The Hazards of Belief

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

Why?

"Danish imam urges govt to accept child marriages among refugees"

...is a gross simplification of what hes saying. He does not want child marriage introduced in Denmark either.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Comparing this with other scenarios is simply deflecting from the issue at hand.

not really; I'm not trying to take attention away from it, I'm trying to draw attention to it. Just not in the way that seems to suit you.

galljga1 wrote: »

I worry about your stance outlined in the high lighted text above. It this case, we are talking about adults having sex with children. Quite simply, this is wrong and for any person or religion to state otherwise is wrong and in this case, the Danish authorities acted correctly.

Children according to our own cultural standard; adults by others, and biologically sexually mature, so the categorisation is more than a little subjective. Whether or not it is wrong is a cultural judgement, and whether or not the Danes should be imposing their cultural judgements on people who have no desire to be part of their culture is what I have been questioning.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't actually say out of kilter with history? I said out of kilter with almost every culture in the history of civilization. Not that history is irrelevant mind you; history encompasses the rationale and construction of our legal systems, so it's fairly relevant.
Anyway, I wasn't asking if the standard was objective; I was saying that we should be considering Denmarks actions objectively, so as not to allow our cultural bias interfere with respectful treatment of refugees. Cultural bias that might lead people to imagine that such refugees will produce dysfunctional offspring, or can't possibly make good parents, or are a critical mass of people incompatible with the west. That sort of thing, you know?

Denmark is treating them fairly as in they are being treated the same as everyone within the border of Denmark. And while everyone can be critical of certain laws , this one is wholly in keeping with how a modern society would behave to protect the vulnerable and to protect the values of its society. There is no reason to make exceptions.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

"Danish imam urges govt to accept child marriages among refugees"

...is a gross simplification of what hes saying. He does not want child marriage introduced in Denmark either.

its a headline, that is why you read the article. the article doesnt suggest that he campaigned for child marriage to be introduced. I took it to mean that an underage girl arrives married. No country would change their laws to allow muslims to marry under age girls so its kind of moot

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

not really; I'm not trying to take attention away from it, I'm trying to draw attention to it. Just not in the way that seems to suit you.
Children according to our own cultural standard; adults by others, and biologically sexually mature, so the categorisation is more than a little subjective. Whether or not it is wrong is a cultural judgement, and whether or not the Danes should be imposing their cultural judgements on people who have no desire to be part of their culture is what I have been questioning.

Suiting me or not suiting me is irrelevant. We are talking about Denmark. They are applying their laws to people living within the country's borders.

Again, categorisation being subjective, differing cultural judgements, or persons having no desire to be part of the culture of the country in which they are domiciled is irrelevant. They are in Denmark and are subject to Danish law.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Denmark is treating them fairly as in they are being treated the same as everyone within the border of Denmark. And while everyone can be critical of certain laws , this one is wholly in keeping with how a modern society would behave to protect the vulnerable and to protect the values of its society. There is no reason to make exceptions.

Well, it may be treating them fairly within it's own cultural context (though I think separating couples is not something most Danish or Western Europeans would agree with within their own cultural context). Whether it's appropriate to use that standard of fairness when dealing with people from another culture who are not attempting to, and have no desire to, be part of the Danish culture is what I'm questioning.
Danish law on the age of consent is only wholly in keeping with their/our perception of what a 'modern society' should do; it's certainly not in keeping with other societies view, nor is it objectively justifiable as what a modern society ought to do.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not disputing whether in Denmark they are legally married; I'm contending with Denmarks right to separate them, and whether it would be considered appropriate to separate a same sex couple on the same basis.

There is a difference between "not recognising" foreign contracts which would be illegal in the home country, and actually breaking them up. The latter only happens when some illegal act is taking place in the home country. So in this context, that would be the conjugal relations between the dirty old man and his child bride.

As you pointed out, Ireland previously did not recognise foreign same sex marriages until recently. But Ireland would not have interfered with the same sex couple married abroad, because homosexuality was not illlegal. However if you went right back to (1987?) when homosexual acts were illegal (although difficult enough to prove without co-operation of witnesses) then yes, the state could have intervened.

