Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Hazards of Belief

1…235236238240241…334

Comments

  • #7112
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,554 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I really can't see that there is any problem. By crossing the border into a country you accept the laws of that country. You can continue to live by any customs or laws you may have previously observed, provided they are not in conflict with the laws of the country you have entered. If you want the laws of the host country to be changed to accommodate you, you go through the proper process of gaining support for your proposal and lobbying the government. In the meantime you do not get to continue practices that are contrary to the laws of the host country.


  • #7113
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    kylith wrote: »
    But under Danish law a minor cannot have a spouse. Therefore it's not a situation of separating spouses, it's a situation where a female minor is living with a man who is neither a parent nor legal gaurdian and whose only claim on her is an invalid marriage certificate.
    Is it illegal for a minor to live with an adult who is neither a parent nor legal guardian in Denmark?
    kylith wrote: »
    Now, I'm not a social worker, but I don't believe that authorities are keen on letting randomers care for children they're not related to, especially if he's of the opinion that she's his wife, which at least implies a sexual element to the relationship.
    I think even the Danish authorities will know he's not a randomer, and that it's not his and hers opinions that she's his wife; the couples do know that they are married, and regardless of whether Denmark recognises it it doesn't make Denmark oblivious to it. So if there is something illegal going on (and I don't think anyone at any stage has offered any evidence that there is), I'd expect to see charges being brought before peoples liberties are interfered with. That's not happening though, is it?


  • #7114
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I assume the Danish Government has the power to, and has in the past, taken children out of the custody of adults that they deem to be abusing them. I also assume that in some of those cases, those adults were actually parents of the children and so had a legally recognisable bond with the child. I therefore see no issue with the Danish Government taking children out of the custody of other adults (without a recognisable legal bond) who's relationship is also deemed as abusive.
    Sure. Once the Danish government starts showing a legal cause to separate these people, like abuse, it's justified. They haven't though. The only justification offered so far has been
    "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,". That's not evidence of abuse by refugees, it's evidence of abuse by the Danish.


  • #7115
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    I really can't see that there is any problem. By crossing the border into a country you accept the laws of that country. You can continue to live by any customs or laws you may have previously observed, provided they are not in conflict with the laws of the country you have entered. If you want the laws of the host country to be changed to accommodate you, you go through the proper process of gaining support for your proposal and lobbying the government. In the meantime you do not get to continue practices that are contrary to the laws of the host country.

    And if they break the law they should be treated like other law breakers. If they don't break the law, they shouldn't be separated from their families.


  • #7116
    Laney Savory Oceanographer
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Laney Savory Oceanographer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure. Once the Danish government starts showing a legal cause to separate these people, like abuse, it's justified. They haven't though. The only justification offered so far has been
    "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,". That's not evidence of abuse by refugees, it's evidence of abuse by the Danish.

    A man who is married to a child is deemed to be abusive to that child.

    That's the hypothesis that they're working from.

    I can see where they're coming from and wouldn't like to try to argue the case against.


  • Advertisement
  • #7117
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    A man who is married to a child is deemed to be abusive to that child.
    That's the hypothesis that they're working from.
    I can see where they're coming from and wouldn't like to try to argue the case against.
    I'd immediately start with the fact that they've said he's not married to the child, so the rest can't follow.
    I'd continue with a request for where this deeming is founded in law as it flies in the face of presumption of innocence, a principle which is enshrined in Danish law.
    On the face of it, there's no argument for the proposed hypothesis whatsoever.


  • #7118
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,554 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    So when single Danish men take underage girls into their homes to live with them, and they agree that they have gone through a marriage ceremony (of any sort), the Danish child protection authorities say, fine, that's ok so. We can't prove you are having sex so we will assume you are not until she becomes pregnant. And even then it could be someone else's. Nothing to do here.


  • #7119
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'd immediately start with the fact that they've said he's not married to the child, so the rest can't follow.
    Well it can follow, actually... He thinks he is married to the child, and he claims he is married to the child. What Danish law says does not change what he claims or believes. I am pretty sure you know this...
    Absolam wrote: »
    I'd continue with a request for where this deeming is founded in law as it flies in the face of presumption of innocence, a principle which is enshrined in Danish law.
    Most civilised countries have child protection policies that allow for the removal of children when there is a risk of abuse or harm of the child. This is separate from the prosecution of the person that may, or indeed may not, he harming or abusing those children.

    Whether or not you agree with it, social services can remove children that they believe are at risk, and the evidential burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the risk is real or manifest does not, quite rightly, apply. The "husband" is not being accused of anything, so his right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty is intact.

