Tuesday, October 11, 2011

It Can't Happen Here

Or can it? The symbol you're seeing is that of the Union of Supreme Islamic Courts. Islamic law is slowly creeping into the jurisprudence of some western democracies. For now, treating Muslim criminal defendants differently from all others is the first step in full Islamization of the secular courts. This travesty occurred in Australia. Next stop--America.
LATE NOTE: If you wish to discuss the Holder announcement of a foiled terrorist plot, please feel free to do so in the comments section below

The parallel between Australia and America is the widespread belief that there actually is something called Islamophobia, and that it is violent and pandemic. This ridiculous belief has been spread by the left and the mainstream press. But its main source is the "moderate Muslim community" which is maneuvering for special treatment in the courts. It signals that Muslims, unlike Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Jews are particularly vulnerable to unwarranted attacks and police brutality. That totally unsubstantiated propaganda is starting to work.

The Australian case involved a man accused, among other things, of attempting to murder a police officer. The defendant was found guilty of illegal weapons possession (multiple counts) and terrorism charges. But the judge refused to find him guilty of attempted murder. The reason? The Islamophobia defense. Even though the defendant possessed multiple handguns and assault rifles, along with explosives, and a record of violence, the judge still maintained that his deliberate pointing of one of those guns at the police officer and firing was justified by his realistic fear that a non-Muslim cop was out to assassinate him just because he was Muslim. In other words, self-defense. The corollary to that defense is that the action was based on good faith but mistaken belief.

England is already allowing special "no police entry" Islamic enclaves, with the residents therein being judged by sharia law. Australia has now accepted Islamophobia as a legitimate defense to attempted murder. As Vladimir Lenin (repeated by Josef Stalin) is reputed to have said of weak-kneed western capitalists: "They will sell us the rope to hang them with." In order to appease the wounded feelings of "endangered" Muslims, several states have caved in to CAIR's propaganda and allowed "cultural differences" to be used both at trial and sentencing. The Islamists are using our good will and sappy multiculturalism to hang us.

Passing laws which prohibit the use of sharia law in any court matter is a good thing. But it's important to note that what is occurring now has nothing to do with sharia law. It has to do with creating a special defense for people who are hallucinating about widespread hatred toward and attacks on Muslims. For every imagined wound sustained by an American Muslim, there are a hundred examples of actual attacks on Jews. Yet the last time I looked, there were no special defenses to attempted murder being set up for frightened Jews. Blacks attempting to use the "racist cop" defense have been largely convicted anyway. Where's their right to a special defense?

The Islamist propaganda designed to give Muslims special standing not granted to any other group in court is succeeding beyond even their own wildest dreams. If they continue to succeed in advancing their own special agenda, they won't even need to impose sharia law in American courts. We'll do it for them by ignoring the Constitution's mandate of equal justice for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

And if you don't think it can happen here, let me remind everyone that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed a sharia-compliant lawyer to the Passaic bench solely for the stated reason that "there is a large Islamic community in Passaic, and they deserve to have a judge who understands their special needs." The Islamophobia defense is not even a very long leap in New Jersey.

26 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

the fact that is happening in Australia and England pretty much guarantees it can happen here . . . and it is frightening. Just think of the people involved in the "occupy" movement. Just think of how stupid they are. Just think that 41% of voters would actually re-elect B.O. Damn right it can happen here . . . and it is frightening.

patti said...

this is really one of the main issues that scares the holy hell out of me. tenn. jed has a point about the occupy group. even though we know it's not a genuine movement, but a bankrolled illusion, there will always be useless fools willing to join if for nothing else but their 15 minutes.

to think it couldn't happen here is dangerous. God help us.

Writer X said...

Special needs, my a$$. Christie was a dope for doing that. Spineless.

T-Rav said...

Darned if this isn't one issue where France is a little more reasonable than the rest of us seem to be. They have, of course, that across-the-board ban on all ostentatious displays of religion, including the wearing of the burqa--I don't necessarily agree with the ban overall, but at least they're not making an exception for those poor, victimized Muslims.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: The Anglosphere has a bad habit of sticking together on all the wrong things. This could be one of them. It's the hyper-emotional, anti-thinking crowd like the Occupiers who will allow something like this to happen.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Amen. And that bankroll is growing with the entry of several "Christian" religious organizations, the unions, and the Democratic National Congressional Committee. The entire concept of a "government of laws, not of men" is under serious threat. Occupy Wall Street and the Islamophobia defense are major symptoms of the abandonment of thought and its replacement with unbridled emotion.

LawHawkRFD said...

WriterX: As I mentioned in an earlier article, unless Christie can fully reject his reasoning for that judicial appointment and believably proclaim that he made a horrible mistake, I could never vote for him for President or anything else.

I've written in the past about the dangers of "single-issue" decisions. But some single-issues are so vital and so fundamental that they can't be ignored. If Christie cannot uphold the basic constitutional principle of equal justice for everyone, I have to conclude that he would easily sweep aside lesser constitutional guarantees. Conservatives roundly criticized future Justice Sotomayor for her "wise Latina" version of the law. How is Christie's view any different?

