Child sex now legal in Australia….. if you are black.

Great Debates
41

No, I am saying that under some special circumstances being speared IS the legal recourse. See here:

Common ground rare as laws of the land collide

In regards to claims of pedophilia and rape and child sexual abuse I will point out that historically its a very peculiar notion that a 15 year old is a child. A 15 year old is old enough to breed and old enough to kill and the arbitrary age distinction that you and I are accustomed to as well as your objection to arranged marriages is not the historical norm but rather an aberration.

As for infanticide I am not aware of any cases or law surrounding it. Even if it was tolerated I suggest outrage would be misplaced given that contemporary America permits millions of ‘children’ to be cut up and sucked out of their mothers with vacuum cleaners every year. I happen to be pro-choice but I dont see how we can pretend any great moral superiority here.

42

Yes Eolbo - I do indeed smell the slightest odious hint of double standards on the part of those few (but loud) posters in this thread who would willingly choose to take the high moral ground on this matter. As I noted earlier, it’s impossible to discuss the facts of this case AND also reserve the right to throw around the classic “hot button” buzz words we’re seeing here.

Your final paragraph, shocking as it is, eminently demonstrates the inherent selective morality which is at work here.

Indeed, with hindsight, I’m going to be perfectly frank and accuse the author of this thread as having some out and out condescending racist issues towards Aborgines - as in, the poster himself gives off all the air of being some form of superior evolved human being who has little but disdain for Aborigines.

I make that statement in light of this thread’s title - and the arguements which have followed. I refer to this comment…

Historians will note that such rhetoric is PRECISELY the sort of rhetoric used 150 years or more ago to justify the reasoning that both indigninous North Americans and indiginous Australians were somehow “less human”. It’s very scary reading to be honest.

The assertion by Blake that Aborigines practised infanticide “traditionally” is the first I’ve ever heard of such a thing - and at the very least, it indicates a rather disdainful and prejudiced attitude towards Aborigines.

43

I would disagree with the idea that such a thing is really desirable. While things may have been done like this in various cultures, research suggests that theres a variety of reasons why tis not really good for the welfare of the child, and yes 15 can still be considered paedophilia, people often confuse clinical and legal definitions in this regard.

But whats desirable and whats possible are two different things,
how to deal with these issues is not always easy as some people think. Both cultural relativism and cultural imperialism are real risks, which is why any its ok/not ok answer without a lot more information is basically a waste of time.

Given the whole thing seems to be more a case of magistrates not knowing the entire facts of the case when making a decision, the original posters outrage seems at the very least, misplaced.

Otara

44

Why do I think she initially consented? Yes, I grant you that it is an inference, not a certainty.

I made this inference because the girl initially went there with her parents to get married. I don’t know why she went. Maybe she trusted her parents (weird, eh? Who would do that?!). Maybe she thought it would be a big thing, having a wedding and being all grown up.

Her parents clearly weren’t enforcing this heavy-handedly, as they were right in there trying to take her away when it all went horribly wrong. So I infer that if she had initially objected, they would probably not have forced her to go, judging by their subsequent behaviour. Not only did they not attempt to force her to stay, but also they actively tried to rescue her.

The objections some people seem to have to the marriage are clearly cultural. Age differences, arranged marriages, bride payments or dowries… all common in various cultures across history. And there’s no clear evidence to suggest that arranged marriages are less successful then ones chosen by individuals. (Nor the other way, either, because lower divorce rates aren’t a good indicator due to different cultural attitudes to divorce.)

I think this is all a side track. The treatment of the real crimes of violence was horribly bungled. That’s the real serious problem. Not whether her marriage should have been legally recognised.

45

All right, cajela, it is possible that she consented. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is possible. In any case, the girl and her parents would not cooperate with a rape charge.

And I do think that the statutory rape charge should never have been brought up.

However, what about just getting the girl out of there? She wanted to leave, and the guy produced a shotgun.

I don’t know if it is traditional for wives not to be able to leave, and to be forced to stay with threats of death, but even if it is I see no reason to support that tradition.

46

Then why intentionally equivocate? And equivocation it usually is, meant to sensationalize statutory rape.

47

It’s up there with the half dozen other ‘scare stories’ that have been spread about the Aborigines. No worse than the big one about 2 years ago where someone declared that they were all cannibals or some such nonsense. We eagerly await the next earth shattering revelation…:dubious:

48

::wandering in to nitpick::

It’s Aboriginal, Koori, Murri or other local terms but not Aborigine. ATSIC prefers Aboriginal and the Style Manual says “While usage research shows that ‘Aborigine(s)’ is used in a wide range of publications without disparaging overtones, sensitivity to a group’s preferences should be a major consideration when writing about them.”

