Thursday, April 27, 2006

Pregnant Girl Kicked in the Stomach: Detention for Youths

 
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.

26 comments:

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

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?

eatyourbeans said...

Lie down with dogs, get up damn near dead.
Maybe everybody here should just shut up; Islam makes our case so much more eloquently.

Megan said...

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!

blert said...

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

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

Along the same lines...
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/04/updated-value-of-life-in-sweden.html

Horrible.

Epaminondas said...

It's a tiny minority of preggo kickers

defender said...

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.

Raw Data said...

"there are justices sitting on the US Supreme Court that think European law should be the model for US judicial decisions."

You hurt the effor to fight Islamofascism with such wild distortions as it makes people who are aware of the dangers as simple right-wing boobs. I can't say it any more simply.

What a few justices are saying is that we should consider _precednt_ from other nations. What the law does is provide standardized ways to solve problems which repeat themselves time and again among all people. We will not like (I have no doubt) the solutions to these repeatable human problems offered by Islam. But do you think the French or Australians or Japanese might not have things to offer us? They do when it comes to other parts of human life so I don't know why we shouldn't _consider_precedent from other nations and in novel situations, use it as authority.

defender said...

Response to raw data:

I certainly do see opportunity to share ideas across international boundaries as a way to further solutions to human problems - and let those ideas be considered by the society of our sovereign nation within the representitive structure and processes that form our republic - not by singular high-minded "judges."

When the word "precedent" is used in the context of common law, we enter a more formal, and potentially automatic acceptance of the "precedent" as defacto law. For that is how the body of common law continues to expand - each decision builds a *binding* momentum. To accept foreign decisions as legal precedent we allow the creation of law outside the process and framework of our constitution and thereby conceed legal power to those who are not citizens of our nation. No, we certainly should not use foreign decisions as authority in novel or routine situations. We are to govern ourselves. I believe self governence is a not-so subtle theme in the documents that founded the United States.

Oh, and here are some examples of how ideas within the clear-thinking legal system of the UK are helping to solve not-so novel human problems in their society. Should we really want to emulate this?

Please read:

www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html

Exile said...

Just for once, I believe that we should use sharia logic..

Hang the bastards.

Dymphna said...

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.

enuff said...

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 said...

"...we certainly should not use foreign decisions as authority in novel or routine situations. We are to govern ourselves."

Should the Supreme Court justices be allowed to _consider_ how foreign courts handle a situation for which there is no precedent -- an "issue of first impression" -- in American law?

MaxedOutMama said...

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.

Raw Data said...

maxedout,
do you understand the meaning of the word "consider?"
do you understand the concept of "case of first impression?" it's a situation where there is NO US law precedent. yes there is a case before the Court.

defender said...

raw data,

Your comments indicate that you are not truly interested in engaging in debate here but instead prefer to operate a quiz show. Whatever...

I understand your postition as this:

You contend that the US Supreme Court, which is but one branch of our government, a government that is designed to have checks and balances, should use as legal precedent the decisions of the courts, and thereby the governments, of other nations. You contend that these 'foreign' decisions should be used as authoritative precedent to address issues that: 1) Occur "time and again among all peoples", 2) that are novel situations, and 3) in the situations of "cases of first impression." You imply that France, Australia, and Japan might be good sources for these legal precedents.

Do I have that right?

Here are my questions for you - perhaps not as rhetorical in nature as your questions to this forum:

1. By what standard should the court determine which nations, societies, ethnic groups, or alien life forms would qualify to be embraced by the judiciary to solve our most vexing problems? Which nations would be in the US Judiciary Club and which would be excluded?

2. How can we be sure that our approach to any "cases of first impression" would be inferior to any attempted solution determined by foreign governments?

3. Having failed to provide a compelling answer to question #2, how can you justify the risks associated with dismantling the independent and representative processes of the US form of government? Why would one want to do such a thing other than to move us toward the leftist utopian dream of one world government?

Raw Data said...

No you don't have it right at all, defender.
Not even close.

I don't see anyone can read what I wrote and come back with "You contend that these 'foreign' decisions should be used as authoritative precedent..."

Did you read what I wrote? It is obvious that you did not.

defender said...

raw data,

From your post:

"What a few justices are saying is that we should consider _precednt_ from other nations... do you think the French or Australians or Japanese might not have things to offer us? They do when it comes to other parts of human life so I don't know why we shouldn't _consider_precedent from other nations and in novel situations, use it as authority."

Raw Data said...

Do you understand the word "consider?"
Do you understand the concept of "considering?"

I see no idea why it should be improper for Justices to say "This is a case of first impression. There is no American precedent. Here is a very simililar case from Britain. I think that the way it was decided was wise because of ...We should _consider_ using this approach."

If that offends you, please explain why.

defender said...

raw data,

No, it does not "offend" me. I just believe it is WRONG and ENDANGERS a foundational aspect of the form of government described as a Democratic Republic.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that within our own *self government* we do not have the capacity to interpret our own laws with reference to our own constitution. The constitutionally stated role of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the laws written by our elected legislature and through those interpretations objectively (not by fiat) apply the constitution to new situations.

You provided no response to my question of what boundaries you would establish with regard to which governments our court should look to for guidance. The use of foreign law as precedent (and you used the word "authority") merely allows activist judges the venier of a reason to legislate from the bench as they chase after the latest fads enacted by foreign courts and governments. I am fundamentally opposed to that activity by the courts.

When our government comes upon vexing questions, it is most appropriate to consult the *self governed* with the question. This is done through democratic processes (elections of representitives, constitutional amendments, etc). To claim that our government should instead consult foreign governments about how to interpret our laws and run our country is akin to stating that our elected (or appointed) elite should consult with their *elite* foreign national *collegues* as to how to govern the unwashed herds of commoners - for the herd could not possibly have the intellectual or moral capacity to sort it out for themselves.

I rest. ...and will refrain from several pithy comments that would be so easy right now.

Cato said...

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.

Raw Data said...

Consider = "Think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision."

A legal decision is based on an idea.

I see no reason why US Supreme Court Justices should not, under the conditions I specified, read and debate and _consisder_ solutions to legal problems suggested by foreign courts.

Obviously, they should be under no obligation to accept those decisions as American law.

"Considering" an idea is something which we should all do, everyday. I highly recommend the practice

Cato said...

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...

Thank you for reading.

It is extremely annoying when people project their own beliefs on to one's own word.

Dymphna said...

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?

Cato said...

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.