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I agree. We have the additional dilemma of the constitutional balance of freedom of religion versus public safety. France can simply ban the burqa on "French cultural grounds" and the supremacy of secularism. We don't have that luxury. Our government cannot, and should not, interfere with religious practice unless the practice endangers the government's constitutional duty to protect the public or runs afoul of other constitutional guarantees. One of those guarantees is equal justice for all, regardless of race, creed, or color.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Muslims are supposedly humans just as the rest of us. Therefor where is there any justification to treat them to a different set of laws. Should any other religion desire to have it's members treated to a set of laws out side the State where they are would be soundly rebuked.
If this is allowed lets form our own quasi religion and write our own set of laws for us to be held to.
For instance it would be acceptable to shoot some one who cuts in front of you in the grocery store line because they frightened you.
If these people want to live under sharia law then move to where that is the law of the land.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: They do want to live under sharia law, here in the United States. But what's important to note is that they were too bold at first, and produced reactions such as the Oklahoma law specifically prohibiting the use of sharia law. So now they've gone back to basics. Chip away at the margins of constitutional government and law first, and like the frog in the frying pan, perhaps nobody will notice as the temperature is slowly being raised to fatal levels.

AndrewPrice said...

Black defendants tried this in the US on several occasions but it's never been allowed.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Which is why I asked the question "Where's their right to a special defense?" The problem is that rather than recognize that Muslims should have no special defenses, the left would answer my question with "yeah, you're right, how come they [blacks] don't have a right to a special defense?" Victimology was bad enough when it stuck to the political arena and academia, but allowing it in the courts is even more dangerous.

Blacks actually have a long history of police misconduct and brutality to point to (even if those claims are largely untrue today). Where is any real, factual history of police misconduct towards Muslims?

LawHawkRFD said...

SEMI-RELATED MATTER: Eric Holder just announced the foiling of a major terrorist plot to blow up the Israeli and Saudi embassies and murder the Saudi ambassador. Good for law enforcement. But like the thirteenth strike of the clock, everything Holder has done is called into questions.

First, the Department of Homeland Security is the agency with primary responsibility for protecting Americans and embassies from terrorists attacks. Why is Holder making the announcement instead of Janet Napolitano or President Obama? DHS is a cabinet-level agency, with distinct responsibility. The only person not at the press conference is Janet Napolitano (other than the President himself).

Second: The information and investigation were all completed around the end of September. So why the press conference today? There may be reasonable explanations, but I will never be able to believe anything that Holder or his minions say. Sure--there will be a trial sometime, somewhere, but for now I can think of at least three other luminaries who should have been making this announcement.

Third, Iran's Q'ud Division of the Iranian Republican Army are deeply-involved in the plot. Where was Hillary Clinton during the press conference?

If the Attorney General were a trustworthy, hard-working, competent chief law enforcement officer, I might not be asking these questions. But just as Rep. Darryl Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley are preparing to issue subpoenas for Holder's records and further testimony, there's Holder--protecting us from foreign invaders. I find it highly suspicious, but I'll reserve my judgment for a future time.

LawHawkRFD said...

And it gets worse. It appears that the plot involves using Mexican cartel Zeta resources in Mexico to funnel money ($100,000) to the plotters. Mexico apparently denied entry to one of the plotters, triggering further investigation both here and in Mexico.

BevfromNYC said...

Was that the same plot where dozens of Zombies were injured?

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111011/ap_on_en_mo/cn_canada_movie_set_accident

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk - I'm with you. Everything Holder does should be met with scepticism. Let's hope that they don't find that guns from Fast & Furious weren't about to be used in the plot.

BUT, now they can point to how they saved the Israeli Embassy...they like the Jews, they really do!

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: That would certainly be a cataclysmic event that should knock Fast and Furious off the front page. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: This must be the first time in history that Mexico was the country that stopped someone from getting into the United States. But at least now we know that the Obamists have an undying love for the Jews (although I wouldn't be surprised if they secured the safety of the Saudi ambassador first).

For your personal reference, the flight the terrorist was on was diverted to New York so the FBI et al. could greet him on arrival. Holder could have chosen DC, but he'd rather you get stuck with the media circus that will surround the terrorist's civilian trial.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
It seems to convenient for Holder to have some legitimate DOJ action. You don't suppose that this is a slight of hand effort to divert attention for his f___ up on the Mexican border. Then give credit to the corrupt bunch south of the border for helping as a carrot.
I don't trust anything Holder and his whole department does. They showed us their character so lets not be so willing to applaud any thing he claims as a successful operation.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk and Bev, if guns from F & F somehow wound up tied to this plot, no media blackout in the world can save Holder or Obama. But I sincerely hope that is not the case.

BevfromNYC said...

"Holder could have chosen DC, but he'd rather you get stuck with the media circus that will surround the terrorist's civilian trial."

Yes, because NYC needs more of media circus right now...

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Well, maybe it will distract the Occupiers. On the other hand, it might give them another cause to add to their incomprehensible list.

tryanmax said...

Muslim victim status is really the most twisted idea imaginable when you pick it apart.

First, a few of Muhammad's disciples murder some civilians under the guise of retaliation for past grievances.

Next, every other adherent of Islam cries that they will be persecuted for someone else's crime.

Eventually, some idiot gets sick of the B.S. and slaps around the first Arab he can reach.

The Muslim community offers this up as evidence to their otherwise dubious claims.

The media laps it up and the Muslims bemoan their persecution some more.

Finally, another atrocity is committed by the Religion of Peace, but they were only retaliating against a culture that is openly hostile towards them.

Repeat.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: That's a nicely accurate scenario. But of course, Islamists have no sense of proportion. They kill 3,000 people in 45 minutes on one day. Then one Muslim gets a dirty look--the horror of it all! No wonder they need special treatment.

tryanmax said...

Perhaps Muslims have no sense of proportion, but that is no excuse for the Legacy Media to go along, much less the PC political crowd.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: The MSM don't need an excuse to go along. PC is a reason unto itself. And let's never forget "diversity, diversity, diversity."

Post a Comment