So in the current situation in Denmark, there is something going on which is illegal under Danish law. Even if the "couple" were temporarily celibate, there is still something illegal going on there; sexual grooming of a minor, kidnapping or whatever. If the marriage is not recognised, and that person is not the parent or legal guardian of the child, then social services should take the victim into care. Simple as.

Another comparison is FGM. It is illegal to take a child from Ireland to say, Africa, for the purposes of FGM even if that is considered OK there.

Absolam wrote: »

The cultural background is relevant because these are not people who are willingly engaging with Danish culture; they don't want or choose to be there, it's just where they've ended up fleeing a war and they are not saying they want to stay there.

Well obviously everyone will have their own opinion on this, but you cannot get to Denmark without passing multiple peaceful countries. Denmark was paying a very high "salary" to refugees, up until recently when the Danes slashed it because of the unsustainable migration situation.
The UN and others do sponsor refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, which are safe havens adjacent to the actual war zone.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Suiting me or not suiting me is irrelevant. We are talking about Denmark.

I don't think Denmark care at all how I draw attention to the subject, to be honest.

galljga1 wrote: »

They are applying their laws to people living within the country's borders.

Separating couples isn't a law in Denmark; weren't we here before? Anyway, a quick glance at the post you quoted shows I wasn't actually talking about how Denmark applies it laws, I was talking about how we imposing our cultural standards on another culture.

galljga1 wrote: »

Again, categorisation being subjective, differing cultural judgements, or persons having no desire to be part of the culture of the country in which they are domiciled is irrelevant. They are in Denmark and are subject to Danish law.

And again, Danish law doesn't say that married couples whose marriages aren't recognised by the State should be separated by the State, but I wasn't (as you can probably tell) talking about whether they're subject to Danish law, I was talking about whether it is right or wrong to impose our cultural judgement of what it is to be a child on a culture that holds a different yet as far as I can see at least equally valid different view.

If it helps at all when it comes to formulating your reply; we already agree that Danish law forbids the marriage of, and sexual relationships with, people below a certain age and that such law is enforced on everyone in the State of Denmark, resident or transient. I think we also agree Denmark has no legal mandate to separate couples in it's jurisdiction without an illegal act (in the jurisdiction) to prompt that separation; feel free to let me know if you think otherwise.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

There is a difference between "not recognising" foreign contracts which would be illegal in the home country, and actually breaking them up. The latter only happens when some illegal act is taking place in the home country. So in this context, that would be the conjugal relations between the dirty old man and his child bride.

What are we specifying as the home country here; the country they arrived in, or the country they originated from?
No one has actually offered the notion that any illegal act is taking place (or even that it may involve 'dirty old men'). The Minister for Integration hasn't said he'll separate people who are having sex; he's saying he'll separate people who are married.

recedite wrote: »

As you pointed out, Ireland previously did not recognise foreign same sex marriages until recently. But Ireland would not have interfered with the same sex couple married abroad, because homosexuality was not illlegal. However if you went right back to (1987?) when homosexual acts were illegal (although difficult enough to prove without co-operation of witnesses) then yes, the state could have intervened.

Well, no. I don't believe the Irish State would have intervened to separate same sex couples who were married even when homosexual acts were illegal; it would have acted to prosecute them if they engaged in a homosexual act. Until then they were free to associate with whomever they chose, even if their relationship was not legally recognisable.

recedite wrote: »

So in the current situation in Denmark, there is something going on which is illegal under Danish law. Even if the "couple" were temporarily celibate, there is still something illegal going on there; sexual grooming of a minor, kidnapping or whatever. If the marriage is not recognised, and that person is not the parent or legal guardian of the child, then social services should take the victim into care. Simple as.

That 'simple as' belies something not in the least bit simple. If something illegal occurs, people are prosecuted. But people from another culture should be pre-emptively separated because there surely must be something illegal going on? That sort of prejudice is not in the least bit 'simple as'.

recedite wrote: »

Another comparison is FGM. It is illegal to take a child from Ireland to say, Africa, for the purposes of FGM even if that is considered OK there.

So, equivalent legislation in Denmark would be it would be illegal for someone to take a person considered a child to a country where they are not considered a child and marry them; they could be prosecuted on their return to Denmark (where they would not, in fairness, be considered legally married anyway). Not sure how that's a very good comparison? These people are coming from a country where it is legal to marry someone who is not considered a child for marriage purposes in that State; hence the fact that they are married.

recedite wrote: »

Well obviously everyone will have their own opinion on this, but you cannot get to Denmark without passing multiple peaceful countries. Denmark was paying a very high "salary" to refugees, up until recently when the Danes slashed it because of the unsustainable migration situation. The UN and others do sponsor refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, which are safe havens adjacent to the actual war zone.