Sorry, I’ll go away now. I’m really not sure what I think about where the boundaries lie between Aboriginal law and Australian law when it comes to traditional marriage and the like. I’m inclined to think that it is a domestic violence issue as opposed to a child sex issue but I’m still revolted by the age difference.

49

:confused:

Could you elaborate, Primaflora? All the style guides I’ve seen have suggested “Aboriginal” as the adjective and “Aborigine” as the noun. University style guides and equal opportunity guidelines that I can find on the web agree. I’ve never seen sensitivity displayed towards the word “Aborigine” before. (In fact, here’s a Google results page returning 21 incidences of “Aborigine” (none discussing style) at www.atsic.gov.au.)

50

yes 15 can still be considered paedophilia, people often confuse clinical and legal definitions in this regard.

Then why intentionally equivocate? And equivocation it usually is, meant to sensationalize statutory rape.

They used an accurate term. I would say its more you who are equivopcating by insisting they can only use one definition of it, when both are perfectly valid, and we are after all talking here about a legal case, so personally I see no problem with using the legal definition.

And clinical distinctions are more about setting categories out than necessarliy implying that one form is less serious than the other as you seem to be trying to say.

Otara

51

I’m saying people often equivocate by assuming that those with the clinical condition are sexually active. It also works the other way, by the implication that the victim was much younger than would be believed had the term “Statutory” been applied.

One form can’t be more serious than the other: they are in unrelated categories and so cannot be compared. One is a technical crime, the other is a mental disorder.

In this case, it should be easy enough to show regular 'ol abuse (if not assault), so the laws regarding statutory would seem to be moot anyway.

52

Narrad, I’m surprised by that. The reference I’m using is Style Manual for authors, editors and printers 6th edition. The copyright’s held by the Commonwealth of Australia and it’s the Australian version of the MLA. If you want to continue to discuss it, maybe we could start a thread or take it to email? I didn’t mean to hijack – my editorial senses were just prickling at seeing something so constantly in this thread that I had been taught so firmly is wrong.

53

FWIW, I always use “aboriginal.” It just feels right.

54

On the question of terminology, “Aborigine” or “Aboriginal”, the rules are in a slow but constant state of flux and new government edicts at both the State and Federal level come out, from time to time, to provide all of the unenlightened citizenry with the latest ruling on what constitutes correct-speak.

For example, the latest edict from the New South Wales Govt. declares that the abbreviation “ATSI” (for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) should not be routinely used because New South Wales has hardly any Torres Strait Islanders. The term “Aboriginal” is now the preferred term for New South Wales. (Note that the NSW Aboriginal reps pressed for this).

However, at the Australian Commonwealth Govt. (ie. Federal) level, this is not the case, as they still have to look at the broader picture. So you can be right in one context and remain hopelessly unenlightened in another. The trick is to be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Eventually, the day might come when we can all deal with each other as individuals, but until that day comes we should all be prepared to compromise a little, keep your antennae in good working order to identify the taboo du jour, and take each case as it comes.

On the underage/consent aspect, the Judge was probably right to not press the point too hard, despite all of the modern trappings (shotgun, welfare) surrounding the disputing family groups involved.

Aboriginal customs, whether we like it or not, are slowly succumbing to the dominant European culture surrounding it, and modern Aboriginals have already left a large part of their tribal heritage behind.

But what is European culture, anyway. It has not remained a constant. After all, how well do you think any of you would cope if you suddenly found yourself in 16th Century London (or any other European city of that period). That’s European “culture”, but there’s an even money chance you wouldn’t survive a week.

I, for one, am happy that the European culture of the 16th C (or 17th C-19th C for that matter) is no longer with us.

There are a number of Aboriginals who have no desire to live under the “old ways” but they do not form a part of any action group that currently has the ear of government.

55

Some additional background

NT court cracks down on child brides

Ah, the Rape Was Traditional -EquityFeminism.Com
The article below is not about the specific case but does directly address the legal handling of issues when the traditional Aboriginal and Australian statutory legal systems conflict.

AN OPPORTUNITY LOST FOR ABORIGINAL SELF-DETERMINATION: AUSTRALIA’S COMPLIANCE WITH ILO 169

56

astro,

IOW, at the moment, it’s NOT legal to have sex with a spouse under 16 as an Aboriginal in Australia.

Guess that kind of renders the indignation in this thread as useless.

