It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rape case ruling shocks Australia

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Rape case ruling shocks Australia


news.bbc.co.uk

A judge's decision not to jail nine men guilty of raping a 10-year-old girl in an Aboriginal community has triggered outrage in Australia.

The offenders were either placed on probation or given suspended sentences for the 2005 rape in the Aurukun settlement, in northern Queensland.

In her ruling, Judge Sarah Bradley told them that the victim "probably agreed to have sex with all of you".
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
As much as all of us may not know the full story, this is absolutely shocking for everyone and not just Australia.

lots of people are going to be outraged by this as many already are.

I am glad some people there are doing something about this decision and I hope the judge who gave the sentences is charged with something too..

There could be all manners of reasons why this judge dished out such a decision. Ranging from corruption, bribery, blackmail, or jst simply knew some of the people involved or has other motives.

Terrible situation that must be resolved in the best possible taste and with a far better ending to this sad chain of events.

I'm almost lost for words.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is absolutely revolting. Most straight-thinking human beings could never contemplate such a thing; no ten-year old girl would willingly agree to have sex with multiple men.


It is hard to fathom what was going through the judge's . at the time. I can only think of two scenarios, though I admit I have no evidence for either of them. One -- Judge Bradley is one of those far-far-far-left individuals who think children having sex is okay and should be encouraged. Or, Two -- She harbors some racist attitudes and thinks because the victim and perpetrators are Aborigines (ie; not as intelligent or civilized as whites), they don't know better and couldn't help themselves.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I find it extremely shocking that a female judge would rule in such a way.
I do not want to generalize too much but normally I would think a woman would rule much stricter on such a case. The reason I say this is that women are normally the victims of a rape. I sort of wonder if the judge is a parent as I think this would incline her to rule in a stricter fashion as well.

Having said that I find the judge’s ruling to be one of incompetence on someone’s part. Either the judge has some sort of mental incompetence or the investigation provided not enough evidence for this judge. It seems this sort of ruling is becoming more common though as I recall the thread about the judge ordering a rapist to buy a little girl a bike as his punishment.

It could be that politicians and judges are looking at rape and child molestation in a different light. It might be they are in the belief that these people are born this way and cannot help the way they are and that some children are agreeing to the sexual acts they endure. Perhaps they believe that the children may even be initiating such acts with them. Ugh…. it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth to say such a thing and was not a very easy thought to type either. ((((Note I am not advocating the thought of sex with a child nor am I defending child molesters.))))

While I do not know the full story I don’t see any excuse for men to have sex with a child or a teen for that matter. They should be thrown into the closest shark infested waters with several cuts on their legs and told that if they make it back to shore they are free to live life, if not well the sharks will decide their fate.
On a side note sharks may have a difficult time digesting this sort of scum.

Raist



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I can honestly say I am sickened by what I have read.

The fact that anyone could rule in such a manner is just as despicable as the men who did this heinous act.

I cannot fathom why she would have made the ruling she did and I seriously hope she loses her position as a judge over this. No one who rules like that deserves to be in a seat of power over others.

Utterly sickening.

VV



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Absolutely appalling. Whether or not a 10 year old girl 'agreed' to have sex or not is irrelevant. Any adult who would agree to have sex with a 10 year old girl needs to be removed from society... permanently.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
This is absolutely revolting. Most straight-thinking human beings could never contemplate such a thing; no ten-year old girl would willingly agree to have sex with multiple men.


It is hard to fathom what was going through the judge's . at the time. I can only think of two scenarios, though I admit I have no evidence for either of them. One -- Judge Bradley is one of those far-far-far-left individuals who think children having sex is okay and should be encouraged. Or, Two -- She harbors some racist attitudes and thinks because the victim and perpetrators are Aborigines (ie; not as intelligent or civilized as whites), they don't know better and couldn't help themselves.


Uhh, I dont think political offiliation has anything to do with this case. Im left in my politics, some would say im far left. But i would never think such actions are acceptable and should be encouraged, nor do I know anyone who would think this way. To top it off, Ive never heard any left leaning political speaker suggest that such things are ok.

I think you are biased and uneducated in the matters of left politics.

As for the topic, I think the best way to get to the bottom of this would be to figure out who these guys are, and see who's pockets they own, or are in. Trace the money, im sure we'd find a connection.

A ten year old does not have the capacity (mental capacity) to understand what having sex with one person is like, let alone multipul partners at the same time.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
They call it "the age of consent" for a reason - namely, because no one under the age of consent can be considered capable of making a "decision" to have sex, with full understanding of what they are agreeing to. I know of no country that thinks any 10 y.o. is capable of understanding sex or is considred to be at the age of consent.

The only think I can think of is that maybe this judge is extremely racist? Her judgment is simply insane and incomprehensible. I hope after being raped by 9 males, that the little girl is at least physically OK.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Uhh, I dont think political offiliation has anything to do with this case. Im left in my politics, some would say im far left. But i would never think such actions are acceptable and should be encouraged, nor do I know anyone who would think this way. To top it off, Ive never heard any left leaning political speaker suggest that such things are ok.

I think you are biased and uneducated in the matters of left politics.


On the contrary, I inserted the caveat of "far..." and "individual" to distinguish Judge Bradley (if that is indeed her leaning) from the rank-and-file, to single her out as special. I am not saying that she is a typical member of the left, or that Leftists as a whole hold such beliefs. Rather, people holding such beliefs seem to gravitate towards the left, just as people possessing racist attitudes tend to gravitate towards the right (this may be because of the left's acceptance of sexual liberation politics). Most often, such individuals are rightly rejected by the same groups they attempt to insinuate themselves into.