    Now, if the state wanted to prosecute someone for abuse or child rape, which is not the case here, then, again quite rightly, they would have to prove the abuse to secure a criminal conviction.

    Whilst it is an assumption on my part, I expect the Danes have such policies.

    Absolam wrote: »
    On the face of it, there's no argument for the proposed hypothesis whatsoever.
    Well yes, there is. The "husband"
    believes, irrespective of whatever the law of the country says, that he is married to the child. Whilst it is not certain it is at least a possibility that the "husband" may have, or try to have sex with the child. I presume you will agree that this would be rape? Yes? I would expect that in any scenario where it was believed that there was a possibility of a child being raped that the child would be removed from that environment for her protection.

    Personally, I prefer my child protection rule to try to prevent or reduce the harm to children. In this case I think that separating a grown man from a child he may or may not think he has a right to rape, and thereby preventing that rape is more agreeable than waiting until he rapes her and then prosecuting him for the rape. Buy hey, maybe that's just me.

    MrP


  • #7120
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Absolam wrote: »
    Ah... but you said 'refugee camps', which is where the refugees are. Still, is there a reason to think they cease to be refugees if they get more than a certain distance from the conflict they're fleeing?
    You're really trying to make out like you're refuting my point here.
    You know what I was trying to say, give the points scoring a rest.
    Well my argument is that where they want to be (other than at home in their own country without being bombed and shot at) hasn't been specified; I'm not making any assumptions about that, but apparently you are.
    Yes I'm making the assumption that refugees in Denmark want to be in Denmark.
    Because they chose to be there, either by walking across Europe to get there or choosing to accept asylum there.
    If you can refute this by showing that they were forced to go to Denmark then I'd love to see your proof.
    Which of them specifies refugee couples must be separated without evidence of a crime being committed?
    The law deals with the safety of children and young persons.
    That's the basis on which the state intervenes.
    Your "where does it specifically say" argument is nonsense, it doesn't have address every possible outcome.
    Do you think it's acceptable for a 20/30/40 year old man to share a bed with an 11 year old girl?


  • #7121
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Absolam wrote: »
    Because the Danish goverment has developed some method of determing that that person has 'the attitude of having sexual rights to her'? Actually, is there a law in Denmark against having 'the attitude of having sexual rights to her'? Becuase I have a suspicion there isn't...
    Actually, the issue is the couple is being separated without any evidence of a crime being committed in Denmark being presented, something that wouldn't happen to any couples that aren't refugees in Denmark. Whether the husband would commit child molestation is as relevant as it is to any man in the street someone thinks would do it, which is to say he hasn't done it and can't be separated from his family just because someone thinks he would.

    I think everyone is innocent until proven guilty, a maxim that supposedly applies to everyone in Denmark, but apparently excludes refugees.

    This is unbelievable.
    The law is against minors being raped or abused. In islam a husband has predominant rights of sexual intercourse with their wives. You are being deliberately obtuse about this. The couple are MARRIED in the husband's eyes. Its not a random paring, or an unoffical friend of the family looking after a minor separated from the family. She is his wife in his eyes.
    The risk is HUGE that they will have some form of sex. There are other forms of abuse too, including physical punishment, that a husband is allowed to do.
    What you want is to wait until it happens AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, until a social worker spots it and reports it.
    AS a married couple, they ALREADY had sex if they are living together. So again this is not a hypothetical risk we are imagining. The crime already happened at least once, so the goal is to prevent it happening again.

    Its no different than having a sex offender put on a sex offender watch list and preventing him hanging around school playgrounds. He may never commit the crime again, so it is a preventive measure.

    Also you are forgetting that the husband does not see the act AS IMMORAL.
    He would see it as his god given right, accepted by his culture, and as normal as having sex with any adult partner would be in our culture.
    So you are hoping he restrains himself, in private, with a child, in case danish social workers find out.

    The very act of being classed as his wife put her at risk.
    Finally...
    "something that wouldn't happen to any couples that aren't refugees in Denmark. "
    Really? So please identify any cases where an adult is legally allowed to be married to a child in denmark, with full sexual rights to her when they live together, but are not refugees.
    I think you are trying to conflate the fact that they have not commited the crime, to the social services immediate knowledge, while in Denmark with ANY risk of committing the crime (as in a random stranger sees a child in the street).
    ANY of them have ALREADY raped the children, probably for years in some cases. There is zero reason to think otherwise as marriage in Islam REQUIRES consummation to be considered valid. In the case of Mohammed, he did not LIVE with Aisha until she was nine. She lived with her family, while legally married to Mo, as they realised that she was unable to commit to conjungal aspects of marriage.
    In fundie Islam women are seen as mothers first and foremost and you don't get to be a mother without sex.


