PDA

View Full Version : Gang rape of a ten year old. Judge says she consented.


Binoculars
11th Dec 2007, 14:18
We Aussies aren't allowed to talk anything except aviation on our Dunnunda forum, so if anything remotely interesting happens in this remote territory we have to bring it up in this forum.

I would have thought that a ten year old girl being gang raped at seven years of age and again at ten would be sufficient to cause at least a flutter of interest in the form of a thread? Apparently not.

There were nine rapists brought to trial in the latter case. All of them pleaded guilty, yet none of them received a custodial sentence. How could this be? Is this beyond the bounds of outrageousness?

Well no. Because all the protagonists were black. Aboriginal. Indigenous Australians. Already I hear the eternal calls that "PC Gone Mad" is the cause.

No. The cause is that too few people give a shit.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22906526-601,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rape-prosecutor-sidelined/2007/12/11/1197135462133.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/we-failed-packrape-girl/2007/12/11/1197135445280.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2115946.htm

anotherthing
11th Dec 2007, 14:26
Binoculars

to be fair, the issue has nothing to do with aviation therefore the Dunnunda forum is probably not the place to bring it up.

As for the judgement - they need locking up and the key needs throwing away... at the very least. The judge should join them.

LegallyBlonde
11th Dec 2007, 14:31
The judge has the distinction of being the most complained about judge in Qld. There will probably be an appeal, on point of law. A 10 year old child cannot consent to any sexual act, so it is irrelevant in proving the offence. This judge commented on the issue of consent in her sentencing remarks, thereby suggesting the possibility that she may have (erroneously) taken that factor into account when deciding on the sentence.
Note also that the Crown Prosecutor has been stood down for his part in the case. It's not over Red Rover.

Do remember though who appoints these judges and magistrates.

anotherthing
11th Dec 2007, 14:35
Regardless of whether the child did 'consent' - the adults would have been aware it was an illegal, immoral and disgusting act.

Is the judge condoning illegal behaviour if the victim accedes to it?

He would let you away with murder - literally.

LegallyBlonde
11th Dec 2007, 14:38
Consent doesn't even enter this equation, because a child of that age cannot legally consent to any sexual act.

The judge is a female. Just to make the whole scenario even more disgraceful.

chornedsnorkack
11th Dec 2007, 15:04
Regardless of whether the child did 'consent' - the adults would have been aware it was an illegal, immoral and disgusting act.
Nonsense. There is nothing immoral or disgusting about it. Illegal, yes. The adults might or might not have been aware of this.
Is the judge condoning illegal behaviour if the victim accedes to it?
Why not?

The one disgusting part is that she got a sexually transmitted part. Plenty of aboriginals have problems with that - they traditionally do not have pools of infectious diseases so they do not have to worry about those consequences. Another thing many aboriginals from various parts of world have problems with is alcohol intolerance.

Binoculars
11th Dec 2007, 15:11
??????????????????

Before I dismiss that as a finalist in the most ludicrous posting ever, l offer you another chance to state a case in comprehensible English.

FWOF
11th Dec 2007, 15:14
Nonsense. There is nothing immoral or disgusting about it. Illegal, yes. The adults might or might not have been aware of this.


I'm SORRY??!!! Nothing immoral or disgusting with having sex with a SEVEN year old????????

chornedsnorkack
11th Dec 2007, 15:22
Throwing about the words like "legally consent" and "rape" is dangerous.

Children certainly can consent and not consent. Anyone who deals with children would obviously know that parents, teachers and others are quite often dealing with children aged seven, or more, or much less, expressing that they want something or do not want something.

Pretty obviously a 10 year old, or 7 year old, can express her wishes.

If a child expresses consent for sex, it is not relevant for Australian law. This does not mean that it is not relevant to the customs of aboriginals, or to the morality of the action.

anotherthing
11th Dec 2007, 15:23
chornedsnorkack

I'm not even going to enter a debate with you about
Nonsense. There is nothing immoral or disgusting about it.:mad:


However:
Quote:
Is the judge condoning illegal behaviour if the victim accedes to it?
Why not?


Because the person agreeing to it (in this case a 7 year old infant) might not have the acumen and knowledge to form a logical decision :ugh::ugh:

7 year old children think it's fun to stick their hand in dog poo for God's sake. Doesn't mean they are correct :mad:

Binoculars
11th Dec 2007, 15:28
Pretty obviously a 10 year old, or 7 year old, can express her wishes.

Yep, she sure can. All my four daughters tried it. Didn't do them much good unless it coincided with the wishes of her parents.

Children certainly can consent and not consent. Anyone who deals with children would obviously know that parents, teachers and others are quite often dealing with children aged seven, or more, or much less, expressing that they want something or do not want something.


Congratulations. You have proven yourself to be not only inarticulate, but if the opinions you attempt to express are accurate, dangerous as well.

I have no further use for conversation with somebody as worthless as you.

chornedsnorkack
11th Dec 2007, 15:32
Because the person agreeing to it (in this case a 7 year old infant) might not have the acumen and knowledge to form a logical decision

7 year old children think it's fun to stick their hand in dog poo for God's sake. Doesn't mean they are correct

1000 generations of Aboriginals - and that includes the mothers, fathers and elder brothers of little girls - decided that a 7 year old girl does not risk much by having sex with boys, because she will not get pregnant at that age anyway.

Some other tribes outside Australia have made different conclusions. Like that girls should have their clitoris cut off and vagina sewn shut till marriage so that no one can have sex with her until she is properly married. Or that girls should keep their legs shut till marriage at all costs and that any girl who loses her honour should be killed for that.

Who do you think made the more disgusting and less moral laws - the tribes who decided that early sex is no big deal, or the tribes who decided that early sex should be prevented by genital mutilation and honour killing?

Track Coastal
11th Dec 2007, 15:36
Yep, she sure can. All my four daughters tried it. Didn't do them much good unless it coincided with the wishes of her parents.


Same answer I give mine. It is a true democracy when you are 18, we (mum/dad) have right of veto until then.

Anyway,

Picked up a snippet in the car on the way home from work (the DPP not the judge apparently)....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2116136.htm?section=justin

chornedsnorkack
You condone sexual acts with a minor. Hmmm are you familiar with the term paedophile, jail term and sick bastard?

Great, now INTERPOL will look at this forum because we have sick feckers like you here.

jayteeto
11th Dec 2007, 15:45
I'm glad I don't live in Estonia if you think it isn't immoral you sick paedophile bas**rd!!

Binoculars
11th Dec 2007, 15:45
I am going to apologise to chornedsnorkackright here and now. He raises a lot of valid points which have to be taken into account. My earlier accusations were perhaps unfounded, and I look forward to an extended discussion with him. I wonder if he may be aboriginal, but whether or not he is, a lot of the charges he makes are spot on.

Bedtime for me, but I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Kirstey
11th Dec 2007, 15:50
it IS worth noting that in this case the men involved were in fact boys.

The age of consent is as little as 12 in many parts of the world. My own and most of our morality means that we wouldn't consider such a thing in any country, but in some societies it's culturally acceptable...

At risk of causing upset the fact it was a 10yr old isn't relevant... the rape side is. Who are we to judge other cultures by our own standards.

Whirlygig
11th Dec 2007, 15:56
Why apologise Binos? Chornedsnorkack may well have raised some valid points but, in the last post, was talking about adults and adult issues i.e. whether the adult aboriginals think it's immoral to have sex with a 7 year old; the issue of a 7 year old making an informed decision and consenting was not addressed.

Cheers

Whirls

Track Coastal
11th Dec 2007, 15:59
1000 generations of Aboriginals - and that includes the mothers, fathers and elder brothers of little girls - decided that a 7 year old girl does not risk much by having sex with boys, because she will not get pregnant at that age anyway.

My lovely pommy/Aussie wife has spent some time in Roebourne WA as a registered nurse during some violent and 'riotous' times. She does not recall paedophilia being an accepted standard of behaviour amongst the traditional elders.

Generally drunken violent assaults (inc some rape of post pubescent girls), no knowledge of child rape as a standard MO.

eticket
11th Dec 2007, 16:00
a 7 year old girl does not risk much by having sex with boys, because she will not get pregnant at that age anyway.

Why not?

The youngest recorded mum was 5 years 7 months and 21 days young when she had her first child in Peru in May 1939.

The case was fully documented and investigated at the time and is even noted as true by snopes. (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp) She was found to have a thyroid problem that brought on her fertility rather quicker than usual.

Whilst certainly not common there are a number of cases of 7 and 8 years having babies so the risk is there at that age.

(Youngest grandmother is certainly in the 16-17 years old range and possibly as young as 15.)

chornedsnorkack
11th Dec 2007, 16:41
The age of consent is as little as 12 in many parts of the world.

And in many parts of the world, it is as much as infinity - that is, acts incompatible with chastity like adultery and fornication are crimes at any age. Saudi Arabia, Iran and quite some other jurisdictions openly hang and stone consenting adults for unchastity.

As far as the morality of the thing goes, remember that a plenty of consenting adults have sex for various reasons like wanting to feel accepted by society and wanting to be supported by husband or boyfriend.

If you look at the girl and the society around her, ask questions like: did she, her family or her potential suitor feel that she would be abused, soiled or dishonoured? did she have a way of expressing her objections, and would the boys have heeded her objections? Did anyone stand up for her inside the community itself?

Track Coastal
11th Dec 2007, 16:49
That chornedsnorkack is more than meets the eye (click on posting history) and maybe is playing a role of devil's advocate.

If so you got me (thanks for the barbless hooks).

chornedsnorkack
11th Dec 2007, 17:00
She does not recall paedophilia being an accepted standard of behaviour amongst the traditional elders.

Generally drunken violent assaults (inc some rape of post pubescent girls), no knowledge of child rape as a standard MO.

Does drunken, violent (that is, forcibly resisted by the victim) rape of a post-pubescent girl in an aboriginal community normally bring the vengeance of the victim´s father, elder brothers and other elders upon the perpetrator/s?

goudie
11th Dec 2007, 17:32
There appears to be considerable conflict in White Austalia's attitude to Aboriginals. Some would say leave them to live within their culture, others wish to impose the standards of modern civilisation upon them.
It is a sorry story akin to the Native Americans. Whilst there are many people who wish to help them to adjust to the modern world the majority don't really understand or care.

ScottyDoo
11th Dec 2007, 19:18
We Aussies aren't allowed to talk anything except aviation on our Dunnunda forum, so if anything remotely interesting happens in this remote territory we have to bring it up in this forum.


That's because this story has SFA to do with aviation.

Anyway - great thread. :ok:

frostbite
11th Dec 2007, 21:14
I can understand the Judge's attitude here.

When I ran a leisure establishment, one of the season ticket holders (seven or eight yo) appeared determined to sell herself for sex.

She would chat up any male - even tried it with me a few times. Must confess, I found it quite entertaining and she was cute in a rather sad sort of way.

Don't know if she was ever successful but I'm sure her mother would have strangled her if she'd known what she was up to.

ORAC
11th Dec 2007, 21:27
Agreement and/or active participation is not informed consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent) and provides no legal defence. The minimum age of consent in Australia is 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania).

G-CPTN
11th Dec 2007, 21:33
Since when?

ORAC
11th Dec 2007, 21:49
In Queensland 1899... (Queensland Consolidated Acts) In Tasmania & South Australia (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/taboo/Novo/Issue9/legal_beagle.htm) it's higher, 17, but nowhere is it lower.

Queensland Consolidated Acts

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 215

Carnal knowledge with or of children under 16

(1) Any person who has or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge with or of a child under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence.

(2) If the child is of or above the age of 12 years, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

(3) If the child is under the age of 12 years, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life or, in the case of an attempt to have unlawful carnal knowledge, to imprisonment for 14 years.

