UK: Muslim migrant rapist fights extradition to France because he’s afraid his prison cell will be too small
If his cell in Paris would be too small, he simply must stay in shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain, and be freed in a few months. His well-being is paramount.
Afghan rapist who fled to the UK after sex attack on 14-year-old girl in France invokes Human Rights act to fight extradition because his Paris prison cell might be too small
by Tom Lawrence, Daily Mail, September 15, 2025:
An Afghan man who escaped to the UK after being convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl in France is fighting extradition because he fears his prison cell in Paris may be too small.
Abdul Ahmadzai, 36, was arrested under the Extradition Act 2003 after a warrant was issued by France ‘for the rape of a minor.’
He was convicted in absence of the rape of a 14-year-old girl and given five years in prison but retains ‘retrial rights’ if he is extradited back across the channel.
Ahmadzai appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court wearing grey prison clothes and accompanied by an Afghan interpreter.
Stefan Hyman, for Ahmadzai, argued that Ahmadzai’s case could pass the threshold for Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.
He said: ‘We have obtained an expert report which suggests that the requested person would be taken to Paris.
‘He’s a convicted person, and so unless he chooses to have a retrial, I understand that he will be detained in Paris but I can’t say what would happen if he chooses to have a retrial because the victim in this case is elsewhere in France.’
Mr Hyman said there was a ‘real risk’ of Ahmadzai being ‘detained in a space fewer than three metres squared.
‘I would respectfully suggest that given the low threshold and the very mixed picture in Paris and the fact that we have no idea where he’s actually going to be detained in Paris, and, actually, his case is quite particular because of the retrial right and whether would be an accused person.
‘I would suggest there is enough here to invite the CPS to write to the French and say: ‘Can you tell us he’s going to have his own bed and three metres squared please?’…
==================================================================================
Canada: British Columbia tribunal rules that photos of ‘unveiled’ Muslim woman are not ‘intimate images’
There are many others like this British Columbia Muslim woman, who advanced a claim for damages under B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act, who have been slowly and steadily undermining Western free societies and imposing what has come to be referred to as “creeping Sharia.”
How on earth can any fully clothed woman who is photographed without Muslim veiling claim the resulting photo was an “intimate image”? Such a notion is outrageous.
In Islam, women are inferior to men. This is not a Canadian value; nor does it belong in any Western society. It is based on the Qur’anic tenet:
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only what is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment except to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack desire, or children who know nothing of women’s nakedness. And do not let them stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn to Allah together, O believers, so that you may succeed.” (Quran 24:31)
If a woman does not cover, she is fair game to be assaulted….
O prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their veils close around them. That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not molested. Allah is always forgiving, merciful. (Quran 33:59)
The notion that a photo of an unveiled Muslim woman is an “intimate image” is absurd at best, and should point to the fact that Muslims who are Sharia-adherent do not belong in Western societies, unless, of course they are willing to put aside the aspects of their religion that are at odds with Western laws and culture.
Islam, however, is a religion that was established and expanded by means of conquest, both via violence and stealth (eg. lawfare), so it is unlikely that Shara-adherent Muslims will be willing to put aside any aspect of their religion that infidels do not embrace, even when they live in infidel lands.
Photos of a Muslim woman in which she is not wearing a hijab are not intimate images, a B.C. tribunal has ruled.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal published its decision on the case Friday, dismissing a claim for damages under B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act. The legislation allows people to seek up to $5,000 in compensation from individuals who share or threaten to share their intimate images without consent.
The woman, whose identity is anonymized under a publication ban, told the tribunal photos of her without her hijab were shared with court officials, some of whom were male, by her ex-husband in the course of a family law proceeding.
“The applicant says that because she is a Muslim woman, she does not appear unveiled, without her hijab, in front of unrelated men. She argues the involuntary exposure of her hair, arms, or body to unrelated men is equivalent to public nudity,” tribunal vice-chair Andrea Ritchie wrote.
“She says the respondent, who shares her faith, knows this and improperly submitted the photos to the court in an attempt to humiliate and degrade her.”
Ritchie reviewed the photos and found the woman was shown without her hijab in 13 images, but also found the photos did not meet the legal criteria of intimate images.
“I found none of the images depicted the applicant nude, nearly nude, engaged in a sexual act, or exposing her genitals, anal region, or breasts. Although the applicant subjectively believes the images were ‘intimate’ as defined by the IIPA, I found the legislation’s intent was not to cover such a situation,” Ritche’s decision continued.
“I find the applicant’s images without her hijab do not depict her as ‘nearly nude.’”
Additionally, the tribunal found a photo of the woman kissing her ex-husband did not depict a sexual act.
“I find that kissing, although it can be intimate, is not by definition a sexual act. I say this because parents and grandparents kiss their children and grandchildren, friends may kiss to say hello, people may kiss their pets….
===================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment