Political correctness excuses pedophilia

A

Adam

§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥
Registered Senior Member
One day's jail for 'underage sex'
By Rod McGuirk
October 08, 2002

AN Aborigine who had sex with his 15-year-old promised wife has had his jail sentence reduced to a single day in recognition of his cultural tradition.

Jackie Pascoe, 50, had been sentenced by a Darwin magistrate to 13 months' jail for unlawfully having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 plus firearm offences.

But Northern Territory Supreme Court Justice John Gallop today reduced the sentence for the sexual component to one day.

That sentence is to be served concurrently with a 14-day sentence for the firearm offences.

"It's well accepted these days that courts have regard to Aboriginal law," Justice Gallop said.

The girl from Maningrida in Arnhem Land had been promised to Pascoe at an early age and Pascoe, as her promised husband, had made payments to her family, the court was told.

She was 15-years-and-three-months-old when her family decided she should become Pascoe's wife and took her to his outstation east of Maningrida on August 20 last year.

The next day, the girl wanted to go back to Maningrida with friends.

But the friends drove off without her after Pascoe discharged his shotgun.

Pascoe pleaded guilty to discharging an unlicensed shotgun and being an unregistered holder.

North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service lawyer Gerard Bryant argued that Magistrate Vince Luppino had gone outside the boundary of the facts in sentencing.

Mr Luppino had commented that there was an element of compulsion in the relationship and he did not like the age difference.

He included a general deterrent in the sentence to dissuade future arranged marriages with underage girls.

Justice Gallop found the magistrate had gone outside the facts in sentencing for a crime less then rape.

He found the firearm offences were more serious than the unlawful sexual intercourse.

AAP

More...
Click to expand...
 
Political correctness is pure bollocks. I hate the way it screws over my country like a disease. Those annoying small lobby groups who rant in front of TV cameras and make these things happen should be lined up against the wall and shot. While I'm against violence, killing them all would be for the greater good of Australia, and would protect people like that young girl.
 
why not go after the real perps? why kill the messengers?
are the lobbyists fucking 15 yr olds? or is it the abos?
on with the genocide brother adam

i think it was about a year ago i copulated with a almost 17yr old(cali law is 18yrs) that makes me a pedophile huh? (brickhouse, coudnt resist her advances..........!)

;)
 
I don't really care about the legal age bit. The problem is, this young girl was shoved into some old grot's bed by some bullshit sticks-and-stones tribal culture which should not be allowed to exist. It's the same crap as in Pakistan recently.
 
I do know that 16 is legal in Kentucky but only if your age 16-18. Or something like that.

But yes Adam I agree, out with the old, in with the new. The old ways are well, the old ways. Maybe it was okay 500 years ago to have sex with 15 year old girls to help propagate the species but now its just wrong.
 
They certainly do. But what about when they are forced into the bed of a grotty old man by a tribal culture that would beat her senseless for any argument?
 
i have to concede that this particular case is rather distasteful. infact these arranged marriages are kinda whacked but i rather not impose my culture and morality on others

why is sex so taboo? i mean look at hollywood, you can kill, maim, eat... but sex!!!! in your world adam, sex can carry the death penalty. stop straddling the fence and choose an ideology
1 live and let live
2 live my way or else

;)
 
Sex is not taboo in my world. Forcing it on someone is. I've never straddled any fence on that. I don't give a damn what your culture or history is, I see that as not allowed.
 
Originally posted by Adam
While I'm against violence, killing them all would be for the greater good of Australia, and would protect people like that young girl.
Click to expand...

the above is straddling
 
Originally posted by spookz
i have to concede that this particular case is rather distasteful. infact these arranged marriages are kinda whacked but i rather not impose my culture and morality on others

why is sex so taboo? i mean look at hollywood, you can kill, maim, eat... but sex!!!! in your world adam, sex can carry the death penalty. stop straddling the fence and choose an ideology
1 live and let live
2 live my way or else

;)
Click to expand...

Live and let live, if adopted, should apply to al-Qaeda and Iraq.
 
:)
on mr smith side of the fence you are against violence
on mr peters side of the fence you are slaughtering left, right and center
 
I don't like the "live and let live" idea. If that idea was acceptible, nobody would have stood up against the NAZIs. Responsible human beings need to kick arse now and then to protect each other from people who would do things like force sex on yopung girls or burn entire populations. That doesn't mean we should enjoy doing such arse-kicking.

I don't like violence. It should not be required. But often it is required, because unfortunately humans prove again and again that they are incapable of governing themselves.
 
Originally posted by Adam
I don't like the "live and let live" idea. If that idea was acceptible, nobody would have stood up against the NAZIs. Responsible human beings need to kick arse now and then to protect each other from people who would do things like force sex on yopung girls or burn entire populations. That doesn't mean we should enjoy doing such arse-kicking.

I don't like violence. It should not be required. But often it is required, because unfortunately humans prove again and again that they are incapable of governing themselves.
Click to expand...

If humans are not capable of governing themselves, why are they capable of governing others?
 
adam

your interpretation of "live and let live" has been taken to absurd heights
it is used mostly in a cultural and societal context
 
Last edited:
Some humans are capable of governing themselves and others. Many aren't. The fact that we still have nations, borders, and police forces demonstrates that in general, humans can't simply behave in a civilised manner.
 
Originally posted by Adam
Some humans are capable of governing themselves and others. Many aren't. The fact that we still have nations, borders, and police forces demonstrates that in general, humans can't simply behave in a civilised manner.
Click to expand...

So not all humans can govern themselves. How do we then know that those taking the lead in governing others, such as the JCSA, are not those who cannot be governed?

Also, if a government is democratic, why would it not extend that democratic right to other nations?

It's a big smokescreen; none of the theories as to why we are "free" but should govern others make any sense. The only defensible positions are anarchism, which is illogical, and some form of dictatorship, which is... taboo.

Minds are controlled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top