Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kuu · 10-09-2002, 01:13 PM

I think that many other Australians are appalled as well. The story appears here

<a href="http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5252999%255E421,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5252999%255E421,00.html</a>

and this is what is says

Quote:

A NORTHERN Territory Supreme Court judge has reluctantly sentenced a 50-year-old tribal Aboriginal man to 24 hours in prison for having unlawful intercourse with his promised 15-year-old wife, saying the matter should never have come to court.

Justice John Gallop said Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira was exercising his conjugal rights in traditional society and the girl "knew what was expected of her".

Since the girl's birth in 1986, Pascoe had been paying off her parents with gifts – spears, food and more recently cash – so she would be handed to him upon her coming of age.

As the girl's family was concerned she was playing up at nights with local boys in her hometown of Maningrida in western Arnhem Land, they decided it was time for the promise to be fulfilled, and for her to learn her duties and responsibilities as a wife.

The girl was taken to Pascoe's outstation, Gamurru-Guyurra, 120km east of Maningrida. In a perfunctory consummation of their relationship on August 20 last year in the middle of the day, Pascoe took her into his house and told her to take off her clothes. They then had sex.[/quote

The next day some family members from Maningrida dropped in to see how the girl was going. She was unhappy and tried to go home with them. Pascoe, who had been convicted in 1995 for the manslaughter of his former wife, produced a 12-gauge shotgun and fired it once in the air. The girl stayed with Pascoe while the friends alerted the police.

Police then visited the outstation and charged Pascoe with having unlawful inter-course with a female under 16, and with discharging a firearm.

When asked why he had sex with a 15-year-old, Pascoe told police: "She is my promised wife. I have rights to touch her body." Asked if he knew he had committed an offence, he said: "Yes, I know. It's called carnal knowledge, but its Aboriginal custom – my culture."

In March, Pascoe appeared before magistrate Vince Luppino, who sentenced him to 13 months' jail on the sex count and two months for firearm offences.

During sentencing, Mr Luppino said there was an element of compulsion for the girl to go into the relationship, that the law had a duty to protect underage girls from older men and that he had to deter Aboriginal communities from engaging in the promising of under-age wives.

There was an immediate appeal and Pascoe was bailed.

North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid principal lawyer Gerard Bryant yesterday argued that Mr Luppino had treated the trial as a rape case and failed to give weight to the fact that such marriages were common and morally correct under Aboriginal law.

Justice Gallop agreed, saying Mr Luppino "went outside the agreed facts" when sentencing Pascoe.

The judge read a submission by anthropologist Geoffrey Bagshaw, who said age was not a factor in determining when a family sent a girl to a promised husband – what mattered was that they'd had their first period. Mr Bagshaw said that sexual relations between a promised wife under the age of 16 was "not considered aberrant in (Arnhem Land) society".

Mr Bryant said there was a clear clash of cultures and that Pascoe was humiliated at having to explain his tribal rights to the white law.

Justice Gallop said the case would never have come to the attention of police if Pascoe had not lost his cool and fired the shotgun.

"She didn't need protection (from white law)," said the judge. "She knew what was expected of her. It's very surprising to me (Pascoe) was charged at all."

Justice Gallop allowed the appeal and radically slashed Pascoe's sentences. But because the Northern Territory still had mandatory sentencing for sexual assault, the judge had to jail Pascoe. He set a term of 24 hours.

For discharging the shotgun, which the judge considered more serious, Pascoe received 14 days.

I do believe that aboriginals should be able to practice the customs and laws within reason. However I think the basic human rights of this girl have been abused and I don't care what culture she belongs to.

Also why did the judge believe that the aboriginal man should be subject to white law as far asdischarging the gun goes but not when it comes to rape?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kuu ]</p>

Glory · 10-09-2002, 01:30 PM

I suspect that there are other tribal traditions which are subject to white law as well. The sale of a human being for sexual purposes is abhorrent to me and I cannot bring myself to respect such customs just as I cannot abide honour killing in middle eastern countries. That is traditional in their culture. It's a tradition that must be stopped right now, today. Tribal customs are used as the excuses for the exploitation, torture, and murder of women all over the world. My tribe has customs too. We protect the weak and promote the independence of the subjugated. We don't shrug and turn away when a person is treated like a thing.

