In other words, you must not educate yourselves about the context of these men's actions. To do so would be prejudiced. Of course, Justice Bernard Bongiorno is himself pre-judging that no such material would be relevant or illuminating in this case, and assuming that Islam has nothing to do with it on a priori grounds and almost certainly in defiance of the defendants' own sentiments. But that's not prejudice.
"No place for prejudice in terror case, judge tells potential jurors," by Karen Kissane for The Age (thanks to Wallhacker):
POTENTIAL jurors in a terror trial due to open next week have been warned by a Supreme Court judge that they should excuse themselves from jury duty if they were prejudiced against Muslims.Justice Bernard Bongiorno is presiding over the trial of Abdul Nacer Benbrika and 11 other Melbourne men accused of terrorist activities. The men were arraigned yesterday before a jury of 10 women and five men. All the defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The trial is tipped to be one of Victoria's longest and most complex, with an extra-large jury of 15 empanelled to sit for between six and nine months.
Nearly 1200 Victorians were called as potential jurors in the case over four days last week, as it was expected that many would need to be excused because of the length of the trial.
Justice Bongiorno told them the Crown alleged the defendants were members of a terrorist organisation.
He said: "All the accused in this case are Muslims … There are people in our community who hold and sometimes express attitudes which might be regarded as hostile to or discriminatory towards Muslims simply because they are Muslims.
"Let me say this to you very clearly: there is no place for such a person on a jury in this case. No place whatsoever."
Justice Bongiorno told them if they could not be impartial, they should ask to be excused from jury duty.
"For a juror to judge an accused person not by reference solely to the evidence against him, but because of who he is, would be wicked indeed," he warned. [...]
Justice Bongiorno warned them strongly against being influenced by media reports or trying to do their own research on topics linked to the trial. "You must not start reading about Islam or Muslims or terrorism or anything of that nature. You must not go to the internet and seek any information. The information that you have to decide this case will be given to you in this courtroom. I can't emphasise this more strongly."...
I guess Australia, along with Western Europe and America, is also suiciding itself.
"All the accused in this case are Muslims'
what a coincidence
"All the accused in this case are Muslims'
what a coincidence
Posted by: Elric66 at February 13, 2008 9:53 AM
LOL. Love your sarcasm, Elric.
I have to laugh at the dhimmis of the world. They're so incredibly stupid. They may as well have had lobotomies.
This is hardly precendent making, a lot of juries get similiar instructions. But it really insults the intelligence and integrity of jurors when the main qualification seems to be utter ignorance of the case and the background. This insures that only the most ignorant and stupid are qualified.
Dumbo- exactly!
Which is why the jury system needs to be changed. Why should innocent people who know NOTHING about what goes on in the world be dragged in to decide an issue?
Darcy,
LOL Thanks. Im under the assumption that some mind altering virus has infected the West where it distorts reality. When the enemy actually tells you its goals and you still dismiss it, well something is seriously wrong.
"All the accused in this case are Muslims.....There are people in our community who hold and sometimes express attitudes which might be regarded as hostile to or discriminatory towards Muslims simply because they are Muslims.
Let me say this to you very clearly: there is no place for such a person on a jury in this case. No place whatsoever."
Here's how I'd interpret that statement:
"These defendants hate you and your way of life, but just ignore that. If you can't ignore that we won't allow you to serve justice."
No mention of how hostile the defendants are to the Aussie way of life.....
If that's not illegal for a Judge to make that kind of directive then it should be .
Peace,
Abu Lahab
According to western governments (deciders):
Ignorance is bliss.
Bliss is peace.
Peace is Islam.
Justice Bongiorno said a small part of the evidence could be "quite confronting" for some people, as it would graphically depict the killing of people overseas. But, he said, "An ordinary adult should not be unduly disturbed by this material and should be able to examine it in an intellectual, and not an emotional, way."
Indeed, quite confronting, murder, mayhem, jihadi hatred of all the jury understands as Justice.
Just don't be unduly disturbed by this as it is quite normal for Islamists.
Justice Bongiorno, I say "GOOD DAY!"
/channeling Fez @ '70s Show
"There are people in our community who hold and sometimes express attitudes which might be regarded as hostile to or discriminatory towards Muslims simply because they are Muslims."
