nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Judge calls it

Hitchens

A judge has caused outrage after saying he thinks "Muslims feel they can actually beat their wives" during the trial of a Somali man accused of burglary at his former wife's house.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/outrage-as-judge-claims-muslims-feel-they-can-beat-their-wives-30133991.html

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it, fair dues to him whether you agree with him or not.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I keep hearing that. Can anybody qpute the law that says a man can rape his wife or a woman cannot not consent?

The law has been changed since then. It was somewhere around the 70s-90s IIRC
Before that, spouse rape did not "exist" in the law

reprazant

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I keep hearing that. Can anybody qpute the law that says a man can rape his wife or a woman cannot not consent?

It didn't exist as it was deemed a husbands right.

It was abolished in Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

5.—(1) Any rule of law by virtue of which a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife is hereby abolished.

(2) Criminal proceedings against a man in respect of the rape by him of his wife shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions

GenieOz

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

Looks like you're incredibly biased too, just the other way around.

Uriel.

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

I don't think the poster mentioned anything about convictions.

The article quoted in the OP states that the man in question:

Broke into the House
Had a knife
Had an active barring order against him (such orders are only laid down by the courts)

GalwayGuy2

The law has been changed since then. It was somewhere around the 70s-90s IIRC
Before that, spouse rape did not "exist" in the law

It didn't exist as it was deemed a husbands right.

It was abolished in Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

I was kind of curious, but I'd more lean towards Bluewolf's explanation.

Unless someone can point out the law that said a) A woman did not have the choice to not consent, or

the husband has a right to take a woman even if she does not consent.

I'm being pedantic, but i have heard the aforementioned marital law ALOT.

I don't want toe derail the thread, but if anybody can find the law they can send me a pm with the link?

[Deleted User]

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I was kind of curious, but I'd more lean towards Bluewolf's explanation.

Unless someone can point out the law that said a) A woman did not have the choice to not consent, or the husband has a right to take a woman even if she does not consent.

I'm being pedantic, but i have heard the aforementioned marital law ALOT.

I don't want toe derail the thread, but if anybody can find the law they can send me a pm with the link?

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

Grayson

bluewolf wrote: »

It's a religion not a race

Well, I guess that's ok then.

I really hate grammar nazi's who feel that they need to interject with "that's not racism" because it's an ethnic group instead. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Ok, so racism has become a catch all term to describe discrimination based on ethnic, cultural or religious grounds, but do we really need to be reminded constantly what the origins of the word were. everyone knew what was meant. there's no need for disambiguation.

Regarding the original story, the judge was bang out of line. I'd have no trouble with him saying "I feel that you feel you can justify your actions because of your religion" but to state that all or even most muslims are like that is wrong.

reprazant

Grayson wrote: »

Regarding the original story, the judge was bang out of line. I'd have no trouble with him saying "I feel that you feel you can justify your actions because of your religion" but to state that all or even most muslims are like that is wrong.

Completely agree with is. It is a mass generalisation that some people will agree with as it suits their own narrow view point.

Also agree with your first point as well.

GalwayGuy2

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

Interesting. I didn't quite think of how laws are wrote.

I guess there's two interpretations of the lack of that law.

A) There was a lack of awareness about sexual violence.

It was seen as a situation where a woman could not say no.

Oh well, I know what people mean when they say that qoute that started this slight derailment.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

It generally goes what you can't do, not what you specifically can do.
If it doesn't say you can't do it, it's perfectly legal

The Marital rape thing is much more complicated than that. (Historically - as it's largely sorted now, legally anyway).

It stems back to judgments made in the 1700s in the English courts and deals with presumed consent and contract of marriage etc. It largely outside of the scope of direct reference in statute.

[Deleted User]

Uriel. wrote: »

The Marital rape thing is much more complicated than that. (Historically - as it's largely sorted now, legally anyway).

It stems back to judgments made in the 1700s in the English courts and deals with presumed consent and contract of marriage etc. It largely outside of the scope of direct reference in statute.

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

Uriel.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Interesting. I didn't quite think of how laws are wrote.

I guess there's two interpretations of the lack of that law.

A) There was a lack of awareness about sexual violence.

It was seen as a situation where a woman could not say no.

Oh well, I know what people mean when they say that qoute that started this slight derailment.