Sure, and if they say they do want or choose to be in Denmark, they'll have to assimilate like every other migrant does in a new country. Forcibly dissolving their relationships before they make that decision seems more than a little pre-emptive to me.

Absolam

Looking at the last couple of pages it seems to me that whilst cultural oppression is a hazard of belief, this particular discussion might merit separating into a different thread rather than interrupting the flow of snappy one or two post subjects?

I'd suggest "Danish Cultural Imperialism gone mad" as a thread title, but maybe others would have a different take on it

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Looking at the last couple of pages it seems to me that whilst cultural oppression is a hazard of belief, this particular discussion might merit separating into a different thread rather than interrupting the flow of snappy one or two post subjects?

I'd suggest "Danish Cultural Imperialism gone mad" as a thread title, but maybe others would have a different take on it

It's not cultural oppression. It is the application of the law, as it stands in a particular country.

I would suggest "Danes apply law to combat paedophilic/hebephilicabuse of immigrant child brides".

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

It's not cultural oppression. It is the application of the law, as it stands in a particular country.

There's a law that allows the Danish Minister to separate couples without any illegal act having been committed?

galljga1 wrote: »

I would suggest "Danes apply law to combat paedophilic/hebephilicabuse of immigrant child brides".

We could run with that, as long as the postscript runs "in the absence of any evidence of abuse whatsoever, establishing a new principle of pre-emptive crime prevention", though in fairness, no one has shown what law they're applying to separate couples, so maybe your title is not as accurate as a cursory glance suggests it's intended to appear....
But then I suppose we'd also have to consider whether there is (or ever was) in fact any paedophilia or hebephilia involved in these cases; that's certainly something no one has offered any evidence for, and it's not even mentioned in the only article we have to go on. This title is starting to sound very misleading..... on reflection I think mine is better.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it may be treating them fairly within it's own cultural context (though I think separating couples is not something most Danish or Western Europeans would agree with within their own cultural context). Whether it's appropriate to use that standard of fairness when dealing with people from another culture who are not attempting to, and have no desire to, be part of the Danish culture is what I'm questioning.
Danish law on the age of consent is only wholly in keeping with their/our perception of what a 'modern society' should do; it's certainly not in keeping with other societies view, nor is it objectively justifiable as what a modern society ought to do.

It is applying the law of the land and is treating them fairly and I would think separating 11 year olds from adults with whom they are having a sexual relationship with is something most Danish or Western Europeans would agree with. Again, regardless of the culture of the persons involved or their desire not to be part of Danish culture, they are in Denmark and are subject to Danish law.

It is irrelevant whether Danish law on the age of consent is in keeping with other societies view, it is their country, their law (personally, I find it reasonable). And of course it is justifiable as what a modern society ought to do. This is quite simply sexual abuse of children, regardless of their marital status under sharia law, which again, is not recognised (please correct me if I am wrong) in Denmark.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

There's a law that allows the Danish Minister to separate couples without any illegal act having been committed?

We could run with that, as long as the postscript runs "in the absence of any evidence of abuse whatsoever, establishing a new principle of pre-emptive crime prevention", though in fairness, no one has shown what law they're applying to separate couples, so maybe your title is not as accurate as a cursory glance suggests it's intended to appear....
But then I suppose we'd also have to consider whether there is (or ever was) in fact any paedophilia or hebephilia involved in these cases; that's certainly something no one has offered any evidence for, and it's not even mentioned in the only article we have to go on. This title is starting to sound very misleading..... on reflection I think mine is better.

As I said before, I do not have knowledge of Danish law. I also said before that I assume the onus is on the state to protect children from abuse and to remove them from situations where sexual abuse is known or suspected. I would assume that sexual abuse of children is illegal in Denmark.

