Supreme Court decides discrimination is OK.

minidazzler

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-upholds-law-allowing-prosecution-of-boys-and-not-girls-for-underage-sex-540989.html

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgement upholding the constitutionality of a law that allows teenage boys - but not teenage girls - to be prosecuted for having underage sex.

The appeal arose from charges brought against a 15-year-old boy under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 for having sex with a 14-year-old girl in Donegal.

Under the 2006 Act "teenage boys can be held criminally liable for having sexual intercourse with an underage girl" while teenage girls are immune from prosecution.

In this case a 15-year-old boy is awaiting trial on charges of buggery and of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl in Donegal.

His lawyers argued the so called "romeo and juliet" law discriminates against him on gender grounds, as it assumes the male is the guilty predator and the female is the "innocent comely maiden".

In 2010 the High Court rejected his challenge because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

This has been upheld on appeal with the court having regard to the entitlement of the Oireachtas to decide social policy.

Read more: http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-upholds-law-allowing-prosecution-of-boys-and-not-girls-for-underage-sex-540989.html#ixzz1nDLdnROh

I'm pretty much sickened by this, both choose to do something but only one can be prosecuted. This is just something that basically makes it OK for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters boyfriend before the courts because she can't be prosecuted.

Otacon

And this is from an Act from 2006, not 1956.

I r depressed!

VinLieger

Pretty damn disgraceful alright.
This ruling basically states that girls shouldnt be prosecuted since they are the ones who bear the most consequences of having sex, so effectively are the weaker sex in this case? No sign of the feminist lobby complaining about that? Oh how surprising

Its simple sexism doesnt exist unless its women being discriminated against

um7y1h83ge06nx

I stuck that link up on my Facebook with the comment "How very 1950's Holy Catholic Ireland (TM)"

It really is a case of "keep away from those vile, sex crazed boys because all they want to do is get in your pants".

It's almost like teenage girls have no sexual urges at all.

What a crock of sh*t.

Dravokivich

VinLieger wrote: »

Pretty damn disgraceful alright.
This ruling basically states that girls shouldnt be prosecuted since they are the ones who bear the most consequences of having sex, so effectively are the weaker sex in this case? No sign of the feminist lobby complaining about that? Oh how surprising

Its simple sexism doesnt exist unless its women being discriminated against

I think it's unfair to say a man needs a woman to hold a burden of responsiblity and declare something is wrong here, which is how that sounds.

All the article says is the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, no comments or statements presented within it referring to why. The ruling is bullshít and that's clear, but I'd be very interested in seeing what the reasoning behind it was. Haven't read much into law, but if both parties were to be excused from this, I think it could also present issues with regards to the age of consent overall. That doesnt mean the boy should be a scapegoat for it though.

VinLieger

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think it's unfair to say a man needs a woman to hold a burden of responsiblity and declare something is wrong here, which is how that sounds.

All the article says is the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, no comments or statements presented within it referring to why. The ruling is bullshít and that's clear, but I'd be very interested in seeing what the reasoning behind it was. Haven't read much into law, but if both parties were to be excused from this, I think it could also present issues with regards to the age of consent overall. That doesnt mean the boy should be a scapegoat for it though.

I made that argument to highlight the point feminists tend to be very picky about what they want to be offended by. It was kind of a silly way to make it but i do stand by the point that they are for equality as long as it suits their purposes and that in their minds sexism doesnt exist unless its against women, but this isnt really what this thread is about so im done derailing

krudler

Thats ridiculous,its also against your human rights btw

ToxicPaddy

Take it to European court of Human Rights and the ruling will be overturned no doubt as the Irish system is unbelievably flawed and weak. It will also make a complete mockery of the laws here and might get them to change.

How can 2 people (granted underage) who had consensual sex be treated so differently in a society and by a countries law where they continually preach on about equality???

Unbelievable!!! :rolleyes:

ToxicPaddy

VinLieger wrote: »

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think it's unfair to say a man needs a woman to hold a burden of responsiblity and declare something is wrong here, which is how that sounds.

All the article says is the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, no comments or statements presented within it referring to why. The ruling is bullshít and that's clear, but I'd be very interested in seeing what the reasoning behind it was. Haven't read much into law, but if both parties were to be excused from this, I think it could also present issues with regards to the age of consent overall. That doesnt mean the boy should be a scapegoat for it though.