There is that situation - where there are no express laws/prohibitions. But in the case of marital rape, the issue was much more complicated. Judges in the past dealt with the issue vis-a-vis presumed/automatic consent and the contract of marriage. It is very complicated and it largely developed via common law rather that statute. To put an end to the precedent that was set in common law, the legislature introduced the 1990 Act.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

It is interesting actually in the sense of reasoning and quite honestly it shows a sad reflection on the place of women in society and days gone by - common law generally reflects the mindset of society at a given time.

The Law Reform Commission looked at this issue extensively in the run up to the 1990 Act, they produced reports dealing with their review. Should be available on their site. I'll see if I can dig it out for you.

TwoShedsJackson

Hitchens wrote: »

Well, he's called it as a lot of people see it...

Which, amazingly, does not automatically make it correct.

Uriel.

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh that's interesting. I must go read up more on it

Took a while but found it bluewolf.

it's quite long as it deals with law on rape generally but does have specific sections on marital rape.
There's another separate report as well, almost like a digest piece dealing with marital rape solely. But can't find it...I'll keep looking.

Here's the simplest summary of the historic position - obviously more complicated but it is a nice one liner that puts it all in a nutshell

The consent rationale traces its origins to Hale's statement. In effect, it argues that, when people marry, they are freely committing themselves to a life of intimacy with each other; an important part of that intimacy is sexual intimacy, including sexual intercourse.

Cian92

ThisRegard wrote: »

You need to get out more often if those signs, seen the country, nay the world, over, scare you.

I'm yet to see them anywhere in Munster.

projectgtr

I don't have an issue at all with what was said using personal experience, specially after hearing stories from Muslim women on the radio today. Do I think all Muslim men beat their wives? Not in the slightest, but I do believe there is an element of women being second class citizens that needs to be stamped out. Also as this being a "racist" issue, I'm definitely of the opinion its not and there's a big difference between race and religion. The world would be a better place without ANY religion.

sillyoulfool

GenieOz wrote: »

Looks like you're incredibly biased too .

Absolutely, I am biased towards the idea that every Muslim male in this world is not a wife beater.
I am also biased in that I absolutely believe the following:
All Priests are not paedophiles.
All Irish are not stupid drunks
The woman's place is not in the home
All Jews are not mean, all Nigerians are not scammers, all unemployed persons are not SW leeches etc..etc..

Shame on me

Sunglasses Ron

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Fair dues to him for what?
He has now publicly displayed an irrational bias .

Has he?

Over the last 15 years, the time in which our society became more multicultural, if someone can do an audit of his trials and find his opinion, compared to the cases of domestic violence he has tried, compared to the Muslim population percentage, is factually incorrect in comparison to his statement, the man should be sacked.

If not, well now :pac:

The political correctness in this country these days is left wing neo fascism, plain and simple. We had a stand up comedian/ singer in a dress whose faux pas on RTE led to his struggle being compared to the self sacrifices of Mandela and the men of 1916 the other month. Get a grip. Only last week on this board we were told we couldn't discuss the fact a traveller woman from a notorious traeller site in Athlone had obtained a questionable compensation payment from a notoriously common traveller compensation source.

Does anyone else feel a bit wary of where our society is going in terms of calling it how it is?

sillyoulfool

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Does anyone else feel a bit wary of where our society is going in terms of calling it how it is?

No.
I think our society should always and ever challenge those muppets /racists/ knuckedraggers who make sweeping generalizations based on race/religion/ethnicity, such as this judge made.

Sunglasses Ron

sillyoulfool wrote: »

No.
I think our society should always and ever challenge those muppets /racists/ knuckedraggers who make sweeping generalizations based on race/religion/ethnicity, such as this judge made.

But if a sweeping generalisation is disproportionately correct?

Any Irish muslims I ever knew from school (only a handful, given my generation) were largely the same as us, liked getting on the sauce etc. But if this bloke has handled a disproportionate amount of cases he can say what he likes. I am willing to bet the amount of Irish people who end up in court in Santa Ponsa for drunk and disorderly is disproportionately high compared to the amount of Spaniards who end up in the local court for the same offence. Why the f'uck would I care if some Spanish judge spoke the truth about it?

