Australia, the UN, and Refugees

culldav · Nov 28, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

So by your own statement when you call someone a liar it means that you could support them ... or not. That's a very odd way to engage someone whom you could support.
Click to expand...

He attacks me over a number, but not the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12.

Why? He is an Islam/Muslim apologist. I suspect he is not being truthful himself about his real agenda, and has either converted or considering converting to Islam.

He demands facts and the truth from everyone else, but when his own fantasies and assumptions are confronted, he runs away like a coward, or just continues with more fantasies and assumptions until everyone gives up out of frustration.

Is there really any difference between a 9 year old child and a 12 year old child - except the number?

Red Lily · Nov 28, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

OK an example although it should be quite obvious.

My first foray into this Islam debate was to correct the statement made by many that child marriage is the same thing as pedophilia. Child marriage is when someone under 18 marries someone over 18. Pedophilia is a medical term for people who primarily derive sexual present from prepubescent children.

Both are wrong, both are immoral, both are illegal, but they are not the same. This has lead some here to say I must support Islam then, or I am a pedophilic appologest, some heve become very personal about it.

Now I have seen a post here where a poster said

What the poster did though was lie about a man having the potential to marry and have sex with a nine year old child, "Under this outrageous law"

But he didn't post the entire law.

So first it doesn't relate in anyway to girls under 12, so mostly post pubescent girls, secondly, it is only to determine if the girl was married against her consent, not that the marriage is legal or not. It is not legal, I would say that it means that if a girl over 12 consented to the marriage the sentence would be different than if she didn't, and that if she was under 12, consent would not be even considered.

So he lied, and left out the relevant information that would have shown he was wrong. This does not mean however I support either pedophilia or child marriage so on that we agree, however using lies to support it is wrong
Click to expand...

You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable and you quote a Victorian law. Most of the child marriages that I have read about were in or from NSW.

Regardless ...

What really should be obvious is that a good proportion of 12 year old girls are still prepubescent. Puberty for girls is averaged out between 12 – 14. That means that many reach puberty before 12 or after 14.

The legal defence of consent also varies from state to state and is 13 years in Western Australia, 14 years in the Northern Territory, and 16 years in South Australia. Only in Victoria and Queensland is the defence of 'consent' set at 12. It appears that NSW is the only state sensible enough to have no set age limit regarding sexual consent issues regarding children under the legal age which is between 16 and 17 in all states.

A child may be regarded as 'willing' to engage in sexual behaviour but they do not have the emotional maturity to give 'consent'.

Trying to justify the legalities of child marriage is a far cry from the morality of the issue. It saddens me to think people even try to justify it. All it does is trivialise sexual abuse of children and they ARE children. This sort of trivialisation of the sexuality of children has absolutely no place in todays society.

They are vulnerable and a very long way from being either emotionally or physically mature and maybe at 12 some might want to mess around with boys close to their own age but marriage to men 15, 20, 30 years older? Give me a break. That's paedophilia in any normal persons' language.

LeftRightLeft · Nov 28, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable and you quote a Victorian law. Most of the child marriages that I have read about were in or from NSW.

Regardless ...

What really should be obvious is that a good proportion of 12 year old girls are still prepubescent. Puberty for girls is averaged out between 12 – 14. That means that many reach puberty before 12 or after 14.

The legal defence of consent also varies from state to state and is 13 years in Western Australia, 14 years in the Northern Territory, and 16 years in South Australia. Only in Victoria and Queensland is the defence of 'consent' set at 12. It appears that NSW is the only state sensible enough to have no set age limit regarding sexual consent issues regarding children under the legal age which is between 16 and 17 in all states.

A child may be regarded as 'willing' to engage in sexual behaviour but they do not have the emotional maturity to give 'consent'.

Trying to justify the legalities of child marriage is a far cry from the morality of the issue. It saddens me to think people even try to justify it. All it does is trivialise sexual abuse of children and they ARE children. This sort of trivialisation of the sexuality of children has absolutely no place in todays society.

They are vulnerable and a very long way from being either emotionally or physically mature and maybe at 12 some might want to mess around with boys close to their own age but marriage to men 15, 20, 30 years older? Give me a break. That's paedophilia in any normal persons' language.
Click to expand...

and don't try to put words in my mouth, I am sick to death of absolute and deliberate lies, that is all I said. If you justify lying to serve your cause your cause is lost. I have the same cause, to stamp out child marriage completely, but while people tell deliberate lies and people like you justify their lives by changing the parameters the cause is lost.

I have a degree in human biochemistry and spent some years managing a pathology lab, I am more aware of what ages girls reach puberty. It is some 25 years since I worked in pathology and back then I would diagnose at least 2 to 3 11 to 13 year olds a week as pregnant.

Lying about facts, especially laws is worse than trivialising them, it's using them. A 12 year old marrying an 18 year old or even a 20 year old and calling it pedophilia is TRIVIALISING children who are truly used by pedophiles and calling child marriage where the person is over 12 is promoting the cause of the terrorists.

You may put your cause before the fate of children but I most certainly don't. From what I have read you are more concerned with debasing Islam then you are in truly trying to stop this perverted activity.

In the past 10 years, hundreds of mainly pre-pubescent boys have been abused here in Australia.

The Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia is part of the much wider Catholic sexual abuse scandals which are a series of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations into allegations of sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders.[1]

As of August 2011, according to Broken Rites, a support and advocacy group for church-related sex abuse victims, there have been over 100 cases in Australia where Catholic priests have been charged for sex offences against minors, as well as others involving non-custodial sentences and inconclusive proceedings.[2] There are also highly numerous cases involving members of religious orders (both priests and brothers) and lay teachers.