Should read:
"There are people in our community who hold and sometimes express attitudes which might be regarded as hostile to or discriminatory towards NON-MUSLIMS simply because they are NON-MUSLIMS."
It makes so much more sense that way.
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, ... in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Justice Bongiorno, I say "GOOD DAY!"
/channeling Fez @ '70s Show
Posted by: Kim Hartveld
Bwah ha ha, Kim!
Inasmuch as at least one of our liberal USSC justices thinks it's a good idea to consider the judicial customs and findings of other courts in other countries, this may turn out to be more than just bad news from din-undah.
What may lurk behind the doors that an Obama presidency might open, just from a general policy perspective, is disquieting enough. To think what changes might be brought to pass by justices he may be able to appoint, especially viz issues like this, is bone-chilling.
The enemy is not at the gates ~ he is inside the walls.
Hey guys and gals -
I've been an attorney in California for 20 years and hste to tell you, but this is just standard language, given to a jury to keep them from bringing in information which is not properly in evidence. This is an integral part of our anglo-saxon common law heritage. There is nothing to prevent the prosecution from bringing in evidence of the defendants' beliefs as evidence of their intent or as otherwise relevant, and if the prosecution is good at what they are doing they will. The key is that jurors are not supposed to look at stuff OUTSIDE OF PROPERLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE. This will prevent the Islamic freaks from winning on appeal, which they most certainly will do.
'"You must not start reading about Islam or Muslims or terrorism or anything of that nature.'
I guess that judge must know something, 'cause he as much as said that if you DO read about Islam, you might find something quite disturbing.
And I do wonder if HE'S read a Qur'an or haditha.
If you say what Islam is in this judge's court he might put you in jail to think about it.
Then if you go to Saudi Arabia and say what the judge says in court, they might have you lashed to think about it.
Only the person who knows Islam and PC, and has fear of each, is safe to speak in the courts.
Good point, wilypagan. Thx.
One tree: "Justice Bernard Bongiorno is himself pre-judging that no such material would be relevant or illuminating in this case, and assuming that Islam has nothing to do with it on a priori grounds."
The forest: Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism, whose prejudicial axioms about Islam are dominant and mainstream throughout the West.
It would be highly unusual and remarkable were Justice Bongiorno to go against the grain of all the other trees of the forest.
Hey everybody, a judge cannot allow jurors to do their own research; juroros must decide the case based on what is presented at trial.
You would be very happy if a juror grabbed a copy of one of Robert's books. What if all those jurors started reading Karen Armstrong? Not so happy now, huh?
"You must not start reading about Islam or Muslims or terrorism or anything of that nature."
Sounds to me like the judge is admitting that Islam and Muslims and terrorism are all the same thing. Sounds like a pretty fair opinion.
Some context: The Age is a lefty newspaper (but don't judge all their journos as leftis) in the state of Victoria where the trial is taking place.
Victoria passed anti vilification laws which were used by Muslims in the Catch the Fire case which drags on forever (google away)
Yes The Age can be sensitive to Islamophobia.
Yes this is standard for a judge but don't think we don't have lefty/activist judges we do.
The prosecutor is probably better informed... although why the "true view" had to be added I don't know....
More via the link.First trial of a cell in Australia (as opposed to an individual) so will probably hear more in the next few months.
I guess non of us cold be on the jury then?
The people of Australia have already lost this case before it begins:
Due process, rule of law, a ‘fair go’-, yes: all well and good, Justice Bongiorno . But when you’re dealing with a genocidal ideology, with brainwashed (or rather brain dead) zombies, a mammoth trial by clueless judges and equally clueless jurors is not doing justice to the people of this country.
Neither can these jihad warriors be penalized by giving them creature comforts and halal food in jail: only the death penalty would be a deterrent, but we give them prayer mats and allow them to proselytize with their filthy book, the Koran, instead.
The soldiers of Allah, those who infiltrated to annihilate us, who want to ’strike terror in the hearts of the infidels’-, they need be dealt with swiftly by military courts and by judges who understand the jihad threat. And their brood needs to be stripped of citizenship and shipped out to an Islamo-hole of their choice, collectively.
You may not know any facts before you judge this case. You must be ignorant, that way we stand a better way of letting them off. Judge Dhimmi.
Assuming that Aussies are anything like us in wanting to avoid jury duty, sounds like a good way to avoid getting called.
This is becoming a common refrain among our political "leaders" and our media.