  • Advertisement
  • #7122
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,866 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Seems Gary Glitter missed a trick.

    He should've gone to Pakistan, 'married' an 11-year-old and then brought her back to the UK. Then it'd all be OK. According to some here at least :rolleyes:

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #7123
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    If this woman ever gets her way, Gary Glitter won't have to convert to Islam, he can just plead for his "human rights" as a paedophile.
    Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights....
    She said: "There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them...
    ...A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method, and was awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book Prize in 2004 for a monograph called “Divorcing Responsibly.

    All too often the ultra-liberals end up being used by some very distasteful people.


  • #7124
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    So when single Danish men take underage girls into their homes to live with them, and they agree that they have gone through a marriage ceremony (of any sort), the Danish child protection authorities say, fine, that's ok so. We can't prove you are having sex so we will assume you are not until she becomes pregnant. And even then it could be someone else's. Nothing to do here.
    You've made a couple of extravagant leaps there, but you're getting close; if the Danish child protection authorities can't prove that someone is being abused, they have no mandate to treat people as if someone is being abused.


  • #7125
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,866 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    In fairness not all sex offenders are cut from the same cloth.

    There is a man in the UK who is registered as a sex offender for masturbating alone in his locked hotel room.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #7126
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well it can follow, actually... He thinks he is married to the child, and he claims he is married to the child. What Danish law says does not change what he claims or believes. I am pretty sure you know this...
    So... if he is married, then he's not a single man? If she considers herself a woman, then she's not a child? How come we're supposed to ignore the background of the couples in question (that they are old enough to be legally married and have been legally married) in favour of the law of the country that they're in (which says they're not) until it's suddenly necessary to take into account their background in order to presume they'll do something illegal?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Most civilised countries have child protection policies that allow for the removal of children when there is a risk of abuse or harm of the child. This is separate from the prosecution of the person that may, or indeed may not, he harming or abusing those children.
    I imagine they do. Has anyone put forward the implementation of those policies in these instances? Is there even any evidence that child protection services are involved? Because the Minister (for Integration) hasn't said she is involving them, she specifically said she is asking the Danish Immigration Service to put a stop to them living together.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Whether or not you agree with it, social services can remove children that they believe are at risk, and the evidential burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the risk is real or manifest does not, quite rightly, apply. The "husband" is not being accused of anything, so his right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty is intact.
    So, are Social Services removing children they believe to be at risk? Because that's not what the Minister is saying.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Now, if the state wanted to prosecute someone for abuse or child rape, which is not the case here, then, again quite rightly, they would have to prove the abuse to secure a criminal conviction.
    Indeed. And I imagine there are a few legal hoops regarding evidence that child protection services would have to jump through in order to show a child was sufficiently at risk to remove them from someone's care as well; there certainly are in Ireland. But since they don't seem to be involved in this situation, I have a feeling no one is going to be presenting the evidence they would be expected to have before doing so, are they?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Whilst it is an assumption on my part, I expect the Danes have such policies.
    I'd assume so too. I wouldn't assume they're being invoked here though.....
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well yes, there is. The "husband" believes, irrespective of whatever the law of the country says, that he is married to the child.
    If you're going by what the husband believes, I'm afraid you have to concede that he doesn't believe he's married to a child. He believes he is married to someone of proper marriageable age, who has properly consented to their marriage. And there's no reason to think she believes any different, is there?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Whilst it is not certain it is at least a possibility that the "husband" may have, or try to have sex with the child. I presume you will agree that this would be rape? Yes?
    I do not; it may be that if they had sex in Denmark it was statutory rape, but their consummation of their marriage in their own country wasn't rape. Denmarks law cannot be applied to what happens in Syria any more than Syrias law is observed in Denmark. And unless the Integration Minister has put in place a proper means of integrating these refugees so as to educate them as to the nullification of their marriages and the legal consequences of continuing to do things that are perfectly legal in the State they grew up in, I would think it unjust to hold someone responsible for illegality of an action they had no reason to imagine could be illegal, after all, as you say they do think they are married.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would expect that in any scenario where it was believed that there was a possibility of a child being raped that the child would be removed from that environment for her protection.
    I would imagine a child could only be removed from an environment if it could be shown there was a probability of her being raped; otherwise all children would have been removed from all environments long since.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Personally, I prefer my child protection rule to try to prevent or reduce the harm to children. In this case I think that separating a grown man from a child he may or may not think he has a right to rape, and thereby preventing that rape is more agreeable than waiting until he rapes her and then prosecuting him for the rape. Buy hey, maybe that's just me.
    Maybe it is... I haven't heard that any of the refugees have claimed they think they have a right to rape anyone, have you?


