It’s not often I can report some good news from the increasingly untrustworthy legal instrument known as the European Court of Human Rights, but today I can. For once, this legal system has worked and worked in favour of justice.
Shabir Ahmed the Islamic savage who led the Rochdale Islamic Rape Gang made a whole series of dubious and frankly dishonest claims that the jury at his trial had discriminated against him and that the police had ‘scapegoated’ Muslims. Ahmed whose gang, made up of Muslims, raped, sexually assaulted and enslaved a number of children and young women in the Rochdale and Bolton areas but was convicted and jailed for 22 years following a trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
Ahmed immediately played the Islamic ‘lawfare’ game and brought a whole load of complaints about his alleged mistreatment before the court, probably with legal help paid for by the taxpayer. Ahmed falsely complained that the jury was biased and passed information about the deliberations in the jury room to the far right British National Party. Subsequent enquiries by the British government into these allegations discovered nothing of the sort but this savage still went on to waste time and money by taking this issue to the ECHR.
There’s a great and terrible irony in this story about how this Islamic savage has been able to make claims under human rights legislation when by any definition he didn’t give a toss for the rights of the children and young women whom he raped, abused, degraded and trafficked. The only bad thing about this story is that we the taxpayer are still lumbered with paying for him even though he is in a prison cell.
Here’s part of the Daily Mail coverage of the story of the latest attempt by lying Islamic savages to use the laws of civilised nations to gain advantage for the death cult of Islam and its bestial members. As is usual policy for this blog the original text is in italics whereas this blog’s comments are in plain text.
The Daily Mail said:
In a kick in the teeth for his victims, the 63-year-old pervert attempted to exploit controversial human rights laws to argue that his criminal convictions were unsafe.
He is serving a 22-year jail sentence after being found guilty in 2012 of befriending vulnerable teenagers, plying them with alcohol and raping them.
Ahmed, known as Daddy, took his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) claiming that his all-white jury was biased – a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing a fair trial.
He claimed jury members passed information about their deliberations directly to far-right organisations who were hostile to the defendants.
He argued that because then British National Party chairman Nick Griffin had posted on social media that some defendents had been found guilty before verdicts had been returned, it showed the jury was impartial.
But judges in Strasbourg unanimously threw out his case, insisitng that there was ‘simply no proof’ jurors acted improperly. They dismissed the claim as ‘manifestly ill-founded’.
Rejecting the divorced father of four’s legal bid, the ECHR said: ‘If it had been proven that a juror had passed confidential information on the jury deliberations to far-right organisations, this would suggest that the juror and the jury as a whole had lacked impartiality.
‘However, there was simply no proof that that had happened. There was no evidence to establish that it [the jury] had been impartial.’
It said there were 12 safeguards at the trial to ensure the jury at the Liverpool Crown Court trial was unbiased.
Complaints of jury impartiality had also previously been investigated by the UK’ s Criminal Cases Review Commission and found to be without substance, the ECHR noted.
In what critics will see as a massive abuse of human rights laws, takeaway worker Ahmed also argued that the case against him had been ‘tailored by police to fit anti-Muslim prejudice’.
He said this was a breach of Article 3 of the convention, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.
He moaned that media coverage of the trial had breached Article 8 – his right to a private and family life – while there had also been a breach of Article 14 as he claimed he had suffered racial and religious discrimination.
But the court threw out his ‘wide range of other complaints’. It said: ‘None of the evidence before it [the ECHR] demonstrated that there was substance to these claims.’
Read the rest of this story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3814873/Leader-Rochdale-child-rape-gang-loses-human-rights-bid-Paedophile-claimed-white-jury-trial-trying-scapegoat-Muslims.html#ixzz4Lih72ZVS
This case is typical of the Islamic ‘lawfare’ game that is not just a way of a dangerous criminal worming out of his just punishment, but is also a form of jihad. Muslims use the legal instruments such as the ECHR, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Statelessness Convention in ways that the framers of such instruments never intended them to be used. The ECHR, even though it has become debased in recent decades, was part of the post WWII settlement, and those who put it together including the UK, were mindful of how national governments during the Nazi era had denied rights to whole sections of their innocent populace. It should not be used to allow Islamic savages to bring frivolous, vexatious and dishonest cases such as this. Similarly the Refugee and Stateless Conventions, were brought in to deal with what was at the time the much smaller and less dangerous Cold War and post WWII refugee problem than we seen today. The Statelessness convention came in to prevent nations treating stateless people worse than regular citizens and the UN HR Declaration forbids countries like Britain from removing the citizenship of violent Islamic savages who are born in the UK Sadly times have changed and all these legal instruments and treaties, although brought in for good and sound reasons, are being exploited by those engaged in lawfare jihad. Maybe it’s time for those nations such as the UK to look again at whether abiding with these conventions is helping us deal with our Islam and jihad problems or whether they are a hindrance? We have a situation where violent Muslims can make use of the 1951 Refugee Convention to immigrate to the UK and violent treasonous Muslims who are born in the UK can use the UN HR Declaration along with the 1954 Statelessness Convention, in order to stay in the UK and not, as should be happening, be exiled from the UK.
So often we see Muslims playing the ‘Islamophobia’ card for reasons of political and personal gain and too often they succeed. However in this case this particular savage has failed and has been quite rightly sent away with a flea in his ear.
Ahmed is just one disgusting rapist Islamic savage among many and he and others like him are using laws designed to protect the peaceful and the innocent from assault and oppression to attack us and our nations. The stakes are so high, the survival of our nations in fact, that it’s long past time and quite justifiable, that savages like Ahmed are prevented from using laws designed to protect the innocent to advance their filthy ideology even if it does mean ripping up the conventions that been the backbone of international law since 1945.
My message to this particular savage is this: Rot in hell Ahmed you and all those like you, you worthless disgusting Islamic savage.