(4) If the child is not the lineal descendant of the offender but the offender is the child's guardian or, for the time being, has the child under the offender's care, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life or, in the case of an attempt to have unlawful carnal knowledge, to imprisonment for 14 years.

(5) If the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a child of or above the age of 12 years, it is a defence to prove that the accused person believed, on reasonable grounds, that the child was of or above the age of 16 years.

(6) In this section--

carnal knowledge does not include sodomy.

lordsummerisle
11th Dec 2007, 21:54
Orac,

Am I reading section 4 right? Does this mean that if the child is a lineal descendent, ie son or daughter then it is not a crime?

Seems like a fairly big hole left open deliberately in there for incest to be legal

G-CPTN
11th Dec 2007, 22:06
In Queensland 1899
So since the White Man arrived . . .

VP959
11th Dec 2007, 22:22
An interesting thread, and one that neatly highlights the widely differing views of sexuality amongst the societies mentioned.
Leaving aside the legal aspects (which look fairly cut and dried from the evidence we've been able to see in the press - which isn't saying much) the issue of age and first sexual experience is something that really does seem to bring out a bit of "the moral view of my society is the only correct one" attitude in some, irrespective of it's appropriateness to the culture or society in question.

We should look long and hard at the standards we so ardently defend and see whether they themselves are built on sound moral foundations. In many cases the age of consent laws are relatively recent and don't go back very far in history. An added complication is that virtually all societies around the globe are changing rapidly, with both the behaviour and sexual maturity of children being markedly different now than when our current laws were drafted.

I have an acquaintance who is a primary school teacher, in her late fifties, who has been teaching for well over 30 years. She has had to adapt during her teaching career from a time where she very rarely encountered a pubescent child at her school to a time where it is now very common.

Children seem to be maturing sexually at a much earlier age than they were 30 or more years ago, perhaps by as much as 3 or 4 years.
It seems that Western societies don't much like this change, or seem able to even discuss it, yet an inevitable consequence is that precocious sexual behaviour in what we consider to be children who are "too young" is getting to be relatively common.

In my personal opinion, unless we fully understand the exact circumstances, and the morals and standards of the society in question, we should refrain from applying our own standards by way of judgement on the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of individuals from another, very different culture.

VP

ORAC
11th Dec 2007, 22:29
Orac,

Am I reading section 4 right? Does this mean that if the child is a lineal descendent, ie son or daughter then it is not a crime? Seems like a fairly big hole left open deliberately in there for incest to be legal

Different section. CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 222 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s222.html?query=incest)

Incest
(1) Any person who--

(a) has carnal knowledge with or of the person's offspring or other lineal descendant, or sibling, parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece; and
(b) knows that the other person bears that relationship to him or her, or some relationship of that type to him or her;
commits a crime.

Maximum penalty--imprisonment for life.

(2) Any person who attempts to commit the crime of incest is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) It is immaterial that the act or attempted act of carnal knowledge happened with the consent of either person...........................

frostbite
11th Dec 2007, 22:38
I think VP959 is spot on in para.4.

Unfortunately, physical and mental maturity often seem to be headed in different directions.

ORAC
11th Dec 2007, 23:30
It's not immaturity and it's not indigenous culture - it's the effects of grog culture (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/generation-at-risk/2007/06/15/1181414542240.html). Letting the rapists off so lightly is not respecting aboriginal cultural mores but letting drunken immoral thugs loose to do it again....

SEXUAL abuse of Aboriginal children as young as three is rampant in the Northern Territory, with an inquiry finding "rivers of grog", drugs and pornography fuel a crisis that threatens communities with disaster.

The inquiry found abuse was widespread and often went unreported, and blamed serious social problems for the abuse of children in every one of 45 communities it visited. Offenders, sometimes non-Aboriginal men, bribed girls with drugs, and in other cases children were found to be acting out scenes from pornographic films.

The inquiry's report, released yesterday, describes a juvenile sex trade in remote communities and paints a grim picture of a generation of teenagers who shun traditional ways.

"Overall, the constant message passed to the inquiry was that as traditional Aboriginal and missionary-imposed norms regarding sex broke down, they were being replaced with rampant promiscuity among teenagers," the report says.

"Teenagers no longer saw themselves as bound by the old ways and many viewed the modern world as lawless."

An elder of the Yolngu told the inquiry: "For young people today having sex is like fishing and they throw the fish back when they are finished."...........

Howard Hughes
11th Dec 2007, 23:40
This judge commented on the issue of consent in her sentencing remarks, thereby suggesting the possibility that she may have (erroneously) taken that factor into account when deciding on the sentence.

What sort of judicial system do we have if the judge makes a decision not based on the laws? Surely if the judge was not happy with her interpretation of the law, then surely the case should have been adjourned and clarification sought!

Will the judge now face consequences, if she is found to be eroneously interpreting the law? I fear not...:rolleyes:

Judges seem to be the only people who are more out of touch with reality than politicians, is it any wonder that one group appoints the other?:hmm:

BlooMoo
11th Dec 2007, 23:40
Children seem to be maturing sexually at a much earlier age than they were 30 or more years ago, perhaps by as much as 3 or 4 years.

Your explanation please...

'Seem to be', ???

'maturing' ???

'perhaps by as much as 3 or 4 years' ???

What exactly are you on about?

niknak
11th Dec 2007, 23:42
A nation which can't look after it's children is worth nothing at all.

The Australian legal system should hang it's head in shame, as should the backward people who permit this sort of thing to go on within their communities.
If the Government permit this decision to stand, everyone should boycott anything and everthing Australian until positive action is taken.

HotDog
11th Dec 2007, 23:57
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/adamtakach/CrownprosecuorSteveCarter.jpg
Steve Carter, Crown prosecutor, has been stood down pending an enquiry. It begs the question as to the outcome of the prosecution and trial, had the victim been the daughter of the learned judge or the bald headed prosecutor.:confused:

Dark Knight
12th Dec 2007, 00:25
Reading niknak's post the term `Richard Cranium' instantly comes to mind and I suggest he/she shoudl have a look at legal system within ones own country prior to criticising others.

