Glory

In the articles I have read on arranged marriages, those who are in them seem happy and healthy. They have a much lower incidence of divorce. Of course, the cultures in which arranged marraiges are the norm have a very dim view of divorce. If divorce were not so frowned upon, they might be more common amongst those couples. The key is the willing participation of those involved. This girl made it clear that her participation was not voluntary and that she wanted out.

By far the most chilling part of the judges statement was this.

What was expected of her?! This actually nauseates me.

Glory

Wyz_sub10

I'm tempted to chalk it up to post-modern cultural relativism bullshit. (i.e. truth is in the eye of the beholder, there is no right or wrong, everything is just as good and wonderful as everything else).

But honestly...I think this is just a case of a judge who thinks screwing 15 year old girls is perfectly acceptable (and desired). Nothing more, nothing less.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Godless Dave

Traditionally, my ancestors considered it morally acceptable, indeed desirable, to hop in a longboat and raid the coasts of England, Scotland, and Ireland for treasure, food, and slaves. Guess I'll be off then.

Yggdrasill

Good idea! (Starts rowing)

CuriosityKills

I guess we have to get down to the root of the problem here. Why were the parents selling the girl in the first place?

Of course, the reason is money. I don't know much about the situation of Aboriginals in Australia. I do know that Aboriginal cultures in areas that have been populated by Euro. settlers tend to be at a seriuos disadvantage socially and economically when compared to the rest of society.

It seems that Aboriginal people are never fully integrated into societies due to prejudices of the major population and their own reluctance to give up their culture. However, they technically are considered part of society. This leaves them in a terrible situation. On one hand, they aren't free to follow their own tribal laws because they are not relevant to the world as it is today. On the other, they are not condidered part enough in society to be given a say in political matters and law making.

We have to understand what the underlying factors are. It is way too easy to pass judgement on an entire group of people when you don't have their experience. If we cannot understand the ROOT of the problem it will never be solved. To understand the root we must look at what is happening with a compassinate eye.

I'm certainly not saying that what this dirty old man did is right. I feel that it is deeply repugnant. I think he used "Tribal Law" as an excuse not to obey "Human Law". This is wrong. regardless of you race, religion, or origin you must obey the basic human law. I basically think that this "Human Law" is not to harm others in any way. Respect their bodies and minds.

As for the anthropologists, the fact that they even had a say in this is ridiculous. EVERY society must re-evaluate their mores continuously. This happens in all societies. Just because it was, that doesn't mean it always will be. Anthropologist, of all people, should know that things change and its not a bad thing.

We can condemn what this man has done, but we can't condemn an entire people. Lets try and have some compassion and figure out a way to help this not to happen again.

jaz

I have to disagree. They have just as much say in Australian law as I do. Or they could if they choose too.

There are aboriginal politicans, aboriginal judges etc. etc. They do have a say. There are also various aboriginal government agencies that have a fair bit of political influence.

If an aboriginal has no political say it is because they have chosen not to exercise that right.

hinduwoman

I also have a problem with under 16 bit. The law seems to be saying that it is more acceptable if the girl was over 16.

jaz

16 is the age of consent in Australia. If she was 16 and was willing, there would be no crime at all. At 15, willing or not, she was raped and she was sold.

Edited because it made no sense.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: jaz ]</p>

echidna

In fact separate to the standard Australian Upper and Lower house parliamentary elections which are subject to universal suffrage, Aboriginals also receive economic aid in alleviating some of the historical problems. Assistance is allocated by ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), who are also the main Aboriginal political voice.

Much as Howard is maligned for his polices on Aboriginal Issues, 3 or 4 years ago he made a very significant move forward by changing the problematical (long charged with being corrupt, ineffective and overly bureaucratic) ATSIC, from having politically appointed leadership to having representatives elected by those deemed of Aboriginal descent.

In fact I note from the widespread radio advertising that the latest ATSIC elections are very soon. Sadly election turnout continues to be low, one can only hope that it increases with the latest round.

Glory

I don't condemn the entire society of which these people are a part. I condemn Pascoe, Gallop and the girl's parents. I don't care how bad things are economically. Nothing could induce me to sell my child and there is no excuse for the judge's attitude. If this is normal and common in that society, the society is sick. Just as Chinese society is sick when people start leaving babies by the side of the road because they are the wrong gender. Just as American society is sick when we decide to call a talk show instead of a shrink because our parents molested us. Regardless of why a sick thing becomes common, it has to be stopped if we are to live with ourselves.

Glory

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>