Other sources of concern in addition to the abuse itself were the failures of the Roman Catholic Church to prevent future abuse by clergy who had come to the attention of religious authorities (of dioceses, religious orders or schools), transferring clergy and religious to further opportunities for abuse, the handling of allegations of abuse and the continuing honouring within the church of known sex offenders.[3] In 2012 a police report detailed 40 suicide deaths directly related to abuse by Catholic clergy in Victoria.[4] In October 2012, the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Ken Lay, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry on the issue, recommended that some of the church's actions to hinder investigations (including dissuading victims from reporting to police, failing to engage with police and alerting suspects of allegations against them) be criminalised.[5] A bishop in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese supported some form of public inquiry into the issue.[6]

In November 2012 Archbishop Hart, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, stated that he welcomed and promised co-operation with a Royal Commission, announced by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to broadly investigate child sexual abuse in institutions across Australia. George Pell, Cardinal-Archbishop of Sydney, stated that he hoped the Royal Commission will stop a "smear campaign" against the Catholic Church.[7] During a press conference held on 13 November 2012, Cardinal Pell voiced his support for the Royal Commission and welcomed the opportunity to help victims, to clear the air and to separate fact from fiction.[8] Through the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Catholic Church established a national co-ordinating body, called the Truth, Justice and Healing Council, to oversee the church's engagement with the Royal Commission and the pastoral and other ramifications that arose from the sexual abuse scandal.[9] The council was chaired by the Honourable Barry O'Keefe AM QC until his 2014 death.[10] He was succeeded by the Honourable Neville Owen, a former judge, barrister and solicitor.[11]
Click to expand...

Decades of child sexual abuse aided by an alleged network of supporters inside the NSW Newcastle Anglican Diocese has been wrenched into the public spotlight by the Sex Abuse Royal Commission.

For the past two weeks the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been examining abuse within the diocese dating back to the 1970s, and heard testimony of the harrowing experiences of survivors amid allegations of a pedophile network in the southern NSW city.

The Royal Commission is looking at the diocesan response to abuse over the years, and has heard survivor testimony of rape, torture and mental abuse.

It was apparent that there were a number of clergy and laypeople associated with the church who had criminal convictions, in many respects for child sex abuse offences
Michael Elliott, a former police officer who has been the diocese professional standards director since 2009, told the commission there had been a high level of interference in his work by the diocesan hierarchy.

"It was apparent that there were a number of clergy and laypeople associated with the church who had criminal convictions, in many respects for child sex abuse offences, where there had been no internal or additional outcomes with regard to risk management or discipline," he said.

He told the commission he believed there was a "core group of persons associated with the Anglican diocese... who seemed to be working in a coordinated way. I also formed the view that many within this group of persons were linked to, and supporters of, a number of abusers within the church".
Click to expand...

It started with a grown man weeping in the witness box.

On the first day of its public hearings in Newcastle, NSW, earlier this month, Paul Gray broke down while describing to the child abuse royal commission his suffering at the hands of his godfather, Anglican priest Peter Rushton.

Asked if he wanted to stop giving evidence, Gray replied: “No, I need to read it. It’s important to me.” What followed was a very public reckoning for a region that arguably had suffered more than any other from child abuse committed by priests.

While much of the attention surrounding the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has focused on the Catholic diocese of Ballarat in regional Victoria, in Newcastle two churches — Catholic and Anglican — are in the inquiry’s sights.

Trying to estimate the true number of child victims is hopeless, but it is at least in the hundreds. Dozens of priests have been involved.

This week, the commission released a slew of exhibits about the Anglican diocese. On Monday it begins a third week of hearings, when the Anglican Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herft, is due to be the first facing cross-examination.

What separates his church — Herft is a former bishop of Newcastle — from others the commission has put under the spotlight is that the evidence now demonstrates clear links between many of the abusers involved.

Take Rushton, who died in 2007. Gray told the commission Rushton abused him regularly between the ages of 10 and 14, and would sometimes “cut my back with a small knife and smear my blood on my back … That was symbolic of the blood of Christ.”

Worse, after church on Sunday afternoons, Rushton took Gray to the Anglican-run St Alban’s boys home in Mayfield, where other men “took turns at raping me”, he said.

Years later, in 1973, Rushton moved parishes within the diocese to Wallsend, taking over from priest Michael Cooper, who the diocese now accepts was also a sex offender. Rushton later moved parishes again, to Weston, where he worked closely with his friend James Brown, a lay preacher who in 2011 pleaded guilty to sexually abusing 19 boys.

Both men were able to foster boys from St Albans into their care. One of these, Phillip D’Ammond, told the commission Brown, who is now serving a minimum 12-year jail sentence, took him to Rushton’s house, where both men sexually abused him.

Rushton himself was never charged. The commission has heard he was “well protected” by a dominant group within the diocese called the Gang of Three. Its alleged members were the cathedral dean Graeme Lawrence and archdeacon Bruce Hoare — both of whom were later defrocked for having group sex with a teenager — and church registrar Peter Mitchell, who was later convicted of defrauding the diocese.

Evidence shows Hoare was also friends with another child abuser, trainee priest Ian Barrack. Other alleged Anglican abusers identified by the commission include Stephen Gray, now dead; a second priest who himself had a sexual relationship with Rushton and who is presently before the courts; and a third former priest now subject to an ongoing police investigation after moving from Newcastle to, of all places, Ballarat.

The commission has heard many of these men studied to become priests at St John’s Theological College in Morpeth, north of Newcastle.