Glory

Tom Sawyer · 10-09-2002, 01:37 PM

Tribal traditions be damned, this guy raped the girl. He should be sent to jail for it and registered as a sex offender (or whatever the Austrlian equivalent of that is). Her parents are unfit guardians and should lose custody of her and any other children that they have.

This isn't a case of me thinking that my societal traditions are more valid than theirs. This is a case of people treating a child like an object to be bought and sold (hell, he was paying them for her since she was born) instead of like a human being. This isn't a question of aboriginal vs mainstream societal rights, but about the abuse of a child. Whatever dumbass traditions this guy has are not as important as her rights as a human being.

Arrowman · 10-09-2002, 08:00 PM

It's a shocker, isn't it? The Australian has a good editorial on this story:

<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5256347%255E7583,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5256347%255E7583,00.html</a>

Quote:

...As Roger Sandall argued in The Culture Cult, culture is being used far too often as an excuse for aberrant behaviour by indigenous or minority groups, with the happy collusion of anthropologists and cultural theorists. If the "cultural practice" does not accord with Australian law, no amount of anthropological evidence about the onset of menstrual cycles and what is or isn't considered aberrant in Arnhem Land should take precedence. There comes a time when a civilised modern society must say that practices such as genital mutilation, forced marriage and sex with minors are unacceptable. The law is clear. Academic arguments about the supremacy of culture over gender, or so-called Western notions of civil and political rights, should hold no weight when young Australians are at risk.

echidna · 10-09-2002, 08:49 PM

Shocking story highlighting the worst of cultural relativism. Similar is the furore over �fire-sticking�, the practice of inserting a burning stick into the vagina of a woman accused of adultery. Similarly this is defended by those who claim it as an Aboriginal custom.

One needs to ask whether a person is Aboriginal first or human first. Culture be damned if it overrides humanity.

jaz · 10-09-2002, 09:14 PM

I find this absolutely shocking.

I am completely against aboriginal law, and this is a very good example of why. I have no problem with aboriginal culture, nor any problem with aboriginals trying to keep their culture alive. However Australia has laws and those laws must supercede Aborinal law. And bringing in addititinal laws solely for one group based on race is simply racist.

All australians have rights. Denying someone of those rights simply because they are of a particular race is just shocking. The girl may have been Aboriginal, but she has just as much right as I, a white australian, has not to be raped, not to be unlawfully imprisoned and not to be sold.

IMHO, her parents should be charged and lose all custody of any other children they may have. They sold their daughter, that seems to fit under slavery to me. And slavery is very much illegal here.

Doubting Didymus · 10-09-2002, 09:25 PM

It's this kind of thing that makes me reject any kind of relativism in morals. Anything that it is wrong to do to one person, is wrong to do to any other person.

If the girls parents had adopted a white child and treated her in exactly the same way, I guaruantee there would be a countrywide uproar. Why is it okay for aboriginals to do this to other aboriginals, if we would not accept the same behavior from a surburban white family?

I consider this racism. This girl is being afforded fewer rights because of her race.

Primal · 10-09-2002, 09:36 PM

This is where humanism and cultural relativism clash. I think here there is an obvious right or wrong that overides mere culture, the source: being human. Human beings having similiar biologies share certain characteristics and often times certain enviromental experiences. Two first born children and two parents can relate on those issues no matter the culture. I don't care what culture you come from, you get treated unfairly especially by someone close; it hurts. You get beat up; you don't like it. You lose a loved one; there is grief. One problem with cultural relativists is that they are willing to see all other animals as basically uniform in charactersitics but not the human animal. Why? I guess humans are the one super-special exception.

I imagine we should have a sort of zeroth law for humans being "a human should not injure humanity or another human or through inaction allow such harm to come to pass even if it interferes with another's culture." Perhaps one can call this the "humanist law". Such a thing enrages me.