  • #7127
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    You're really trying to make out like you're refuting my point here. You know what I was trying to say, give the points scoring a rest.
    I don't think it's points scoring to point out that they are refugees in refugee camps, no matter how close to the conflict the camp is?
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Yes I'm making the assumption that refugees in Denmark want to be in Denmark. Because they chose to be there, either by walking across Europe to get there or choosing to accept asylum there. If you can refute this by showing that they were forced to go to Denmark then I'd love to see your proof.
    Fair enough, these one's are in Denmark and don't want to be;
    Refugees Desperate to Leave Denmark Begin March to Sweden
    Refugees are fleeing Denmark
    Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark
    But as I said earlier; should refugees choose to settle in Denmark, I have no issue with their being required to comply with Danish law, so long as the requirements are the same as those placed on other Danish residents.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The law deals with the safety of children and young persons. That's the basis on which the state intervenes.
    Your "where does it specifically say" argument is nonsense, it doesn't have address every possible outcome.
    That's absolute nonsense. A law that doesn't address the issue doesn't address the issue. Either there is a law that allows refugee couples to be separated without evidence of a crime being committed, or there isn't.
    The State doesn't (or shouldn't) intervene on the basis that there must be some vague idea of a law that deals with stuff like this so that they can do what they want; laws are specific. And if you could actually find one that's being implemented here, I think you'd be quoting it.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Do you think it's acceptable for a 20/30/40 year old man to share a bed with an 11 year old girl?
    I'm certain it's acceptable in Syria (if they're married). It's even acceptable for them to have sex once the woman has reached sexual maturity. I think I'm aware that it's my cultural conditioning that makes it seem unacceptable to me personally, and I've read enough to understand that my cultural conditioning is at odds with the views of most cultures throughout history. I also understand from a biological point of view that not having sex once sexual maturity is reached is exceptionally unusual.


  • #7128
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Absolam wrote: »
    Fair enough, these one's are in Denmark and don't want to be;
    Refugees Desperate to Leave Denmark Begin March to Sweden
    Refugees are fleeing Denmark
    Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark
    But as I said earlier; should refugees choose to settle in Denmark, I have no issue with their being required to comply with Danish law, so long as the requirements are the same as those placed on other Danish residents.
    So none of them are being forced to stay and they can leave if they want.
    You've just proved my point.
    That's absolute nonsense. A law that doesn't address the issue doesn't address the issue. Either there is a law that allows refugee couples to be separated without evidence of a crime being committed, or there isn't.
    The State doesn't (or shouldn't) intervene on the basis that there must be some vague idea of a law that deals with stuff like this so that they can do what they want; laws are specific. And if you could actually find one that's being implemented here, I think you'd be quoting it.
    No it's not nonsense.
    There doesn't need to be a specific law that addresses every conceivable possibility that may arrive.
    They've ratified the UN Convention on the rights of the Child.
    Which ensures children are protected from abuse.
    Removing children from their adult husbands would qualify under protection from abuse.
    I'm certain it's acceptable in Syria (if they're married). It's even acceptable for them to have sex once the woman has reached sexual maturity.
    I think I'm aware that it's my cultural conditioning that makes it seem unacceptable to me personally, and I've read enough to understand that my cultural conditioning is at odds with the views of most cultures throughout history. I also understand from a biological point of view that not having sex once sexual maturity is reached is exceptionally unusual.
    So that's a no then?