The problem here goes back to at least 1972 when the Loony Left and `Charlatans of Good' reigned supreme changing much of the system, encouraging all to invent stories of oppression filling the heads of the aborigines/blacks/natives with cultural clap trap

Forget any comparisons with natives form Africa, North America, etc as these people here were/are real different; always were and always will be. The educated amongst them, whilst ferouscly ripping off there fellow kind indulged in using all the stories and methods from other countries to press their `oppressed state'

The do gooders changed the Law such that aboriginals are more than not subject to `White Mans' law and in some states at the faintest sniff of a jail sentience they claim to be treated by a Koorie court where, of course, no significant penalty is passed whilst the Koorie hearing the case is paid exhorbitant moneies for court sittings.

Additionally, the Judicary had exhorbitant discretion in sentencing often passing sentences more in accord with their political leanings failing to provide a legal systemprotecting law abiding citizens!

And, the blacks, including the kids, know this and exploit this situation to the hilt. Ask any policeman!

Now, before any criticise for being racist, etc, the above is but a small glimpse of the overall picture and should they have any doubt then visit here and within 5 minutes of my abode i will show you problems equal to any in the Northern Territory, Queensland and virtiullay every area in Australia where Aborigines live.

Until laws are changed to protect law abiding citizens not the lawbreakers and discretion is removed from the judiciary, nought will change. With changes mooted by the recently elected government of apology and reconcilliation a return to the failed policies of the 70's will occur and these policies did more to return the aborigines to poverty & ill health and will do so again.

DK

ps>> so called aborignal customs supposedly would have tribal elders take such offenders out into the bush where they would have been murdered?

tinpis
12th Dec 2007, 00:58
Any ideas how you would go about unraveling a multi billion dollar industry Mr DK? :(

Dark Knight
12th Dec 2007, 01:15
tp

Therein lies a very large part of the problem; a very large multi billion aborigianl industry has been created and it is many of the Aboriginal activists who are benefitting, ie ripping their own kind off, from it.

One thing is for sure, a return to the apology, concillation policies of the past will do nought returning to decreasing the standard of living of the aborigines.

As I said, a common sense law change removing judicial discretion following and continuing the policies currently being implemented will be a sound start.

I will ask one of them for their suggestions when next they pass our back door at 9:15 in the morning with their daily supply of `Dreamtime Juice"

DK

Blacksheep
12th Dec 2007, 01:59
Culture be damned. If Australia is, as it claims to be, a Democracy, then there cannot be one law for the majority and another different law for the minority.

I respect other cultures and modify my own behaviour to fit in with the cultural standards wherever I happen to be. But I'll never accept any minority foisting their cultural needs upon me in my own cultural world. Minorities must accept that enjoying the benefits of a democratic society involves sacrifice.

The question then becomes one of whether the benefits outweigh or properly balance the sacrifice. If they don't the answer is migration or independence. As an example, in The United Kingdom this involves the Welsh who while grumbling and insisting upon their own language, continue to be part of the United Kingdom; the Scots who despite having their own legal system, grumble even louder and threaten to cede from the union. The Irish mostly decided to go it alone back at the beginning of the last century. Despite all the huggy-fluffy kow-towing to minority groups, and the recognition of various religious courts, we still refuse to accept honour killing, forced marriage, bodily mutilation and other alien socio-religious practices that violate our legal system.

Are the aborigines Australians or not?
If they are, this child was raped and the perpetrators allowed to go unpunished. An appeal by the State is required.
If they are not, then they must be granted independence upon their own land.

Now there's a recipe for disaster... :rolleyes:

tinpis
12th Dec 2007, 02:18
Yes yer right Blacksheep :ok:
A lot of the rabid Aboriginal activist crowd here have Scottish ,Irish ,Welsh surnames :hmm:
Seems a lot are named "Withheld" as well :hmm:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22907436-5006786,00.html

con-pilot
12th Dec 2007, 02:39
Culture be damned. If Australia is, as it claims to be, a Democracy, then there cannot be one law for the majority and another different law for the minority.

Well stated Sir, well stated.

The same could be said, on an opposing view of yours, that some tribes in the Americas and many other parts of the world should be allowed to peruse cannibalism. I mean hey after all, it was/is part of their heritage.

The Voice
12th Dec 2007, 03:51
oh if only we had the facts, ie ... so we could see what the prosecution had to work with ..

airgrunt
12th Dec 2007, 05:43
The problem here goes back to at least 1972 when the Loony Left
Aha, I knew somehow it would be the Labor party's fault :rolleyes:


oh if only we had the facts

facts, don't be silly..........why have them when you can rely on the media :sad:

Al Fakhem
12th Dec 2007, 07:15
This girl is lucky she lives in Australia. In Saudi Arabia, the judge would have ordered her to be lashed or stoned to death......:ok:

Track Coastal
12th Dec 2007, 07:27
Aha, I knew somehow it would be the Labor party's fault

Dark Knight...to the political right of Mobutu Sese Seko, General Francisco Franco, Suharto, and just a touch to the left of Benito Mussolini. Other than that, he's a nice fella.;)

notmyC150v2
12th Dec 2007, 07:38
Promiscuous sexuality at Aurukun has been a big problem for a very long time. It is not condoned by the elders at all, but the problem is that the kids parents are so often incapacitated by booze that the kids are basically learning life's lessons from each other and from what they see. There are none of the normal barriers provided by parents.

I lived there in 1976 to 1978 and I was given my first (and only) check for STD's at the ripe old age of 7. They curtained off a section of one of the classrooms at school and every child had to go in and stand in front of the nurse? (I am pretty sure it was a nurse anyway and not a doctor) and she pulled my pants out, had a good look and let me go. I was all clear. A few of my class mates were not so lucky.

My younger brother had his first sexual experience before I did. He was 5. The girl from memory was in his class so she would have been 5 as well. What was funny at the time was that he wouldn't play catch and kiss with her because that was "yucky". He played the other game but had no idea what the hell was going on.

