web analytics
≡ Menu

Quaint rights of multiculturalism & marriage

Quaint rights of multiculturalism & marriage

The Prophet Mohammad did it, why can’t Mohammad Shakir?

A man who married a 14-year-old girl in Melbourne’s southeast has pleaded guilty to an offence under the marriage act. Mohammad Shakir this morning entered a plea of guilty to going through with a marriage ceremony with a person not of marriageable age over the incident in September last year at Noble Park. The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard Mr Shakir was previously charged with sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 and being a party to a forced marriage.

Source: News Corp

Man guilty of marrying girl, 14, in mosque

The charges were withdrawn today and the new charge under the marriage act was entered instead.

It carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

The Iman who is alleged to have carried out the ceremony is due to appear before court next month for a contested hearing.

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Spinbuster 21/04/2017, 5:14 am

    I am sure Mr. Shakir will be let off with a bond or escape conviction because of diminished responsibility …and no one will ever know …and no one will ever care.

    Did some work for a cow cocky a few days back. Presents as intelligent, nice home, nice herd of droughtmasters, plenty of nice machinery in the shed, not exactly a failure in life.
    He knows almost nothing about politics or what is going on in the cities or the true effects of Islam in our country, and I am sure he will continue to vote for the “Country ” party …even if he finds out that free speech no longer exists.

    I know someone else who has worked for the government all his life, ( I ask him if he will ever get a job in the real world), and no matter what political facts I put before him he tells me that he will always vote labour.
    I am quite certain that he could witness his daughter being raped by a gang of sudanese youths and his voting pattern still would not change.
    In many respects it is like trying to have a logical discussion with the religious, …no matter what you say, you just can’t get past the brainwashing.

    • LadyMoonlight 21/04/2017, 8:17 am

      Yep, I will bet my life he will walk off into the sunset, Scott free. As to the rest of your post, well, I will always vote conservative…that does not mean the Liberal Party, not any more, it means conservative. I could never vote Labor or Greens, just never going to happen.

    • Albert 21/04/2017, 8:54 am

      Those with a religious bent probably think the same about you, i.e. having a logical discussion with someone who is so paranoid about religion is not only impossible but pointless.

      • Spinbuster 21/04/2017, 12:25 pm

        This is an interesting response Albert.
        I am accused of being paranoid because I present and defend my point of view in a blog.
        If I am compared to organised religion which has huge mechanisms to promote their point of view than a new word 200 times more powerful than paranoid would have to be invented to describe them.
        For starters I don’t turn up uninvited with a pile of doctrine at somebodys home or send missionaries to other countries.
        In point of fact, I have yet to have the logical religious discussion. (for example, as presented back at “Will Muslims ever ‘own’ their mess?” MM today.)
        Typically I offer facts and bullets points and receive confirmation bias,
        platitudes or insult in return almost always in sanctimonious fashion.
        Never a tangible scientific response.
        For example no one has ever described in scientific terms how they communicate with their chosen god. (From voice to ???? via ???? just how is it done?)

        Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by “anxiety or fear”, often to the point of “delusion and irrationality.”

        I would challenge the impartial observer to determine which belief has the most delusion and irrationality, …. the creationist or the evolutionist.

      • Joe Blogs 21/04/2017, 2:16 pm
      • Albert 21/04/2017, 4:30 pm

        Spinbuster, I do know what paranoia is but thanks for the lead anyway.
        I don’t begrudge you an opinion on religion but my comment stems from the fact that you go on and on and on about it.
        After your many shots at religion I think we have gotten the message that you are anti-religion by now and so the reference to paranoia.

      • Spinbuster 21/04/2017, 6:24 pm

        Thank you for your unemotional and well researched comments, Blogsy.
        I note that there is some considerable factual material and inarguable points of view presented in your meticulous research.
        Let me have a few days and I will get back to you.

      • Spinbuster 21/04/2017, 6:41 pm

        Thus, Albert, it has been established that repetition to a theme is regarded as paranoia.
        By your measure, MM is flooded with paranoids. Perhap they would appreciate an explanation.
        No matter, I am not in the business of weights and measures or lexicon analysis.
        May I have an answer in scientific terms as to how religious people communicate with their chosen god. (From voice to ???? via ???? just how is it done?)
        I will paraphrase a response to one of my blogs.

        A very simple question ….just tell me.

      • Joe Blogs 21/04/2017, 8:27 pm

        Don’t bother, Buster. You’re not up to it.

        I, for one, scan your tedious anti-religion fulminations for key words and usually ignore the lot. It’s clear that you can dish out hubristic criticism of other posters with snide remarks and name-calling, but you can’t cop it in return. If you bothered to consider others’ posts about yours you might find that you’ve destroyed your own credibility by flogging a dead hobby horse.

        Keep it up if you like, but expect your puerile disparagement of good people whose views differ from yours to cause reciprocation.

  • Lorraine 21/04/2017, 8:43 am

    a girl a woman a chattel,who cares Islam is a religion of peace

    • Joe Blogs 21/04/2017, 12:31 pm

      Lorraine, don’t know whether you saw this, but it’s a MUST WATCH – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAV-2gIRrM

      BTW, I think Tucker Carlson is much better than O’Reilly.

      • Lorraine 21/04/2017, 4:00 pm

        Tucker Carlson is very good, and he takes on the established Left and other issues, debates it with the guest, and when the guest runs off topic, Carlson brings them right back, Mostly the guests are outgunned. Carlson is real, Bill O’Reilly thought he was smarter than all others, and took it upon himself to instruct the President, in how he should manage the WH, world affairs and what is the best meal to have.

      • Joe Blogs 21/04/2017, 4:22 pm

        Love it when TC sucks the idiots in then laughs at them!

        As for O’R, $25M (1 year of contract) severance; net worth ~$80M; books, appearances, etc. Brought down by blonde jokes? Let’s wait and see what really happened – or whether Rupert’s offspring are just a pair of useful idiots.

  • Tommygun 21/04/2017, 3:25 pm

    The dog should be beaten within an inch of it’s worthless life, thrown in jail for 20 years and then deported to the shithole it (or its family) came from!

  • Bushkid 21/04/2017, 8:28 pm

    So why were the original charged dropped? That’s the real crime here.

Leave a Comment