Multiculturalism invites barbarians to practice their tribal customs

Sunday Telegraph journalist Piers Akerman was right in his opinion piece (April 6, 2014, p.32) raising serious concerns about how Australian courts are immorally accepting “cultural differences” as ­ mitigating factors to excuse abhorrent crimes inflicted by imported muslim men upon Australian women.

Tolerant Australians?

So why do the Australian Bar Association and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration seem to decree a privileged right to excuse violence and rape against women by muslim men with increasing regularity?

Good faith is extinguished when entrusted law betrays society’s fundamental values.

Folk load your father’s old rifle and be ready to defend the home!

The Green-Labor kumbaya crowd has pressured politicians to soften criminal laws in the name of imagined ‘multiculturalism’.  Australians’ celebrated cultural ‘fair go’ and ‘tolerance’ towards others has been used and abused beyond its intended bounds.  Foreign abusers are demanding Australians condone anti-Australian values, else be tagged “racists”.

Under such disturbing trends, barbaric sharia law is edging closer downunder.  When muslim MP Ed Husic entered the Australian Parliament and swore an oath of allegiance to the Australian people on the Qur’an, a dangerous sharia wedge tainted our nation’s precious legislature. 

According to islamic sharia law, a muslim woman is the property of her husband. That a muslim husband has the legal right and religious obligation to beat a wife if she disobeys him, is disloyal to him or simply does not please him. The concept of wife abuse does not exist in islam. There is no concept of marital rape. Under islamic sharia law, a muslim woman cannot refuse sex with her husband. 

According to islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:  she does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (i.e. “let’s herself go”), she refuses to meet his sexual demands, she leaves the house without his permission or a “legitimate reason”, she neglects her religious duties.

‘Slutwalk’ womens rights protest in Berlin

Akerman continued with his concerns:

“In 2013, Victorian Court of Appeal Justice Robert Redlich granted muslim Esmatullah Sharifi, 31, who had pleaded guilty to the rape of an 18-year-old girl and a 25-year-old woman in the same week in December, 2008, the right to appeal against the cumulative 14-year-jail term he is serving.

When he was sentenced, Judge Mark Dean said Sharifi had gone hunting for vulnerable, drunken women to rape.

Judge Dean pointedly noted that his flight from the Taliban was no excuse. “The offence committed by you was an extremely serious act of violence, and in my opinion you well knew the victim was not consenting,” he said.

Sharifi found the teen near a Frankston nightclub and ­offered to drive her to meet friends at a Mornington hotel. But instead he drove her to a dark street and raped her. “Your brutal conduct must be denounced by this court,” Judge Dean said.

In granting leave, Judge Redlich found Sharifi’s lack of insight into his offence and the fact that he had no appreciation that his conduct was wrong adequate reasons to support his appeal.

Sharifi succeeded in his ­appeal with the Full Court knocking one year and six months off his total sentence. He then grabbed the child’s hand and began to lead her away before she looked up, saw it wasn’t her father, started crying and pulled her hand away.

Asylum seeker Esmatullah Sharifi

Even more strange was the decision of Magistrate Ron Saines to drop an attempted child-stealing charge against Ali Jaffari, 35, in the Geelong Magistrates’ Court saying he would have reasonable doubt about his guilt, citing “cultural differences” as one mitigating factor.

The case related to the ­alleged attempt by Jaffari in January, 2013, to lead a four-year-old girl away from a sports oval while her father and brother played cricket.

Police Prosecutor, Sergeant Brooke Shears said that while the child’s father was throwing the ball to his son in the nets, the little girl was playing with her own bat at the net opening.

She said Jaffari was walking around the oval, when he ­approached the child, removed the bat from her hand and ­rested it against a bollard.

“He then grabbed the child’s hand and began to lead her away before she looked up, saw it wasn’t her father, started crying and pulled her hand away,” she said.

“The victim’s father turned, saw what was happening and yelled at Jaffari, ‘What do you think you’re doing?’ The victim ran crying to her father and he comforted her while Jaffari walked off around the oval.”

After being awarded a permanent protection visa in early 2012 by the Gillard government upon arriving by boat, Jaffari was convicted of ­indecent assault on two boys aged 12 and 13.

The prosecutor said that, when interviewed, Jaffari told police: “For us is not an issue.”

Magistrate Saines said the prosecution case fell short of criminality and cited cultural differences as a possible mitigating factor.

But Sgt Shears insisted that the offending had nothing to do with cultural differences. After being awarded a permanent protection visa in early 2012 by the Gillard government upon arriving by boat, Jaffari was convicted of ­indecent assault on two boys aged 12 and 13.

Asylum seeker Ali Jaffari

Witnesses said he started grabbing and rubbing himself against them, cuddling and kissing them on the neck and telling one of the boys he was “sexy”. One of the victims said he followed them to the showers, cornered them and asked if he “wanted company”.

He received a two-year community corrections order with 300 hours unpaid community work and was listed on a sex offenders’ register.

Curiously, sex crimes, usually against women and not boys, attract far harsher penalties under afghan islamic law than they do here, yet it is one cultural difference our judges and lawyers don’t seem to embrace.

Playing to the minorities is a losing game as nations across Europe find to their cost.”

And two readers’ comments are apt:

Bill said:  “Illegal arrivals in the country have better than diplomatic immunity and cannot be sent back under the UN non-refoulment provisions regardless of the crimes they commit. The Australian Government needs to rescind the dysfunctional 1951 UN Refugee Convention to retake control from the UN and people smugglers.

Australians should decide who comes here, how many , when and, above all, who is allowed to remain here!”

Margaret said:   “It’s time and more that judges and magistrates were reviewed regularly to see if they are doing their job properly. Just because they may reach high status doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be examined as to their competence. In the two cases mentioned, just the tip of the iceberg I imagine, the failure of the legal profession to observe an even-handed attitude to crime should bring them under the strictest scrutiny. All these ridiculous decisions do is to inflame the cultural divide. No one is above the law, even if their previous culture allowed what we do not. They are either treated equally under the law or they are sent back where they came from. We have enough home grown criminals clogging up our gaols as it is.

Further to this, the sentences meted out to those who commit crimes against women and children are never punished to the extent the law allows. It seems that in this area there will never be punishments fitting the crime.”