No paedophilia or hebephilia involved? What do you think these adults are doing to these children? It is quite simply child sexual abuse. Please do not condone it. Actually, please condemn it.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

It is applying the law of the land and is treating them fairly and I would think separating 11 year olds from adults with whom they are having a sexual relationship with is something most Danish or Western Europeans would agree with. Again, regardless of the culture of the persons involved or their desire not to be part of Danish culture, they are in Denmark and are subject to Danish law.

There is no law of the land that says they cannot live together; no one has demonstrated that they are having a sexual relationship (and the 11 year old was in Norway). The Ministers justification was simply "It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it,". Surely they are subject to the same Danish law as everyone else, including being innocent until proven guilty?

galljga1 wrote: »

It is irrelevant whether Danish law on the age of consent is in keeping with other societies view, it is their country, their law (personally, I find it reasonable). And of course it is justifiable as what a modern society ought to do

It's not at all irrelevant to a discussion about the relative merits of different ages of consent in different societies. Or even a discussion of the fact that there are different ages of consent in different societies, and whether there is an objective reason to think some societies rules have any greater validity than others. Whether or not 'it is justifiable as what a modern society ought to do' I'll reserve judgment on until you provide the justification, but I was saying it wasn't objectively justifiable as what a modern society ought to do, which is a bit different.

galljga1 wrote: »

This is quite simply sexual abuse of children, regardless of their marital status under sharia law, which again, is not recognised (please correct me if I am wrong) in Denmark.

Is it? Has anyone at all demonstrated that a person (child or otherwise) is being sexually abused? Or are people assuming based on their cultural perspective that it must be the case? There's certainly nothing in the report that even mentions abuse amongst these refugees other than the assertion by the Imam that these marriages can give the family a safer situation. Is there?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

There is no law of the land that says they cannot live together; no one has demonstrated that they are having a sexual relationship (and the 11 year old was in Norway). The Ministers justification was simply "It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it,". Surely they are subject to the same Danish law as everyone else, including being innocent until proven guilty?

It's not at all irrelevant to a discussion about the relative merits of different ages of consent in different societies. Or even a discussion of the fact that there are different ages of consent in different societies, and whether there is an objective reason to think some societies rules have any greater validity than others. Whether or not 'it is justifiable as what a modern society ought to do' I'll reserve judgment on until you provide the justification, but I was saying it wasn't objectively justifiable as what a modern society ought to do, which is a bit different.

Is it? Has anyone at all demonstrated that a person (child or otherwise) is being sexually abused? Or are people assuming based on their cultural perspective that it must be the case? There's certainly nothing in the report that even mentions abuse amongst these refugees other than the assertion by the Imam that these marriages can give the family a safer situation. Is there?

Again, and again, and again.... this is Denmark we are talking about: their country, their laws. I support the minister in the action taken. No sexual abuse... get real.

Second para: again, it's Denmark, their country, their laws.

Third para: These children are married under sharia law. The assumption is that sex is happening, that is, sex between an adult and a child, which is simply, child sexual abuse. Please condemn child sexual abuse.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

As I said before, I do not have knowledge of Danish law.

Didn't you say that "It is the application of the law". If you don't have knowledge of Danish law, how do you know it is the application of the law?

galljga1 wrote: »

I also said before that I assume the onus is on the state to protect children from abuse and to remove them from situations where sexual abuse is known or suspected. I would assume that sexual abuse of children is illegal in Denmark.

So you assume and you assume, but there's no evidence presented that anyone has done anything to warrant separating their families.

galljga1 wrote: »

No paedophilia or hebephilia involved? What do you think these adults are doing to these children? It is quite simply child sexual abuse. Please do not condone it. Actually, please condemn it.

I don't think they're doing anything to any children, because no one has yet presented any evidence whatsoever that 'these adults' are doing anything to 'these children'. That's before we even get to the fact that both paedophilia and hebephilia both amount to considerably more than another person being married to, or even having sexual relations with, someone you consider to be a child.
So no, I'm not about to go around condemning people for things I don't know they've done, or for being things I don't know they are, purely on the basis of your prejudices. And neither should you.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Again, and again, and again.... this is Denmark we are talking about: their country, their laws. I support the minister in the action taken. No sexual abuse... get real.

You still haven't pointed out what law allows the Minister to separate couples? In fact, you've pointed out that you've no knowledge of Denmarks laws... so how do you know it's their laws?

galljga1 wrote: »

Second para: again, it's Denmark, their country, their laws.

