Child protection

[RNReindeer]

You think it makes sense to intentionally deceive others. That's your moral high ground.
Speak up!
Provide the links/source of your material.

 

[RNReindeer]

Shameful stuff. I dare say reindeer and his cronies will soon shift into "apologist" mode.

Not apologist mode, denial mode.

The apologists/deniers have been very clever, and should have been politicians.

Certainly throughout the last couple of pages, they have managed to divert interest away from the matter in hand by encouraging argument and name-calling.

I have yet to hear them openly deny that 'certain cultures', even in this country, see marriage and sex with under-age girls as quite acceptable.

Explain to us, JBR, as an ex-teacher, how would you have marked pupils' work if they included material from others without providing the references?
It must be considered plagiarism.
How would you explain to your pupils that inclusion of others' work without references is academically unacceptable?
Therefore, any un-referenced material presented in an argument is IMO inadmissable.
Would you not agree?

I can only assume by your prolific thwanking that you think it's academically acceptable.

 

[Brigadier]

Family law

Laws relating to marriage, divorce, children and inheritance are not codified and fall within the general jurisdiction of the Sharia courts.[90]

Polygamy is permitted for men but is limited to four wives at any one time.[91] There is evidence that its practice has increased, particularly among the educated Hejazi elite, as a result of oil wealth.[92] The government has promoted polygamy as part of a return to "Islamic values" program.[92] In 2001, the Grand Mufti (the highest religious authority) issued a fatwa, or opinion, calling upon Saudi women to accept polygamy as part of the Islamic package and declaring that polygamy was necessary "to fight against...the growing epidemic of spinsterhood".[92] There is no minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia and the Grand Mufti reportedly said in 2009 that girls of the age of 10 or 12 were marriageable.[93]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system_of_Saudi_Arabia#Family_law

 

[RNReindeer]

Family law

Laws relating to marriage, divorce, children and inheritance are not codified and fall within the general jurisdiction of the Sharia courts.[90]

Polygamy is permitted for men but is limited to four wives at any one time.[91] There is evidence that its practice has increased, particularly among the educated Hejazi elite, as a result of oil wealth.[92] The government has promoted polygamy as part of a return to "Islamic values" program.[92] In 2001, the Grand Mufti (the highest religious authority) issued a fatwa, or opinion, calling upon Saudi women to accept polygamy as part of the Islamic package and declaring that polygamy was necessary "to fight against...the growing epidemic of spinsterhood".[92] There is no minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia and the Grand Mufti reportedly said in 2009 that girls of the age of 10 or 12 were marriageable.[93]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system_of_Saudi_Arabia#Family_law[/QUOTE]
Thank you, Brigadier for your referenced contribution.
However, obviously the UK (and other) governments have no problem with Saudi law and customs:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have long been close allies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_Kingdom_relations[/QUOTE]

 

[Brigadier]

Thank you, Brigadier for your referenced contribution.
However, obviously the UK (and other) governments have no problem with Saudi law and customs:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have long been close allies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_Kingdom_relations[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Not no problem.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ry-of-concern/saudi-arabia-country-of-concern

Do you have a problem with "girls of 10 or 12 being marriageable"?

 

[RNReindeer]

Thank you, Brigadier for your referenced contribution.
However, obviously the UK (and other) governments have no problem with Saudi law and customs:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have long been close allies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_Kingdom_relations[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Not no problem.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ncern/saudi-arabia-country-of-concern[/QUOTE]
Fair comment, Brigadier. I accept your corrections.
But the UK feels that it's OK to continue with the good relations whilst trying to persuade the Saudis to modify some areas of their politics.

Do you have a problem with "girls of 10 or 12 being marriageable"?

It's irrelevant. I'm not resident in Saudi Arabia and not subject to sharia law.
It's certainly not something that I would feel comfortable about, but I'm not comfortable with circumcision, etc, either.
I'm not comfortable with French inheritance laws. I'm not comfortable with loads of other culture's practices.
But I don't hold disdainful views on those people because they have different, even sometimes distasteful, customs to us.
If we all had disdainful views of other's cultures the world would be a very intolerant place.
There are times when we must respect other peoples customs, times when we may try to dissuade them, from what we consider distasteful, even abhorrent, cutsoms. And times when we must absolutely refuse to accept or ignore some practices.

I believe that the marriagable age in Saudi falls into the middle category.
But we shouldn't fall out with Saudi over it.
Additionally, we have no statistics on the frequency of the incidents.

Moreover, I think the age of consent was 14 in France not so long ago, and still is in Austria.
In Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Netherlands the age of consent is 12.
In Australia there is no legal age of female to female consent, yet there are for other relationships. (M-F 16, M-M 18 )

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

So there are loads of anomalies.
Strange that you, and others highlighted sharia law.

 

[Brigadier]

Strange that you, and others highlighted sharia law.

Why?

Sharia law (Arabic: شريع&#1577 is the body of Islamic law.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law

 

[Brigadier]

Also, taking your Austria age-of-consent example (forgive any idiosyncrasies of Google translation)

(4) If the age of the offender is not more than three years, the age of the underage person, there is a sexual act not in the penetration with an object and has the fact neither serious bodily injury (§ 84 para. 1) or the death of the underage person result, the offender is in accordance with para. 1 and 2 do not punish, unless the underage person had not yet reached the age of 13.


It seems to read that , although the age of consent is 14, this is qualified by the age of the older person being not more than three years greater than that of the younger.


http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40023134/NOR40023134.html

 

[RNReindeer]

Strange that you, and others highlighted sharia law.