Oh yes and this is racism, I agree. Definately, it's linming behavior,values and standards to what? Pigment. Except instead of merely dealing with arch-KKK types we also have to deal with anthroplogists who are giving them ammo. It's said because the anthropologists are the ones a person would expect to be nonracist and progressive. This makes me look at anthroplogy as sort of pseudoscientific.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Born Free · 10-10-2002, 12:34 AM

I think it's an appalling story and agree that the man should be jailed for rape and the girl's parents should lose parental rights. I'm also extremely pissed off at the judge who thinks it's more serious for a firearm offence to be committed than the rape of a minor.

He has played his cards well and basically gotten away with it like so many other men from differing cultures who like to control and manipulate females using customs, tribal rights and religion.

Pascoe felt humiliated for having to explain his tribal rights to the white law??? He played the racism card, it's the law of the bloody land, nothing to do with skin colour. Does he think he's above the law of the land??? Apparently so.

What the hell is it with some "cultures" that force marriage partners on to their sons and daughters anyway??? Why wouldn't a parent who wants the best for their child allow that child the right to pick and choose their own marriage mate or to choose no partner at all.

We're forever telling our kids that they have to learn responsibilty for their own actions and that they will learn from their mistakes as they grow up.

A lot of kids don't have that opportunity, how are they supposed to grow into mature adults???

These kids will never be able to look back fondly at the memories of their first love, or their first fumbled kiss cause their not allowed oh no for them their first relationship will be straight into marriage.

I do see a lot of certain cultures practices and customs as morally repungant and I'm not apologising for it either.

echidna · 10-10-2002, 01:28 AM

Interestingly I might go so far as to some extent culturally tolerate arranged marriages. Needless to say those which do not involve domination by either partner or rape or violence.

I�ve met several people who have been married by arrangement & in each case there seems to be have been a long period of uncomfortableness between the pair as 2 strangers gradually get to know each other. There are no doubt many tragic failures, but nonetheless, there also seem many successes where the couple does learn to live together into a family, often more happily than those relationships we choose ourselves.

Doubtless the parental threat of violence varies in intimidating their children, but if it could be done with solely duty and the ability to divorce, I suppose I might accept it.

That said I do value choice and self-determination, but in a cultural context I can probably accept arranged marriages, albeit with gritted teeth. A 50 yearold marrying a 15 yearold would stretch my tolerance to breaking though. How to deal with that anomaly ? I have no idea. Mixed feelings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2002, 01:30 PM	#2
Glory Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: b Posts: 673	I suspect that there are other tribal traditions which are subject to white law as well. The sale of a human being for sexual purposes is abhorrent to me and I cannot bring myself to respect such customs just as I cannot abide honour killing in middle eastern countries. That is traditional in their culture. It's a tradition that must be stopped right now, today. Tribal customs are used as the excuses for the exploitation, torture, and murder of women all over the world. My tribe has customs too. We protect the weak and promote the independence of the subjugated. We don't shrug and turn away when a person is treated like a thing. Glory

10-09-2002, 01:37 PM	#3
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	Tribal traditions be damned, this guy raped the girl. He should be sent to jail for it and registered as a sex offender (or whatever the Austrlian equivalent of that is). Her parents are unfit guardians and should lose custody of her and any other children that they have. This isn't a case of me thinking that my societal traditions are more valid than theirs. This is a case of people treating a child like an object to be bought and sold (hell, he was paying them for her since she was born) instead of like a human being. This isn't a question of aboriginal vs mainstream societal rights, but about the abuse of a child. Whatever dumbass traditions this guy has are not as important as her rights as a human being.

10-09-2002, 08:49 PM	#5
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Shocking story highlighting the worst of cultural relativism. Similar is the furore over �fire-sticking�, the practice of inserting a burning stick into the vagina of a woman accused of adultery. Similarly this is defended by those who claim it as an Aboriginal custom. One needs to ask whether a person is Aboriginal first or human first. Culture be damned if it overrides humanity.