I made that argument to highlight the point feminists tend to be very picky about what they want to be offended by. It was kind of a silly way to make it but i do stand by the point that they are for equality as long as it suits their purposes and that in their minds sexism doesnt exist unless its against women, but this isnt really what this thread is about so im done derailing

I kind of understand what youre trying to say. If you had womens groups voicing their opinion about this and how they aren't treating both parties as equals you might have seen a different outcome. However no one is going to do that with a case like this!!

amacachi

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Take it to European court of Human Rights and the ruling will be overturned no doubt as the Irish system is unbelievably flawed and weak. It will also make a complete mockery of the laws here and might get them to change.

It's ****ing pathetic that that's what needs to be done. If he gets it as far as a European court he'll win. It's an excellent example of the justice system existing to serve itself and those who make money from it.

edanto

That sounds spot on toxicpaddy, a trip to the European courts is almost certain.

cson

What are the consequences for the young lad?

ToxicPaddy

cson wrote: »

What are the consequences for the young lad?

Up to 5 years in prison and being listed as a registered sex offender apparently. Will ruin his life before it begins!!

amacachi

cson wrote: »

What are the consequences for the young lad?

He's still waiting on charges of buggery and whatever. Given it's a few years ago since it happened he's probably around his leaving cert year so could be in college when he gets convicted of a sex offence.

Tomk1

'Scapegoat' is a very apt term here.

What's the parents & school/state responsibility or lack of responsibility. Did the parents/school provide info on safe sex, also many doctors provide a morning after pill, was this sevice available?

This kid will have a criminal record basically because the state prefers to wash it hands rather than deal with it.

I'm 100% for equal treatment of the sexes, responsibility goes both ways, and as they're underage to their guardians. As the state wants to uphold this law then it has a responsibility to educate and provide sevices, Shakespeare could say ''there's something rotten in the state of Ireland'' this ruling does stink of blame the scapegoat.

What I also have to wonder is, who decided to make an issue of this, most parts of Ireland today is tolerant and accept this happens, it's tough enough on both these young parents, than to have added pressures, a blame-game and community stigma. Rather than give support.... my neice had a child when young, we all supported both of them.

I hope whoever thought this was worth it, now feels vindicated n' righteous and can sleep at night, knowing they have damaged some young fellows' life. Was it worth it, what really has it achieved?

amacachi

Tomk1 wrote: »

'Scapegoat' is a very apt term here.

What's the parents & school/state responsibility or lack of responsibility. Did the parents/school provide info on safe sex, also many doctors provide a morning after pill, was this sevice available?

This kid will have a criminal record basically because the state prefers to wash it hands rather than deal with it.

I'm 100% for equal treatment of the sexes, responsibility goes both ways, and as they're underage to their guardians. As the state wants to uphold this law then it has a responsibility to educate and provide sevices, Shakespeare could say ''there's something rotten in the state of Ireland'' this ruling does stink of blame the scapegoat.

What I also have to wonder is, who decided to make an issue of this, most parts of Ireland today is tolerant and accept this happens, it's tough enough on both these young parents, than to have added pressures, a blame-game and community stigma. Rather than give support.... my neice had a child when young, we all supported both of them.

I hope whoever thought this was worth it, now feels vindicated n' righteous and can sleep at night, knowing they have damaged some young fellows' life. Was it worth it, what really has it achieved?

Eh? Nothing about the girl getting pregnant is there?

Tomk1

amacachi wrote: »

Eh? Nothing about the girl getting pregnant is there?

Not sure what you mean, I mentioned 'both parents' as that's what they are. Do you mean the age, as my neice was 15, I suppose back in the day she would of been sent off to the nun's to be hidden away and kicked down some stairway -anyway don't wanna go off topic as newbie to the GM-club.

I did mention responsibility goes both ways.
???

amacachi

Tomk1 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean, I mentioned 'both parents' as that's what they are. Do you mean the age, as my neice was 15, I suppose back in the day she would of been sent off to the nun's to be hidden away and kicked down some stairway -anyway don't wanna go off topic as newbie to the GM-club.

I did mention responsibility goes both ways.
???

How do you know there wasn't education about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, morning after pill etc.?

mariebeth

amacachi wrote: »

How do you know there wasn't education about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, morning after pill etc.?

I don't think that Tomk1 was making a statement that there was no education, his OP came across as asking had there been any education.


I heard this on the radio earlier, and just want to say as a woman, I am sickened by this ruling. In a society where equality is a right, for all people, when it comes to sex between two consenting minors, they should both be held up as being equally responsible. It really is an old fashioned and outdated view that one partner is more responsible than the other.