The whole place is just rotten from top to bottom with alcoholism and every thing that follows it.

I understand that the boys involved were all minors (under 16) and it is highly likely (going on my past, very distant experience) that this happened more than once.

It was probably the same in the girls mind to asking if she wanted a biscuit, but this is no excuse for letting the participants (perpetrators) get away scott free. At the very least there should also be charges levelled against all their parents for neglect.

The problem is not cultural, nor is it historical. It is straight forward parent neglect and parents should be trained or the kids taken away and allegations of stolen generations be damned.

CoodaShooda
12th Dec 2007, 07:55
The Queensland Government is now reviewing the handling of 64 previous court cases involving under-age sex in FNQ communities.

This could get interesting. The wheel seems to be turning full circle back to removal of children at risk and assimilation instead of self-determination.

Now if they'd just re-introduce the ban on grog. :rolleyes:

Track Coastal
12th Dec 2007, 08:36
That is a very illuminating and mind numbingly scary post.

Australia - an icon of democracy, that tells others around the world how to live yet we have stuff like this going on away from our eyes and middle class lives.

Maybe, just maybe, "sorry" be damned, and we have to get get these kids to more stable (foster) environs.

notmyC150v2, thanks for sharing that with us.

Pseudonymn
12th Dec 2007, 09:23
To anyone who has lived in any Northern Territory, Queensland or outback SA, WA or NSW town or community with a large indigenous population, this will come as no surprise.

It is not part of their tribal customs, nor had it been part of their life until alcohol, chroming or sniffing wormed it's way into their 'culture'

I don't know what the answer is, but I know I have a more realistic view than the huggy-fluffs in their high-rise glass towers in Sydney, Canberra or Melbourne.


Pseudo, ex-resident of AliPring, Darwhine and DaIsa...

Howard Hughes
12th Dec 2007, 09:24
Now if they'd just re-introduce the ban on grog.
Sad thing is many communities are 'dry', doesn't seem to make any difference from what I have seen!:rolleyes:

Binoculars
12th Dec 2007, 14:52
There appears to be considerable conflict in White Austalia's attitude to Aboriginals. Some would say leave them to live within their culture, others wish to impose the standards of modern civilisation upon them

And therein lies the central conflict. I’m not running away from this topic, it strikes deeply into my heart, and I have spent the best part of two days trying to formulate a reply that would describe my feelings, but it just hasn’t come to me yet. I suspect that is because I am so torn on so many facets of it.

I wasn’t raised to have definite views on anything, rather to weigh up both sides before deciding which side I would lean towards. Even then it is important to keep the opposing arguments in mind because they are not by definition wrong.

In this case I am utterly confused, and it all comes back to the quote above. Yes, I’m appalled at some aspects, less appalled at other aspects that quite understandably horrify other people.

I wish I could be as absolutely convinced about my views as many here are, but that comfort is so far being denied to me.

VP959
12th Dec 2007, 17:57
Quote:
Children seem to be maturing sexually at a much earlier age than they were 30 or more years ago, perhaps by as much as 3 or 4 years.

Bloo Moo asked:

Your explanation please...

'Seem to be', ???

'maturing' ???

'perhaps by as much as 3 or 4 years' ???

What exactly are you on about?

OK, the average age of the onset of puberty has got lower over the past 50 years by at least two years, with a much broader spread of age of onset. In fact it's not that uncommon to find children as young as 7 or 8 now entering puberty, something that was quite unusual not that long ago.

The average age of first sexual experience has, unsurprisingly, also got lower.

Whether these very young sexually mature children are intellectually mature enough to deal with the emotional changes is questionable, as is the ability of our society to deal with it.

VP

Blacksheep
13th Dec 2007, 02:47
There appears to be considerable conflict in White Austalia's attitude to Aboriginals. Some would say leave them to live within their culture, others wish to impose the standards of modern civilisation upon them The point I made earlier is that there cannot be two standards. The Aboriginal peoples' troubles are the result of so many years of them being treated as 'different'. These problems will never be solved until Australia grasps the nettle and recognizes that they are all Australians.

tinpis
13th Dec 2007, 03:45
Ah..nettle grasping .
One would be prepared to drop you in a community up here MrBlacksheep and have you spread the word .
Would even pick you up a couple of days later,probably dressed only in your underpants if you were lucky.

Track Coastal
13th Dec 2007, 04:09
When I lived across the pond I recall similar stuff occurring on the Canadian reservations. Haven't found anything on the Canucks yet but the US Dept of Justice did there own study and have some startling figures...

http://www.amnesty.org/en/indigenous-peoples

Data gathered by the US Department of Justice indicates that Native American and Alaska Native women are more than 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the USA in general.

A US Department of Justice study on violence against women concluded that 34.1 per cent of American Indian and Alaska Native women – or more than one in three – will be raped during their lifetime; the comparable figure for the USA as a whole is less than one in five.

Shocking though these statistics are, it is widely believed that they do not accurately portray the extent of sexual violence against Native American and Alaska Native women.

tinpis
13th Dec 2007, 04:37
Apples and oranges Mr TC.

Track Coastal
13th Dec 2007, 05:01
Apples and oranges Mr TC.
Maybe. I remember driving by a Cree community/reservation in mid-summer (circa 27degs) and stopped for gas and upon looking at the state of [dis]repair of the houses, the pissed inhabitants wondering around, the nominal screaming domestic with profanities - I observed... "not much different from the bagot community" (except the cooler weather and native vegetation). She didn't disagree.

Blacksheep
13th Dec 2007, 05:08
...probably dressed only in your underpants if you were lucky.Thereby hangs a 'tail'. :oh:

Its a big nettle that needs a big grasp, but I doubt if anyone in Ozzie politics today has the fist for it.

Track Coastal
13th Dec 2007, 05:14
Have Jenny Macklin (Indig affairs) or Julia Gillard (acting PM) made comment on this?

