BOAZ

You argument is still specious.

We can't both be right, I'm afraid, no matter how exalted your aspirations.

You assert that: "Discrimination based on creed is essential and permissable when that creed involves:
-Inherrent threats to national security
-Abuse of people (Women, children)
-Doctrines which are against our laws."

Your last line betrays the flaw in your prejudiced position - if only you could see it. There is absolutely no need for discrimination based on religion. As you can see (if you'd just take off the blinkers for a second) that the three conditions which you say are the justification for discrimination based on religion, are already met in general legislation in Australia.

So these are not grounds for religious discrimination - they are already covered by law.

You tell us that 'child abuse' is "not a religion, but it is PART of some well known religions." Care to name names and give formal court evidence under any of the current laws that make child abuse a crime? Or are you waiting for a new law that allows you to attack real religious freedom where you disagree with that religion?

Slowly, the Catholic priests and other perverts of other 'Christain denominations like the Starvation Army who have abused children, are being brought to justice (e.g. Father Ridsdale of Ballarat). The defence you kindly offer of "a biblical foundation for their abuse" is exposed for what it is - perversions of Christian doctrine.

It's absurd of you to offer the excuse that "the concept of 'abuse' is fluid". Talk to victims - they'll soon tell you to stop being such a hypocrite.

Frank....

when you say name names... u mean of individual people ? Of course I wouldn't do that here.

I'm addressing the 'value' system rather than specific individuals.

My ears are still tingling from a bloke in Sydney aged 21 named 'Jamal' who said that to 'rape' Kaffirs is really no biggy, because they are "just" dirty Kaffirs who hate and fight against Allah.....

He describes himself as a 'sincere' Muslim.

-Child abuse is 'doctrinally' acceptable in the following:

-Islam
-Children of God (they have re-invented themselves now)
-Cooperites in NZ

None of them will call it 'abuse'.

Yes..our laws do limit certain behavior, but at least in Victoria, it is not illegal for an old codger to have sex with a child under 13 IF..he is married to her. I sussed this out and it appears it relates to the situation of Aboriginal child marraige.
I was stunned to find that outside marraige 'sex with children' is 'abuse', but within..its not. Mind boggling!

Migration laws will prevent outsiders bringing in child brides. (<18)

Glad to see you recognize that 'Church' related abuse is in fact a perversion of Christ and his teaching.. (phew.. agreement :)

RACE.....no discrimination.
CREED... yes.. some is needed.

BOAZ got only one thing right: Migration laws prevent immigrants bringing in child brides i.e. under 18.

But, with his usual disregard for the truth, BOAZ says:

"...at least in Victoria, it is not illegal for an old codger to have sex with a child under 13 IF..he is married to her."

FACTS: The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) lays down the age at which a person can be married in Australia - it's 18 (hence the Immigration Department's ban on child brides). (http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/family/family-Marriage.html#Heading58)

Marriages for people under 18 but over 16 can be made only by a court and only if a judge or magistrate rules that there are exceptional or unusual circumstances (and normally where the parents give their consent). The law says that the court must take into account the maturity of the parties, the length of their relationship and their financial circumstances.

There can be no marriage for a person, male or female under 16, so BOAZ's image of an 'old codger' having sex to his 13 year old wife is a fantasy.

BOAZ then claims that "Child abuse is 'doctrinally' acceptable in the following:
-Islam
-Children of God (they have re-invented themselves now)
-Cooperites in NZ."

That may or may not be so, but the fact of the matter is that child abuse is against the law in all jurisdictions in Australia, whatever people claim their religious doctrines allow them.

In Victoria, under the Crimes (Sexual Offences Act) 1980, sex is legal in Victoria from the age of 10 years, provided the partner is less than two years older. Again, so much for BOAZ's 'old codger' fantasy.

Below age 10, consent is never a defence. From age 16, sexual intercourse is legal with another person of any age, provided that person is not in a supervisory position to the young person. This includes teachers, guardians, officers of churches and youth workers. From the age of eighteen years, consensual sex is legal with a partner of any age.