  • #7129
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    This is unbelievable. The law is against minors being raped or abused.
    It is unbelievable. Quite aside from immediately shifting your goalposts from 'the attitude of having sexual rights to her is a problem that denmark would address', no one has actually been accused of breaking a law against minors being raped or abused, have they?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    In islam a husband has predominant rights of sexual intercourse with their wives. You are being deliberately obtuse about this. The couple are MARRIED in the husband's eyes. Its not a random paring, or an unoffical friend of the family looking after a minor separated from the family. She is his wife in his eyes.
    And the fact that he (and she) believes that they are properly and legally married is not illegal under Danish law, is it?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The risk is HUGE that they will have some form of sex. There are other forms of abuse too, including physical punishment, that a husband is allowed to do.
    I imagine there's a good chance that they may choose to have sex (after all they think they're married, why wouldn't they), but the chance that someone may commit a crime is not sufficient reason to treat someone as if they have committed a crime. The statement that there are other forms of abuse too only demonstrates that you think abuse is occurring without any evidence for it. Even so, the very fact that you're construing consensual sex within marriage as abuse should give you pause for thought.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    What you want is to wait until it happens AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, until a social worker spots it and reports it.
    Certainly not and I never said any such thing as AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, did I? What I want is for someone is to show that something illegal is happening in the first place.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    AS a married couple, they ALREADY had sex if they are living together. So again this is not a hypothetical risk we are imagining. The crime already happened at least once, so the goal is to prevent it happening again.
    Nope. No crime has happened; it was perfectly legal for them as a married couple in Syria to have consensual sex, like married couples throughout the world.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Its no different than having a sex offender put on a sex offender watch list and preventing him hanging around school playgrounds. He may never commit the crime again, so it is a preventive measure.
    Well, it is. It's the same as putting someone who's not a sex offender on a sex offender watch list because you think he would if he got the chance, then punishing him for sex offences that you think are almost certainly going to occur, as 'a preventative measure'. Which is to say, utterly and absolutely unjust, and not something the Danish State seem inclined to do to anyone... other than Muslim refugees so far.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Also you are forgetting that the husband does not see the act AS IMMORAL. He would see it as his god given right, accepted by his culture, and as normal as having sex with any adult partner would be in our culture. So you are hoping he restrains himself, in private, with a child, in case danish social workers find out.
    I'm not forgetting at all; it is absolutely as moral an act to him as it is an immoral one to you, and he has just as much right to his point of view as you do. I'm also mindful that the only reason he should restrain himself (or his wife should restrain herself) from doing what he sees as morally right is if they have been told (say by an Integration Minister?) that part of their integration is complying with specific laws which may make no sense to them but which they are nevertheless obliged to follow.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The very act of being classed as his wife put her at risk. Finally... "something that wouldn't happen to any couples that aren't refugees in Denmark. " Really? So please identify any cases where an adult is legally allowed to be married to a child in denmark, with full sexual rights to her when they live together, but are not refugees.
    That's not what I said was happening to refugee couples though? What I said was happening was couples were being separated by Danish authorities without establishing a legal cause. If you can identify any cases where Danish authorities do that to people who are not refugees please identify them; I certainly can't find them.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    I think you are trying to conflate the fact that they have not commited the crime, to the social services immediate knowledge, while in Denmark with ANY risk of committing the crime (as in a random stranger sees a child in the street).
    No, much simpler than that; I don't believe the Danish Integration Minister has any legal mandate to order couples separated by the Danish Immigration Service on the basis that she finds their circumstances unacceptable.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    ANY of them have ALREADY raped the children, probably for years in some cases. There is zero reason to think otherwise as marriage in Islam REQUIRES consummation to be considered valid.
    Quite simply, no. There is zero evidence being presented that a single one of those refugees has ever raped anyone. Your presumption that the consensual consummation of a legal marriage is a rape is purely a matter of prejudice, and has no basis in fact. You may consider it rape, but just as Syrians don't get to consider themselves married in Denmark, you don't get to consider them rapists in Syria.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    In the case of Mohammed, he did not LIVE with Aisha until she was nine. She lived with her family, while legally married to Mo, as they realised that she was unable to commit to conjungal aspects of marriage. In fundie Islam women are seen as mothers first and foremost and you don't get to be a mother without sex.
    I don't think Mohammed and Aisha are amongst the refugees, and I suspect you have even less insight into the lives of those refugees than you have into theirs. Nevertheless your views on fundie Islam are.... relevant? Are you saying now that it would be ok for young women to live with their husbands if they were sexually mature enough to commit to the conjugal aspects of marriage and become mothers?


  • #7130
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    So none of them are being forced to stay and they can leave if they want. You've just proved my point.
    Not really; it shows that they are refugees in Denmark who don't choose to be there, which is what you were disagreeing with, remember? Those links show that they are trying to move to different countries.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    No it's not nonsense. There doesn't need to be a specific law that addresses every conceivable possibility that may arrive.
    There does need to be a law that empowers the Danish authorities to take action; that's kind of the way legal agencies work. Otherwise they're just vigilantes. the vague notion that there's some sort of ensurance against abuse somewhere doesn't really cut it, especially when no one is presenting any evidence of abuse....
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    They've ratified the UN Convention on the rights of the Child. Which ensures children are protected from abuse. Removing children from their adult husbands would qualify under protection from abuse.
    If they are acting on foot of obligations under the Convention on the rights of the Child (and they haven't even claimed they are, never mind demonstrated it, nor have you shown which part of it qualifies removing children from their husbands under protection from abuse), they should be able to show they are. And they're not showing that, are they? No more than you are. They're not even using agencies that would have obligations under the Convention; the Minister instructed the Danish Immigration Service to separate the couples. And she didn't even claim it was because of child abuse, never mind provide evidence.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    So that's a no then?
    It certainly doesn't look like one does it? If I think I'm aware of why something seems unacceptable to me, it's a good guess that I know it's not actually (which is to say objectively) unacceptable. Or were you just looking for a snappy one liner instead of some critical thought? Would you like me to condemn something for you whilst we're at it?