ScottyDoo
13th Dec 2007, 07:17
Have Jenny Macklin (Indig affairs) or Julia Gillard (acting PM) made comment on this? Maybe Jenny or Julia can say "Sorry," now. That'll fix everything and is all the do-gooders want to hear. Then they can go back to their char-do-nnay...

Have they said, "Sorry"?

Where's Kevin-oh-Seven???? Why hasn't he said, "Sorry" yet????? :mad:

Howard Hughes
13th Dec 2007, 07:35
Why hasn't he said, "Sorry" yet?????
Because they are in power now and the legal eagles have said "you can't bloody say that"!;)

sprocket
13th Dec 2007, 07:38
The rest of Oz should not apologise for it's very existance. :suspect:

What does one do if the communities whinge when their kids are removed to 'safe havens' and then whinge about the concequences when the kids are returned? ... for :mad:'s sake! :rolleyes:

I see also that Noel Pearson who is some sort of aboriginal representitive, is calling for at risk kids to be removed. It aint a fix for the underlying problem but these 'events' has been the culture in outer communities for as long as I can remember.

The Voice
13th Dec 2007, 10:58
Sprocket! I can't quite make up my mind whether this Noel Pearson who is some sort of aboriginal representitive(sic) was tongue in cheek or not ..

Mr Pearson is a somewhat respected and revered person of some authority both legally and compassionately entwined with the betterment of the indigenous people.

He isn't particularly complimentary of the new PM, and he had input into the Brough plan of intervention.

The man is worthy of some admiration unlike others.

sprocket
13th Dec 2007, 11:15
No, it isnt tongue in cheek Voice. It was my full knowledge of the man, ie I dont know what his title is except that he appears on news events whenever a crisis hits the headlines, was it entirely incorrect? :ooh: ... oh and boy did his face look a lot fatter than when I saw it last. :E

Binoculars
13th Dec 2007, 13:25
Any possible long term rehabilitation of the disaster we (yes, we whitefellas) have, with the best of paternalistic intentions, inflicted on the aboriginal people of Australia will require the advent of multiple Noel Pearsons and the disappearance of the Yunupingus, Clarks, Mansells and other snouts in the bottomless trough of public funds misdirected at a problem nobody in a position of power has the wherewithal to address. Whatever happened to Aden Ridgeway?

And as long as self-absorbed Australian citizens are happy to sit on their arses watching their plasmas and point out all the problems in aboriginal society and loudly proclaim that they had nothing to do with it so why should they make a purely symbolic apology, nothing will change. Those seeking to score political points off a government that has been in office for five minutes are even worse; they are beyond contempt.

I have had quite heated arguments in my time with the likes of Victorian academics who have only met aboriginals with degrees, and certainly never been to an aboriginal community. Their condescension is as bad as any of the racial hatred from the self-satisfied ones. Yes, I spent two years in Weipa, the grog supply centre for Aurukun and the other supposedly dry communities. In that time I witnessed first hand the depressing self-abasement, the violence, the sexual abuse and the willingness of the whitefellas to make disgustingly dishonest money out of it all.

I made several visits to Aurukun in that time and when I finally departed Weipa I was left throwing up my hands in horror wondering what could ever be done. I'm none the wiser now, but I have a pretty good idea of what achieves no purpose whatsoever. This is an indescribably massive problem, and we as a supposedly civilised society should be deeply ashamed.

The documentary film Cunnamulla raised eyebrows a few years ago, but it was absolutely accurate. It is too late to save this generation of aboriginal kids, and bearing in mind they are starting to give birth at 11, sired by brothers, fathers, friends and relations, it may well be too late for the next one. But unless somebody with some balls stands up and takes firm measures the end result is inevitable. I suspect that will probably make some Ppruners happy.

wombat four
13th Dec 2007, 13:31
I wonder, if this had happened to the judge at her age now , how would she feel and what sentence she would give, if any.

Maybe a PCA.

wombat 4

G-CPTN
13th Dec 2007, 13:39
Australian ministers may apologise to Aborigines for past injustices, amid anger over lenient sentences for a gang that raped a ten-year-old girl in a remote community.
Indigenous affairs minister Jenny Macklin yesterday met Aboriginal elders to discuss how best to say sorry.
Steps to improve health and education for Aboriginal children would underscore an apology more than compensation, Ms Macklin said.
'What we want to do is stand together, with you and pledge a new relationship,' she told the elders.
The change in stance by the Labor government, led by Kevin Rudd, is in stark contrast to the attitude of former conservative leader John Howard, who refused to apologise to Aborigines for fear that it could open the door to compensation claims.
However, the move was overshadowed by the continuing furore surrounding the gang rape case.
A judge in Queensland state did not impose jail terms on nine people who admitted attacking the girl last year.
The judge found the ten-year-old 'probably agreed' to have sex with the men after a troubled past in which she had been sexually abused at seven before being removed and later returned to live in the Aurukun township on northern Cape York.
'The child protection system certainly let this girl down and we all now need to work as hard as possible to make sure it doesn't happen again,' Ms Macklin added.
(from:- http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=79559&in_page_id=34 )
So that's sorted . . .

anotherthing
13th Dec 2007, 13:43
The judge found the ten-year-old 'probably agreed' to have sex with the men after a troubled past in which she had been sexually abused at seven before being removed and later returned to live in the Aurukun township on northern Cape York.



So if I find a willing 8,9, or 10 year old child then it's OK for me to have sex with her?

Thats utter bollocks - it is a crap defense... the perpetrators of this crime knew it was illegal and therefore should suffer the consequences.

chornedsnorkack
13th Dec 2007, 13:58
I wonder, if this had happened to the judge at her age now , how would she feel and what sentence she would give, if any.


Well, remember

My younger brother had his first sexual experience before I did. He was 5. The girl from memory was in his class so she would have been 5 as well. What was funny at the time was that he wouldn't play catch and kiss with her because that was "yucky". He played the other game

She obviously could not "consent" any more than the girl in present scandal at the age of seven or ten could "consent". Obviously his 5 year old younger brother is a "rape perpetrator". What sentence would you get to your younger brother, if any?