How are Denmarks laws relevant to a discussion about the relative merits of different ages of consent in different societies? Or even a discussion of the fact that there are different ages of consent in different societies, and whether there is an objective reason to think some societies rules have any greater validity than others? How can you even Denmarks laws might be relevant to such discussions, if you actually have no knowledge of Denmarks laws?

galljga1 wrote: »

Third para: These children are married under sharia law. The assumption is that sex is happening, that is, sex between an adult and a child, which is simply, child sexual abuse. Please condemn child sexual abuse.

You're assuming they're married under Sharia law (the minimum civil legal age for an informal marriage in the Syrian Republic is 13, with formal marriage being 16) and you're assuming they're having sex in a country where their having sex is illegal (and let's not forget you're assuming they're having sex with pedophiles and hebephiles as well). I think, on balance, I'd rather condemn condemnations based on assumptions, to be honest.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Didn't you say that "It is the application of the law". If you don't have knowledge of Danish law, how do you know it is the application of the law?
So you assume and you assume, but there's no evidence presented that anyone has done anything to warrant separating their families.
I don't think they're doing anything to any children, because no one has yet presented any evidence whatsoever that 'these adults' are doing anything to 'these children'. That's before we even get to the fact that both paedophilia and hebephilia both amount to considerably more than another person being married to, or even having sexual relations with, someone you consider to be a child.
So no, I'm not about to go around condemning people for things I don't know they've done, or for being things I don't know they are, purely on the basis of your prejudices. And neither should you.

I think I caveated what I said with the fact that I do not know Danish law and yes I am making assumptions as I assume (more assumptions) are you.

To lay out more assumptions: I assume that the Danes assume that the adults in question are having sex with the children in question. I assume that they have acted on this previous assumption to remove the children from the adults, as adults having sex with children (I assume) is illegal in Denmark.

Whether I consider someone to be a child is irrelevant. I assume (again) that under 15s are considered children in Denmark, the age of consent appears to be 15.

Lastly, I very much do condemn any adult for sexually abusing any child and cannot understand anyone who refuses to do so.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

You still haven't pointed out what law allows the Minister to separate couples? In fact, you've pointed out that you've no knowledge of Denmarks laws... so how do you know it's their laws?

How are Denmarks laws relevant to a discussion about the relative merits of different ages of consent in different societies? Or even a discussion of the fact that there are different ages of consent in different societies, and whether there is an objective reason to think some societies rules have any greater validity than others? How can you even Denmarks laws might be relevant to such discussions, if you actually have no knowledge of Denmarks laws?

You're assuming they're married under Sharia law (the minimum civil legal age for an informal marriage in the Syrian Republic is 13, with formal marriage being 16) and you're assuming they're having sex in a country where their having sex is illegal (and let's not forget you're assuming they're having sex with pedophiles and hebephiles as well). I think, on balance, I'd rather condemn condemnations based on assumptions, to be honest.

So, you refuse to condemn child sexual abuse?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

You still haven't pointed out what law allows the Minister to separate couples? In fact, you've pointed out that you've no knowledge of Denmarks laws... so how do you know it's their laws?

You are right, they just did it for the crack.

Absolam wrote: »

How are Denmarks laws relevant to a discussion about the relative merits of different ages of consent in different societies? Or even a discussion of the fact that there are different ages of consent in different societies, and whether there is an objective reason to think some societies rules have any greater validity than others? How can you even Denmarks laws might be relevant to such discussions, if you actually have no knowledge of Denmarks laws?

I am not discussing differing ages of consent in differing societies. I am discussing what happened in Denmark. Correct, I have no knowledge of Danish law, hence more assumptions.

Absolam wrote: »

You're assuming they're married under Sharia law (the minimum civil legal age for an informal marriage in the Syrian Republic is 13, with formal marriage being 16) and you're assuming they're having sex in a country where their having sex is illegal (and let's not forget you're assuming they're having sex with pedophiles and hebephiles as well). I think, on balance, I'd rather condemn condemnations based on assumptions, to be honest.

Apologies I made another assumption. I really have no interest what the minimum age for marriage, formal or informal, is in Syria. I am discussing the situation in Denmark. With regard to these adults having sex with children, what would you call them. I think they would fall into the categories of pedophiles and hebephiles.