There is also a suggestion in the evidence that those outside the church, including police officers and lawyers, may have been complicit in these crimes or their cover up. As yet, no evidence has emerged of such links between the city’s two churches, though there are those, both Anglican and Catholic, who suspect this may be only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

It started with a grown man weeping in the witness box.

On the first day of its public hearings in Newcastle, NSW, earlier this month, Paul Gray broke down while describing to the child abuse royal commission his suffering at the hands of his godfather, Anglican priest Peter Rushton.

Asked if he wanted to stop giving evidence, Gray replied: “No, I need to read it. It’s important to me.” What followed was a very public reckoning for a region that arguably had suffered more than any other from child abuse committed by priests.

While much of the attention surrounding the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has focused on the Catholic diocese of Ballarat in regional Victoria, in Newcastle two churches — Catholic and Anglican — are in the inquiry’s sights.

Trying to estimate the true number of child victims is hopeless, but it is at least in the hundreds. Dozens of priests have been involved.

This week, the commission released a slew of exhibits about the Anglican diocese. On Monday it begins a third week of hearings, when the Anglican Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herft, is due to be the first facing cross-examination.

What separates his church — Herft is a former bishop of Newcastle — from others the commission has put under the spotlight is that the evidence now demonstrates clear links between many of the abusers involved.

Take Rushton, who died in 2007. Gray told the commission Rushton abused him regularly between the ages of 10 and 14, and would sometimes “cut my back with a small knife and smear my blood on my back … That was symbolic of the blood of Christ.”

Worse, after church on Sunday afternoons, Rushton took Gray to the Anglican-run St Alban’s boys home in Mayfield, where other men “took turns at raping me”, he said.

Years later, in 1973, Rushton moved parishes within the diocese to Wallsend, taking over from priest Michael Cooper, who the diocese now accepts was also a sex offender. Rushton later moved parishes again, to Weston, where he worked closely with his friend James Brown, a lay preacher who in 2011 pleaded guilty to sexually abusing 19 boys.

Both men were able to foster boys from St Albans into their care. One of these, Phillip D’Ammond, told the commission Brown, who is now serving a minimum 12-year jail sentence, took him to Rushton’s house, where both men sexually abused him.

Rushton himself was never charged. The commission has heard he was “well protected” by a dominant group within the diocese called the Gang of Three. Its alleged members were the cathedral dean Graeme Lawrence and archdeacon Bruce Hoare — both of whom were later defrocked for having group sex with a teenager — and church registrar Peter Mitchell, who was later convicted of defrauding the diocese.

Evidence shows Hoare was also friends with another child abuser, trainee priest Ian Barrack. Other alleged Anglican abusers identified by the commission include Stephen Gray, now dead; a second priest who himself had a sexual relationship with Rushton and who is presently before the courts; and a third former priest now subject to an ongoing police investigation after moving from Newcastle to, of all places, Ballarat.

The commission has heard many of these men studied to become priests at St John’s Theological College in Morpeth, north of Newcastle.

There is also a suggestion in the evidence that those outside the church, including police officers and lawyers, may have been complicit in these crimes or their cover up. As yet, no evidence has emerged of such links between the city’s two churches, though there are those, both Anglican and Catholic, who suspect this may be only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Scouts Australia[edit]
In the Hunter region of New South Wales, it was alleged that a former member of Scouts Australia, suspended from the organisation for abusing two Scouts in the 1990s, was employed as the chief executive officer of an Aboriginal child welfare agency two months prior to the formal introduction of working-with-children checks. In testimony before the commission in September 2013, it was revealed that the applicant's suitability for the role may have been assessed by relatively junior staff;[95] and that he later falsified his working-with-children check. It was alleged that the NSW Department of Community Services (DOCS) gave the man permission to have a 17-year-old boy, whom he was grooming for sex, live with him.[96] A former CEO of Scouts Australia testified that during his three years in the job, he dealt with ten allegations of child sexual abuse. He admitted a number of children were sexually abused or harmed and said the Scouts failed them. The commission heard testimony from two victims who spoke of the profound effect the sexual abuse had on their lives.[97]

The first published case study of the royal commission dealt with the response of institutions to the conduct of Steven Larkins, who occupied positions of responsibility in Scouts Australia NSW and in the Hunter Aboriginal Children's Service. Larkins was prosecuted in 2012 for offences he had committed 15 years earlier, and was convicted and imprisoned.[98]

YMCA NSW[edit]
Between October 2013 and January 2014, the commission heard evidence that there were systemic failures by management within YMCA NSW[99] after a worker was hired to work at a YMCA child care centre located in Caringbah in southern Sydney without the appropriate background checks.[100] The former worker, Jonathan Luke Lord, has since been convicted of offences relating to the abuse of twelve boys in his care, some as young as six.[101][102] On 18 January 2013, Lord was sentenced to 10 years and a non-parole period of 6 years. He was sentenced for 13 offences involving 12 children and another 16 offences were taken into account.[103][104]

Following evidence presented before the commission, the NSW Department of Education and Communities wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of YMCA NSW and issued a compliance notice that set out strict conditions for continuation of the YMCA's childcare licence.[101] The Chief Executive Officer of YMCA NSW testified before the commission about the impact of crimes that occurred on YMCA NSW premises.[100]

(The perpetrator)... was an insidious and deceitful individual, who was grooming not only children and parents but the YMCA itself. He gained the trust of the children, the parents and the fellow staff members to really get close to these children. (He would) go so far as to open the childcare centre for a parent who had to start work early. (He) went above and beyond to help out parents. We've got staff who are struggling to comfort children that come to them distressed because it might be seen as grooming practices. So (his) impacts have been devastating.