Tomk1

amacachi wrote: »

How do you know there wasn't education about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, morning after pill etc.?

Let's say there was, and both were aware, as at that age who would believe in 'The stork Theory'. I don't know if contraception is legally available to 'underage' which opens another mindfield, as then the use of which would be for something that is illegal, unless of course blowing them up for balloons.

I think the constitution basically is a few decades past it's sell by date. Realisticly if one is to be prosecuted, then the other should be aswell, (unless she or even he was coerced)

The ruling of this case begs another Q. what about all the other underage-pregnancies nation-wide, have a cop at the maternity ward arresting them ? And tie up the whole legal system with BS.

Here's a link taken from AH
www.herald.ie/news/girl-15-becomes-a-mum-for-second-time-3029300.html

Five schoolgirls aged 15 or younger became mothers in the first six months of last year -- one of them for the second time, according to the figures.

Overall, 63 young girls under the age of 16, and under the legal age of consent, gave birth during that period.

I not sure if your debating or apolagies troll-bating me.

From your posts reads like your against this ruling, so am I.

iptba

Tomk1 wrote: »

I think the constitution basically is a few decades past it's sell by date. Realisticly if one is to be prosecuted, then the other should be aswell, (unless she or even he was coerced)

In case you missed it, this was based on a 2006 law.

amacachi

Tomk1 wrote: »

Let's say there was, and both were aware, as at that age who would believe in 'The stork Theory'. I don't know if contraception is legally available to 'underage' which opens another mindfield, as then the use of which would be for something that is illegal, unless of course blowing them up for balloons.

I think the constitution basically is a few decades past it's sell by date. Realisticly if one is to be prosecuted, then the other should be aswell, (unless she or even he was coerced)

The ruling of this case begs another Q. what about all the other underage-pregnancies nation-wide, have a cop at the maternity ward arresting them ? And tie up the whole legal system with BS.

Here's a link taken from AH
www.herald.ie/news/girl-15-becomes-a-mum-for-second-time-3029300.html



I not sure if your debating or apolagies troll-bating me.

From your posts reads like your against this ruling, so am I.

Certainly not troll baiting, just wondering what education on the "perpetrator"'s side has to do with anything. Contraception is pretty handy to get one's hands on at that point. The way the case is being presented it's the victim's (was going to put that in inverted commas too but my internets would probably then explode) parents who are being total dicks.

iptba wrote: »

In case you missed it, this was based on a 2006 law.

Exactly. The bit where it says females are exempt reads like someone purposely putting a killswitch into a piece of software. There's little wrong with the constitution in this case, I'm amazed two judges (well, if I were less cynical I'd be amazed) have both decided this legislation is compatible with the constitution and I'd like to read their "justification". The judge in the latest ruling has to know that if this goes to Europe it'll be shown to be incompatible with European law. He could've saved everyone a lot of hassle but decided not to. More work for those in the legal industry says the cynic in me.

smallBiscuit

amacachi wrote: »

The judge in the latest ruling has to know that if this goes to Europe it'll be shown to be incompatible with European law. He could've saved everyone a lot of hassle but decided not to. More work for those in the legal industry says the cynic in me.

The cynic in me agrees But the logical side of my brain agrees with the judge. He can only rule according to the rule of this country, a land where blasphemy is illegal :rolleyes: I'd take what he said as, look this is a thick antiquated law, but this is the way I have to rule. Take it to the European courts so we can get our pointless and sexist laws changed

amacachi

smallBiscuit wrote: »

The cynic in me agrees But the logical side of my brain agrees with the judge. He can only rule according to the rule of this country, a land where blasphemy is illegal :rolleyes: I'd take what he said as, look this is a thick antiquated law, but this is the way I have to rule. Take it to the European courts so we can get our pointless and sexist laws changed

I can't remember exactly how the constitution goes about talking about equality except that it's a bit on the flaky side and a bit wordy :pac: That said, when it suits judges they can "interpret" the equality stuff however they like until someone gets a case as far as Europe.

Aside from the judge though the line in the legislation that is going to get it overturned is so blatant that it can't have been by accident. It was put together by people who at least went to an IT and did an introduction to law module. :pac:

Hockney

Tomk1 wrote: »

'Scapegoat' is a very apt term here.

This kid will have a criminal record basically because the state prefers to wash it hands rather than deal with it.

Absolutely.

