Good.

I haven't yet heard of a UK or Australian case where multiculturalism has trumped gender in the end, though there have been attempts. Honour killings are treated as any other kind of murder. However, there may be such cases. Don't know about the US - race trumped gender in the OJ case, but I haven't heard of someone being let off a rape or honour killing on 'cultural' grounds.

Posted by: Interestd at September 6, 2004 2:18 PM

Good News! Judge Sully deserves to be struck off for his abominable attitude towards rape victims and the Law.

Posted by: Morgane at September 6, 2004 3:33 PM

A similar law has existed in the UK since 1999:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/90023--c.htm#34

I wouldn't describe the law, or the response of either the trial judge or the appeal court, as "dhimmitude". Its very easy to see how depriving a defendant - of any or no religion - who for whatever reason refuses to be represented of the right to conduct their own defence effectively deprives them of a right to a fair trial. Sexual offences are the only offences in which this law applies. Defendants in the common law tradition are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Legally speaking, therefore, the effect of the law is to deprive a defendant who is presumed innocent of the right to defend themselves.

I'd add, incidentally, that defendants who choose to conduct their own defences are often mentally ill or suffer other personality disorders, and usually are convicted. However, if you felt that the criminal justice system was stacked against you, you might quite reasonably take the view that you were the best placed to conduct your own defence.

I haven't read the full judgement, but most human rights codes tend to be particularly concerned with the fairness of criminal proceedings. Although the codes might not explicitly provide for a right to cross examine witnesses in person, its not absurd - on constitutional grounds - to regard a law denying the right to conduct one's own defence

That said, courts do differ on interpretations of basic constitutional norms: evidently, the appeal court took a narrow view of what is required for fairness in criminal proceedings.

Posted by: dst at September 6, 2004 3:56 PM

Can any Aussie on this forum tell us about how much press and public attention this incident has gotten? Has it helped strengthen John Howard? WHat are the political, social, legal implications of this case (if any) on aussie society?

We should braodcast anti-dhimmi decisions at every level and hail the parties concerned as heroes!

Posted by: voletti at September 6, 2004 4:46 PM

Seriously, can somebody explain to me how this case reflects "anti-dhimmitude"?

Were the defendants black and dressed up their case with a spurious appeal to racism, would you say that the was a triumph against "political correctness"? Or were they agnostics and the victim a hijab wearing girl, and the defendants claimed that they were the victim of a vast muslim conspiracy to fit them up, would you say that this case strengthened dhimmitude? This is simply a case about the constitutionality of a law which alters the balance between defendants and the state.

Unless I'm radically missing the point - in which case please put me right - the religion of these defendants, the conduct of the judges in both courts, and indeed the case itself has absolutely nothing to do with "dhimmitude".

I'm a blogger who argues, daily, that there has been a failure to take the threat of islamism as a political-religious philosophy seriously, and I find this site a useful resource. That said, I'm be very sorry if it became a mirror image of the sort of ranting paranoid nonsense that you find on sites run by the extremist left. If we are to object to the sloppy use of the epithet "islamophobia" by the zany left, we should be just as careful before crying "dhimmitude"

Posted by: dst at September 6, 2004 4:57 PM

To dst:

Unless I missed something, seems to me that the accused in this case were counting on a Dhimmi response (call it pC if you will) to pull them out. And they indeed were up sh*t creek without a paddle.

What do you think would've happened if the upper court upheld judge sully's decision? Revise a law because in one isntance it seems to have taken anti-muslim overtones? sounds preposterous, right? Well. you'd be surprised at how far dhimmis have gone to accomodate moslem sensitiivities.

A good example is India where in 1989, then Prime minister rajiv Gandhi actually used his brute congress party majority in parliament(the largest ever in Indian history btw) to amend the constitution just so that he could overturn a supreme court ruling granting alimony to an aged muslim divorcee. This ruking by India's highest court, Indian moslem fundamentalists contended was against Sharia' and descended on the streets threatening violent protest. And Rajiv, meek Dhimmi that he was (Carter had a rival!) caved in cravenly.

The last thing I wanna see Mr dst is Aussieland following the same beaten path. NEVER underestimate dhimmi craven-ness and islamo-insolence!

Posted by: voletti at September 6, 2004 6:16 PM

But no judge - in either court - took the slightest notice of the claim that the prosecution was motivated by islamophobia. Neither was the appeal based on a claim of discrimination:

But Justices Keith Mason, Graham Barr and Wood yesterday unanimously rejected that assertion when it was made by MSK and MAK as the basis of their appeal against conviction - they also said it was their "common-law right" to personally cross-examine a witness....

If they had said in the trial that they'd been set up by extra-terrestrials, that wouldn't make an appeal a refutation of the existence of extra-terrestrials. It was a case premised on the question of the constitutionality of a law which arguably shifted the balance illegally against a defendant in a criminal trial.

They're not the first defendants to invent a fanciful defence, they won't be the last, and - most importantly - they weren't believed by the jury.

Posted by: dst at September 6, 2004 6:44 PM

for the sake of clarity "that assertion" in the quotation above is the assertion that the law offends against basic human rights.

