He might not have known that the boy was saying no, you see. As if raping a ten-year-old boy is just fine if the boy is saying yes.

This kind of legalistic twaddle — always in favor of Muslim migrants, never at their expense — heralds the demise of Europe and the West.

“Migrant jailed for attack on boy, 10, over ‘sexual emergency’ has conviction OVERTURNED,” by Indra Warnes, Express, October 21, 2016:

AN IRAQI asylum seeker who confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool, claiming it was a “sexual emergency”, has had his conviction overturned.

Amir A., 10 [sic: the victim, not the attacker, is 10], who is married with a child of his own, was visiting the Theresienbad pool in the Austrian capital of Vienna last December as part of a trip to encourage integration.

He was accompanied by a 15-year-old translator, who had befriended the schoolboy who was at the swimming pool alone.

When the youngster went to the showers, Amir A. allegedly followed him, pushed him into a toilet cubicle, and violently sexually assaulted him.

Following the attack, the accused rapist returned to the pool and was practising on the diving board when police arrived, after the 10-year-old raised the alarm with the lifeguard.

The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children’s hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.

In a police interview, Amir A. confessed to the crime; telling officers the incident had been “a sexual emergency”, as his wife had remained in Iraq and he “had not had sex in four months”.

A court found Amir guilty of serious sexual assault and rape of a minor, and sentenced him to six years in jail.

However, in a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction, accepting the defence lawyer’s claim that the original court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist realised the child was saying no.

According to the Supreme Court President Thomas Philipp, while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual assault of a minor, there was not enough evidence to support the second charge of rape.

The appeal court said the initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will.

The sentence was therefore lifted, although Amir is expected to remain in custody until the rape case returns to the regional court next year….