DEMONIC: Migrant That RAPED 10-Yr-Old Boy Had Conviction OVERTURNED Because…

Published on October 25, 2016

There aren’t even words for this. This is NOT the response of a country that believes in the rule of law and the protection of children.

The Supreme Court of Austria overturned the conviction of a 20-year-old migrant man who violently raped a boy in the bathroom at a public pool.

The controversial decision was partly based on the defense initially presented to the court.

What was the defense? The rapist actually confessed to committing the act, but he said it was a ‘sexual emergency’.

The other part?

It’s even better…

The rapist ‘may not have realized’ that the boy wasn’t giving consent to be raped.

Yes, you read that right.

How can a 10-year-old boy give consent in the Western world?

We have no idea.

AN IRAQI asylum seeker who confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool, claiming it was a “sexual emergency”, has had his conviction overturned.

In a truly shocking twist the Supreme Court decided the grown Iraqi man may not have realised the 10-year-old did not want to be sexually abused by him.

Amir A, 20, was visiting the Theresienbad pool in the Austrian capital of Vienna last December as part of a trip to encourage integration.

When the youngster went to the showers, Amir A. allegedly followed him, pushed him into a toilet cubicle, and violently sexually assaulted him.

Following the attack, the accused rapist returned to the pool and was practising on the diving board when police arrived, after the 10-year-old raised the alarm with the lifeguard.

The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children’s hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a police interview, Amir A. confessed to the crime; telling officers the incident had been “a sexual emergency”, as his wife had remained in Iraq and he “had not had sex in four months”.

A court found Amir guilty of serious sexual assault and rape of a minor, and sentenced him to six years in jail.

However, in a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer’s claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no.

According to the Supreme Court President Thomas Philipp, while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual assault of a minor, there was not enough evidence to support the second charge of rape.
Read more: Express UK

Watch Mark Steyn at the Munk Debates discussing the mass influx of Muslim Refugees:

More Steyn brilliance:

I believe in Austria the minimum age of consent is 14, so, by definition, a ten-year old cannot “consent” to a “sexual act”, if violent anal rape can be dignified as such.

Or at least that’s the way we used to understand it in the civilized world. Of course, in much of the rest of the planet – and especially in the Muslim world – children are obliged to “consent” to all kinds of things. Once upon a time, when the unfortunate denizens of such societies came to the west, we were culturally confident enough to require them to assimilate with us.

Instead, in an age of civilizational self-loathing, we assimilate with them. So the same sexual license young Muslim men enjoy in, say, Kandahar now extends to Linz and Salzburg .

When I made my point in the Munk Debate, our opponents, the telly historian Simon Schama and the former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour, thought it was an opportunity for comedy. Simon reckoned me and Nigel Farage were just “a bit sad” – losers who couldn’t get any action and so got turned on by obsessing about migrant rape. This insouciance did not work out well for him.

To accord their response more respect than it merits, Louise and Simon’s point was that: sure, there’s a bit of child rape here and there, but what’s the big deal? It’s a relatively small and manageable amount.

It’s not, but let that pass. That was my point: “Migrant rights trump women’s rights” and “migrant rights trump children’s rights” and (in some of the most grisly cases) “migrant rights trump disabled rights”. It’s not that there’s only three or four – or seven or twelve, or 29 or 97 or 236 or 1,768 – rapes. It’s not the “small” number of cases, but the fact that, in a fainthearted age prostrate before the multicultural pieties, these “few” cases are changing us. So that the most eminent jurists in Austria feel obliged to assimilate with their invaders: hey, how was poor old Amir supposed to know the cute l’il moppet wasn’t consenting to anal rape?
Read more: Steyn Online

But wait! There’s more!

The original court decision awarded a pittance to the boy and his family.

A court had previously awarded the child’s family £3,700 (€4,700) compensation, after prosecutors described the boy as suffering both physical injuries and “profound depression”.

The mother of the child was beside herself, as any mother would be. She has yet another reason to be upset by the decison:

The child’s mother, who moved to Austria as a Serbian refugee during the civil war, said it made her “blood boil” to hear Amir describe the incident as a sexual emergency, and added that she regretted telling her five children to treat refugees with the same hospitality she had once received as a new arrival.

Maybe we should stop believing that all ‘Refugees’ share our values, especially when it comes to the raping of women and children.

Mark Steyn says that ‘Migrant Rights now trump children’s rights’.

Remember, Hillary wants to bring HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS more refugees to the US.

Share if you think that Steyn is right about ‘Migrant Rights’