Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Judge slams car-racket mum who blames Islam

oct 10, 2007

good excuse. "my religion made me steal cars, i am innocent". sort of like "the dog ate the homework."

this is the same thing the dhimmi ELM and government of india and judiciary accept: "your honor, my religion made me kill hindus, i am innocent."

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shahryar

Judge slams car-racket mum who blames Islam
Kate Jones
October 05, 2007 12:00am
A YOUNG mother has argued her Muslim beliefs forced her into a life of crime.
Shahida Karim-Hawchar, 24, sold stolen cars to unsuspecting buyers because it was her cultural duty to obey her father and her husband, a court heard.
Her lawyer, Tom Danos, said her father, Omar Zayden, and husband Imad pressured her to join their car rebirthing racket.
"This was a religious Muslim family, where the hierarchy was the father, the husband, and then the wife," Mr Danos told the County Court. "It's an additional pressure on her to be involved."
But Judge Felicity Hampel, suspending a 2 1/2-year jail term because the young mum has three sons aged under five, said that argument was an abuse of religion.
"It's a very sad and debasing thing to hear it suggested that adherence to a religious tenet can justify criminal behaviour," Judge Hampel said.
"I don't accept that Islam requires a daughter to obey a directive of the husband or the father, where the directive involves the commission of a criminal offence."
However, Judge Hampel accepted the obedience argument last year when she allowed Karim-Hawchar to change her plea to the charges.
In August 2006, the Karim-Hawchars both asked to change pleas of guilty to not guilty.
Imad was refused, and was later jailed.
But Shahida was successful: Judge Hampel accepted she'd only admitted guilt because Imad had told her to.
The judge was told Shahida was also only obeying Imad in changing her plea.
But Judge Hampel was satisfied Shahida's original plea had not been made freely or with an understanding of what it would mean, but in accordance with her religious or cultural duty.
Last month, Shahida appeared before Judge Hampel yet again -- this time to change her plea a second time, back to guilty.
Shahida's father was the head of the Melbourne syndicate, but the court heard he had not been charged.
Imad has just been released from jail after serving a 12-month non-parole term of his 2 1/2-year sentence.
He was also ordered to pay $112,000 in compensation to victims.
Shahida, who pleaded guilty to six counts each of obtaining property by deception and handling stolen goods, was yesterday ordered to pay $89,800 compensation to six people who bought stolen cars from her in June 2001-June 2002.
The court heard many of the buyers were still paying off the cars despite their seizure by police.
Police charged the St Albans couple after investigating details of 157 cars they suspected were involved in an interstate car rebirthing racket.
Cars were stolen in NSW and taken to Victoria to be sold through the Trading Post after their licence plates were switched with those from write-offs.
Police linked six cars to Shahida, whose primary role was to advertise the cars and sell them.
She lied to buyers, telling one she needed to sell the car because she was buying a new house, the court heard.
The six cars had a total value of $104,800 and were sold for a total of $89,800.
The court heard only one of the six original owners had been compensated.
Judge Hampel said Shahida, who was born in Australia but spent 10 years of her childhood in Lebanon, had shown no remorse for her crimes.
As Shahida left court yesterday two men abused and threatened press photographers, walking away only when a policewoman intervened.

For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.


siva said...

They might as well try their luck pleading ignorance of law. I am telling you this plea in India will be successful.

The other day I was watching a talk show in one of the English “news” channels in India and one stupid bitch, forgot her name but somebody on the lines of Teesta, was arguing the same point in favor of some lady from Memon family convicted for their involvement in Mumbai serial blasts.

Her argument was exactly same, since she is a Muslim woman she has to give the car registered in her name for planting bombs if her husband asks her. It seems she cannot refuse. Where is the responsibility? But they want all the “human” rights for Muslims sans any responsibility and the dhimmi Hindus will keep on giving away everything. I am telling you man it makes you sick if you are a thinking man, let alone a thinking Hindu, in India.

karyakarta92 said...

Speaking of "The dog ate the homework", the closet gay christist senator's excuse seems to have added a term to the political slang.

Senator Larry Craig's `wide stance' enters lexicon;_ylt=Aiu94bQLMOhJhO0DTuZea.Ks0NUE

Uddharet said...

Times of India on 10 Oct reported the following:(
Another teacher lands in trouble
“HYDERABAD: Teachers beware. ... , a vice-principal of a junior college was at the receiving end because [Muslim] students found his utterances ‘objectionable’ when he pulled up two for coming late on Monday. ... [F]inally, the hapless teacher got the boot. ... [The two students who were reprimanded] said: "When we said that we came late as we were tired after rising for Sahr, he told us it was a silly excuse." They alleged that he also made ‘objectionable’ remarks on the holy month of Ramzan. ... The students decided to boycott classes and went on a rampage. Police were called in to control the crowd and later the RAF was posted at Mehdipatnam, Humayun Nagar and Asif Nagar. Finally, the shocked college put out a poster proclaiming that Reddy has been dismissed for "misbehaving with students". ... A case was registered against Naresh Reddy under IPC section 153-A for ‘promoting enmity between classes’, a non-bailable offence, at the Asifnagar police station. Reddy was not arrested as he had left for his hometown in Mahbubnagar, according to Asifnagar ACP B Mahender Reddy.”

The lesson of the story seems to be that Muslims are entitled to put forward "religious" reasons for any dereliction of duty, and this entitlement, I am sure, applies to Muslim government employees also.