Why?

Sharia law (Arabic: شريع&#1577 is the body of Islamic law.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law[/QUOTE]
But why not highlight the more deserving cases?

Child marriages were common throughout history for a variety of reasons, including poverty, insecurity, as well as for political and financial reasons. Today, child marriages are still fairly widespread in some developing countries, such as parts of Africa, South Asia, Southeast and East Asia, West Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage[/QUOTE]
It's this pre-occupation with islamic practices that determine your, and others, islamophobia.

 

[RNReindeer]

Also, taking your Austria age-of-consent example (forgive any idiosyncrasies of Google translation)

(4) If the age of the offender is not more than three years, the age of the underage person, there is a sexual act not in the penetration with an object and has the fact neither serious bodily injury (§ 84 para. 1) or the death of the underage person result, the offender is in accordance with para. 1 and 2 do not punish, unless the underage person had not yet reached the age of 13.


It seems to read that , although the age of consent is 14, this is qualified by the age of the older person being not more than three years greater than that of the younger.


http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40023134/NOR40023134.html[/QUOTE]
I think you've mis-read it.
Para 1 refers to underage, and para 2 refers to enticing/coercing an underage person into sexual acts with a third party for personal gratification.
Thus if the under-age person is coerced or enticed into sexual acts, but the offender is less than three years senior, do not punish, unless death, injury or pregnancy occurs, or the underage person is not yet 13.
Note that 13 is less than 14!
Therefore, sexual acts are allowable for 13 year old children, if the offender is younger than 16.
But at 14 years old there is no offender.

But admittedly, it did take a bit of re-writing to make sense of it.

Additionally,

The age of consent for heterosexual and lesbian sex is 14 in Austria. For gays it is 18.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/austria.htm[/QUOTE]

 

[Brigadier]

Strange that you, and others highlighted sharia law.

Why?

Sharia law (Arabic: شريع&#1577 is the body of Islamic law.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law[/QUOTE]
But why not highlight the more deserving cases?

It's this pre-occupation with islamic practices that determine your, and others, islamophobia.

Because almost all of this thread has been about Islamic practices / prejudices, and therefore it is relevant to use relevant examples.

A number of posters have claimed institutionalised / cultural "abuse" of minors, as part of Islamic practice.
Noseall claimed the photo to be a hoax - I presume to (by association) dismiss the unevidenced claims of the others.

I was merely putting forward what I believed to be referenced evidence, that I considered relevant to the content of the majority of the thread.

You're looking for what isn't there, again

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ah, but that is equally 'clever' by implying that not stating the obvious means that they find it acceptable.

Can you explain this paragraph please and how it fits in with recent posts? You can quote any of my posts in your explanation if you like.

My post was immediately following and in response to JBR's (which was as follows)

Shameful stuff. I dare say reindeer and his cronies will soon shift into "apologist" mode.

Not apologist mode, denial mode.

The apologists/deniers have been very clever, and should have been politicians.
Certainly throughout the last couple of pages, they have managed to divert interest away from the matter in hand by encouraging argument and name-calling.
I have yet to hear them openly deny that 'certain cultures', even in this country, see marriage and sex with under-age girls as quite acceptable.

He has stated that some had diverted the thread so that they would not have to condemn the practices because they presumably agree with them.
I merely pointed out that he was doing the same by presuming this.

And then -

Much like anyone stating that most muslims are just ordinary people implies the same.

Oh look, another reference to muslims, what a surprise! Can you explain/justify this paragraph please? Feel free to quote me any time in your explanation.

Do I need to? It is correct English.

Ok. PAEDOPHILIA IS BAD. Does anyone disagree?

It's worse than bad, it is evil. Not all child abusers are Muslim. Does anyone agree?

I think we agree. You obviously misread/misunderstood my post.

 

[RNReindeer]

Strange that you, and others highlighted sharia law.

Why?

Sharia law (Arabic: شريع&#1577 is the body of Islamic law.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law[/QUOTE]
But why not highlight the more deserving cases?

The majority of cases have nothing to do with Islamic cultural practises.

It's this pre-occupation with islamic practices that determine your, and others, islamophobia.

Because almost all of this thread has been about Islamic practices / prejudices, and therefore it is relevant to use relevant examples.

A number of posters have claimed institutionalised / cultural "abuse" of minors, as part of Islamic practice.
Noseall claimed the photo to be a hoax - I presume to (by association) dismiss the unevidenced claims of the others.

I was merely putting forward what I believed to be referenced evidence, that I considered relevant to the content of the majority of the thread.

You're looking for what isn't there, again

The OP was about sexually inappropriate behaviour with the view to times and ages.
It then deteriorated into the usual and inevitable islamophobic diatribes, by the usual culpits, handjackoff and nocon, liberally supported by JBR.
Rather than bring it back on track, you were content to persue that islamophobic direction.

 

[RNReindeer]

Referring back to the OP, I suspect that there are a lot of sex offenders in, and out of, prison who would not have been guilty of any offence had they "committed their offence" in another European country.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

 

[Norcon]

Shameful stuff. I dare say reindeer and his cronies will soon shift into "apologist" mode.

It certainly is shameful when some posters try to deceive others with fake images and imaginary quotes from google.

Have the decency and honesty to provide your sources of your material.

It's also shameful when retired teachers are so gullible that they're thwanking these posters for their contribution.

Google is the source. Same as your source. Except most of your links are biased propaganda.