Well, the full judgement is not yet available on the Lawlink website, but it seems that the Judges of the NSW Court of Criminal appeal were not impressed with the 'my culture made me do it' justification given by appellants in the matter of the K brothers and their sentences for aggravated sexual assault.

I am quoting news reports here - so any of you who are lawyers could argue for this to be excluded as hearsay, but this is what one of the Judges is reported to have said.

"In dismissing the sentence appeals of all three men in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Michael Grove criticised an argument put forward on behalf of MSK.

Justice Grove said it was "inappropriate" for a lawyer to have described MSK as a "cultural time bomb" and blame the rapes on his upbringing in Pakistan.

He dismissed the argument that MSK had raped the girls because he had traditional views of women from his upbringing as a Muslim in Pakistan.

"If it was intended to suggest that differences might be observed in behaviour in the respective cultures of Pakistan and Australia, there was, and is, not the slightest basis for concluding other than that in both places all women are entitled to respect and safety from sexual assault," Justice Grove said.

"The expression 'cultural time bomb' was, to say the least, inappropriate and inapt.

"It would understandably be regarded as offensive by those who fell within the scope of its insult."

The article was found on both the SMH and Daily Telegrapg websites.

BD "Scout.. "someone needs a hug !" ...." - that is condescending!

Vilifying an entire religion for the actions of a few nutters as you do repeatedly is ignorant and therefore barbaric.

Yet again all you have achieved is to drive me further from ever seriously considering christianity as a valid philosophy.

I know you mean well.... but you really need to expand your world view.

Cheers m'dear

Scout,
B_D's endeavouring exposure of the religions foundations, to show it condones actions foreign to good society. It doesn't eminate out of life and values we recognise will build good community.

When evaluating philosophy examinae the life and attitudes of its founder. To understand the philosophy of Ghandi learn his life and attitudes. To understand Buddah learn his life and attitudes. To learn about Christ examine his life and attitudes. To learn about the philosophy of Mahomet examine his life and attitudes. Quote, "Vilifying an entire religion for the actions of a few nutters as you do repeatedly is ignorant and therefore barbaric."

Examine carefully the mind out of which attitudes are expressed in behaviour. I've not seen B_D vilify any single person acting outside the values and norms of the founder of the philosophy. You are assuming all philosophies hold your morality. Because you find some civilised persons upholding the sensitive values you espouse, doesn't mean they learned them from the founder of their philosophy.

If the KKK are murdering Afro-Americans, that's action not beased in the life and attitudes of Christ. In fact it is the very opposite. Do you believe they follow the attitudes and behaviour of Christ? If their behaviour is the same as its founder then they must be Christians, if not then they are following the spirit of another from whom they receive guidance and example.

This is the claim of Christ that the father of his spirit was God, and the works and words of his father he will perform and speak. It's our recognition that his spirit is from God, [i.e.son-of-God] expressing the very attitudes and mind of God by life that initiates our faith in him. In fact we recognise the spirit he expressed was greater than the human Jesus who could have reacted very normally in conflict situations, but he recognised it was the very spirit of God in him that motivated his compassionate forgiving attitudes. Recognising the spirit of the person identifies the very foundation of their belief system and what philosophy they follow.

Philo, on the 2nd Nov you posted "Well the OLO police woman is now back scouting the posts keeping everyone in check so that no serious passionate debate happens..............." your post had nothing to do with thread, you just wanted to insult me.

And now you want me to give serious consideration to your latest post. I will do so only when you and your ilk treat others with whom you disagree with RESPECT. You have regularly cast aspersions on my intelligence - yet you persist with your claims regarding the 'superiority' of your religion over everyone else's beliefs - spiritual or otherwise.

I do not waste my time on people who both treat me with condescension and whose obvious agenda is to create division between people of differing cultural beliefs. You are contributing to the sadness and hostility in this world. You claim a belief in the philosophy of Jesus Christ - yet you never practice what he preaches.

A little respect, Philo.

Scout, you have to remember where BD and Philo are coming from in regard to women.

First thing I would confess is that I am an Anglican, of the Sydney Diocese, and I agree with the diocese interpretations of the scriptures. In that I don't believe that anyone should be a 'priest' of the church, as all are equal.

Having said that I believe that women and men are equal in Christ.

The following passage, however, demonstrates the traditional Christian view of women: 1 Timothy 2

Women Instructed

9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

11(V)A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

-- == --

It seems to me that if DB amd Philo espouse these principles, then there is no way of them taking you or any other woman seriously. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time, nor be offended, because they simply cannot help it.

Scout,
You’ve recognised difference between behaviour unbecoming followers of the founder. Point taken! Sorry my earlier post offended your sense of good community, and sensitivity; it unbecoming to a person calling himself, “a follower of Christ.” Note Hamlet attempts to offend B_D and me, its water off a ducks back.

What B_D has done is identify what the prophet taught and lived by and how this translates into like behaviour in his followers. That is why B_D and myself constantly say; examine the founder not the followers. Followers constantly do their own thing. The founder of the idea or truth best demonstrates the validity of their truth.

When rapists claim cultural example of their truth and such demonstrated by the founder, then is not their sense of cultural morality questionable by another set of morals? So it’s our morals that enhance or destroy our society that judges the validity of another philosophy. We have people everyday in courts justifying the basis of their believed truth.
Mahomet established his truth and from it set about murdering all those that opposed him, and he allowed rape of captive women because he believed it was all right with Allah.
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) 6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,.. for then, they are free from blame” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]
Does this sound like an ideal society evaluated by our Christian standard? Perhaps he murdered and raped those that were less than ideal citizens, but such does not give absolute validity to his moral behaviour, “kill the infidels … rape the captive women”. This was recently demonstrated in Ambon Indonesia when Muslim men massacred Christian men with machetes and took as sex slaves the wives and young girls of the Christians they had slaughtered.

Terrorists do not perceive the Christian morality of, “thou shalt not kill”; or Muslim rapists captured girls, “lust not after thy [unbelieving] neighbours wife ” applies to them, they justify their morality on another principle, “God will assist you to destroy the unbelievers.”
See www.islam-qa.com