Paedophilia is OK if you "don't know" it is a crime.

"Paedophilia is OK if you "don't know" it is a crime."


Pedophilia as understood in America is NOT a crime in some countries. Different countries have different laws and different age's of consent.

In one country it may be perfectly accepted and legal for me (48) to have sex with a 13 year old girl where here it is illegal.

Everybody has a right as far as I'm concerned to make their own laws and shape their society how they want. America has no right to tell other countries how to live. A little isolationism would do us some good and we wouldn't be fighting in 30 different countries around the world trying to mold them to our expectations.

3u40r15m
18 and 13..... And it was consensual. I don't think its "rape" or "pedophilia" because when I was 13 i had sex with older woman, They talked for 2 months, got to know each other, found each other compatible and had sex, and your telling me that if he was 17 it would be OK? If she was 10 I would say Hang him.... But she knew what she was doing, I doubt it was her first time.

Wait... so let me get this straight. They basically dated for 2 months before they decided to have sex, and when they did it was completely consentual? See this is where the line gets blurred for me. If she wanted it and she was perfectly capable of it then should society really be telling her not to do it, or that she should only be doing it with guys closer to her age? No one would care if this guy was closer to her age, it would just be "two kids blowing off steam", what people REALLY care about is the difference in age. It's a purely perceptional thing, as soon as the guy crosses that line from 17 to 18 then he becomes a "man" and if he has sex with a younger girl he has committed "rape" regardless of how it happened. In this case I'm going to have to side with the man. If he dated her for 2 months then people had plenty of time to step in and stop the relationship. But they didn't.

I'd think that if one uses one's culture or religion (how embarrassing) to excuse one's behavior, then it's a sure sign that one is not integrated, or even slightly educated about the host society.

This guy should be investigated for what language he speaks (apart from English) and where he or his parents came from, and then he should be repatriated to that country immediately.

If a person doesn't know the basics of a host culture by 18, then he's never going to learn.
He's probably not interested either.
Deport him.

What a ridiculously light sentence and slap on the wrist.

And this is while Western women are violently raped (with broken ribs and terrible wounds) and then JAILED under Sharia Law in places like Dubai.

It's only "rape" if four Muslim adult men testify that the act was non-consensual (fat chance).
Otherwise the woman is also accused and punished (jailed in terrible conditions) for having sex outside of marriage.
That is the Sharia Law applied to rape victims in the United Arab Emirates.

They have no mercy, but the world must always have mercy for anything they do.

Quite simply, the law is the law and it applys to everyone of the land equally.

If this man were to get off charges because of his 'ignorance' it just opens a pandora's box.

We will then have murderers claiming that they did not know it was illegal to kill because they were not educated about it too....

reply to post by markosity1973


Well now that the jurisprudence has been established with that case I wonder what the repercussion of it will have on the british law.

sheepslayer247

I will not say much on this issue, except that I believe claiming ignorance of the law is not a valid defense at all.

You would think. Apparently the judge doesn't.

"Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.
But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Looks like that's precisely the thinking that got him off the hook.

It's not clear by the article what kind of rape we are talking about. It seems they are alluding it was consensual. Considered rape because of the age difference… but I'm not familiar with British law.

If I go into another state to hunt or fish, I have to know the law because it will not matter if I'm caught breaking it whether or not "I didn't know I couldn't do that". But with pedophilia, it's not a problem?? This should raise some suspicions about this judge. People should dig up past trials that he resided on that were pedophilia, and see if he was lenient or not.

reply to post by Golantrevize

Sorry, I am not from Britain. Can you please clarify for me, as the article seems to only say he was not sent to jail;

Were all charges against him dropped, or was he charged and given a suspended sentence?

It might make a little sense reading the whole story if he was given a suspended sentence, i.e he was charged and it goes on file but does no time because of the unusual circumstances.

If he was totally let off all criminal charges with just a 'you're very naughty boy' message from the Judge then it is a total miscarriage of justice.

reply to post by markosity1973


Someone was mentionning what he had learned in another country but the "koranic" school in question was in england not abroad. As for not being criminally responsible of the rape of a child because he did not know it was wrong is pretty much a slap on the wrist.

reply to post by halfoldman


Just watched the video.

Very disturbing, but hardly surprising.

Westerners should boycott these savage countries - they don't know how to be civilised.

What galls me is that we have flung open the doors to this savage brood and let them in by the million, along with their warped, mediaeval world views.

When will people wake up?

reply to post by Golantrevize

So he wasn't charged with anything I take it?

If this is true then why bother having laws at all?

Whether the girl was willing or not, whether he was ignorant or not, why have a law protecting minors from having sex at all then?

IMO He should be charged, but due to his young age and the girls apparent willingness to go along with it, maybe a suspended sentence i.e no jail time might be okay, but he did break the law and that is absolutely clear.

reply to post by markosity1973


It was a suspended sentence, for what it's worth.

reply to post by CJCrawley

That does make a difference. The Judge has acknowledged the fact the law was broken, but used their discretion to not give jail time.

I would of course expect that the girl has testified that she instigated the sexual incident for this to have happened. The religion and education is absolutely no excuse, but if the girl being underaged and also knowing the law really did seduce him, well I don't think it's as black and white as people think.

It's certainly not rape in the definition of the girl being non consensual as one would initially think when they hear the word in the headline. It's also a bit blurry about pedophilia given that the age gap is only 5 years and they are both teenagers and once again, it was the underage girl that allegedly initiated sexual proceedings.

