[SMH.AU] A senior public official has referred the state's judiciary to the royal commission into child sexual abuse in the wake of a public outcry over comments made by a judge who has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality. So now it's 'LGBTIP.' Get used to it.
The move comes after Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has referred District Court Judge Garry Neilson to the NSW Judicial Commission, and has written to the Chief Judge of the District Court, Reg Blanch, requesting that Judge Neilson not sit on any criminal trials until the commission had examined his complaint. Mr Hazzard said he was acting on behalf of the community. "Tut tut, sir! You will go before The Commission!"
Judge Neilson could become the first judicial officer sacked by Parliament if the Judicial Commission finds against him. "Bailiff! Throw him out the window!"
Chief Judge Blanch late Friday said Judge Neilson would not sit on new criminal matters until the issue had been addressed. "Who're you gonna replace him with, mate?"
"Judge Jeffries!"
"His calendar's kinda full..."
"Judge Lynch, then."
''I was extremely concerned to read the comments of his honour Judge Garry Neilson in regard to his views on incest,'' Mr Hazzard said. ''In my view the community would be rightly appalled at his reported comments. Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal.'' You mean it's wrong? But how can that be in this day and age? 'Course, he didn't say it was wrong, only 'criminal,' and there's all sorts of things that used to be criminal that are now not only legal but socially acceptable. And when was the last time you saw anybody reprehended?
It is understood that on Thursday a senior federal official referred the NSW judiciary to the royal commission after it was determined it could be defined as an ''institution''. I guess the NSW judiciary could be regarded as an institution. But I don't make the connection to Hizzoner's impending defenestration.
Mr Hazzard's intervention came a day after Fairfax Media revealed comments made by Judge Neilson, who told a court that, just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, "a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner". We've gone over this before. Probably you need a sense of right and wrong to categorize jumping Sis as 'wrong.' If your morals tell you there's nothing wrong with jumping your sister, what's wrong with jumping Mom? Or jumping Pop? We'll leave jumping Fido out of the conversation and refrain from telling the joke about the duck that ends "If the egg can get out I can get in!"
He also said the "only reason" that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships "but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion". Toldja so. The only reason jumping Mom or Grannie's a crime is the risk of pregnancy. Any fool can see that.
Judge Neilson made the comments in April in the case of a 58-year-old man, known for legal reasons as MRM, who is charged with repeatedly raping his younger sister in the family's western Sydney home in 1981. MRM has pleaded not guilty to the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with an alternative charge of incest, and will face a jury trial in September. 'Ladies and gents of the jury, my client is being charged with humping his sister, both when she was ten years old and again when she was an adult. Let him or her who'd never been involved in a similar peccadillo throw the first stone!'
[THUNK!]
Mr Hazzard had initially refused to be drawn on Judge Neilson's comments while MRM's trial was pending "Wattlestone! See which way the wind's blowing!"
but in an about-face he issued a statement on Friday saying he had to refer the judge to the commission because ''confidence in the judiciary is a critical part of ensuring broader community support for the legal system''. "It's gale force, sir!"
"Very well! Get The Commission on the line for me and then get to the storm cellar! And stay away from your sister!"
"She's not my sister, sir! She's my... ermm... niece! Twice removed..."
On Friday it was revealed Judge Neilson had in November 2011 ruled the sexual assault of a man against his 16-year-old niece was less serious because there was ''no ejaculation'' and therefore the victim had not been put ''at risk of pregnancy or disease''. There used to be a rule about "penetration, however slight..." I guess that's been discarded in our more civilized age, huh?
In March 2013 the appeal court cut his non-parole period by six months but found Judge Neilson's comments regarding ejaculation were ''entirely questionable'' and his attitude towards pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases ''plainly had no foundation''. At least the appeal court has a sense of right and questionable.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2014 14:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One of the articles where whatever you say about the article will invite shrill diatribes.
#2
When breeding is random and scrambly
One's tree may grow rambly and brambly.
Genetically gambly
Or fruitlessly nambly,
Please don't keep it all in the fambly.
Anyone sharper than me happen to notice whether there's an Islamophobiaphobia angle to this?
#4
On Friday it was revealed Judge Neilson had in November 2011 ruled the sexual assault of a man against his 16-year-old niece was less serious because there was ''no ejaculation'' and therefore the victim had not been put ''at risk of pregnancy or disease''.
[TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings. There is neither right nor wrong, you see.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted. Homosexual incest would be okay, too, right?
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion. It's not like there should ever be any limits on anybody, right?
"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said. If she was dead it would be okay, too. Matter of fact, it would be even better if she were dead, since there wouldn't be any of those deformity worries.