10-09-2002, 09:14 PM	#6
jaz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 21	I find this absolutely shocking. I am completely against aboriginal law, and this is a very good example of why. I have no problem with aboriginal culture, nor any problem with aboriginals trying to keep their culture alive. However Australia has laws and those laws must supercede Aborinal law. And bringing in addititinal laws solely for one group based on race is simply racist. All australians have rights. Denying someone of those rights simply because they are of a particular race is just shocking. The girl may have been Aboriginal, but she has just as much right as I, a white australian, has not to be raped, not to be unlawfully imprisoned and not to be sold. IMHO, her parents should be charged and lose all custody of any other children they may have. They sold their daughter, that seems to fit under slavery to me. And slavery is very much illegal here.

10-09-2002, 09:25 PM	#7
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	It's this kind of thing that makes me reject any kind of relativism in morals. Anything that it is wrong to do to one person, is wrong to do to any other person. If the girls parents had adopted a white child and treated her in exactly the same way, I guaruantee there would be a countrywide uproar. Why is it okay for aboriginals to do this to other aboriginals, if we would not accept the same behavior from a surburban white family? I consider this racism. This girl is being afforded fewer rights because of her race.

10-09-2002, 09:36 PM	#8
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	This is where humanism and cultural relativism clash. I think here there is an obvious right or wrong that overides mere culture, the source: being human. Human beings having similiar biologies share certain characteristics and often times certain enviromental experiences. Two first born children and two parents can relate on those issues no matter the culture. I don't care what culture you come from, you get treated unfairly especially by someone close; it hurts. You get beat up; you don't like it. You lose a loved one; there is grief. One problem with cultural relativists is that they are willing to see all other animals as basically uniform in charactersitics but not the human animal. Why? I guess humans are the one super-special exception. I imagine we should have a sort of zeroth law for humans being "a human should not injure humanity or another human or through inaction allow such harm to come to pass even if it interferes with another's culture." Perhaps one can call this the "humanist law". Such a thing enrages me. Oh yes and this is racism, I agree. Definately, it's linming behavior,values and standards to what? Pigment. Except instead of merely dealing with arch-KKK types we also have to deal with anthroplogists who are giving them ammo. It's said because the anthropologists are the ones a person would expect to be nonracist and progressive. This makes me look at anthroplogy as sort of pseudoscientific. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

10-10-2002, 12:34 AM	#9
Born Free Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,177	I think it's an appalling story and agree that the man should be jailed for rape and the girl's parents should lose parental rights. I'm also extremely pissed off at the judge who thinks it's more serious for a firearm offence to be committed than the rape of a minor. He has played his cards well and basically gotten away with it like so many other men from differing cultures who like to control and manipulate females using customs, tribal rights and religion. Pascoe felt humiliated for having to explain his tribal rights to the white law??? He played the racism card, it's the law of the bloody land, nothing to do with skin colour. Does he think he's above the law of the land??? Apparently so. What the hell is it with some "cultures" that force marriage partners on to their sons and daughters anyway??? Why wouldn't a parent who wants the best for their child allow that child the right to pick and choose their own marriage mate or to choose no partner at all. We're forever telling our kids that they have to learn responsibilty for their own actions and that they will learn from their mistakes as they grow up. A lot of kids don't have that opportunity, how are they supposed to grow into mature adults??? These kids will never be able to look back fondly at the memories of their first love, or their first fumbled kiss cause their not allowed oh no for them their first relationship will be straight into marriage. I do see a lot of certain cultures practices and customs as morally repungant and I'm not apologising for it either.

10-10-2002, 01:28 AM	#10
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Interestingly I might go so far as to some extent culturally tolerate arranged marriages. Needless to say those which do not involve domination by either partner or rape or violence. I�ve met several people who have been married by arrangement & in each case there seems to be have been a long period of uncomfortableness between the pair as 2 strangers gradually get to know each other. There are no doubt many tragic failures, but nonetheless, there also seem many successes where the couple does learn to live together into a family, often more happily than those relationships we choose ourselves. Doubtless the parental threat of violence varies in intimidating their children, but if it could be done with solely duty and the ability to divorce, I suppose I might accept it. That said I do value choice and self-determination, but in a cultural context I can probably accept arranged marriages, albeit with gritted teeth. A 50 yearold marrying a 15 yearold would stretch my tolerance to breaking though. How to deal with that anomaly ? I have no idea. Mixed feelings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.