The justification for rejecting the appeal back in 2010, was that the consequences for the girl were worse than for the boy, i.e pregnancy.

Today on Matt Cooper there was a woman from the Rape Crisis centre coming out with exactly the same, listen from 22:00 onwards here:

http://media.todayfm.com/listenback/98/thursday/2/popup

To me, the "risk of pregnancy" argument can't be a factor in this case, since that risk is present whether they were 15-year-olds or 25-year-olds. So why should he be punished because they were underage?

In the interview above, the woman from the RCC is at pains to point out that judges have the leniency to take differences in age/circumstances into account, but that's not good enough when the constitution says in black and white that only the boys can be prosecuted. What we need is a constitution which is fair to both parties.

Ever since I can remember I've been told that girls reach sexual maturity, physically and mentally, earlier in life than boys. If boy and girl are the same age, it therefore seems wildy unfair that a boy is expected to be more sexually responsible (saying no) in the eyes of the law - only he faces prosecution.

This may be slightly off topic, but here's the age of consent in the rest of Europe. I thnk Italy have it bang on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

If every man in the country was committing an illegal act by having sex at the age of 16, I'd say at least a quarter of us would have a criminal record. I really hope this gets appealed to Europe. How they came up with the latest amendment to the constitution in blatant support of gender discrimination as recently as 2006 beggars belief.

VinLieger

iptba wrote: »

In case you missed it, this was based on a 2006 law.

That doesnt mean it isnt archaic, you cant call a law progressive just by looking at the date stamp on it. Its completely about the rationale and logic behind it and in this case both of those are decades old

snafuk35

I'll tell you what this law is REALLY about.
It's a rich man's law.
Picture a man who has a butter wouldn't melt in her mouth daughter who still had a teddy bear until she was 12 and he's either a lawyer, politician, auctioneer, Garda superintendent or company chief executive.
He sends her to private schools, she learns to show jump and ride a clear round , play the piano, ballet classes, speaks six languages etc. She's in Mensa and she's going to be a PhD.
And what happens? She meets a bad boy charmer in a tracksuit with gold jewelry who takes her virginity.
So what does Daddy do? He makes some calls and has Romeo banged up for deflowering his baby girl. If she is up the duff he packs her off to a London scrape clinic and a cosmetic surgeon who will make her intact again for her future wedding night with Tarquin Barbury-Rothwell-Lambart IV.

iptba

VinLieger wrote: »

That doesnt mean it isnt archaic, you cant call a law progressive just by looking at the date stamp on it. Its completely about the rationale and logic behind it and in this case both of those are decades old

Ok, once you know.

I think the general point about it being a 2006 law is very interesting. People claim that all men have this big advantage because the Oireachtas is 85% male; this indeed is the rationale for the gender quotas. However, I've not been convinced that the Oireachtas in more recent times anyway (say last twenty years) has been churning out lots of laws in favour of men. I think part of it is that it's simplistic to ignore lobby groups in society, how the media covers issues, etc.

It is also interesting of course in terms of treating men and women differently. This has been one of my bones of contention about the "movement to equality" - everything isn't on the table/being questioned, such as many "advantages" women can have.

FoxT

This judgement disgusts me. A 5-year sentence & a lifelong hangover for something he did at 15 years of age, is insane. Both parties consented, but neither party had reached the age of consent.

At the very most, an in camera hearing, probation applied, & rap on the knuckles to both parties.


The law is dumb in this area.


But then...where do you draw the line? What if he was 15 & the girl was 13,12,11,10,9,8???? Or, indeed if the girl was 15 & the boy was 14,13,12,11,10,9,8?
You cannot legislate for every permutation & combination here, some level of common sense needs to apply.

If it was the other way around & the girl was prosecuted, I would feel the same way. These people are children who have engaged in sex precociously. They just need to be let off with a warning & some sex ed on pregnancy, contraception, std's etc.

iptba

FoxT wrote: »

But then...where do you draw the line? What if he was 15 & the girl was 13,12,11,10,9,8???? Or, indeed if the girl was 15 & the boy was 14,13,12,11,10,9,8?
You cannot legislate for every permutation & combination here, some level of common sense needs to apply.

Other countries have tried to have Romeo & Juliet clauses. I can't remember the details - but within two years was one example, IIRC.

FoxT wrote: »

If it was the other way around & the girl was prosecuted, I would feel the same way.

Under this law, if the girl is under 17, she can't be prosecuted, even if there is a relatively big age gap.