— Phillip Hare, Chief Executive Officer of YMCA NSW; testimony given in 2013.
The Salvation Army[edit]
In January 2014 the Commission began investigating allegations of sexual and physical abuse of children at four boys' homes run by The Salvation Army. The homes examined by the Commission were the Bexley Boys Home in Sydney, the Gill Memorial Home at Goulburn in southern New South Wales, the Alkira Salvation Army Home for Boys at Indooroopilly in Brisbane and the Riverview Training Farm at Riverview in Queensland. The Commission heard testimony from two Salvation Army whistleblowers about allegations of child abuse between 1973 and 1975. The officers testified that they witnessed a boy had his arm dislocated during a beating by another Army officer. The Army banned the husband and wife whistleblowers from talking to other alleged victims of child abuse and dismissed them from their position as "house parents" at the Alkira home.[105] When the whistleblowers complained to the Queensland Department of Children's Services, they were labelled troublemakers.[106] The officer at the centre of the allegations had previously worked at the Bexley home from 1968; and then was the manager of the Alkira home between 1974 and 1976. The Salvation Army moved the alleged perpetrator to another Salvation Army service where he was promoted in rank.[107] Following the allegations raised at the Royal Commission, The Salvation Army suspended the officer at the centre of the allegations. The officer concerned did not attended the commission's hearings but the inquiry has been told he refutes the allegations of sexual abuse.[108] The inquiry heard that officers were moved interstate if they were accused of child sexual abuse. One officer was dismissed from the Army in 2005 due to allegations of child sexual abuse.[107] The whistleblowers testified that boys at the home were used for alleged sexual exploitation and were allegedly subject to physical abuse.[105]

"They were given drink and chocolates, well, they were used that day in Brisbane and the next day they were sent down to Sydney... (Another officer) told me the boys were useless and bad, and it had to be drummed into them that rules are rules."

— Major Cliff Randall, testimony from a Salvation Army whislteblower, 2014.
Witnesses who testified included alleged victims of child abuse. A male witness told the Royal Commission that while at the Gill Memorial Home at Goulburn, aged 12 years, he was regularly sexually abused by a Salvation Army officer.[109]

"....(I was abused)... at least four out of every seven days. Many times he would drag me out of bed at 3am for allegedly making a noise,.....He would punish me by taking me down to the bathrooms and making me scrub the toilets with a toothbrush. I was always there on my own. He would then sexually abuse me and send me back to bed at 5am. I would then have to get up at 6am to start my chores..... (He) flogged me when we got back for telling lies. He hit me with his open palm on my head, chest, arms and upper body."

— A victim of alleged child abuse at the Gill Memorial Home, Goulburn; testimony given in 2014.
Click to expand...

Knox Grammar School and Uniting Church[edit]
On 23 February 2015 the Commission started hearings[75] concerning the response of Knox Grammar School and the Uniting Church in Australia to complaints and criminal proceedings involving teachers who sexually abused students. The Commission's remit includes inquiring into the 'systems, policies and procedures' involving the school's response to the complaints since 1970, and the experiences of former students sexually abused by teaching staff.[75] Four teachers from Knox had been convicted of sexual offences against Knox students.[112]

A former Knox teacher, a resident master at the schools boarding house in 1988, was summonsed to appear at the Commission, but failed to do so. A warrant was issued by the Commission for his arrest.[113]

During hearings in early March 2015, several former Knox students and staff alleged that headmaster Ian Paterson did not refer several allegations of sex abuse he received to the police, despite there being a requirement for such allegations to be reported from 1988. The commission heard that in fact Paterson had never reported any student's allegation of sexual abuse to police during his thirty years in charge of the school.[114][115] Paterson also stated that he had allowed several teachers accused of sexual abuse to resign and subsequently gave them positive references. Paterson denied that he had covered up the sexual abuse of students, arguing that he had responded to the allegations brought to his attention, and stated that "I should have known and I should have stopped the events that led to the abuse and its tragic consequences for these boys in my care and their families".[115][116] Paterson stated that he was not aware that it was a crime for a teacher to grope or sexually proposition a student.[117] Following the section of the hearing concerning Paterson, the current headmaster John Weeks stated that the school had changed considerably since the end of Paterson's period in the role and that Knox's Paterson Centre for Ethics and Business Studies would be renamed.[115]

Weeks also gave evidence to the Royal Commission. During this hearing he was questioned over why he had not sacked the teacher who was arrested in 2009 despite having received allegations in 2007 that the teacher had behaved improperly with a student during the 1980s. Weeks told the media that the allegations had not been detailed or specific, and he had received advice that "it would have been difficult on industrial grounds" to have dismissed the teacher. Weeks also stated that he had reported the teacher to the police child protection unit, but the relevant police inspector gave evidence that a report had not been made.[118][119]
Click to expand...

Yeshiva, Melbourne and Yeshiva, Bondi[edit]
Testimony by victims of sexual abuse at two Chabad schools, Yeshiva in Melbourne and Yeshiva in Bondi, and school officials was given at the Commission. Witnesses included Manny Waks and his father. Several Chabad rabbis were found to have been publicly sermonizing that it was religiously forbidden to report child sex abuse to the police. The prohibition against reporting a fellow Jew to the authorities is referred to as Mesirah[120][121] As of 1 September 2015, four Chabad Rabbis had resigned in relation to the controversy.[122] As a consequence of the revelations, one Chabad institution’s Committee of Management was to be replaced and to have its Board of Trustees disbanded.[123]

Witnesses noted that not only were victims of abuse not protected, but those who reported abuse to the rabbis were shunned as "mosers" who commit "mesirah". The schools were accused of covering up multiple claims of sexual abuse at their institutions in the 1980s and 1990s,[121][124] and of retaliating against whistleblowers and victims.[120][124]
Click to expand...

