Mohammed can’t stand it

When ‘man made law’ clashes with the sharia, the sharia prevails. Our dhimmi judges make sure it does:


Tim Blair

Alleged Islamic rioter Mohammed Issai Issaka takes a stand – or, more accurately, doesn’t:

A man accused of rioting during last year’s violent Muslim protests has been berated for his “disrespect” after refusing to stand before a magistrate at his court hearing.

Mohammed Issai Issaka, who was charged with riot, assaulting police and resisting arrest over the September incident, this morning said his religious beliefs stopped him from rising for the court …

Mohammed can’t stand it

Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge repeatedly demanded Issaka stand for her, telling the accused man she didn’t accept his refusal.

“You can tell me where it is in his religion that it says he cannot stand,” she said to Issaka’s lawyer.

“I was a magistrate at Bankstown Court for four years and I have never had to deal with such disrespect.”

The hearing eventually continued with Issaka allowed to wait outside the courtroom while everyone else stood.

Our law prevails. Its there to punish the SOB. Why is it not happening?

12 thoughts on “Mohammed can’t stand it”

  1. This Muhammad is doing a fine job of advancing Australian Islamic relations. It’s refreshing to see an honest portrayal of how islam expects the relationship between muslims and non-believers to work.

  2. BTW, the joke is on Mo. The court is entitled to take an accused’s conduct in court into account. The offences are characterised by disrespect for the law. His conduct and attitude will go a long way towards not suspending his sentence. 🙂

  3. There is nothing in Islam which says he cannot stand!!!! :@ Where or in what in our religion restricts him??? He’s just a lazy ass moron who doesn’t know respect! Nothing else! Hate how these ignorant people are totally splashing a whole different image of Islam!

  4. Unless muslim moderates retrain these thugs they WILL be tarred with the same brush. I now consider all muslims are being potential terrorists because it is simply prudent now to do so. Furthermore, the attempts by members of the muslim community to impose halal and other islamic garbage on us is NOT welcome. We built this country – muslims have contributed very little to it apart from unpleasantness – and the current behavior of muslims will not be tolerated for much longer. BTW the various interfaith activities being preached achieves little – the disease is islam and any cure formulated, even partially, within the framwork of islam is doomed to fail.

  5. “What happened to contempt of court?”

    Dear Bronson,
    This individual is a member of Australia’s “special people” Labor’s Green Loon , VOTE People and as such is exempt from the Laws that Govern Australians.

    Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge as a member of the Magistracy is well aware of this and acted accordingly by engaging in some faux outrage but at the end of the day allowing the Savage to walk all over Australian Law.
    You see these “Mohammed Issai Issaka’s” are just doing what they were imported into Australia to do, by the Australian Council of Trade Unions / GetUp funded Labor Green Loon Independent “Minority Co Party” Socialist Government, these Savages are the Lefts Rabid Mad Dogs let off the leash from time to time to do their bit in eroding Australian Law and Social norms by replacing it with the Law of the SAVAGE, Sharia Law the law of Satan and his followers the Muslims, and so long as they keep voting Labor Green Loon the present Government will have as many of their kind as they and their people smuggler Pious Muslim Pals can bring to Australia by any illegal means available to them.

    The real question should be is why Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge did not simply say “officers of the court remove the defendant to the cells please ” NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. This shows the true side of mussies!
    The contempt they have for women, even more so when its a infidel female and one who hold a position of power is below pond scum disgraceful.
    Charge him lock him up for 10 years then, kick it out!

  7. Our Western law is based on the Eastern, Chinese Confucian concept of The Golden RUle of law, which defines all situational morality in cause and effect terms: Do Not Attack First.

    After all, when one chooses to attack first, on’s own choice self-defines one as the predatory, criminal aggressor, and they as one’s innocent vicitms; there’s no two ways about it!

    Attacking second (or counter-attacking) in self defense or defense of innocent others, is a requirement for true, deterrant and retaliatory justice.

    Cause and effect is something “liberal” criminals abhor, which is why they always indulge in immoral relativism, and the critical thinking logical fallacy known as the Argumentum Tu Quoque, in order to avoid having to be moral; i.e:


    Idolatrous, immoral relativists try to avoid the specific personal risk of blaming anyone, by instead blaming “everyone:” EVIL ISN’T EVIL, AND CRIME ISN’T CRIME, BECAUSE WE ALL DO IT TOO!”

    In this way, they hope to placate any and all immediate threats by agreeing with the criminals
    self-proclaimed rights to commit their crimes.

    “Since we’re all only helpless victims of predeterminism and our environment, there are no real crimes nor criminals!”

    After all, a common liberal meme these days is one isn’t allowed to defend one’s self so long as the criminal’s attacks have (at least momentarily) abated.

    If a criminal attacks you then runs away, one is supposedly not allowed to pursue them, much less shoot them in the back. In this way, liberals leave the victims’ response to crimes up to only the criminal’s chosen timetables. Only if the criminal stops running, gets his wind, and then decides to sneak around and continue their attacks from a different angle, is the victim “allowed” to resume again defending them self. Repeat this farcial fiasco scenario endlessly, while ignoring that even when the criminal is eventually tried years later, they aren’t committing any crimes AS they are being sentenced, so to liberals, that’s not exactly “fair” then, either! Whee!

    In reality, revenge IS deterrant justice; only attacking first defines one as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they aas one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it! In fact, counter-attacking is an actual requirement of justice, whether by the victim on the scene, or by the courts later.

    “An eye for an eye” is pure moral justice, while only it’s exact opposite, or the jungle-law of might-makes-right, is what drives islam.

    “An eye for an eye” describes cause-and-effect, proportional justice, admitting that only the predatory criminal aggressor is to blame, and not their innocent victims, and is alone to be punished for their crime.

    Contrast that with islam’s unjust, us-versus-them and divide and conquer sharia crime (“law”) “might-makes-right” meme, where even if I start it, so long as I remain stronger than you, then you AREN’T allowed to take my eye in retaliatory and just punishment for my crimes of having taken yours first.



  8. Imagine this. I try to enter a Mosque with my shoes on. Probably I would be stopped at the door and told to remove them. I then say it is against my beliefs that I remove my shoes. Do you think for one moment I would be allowed in??? This Mohammed (why are they all called Mohammed – must be a shortage of names) made a mockery of our legal system, and I think the real reason he refused to stand was because the judge was a woman and we all know how these radicals treat women. He should have been charged with contempt of court, given 7 days in the cooler and if he did it again, the another 7 days until he agrees to respect the court. I’m so sick of us pandering to their demands.

Comments are closed.