  • #7131
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Absolam wrote: »
    And the fact that he (and she) believes that they are properly and legally married is not illegal under Danish law, is it?
    You are deliberately ignoring the implications of that attitude in regard to the welfare of the child.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I imagine there's a good chance that they may choose to have sex (after all they think they're married, why wouldn't they), but the chance that someone may commit a crime is not sufficient reason to treat someone as if they have committed a crime.
    IF there is a GOOD chance of rape, you take preventative measures to avoid it, you don't let it happen when you knew beforehand it probably would.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Even so, the very fact that you're construing consensual sex within marriage as abuse should give you pause for thought.
    IT IS NOT LEGALLY CONSENSUAL if she is a child.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Certainly not and I never said any such thing as AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN, did I? What I want is for someone is to show that something illegal is happening in the first place.
    You just said there is a good chance they will have sex. So there is a GOOD reason to think that illegal activity will occur/has occured/is occuring.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Nope. No crime has happened; it was perfectly legal for them as a married couple in Syria to have consensual sex, like married couples throughout the world.
    ARE YOU KIDDING ME... Just because it is legal for them to do it in Syria does not mean it is something to shrug off when analysing the risk of its repetition in Denmark. If eating babies was allowed in Syria, and the refugee admitted he likes to do so, and does so in Syria, and has brought a baby over with him, that baby is at risk. You don't say "well he has not eaten the baby HERE yet, so what's the problem."
    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, it is. It's the same as putting someone who's not a sex offender on a sex offender watch list because you think he would if he got the chance, then punishing him for sex offences that you think are almost certainly going to occur, as 'a preventative measure'. Which is to say, utterly and absolutely unjust, and not something the Danish State seem inclined to do to anyone... other than Muslim refugees so far.
    No, false analogy. It would be like a sex offender in Syria coming over here, and admitting his culture allows him free reign to commit his acts, and then be expected to be allowed to mind children in Denmark.
    Just because Denmark will not prosecute him for his PREVIOUS crimes (from their perspective), does not make him innocent of those past actions.
    Prevention is key.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm not forgetting at all; it is absolutely as moral an act to him as it is an immoral one to you, and he has just as much right to his point of view as you do. I'm also mindful that the only reason he should restrain himself (or his wife should restrain herself) from doing what he sees as morally right is if they have been told (say by an Integration Minister?) that part of their integration is complying with specific laws which may make no sense to them but which they are nevertheless obliged to follow.
    The safety of the child is not culturally relative. The practice of child marriage is barbaric and harmful to the child. This is not just MY perspective, it is scientifically supported. Children are treated as property, and child manufacturing machines in those cultures. It is a form of slavery.
    Are you going to leave the welfare of the child up to the abuser? You hope he will comply with the new requirements, that he sees going against his god given rights? Do you really think that will protect the child from abuse? IF you do think that you are delusional or deceptive.
    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not what I said was happening to refugee couples though? What I said was happening was couples were being separated by Danish authorities without establishing a legal cause. If you can identify any cases where Danish authorities do that to people who are not refugees please identify them; I certainly can't find them.
    The circumstances ONLY apply to refugees because they are the only ones who are married to children. "couples" is not an equivalent state, you are deliberately stripping away the context of what the issue is, to focus solely on the pairing of two people.
    Absolam wrote: »
    No, much simpler than that; I don't believe the Danish Integration Minister has any legal mandate to order couples separated by the Danish Immigration Service on the basis that she finds their circumstances unacceptable.
    Quite simply, no. There is zero evidence being presented that a single one of those refugees has ever raped anyone. Your presumption that the consensual consummation of a legal marriage is a rape is purely a matter of prejudice, and has no basis in fact. You may consider it rape, but just as Syrians don't get to consider themselves married in Denmark, you don't get to consider them rapists in Syria.
    Its not prejudice, they are having sex with children. If they are living together they are having sex, as they view it their right. The child is brainwashed into thinking it is normal. She will even resist reporting it probably, similar to a spouse who is abused can often protect her abuser from criticism. They have done it in Syria, they may not be legally prosecuted for that in Denmark, but they committed the act regardless, which means they put the children at risk.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think Mohammed and Aisha are amongst the refugees, and I suspect you have even less insight into the lives of those refugees than you have into theirs. Nevertheless your views on fundie Islam are.... relevant? Are you saying now that it would be ok for young women to live with their husbands if they were sexually mature enough to commit to the conjugal aspects of marriage and become mothers?
    The point I was making is that Mo and Aisha are viewed as role models for fundies and that when Aisha moved in with Mo, they had sex. So the idea that you think it is prejudice to think that the refugees are having sex with children they think they are married to and living with, is false. It is by far the most likely scenario, one that has been show to be common in such marriages time and time again (as shown in my Nat Geo link previously).