I wonder if people would scream bloody murder so much if the ages were reversed, i.e the girl was 18 and the boy 13?

CJCrawley
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Just watched the video.

Very disturbing, but hardly surprising.

Westerners should boycott these savage countries - they don't know how to be civilised.

What galls me is that we have flung open the doors to this savage brood and let them in by the million, along with their warped, mediaeval world views.

When will people wake up?

You seem to have a spot of amnesia. Need you be reminded of the countless atrocities these so called "Civilized Westerners" you seem to think so highly of have committed in the name of their various gods, queens, kings and assorted religions from their own self-perceived moral high-ground over centuries past? But back to the original story, Who am I to judge? If he truly did not perceive and/or understand himself to have committed a crime but yet has been found to have committed one, then maybe as part of his punishment he should be made to understand said host country's laws and customs so as the "Book" may be thrown at 'em for any future indiscretions.

reply to post by CJCrawley

Yes, and although I don't want to generalize about all Muslims (this stuff hurts them too, and the image of decent, well-integrated Muslims), but it seems like a provable pattern of disciplining and forcing even non-Muslim women into wearing a body and face covering.

Now maybe some of their cultures have men and women who simply cannot control the libido without a mask (the way I had it explained to me Muslim women need that to control themselves -who am I to argue?), but what is for sure is that they also regard the "unveiled", or Western woman as inferior.

In other words, their repressed women are out of bounds, but Western women are fair game, because they don't cover their bodies.

There's also a documentary on the Muslim Brotherhood that explains this, and how, for example, women in Egypt went from modest Western clothes in the 1950s, to wearing the hijab, or even the burka today.

This behavior is saying the covered Muslim woman is superior to the Western woman, and therefore always protected.
If Western women don't choose to behave like Muslim women, then they are considered sluts, seductresses and fair game.

That behavior is meant to slowly but surely change the Western world into the Sharia nightmare.

Essentially the point will come where the radical liberals will say that Western women should stop disrespecting and tempting Muslim men by not covering their hair and faces.
They apologetically indulge this nonsense, which some scholars say is not even real Islam.
It's downright cultural fascism.

At least in Britain one documentary showed that the majority of people would be happy to pay some extra tax to slow down immigration, and even get rid of some of the current immigrants who refuse to adapt.
Why do politicians not listen to the people, and they keep forcing this alien, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynist movement on them?

reply to post by Golantrevize


That means British society is too segregated from that Muslim population.
If he hasn't learned from the surrounding world that rape is wrong and abusing children is wrong than that means this radical ideology is going unchecked and the british govt is not serving their population correctly.

reply to post by DexteramLucifer

No, I have no amnesia, and love history, even if it is sometimes very painful.

I'm also happy with restitution and apologies.

Rest assured, I'm reminded of how evil Westerners and Europeans are every single day.

That's why I was so surprised to learn how many peoples, faiths and cultures the Islamic world simply wiped out.

And let me say that I will never apologize for slavery until the Islamic world admits and apologizes for their role in African slavery, the Barbary slavery of over one million Europeans, and the de facto slavery that still goes on in Islamic apartheid states to this day.
Councils on racism were held starting in South Africa, and the demands from the Islamic world (and their sponsored useful idiots, whose liberal lifestyles put them first on the chopping block when Sharia takes global effect) always led to the withdrawals of several countries.
The USA and Canada withdrew under a constant bombardment of ridiculous Muslim demands.
Why was that?
Because they wanted to declare Israel an "apartheid state" when Muslim countries are big racists too, and they wanted anti-blasphemy laws, and they wanted the right of summary execution of gay people, and more demands ...
Maybe you should read some history before accusing others of having amnesia.
I think you have selective memories.

I'm for human rights, and these people are not.
It's very simple.

reply to post by halfoldman


I doubt that using slavery in Africa is good for your argumentation here since the ball can be thrown both ways. Need I remind you what the portuguese spaniard and americans did to west Africa? When Salaadin took Jerusalem , all christian Women and child were allowed to exit the city while every muslim were murdered when the christian took it back. History is filled with atrocities commited by both christians ans muslim , to argue and try to find the lesser evil is futile. Any argument against one of the two can be given a counter exemple of atrocoties.

reply to post by Golantrevize


Who cares about history?

Every time this subject is brought up we're given a bloody history lesson.

And by the way, when were the Muslims/Arabs a gentle, peace-loving, civilised people?

I live in the here and NOW, and it's NOW that concerns me.

reply to post by Golantrevize

I'm not playing tit for tat, because all of those issues are worthy of a thread, it's just that another member implied I had historical amnesia.

Criticize Muslims or Islam and that's the usual response.
Although I'm not really criticizing the religion as much as an evil, pernicious movement within it.

I think a better response might been that all religions have dangerous fundamentalists, which is true.

As a gay man my sexuality is illegal in 36 Islamic countries.
wikiislam.net...
Scholars have debated punishments from stoning to death, to being flung from a high building.

Iran has put to death (murdered in my opinion) at least 4 000 gay men since 1979.

I've seen clips of Sharia brigades in London using homophobic slurs and threats.

I've read of unveiled women in Zanzibar who had acid thrown in their faces.
www.dailymail.co.uk... ult.html

Now you tell me, must I agree with the people who do this?