So a boy can be convicted for a relatively small gap (or indeed, he could be younger than the girl!), but a girl can't be even with a large gap. It is in no way proportionate.

FewFew

Wow, punishment really doesn't fit the crime, apart from all the equality issues.

Is that method of assigning criminal blame common throughout the system? I mean, if you got in a fight with a guy twice your size, would you get off scot free because you were the one at greater risk? Seems... odd.

28064212

iptba wrote: »

It is also interesting of course in terms of treating men and women differently. This has been one of my bones of contention about the "movement to equality" - everything isn't on the table/being questioned, such as many "advantages" women can have.

This is such a flawed argument. The point of feminism isn't "equality for all", it's about removing the inequalities that women face. The feminist movement isn't responsible for protecting men's equality, it's up to masculists to do that.

Anywhoodle

VinLieger wrote: »

... No sign of the feminist lobby complaining about that? ...

Its simple sexism doesnt exist unless its women being discriminated against

A lot of feminist thinking does rail against laws like this (bear in mind that feminism's a really broad movement- lots of different strands and theories caught up in it. No one 'feminist lobby.') Many would argue that this kind of discrimination completely denies womens' agency, ie. rather than accepting women as independent, competent actors, it presupposes that females are typically 'coerced' into things/led around by the nose by men.. :rolleyes: No real free will or independent decision-making capacity. It's an archaic myth that hurts both sexes at the end of the day.. The present case shows the kind of injustice that it can heap on men... Meanwhile, it also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about women being 'weak' and less 'capable' of looking after their own interests... No winners.

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

How can 2 people (granted underage) who had consensual sex be treated so differently in a society and by a countries law where they continually preach on about equality???

Unbelievable!!! :rolleyes:

Agree totally..

One thing though- in this case, there does appear to be an allegation of a lack of consent...

The girl claims that sexual intercourse and buggery took place as a result of force and fear. He disputes this and says all the sexual activity was consensual.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/boy-facing-sex-trial-as-court-upholds-romeo-and-juliet-law-3030524.html

Dravokivich

Fewcifur wrote: »

Wow, punishment really doesn't fit the crime, apart from all the equality issues.

Is that method of assigning criminal blame common throughout the system? I mean, if you got in a fight with a guy twice your size, would you get off scot free because you were the one at greater risk? Seems... odd.

The idea of "greater risk due to pregnancy" is just political mumbo jumbo getting emotionally attached.

The exclusion of females from persecution makes no note of why. It just excludes them.

As I mentioned in another thread yesterday after looking for some proper information:

Dravokivich wrote: »

Well the issue that specifically needs to be addressed is:

5.— A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.

Taken from here

It actually provides no reasoning behind it referencing the chance of pregnancy at all.

Don't get why the news articles published haven't quoted that piece directly either

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

There's little wrong with the constitution in this case, I'm amazed two judges (well, if I were less cynical I'd be amazed) have both decided this legislation is compatible with the constitution and I'd like to read their "justification". The judge in the latest ruling has to know that if this goes to Europe it'll be shown to be incompatible with European law. He could've saved everyone a lot of hassle but decided not to. More work for those in the legal industry says the cynic in me.

The only thing the SC had to decide in this case was whether the law was unconstitutional. They reached the conclusion that it was not (something I'm not about to second-guess).

There is no option for the SC to decide "ah, it'll be struck down later anyway"

Otacon

Anywhoodle wrote: »

One thing though- in this case, there does appear to be an allegation of a lack of consent...

Neither party was at the age of consent though right? So what, they raped each other?

Anywhoodle

Otacon wrote: »

Neither party was at the age of consent though right? So what, they raped each other?

Meant 'consent' in the non-legal sense there.. See the excerpt I quoted..

iptba

28064212 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

It is also interesting of course in terms of treating men and women differently. This has been one of my bones of contention about the "movement to equality" - everything isn't on the table/being questioned, such as many "advantages" women can have.

This is such a flawed argument. The point of feminism isn't "equality for all", it's about removing the inequalities that women face. The feminist movement isn't responsible for protecting men's equality, it's up to masculists to do that.

I didn't use the word "feminism" or "feminists".

If somebody is representing a women's organisation, they can campaign for women.
However, many people are in positions where they are supposed to be looking at gender equality e.g. academics/lecturers, some people in positions paid for by the State e.g. Equality Authority.
Similarly in politics, the "movement to equality" appears to be one-sided.

amacachi

28064212 wrote: »

(something I'm not about to second-guess).