Personally, I'm getting kind of sick of hearing it.
Of course the corollary to the Judges admonishment is that HE/SHE controls what the Jurors CAN hear. I've become pretty disillusioned over the number of recent acquitalls in which judges have prevented the juries from hearing all the evidence. For some reason, which we're not entitled to know about, the evidence has been labeled as being "prejudicial"...
For crissake, if the evidence is so damning, why is there any question as to it's being heard?!
Even worse are the trials by judge alone; the Air India Bombing trial for eg.
http://www.flight182.com/
Choosing a jury:
Everyone, with any brains, here in OZ knows that they choose the dumbest people who are called up for jury duty.
I am told - for women - if you go in a skirt, hair and makeup done, pearl necklace or similar, they won't choose you. If you look vaguely middle class or educated - you are out.
Gramfan, probably because the educated ones do everything they can to get out of jury duty (very easy to do), leaving bored codgers and housewives as the only ones to choose from. No insult intended to codgers or housewives, but the ones on jury duty seem to be rather gullible to smooth-talking lawyers, given some verdicts lately.
There was even some discussion here, by people in the justice system, who had concerns about the caliber of jurors, saying that they could only get retired people and housewives to serve and that this was not a good cross-section of society.
Besides, that's probably good advice from Bongiorno, considering that the last time somebody did their own research (during the Islam-inspired Sydney rape trials), the perps got a retrial.
Everything the judge specifically warned not to read about I would immediately read about... (if I hadn't already).
But I wouldn't tell such a jackass as this judge that I had.
It's none of his business what the jurors know.
Unless an ignorant, presumptuous, thought-controlling police state is the desired result.
(Oh, right, that's Islam.)
Dumbo:
Because it enhances the power of attorneys and judges. Can't have the public weighing in; they might do things like acquit folks who grow medical marijuana.
wilypagan:
This is the sort of thing which has been used to strike jurors because they believe in jury nullification of unjust laws. The common law enshrined this once, but the legislatures and officers of the court have found a way around it.
Barring jurors for having knowledge of Islam (and taking threats from Muslims more seriously) is exactly the same sort of power-play. Both are corrosive to a free society.
As much as I am in favor of knowing as much as possible about Islam, the judge has a point here. The only relevant question is whether or not there is enough evidence to prove the guilt of the defendants for the crimes they are charged with. The jihadist nature of Islam is irrelevant. It may explain WHY the defendants did what they did, but it does not explain WHETHER they did it. The Court is concerned only with WHETHER they did it.
Montedoro said
WHY they did it goes to motive. Without any reference to Islam or Islamic teachings, the defense will argue "Do you really believe these fine, upstanding citizens, these well-educated and prosperous men, these pious and observant religious men, would actually behave as the prosecution alleges? What could possibly motivate them to behave so violently?" And the judge and attorneys will all look down at their shoes and whistle quietly, waiting for the defense to continue.
Motive.
"These defendants hate you and your way of life, but just ignore that. If you can't ignore that we won't allow you to serve justice."
Seems perfectly logical to me. Hatred is not, in itself, criminal. The jurors should focus on the evidence. Proving a motive - and Islamism certainly is a motive - is the job of the prosecution, not the jurors.
Here's how to run this trial:
1) Bring in each defendant and ask him before the jury if he is a devout Moslem who believes in Islamic scriptures. Each answers "yes, totally."
2) Then bring in an Islamic expert to explain to the jury that the Koran is literal, and is not open to any modification or interpretation of any kind.
3) Then cite these sacred Islamic passages:
Mohammed said, “I have been made victorious with terror.”
-- Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220
I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.
-- Allah talking smack in Koran 8:12
If you gain mastery over non-Moslems in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.
-- Allah talking still more smack in Koran 8:57
If you come upon non-Moslems, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies.
-- Mohammed droning on with his quotidian murder-talk in Ishaq 326
When the Mohammed descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.
-- An admiring Moslem speaks of Mohammed’s murder power in Ishaq 588
4) Then convict the Moslems on all charges and lead them out of the court room to a life in prison, without parole, and with the Koran or any other sacred Islamic scriptures.
The whole trial, including sentencing, could be wrapped up in about a half-day.
The reason the judge advised the jury so is to reduce the chance of the accused challenging a conviction.
Some of the wild statements on this thread are startling.