Now if you want to talk about institutionalised religious pedophilia, or isn't this worth discussing because they are not Muslim.

LeftRightLeft · Nov 29, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable and you quote a Victorian law. Most of the child marriages that I have read about were in or from NSW.

Regardless ...

What really should be obvious is that a good proportion of 12 year old girls are still prepubescent. Puberty for girls is averaged out between 12 – 14. That means that many reach puberty before 12 or after 14.

The legal defence of consent also varies from state to state and is 13 years in Western Australia, 14 years in the Northern Territory, and 16 years in South Australia. Only in Victoria and Queensland is the defence of 'consent' set at 12. It appears that NSW is the only state sensible enough to have no set age limit regarding sexual consent issues regarding children under the legal age which is between 16 and 17 in all states.

A child may be regarded as 'willing' to engage in sexual behaviour but they do not have the emotional maturity to give 'consent'.

Trying to justify the legalities of child marriage is a far cry from the morality of the issue. It saddens me to think people even try to justify it. All it does is trivialise sexual abuse of children and they ARE children. This sort of trivialisation of the sexuality of children has absolutely no place in todays society.

They are vulnerable and a very long way from being either emotionally or physically mature and maybe at 12 some might want to mess around with boys close to their own age but marriage to men 15, 20, 30 years older? Give me a break. That's paedophilia in any normal persons' language.
Click to expand...

Wrong wrong wrong. I did not quote a Victorian law CULDAV did, I just commented that he lied about it.

Give ME a break. If you think an 18 year old marrying a 17 year old is pedophilia (it is child marriage) then it is sick.

Trivialise what. It is you who is trivialising it, trivialising the abuse that children undergo by pedophiles. Justify child marriage, how on earth do you get that I was justifying child marriage by pointing out a deliberate lie designed to do nothing more then sell guns and ammo.

You are right about one thing, the sort of trivialisation of the sexuality of children just to suit YOUR agenda has absolutely no place in today's society.

How any rational, caring and intelligent person could lump this

A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.

In a case that has brought awareness of secret child brides in Australia, the girl’s father and the 26-year-old man she “wed” were charged in February over numerous child sex offences.

Documents that formed part of a successful apprehended violence order application by police at the time against the girl’s “husband” state that the young girl “believed or had been informed that sharia law overrides the Australian law”.

The 26-year-old man accused of marrying a 12-year-old girl.
“She stated that together with the accused they had been trying to get him registered as her legal guardian with Centrelink in order to obtain any welfare benefits they could,” the court documents state.

The police allege in the AVO document that the 26-year-old man, who was charged with 25 counts of sexual intercourse with a child, admitted to officers on the day he was arrested that he had had sex with the girl daily since the religious ceremony in the living room of the girl’s Hunter Valley home on January 12.

“When questioned on this he showed no remorse and was confident that in doing this he had committed no crime,” the police documents state. His matter is still before the courts and he is being held at Villawood Detention Centre after his student visa was revoked.

The child and the Lebanese university student met at a mosque through the girl’s 62-year-old father who is a Muslim convert, police alleged.

The girl’s father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is charged with procuring a child for sex and accessory before the fact to sexual intercourse with a child.

Dressed in a traditional Islamic tunic, the father-of-seven fronted Burwood Local Court yesterday where he was committed to stand trial in the Sydney District Court.
Click to expand...

in the same category as this

was 1975. A frightened school boy knocked on the door of the Presbytery at the Catholic Cathedral in the old gold mining city of Ballarat. He was seeking the person his devout family had taught him to trust above all others – a priest. Deeply troubled, he had come about a terrible secret. Only 14, he had been raped numerous times over several years by Brother Robert Best and Brother Edward Dowlan while a student at St Alipius. The heavy door swung open, and there stood a priest.

The priest gave his answer to the child’s plea for help by taking him to a grubby toilet block in Lake Wendouree and raping him. As the boy was being raped, he stared in despair out of the window where he could see the palatial bluestone mansion that so handsomely housed the Bishop of Ballarat. The boy was Stephen Woods. The priest was the notorious paedophile Gerald Ridsdale.

Stephen was not alone. There were so many others. Like “Derek.” Incredibly, all four male teachers at St Alipius were child sexual abusers. “Derek” also suffered sexual abuse by three priests. It began with Dowlan in Grade Five and Best in Grade Six, while Ridsdale, his chaplain, assaulted him during confession. Later giving evidence in court, “Derek” spoke of “seeing the priest straddling one boy, while the other, who was bleeding from the anus, cried.”

Then there was the little deaf boy. Hearing impaired, he was used to being viciously beaten on the buttocks by the headmaster, Brother Robert Best, for nameless crimes. But a worse day came. Best anally raped him. So used to being punished he thought this was simply a worse – no, the worst – punishment. The distraught child returned to his Grade Three class in a state of high distress. His teacher, Brother Fitzgerald – also an abuser who died before being able to be prosecuted – interrogated him as to why he was so upset. When the little boy told of the rape in graphic terms, Fitzgerald flew into a rage and belted him. He asked again. “What happened?” The little boy repeated his account of the sexual assault. Fitzgerald continued to punch him. The child got the message. He retracted what he had said. He had not been raped.

The day you only copped a beating was a good day. There was nothing a priest could not do to a child, with impunity.
Click to expand...

and to do it just to create hatred towards an entire religion is vile and disgusting

You and the other hate mongers here who use the abuse of children as ammunition for your bigotry disgust me to the core.

Your facts on marriage are wrong too, without a court order the age is 18.

