JUDGE RULES THAT ABORIGINAL RAPE OF A MINOR TRADITIONAL, OK

This is, to my eye, a frightening way of thinking.

Who is to decide who is "us", and who is "them"? What if it turns out that western civilization is "them" and not "us", as many in west currently believe?

What is frightening in consideration that all the people belong to the same biological species? It is an approach quite opposite to this of the racists that divide mankind into superior and inferior races. "Them" and "us" are just terms, that do not imply that either of the sides is biologically "better" or "worse".

Steissd- Your remarks remind me of a very old story.

A Boy Scout came home from his meeting. He was wearing his uniform, and it was torn and bloody. His mom asked him what happened.

The boy said that at his meeting, he was taught that Boy Scouts are always helpful. One of the ways that Boy Scouts can be helpful is being considerate of old people, and giving them a helping hand when they are crossing the street.

On the way home from his meeting, all enthused about what he had learned about being helpful, he sees this ancient little lady on the corner of the street. She seemed so fragile, that he thought this would be a good opportunity to put the Boy Scout tradition of helpfulness in action. He held her arm and guided her across the street.

"Well that sounds very nice", said the mother. But why are you so torn and bloody?"

The Boy said, "When I tried to help her across the street, she took her cane and started to hit me. Then she scratched me across the face."

The mother, perplexed, said, "Why did that old lady hurt you like that? You were only trying to help her".

The boy looked down, sheepishly, and said,

"I think that she hit me because she didn't want to go across the street!"

I wasn't talking so much about your general philosophy, but more the specific bits of erroneous knowledge that you base your philosophy on. Many of the details you profess as true simply are not.

ethnocentrism "Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group"
combined with "divine right manifest destiny" has been a scourge of mankind for thousands of years.

that's why we're in Iraq about to perform acts of wor to secure oil fields and instill democracy <sigh>

Maybe, not to instill or install democracy, and not to secure oil fields, but just to appease the country that cannot be appeased in any other ways?

steissd

May I suggest you read more widely about this topic before you make a decision to migrate to Australia.

Attacking Iraq will appease it?

<shaking head in disbelief>


Great example, Phoenix. I've heard that story before - this is the perfect context for it.


Good point, margo.

Oh boy. Oh boy. Oh boy.

I shall come back later when my mind and typing fingers are calmer.

If I migrate, Margo, I shall not have any influence on the issue mentioned. I am supposed to get voting enfranchisement after at least five years of legal residence, and if and when I vote, I believe, my concerns will be very far from the aborigines' problems; I shall be more concerned with economic development, jobs market, national security, crime prevention, environment, etc.

To get back to the Australian ruling...

Considering that the traditional form of first marriage would have included interference and secondary protection for the raped girl by her family, especially her mother's father, I agree with the woman from the article, Aboriginal professor Judy Atkinson...

Calling aberrant, misogynist behavior such as Pascoe's traditional "pathologize[s] our cultures," says Atkinson.

"We are living in a war zone in Aboriginal communities. Different behaviors come out of that," she says. "Yet the courts of law validate that behavior."

The question is, Why would the appeals court go against the girl's own family?

piffka - courts, and the law, go against what 'victims' want, or say they want, every day. The police here lay charges, and pursue them, against men who batter when their wives refuse to lay charges. If the women refuse to testify against their batterers, they can be charged. If they lay the charges themself and then withdraw them, they can also be held accountable. Sometimes the law works, sometimes it doesn't seem to make common sense.

Rape of a minor is a rape of a minor, whoever commits it. And if the justice is intended to treat aborigines as citisens having equal rights, it should convict the offender and defend the victim. Family consent plays no role: there are sexually abusive parents as well (both White and non-White), but the fact of their being the victim's parents does not protect them from prosecution and punishment.

ehBeth -- Yes, common sense seems to be lacking.

There are two laws here... one being the official Australian court and the other being the traditional Aboriginal way of doing things. If the court indeed wants to follow the traditional Aboriginal Way, then it ought to follow the wishes of the girl's family, as well as the victim. As suggested, if there is a problem and the family objects, particularly in the case of violence, then it is likely not a good idea to side against them. THAT decision, in fact, would be more likely to follow tradition.

I am reading from what is considered a reasonably good text on the Aborigines, "The World of the First Australians" 5th edition, published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, which explains, in detail, that particularly in first marriage betrothals, the girl's family closely watches the marriage to ensure its success. "A girl is under the control as well as the protection of her parents and other close relatives. After marriage this responsibility rests largely with her husband, although her father and brothers do not entirely relinquish the first (control), and she expects to be able to turn to them for the second (protection). (pg 209 -- Emphasis mine.)

Do you think that the aboriginal population will remain wholey seperate from your world? I think you should do more research.

Of course, it will be involved, as economic problems and jobs market situations are of concern of all the people, regardless of their race and ethnicity. But, I guess, my interests and these of the aborigines will completely coincide: everyone needs healthy economy and low unemployment rate.

Seems that the Australian authorities must decide exactly whether they speak for Australian law and all their people or get out of the tribal law business (Are the Aborigines considered Australian citizens or not?).
If this was rape under Australian law why are we worried about Tribal Law? Why does the judge defer to tribal law and thereby negate his/her own validity to even consider the case? If the court is not going to use its jurisdiction and just defer to tribal law why not just let the Aborigines set up their own court?

Sorry, you cannot have two separate systems of justice applying laws differently to a sovereign nation's citizens. What if the perpetrator was 1/2 Aborigine, 1/4, 1/8? How would that work?

A more interesting question here is: At what point does the law consider having sexual intercourse with one's legal wife rape? (This question assumes the man was legally married to the woman and not just "promised")

Respectfully,

JM

Married or not, rape is still rape.

If it was "rape," what more can there be? The guy needs to be prosecuted for rape - in any civilized, contemporary, society. c.i.