"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone." So now the time is right to get up close and personal with Sis.
Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26. At 10 or 11 she was too young to say "yes," according to the common law we're in the process of discarding. But that has nothing to do with the fact of incest. That relationship continues all the way into adulthood.
"By that stage they are both mature adults," the judge said. So are Mom and Dad.
"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. "Free" in the sense of being unencumbered? Or free is in "liberated from the confining shackles of prudery?" Or free as in "no charge?"
She was "sexually awoken," as the honourable judge says, by being raped by the older brother who was supposed to protect her from such things. And now society -- in the form of that judge -- instead of protecting her from her predator, would make her a gift to him? There is no Hell too deep.
The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s -- when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful." Prior to English common law there were still both laws and societal taboos. I can't think of a single society that's condoned brothers slipping the baloney to sisters. The only exception to the rule I know of is dynastic Egypt, where royal inheritance passed through the female and brother-sister was sanctioned. There may be others but I'd bet a dollar they're pretty few and far between.
The comments were labelled misogynistic and "completely disgraceful" by Sally Dowling, the crown prosecutor, who has asked an appeal court to appoint another judge. One with a bit of sense, perhaps?
"The reference to abortion is particularly repellent," she said. The judge has none of that old-fashioned prejudice against coat hangers.
Dr Cathy Kezelman, an advocate for preventing child sex abuse, said incest was horrific, regardless of the ages of those involved. With birth control and abortion and such the taboo may be cracked, but if you permit such a thing between unmarried couples how can you not permit marriage and reproduction to such couples? They need "equal rights," too.
"The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal," she told The Sydney Morning Herald. "If it feels good, do it" isn't much of a foundation for a society. Here at Rantburg we're watching a culture that takes prudery to an extreme, while we're living in a society that goes just as far to the other extreme. Could we maybe change our slogan to "if it feels right, do it"?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dogs do it, why not people. (Well, we'e smarter than Dogs.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/11/2014 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ever seen a cat with five legs and six toes? I saw one in Massachusetts once, or was it California?
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646 ||
07/11/2014 4:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Liberalism. Everything must be "advanced" as time goes on. They just dont know what not to advance.
#9
No prohibitions on behavior? How's that working out?
Posted by: Caesar Splat8376 ||
07/11/2014 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I hear cannibalism is not unlawful in New South Wales, so maybe this is not such a great leap when it comes to the legal prohibition of certain, ummm, behaviors.
#7
"In God We Trust" is the national motto adopted by the United States Government and is on every form of hard currency used in the daily transaction of business.
That is the government of the United States of America. The entity Schumer speaks of is the not a government but a political party so let me "fix that for you", Chuck:
You Must Choose Between Your Faith and The Democratic Party's Marxism
#12
The Constitution is pretty explicit that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Congress has no authority to establish how a BUSINESS, run by people with strong religious convictions, aren't covered by the First Amendment. Chuckie is pissing into the wind.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/11/2014 17:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Schumer, It was God and guns that created this nation, we're not giving up either. Gee, I think there's a country rock song about this...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/11/2014 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#14
#14 "It was God and guns that created this nation"
Yep, you should be proud of that Yank.
Our Canadian baby was cranky;
He'd figured out God was a yankee!
His literate momma
Soon lent him a comma
And dabbed dry his tears with a hanky.
#15
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. - Revelation 13:16-17 NIV
Not sure why that popped to mind, but it did.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
07/11/2014 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
#16
spano bellingbo3665 AKA Jerkface Killa AKA JFK is on a permanent delete on sight list, due to his particularly nasty means of engaging in debate. You can respond to his insanity if you want, of course, but in the end any and all of his comments will be deleted.
#4
The only problem with this is that those who are involved have no compunction about lying under oath. The other problem is that of proof. However, the judge could charge people for contempt if he finds that there is proof they lied under oath.
#5
Once the judge has the IRS statement as to what happened, he has a baseline for further investigation or comparisons to what Isa has already found. Any determination presented by the IRS should be backed up by evidence or proof, not just a sworn statement. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
#6
Last week Obama, leader of the democratic party and self appointed constitutional expert, declared the supreme court to be wrong. His hacks, Reid and Pelosi, Posed the argument they will go around the supreme court. I suppose this will be the first of many federal judges that have decided enough is enough and playing politics with the law has gone far enough. When the IRS testifies over the emails, or more aptly claims the 5th, all hell is going to break loose if these so called activist judges decide our constitution is at risk and they take it on themselves to get things back in order. I just bought a large box of popcorn this will get fun...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/11/2014 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