    And we are done, you are a rape apologist in the truest sense. You consider a child capable of giving legal consent to sex. You are also pretending the child is equal to her husband in regard to that relationship in your statements which is ridiculous and insincere.

    I don't know your motives but it is not to protect children, that is for certain.


  • Advertisement
  • #7132
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    You are deliberately ignoring the implications of that attitude in regard to the welfare of the child.
    I'm not; I'm pointing out that it's not illegal for married couples to think they're married, something that you seem to think requires censure. I don't believe Denmark has introduced thought crime legislation. Do you?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    IF there is a GOOD chance of rape, you take preventative measures to avoid it, you don't let it happen when you knew beforehand it probably would.
    Is there a metric to determine what a GOOD chance of rape is? Is there a body charged with assessing it? Have either of them been involved in this particular circumstance? Has anyone from Denmark ever been detained purely because there was a GOOD chance they would rape someone?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    IT IS NOT LEGALLY CONSENSUAL if she is a child.
    It is if she is of marriageable age in the jurisdiction in which it occurs.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    You just said there is a good chance they will have sex. So there is a GOOD reason to think that illegal activity will occur/has occured/is occuring.
    And if illegal activity does occur someone should be prosecuted. If you have no evidence that illegal activity did occur, or simply believe illegal activity will occur, you have no right to interfere with someones liberty.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    ARE YOU KIDDING ME... Just because it is legal for them to do it in Syria does not mean it is something to shrug off when analysing the risk of its repetition in Denmark.
    Who's shrugging it off? You said a crime happened; I'm pointing out that a crime didn't happen, you're making it up.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    If eating babies was allowed in Syria, and the refugee admitted he likes to do so, and does so in Syria, and has brought a baby over with him, that baby is at risk. You don't say "well he has not eaten the baby HERE yet, so what's the problem."
    No you say, "if he tries to eat the bay, or eats the baby, he's in trouble". You don't say "I'm going to imprison him because I think he's going to do eat the baby".
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    No, false analogy. It would be like a sex offender in Syria coming over here, and admitting his culture allows him free reign to commit his acts, and then be expected to be allowed to mind children in Denmark.
    Just because Denmark will not prosecute him for his PREVIOUS crimes (from their perspective), does not make him innocent of those past actions.
    Prevention is key.
    Well, first of all they wouldn't be previous crimes from Denmarks perspective. But try substituting sex offender with gay man, and children with boys, and see how you feel about your analogy then.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The safety of the child is not culturally relative. The practice of child marriage is barbaric and harmful to the child. This is not just MY perspective, it is scientifically supported. Children are treated as property, and child manufacturing machines in those cultures. It is a form of slavery.
    That is a perspective, whether you feel it's scientifically supported or not. If the young married women amongst the refugees feel they want to leave their husbands I have no problem with that; I have a problem with people forcing them to leave them simply because they think they know better.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Are you going to leave the welfare of the child up to the abuser? You hope he will comply with the new requirements, that he sees going against his god given rights? Do you really think that will protect the child from abuse? IF you do think that you are delusional or deceptive.
    I'll tell you what; when you present some evidence of abuse I'll give full consideration to what you find. So far all I've seen are assumptions and prejudices.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The circumstances ONLY apply to refugees because they are the only ones who are married to children. "couples" is not an equivalent state, you are deliberately stripping away the context of what the issue is, to focus solely on the pairing of two people.
    Soo... no, the Danish government isn't separating any other couples without a legal cause? They definitely are couples by the way; you mightn't agree with it, but they are. You may not think they should be, but as long as they don't do anything illegal, I don't think you (or the Danish government) has any right to separate them.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Its not prejudice, they are having sex with children. If they are living together they are having sex, as they view it their right.
    That's your assumption. You don't know, you think. And in every other circumstance a goverment would not be allowed to take action against them with knowing; due process, guilty until proven innocent etc etc. Yet you think these particular couples deserve to be treated differently; that's prejudice.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The child is brainwashed into thinking it is normal. She will even resist reporting it probably, similar to a spouse who is abused can often protect her abuser from criticism.
    Is that something you know? You must have some psychological reports on the refugees no one else has seen? Or are you just making assumptions again?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    They have done it in Syria, they may not be legally prosecuted for that in Denmark, but they committed the act regardless, which means they put the children at risk.
    Sorry, which act was committed regardless, and how were children put at risk? You're presenting evidence for this one, surely? You can't possibly be throwing another assumption out there as a fact, can you?
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    The point I was making is that Mo and Aisha are viewed as role models for fundies and that when Aisha moved in with Mo, they had sex. So the idea that you think it is prejudice to think that the refugees are having sex with children they think they are married to and living with, is false. It is by far the most likely scenario, one that has been show to be common in such marriages time and time again (as shown in my Nat Geo link previously).
    I think the point you ended up making was you're the kind of person who uses the word 'fundies'.
    I think it's prejudice to treat people differently because of where they're from, or because you think they're 'fundies'. I think if you're going to accuse someone of doing something illegal you should have proof. And I don't think even the Danish Minister had the nerve to offer those kinds of unfounded allegations.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    And we are done, you are a rape apologist in the truest sense. You consider a child capable of giving legal consent to sex. You are also pretending the child is equal to her husband in regard to that relationship in your statements which is ridiculous and insincere.
    Sure; though I have to say pointing out that consensual legal sex isn't rape probably isn't what conforms to most peoples notion of a rape apologist.
    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    I don't know your motives but it is not to protect children, that is for certain.
    I imagine that, just like with the refugees in Denmark, if you don't want to ask the question, you'll never find out the answer. It certainly makes it easier for you to keep making assumptions about people though, so there is that.


