Five years for hacking a man with machetes is not ‘tough’

Cartoon: Johannes Leak.

The way authorities and their media and activist cheer-squads have responded to Melbourne’s African crime wave is typical of elites across the Western world. Motivated by blatant sympathy for violent savages rather than their innocent victims, the supposedly great and good of the Western world have lied, betrayed victims, and cosseted imported criminal barbarians.

Across Europe, violent foreign rapists are rarely sentenced, never deported, and given priority access to government services denied to their (often child) victims. In Melbourne, vicious African gang criminals benefit from a policy of few arrests, and fewer custodial sentences. Refugees who repay Australia’s generosity with mob violence and rape can count with surety on never, ever being sent back.

It’s sign of how debased Victoria’s justice system has become that five years for hacking a man with a machete shocks thugs as a “tough” sentence. Quote:

Two machete-wielding thugs who hacked a man to shreds in an inner-city park have gasped in disbelief as a tough new female judge sent them to prison for their cowardly attack.

Supporters of Abdirizak Mohamed Scek, 25, and Said Abdirahman, 28, swore and disrupted the court when newly-appointed County Court of Victoria Judge Sarah Dawes sent them both to jail. End of quote.

Of course, they’re shocked and outraged: they had every reason to expect that they’d be released right back on to the streets. The attitude of African gangs in Melbourne is, after all, “the police can’t touch us”. Quote:

The men, who are Somalian asylum seekers, pleaded guilty to just a single charge each of intentionally causing serious injury.

However, no-nonsense Judge Dawes sentenced Abdirahman to five-and-a-half years in jail, with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half and Scek to four years and nine months, with a minimum of two years and nine months.

The sentence came just hours before a gang of African thugs terrorised commuters on a train in Lynbrook, in Melbourne’s south-east.

Judge Dawes’ sentence comes amid community outcry for tougher sentences. End of quote.

If just five years for nearly hacking a man to pieces is “no-nonsense” and “tougher”, Melbourne really is in trouble. Quote:

The savage attack on March 17 last year at a North Melbourne park left Nathan Brett with a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and his finger hanging by a thread. End of quote.

Notice also that this wasn’t the only machete attack there, that night. Quote:

Mr Brett had attended a birthday party at a mate’s house earlier that night in which the thugs also attended…When Mr Brett joined the party host for a late night snack at a nearby convenience shop, they found a friend suffering a wound from a machete…

Judge Dawes said the men were confronted by a group of African males armed with machetes and pointing them in the air…Abdirahman struck Mr Brett in the head with a machete, with Scek following up with a blow to his hand as Mr Brett tried to defend himself.

The wounded man ran for his life, but the thugs chased him and hacked him as he fled. End of quote.

As usual, these thugs had already learned that Australia doesn’t punish refugee criminals. Quote:

Abdirahman should have learnt his lesson in 2010, when he was convicted of affray, intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury.

He escaped jail on that occasion and was placed on a community-based order for a year.

He blamed drugs and alcohol for his latest offending. End of quote.

As Theodore Dalrymple has written, far from diminishing responsibility, the standard “drugs and alcohol” defence suggests otherwise. The reasoning behind “diminished responsibility”, after all, is that the offender was not in their normal state of mind. In the case of brutal goons like these, however, being “wasted” (in their own words) is very much their habitual state of mind. Quote:

Judge Dawes said she hoped the sentence would come as a warning to like-minded offenders.

‘It is important to deter other young men from settling their differences with the use of violence and machetes,’ she said.

‘A significant term of imprisonment is the only appropriate disposition in this case.’ End of quote.

Normal young Australian men don’t need to be “deterred” from resorting to machetes. That these barbarians should have been allowed into the country in the first place (and no doubt welcomed with taxpayer-funded largesse) is a staggering dereliction of state responsibility.

The only “appropriate disposition” would surely be to rescind the extraordinary generosity that they have repaid with savagery.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly
62%