There's where we differ I suppose.

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

There's where we differ I suppose.

Can you point out the article in the constitution that this law contravenes?

goose2005

snafuk35 wrote: »

I'll tell you what this law is REALLY about.
It's a rich man's law.
Picture a man who has a butter wouldn't melt in her mouth daughter who still had a teddy bear until she was 12 and he's either a lawyer, politician, auctioneer, Garda superintendent or company chief executive.
He sends her to private schools, she learns to show jump and ride a clear round , play the piano, ballet classes, speaks six languages etc. She's in Mensa and she's going to be a PhD.
And what happens? She meets a bad boy charmer in a tracksuit with gold jewelry who takes her virginity.
So what does Daddy do? He makes some calls and has Romeo banged up for deflowering his baby girl. If she is up the duff he packs her off to a London scrape clinic and a cosmetic surgeon who will make her intact again for her future wedding night with Tarquin Barbury-Rothwell-Lambart IV.

That's some nice inverse snobbery ya got going there, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Don't rich men have sons?

amacachi

28064212 wrote: »

Can you point out the article in the constitution that this law contravenes?

Why does it matter? You already said you're not going to second-guess the judge.

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

Why does it matter? You already said you're not going to second-guess the judge.

Because a Supreme Court judge who has spent half a lifetime studying law and the constitution, and has spent a significant amount of time on this case in particular has decided it is constitutional. Are you saying they're wrong? If you are, which article does it contravene? Here's a link: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

Your argument seemed to be that they should have struck it down regardless of its constitutionality, because it would be struck down by the European courts. That is not an option. The only thing the ruling said was that the law was not unconstitutional

amacachi

Right at the start of Article 40. Looks like a fairly handy justification to me if a judge was bothered.

Anywhoodle

snafuk35 wrote: »

I'll tell you what this law is REALLY about.
It's a rich man's law.
Picture a man who has a butter wouldn't melt in her mouth daughter who still had a teddy bear until she was 12 and he's either a lawyer, politician, auctioneer, Garda superintendent or company chief executive.
He sends her to private schools, she learns to show jump and ride a clear round , play the piano, ballet classes, speaks six languages etc. She's in Mensa and she's going to be a PhD.
And what happens? She meets a bad boy charmer in a tracksuit with gold jewelry who takes her virginity.
So what does Daddy do? He makes some calls and has Romeo banged up for deflowering his baby girl. If she is up the duff he packs her off to a London scrape clinic and a cosmetic surgeon who will make her intact again for her future wedding night with Tarquin Barbury-Rothwell-Lambart IV.

goose2005 wrote: »

That's some nice inverse snobbery ya got going there, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Don't rich men have sons?

... and aside from the 'inverse snobbery', snafuk's post captures the kind of thinking that landed us with a crappy law like this in the first place..

Her father (no role foreseen for a 'rich mother' here, I see) 'sends her' to private schools, a bad boy charmer 'takes' her virginity, her father 'packs her off' to a clinic.. and she's made 'intact' for her future husband??

Paternalism, patriarchy & proprietary overtones- it's got it all! Back to that depressing notion that girls are weak and hopelessly passive.. Always being controlled and influenced by men.. Yikes..

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

Right at the start of Article 40. Looks like a fairly handy justification to me if a judge was bothered.

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Did you just skip over the second part? There is no way you could read that law and decide it contravened that article

amacachi

28064212 wrote: »

Did you just skip over the second part? There is no way you could read that law and decide it contravened that article

So it's a completely meaningless article?

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

So it's a completely meaningless article?

Only if you think that, for example, a rich person should be able to receive a different sentence than a poor person for the same crime

amacachi

28064212 wrote: »

Only if you think that, for example, a rich person should be able to receive a different sentence than a poor person for the same crime

Could you just explain the bit you bolded? The double negative and your last two posts are really confusing me.

28064212

amacachi wrote: »

Could you just explain the bit you bolded? The double negative and your last two posts are really confusing me.

The article prevents two people being treated differently under the same law.

There's nothing in article 40.1 which prevents a discriminatory law (like the one in this thread) being passed. If the Dáil passed a law that said all men must wear hats outdoors, it would not contravene 40.1 (it would probably contravene some other part of the constitution though)

amacachi

Jesus our constitution is some ****ing mess.

The double negative still confuses me though, how does it stop two people being treated differently under the same law? It seems to say that the state can "have due regard" (discriminate) on the grounds mentioned.