G-CPTN
13th Dec 2007, 15:11
Wasn't it 'normal' (among mixed sex societies) to play games involving the physical differences - such as 'doctors and nurses' and 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours'?
Admittedly, proper sexual activity requires a degree of maturity that probably doesn't exist when equally-aged participants are involved, but if there is no sense of 'wrong' instilled by elders (or if elders get involved) then who knows where it ends?

The Voice
13th Dec 2007, 22:53
play games ... such as 'doctors and nurses' and 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' ...

There is a BIG difference between game playing, and adult involvement - in a traditional aborigine marriage, a male may have more than one wife, he may be of senior years and his bride may be about 10 years old.

An adult female is nearby (read next room) while the male is with the female 'for the first time', to assist the young bride.

Is that right?

How the hell did their culture evolve without the most invaluable assistance of ours?

BenThere
13th Dec 2007, 23:35
If you wish to destroy any population,

1. Give individuals a regular stipend each month which is unearned and unattached to any labor obligation. The more generous the stipend, the more quickly the population/culture will be corrupted/destroyed.

2. Provide shelter without cost or responsibility to the occupant.

3. Make it financially advantageous to produce more children, and eliminate any requirement for both parents to participate in claims.

If you want to help a struggling population thrive,

1. Build roads, schools, and civic infrastructure (clean water supply. electricity grid, etc.)

2. Provide emergency subsistance only in the form of food, never in the form of cash.

3. Hire conscientious members of the population to administer all the (non-cash) relief.

I think the truth of this method applies to any population, any race, any nationality.

Wiley
14th Dec 2007, 06:05
Four pages of posts and I have to admit to being surprised that with one possible exception, no one has made an observation along the lines of the one I posted on the "50 Years of Social Progess" thread:With tin hat and flak jacket very tightly in place, I find myself wondering how many of the "Stolen Generation" were rescued from similar situations to the one this poor unfortunate girl found (finds?) herself in. And how many of that Stolen Generation would be around today - or compus mentis enough - to sue the Government for taking them away from such "childish experimentation".I have to agree with Howard Hughes. This has little to do with race and culture and everything to do with grog. Anyone who hasn't witnessed it for him or herself cannot begin to understand just how horribly alcohol has affected these communities.

Alcohol - and misplaced good intentions by well-meaning people with no idea of the damage they have done and continue to do.

tinpis
14th Dec 2007, 06:14
A little light reading (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,25201,5013172,00.html)

And it can be rough on the old girls (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=269160) as well
:(

HotDog
14th Dec 2007, 07:46
This has certainly spread the fame of Australia worldwide; for all the wrong reasons!:sad:

flower
14th Dec 2007, 09:59
Cultures my arse. Sorry this is the 21st century where we no longer force young children up chimneys or down mines, where we educate girls ( well we do in enlightened countries) we no longer think the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.
This nonsense of bringing culture into good sense and morality is out of order. Children are to be nurtured and cared for, who cares if hundreds of years ago they had sex with young girls this isn't a hundred years ago.

If there is an underage sex problem in parts of society in countries where the laws are there to protect minors then sod someones colour of skin or religion or whatever those are the rules.
I find some of the comments on here horrific, young children's bodies are not designed for sex, that is why a young child is more prone to catching STDs than an older person, their bodies can be wrenched apart making them infertile.
As I said i don't care what happened in the past and if girls are coming into puberty earlier than before that is possibly a by product of the hormones leaching into the water supply. At seven and ten children find it hard enough to decide if they are having orange or lemon squash they certainly would not realise the consequences of having sex.

Kirstey
14th Dec 2007, 10:21
Flower - you've put me right off my pain au chocolat!!

I don't think we're talking saying that "it used to be ok - so it should be now". I agree with your view - it's never OK.

However, in Japan the age of consent is 12 I think? girls this young are used openly as sweetners in business transactions - call it corporate hospitality. If you're so inclined you can buy a child's underwear from an on street vending machine.


What do you propose we do about this? is it acceptable to force our standards on a different culture? That would make us akin to Al Qaeida surely?

J-NUS
14th Dec 2007, 10:26
Someone said that we are only three meals away from anarchy. I also saw a documentary where monkeys were behaving in a very uncivilized way to each other, the big bully males would have sex with anything, any female regardless of age, and also weaker males. Our civilisation does not run too deep, look at New Orleans during that hurricane. Why should some Australian Natives be any different? Its not Australias fault is it?

chornedsnorkack
14th Dec 2007, 11:02
There is a BIG difference between game playing, and adult involvement - in a traditional aborigine marriage, a male may have more than one wife, he may be of senior years and his bride may be about 10 years old.


In a traditional European marriage, the male may be in his senior years and his bride may be 20 years his junior. Sure, a 50 year old married businessman may use his influence to assail and forcibly rape a younger and less powerful 30 year old woman and then deny guilt while leaving the woman a rape victim. But this is not a case with all 30 year old women who have sex with 50 year olds. Many of those 30 year olds are called trophy wives, golddiggers - and envied.

So, how young is too young for a girl to have genuinely consensual sex with an older and wealthier male? Is a girl of 18 and and a man of 28 fine? What about a girl of 10 and a boy of 14? Or a girl of 5 and a boy of 6?

ScottyDoo
14th Dec 2007, 11:02
Someone they saw a doco that said we're only three meals (preferably greasey fish 'n' chips) away from anarchy.

J-NUS
14th Dec 2007, 11:04
I saw that documentary too, it put me right off my fish and chips! Those red bums. Yuk!

HotDog
14th Dec 2007, 12:05
snorcack, why don't you hop on a plane in Estonia and wing it over here and have it off with a ten year old aborigine girl (or boy), you obviously approve of the "system".:yuk::yuk:

MSP Aviation
14th Dec 2007, 14:01
How come everyone's so pissed off at the judge but not the prosecutor, who called it "child's experimenting." One of the offenders was 26! Let's see, 26 - 5 = 21. He should be put away forever.