Posted by: dst at September 6, 2004 6:46 PM

Well, I'm not a lawyer (as if it weren't obvious by now).

I take your point that when dissected and left out to dry there's no dhimmitude in the body of the case. But try as I might, I am unable to banish the thought that standing up to any false appeal based on islamophobia-based discrimination appeals - in this case by an outright rjection by both judge and jury - is in itself a good thing.

Feel free to disagree, of course. (:-)

Posted by: voletti at September 6, 2004 7:15 PM

dst:

Well said! Your logic is impeccable. It is very important to separate emotion and reason, otherwise we just end up with conspiracy theories. (Like the Muslims who think the Jews/Lizards run the world.)

I got very uppity and huffy when it was argued on this site that the sacking of Will/Harry Cummins from THE BRITISH COUNCIL, NOT THE TELEGRAPH (sorry to shout) was an instance of gagging. The British Council has, as one of its explicit aims, the promotion of good relations with the Muslim world. Will Cummins' articles were incompatible with that aim, and not even written under a convincing pseudonym. The British Council was fully within its rights to sack him, as my employer would be if I were to denigrate the products of my company in a national newspaper.

This opinion is completely and logically independent of my opinion of Will Cummins' views on Islam as expressed in his articles, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

However, coming back to the Australian case, in the minds of the rapist Muslim scumbags (and I'm being totally rational here), they saw a loophole which might enable them to get away with their rape of Kaffir women, to which they think they are entitled. And there is the rub. Paradoxically, they exploit the logic and fairness of our legal system to further their illogical and primitive agenda. It isn't cleverness exactly, but it is a kind of low, peasant/animal cunning which can get the better of civilised, rational, humane human beings.

What the answer is I don't know - just know your enemy, know he doesn't think as we do and anticipate his every move. As you might do with a rattlesnake.

Posted by: Interestd at September 6, 2004 8:23 PM

"... defendants who choose to conduct their own defences are often mentally ill or suffer other personality disorders, ..."

How right you are about the mentally ill or personality disorders comment. These Muslim rapists suffer the personality disorder of believing that it's okay to rape women. They tried to excuse their disgusting actions by claiming they weren't familiar with the Australian justice system. As if to say, this is okay in Pakistan, why not here? Yeah right, pull the other one. No doubt their dear mothers and relatives helped them develop this personality disorder. I'm sure they're all wondering why the girls haven't been honor-killed by their male relatives yet.

The other disorder they have is the typical feeling of Muslim victimization. Muslims are always victims and oppressed, don't you know? Their heinous crimes were revealed to be racially motivated, and that THEY were the racists, so they tried to turn it around and make US the racists against them. Typical.

Their and their relatives' behaviour during the trials was disgusting and shows major personality disorders, if not, mental illness. Relatives shouting out that the victims were whores. Disrupting the court. Laughing and sneering at the victims. There were many gang rapes against non-Muslim girls in Sydney. The girls in this particular case have already testified twice. Why put them through hell three times? I believe I read that one of them said she wouldn't be able to endure a third time, that she wouldn't do it. So the scum would have walked free.

This is but one trial, one circus. One big sign that there is a major problem with Muslim attitudes towards non-Muslims. It told us parents to warn our daughters about Muslim men. Crazy that we have to say things like that in this day and age, but you'd be stupid not to. These men act all nice, friendly, and very gentlemanly while stalking their victims. Nothing to send warning signals. Then they get the girl to a place where several of his pals are waiting. And the attacks and the level of degradation and psychological abuse can only indicated that the perps are seriously mentally ill.

Posted by: feralee at September 6, 2004 9:07 PM

RELATIVES SHOUTING OUT THAT THE VICTIMS WERE WHORES?? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Tell me you're making that part up.

Can the victims not sue for libel? There are enough witnesses in a court of law, I'd say.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 6, 2004 11:48 PM

We in western society have made an implicit social contract which is understood to be that if we give up certain individual rights, society would provide benifits commesurate with those sacrifices. One of those basic human rights that our society has somewhat pre-empted is the one of self defense. The arguement goes that we cannot have people going off and taking the law into their own hands, because it would lead to anarchy. Seems like we have anarchy now. People who refuse to adhere to the cultural norms of the society they prey upon, should be dealt with in a recipically lawless manner. Especially if the law cannot or will not protect it's citizens. In other words, if my child was raped by these guys, and they were let off - I would hunt them down and kill them. I would see it as a duty, but maybe rednecks like me are the only ones that feel that way. Seems to me this is why the individual is sovern, and not the state. In the final analysis - it is the individual who has to act.

Posted by: shadow at September 7, 2004 4:27 PM

All rapists fail to adhere to universally accepted cultural norms. The conviction of a muslim defendant for any crime no more indicates that all members of that culture have a predeliction to rape, than the conviction of any other member of any other group.

My wife is a trial lawyer who tries a wide range of rape and sexual offences cases in the UK. Her experience is that muslim men do not feature prominently as defendants in such cases.

Posted by: dst at September 7, 2004 5:02 PM