Y,
So you are not enraged by an adult taking sexual advantage of a child. You said you would be enraged if she was not a willing party. Do you honestly think a child of 12 has the ability to make a considered judgement about her actions. Parents are meant to guide them until they have enough experience and maturity to decide for themselves.

You seem to be of the opinion that every person or culture should be able to do as they please without an elected government to implement social rules.

So just where would you draw a line? Would you allow such cultural practices as honour killings, stoning of adulteresses, throwing acid over a former lover, forcing kids into prostitution, consumption of cat meat or dog meat, dolphin slaughter, bull fights, dog and cockfights, the right of man to beat his wife or selling of kids into slavery?

There are many cultural activities that are alien to our society and we believe an elected government has an obligation to safeguard our social standards. We also expect to comply with the local laws and social standards while in other countries.

Maybe you will tell us just who has a right to practice the culture of their choosing and what the limits, if any, are.

It is not a victimless crime. The girl was a minor and cannot give her consent to sex or marriage. In any case it is ludicrous to suggest that a child could make an informed choice in such cases. The law places the responsibility on adults to protect minors. The adults were aware of the law, or if not, their ignorance is no defence.

Obey the law or spend time in a cell with Big Bubba and his mates. His choice, his prize to win.

Yuyutsu, I can't decide if you are joking or not.
It was written by a paedophile bushranger by the name of Mohammed.
Claimed he was put up to it by someone called Allah.

Dear Banjo,

<<Maybe you will tell us just who has a right to practice the culture of their choosing and what the limits, if any, are.>>

No problem, though it may be a bit long, if you can bear with my systematic exposition.

All I say is based on just one principle - Non-violence (Ahimsa).

An ideal person would do as Jesus and turn his/her other cheek when attacked, rather than hurt another.

However, such persons are extremely rare (we usually call them saints), so we give ordinary humans a moral allowance for self-defence.

Self-defence allows one to use the minimum necessary violence in order to defend themselves or those under their care: it does not include violence in defence of others (which may for example disrespect the choice of the other, attacked person, to respond saintly).

When a group of people enters a pact to defend each other, members of that group (some or all) are authorised to act as agents for others in that group and exercise the above minimal violence on their behalf.

When no similar authorisation is given by others, it is immoral to "protect" those who do not belong to the group.

A body of people which exerts violence on others who did not freely consent to belong to it, other than in self defence, is morally illegitimate.

Children, as long as they are unable to express their wishes for themselves, are assumed to be represented by their parents, simply because they chose to be born to them (they may of course modify their choice later). The bond between parent and child is far stronger than with anyone else.

The only two things which may give a body of people the permission to protect a child, are the consent of a parent, or the consent of the child herself.

The formal age of 18 (or whatever) is an artificial construct of specific bodies of people, hence it can only be applicable within such groups, to those who have consented to belong to those groups - and meaningless otherwise.

(continued...)

(...continued)

The question of whether to allow others their cultural expressions is misleading, because one has no need in the first place to be allowed to do anything. Your correct question should be, "when is it OK to PROHIBIT certain cultural expressions" - and my answer to it is, "when it is a case of self-defence".

Note that defending a culture is NOT a case of self-defence: this is because "culture" is only a concept, rather than an actual breathing sentient being.

Now to some of your other questions:

I have been 12 once, so I know from personal experience that I was capable of considered judgement at the time. However, it is also true that some people are incapable even at the age of 80. That's what parents are for, and unless you present me with contrary evidence, it looks as both parents and daughter were on the same wavelength. The girl did receive guidance from her parents, which was to marry. Sure, your parents would have advised differently, but she chose to be born to hers, not to yours, and it's likely that the reason she did so was because she trusted them to support and represent her correctly in this situation, which your parents wouldn't.

I never expected you to allow any of that long list of atrocities. The question is, what on earth or in heaven gives you grounds to disallow these to people who never consented to belong to your group or to otherwise have anything to do with you. I presume that you make the assumption that the respective victims either have or would-if-they-could appeal for your protection: that assumption may happen to be correct in some of the cases, but it cannot be made automatically and each case should be studied carefully on its own.

You may legitimately try to safeguard your social standards, so long as in doing so you do not hurt others outside your society (except in self-defence).

Dear Bazz,

So we all agree that God didn't order anyone to be xenophobic. Then why do some people keep blaming God?

Yuyutsu,

I agree entirely and the group is known as the Australians and anyone who chooses to live within that group or who is born into it must adhere to the rules of the group.

Once again, well said.