Marriageable age and the marriage of minors is dealt with in Part II (s10-21). In the original 1961 law, marriageable age was set at 16 for females and 18 for males, but the age was equalised in 1991 by the Sex Discrimination Amendment Act 1991[4] which raised the marriageable age of females to 18. If there are 'unusual and exceptional circumstances’, the marriage of one person aged 16 or 17 to another aged over 18 is possible, subject to the consent of the younger person's parents and authorisation by a court. Part II establishes the procedures required in this instance. Prior to the 1991 change, the 'unusual and exceptional circumstances' procedures applied to a girl aged 14 or 15 (wanting to marry a male aged 18 or above) or a male aged 16 or 17 (wanting to marry a female aged 16 or above).[5] For many years, courts have refused to accept the applicant's state of pregnancy as a pressing consideration in deciding whether to allow the marriage.[6]
Click to expand...

LeftRightLeft · Nov 29, 2016

culldav said: ↑

He attacks me over a number, but not the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12.

Why? He is an Islam/Muslim apologist. I suspect he is not being truthful himself about his real agenda, and has either converted or considering converting to Islam.

He demands facts and the truth from everyone else, but when his own fantasies and assumptions are confronted, he runs away like a coward, or just continues with more fantasies and assumptions until everyone gives up out of frustration.

Is there really any difference between a 9 year old child and a 12 year old child - except the number?
Click to expand...

Once again culdav and the truth seem to have got lost. I did not attack you over a number, I attacked you for deliberately lying. Not just in the statement, but in deliberately NOT showing the full law, which is where the 12 came in, so for your lie here, it is you who used numbers, you stated the age of 9, why, because it suits your Islamophobic rants, because it is more emotive, because you are too low to tell the truth. I never mentioned numbers in the law either, the number is in the law.

Your SECOND LIE, here ... the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. is another outright lie to defame me. THERE IS NO LAW IN AUSTRALIA that allows anyone to marry and have sex with children aged 12, 9, 14, 15, 11, or any age under 18, except if a court gives permission and the girls family gives permission and the judge rules that there is good cause to allow it.

Yes I do demand facts and truth from everyone including myself and if found to be incorrect I will immediately admit it as I did to Billy the Kid only a couple of days ago.

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face as you are still trying to pass off a law that is about consent, not the right to marry. Because you are so bloody dumb I will spell it out for you.

Consent, give permission. During a trial, if the girl is over 12 (according to the law you pointed out) gives or does not give her permission, and one or more of the other three conditions are met, the fact that she consented to the marriage, that is it was not a forced marriage, these factors will be used to determine sentencing etc, not guilt. In Australia, the person would be guilty with or without consent. If the girl however was under 12, then the court would not even consider consent at all.

It is you who has been untruthful either because you are a complete idiot or you deliberately mislead the forum to achieve YOUR agenda which is to spread your hatred of Muslims to as many gullible people as possible for self justification.

I have posted nothing that is a fantasy, unlike you, " the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. " which I do not believe is a fantasy nor an assumption but a deliberate misleading of the forum.

I run away from nothing, I will follow you until hell freezes over while ever you deliberately mislead the forum .

Calling me a coward and say I have converted to Islam or thinking about it is your usual response to insult to hide the weakness of your argument or it's lack of substance.

Is there really a difference between 9 and 12 when it comes to child abuse, no definitely not and I never implied there was, that is YOUR fantasy and or assumption, I was merely pointing out your lie. It stated 9 and the law stated 12, how could I have pointed it out without changing either the law or your lying statement when I wrote about it.

This is typical of your weak retorts, well I suppose they have to be weak when they have no substance.

Red Lily · Nov 29, 2016

It would be better if your posts were brief, concise and succinct or the point is totally lost. If you cannot express yourself in a few concise and succinct paragraphs you are either trying to blur the lines of discussion or you have no point.

I was responding to a specific post about child marriage and not about institutionalised religious paedophilia. I am well aware of institutionalised paedophilia and, by all means, make a topic or post relevant to that and I will condemn the practice there but this is where you do yourself no favours by trying to blur the lines, move the goal posts, abuse the poster instead of rationally discussing the post and trying to re-direct and deflect the discussion into other areas by way of diversion.

I honestly cannot see how introducing the topic of paedophilia in one sector lessens the impact of paedophilia in another. And here you are calling me a hateful liar and a bigot with an agenda? Your tactics are shameful and you are not worthy of debate no matter how many times you try to qualify yourself with alleged and unrelated diatribe.

What I find vile and disgusting is the way you try to separate and rationalise acts of paedophilia period.

cerberus · Nov 29, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

It would be better if your posts were brief, concise and succinct or the point is totally lost. If you cannot express yourself in a few concise and succinct paragraphs you are either trying to blur the lines of discussion or you have no point.

I was responding to a specific post about child marriage and not about institutionalised religious paedophilia. I am well aware of institutionalised paedophilia and, by all means, make a topic or post relevant to that and I will condemn the practice there but this is where you do yourself no favours by trying to blur the lines, move the goal posts, abuse the poster instead of rationally discussing the post and trying to re-direct and deflect the discussion into other areas by way of diversion.

I honestly cannot see how introducing the topic of paedophilia in one sector lessens the impact of paedophilia in another. And here you are calling me a hateful liar and a bigot with an agenda? Your tactics are shameful and you are not worthy of debate no matter how many times you try to qualify yourself with alleged and unrelated diatribe.

What I find vile and disgusting is the way you try to separate and rationalise acts of paedophilia period.
Click to expand...

It's the art of communicating.

Red Lily · Nov 29, 2016

cerberus said: ↑

It's the art of communicating.
Click to expand...