Wiley
14th Dec 2007, 17:42
So, how young is too young for a girl to have genuinely consensual sex with an older and wealthier male? Is a girl of 18 and and a man of 28 fine? What about a girl of 10 and a boy of 14? Or a girl of 5 and a boy of 6?It has nothing to do with this topic, but I believe the French legal system came up with a formula some years ago to set a rule about whether an old man having his way with a younger woman was acceptable or unacceptable. That formula was: half his age +7. I imagine that in this age of equality the same would apply for an older woman having her way with a roy boy.

ORAC
14th Dec 2007, 18:08
defence of similarity of age

There is currently no defence of similarity of age in NSW for either heterosexuals or homosexuals adolescents. This defence is sometimes referred to as a “Romeo and Juliet” in heterosexual offences but is not available in NSW. If the real purpose of these offences is to protect children rather than criminalizing them, then such a defence should be available.

This defence recognises that it is undesirable to criminalise consensual activity between young adolescents of a similar age. For example, consensual sexual activity between a 16 year old and a 15 year old is a crime in NSW.

The Model Criminal Code provides a defence of similarity of age, available where the age differential is no more (or less) than two years and both parties are over the ‘no defence age’.

Some Australian jurisdictions have enacted this defence. In Victoria and the ACT the age difference is set at two years; in Western Australia it is three; and Tasmania uses a sliding scale.

The Wood Royal Commission recommended the provision of such a defence in NSW with an age differential of two years.

ScottyDoo
14th Dec 2007, 18:13
Tasmania uses a sliding scale.

Yeah, it depends how closely related they are.


I also read all that on google but couldn't be arsed posting it. :zzz:

Cheerio
14th Dec 2007, 18:45
We humans do have some funny taboos. Age, race, religion, relation.... You don't see that bothering pigeons, and they seem to get along just fine.

chornedsnorkack
14th Dec 2007, 20:07
The Model Criminal Code provides a defence of similarity of age, available where the age differential is no more (or less) than two years and both parties are over the ‘no defence age’.

What is "no defence age"? And what to do about couples where both parties are below "no defence age"?

BlueDiamond
15th Dec 2007, 01:01
What is "no defence age"?Generally speaking it is 16 here in Australia for all states except South Australia and Tasmania.

And what to do about couples where both parties are below "no defence age"?It would probably be easier for you to look that up because there is no simple answer to your question. Variations apply from state to state according to such factors as whether or not they are married, homosexual relations, etc.. here (http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/Age_of_consent_briefing_paperJune06.pdf) is an outline you may find helpful. For the full details you'd need to have a look at the actual law.

chornedsnorkack
15th Dec 2007, 09:06
What is "no defence age"?
Generally speaking it is 16 here in Australia for all states except South Australia and Tasmania.

Not consistent with what the laws state.

And what to do about couples where both parties are below "no defence age"?
It would probably be easier for you to look that up because there is no simple answer to your question. Variations apply from state to state according to such factors as whether or not they are married, homosexual relations, etc.. here is an outline you may find helpful.

It does not actually spell it out what to do about young couples

For example, Queensland itself: "The age of consent ... 16 for vaginal sex). Legally, it is a defence if your partner was 12 years or older and you believed they were 18 or older."

Very well - what if you had vaginal sex with a partner who was 15 and who you believed was 17?

Tigs2
15th Dec 2007, 10:23
Very well - what if you had vaginal sex with a partner who was 15 and who you believed was 17?

Well if the leal age is 16, it could be used as a defence. If the legal age is 18, then you have committed an offence. Straightforward really.

chornedsnorkack
15th Dec 2007, 13:00
Very well - what if you had vaginal sex with a partner who was 15 and who you believed was 17?
Well if the leal age is 16, it could be used as a defence. If the legal age is 18, then you have committed an offence. Straightforward really.

No, it is not straightforward at all.

It is legal to have vaginal sex with a partner who really is 16. It is also legal to have vaginal sex with a partner who really is 15 who is believed to be 18. However, if anyone has sex with a partner who is 15 and who is believed to be 16, the defence of believing the partner to be 18 does not apply!

Tigs2
17th Dec 2007, 02:07
No i used the example that you have given

Very well - what if you had vaginal sex with a partner who was 15 and who you believed was 17?

In that you believed the individual to be 17. NOT as you put 18! You have misquoted me!!

chornedsnorkack
17th Dec 2007, 09:57
In that you believed the individual to be 17. NOT as you put 18! You have misquoted me!!

I quoted the law, not you.

The law does not say that believing the individual to be 17 is a defence.

Tigs2
17th Dec 2007, 13:10
chornedsnorkack

Please re read your post (5 posts ago):ugh::ugh:

I hope you make it back from your planet to earth in time for christmas.

The Voice
17th Dec 2007, 21:12
Time to move on.

Chorned - sometimes it's more about what's not spelt out in the law that gives you the parameters ..

Google the Queensland Criminal Code, easy to locate and easy to read - knock yourself out wading thru' the code - it is quite specific in how the law deals (or the defences to/) with things in the part of Australia.

CoodaShooda
17th Dec 2007, 23:31
Trying to post a Dept of Health table of STD cases in the NT reported between Jan - June 2007 but having problems with the formatting.

So to summarise it, remembering the Aboriginal population in the NT is around 30,000 and these are only the reported cases -

Age 0 -4
1 case of Gonorrhoea, 1 case of Chlamydia

Age 5 - 9
4 cases of Chlamydia, 1 case of Trichomoniasis

Age 10 -14
40 cases of Gonorrhoea, 36 cases of Chlamydia, 5 cases of Syphilis and 39 cases of Trichomoniasis

Age 15 -19
260 cases of Gonorrhoea, 347 cases of Chlamydia, 38 cases of Syphilis and 225 cases of Trichomoniasis

chornedsnorkack
18th Dec 2007, 09:44
Ah yes, the law itself proved clearer - it was the summary that proved confusing.

So, are two 15 year olds having vaginal sex with each other in Queensland both guilty of a crime?