecting girl was suddenly thrown to the ground. Both of the accused struck and kicked their victim, particularly in the stomach and on her back, in order to kill the unborn baby. At several points they repeatedly asked Angelina R. whether the child was already dead. When she answered negatively, she was further abused and finally forced to climb a three meter high scaffold and jump down from there. Afraid for her life, the girl obeyed their orders, jumped, and injured herself on her chin and lips.
Following this, El-Ch. and Oktan P. released the schoolgirl, convinced that the unborn baby had now actually died.
Judge Miczajka spoke of an insidious, and extremely brutal methodology.
The juvenile court considered the fact that that the two young people inquired again about the death of the unborn baby while abusing their victim as particularly despicable.
Angelina R. initially remained lying in the schoolyard, but was then able to drag herself into the nearby gymnasium to ask for help. The unborn child was saved in the hospital by a Caesarean section. According to court reports, the mother and child are — at least physically — in good condition.
The conviction of the two juvenile offenders followed a jointly committed abortion attempt and grievous bodily injury. A further accusation by the public prosecutor’s office – a case of robbery – was not upheld by the court. The accused had taken a mobile phone from the girl, according to Judges Miczajka, but this probably did not occur in order to keep it, but to prevent Angelina R. from getting help quickly.
A conviction because of attempted homicide or attempted murder is not legally possible, the judge explained, since this crime does not apply to unborn life.
The youth court considered in mitigation the confessions of the two accused who had no previous record. In addition, Hassan El-Ch. was in an exceptional situation since he was under considerable pressure from his family because of the pregnancy of his girlfriend.
13 comments:
Horrifying. Three years .... laughable .... this is one case where a little humane castration would seem to fit the crime/criminal perfectly.
Shall we take bets on Hassan's future antisocial criminal career now?
Lie down with dogs, get up damn near dead.
Maybe everybody here should just shut up; Islam makes our case so much more eloquently.
That's just sick. "Unborn life" ... except now the baby is OUT of her and is alive. So what the H*LL is the difference? Oh that just makes me so mad. GRRRR!
A C Section at six months is no trivial thing: the mother must have been gravely injured -- by her 'lover'.
I would also rate the impregnation statutory rape since she must have been only fourteen at conception. If classmates, he was being held back.
High school boys hanging with girls two years younger than themselves is quite abnormal. He's a predator.w
Along the same lines...
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/04/updated-value-of-life-in-sweden.html
Horrible.
It's a tiny minority of preggo kickers
Here's Defender's link:
City Journal, as only Theodore Dalrymple can convey ideas:
Returning briefly to England from France for a speaking engagement, I bought three of the major dailies to catch up on the latest developments in my native land. The impression they gave was of a country in the grip of a thoroughgoing moral frivolity. In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.
This is not the charming or uplifting frivolity of Feydeau’s farces or Oscar Wilde’s comedies; it is the frivolity of real decadence, bespeaking a profound failure of nerve bound to have disastrous consequences for the country’s quality of life. The newspapers portrayed frivolity without gaiety and earnestness without seriousness—a most unattractive combination.
Not to mention the fact that the final arbiter in Europe, for any country's laws, is the Euro-court in Strasborg.
Any US Supreme Court justice who uses "international law" as his or her precedence is subverting the Constitution of our country.
The definition of "sovereignty" means what it says.
In light of this German incident, this Swedish piece might be of particular interest: 'Separate laws for Muslims' idea slammed
The article concludes with this quote by Lars Leijonborg, "Sweden has equality between men and women. To introduce exceptions for Muslims so that women can be oppressed with the support of the law is completely unacceptable to me...."
Unfortuately that appears to be exactly the course Eurabia has chosen to steer.
Maybe not today but certainly tomorrow.
Raw Data - the answer to your question is a resounding "NO!"
Sorry, but this is foolish. In France an adolescent Muslim girl may not wear a scarf in school. In France Scientology is outlawed.
European countries do not have our constitution. We have separate legal systems, and I want to keep it that way. Of course they have something to offer. It is the place of the legislators and the public to consider those offerings and to incorporate them within US law if they are acceptable to us. It is not the place of judges.
Defender - very well said, and I couldn't agree more.
Raw_data: you seem to think that "considering" foreign decisions is a self-evidently reasonable and unobjectionable practice. You have asked repeatedly if anyone knows what "consider" means. Well, to my mind, one doesn't simply "consider" (i.e. "ponder") something - one considers "as". How are these foreign precedents to be considered? As authority? As precedent? That is precisely what is out of the question. As defender suggests, the presumption that our existing system is not robust enough to assimilate a previously unknown condition by constitutional means would be suicidal to the remnants of our consitutional government.
No-one is saying that justices can't read foreign opinions; but that is as far as their "consider"-ation should extend.
Well, actually what you said (after the gratuitous crack about "right wing boobs") was:
I don't know why we shouldn't _consider_precedent from other nations and in novel situations, use it as authority
(emphasis added)
Since then, you've been dealing mostly in sarcasm.
If you had read defender's comments as closely as you wish people would read yours, you would see that he has already stipulated (as did I, with less eloquence) what you now maintain is your entire point - that "consideration" is all right as long as it does not regard extra-constitutional law as having any standing as precedent or authority. it does not.
So we no longer have anything to argue about.
raw data said:
It is extremely annoying when people project their own beliefs on to one's own word...
You must live a charmed life outside your attempts to communicate on these comments. It has been my experience that *all* communication is partial. Thus, if one is not understood, one tries again, or one simply walks away. But annoyed? Why? As Peter Drucker famously said, "communication is the act of the receiver, not the sender."
IOW, if people fail to understand what it is you're trying to say, their intellectual limits are their problem, right?
And if they *do* understand and fail to agree with your terms and definitions, it's still their problem,no?
You, meanwhile, are home free. So what's the annoyance about? Am I missing something here?
Someone who starts his argument by dishing out an epithet like "right wing boobs" hardly has room to be annoyed when people don't seem to grasp his meaning (especially when he doesn't state it clearly).
His ultimate point (or in its ultimate formulation) was trivial; it appears that HE was the one projecting an attitude (one of right-wing boobery) onto the Baron.
Read his original comment. It was offensive, smug and wrong.
Post a Comment