Again, I condemn child sexual abuse. Won't you?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

I think I caveated what I said with the fact that I do not know Danish law and yes I am making assumptions as I assume (more assumptions) are you.

You did not; you flat out said it was the law (and that it was clear cut). It was a later post, when pressed, that you admitted you don't know what the law is.
That you assume I'm making assumptions doesn't lend any weight to your points, but if you find any evidence I'm making assumptions I'll happily discuss them with you.

galljga1 wrote: »

To lay out more assumptions: I assume that the Danes assume that the adults in question are having sex with the children in question. I assume that they have acted on this previous assumption to remove the children from the adults, as adults having sex with children (I assume) is illegal in Denmark.

Why bother? Piling assumptions on top of each other doesn't make any difference to the facts we're discussing, does it? They are, as you like to say, irrelevant.

galljga1 wrote: »

Whether I consider someone to be a child is irrelevant. I assume (again) that under 15s are considered children in Denmark, the age of consent appears to be 15.

Indeed, the age of consent (assumed or otherwise) in Denmark is equally irrelevant to a discussion about separating families when no evidence has been put forward that sex with someone below the age of consent is occurring; whether you consider someone to be a child is only relevant to your (unproven and unevidenced) assertion that someone is sexually abusing a child.

galljga1 wrote: »

Lastly, I very much do condemn any adult for sexually abusing any child and cannot understand anyone who refuses to do so.

Well good for you I'm sure. But to be clear, you're not actually aware than any adult actually is sexually abusing a child, are you? Is this just a shout out to demonstrate your social justice credentials and rally everyone to please think of the children?

galljga1 wrote: »

So, you refuse to condemn child sexual abuse?

Really? Am I under some SJW obligation to perform like a seal when you trot out a line? Let me say then, I refuse to condemn for your pleasure, galljga1; it's not up to you or anyone else to demand my opprobrium.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

You did not; you flat out said it was the law (and that it was clear cut). It was a later post, when pressed, that you admitted you don't know what the law is.
That you assume I'm making assumptions doesn't lend any weight to your points, but if you find any evidence I'm making assumptions I'll happily discuss them with you.
Why bother? Piling assumptions on top of each other doesn't make any difference to the facts we're discussing, does it? They are, as you like to say, irrelevant.
Indeed, the age of consent (assumed or otherwise) in Denmark is equally irrelevant to a discussion about separating families when no evidence has been put forward that sex with someone below the age of consent is occurring; whether you consider someone to be a child is only relevant to your (unproven and unevidenced) assertion that someone is sexually abusing a child.
Well good for you I'm sure. But to be clear, you're not actually aware than any adult actually is sexually abusing a child, are you? Is this just a shout out to demonstrate your social justice credentials and rally everyone to please think of the children?
Really? Am I under some SJW obligation to perform like a seal when you trot out a line? Let me say then, I refuse to condemn for your pleasure, galljga1; it's not up to you or anyone else to demand my opprobrium.

Child sexual abuse is appalling. I cannot understand how anybody can simply refuse to condemn it. It beggars belief.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

You are right, they just did it for the crack.

So, do you refuse to condemn them doing it for the crack?

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not discussing differing ages of consent in differing societies. I am discussing what happened in Denmark. Correct, I have no knowledge of Danish law, hence more assumptions.

I was discussing differing ages of consent in differing societies. Right from my second post, really. Answering those points shows you were discussing it too; you just want to reframe it as a discussion of Danish law (which is particularly silly given you have no knowledge of Danish law).

galljga1 wrote: »

Apologies I made another assumption. I really have no interest what the minimum age for marriage, formal or informal, is in Syria. I am discussing the situation in Denmark. With regard to these adults having sex with children, what would you call them. I think they would fall into the categories of pedophiles and hebephiles.

And no one is claiming they are married according to Danish law. With regard to an adult having sex with someone that some people would consider to be a child; pedophiles and hebephiles both have what are considered to be psychologically aberrant preferences for children/young adults of a particular stage of sexual development (prepubescent and pubescent respectively); there's no evidence that those aberrations are pre-eminent in cultures where marriage of children/young adults is a norm, and still less than any of the refugees in Denmark are pedophiles or hebephiles; that's your assumptions again. And if I were to make an assumption, it would be that your assumptions are based on your cultural background which has raised the age of consent from 12 years old in 1275 to the current 16, and delegitimised (rightly or wrongly) sex at a younger age in doing so, leading you to believe than any sex between individuals that don't fit your cultural conceptions must be aberrant.

galljga1 wrote: »

Again, I condemn child sexual abuse. Won't you?