Perhaps you've never heard of groups like NAMBLA, the IPCE, or the Rene Guyon Society. Even the original writing and production of the Vagina Monologues portrayed a woman having a sexual encounter with an underage girl (13), and the line "If it was a rape, then it was a good rape."



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Terribly sorry about the misinterpretations of your previous post. I withdraw my complaint and assumption.

Excellent clarification by the way.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


No problem and no offense taken. I think a clarification was in order, just so there was no mistaken the position I was taking.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I didn`t know there were two threads of this.

I made a post in the other with this post for what its worth

Strange and sick indeed.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
They call it "the age of consent" for a reason - namely, because no one under the age of consent can be considered capable of making a "decision" to have sex, with full understanding of what they are agreeing to.


My thoughts (almost) exactly.

If by law people under the age of consent are assumed to be ''incapable'' of making the decision to have sex with someone (let alone with multiple people).

How can a judge then state that the girl "probably agreed'' anyway?

As far as I know judges have to abide the law, if the law says it is, no matter what the case, it just is.

[edit on 11/12/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Well, this is weird is all the possible situations....

First: since when a judge use the word "probably", whe she is in the final of the trial!?? If something is under a "probality" yet, so the trial as not over!...Weird indeed.

Second: Even if in all the situation, there are coltural aborigen issues of behaviour to be "normal" amoung the aborigen people like a cult or a ritual, even in that situation it still is a crime! Weird indeed again...


My personal theory about all this:

All the world is going crazy for some weird reason, and all of "US" here, just alowed that. If nobody like us and others do not try to make something, i trully belive that human kind will have a kind of Apocalipse due to human insanity!!
Nothing is going right in our so called "modern & civilized" world. People with high ranks and great responsabilities are just acting plain crazy everywhere and in every countrys! And "normal" people, do not do nothing, and just let they'r lifes go on, because of the selfish comun ideia of "it is not my problem"...Well i think it is time for us all to stop to think just about our small little lifes, and take conscience that WE are part of the world also, and we will all suffer from this weird insanity that is rolling on in the world. It is just a question of time until each of us, in several diferent situations, but evenctualy we will be also victims of this kind of insanity!
We alow extreme acts of agressivity between us every day, evilness is growing in our heart's children more and more, animal cruelty, general crime, lack of moral and self respect everywhere, etc, and nobody do absolulty nothing!!!
I think it is time that we start to doubt about the good working of the so called "Democracy" and other kind of modern type of governments and they'r politics!! As well as how our society is organized and ruled! Because it is very very clear that they are not efficient in any way, and are bringing the world to a perfect blind chaos, maybe already in a "no return" posibility!!
Trully sad


[edit on 11/12/07 by Umbra Sideralis]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Rather, people holding such beliefs seem to gravitate towards the left, just as people possessing racist attitudes tend to gravitate towards the right (this may be because of the left's acceptance of sexual liberation politics).


Ok, so explain the Right's apparent predilection towards homosexuality, if American politicians are any indication. One can just as easily pull that statement outta their butts, and support it on the same basis as yours.

I think what we're seeing here is a collision of cultures and a judge trying to the right thing. Personally, I think she failed miserabley. Ask any anthropologist and they'll explain it to you in the appropriate jargon, but sorry Scooter...ya can't blame everything on the Clintons!!



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
This case is VERY simple to understand, really...

The Prosecutor involved and the presiding judge need to be removed for grossly improper conduct when it came to discharging their duties to the court and to the people...

I do hope the DPP and the state Attorney General remove these two imbeciles from office, appeal this decision and right a horrible wrong...

There is no two ways about this...

Its a case of two lazy public servants who considered themselves outside the sight of the DPP and Attorney General in Brisbane, and thought they could get away with just dealing with this case in an "administrative" way...

Disgusting...

Both of them sacked with shame...and disbarred for life, never to work in the profession again...

Anything less is abhorrent...




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ok, so explain the Right's apparent predilection towards homosexuality, if American politicians are any indication. One can just as easily pull that statement outta their butts, and support it on the same basis as yours.
any anthropologist and they'll explain it to you in the appropriate jargon, but sorry Scooter...ya can't blame everything on the Clintons!!


No one is blaming anything on the Clintons, or on the left. You need to calm down and take a breath. You are having an knee-jerk reaction to the use of the term "left." It's not a flattering look on you. Your comment is just ridiculous; you should be embarassed.

News flash: people on the left do bad things. So do people on the right. Because people are humans -- aligning one-self with a certain political leaning does not make one infalliable. I explained very clearly -- which you chose to ignore in your knee-jerk fury -- that I was not indicting the entire left or saying what she did was symptomatic of the left. You also chose to ignore -- in your ignorant knee-jerk reaction -- that I said mainstream groups ultimately reject such individuals.

Are you upset because I said, rightly, that the Left is more accepting of sexual-liberation politics? You don't find GLAAD aligning itself with the Republicans, do you? Further, the recent scandal about the right's "predilection" towards homosexuality is a scandal because the right, in the US, has been opposed to further homosexual rights. So it is a scandal when someone supposedly opposed to homosexuals is discovered to be one. Barney Frank has served as an openly-gay Democrat for decades, without scandal (at least around his orientation), because the Democrats are more accepting of the Gay-Lesbian movement.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
OI !!!

Newsflash to those people who want to bring left Vs right politics into this thread...

Cease and desist NOW, or else...

This thread is about a group of men having un-consensual sex with an underage girl under Queensland law...

It is also about the pathetic jobs both the crown prosecutor did in this case, as well as the presiding judge virtually ignoring her duties when she was sworn in to the bench...

Lets leave the lib vs con argument out....



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Rilence
 


I agree.

I apologize for even daring to mention the word "left."




top topics



 
4

log in

join