What the ......

Stanaccy · 10-12-2007, 20:30

OK I know a lot of you see me as a left wing softie when it comes to crime and punishment but what planet was the judge on for this.

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Rape case ruling shocks Australia

Diabolical doesn't fit it.

Bonnyboy · 10-12-2007, 20:59

I would have thought that convictions should have been brought under “age of consent” laws whether the child agreed to taking part in the act of sex is neither here nor there. She was plainly abused IMO

Worldwide Ages of Consent

MargaretR · 10-12-2007, 21:02

Australia is lagging behind in their attitudes towards rape and women's rights.
Until 1980 a man could not be charged with raping his wife/partner
It may come as a surprise to some men here that there is no such thing as 'conjugal rights'

blazey · 11-12-2007, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Australia is lagging behind in their attitudes towards rape and women's rights.
Until 1980 a man could not be charged with raping his wife/partner
It may come as a surprise to some men here that there is no such thing as 'conjugal rights'

You do realise that the case changing that rule of law in england was in 1992 dont you in the case of R v R? Therefore england is actually even further behind australia if your using that example.

MargaretR · 11-12-2007, 15:25

no such thing as 'conjugal rights'
Was told that by my solicitor in 1970

blazey · 11-12-2007, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

no such thing as 'conjugal rights'
Was told that by my solicitor in 1970

Well in an ideal world there isn't but that wasn't set in stone in England until that landmark case in 1992. Solicitors dont make the law unfortunatly, the judges do, and it takes a while for them to change law that already exists, and in this case it took a lot longer than most people realise.

WillowTheWhisp · 11-12-2007, 16:07

In the article it refers to a 10 year old girl but on TV it says she is 10 now but was 7 when this took place. So the judge thinks a 7 year old agreed to a gang bang?

Bonnyboy · 11-12-2007, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

In the article it refers to a 10 year old girl but on TV it says she is 10 now but was 7 when this took place. So the judge thinks a 7 year old agreed to a gang bang?

Mind boggling isn't it

Eric · 11-12-2007, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

You do realise that the case changing that rule of law in england was in 1992 dont you in the case of R v R? Therefore england is actually even further behind australia if your using that example.

You can't use this type of argument for this case. It is difficult for people in England to understand this kind of decision and it's underlying mentality ... by the way I'm not trying to justify it. Australia, like the US and Canada, has a large aboriginal population and the history of how the two groups, settlers and aboriginals, have interacted is not pleasant to contemplate. It has become conventional wisdom among certain "whites" that the aboriginals are not quite human. Both Canada and the US once had bounties on the "red" indians. And still the image of the drunken, criminal, sex crazed, drugged Indian living on welfare is one that is still accepted by certain segments of the population. In British Columbia several years ago, a judge was found guilty of sexually exploiting young girls ... getting a blow job for a lighter sentence. He is now in jail, thank god. England does not have aboriginal peoples. They did not aquire their country be a recent rape of an idigenous population. They are not in the process of coming to terms with that "crime." And unless you take that into account, any statement of who is ahead of whom is flawed to the point of being meaningless.

Eric · 12-12-2007, 18:37

Oops that should have read "young native girls."

cashman · 12-12-2007, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

You can't use this type of argument for this case. It is difficult for people in England to understand this kind of decision and it's underlying mentality ... by the way I'm not trying to justify it. Australia, like the US and Canada, has a large aboriginal population and the history of how the two groups, settlers and aboriginals, have interacted is not pleasant to contemplate. It has become conventional wisdom among certain "whites" that the aboriginals are not quite human. Both Canada and the US once had bounties on the "red" indians. And still the image of the drunken, criminal, sex crazed, drugged Indian living on welfare is one that is still accepted by certain segments of the population. In British Columbia several years ago, a judge was found guilty of sexually exploiting young girls ... getting a blow job for a lighter sentence. He is now in jail, thank god. England does not have aboriginal peoples. They did not aquire their country be a recent rape of an idigenous population. They are not in the process of coming to terms with that "crime." And unless you take that into account, any statement of who is ahead of whom is flawed to the point of being meaningless.

i would say that the aboriginies/ indians etc are the true population of those countries and have been marginalised by the "whites" probably not what people want to hear but its true.

Eric · 12-12-2007, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

i would say that the aboriginies/ indians etc are the true population of those countries and have been marginalised by the "whites" probably not what people want to hear but its true.

The official first line of our National Anthem: O Canada our home and native land.

The First Nations version: O Canada our home on native land.