As said, if someone can audit the judge and his cases and show he is talking crap, sack him by all means.

projectgtr

sillyoulfool wrote: »

No.
I think our society should always and ever challenge those muppets /racists/ knuckedraggers who make sweeping generalizations based on race/religion/ethnicity, such as this judge made.

Its hard to agree with you to be honest when I hear so many Muslim women agreeing with the judge

Sunglasses Ron

Can you imagine how open our society would be if every judge "called it"?

"I'm sick of x group beating and robbing elderly farmers down the country and getting into machete brawls at weddings and funerals"

"I'm sick of y group coming here to beg on the street and fitting false paneling to copy swipe ATM cards"

"I'm sick of z group appearing in court every other fortnight for stabbing one of their compatriots to death at a house party"

It might actually prompt some self and government examination of what is going on.

TheDoc

There is calling something as it is, and there is just making an absolutely ridiculous comment with no grounds or basis for it.

This is a case of a judge forming an opinion from some limited exposure. OBVIOUSLY his exposure is going to be mostly to do with criminal activities, being a ****ing judge.

I'm not muslim, but knew a few through my time in working life and college, and I don't recall their outlook or opinions on woman being anything outragous or disrespectful.

Judges are there to rule on the case at hand, I'm sick of hearing their "social commentary" which is completely abstracted from a proffesion on such high income living in exclusive areas. They havn't a breeze what goes on in the real world.

Sleepy

If you call yourself a Muslim, you should expect to be called out on regarding the sexist teachings of a paedophile who died over 1400 years ago as having merit.

If you call yourself a Catholic, likewise you should expect to be called out for supporting a profoundly homophobic organisation.

If the Koran says you can beat your wife / that those who don't follow Islam should be killed or the Bible says gay sex is "sinful" and you don't agree with those positions either abandon the religion or accept the flack for your bigotry.

Amirani

TheDoc wrote: »

There is calling something as it is, and there is just making an absolutely ridiculous comment with no grounds or basis for it.

This is a case of a judge forming an opinion from some limited exposure. OBVIOUSLY his exposure is going to be mostly to do with criminal activities, being a ****ing judge.

I'm not muslim, but knew a few through my time in working life and college, and I don't recall their outlook or opinions on woman being anything outragous or disrespectful.

Judges are there to rule on the case at hand, I'm sick of hearing their "social commentary" which is completely abstracted from a proffesion on such high income living in exclusive areas. They havn't a breeze what goes on in the real world.

Some excellent points here, I agree completely.

Gatling

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Still waiting on your link to his conviction.
You stated as a matter of fact that he had engaged in actions of which he has not convicted, or is it just a case of that when it comes to Muslims, they are all guilty until proven innocent with you!

The case has been put back 6 months ,

I said the reason he was in court you have proclaimed his innocence some how minus any facts to the actual case ,

I'm still waiting on your Link

Where it said he didn't break in ,

Didn't have a knife ,

The the ex wife withdrew her case immediately after the comment

Still waiting

Still here

What's taking so long

ThisRegard

Cian92 wrote: »

I'm yet to see them anywhere in Munster.

You must walk around gazing at your feet.

http://www.youghalonline.com/2010/10/07/dial-to-stop-drug-dealing-in-youghal-1800-220-220/
http://kieranmccarthy.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/drugs.jpg
http://www.crimestoppers.ie/download/DialtoStopPoster.pdf
http://www.kildare.ie/community/notices/images/Dial-To-Stop-Drug-Dealing.jpg

reprazant

Gatling wrote: »

The case has been put back 6 months ,

I said the reason he was in court you have proclaimed his innocence some how minus any facts to the actual case ,

He hasn't been found guilty as of yet so under the eyes of the law, he is still innocent until found guilty.

Until this changes, it is not a matter of fact that he did engage in the actions fo which he is accused. That is the way the law works.

Gatling

reprazant wrote: »

He hasn't been found guilty as of yet so under the eyes of the law, he is still innocent until found guilty.

Until this changes, it is not a matter of fact that he did engage in the actions fo which he is accused. That is the way the law works.

I never said he was guilty or other ,

One poster suggested he didn't apparently break in, apparently didn't have a knife ,

He was in court for what I believe a serious offence ,
Yes he hasn't been found guilty or even not guilty but the case is still before the court again in 6 months