Mohammedans, once settled in the West, behind enemy lines, will always use their positions to advance the Islamic agenda.
One of the most thoughtful experts on Islam and its consequences in Western nations is Elaine Ellinger.
She has just posted this article on Muslims on juries where the accused is a Muslim.
A short excerpt, thanks to Vlad Tepes:
An X contributor wrote: “They shouldn’t be on jury duty as they always let their cousins off.”
A common complaint in Western countries is that Muslim jurors should not serve because “they always let their cousins off.”
The remark is usually treated as a crude accusation of favouritism toward other Muslims or dismissed as “Islamophobia.” In reality it points to a deeper and well-documented difference in legal and moral rules.
There is a further difference that Westerners often miss. In the West it is common to treat religion as something that can be largely ignored while still claiming the identity. Many people call themselves Christian while disregarding large parts of Christian teaching, and this is widely accepted. But Islam is a deen – a complete way of life and system of law – fundamentally different from personal belief.
Elaine actually offers solutions in her writings. Well worth subbing her work here.
Consequences for Bankstown nurses : Will there be any punishment for them at all?
The two former Bankstown Hospital nurses currently on trial over comments they allegedly made online – have just suffered a massive setback.
‘That’ highly contentious video has now been reinstated as evidence in their trial – and will show the following:
* Sarah Abu Lebdeh allegedly said she would refuse to treat Israeli patients and stated she would “kill” them.
* Ahmad Rashad Nadir allegedly claimed he had already sent Israeli patients “to hell”, a statement prosecutors argue implied he had harmed patients, despite investigators previously stating they found no evidence that any patients suffered actual adverse outcomes.
This video WILL be shown to a jury.
My comment: This is EXACTLY where it belongs.
Because this case is not about rumours, or social media outrage.
It is about real evidence.
The jury should be able to hear the words themselves, see the footage, and determine what the facts are. As a reminder, some of the alleged comments included:
“I won’t treat them, I’ll kill them.”
“Eventually you’re going to get killed and you’re going to go to [hell].”
“One day your time will come… you will die the most disgusting death.”
“You have no idea how many Israeli [patients] came to this hospital and I send them to [hell].”
These are alleged statements that, if proven, would be an extraordinary breach of the trust placed in healthcare professionals.
A patient is never the enemy. Anyone who enters a hospital is entitled to believe the person standing next to their bed will see a human being in need of care, not a nationality, a religion or a political identity.
That is why this matter runs so incredibly deep.
I know our health system. It has to run on trust. We ask patients to surrender their vulnerability to clinical staff. That trust is a privilege. And the responsibility it comes with must be treated as precious.
The court has now ruled the video WILL be shown at trial. What a significant turning point. It means the evidence will not be filtered through summaries or opinions.
The jury can see it. They can hear it. They can judge the context.
Both accused nurses have pleaded not guilty, and only the court will determine the outcome.