57

I have no clue. I am not an Australian, but was just providing what seemed to be some legal/historical context to the issue. In reading the historical overview referenced in my post the bottom line seems to be that cultural traditions will be respected only so long as they do not directly conflict with Australian Statutory law, and that even if they do the in judical interpretation leeway is pretty fexible in making this determination.

This seems to be the relevant passage quated below - (bolding mine) and I would imagine this may be what the Judge’s decison is partially predicated on, although I’m sure one of our Australian dopers will be along shortly to spank me soundly for making this assumption.

58

My, my, my - all sorts of shouting going on here.

We have an inflammatory thread title, possibly racist remarks, lots of “hot buttom” terms flying around… gosh it’s noisy in here.

OK, I share some concern - HOWEVER, before I get all outraged there are some questions I need answered:

  1. Is the man and woman/child in question members of a “traditional” or “native” society - that is, were they born into such a society? Have they lived in such a society most/all of their lives? Do they speak English at home or a tribal lanuage? Here in the US, Native Americans on tribal lands have different laws/responsibilities/privileges/duties than non-NA folks do, but a NA living in the Bronx, outside of traditional culture, working and living in the mainstream US culture, does NOT have such privileges.

  2. What are the marriage customs of that particular group in question? Even sitting here literally halfway around the world from Australia I know that the “Aboriginal People” were really a large and diverse number of different groups and did not hold all customs in common. In some tribes no one had any choice in marriage partner, neither men nor women, it was all dictated by tribal law and custom. In others, there was significant freedom of choice. In some, dowries and bride payments existed, in others they did not. Some groups had a pattern where a person in their 40’s or 50’s would marry someone in their teens (both old women and old men), then, as time passed the elder would die and the younger partner (now older) would, again, marry a much younger person than themselves. In which case, a 50 year marrying a 15 year old WOULD be seen as normal, healthy, and expected and two 15 year olds marrying might be seen as bizarre.

  3. Does this tribe in question bother with keeping track of people’s ages? Becuase a lot of hunter/gatherer and pastoral/herding societies did not bother with ages. When a girl started menstruating she was considered marriagable, when she had a baby she was a full adult - whether either of those events happened at 12 or at 18. They used physical maturity as a criteria, not chronological age. If this is a group that used the “menstruation” yardstick for female adulthood then in the context of that particular culture, if she was menstruating then she was not a child and this was not child rape or pedophillia.

  4. What about the status of women in this tribe? Again, this sort of thing varies in cultures. There have been, and still are, cultures with all the trappings of “civilization” that do NOT permit women a voice in their marriage - a woman of any age has no “rights” to speak of in these matters. Indeed, there are a number of cultures in this world where women can not even leave their house without permission from a male gaurdian - father, husband, or grown son. Do I think it right, do I agree with this? No! But I also recognize that my disgust at the notion does nothing to change those cultures.

  5. Did he actually
    a) Abuse a former wife?
    b) Kill a former wife?
    c) Beat this girl at any time?
    Because it’s not obvious to me that he is 100% guilty of any of the above - there is no proof of the above offered, it’s his word against someone else’s (and either party may be lying or biased)

  6. What, if any, agreement exists between the government of Australia and this tribe/group of Aboriginals? In the US, actual treaties do exist between the Native American tribes and the Federal government. Where tribal law applies vs. where US law applies has been formalized. What is the case in Australia?

Sure, it’s easy to get outraged over an out-of-context quote about something halfway around the world, but if everyone involved was from a tribe still living (or trying to) a traditional lifestyle with traditional customs, a tribe where marriages were normally arranged by families, bride price paid, and elder-marries-younger the norm and the basis for “is she old enough to marry?” is “If she’s menstruating, she’s an adult”, then it looks a heckuva lot more like a spat between in-laws to me than rape, assault, or a problem marriage. On the other hand, if beatings DID occur, or arranged marriages are NOT traditional in this group, or various other incongruities come to light then yes, there’s a basis for dragging this into court.

59

I have no problem with the aspects of underage sex – except for the fact that laws are applied differently to different people. What I have a problem with is that, apparently, there was a lot of ammo for other charges to be filed, and were glossed over! Of course, I don’t have all the information, so it’s possible this was overstated by the press.
But to the people who insist that they find marriage between a 15 and 50 year old bizarre: would you implement policy on this vague, cultural feeling, rather than solid reasons such as health?

60

Umm… “solid reasons such as health?”

What exactly are you talking about? Pregnancy dangers for 15 and 16 year olds have a lot more to do with ignorance of inadequate pre-natal care of the child and themselves than inherent physiological problems in giving birth. How is it going to be substantially more dangerous for a 15 year old bush girl or villager to give birth than an 18 year girl/woman in the same situation?