So, once again, BOAZ poses as an expert and is exposed as a fake.

Re: age of consent law -

The Australian legal studies textbook Pathways to Justice, Law & Society 2nd Ed by Parker & Derwent in the section Family & the Law (can’t give a page number as don’t have access to it where I am) states that marriage is legal for Aboriginal women (girls) at 12 in the Northern Territory – TWELVE.

That was in the mid-90s. Don’t know if it’s changed. Can’t find any corroborating evidence on the net for that age, but plenty of sites confirm there is a clash between Aboriginal customary law on the one hand & UN / Australian law & the Human Rights Commission on the other, especially re marriage law.

Here’s an interesting transcript from the 7.30 Report in 2003
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1006774.htm

The Labor govt there wanted to change the law to bring it in line with Aust law & encountered resistance from the Aboriginal community.

7.30 Reporter: “Till now, Aboriginal males have been able to claim a defence under law to a criminal charge of carnal knowledge of a girl under 16, provided the parties were living as husband and wife according to tribal custom. That defence has now been removed and the Government is under attack for meddling in Aboriginal cultural practice.”

Elder’s response:
GALARRWUY YUNIPINGU (Australian of the Year, 1978), CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL: “You don't throw your punches at people who put you there, right.” (in reference to the fact that the Aboriginal vote got Labor in & so should but out of Aboriginal Customary Law)

"This is a mockery to our society and our law system….Don't put a marriage system into child abuse. (ie child abuse is OK if the child is married)

Reporter: “He's angry that the Territory Government has outlawed a legal defence to the crime of sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years. Even before birth, a girl can be promised to an older male. The families all decide later the time at which the girl is sexually ready enough for the marriage to be active. The system is fundamental to kinship within Aboriginal society.” (contd)

re: age of consent (contd)

Well that age would be puberty & menstruation presumably, as is the case in every tribal society I can think of, so that ealier figure of 12 (textbook) sounds not too far from the truth if at all.

ALISON ANDERSON, ATSIC COMMISSIONER (& sole female member of ATSIC board as of 2003): In my area, there was a young girl that was married to an elder and I think that the effects of what happened seven years ago is still affecting this woman and she's now living somewhere in another State just to get away from the man.

So think Boaz' general point may be correct.

Boaz,

doesn’t matter what you say or how amicable you try to be or how truthful you are, you know you’re going to get hammered by a core group of posters. These quotes are particularly indicative examples:

“BOAZ's image of an 'old codger' having sex to his 13 year old wife is a fantasy.”

And

“Again, so much for BOAZ's 'old codger' fantasy.”

The subtle implication here (2 references in the one post) could be you are a sick pervert (‘Boaz’s image’/ ‘fantasy’ re adult / child sex). Pure nastiness. You’ve tried to engage the guy in civil debate & that’s how he responds. Why do they hate you? I think it’s because you’re white, right leaning & evangelical Christian & the fact you raise issues which some people would rather hush up. You’re much more tolerant of these posters than I am & a lot more tolerant than them.

I commented before on the freedom of speech thread that the reason some choose to remain anonymous here on OLO is that in the real world many would unfairly be character-assassinated with the label ‘racist’, the second most dreaded label in the English label after ‘paedophile’. Is it any wonder some posters remain anonymous? Scary stuff from the self-professed morally higher posters.

"I think it’s because you’re white, right leaning & evangelical Christian & the fact you raise issues which some people would rather hush up. You’re much more tolerant of these posters than I am & a lot more tolerant than them.

I commented before on the freedom of speech thread that the reason some choose to remain anonymous here on OLO is that in the real world many would unfairly be character-assassinated with the label ‘racist’, the second most dreaded label in the English label after ‘paedophile’. Is it any wonder some posters remain anonymous? Scary stuff from the self-professed morally higher posters."
Posted by KGB, Friday, 29 February 2008 8:09:41 PM

Much more tolerant?? Your credibility went down the drain right there!

Talk about self-professed morally higher posters!!

Don't get so morally higher Kjibby. You posted the above tripe because it largely mirrors your OWN views.

Simple as that.