Again, I won't condemn for your pleasure (consider it a micro-aggression). But think on this; if it weren't for you, I would freely condemn the sexual abuse of children. By your actions, you have silenced a voice that would otherwise be speaking to prevent sexual abuse and as a result, more children may suffer. How does that responsibility make you feel?

galljga1 wrote: »

Child sexual abuse is appalling. I cannot understand how anybody can simply refuse to condemn it. It beggars belief.

Aren't you supposed to remind me to check my privilege at some point as well (I did by the way, it's 180)?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

So, do you refuse to condemn them doing it for the crack?
I was discussing differing ages of consent in differing societies. Right from my second post, really. Answering those points shows you were discussing it too; you just want to reframe it as a discussion of Danish law (which is particularly silly given you have no knowledge of Danish law).
And no one is claiming they are married according to Danish law. With regard to an adult having sex with someone that some people would consider to be a child; pedophiles and hebephiles both have what are considered to be psychologically aberrant preferences for children/young adults of a particular stage of sexual development (prepubescent and pubescent respectively); there's no evidence that those aberrations are pre-eminent in cultures where marriage of children/young adults is a norm, and still less than any of the refugees in Denmark are pedophiles or hebephiles; that's your assumptions again. And if I were to make an assumption, it would be that your assumptions are based on your cultural background which has raised the age of consent from 12 years old in 1275 to the current 16, and delegitimised (rightly or wrongly) sex at a younger age in doing so, leading you to believe than any sex between individuals that don't fit your cultural conceptions must be aberrant.

Again, I won't condemn for your pleasure (consider it a micro-aggression). But think on this; if it weren't for you, I would freely condemn the sexual abuse of children. By your actions, you have silenced a voice that would otherwise be speaking to prevent sexual abuse and as a result, more children may suffer. How does that responsibility make you feel?
Aren't you supposed to remind me to check my privilege at some point as well (I did by the way, it's 180)?

As you continually refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of children i shall no longer engage with you.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

As you continually refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of children i shall no longer engage with you.

Gosh.... no one saw that coming

PopePalpatine

galljga1 wrote: »

As you continually refuse to condemn the sexual abuse of children i shall no longer engage with you.

Obviously Absolam must be sympathetic to the likes of Cardinal Pell. :rolleyes:

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Obviously Absolam must be sympathetic to the likes of Cardinal Pell. :rolleyes:

Oh obviously...... :rolleyes:

robindch

Jewish-controlled schools in London have been removing images of women from school books, deleting references to "christmas", refusing to allow pupils to speak with female government inspectors, not teaching the kids English and generally acting the maggot:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-orthodox-jewish-schools-removing-images-of-women-and-the-mention-of-christmas-a6877941.html

UK Independent wrote:

“Leaders told inspectors that they have no intention of providing pupils with experiences to enable them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for differences between people, based on culture, religion, sex and sexual orientation,” it added.

The full reports on the two schools from the above article are below and paint an unpleasant picture:

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/100289
http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/131170

Can't help but wonder where are the protests from other religious schools + organizations claiming "persecution" and "war on christmas".

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it may be treating them fairly within it's own cultural context (though I think separating couples is not something most Danish or Western Europeans would agree with within their own cultural context). Whether it's appropriate to use that standard of fairness when dealing with people from another culture who are not attempting to, and have no desire to, be part of the Danish culture is what I'm questioning.
Danish law on the age of consent is only wholly in keeping with their/our perception of what a 'modern society' should do; it's certainly not in keeping with other societies view, nor is it objectively justifiable as what a modern society ought to do.

All couples are subject to the law and if the law was broken they would be separated. Its possible for an ethnic Danish girl under the age of consent to end up being taken advantage of in a similar way , the courts would intervene regardless of her view.
These people at the end of the day chose to go to Denmark , and its up to them to decide if the compromises are worth it. From the Dane's perspective, individuals like this might end up being permanent residents so I'd argue that its in Denmark's interests to enforce Danish cultural norms where the law is being broken.