And many people could and would express those same 5 words in a 3/4 page spread. I am all for short and to the point.

cerberus · Nov 29, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

And many people could and would express those same 5 words in a 3/4 page spread. I am all for short and to the point.
Click to expand...

'succinct' - another of my fave words. Opposite of 'prolixity' I suppose.

Red Lily · Nov 29, 2016

cerberus said: ↑

'succinct' - another of my fave words. Opposite of 'prolixity' I suppose.
Click to expand...

Your supposition may very well be correct

cerberus · Nov 29, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

Your supposition may very well be correct
Click to expand...

Having said this (post 17) http://www.politicalforum.com/member-casual-chat/481160-whats-your-favourite-word-2.html , it just seems a paradox to then say 'succinct' is another fave word? Actually 'paradox' is yet another fave word too. Ooh I've got more fave words than I thought. Just sharing, RL!

culldav · Nov 29, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

Once again culdav and the truth seem to have got lost. I did not attack you over a number, I attacked you for deliberately lying. Not just in the statement, but in deliberately NOT showing the full law, which is where the 12 came in, so for your lie here, it is you who used numbers, you stated the age of 9, why, because it suits your Islamophobic rants, because it is more emotive, because you are too low to tell the truth. I never mentioned numbers in the law either, the number is in the law.

Your SECOND LIE, here ... the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. is another outright lie to defame me. THERE IS NO LAW IN AUSTRALIA that allows anyone to marry and have sex with children aged 12, 9, 14, 15, 11, or any age under 18, except if a court gives permission and the girls family gives permission and the judge rules that there is good cause to allow it.

Yes I do demand facts and truth from everyone including myself and if found to be incorrect I will immediately admit it as I did to Billy the Kid only a couple of days ago.

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face as you are still trying to pass off a law that is about consent, not the right to marry. Because you are so bloody dumb I will spell it out for you.

Consent, give permission. During a trial, if the girl is over 12 (according to the law you pointed out) gives or does not give her permission, and one or more of the other three conditions are met, the fact that she consented to the marriage, that is it was not a forced marriage, these factors will be used to determine sentencing etc, not guilt. In Australia, the person would be guilty with or without consent. If the girl however was under 12, then the court would not even consider consent at all.

It is you who has been untruthful either because you are a complete idiot or you deliberately mislead the forum to achieve YOUR agenda which is to spread your hatred of Muslims to as many gullible people as possible for self justification.

I have posted nothing that is a fantasy, unlike you, " the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. " which I do not believe is a fantasy nor an assumption but a deliberate misleading of the forum.

I run away from nothing, I will follow you until hell freezes over while ever you deliberately mislead the forum .

Calling me a coward and say I have converted to Islam or thinking about it is your usual response to insult to hide the weakness of your argument or it's lack of substance.

Is there really a difference between 9 and 12 when it comes to child abuse, no definitely not and I never implied there was, that is YOUR fantasy and or assumption, I was merely pointing out your lie. It stated 9 and the law stated 12, how could I have pointed it out without changing either the law or your lying statement when I wrote about it.

This is typical of your weak retorts, well I suppose they have to be weak when they have no substance.
Click to expand...

If you are truly against paedophilia and child sexual abuse.

Then say the words we expect you to say: I condemn Islam and Muslims who condone forced child marriages and child sexual relations with adults.

You should know by now that playing the victim mentality card, and tangent diversions doesn't work on me - only the truth.

culldav · Nov 29, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

Once again culdav and the truth seem to have got lost. I did not attack you over a number, I attacked you for deliberately lying. Not just in the statement, but in deliberately NOT showing the full law, which is where the 12 came in, so for your lie here, it is you who used numbers, you stated the age of 9, why, because it suits your Islamophobic rants, because it is more emotive, because you are too low to tell the truth. I never mentioned numbers in the law either, the number is in the law.

Your SECOND LIE, here ... the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. is another outright lie to defame me. THERE IS NO LAW IN AUSTRALIA that allows anyone to marry and have sex with children aged 12, 9, 14, 15, 11, or any age under 18, except if a court gives permission and the girls family gives permission and the judge rules that there is good cause to allow it.

Yes I do demand facts and truth from everyone including myself and if found to be incorrect I will immediately admit it as I did to Billy the Kid only a couple of days ago.

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face as you are still trying to pass off a law that is about consent, not the right to marry. Because you are so bloody dumb I will spell it out for you.

Consent, give permission. During a trial, if the girl is over 12 (according to the law you pointed out) gives or does not give her permission, and one or more of the other three conditions are met, the fact that she consented to the marriage, that is it was not a forced marriage, these factors will be used to determine sentencing etc, not guilt. In Australia, the person would be guilty with or without consent. If the girl however was under 12, then the court would not even consider consent at all.

It is you who has been untruthful either because you are a complete idiot or you deliberately mislead the forum to achieve YOUR agenda which is to spread your hatred of Muslims to as many gullible people as possible for self justification.

I have posted nothing that is a fantasy, unlike you, " the law that allows his Muslim friends to marry and have sex with children aged 12. " which I do not believe is a fantasy nor an assumption but a deliberate misleading of the forum.

I run away from nothing, I will follow you until hell freezes over while ever you deliberately mislead the forum .

Calling me a coward and say I have converted to Islam or thinking about it is your usual response to insult to hide the weakness of your argument or it's lack of substance.

Is there really a difference between 9 and 12 when it comes to child abuse, no definitely not and I never implied there was, that is YOUR fantasy and or assumption, I was merely pointing out your lie. It stated 9 and the law stated 12, how could I have pointed it out without changing either the law or your lying statement when I wrote about it.