  • #7133
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,554 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    All this debate is totally unnecessary and irrelevant, and Absolem knows it is, he just enjoys arguing, even if the basis of the argument is totally irrational. The people concerned are in Denmark. It does not matter what their previous country's laws state, once they have moved to another country they live by the laws of that country. In all western countries it is illegal to marry a minor. That is all that is needed to know.


  • #7134
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    A rotating earth? You heathen bastards!

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/saudi-cleric-says-earth-does-not-revolve/news-story/1abd4f3b9857adc11d1a05c6e6ab499b


  • #7135
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    All this debate is totally unnecessary and irrelevant, and Absolem knows it is, he just enjoys arguing, even if the basis of the argument is totally irrational. The people concerned are in Denmark. It does not matter what their previous country's laws state, once they have moved to another country they live by the laws of that country. In all western countries it is illegal to marry a minor. That is all that is needed to know.
    Though I haven't argued that they shouldn't live by the laws of the country they're in, or that's it not illegal to marry a minor, have I?
    But thanks for the ad hominem anyway, it's becoming a bit of a signature, isn't it?


  • #7136
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Another heartbreaking account of child marriages in Islamic countries.



  • #7137
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,554 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Absolam wrote: »
    But thanks for the ad hominem anyway, it's becoming a bit of a signature, isn't it?

    Oh you've noticed! :D


  • #7138
    cowboyBuilder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭cowboyBuilder


    Michael OBrien wrote: »
    Another heartbreaking account of child marriages in Islamic countries.



    Yep, truly disgusting, yet for pointing this out you can be labeled as a racist or an "Islamaphobe"


  • #7139
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    The last few pages are a prime example of the poison that is cultural relativism/marxism. "Child rape is ok when a minority does it, cease with your white hetero-patriarchal, colonial laws and mindset".


  • #7140
    cowboyBuilder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭cowboyBuilder


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's problematic, because this leaves them on their own - if you bothered to read what he actually says its quite clear why he's saying they should stay together, and its not exactly an endorsement of child marriage. You seem to be equating this sort of thing with paedophilia, which it isn't, and are doubtless eager to scream about paedo apologia to the heavens.


    Ok, this has to be your best yet .

    adding to ignore list after reading that twaddle..


  • Advertisement
  • #7141
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    cowboyBuilder wrote: »
    Yep, truly disgusting, yet for pointing this out you can be labeled as a racist or an "Islamaphobe"
    Not if you stick rigidly to A+A guidelines outside A+A - in trying as much as possible to criticize the idea or the act only and not the person. The distinction can seem jesuitical up against some passionate or clueless person, but it's still one worth bearing in mind.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement