booyah! i'm coming up big on cnn's website right now. if you read this story about the australian rape case and scroll down to the bottom & click on the blogs, commentary, etc button i'm the first to show up. my first post on it.
in all seriousness, i still can't believe that the judge handed out that sentence. i saw another case about a rape in the u.a.e., where two men raped a teen boy, and they were given fifteen years. now, this case has some interesting twists because it involves the rape of a boy, so some may say that justice cares more for males. also, the family is crying out because one of the men has aids, and new it, so they feel he should have been given a much longer sentence.
asinine.
Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
update on australian rape case
apparently not everyone is australia is retarded. the attorney general of the state said that the punishment was "manifestly inadequate," and, ""Any child under the age of 12 cannot legally give consent to sexual intercourse, so the relevance of the judge's remark mystifies me." well, i guess that also helps us know when one can consent in australia as well.
(and, yes, retarded works there because it means delayed or slow, which apparently some of their judges are working on some 18th century definition of rape. you, know, when they were still all criminals there.)
i really feel badly for this girl, because it seems this wasn't the first time she was victimized.
"Meanwhile, Queensland state Premier Anna Bligh confirmed reports that the girl was first sexually assaulted at Aurukun in 2002 by several juveniles. They were not charged.
Ms Bligh said the girl was placed into foster care after the incident but was returned to the settlement in April 2006, where she was gang-raped shortly after. "
damn. sad, sad state of affairs. reprehensible.
(and, yes, retarded works there because it means delayed or slow, which apparently some of their judges are working on some 18th century definition of rape. you, know, when they were still all criminals there.)
i really feel badly for this girl, because it seems this wasn't the first time she was victimized.
"Meanwhile, Queensland state Premier Anna Bligh confirmed reports that the girl was first sexually assaulted at Aurukun in 2002 by several juveniles. They were not charged.
Ms Bligh said the girl was placed into foster care after the incident but was returned to the settlement in April 2006, where she was gang-raped shortly after. "
damn. sad, sad state of affairs. reprehensible.
Monday, December 10, 2007
6 rapists slapped on the wrist in australia
"Judge Sarah Bradley told them that the victim 'probably agreed to have sex with all of you".
probably? no, i think it's whether or not she actually did agree. that's one of the big issues whether or not it's considered sex or rape, consent. so, either she consented or didn't. which is it?
"Judge Bradley later defended her sentencing, telling The Australian that the sentences were "appropriate" because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution."
well, then the prosecution are idiots, too. what does the law say should happen in this case? i doubt that the law says that convicted rapists should be given sentences ranging from probation to six months in jail.
at least activists have some sense about them, exhibited here:
"There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made," she said, the she being Boni Robertson.
now, i agree with the last statement, but this case does demonstrate some of the difficulties of living in a society that is made up of different cultures. i don't know if australia is considered a "melting pot" like the u.s. fancies itself, but i do imagine that they do have a fair amount of diversity. and, it seems that this is a little bit (big bit) of cross-cultural dilemma,
"The case comes six months after a high-profile inquiry into child sex abuse in remote northern Australia said it found problems in every Aborigine community visited by researchers."
so here we have a case of sex between 6 males, 4 of which were minors, and one female. one ten year old girl. let me say that again, a ten year old girl. it seems that we may have some issue in aboriginal cultural of when is the appropriate age of sex. i although i admit to my ignorance here, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that ten is too young, and would imagine that their culture would agree, too.
so, ask yourself, judge sarah bradley, was she:
1. consenting?
2. able to consent?
if you can't answer both of those with a legal yes, than it's rape. and they should be punished appropriately, even if the prosecution isn't asking for it.
one fnial quote to throw into the mix,
"The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim's family had a lower status, the Australian reported."
ah, yes, this may not actually have anything to do with cross cultural values. it's got to do with justice being blind for the right price, now isn't it?
probably? no, i think it's whether or not she actually did agree. that's one of the big issues whether or not it's considered sex or rape, consent. so, either she consented or didn't. which is it?
"Judge Bradley later defended her sentencing, telling The Australian that the sentences were "appropriate" because they were the penalties sought by the prosecution."
well, then the prosecution are idiots, too. what does the law say should happen in this case? i doubt that the law says that convicted rapists should be given sentences ranging from probation to six months in jail.
at least activists have some sense about them, exhibited here:
"There is nothing culturally, there is nothing morally, there is nothing socially and there is definitely nothing legally that would ever allow this sort of decision to be made," she said, the she being Boni Robertson.
now, i agree with the last statement, but this case does demonstrate some of the difficulties of living in a society that is made up of different cultures. i don't know if australia is considered a "melting pot" like the u.s. fancies itself, but i do imagine that they do have a fair amount of diversity. and, it seems that this is a little bit (big bit) of cross-cultural dilemma,
"The case comes six months after a high-profile inquiry into child sex abuse in remote northern Australia said it found problems in every Aborigine community visited by researchers."
so here we have a case of sex between 6 males, 4 of which were minors, and one female. one ten year old girl. let me say that again, a ten year old girl. it seems that we may have some issue in aboriginal cultural of when is the appropriate age of sex. i although i admit to my ignorance here, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that ten is too young, and would imagine that their culture would agree, too.
so, ask yourself, judge sarah bradley, was she:
1. consenting?
2. able to consent?
if you can't answer both of those with a legal yes, than it's rape. and they should be punished appropriately, even if the prosecution isn't asking for it.
one fnial quote to throw into the mix,
"The offenders came from some of the most powerful and prominent Aboriginal families in Cape York, while the victim's family had a lower status, the Australian reported."
ah, yes, this may not actually have anything to do with cross cultural values. it's got to do with justice being blind for the right price, now isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)