This is typical of your weak retorts, well I suppose they have to be weak when they have no substance.
Click to expand...

Just a really basic question. Any reason why you have not condemned Islam or Muslims for condoning child marriage and child sexual abuse?

billy the kid · Nov 29, 2016

......

LeftRightLeft · Nov 29, 2016

culldav said: ↑

If you are truly against paedophilia and child sexual abuse.

Then say the words we expect you to say: I condemn Islam and Muslims who condone forced child marriages and child sexual relations with adults.

You should know by now that playing the victim mentality card, and tangent diversions doesn't work on me - only the truth.
Click to expand...

I condemn Islamists and Muslims, Christians, Jews, all religions, all indigenous peoples, all atheists and agnostics, anyone at all who condone or practice or preach, forced child marriages and child sexual relations with adults.

I condemn all religions, churches, priests and laypersons etc that protect, harbour or excuse child sexual relations with adults.

I condemn all who denigrate the victims of pedophilia by putting these poor souls in the same basket as child marriage victims.

A marriage to a pre pubescent child is not only a child marriage, it is pedophilia, however not all child marriage is pedophilia, that is by definition of child marriage in Australia it is when someone under 18 marries someone over 18. If a 17 year old marries an 18 year old that is child marriage but as the female is over the "Age of consent", 16 in Australia, it is not illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with them, however, without her parental consent and the affirmative ruling of a court, it is illegal in Australia for them to marry.

In Australia it is illegal and rightfully so for a male or female, under the age of 16, to have sexual relations with anyone over 16.

I condemn all who denigrate people for spreading unsubstantiated propaganda to justify their hatred of a particular belief or lifestyle.

I condemn all websites and their followers who spread hate speech.

I condemn (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who don't already know all this as I have said it over and over again.

I condemn all people who follow racist and bigoted groups, organisations or web sites.

I don't believe in Islam, Christianity or Judaism or any known religious belief, known being known by me.

This answer to me is charity as I have stated all these things many times before, but as you are slow on the uptake and determined to spread hatred I will oblige.,

billy the kid · Nov 29, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

I condemn Islamists and Muslims, Christians, Jews, all religions, all indigenous peoples, all atheists and agnostics, anyone at all who condone or practice or preach, forced child marriages and child sexual relations with adults.

I condemn all religions, churches, priests and laypersons etc that protect, harbour or excuse child sexual relations with adults.

I condemn all who denigrate the victims of pedophilia by putting these poor souls in the same basket as child marriage.

I condemn all who denigrate people for spreading unsubstantiated propaganda to justify their hatred of a particular belief or lifestyle.

I condemn all websites and their followers who spread hate speech.

I condemn (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who don't already know all this as I have said it over and over again.

I condemn all people who follow racist and bigoted groups, organisations or web sites.

I don't believe in Islam, Christianity or Judaism or any known religious belief, known being known by me.

This answer to me is charity as I have sated all these things many times before.
Click to expand...

.

Would you like to re-word para 4

LeftRightLeft · Nov 29, 2016

billy the kid said: ↑

.

Would you like to re-word para 4
Click to expand...

Sure, I condemn all websites and their followers who spread hate speech, especially those that propagate it ad nauseum.

billy the kid · Nov 29, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

Sure, I condemn all websites and their followers who spread hate speech, especially those that propagate it ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Excellent.

truthvigilante · Nov 30, 2016

LeftRightLeft said: ↑

Sure, I condemn all websites and their followers who spread hate speech, especially those that propagate it ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who Billy goat thinks he's preaching to but he is working hard pointlessly.

billy the kid · Nov 30, 2016

truthvigilante said: ↑

I'm not sure who Billy goat thinks he's preaching to but he is working hard pointlessly.
Click to expand...

Youd know truth wanker...

LeftRightLeft · Nov 30, 2016

truthvigilante said: ↑

I'm not sure who Billy goat thinks he's preaching to but he is working hard pointlessly.
Click to expand...

Winchester munitions and the Zionists, they are the ones behind Jihadwatch et al and the ones who have most to gain

truthvigilante · Nov 30, 2016

billy the kid said: ↑

Youd know truth wanker...
Click to expand...

Not sure, Do I?

Red Lily · Nov 30, 2016

cerberus said: ↑

Having said this (post 17) http://www.politicalforum.com/member-casual-chat/481160-whats-your-favourite-word-2.html , it just seems a paradox to then say 'succinct' is another fave word? Actually 'paradox' is yet another fave word too. Ooh I've got more fave words than I thought. Just sharing, RL!
Click to expand...

Copacetic kind of rolls off the tongue.

cerberus · Nov 30, 2016

Red Lily said: ↑

Copacetic kind of rolls off the tongue.
Click to expand...

I'll have to find out how to pronounce it before I give my approval.

m2catter · Dec 2, 2016

It took so long, our consciousness is finally waking up:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-02/turnbull-condemns-refugee-protests-at-parliament/8087354

Turnbull doesn't want to anger the right side of his party, fair enough, he wants to stay in power.

But guess what, Aussies are waking up.

First we helped to set the Middle East alight, and then we say no to their refugees....

Thanks God for the Greens,
cheers

Log in or Sign up

Australia, the UN, and Refugees

culldav Well-Known Member

Red Lily Banned

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

culldav Well-Known Member

culldav Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

m2catter Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Australia, the UN, and Refugees

culldav Well-Known Member

Red Lily Banned

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

culldav Well-Known Member

culldav Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

billy the kid Well-Known Member

truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

billy the kid Well-Known Member

LeftRightLeft Well-Known Member

truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

Red Lily Banned

cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

m2catter Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches