OTTAWA – John Reilly, a retired judge and Liberal candidate for the Alberta riding of Wild Rose, was forced to apologize Thursday for suggesting in a radio interview that not all sexual offenders should be incarcerated.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff called an Alberta candidate’s comments on sexual offenders "disgraceful,” but said he has accepted Reilly’s apology and he’ll continue to serve as the party’s candidate for the riding.
Alberta Liberal candidate John Reilly apologizes for remarks on sexual assault 

The "sexual assault":

she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,  
Judge John Reilly interview

Most likely the defendant did not stick the entire finger in there but just passed the limit with one phalanx.  Also he was ill advised and probably admitted the penetration before getting a lawyer’s advice. Of course, the women would always be believed anyway

Now this does not look like a habitual predator, the judge is totally right.

But, this is an example how powerful the feminist language distortion is. Call some behavior "rape" or "sexual assault", and the perpetrator is to be crucified. If you told it by the real name, "fondling the privates of a naked girl while sleeping at a party", that would not cause the feeding punishing frenzy in the interviewer and the populace. You can notice this in the strong reactions of the interviewer in the written and his aggravated tone in the audio transcript.

Former judge John Reilly’s interview with The Rutherford Show Transcript

JR: There are. But I believe that the percentage of ‘bad dudes’ that are in there is a lot lower than the, I mean, this is one of my problems with the criminal justice system the way it is, is that I say we put too much emphasis on the offence and not enough emphasis on the offender. If you’re looking at what the Conservative government wants to do is say if this is the offence, you go to jail. And that’s going to put people in jail that don’t need to be there.

Host: But what kind of offences though?

JR: Sexual assault.

Host: You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?

See. The term "sexual assault" triggers the automatic punishing knee jerk reflex in the host.

JR: Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.

Host: Sure?

The host does not get it. I am stunned how well the feminist language distortion tactic works. Change the name and get instant conviction from the press and a jury that would not convict if the crime was named by its real name.

JR: And I had another young man, not a young offender, but a 19, 20 year old. He’s at a party, there’s a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they’re drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away. They report it, he’s charged with sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her,
Judge John Reilly interview

So the guy saw a naked women at the end of a hot party, touched her, and went a bit overboard. He was not her partner, so he clearly went too far, without consent. When the clear non-consent was given, he stopped.

Men, as a gender, are dumb victims of feminist victimhood ploys. If women committed such things, feminist women long ago would have found a sexual frenzy syndrome, similar to the "battered woman syndrome" that gets women light suspended sentences for clearly meticulously planned and long premeditated murder

No, I am not saying his behavior is defensible. I am not saying he did not overstep boundaries. He just was a bit dumb, maybe drunk, more dumb even for probably admitting his transgression.  No indication that he is more then a harmless drunk dummy. The judge was quite correct that he does not deserve mandatory 3 years in jail.

the crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman’s vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offence. And I’m looking at this 20 year old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it’s one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration. I don’t think in those circumstances that that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years.

Host: Unless it’s your daughter, and then maybe you’ve got a whole another perspective! You haven’t mentioned the word ‘victim’ once yet!

This is why you would not put the father in the jury. A father can get angry, chide the perpetrator. But he should not be given the right to jail a guy for a few years for a minor offense, or to castrate the girl’s boyfriend, as Human Stupidity reported recently from Germany.

For my daughter, I would prefer a light penetration with a finger to getting the face dilacerated with a broken glass!

JR: You know, I am concerned about victims, but what I’m concerned about is our society as a whole. Often, these minimum sentences that I’m stuck with, if I have an assault occasioning bodily harm, that’ll qualify now as a crime of violence. Again, a couple of guys have too much to drink in a bar and get into a fight, maybe somebody gets hit with a glass. I had a woman in front of me who was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. She was drunk, guy offended her, she went to throw the beer in her glass in his face and she hit his face with the glass and it broke and there was huge damage done to his face. Now, they’re saying she’s got to go to jail, this is an aggravated assault because it has caused serious bodily injury.

Gender discrimination: no excuse demanded from John Reilly for leniency for woman causing serious bodily injury

Judge John Reilly was not forced to apologize for not wanting to jail a woman that caused serious facial injury to a man, who could even have caused blindness had she hit him slightly differently. No!

Look the difference. The girl had malicious intent (to throw beer in the guy’s face). She hurt him badly in disfiguring way. I wonder if there is proof that this really was non-intentional. We suspect that here he differentiates because the perpetrator is a woman.

Women slapping men is not a crime

And it just so happens that women slapping men (or throwing water, beer and things at men) is portrayed as "normal" non-offense by Hollywood. A man who lightly shoves or slaps a woman immediately is considered a felon, even if the "victim" does not have the slightest mark or injury. Now if a man shoves a woman lightly, she trips, falls badly and gets a serious head injury, no judge would claim leniency.

Yes, maybe, and I repeat, maybe she did not have the intent to injure. But she intentionally engaged in aggressive behavior, and caused serious damage, even if maybe she did not intend to do that. She is a person with anger control issues, probably more dangerous then the guy with the wandering finger. A drunk driver is not excused for much less intent to hurt then that drunk girl who had the intent to throw something into the victim’s face.

Host: You say booze.

Hey host, did you not notice  Judge Reilly forgot to mention the word "victim" for the disfigured seriously hurt guy! Well, a guy with a cut-up face is not a victim. A women that sleeps naked in a semi-public place and gets groped, she is a much more serious victim. No, I am not saying the groping behavior is correct and defensible

JR: No, I just say is this a person that needs to go to a federal penitentiary, and if I can keep her out of the federal penitentiary, that guy has just suffered a big financial loss, because this is going to cost him a lot. If we send the offender to jail automatically, this is the offence he’s committed, he’s not able to earn the money that’s going to allow him to make restitution for the damage he’s done. And so some of these things you know . .

This, of course, could spin into interesting issues about alternative penalties, which is beyond the scope of this article.

RELATED STORIES FROM AROUND THE WEB

• Liberal candidate regrets sex assault view  Edmonton Sun, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011
• Ex-judge and Liberal hopeful apologizes for sex assault remarks Toronto Sun Thursday, April 07, 2011
• Alberta Liberal candidate apologizes for remarks on sexual assault Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Canada Thursday, April 07, 2011

Helmut Seifert, 47, an ethnic German originally from Russia, was enraged when he heard his 17-year-old daughter was having a relationship with Phillip Genscher, 57.

He went to police in the town of Bielefeld where he lives but officers said they were powerless to intervene.

“The man then recruited two work colleagues at his factory and then went to the house of the victim,” said police.

“The man was forced to remove his trousers and, fully conscious, he was castrated. The severed testicles were taken away by the perpetrator.”

The man was close to bleeding to death but managed to call police. His life was saved but he remains a eunuch for life. [...]

He told police: “I received a phone call anonymously that my daughter was involved with a guy 40 years older than her. You said you couldn’t stop him – so I did.

“I saw it as my duty as a father.”

German man castrates teenage daughter’s 57-year-old boyfriend (The Telegraph)

This was republished here Dad, 47, in Germany castrates man, 57, for dating 17-year-old daughter (NY Daily News)

• Note: nowhere did the article say that the couple actually had sex with each other
• even if they did, the age of consent in Germany is 16, there is absolutely no legal problem
• keep reading to see the murderous scary comments by the NY Daily News Readers
• So a harmless man is mutilated for having an affair with a much younger but legal woman, and the good citizens cheer and want to join the lynching

Naomid

2:59 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Why is everyone calling this guy a perv?? He was DATING the girl, not raping her! If an 18 year old guy was dating her, would you call him a “perv”?? Remember, Charile Chaplin married his wife when he was 54 and she was 17, and they had 8 kids together and stayed married for 30 years until his death, and she never remarried and is now buried next to him. Is that being a perv? If anyone is a perv, it’s a psychopath who cuts off *****. What do you think that is going to do to his daughter? She is going to be terrified to get into any kind of relationship again.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18gndinDh

Compare:  Michel Temer (70), new Vice-President of Brazil was 63 when he married Marcela Temer at age 20. Borderline Pedophilia or healthy human sexuality?

Interesting discussion among the NY Daily News Readers

here

Dangerous vigilantes

The correct legal situation info about German law

brooklynNYC

1:14:58 PM
Dec 14, 2010

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 14 As specified by Sections 176 (Sexual abuse of children) and 182 (Sexual abuse of youths), which read: § 176: “(1) Whoever commits sexual acts on a person under fourteen (14) years of age (a child) or allows them to be committed on himself by the child, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to ten years [...]” § 180: “(1) Whoever abets the commission of sexual acts of a person under sixteen years of age on or in front of a third person or sexual acts of a third person on a person under sixteen years of age: 1. by actin

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gPfl3nc

Positive and understanding opinions

anabelle23

4:23:30 PM
Dec 14, 2010

the little strumpet knew EXACTLY what she was doing. this entire puritanical hypocrisy is the stuff puke is made from. the older man probably treated her better than most young men who pretend to love, deflower, and dump leaving them emotionally scarred and damaged. the father was wrong, wrong, wrong – hope they castrate him then throw him into a gay prison for 20 years. there is a reason why girls can make babies at 13 so stop pretending they are innocent little angels. some of them are more savvy and cunning than professional streetwalkers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gRii1bv

Chad66

1:47 PM
Dec 13, 2010

The girl likes older men. So who cares. Or was Daddy jealous because she was dating this other guy and not her own Daddy. Beisdes, like someone mentioned, nothing was said about having sex. AND why did Daddy need other people to help him. And if she likes older ment , there will always be older men around. Daddy should get 40 years in jail. at lest.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gg3eB4A

lebinz

1:51 PM
Dec 13, 2010

You’re all talking about two different things. 1. whether or not this is a child molestation case (i tend to think that this is an insult to REAL cases where 9 and 12 year are being raped), and 2. whether older men should date younger women. The first is clear, the children should be protected, the second is not only stupid, but insulting to women. Just like we shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their own bodies; just like it is wrong for muslim women to be stoned for cheating; we should respect their decision. Whether you feel comfortable or not isn’ the issue, that is your opinion and it is none of your business.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ggW8rfW

lebinz

1:55 PM
Dec 13, 2010

And it is funny how, as a manager, I can’t tell a 20yr old “I don’t hire women so young” but we as total strangers can say who they get to date and who they don’t get to date. Even by imposing restrictions on the “age limit” they are allowed to date is simply treating them like a piece of property. No one says this about boys. Boys do whatever they want with whomever they want. Demmi Moore picks up someone younger than she is and she gets a pat on the back. Donald Trump dates a model and people are angry. Women are property. Simple as that. This is why some of you are so outrage at the simple fact that there is an age difference.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gghjRrQ

plsstoptheHate101

1:49 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Josie911 I take personal offense to your statement because I am one of those that has benefited from Viagra, and I am putting my 19yr old girlfriend to college. So what do we have in common, she is getting a free education and I keep a smile on my face, what is wrong with that.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gjL5S3A

plsstoptheHate101

2:17 PM
Dec 13, 2010

I was going Yeah good for him until I realise that I am 55 and dating a 19yr old…thanks to Viagra she is very happy. I tell you what, there is not a young man today if he lives to be an old man who will not appreciate Viagra. Pryor to Viagra men committed suicide.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ghbZvjc

OBJ

3:19 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Zeke: And Hindus and French Catholics and Canadian. In much of the world young women marry older men for stability and security. Their philosophy is why marry a guy and be with him during the struggling years when you can marry someone who is already established. And end up a well-off widow.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18goI9woN

Violent reactions

RickEvans033050

7:57:08 AM
Dec 20, 2010

The number of sociopath posters applauding this guy’s actions is appalling. Yes the age difference is disturbing however a 17 year old is not a little girl. Also, using ‘man’ to describe him is a stretch considering the coward had to recruit a couple of thug pals to restrain the victim. It’s one thing for this 47 year old to man-up and go one-on-one against the 57 year old victim over his daughters’ “honor”. This was a cowardly lynching

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gSm8S1y

giantnyc

12:21 PM
Dec 13, 2010

While involvement with a teenager is despicable, I generally do not agree that people should be left to impose their brand of justice. Disguisting, yes, but was the low-life committing an illegal act? Was she at the age of legal consent? What if the father decides other things are his duty; restrictions based on religion, race, political leanings, anyone older than any age he decides is too old? Where is the limit? That is tough to say, but there is the law. He should probably have put on his thinking cap on and addressed why his young daughter is getting involved with an old man in the first place. Instead, he will be in jail, unable to help his daughter deal with her issues. Maybe this was more about him than his daughter. I dunno.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502#ixzz18gdTvsUd

Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.

Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.

Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.

Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”

Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.

And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.

‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals

It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo.  Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily.  This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.

Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored.  Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.

But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.

Change.org dispute: full text follows here

Human Stupidity,
Your comment on the blog entry entitled ‘Teenager Forced to Apologize to Her Church for Being Raped’ has been removed from the Women’s Rights community on Change.org by an administrator.
—————————————————————
REASON: Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape. Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape. Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes. Justin – Community Manager.
—————————————————————
We have removed content submitted by you 1 time. Your account has been locked. If you would like to dispute this, contact us at help at  change.org.
- Change.org
Content removed
————————————
RAPE: INTENTIONAL MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE
What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual violent intercourse.
What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt
============
So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, he is a “child rapist”. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.
=================
So, unfortunately we don’t know if he is a rapist in the classic sense, or a statutory rapist who just seduced a girl. A big difference to me. And a  big difference for his chance of being raped once he is in prison.
Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?
Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old?I have a solution:
what about legalizing sex with underage adolescents, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. More safety that is offered to 21 year old tipsy Friday night party girls who may feel sorry for what they did yesterday
Check this for a change: beautiful young women convicted of “raping” poor adolescent boys.
25 hottest sex offenders any boy wishes to become a rape victim of
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/25-hottest-sex-offenders-boys-want2become-victims

Human Stupidity’s Reply to change.org

Of course I want to dispute this. Deletion and block of my name for having a well argued opinion that negates feminist dogma.
And instead of just deleting an unpopular post INSIDE their feminist area, they resort to expulsion!
Similar opinions as mine were voiced here
http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/reforming_sex_offense_laws and here
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/johnny_depp_defends_rapist

The points I made were
a) unproven rape accusations are always taken at face value and accepted as totally true, so the accused’s life is finished. No matter if the accusation is false
b) non violent consensual teenage sex should not be called rape
“I have dismissals of definition of rape”: yes, I resent to use the word rape for consensual sex. I think confusing consensual sex with an adolescent with violent rape, this is dismissing to victims of REAL violent non-consensual rape.
I have “dismissal of victims of rape” :  I think real rape is very bad. This is why I resent using the word “rape” for fondling, or for consensual sex. For example, statutory rape of adolescent boys by gorgeous 20 something women, I really don’t have much pity on the poor boys.
I also resent that the unproven accusation of one single, potentially vindictive female can ruin a man’s life. While the unproven accusation of murder or robbery will lead to no conviction.
Of course, I don’t really know. If it is necessary to be politically correct, to adopt the feminist creed, then maybe I should be kicked out.
Guess I should not have given such opinions in a feminist forum. They don’t react kindly to diverging opinion.
I thought this was an open forum, open for diverging Iand provocative deas. But, maybe, it is not!?

Change.org’s grievance procedure: Justin denies the appeal of Justin’s censorship

Hi Human Stupidity,
You are perhaps right that expressing these opinions inside a woman’s rights site would raise some ire. And you are also correct that we are open to dissenting views – after all, we are not Same.org. But, dissenting does not include dismissing or offensive. Your comments were, and are, very dismissive of the harm done to women by rape, and in this case, oppressive rape.
With such strongly held views, there are probably more appropriate places for you to spend your efforts.
All the best,
Justin
Change.org, Community Manager.

Justin,
It is amazing that an appeal of a decision taken by Justin gets reviewed and denied by Justin. Is this how change.org is run? Are you the only admin at change.org? Or are you intentionally withholding this from other administrators at change.org?

I was not aware that change.org was a women’s right site. Women’s rights have a history of silencing dissent.I thought change.org was a bit more balanced and allowed critical discussion of issues. Don’t forget to kick out the people I cited who made similar critical comments.

I petition that your decision should be reviewed by a Community Manager of Change.org’s criminal justice department. After all, your action prevents me from supporting actions like these

http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/whats_so_funny_about_prison_rape or http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/prison_rape_a_hidden_crisis or http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/an_end_to_prison_rape

Prison rape involves years of sex slavery and repeated gang rape of prisoners who are thought to “deserve” it. About as gruesome as life in Fritzl’s dungeon. Feminists are even more silent about prison rape then they are silent about muslim women’s repression and the burka.

“Fondling a child”, or “consensual sex with an adolescent” nowadays can be called “rape”, in press reports, even in legal code (“statutory rape”).

This purposeful confusion created by the dilusion of the word “rape” helps to whip up punishment frenzy for crimes of “adolescent seduction” or “child fondling” at the expense of banalizing real forceful violent penetrating non-consensual rape.

So the word “rape” is abusively re-defined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire World Press,  the United Nations, everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated! Amazing!

Similarly,  “adolescent nudity” no can be called “child porn”.  Defining 17 year olds as children has the collateral effect that now there is no word for real children of 12 and under, as there is no word  left for real rape.  This confusion must have a manipulative motive, as there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries.

Real meaning of the word “rape”

What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual intercourse with penetration, usually involving violence or threats.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

Shocking, is it not? He raped a girl and was set free because he was mistaken about her age! It is ok to rape a girl if she is 19 years old?

Well, he did not REALLY rape her. If she is 19 years old then consensual sex, initiated by the girl who brought the condoms, is not called rape.  Dear Reader, haven’t you understood that any sex with a 12 year old is rape?  Our language has changed in the last 25 years! But, of course, this is on purpose. Once you understand that rape is not rape, the intended shock effect gets lost.

So the 12 year old was eager to have sex with him, actively initiated sex and purposefully deceived the barman into thinking that she was 19.  So, miraculously, he was freed. Doesn’t sound so shocking any more.

See Why I hate statutory Rape Laws | A Public Defender

After breaking marriage vow, sex becomes rape

Having a sexual relationship with a woman with a false promise of marriage can also be termed as rape. The case was being heard in a Delhi Court and it involved a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbour. The man was found guilty of rape and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, Chhotey Lal, the convict and father of six children, had eloped with his neighbour in New Delhi in September 2004, and took her to far away places like Jaipur and Chandigarh. According to the girl, the duo established sexual relations after Lal assured her that he would marry her ‘very soon’. Meanwhile, the girl’s father lodged a ‘missing’ report with the police. The police detained Lal and the girl in March 2005 at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal when they were returning to Delhi. Chhotey Lal was prosecuted for abducting the girl and having sexual relationships with her on false pretext.

“The so-called consent under a false promise to marriage is no consent,” additional sessions judge Mahavir Singhal said.

Highlighting the difference between ‘will’ and ‘consent’, the court said that a nod for sexual relations obtained by a man on the false pretext would not amount to a ‘legal or valid’ consent to save him from punishment for rape.

The Court observed that, even if the woman is assumed to be a willing partner in having a physical relationship, that the accused had no intention to marry her would make it a case where consent was given under misconception of facts, nullifying the efficacy of the nod.
Rape by promising marriage in India

Adolescent raped repeatedly?

Due to the language confusion, we really can not know if she was raped, or more likely, seduced. But most women don’t get raped repeatedly on various days.

In 1997, 15-year-old Tina Anderson became pregnant after being raped repeatedly by an older man she knew from church. Shockingly, when her pastor found out, he forced her to apologize in front of the entire congregation in Concord, New Hampshire, and then promptly helped whisk her away to live in Colorado.

According to Tina, the first time she was raped by Ernest Willis, it was in the backseat of car after he’d given her a driving lesson. She didn’t tell anyone because she was terrified that she’d be blamed. After being raped by Willis again, Tina became pregnant.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/ teenager_forced_to_apologize_to_her_church_for_being_raped

Did she get “raped” or seduced? we don’t know

What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly on different days.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda with misleading language. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

Language confusion obfuscates facts

So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, Ernest Willis is a child rapist. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.

Whoppi Goldberg differentiates “rape-rape” and non-violent so called “rape”

Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn’t “rape-rape”.

As a guest on The View chatshow on US television, she said: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.”

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg

Age discimination: why is a 15 year old capable to consent to sex with a 16 year old but not with a 35 year old?

Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?

Mandatory psychological counselling before underage sex?

Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? what about legalizing sex with underage girls, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. And it would be a good idea even for sex between consenting teenagers. So there would be no age discrimination!

Click on “more” for the rest of the story ……..

There seems to be another, hidden agenda. Not the concern for the well being of the teenager, but reducing the chances of oder men to get young girls. See http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/pedophile-witch-hunt-solutions and http://theantifeminist.com/.

18 year old boy allegedly fondles a 14 year old against her will: a rapist?

Jose Reyes, the former 18-year-old Roosevelt High School student charged with raping a 14-year-old developmentally delayed freshman in May pleaded not guilty Monday to third-degree rape.

Reyes, who is being held on $100,000 bail, briefly appeared in King County Superior Court during his arraignment. He faces a sentence of 14 months if convicted.

According to Seattle police:On May 18, Reyes convinced the girl to skip class and go into a girl’s restroom, where she was fondled, police say. The girl told Reyes to stop, which he only did when somebody else came into the restroom. On May 20, the girl told a school counselor what happened, police said. Reyes was then arrested.

Reyes, who lived with his family in Greenwood for years but recently moved to Kent, began acting out sexually as early as age 13, according to court papers.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2012054274_teen_sex_offender_charged_with.html?prmid=obinsite

Rape? He allegedly indecently fondled a girl. Even when she, allegedly, said no. No rape in the “classic” sense of the word. No violence, much less any penetration. Why this unnecessary distortion of language?

If it were any other crime, if he were accused of bullying, beating, taking away her money under threats, he would not be arrested without further proof. He would not face huge penalties.

Seattle School District spokeswoman Teresa Wippel said Reyes was expelled from Roosevelt High School after his arrest.

Any proof for his crime? Just one accusation? It looks like he is guilty, from his past record. But if he were a murderer, an arsonist, a thief, a habitual violent bully, proof would be required to expel him. Not just one lone accusation.

Rape of a 4 year old: no mention of bodily harm?

A Kent man accused of raping a 4-year-old girl and broadcasting it live over the Internet has been sentenced a minimum 26 years in prison.

Seattlepi.com reports 36-year-old Brian Keith Beston apologized for his “poor judgment” when sentenced Friday by King County Superior Court Judge Regina Cahan.

After he serves 26 years, Beston will be confined until state authorities decide whether he should be released.

Beston pleaded guilty in April to first-degree child rape, first-degree child molestation, sexual exploitation of a minor and dealing in child pornography.

Kent man gets 26 years for broadcasting rape of child on Internet

Penetration of a 4 year old? And no conviction for bodily harm? I am not saying that he should not be punished. I am saying that the language should provide clarity, not distort facts.

• a rape is a rape. Yes, rape. Penetration …
• fondling is fondling. Not rape.
• indecent touching is indecent touching. Not rape.
• seducing a minor is seducing a minor Not rape.

Kent man gets 26 years for broadcasting rape of child on Internet

Reading this headline, I imagine a man having penetrative intercourse with a 4 year old. Without being a medical specialist, I believe that this must cause major injuries. How come, there is no report about this? No penalty for injuring a child?

• Most likely because all he did was fondling.
• Child molestation, yes.
• Should he be punished? Yes.
• But if all he did was fondling, 26 years and more, in jail? If he threw the child against the wall, beat the child with broom handles, burned it with cigarettes, he would get a lesser punishment.
• Did he rape in the true sense of rape? penetration? most likely not. But impossible to know. Why? Intentional disinformation.
• And of course we can not watch the Video he transmitted over the internet, of what he did to the child. Just watching the video would be a heinous crime. Strange! But youtube is full of videos of nannies beating and shaking toddlers in health endangering ways. No penalty for watching physical child abuse.
• I want to know the truth of the crime. Can I know the truth? No! why not? because the word rape was banalized. Used for all kinds of meanings. We don’t know any more what “rape” is.

Children with serious family problems in early childhood are set up for future problems in life, truancy, crime, general disrespect for law and authority, leaning failures, .Super Nanny’s work creates happiness in unhappy families, prevents children from becoming uneducated, disrepectful, future criminals, future bad parents and just generally unhappy.

Human-Stupidity.com puts this up as a positive example that cures unnecessary suffering for entire families and prevents future crime and stupidity. This is anti-stupidity, creating families where love and intelligence get nourished.

Super Nanny shows families & children with very serious disciplinary problems. Her main technique is the non-violent “naughty zone”, like a “naughty chair”, “naughty mat”, “naughty room” where kids get a time out. Now the main problem is:

How to make a totally unruly child to stay on a time-out “naughty chair” for the first time?

Youtube postings of super nanny normally consist of a series of about 7 parts. We just pick the one part relevant to the start of naughty chair discipline, for studies. Feel free to see the other 6 clips to get an idea of the misbehavior of the children to appreciate the miracle of getting them to obey to this disciplinary method. Watch the following 10 videos to get the real impact and understanding of how the discipline works.

Essential elements of the time-out naughty corner|mat|room|chair technique

1. learn firm dominant voice and attitude
2. give prior warning
3. make child understand what it did wrong before putting it in the naughty room/corner/mat (for 1 minute per year of age of child)
4. be absolutely firm: if child leaves before time is over, it has to start all over.
5. The very first time the absolutely crucial part. I think it only works because of Super-Nanny’s authority and presence. Once a child accepts authority and stays at a time-out, 90% of the problem is solved. Super Nanny’s teachings about firmness, clarity, justness etc are absolutely vital.
6. at the end, make the child say “sorry”
7. loving treatment when the child behaves well and after saying “sorry”

I cringe a little bit, because this technique can, of course, be abused by selfish, inconsistent parents to train and manipulate their children. What about the creative rebellious genius? Time-out for denying the truth of the Bible! Time-out for moving around, running, playing like a normal natural child!

But there is no anti-dote against parental limitations. Parents should have psychological maturity and stability to know which discipline is necessary and positive. Super Nanny shows tools, they can be abused. The examples shown certainly involve unhappy brats in dire need of being put into their places, and parental education is part of her work.

Time-out or careful slapping?

It seems to me that “time-out” is not the essence of this educational success.  Observing the above points 1-7 is important together with some sensible punishment. Humane slaps with the same firmness, admonishments  and explanations like 1-7 above probably work just as well. Slaps might actually work if children can not be kept on the “naughty chair”.  But this is not politically correct. Sorry. Time-out for me!

It is more honest to legalize corporal punishment in jail (a big taboo) , then furtively,unconsciously introduce corporal punishment in the form of tolerated or even encouraged prison rape.

We are unconscious vigilantes, self deceived "non-violent humanists".

By condoning, ignoring, and not actively combating prison rape, we have indirectly and furtively introduced corporal punishment (rape) and death penalty (HIV through prison rape). Self Deception & Unconsciousness overcome a politically-correct-taboo of non-violence and human rights& dignity for bandits.

My suggestion is to be honest, and to officially and consciously legalize what we have been doing unconsciously.

1. Flogging and Caning is more humane and just then Prison Rape.
2. Prison rape is tolerated because people think criminals "deserve" it
3. So I propose to be honest and give people what they deserve in a more controlled and correct way.
4. Singapore and Saudi Arabia may teach how to implement corporal punishment

I am Devil’s advocate, and like to be provocative, thought producing, break taboos, shed light on the unconscious. I am aware that this is quite provocative, part serious, part exaggeration, intent on shaking up people.

The topic of prison rape as unconscious punishment fits the title of this site: Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, "stupid".

Prison Rape: frequent, traumatic, unjust! "Morally justified" because criminals "deserve it"?

In the US and many other countries, prison rape is pervasive (read more: wikipedia on prison rape+just detention-prison rape, No escape: male rape in U.S. prisons (370 page online book)) Strangely, feminists and other human groups who are very concerned about rape and slightest offense to sensitivities of women, are quiet about this scandal. There are more men raped in the US then women (because prision rape is very frequent) Prison rape usually is not a one time event, but often year long sex slavery, multiple hour long gang rape: No escape: male rape in U.S. prisons (370 page online book)  Comparable only to famous sex cases like Fritzl, who locked up their victims for years. Still, no reaction by feminist who instead worry that consensual sex with a 17 year old is rape and that expensive luxury prostitutes are victims of rape. The government locks up people, it is responsible for their safety. On top of psychological trauma, victims are at serious danger of getting AIDS and other STD

Keep in mind that many experts consider county and local jails to be more likely places for rapes than prisons. There is a reason for this. You are more likely to be raped while in prison if: You are young. You come from a middle-class background. You are white. You are not street smart or have no gang affiliations. Physically you are of small stature.      By the time repeat or career criminals get to prison they have normally made the circuit through foster homes, juvenile lockups and reform schools where rape is very common. So by the time they actually make it to the big time they are well schooled in this fact of prison life and quite often they are the attackers not the attackees. Source: http://www.loompanics.com/ Articles/RapeInPrison.html

The wrong people get prison-raped

1. The taboo: official revenge against criminals and corporal punishment is a no-no 
   
2. The secret unconscious taboo motive for being quiet about prison rape: the subconscious, but often outspoken attitude: "the felons deserve to be raped".
   
3. The wrong people get raped: The problem is that the hard core gang felons normally rape and sexually enslave those convicted of minor crime., An inversion of the vigilante attitude: those that most "deserve to be raped" are the rapists:the hard core violent gang criminals that deserve extra punishment. The rape victims are
   • the non-violent criminals least deserving of extra punishment. And,
   • convicted "rapists" are singled out to be raped by "real men", "real criminals". Nowadays, most convicted "rapists" are victims of feminist witch hunts. Under inversion of the burden of proof ("guilty until proven innocent") get jailed for consensual underage sex, alleged unproven date rape, marital rape, inappropriate fondling of minors, or simply false vengeful accusations.

So the unconscious unspoken attitude is that some people deserve to be raped, ought to receive corporal punishment. So why not start consciously doling out corporal punishment to those that "deserve it", but

• observing due process
• punishing the right people who deserve it
• not causing a public health menace with STD and AIDS

Whipping: a more humane punishment then rape

1. flogging and caning is more humane then rape
2. Flogging saves a lot of cash compared to locking offenders up in prisons for months and years
3. Whipping is a deterrent. Jail is "coming home" for many gang members who will live among their gang friends with their personal sex slaves.

Will I start a campaign to introduce corporal punishment? No! My purpose is to raise awareness and consciousness through provocation.

(read more: wikipedia on prison rape+just detention-prison rape, No escape: male rape in U.S. prisons (400 page online book))

The sheer fraud and greed of rating agency analysts and executives is staggering. That no one has gone to jail, and none of the agencies have been shut down is a travesty of justice on an infinitely larger scale than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Until depositors, bankers and investors regain confidence in the quality of ratings we rely upon to measure financial stability and creditworthiness, the tremors that underlie the credit crisis will drag on indefinitely.   [...]

The problem with the business of rating the issuers of securities, and rating the securities they issue – such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage-backed obligations – is that the rating agencies are paid by the issuers to rate them. Objectivity aside, ratings firms are in business not to rate but to make money for themselves by rating issuers and their securities. It’s like all the contestants in the Miss World pageant paying the judges with country funds … who’s not going to be judged beautiful?

What was even more problematic in the scheme of the ratings business model was that analysts didn’t understand how to analyze and rate the very complex cash flow structures of these new collateralized mortgage-backed securities. Not wanting to lose business to their competitors, who were all in the same boat, they used the same rating model structures that they used to rate corporate bonds , though the two different securities had nothing in common.

It was like asking your local car mechanic to certify your Citation V jet – just before you take off for a transatlantic flight to London. God help you if there’s a problem.

And there were problems. Lots of them. According to a Feb. 15 “Review & Outlook” piece in The Wall Street Journal , Joseph Mason, professor of finance at Drexel University, studied collateralized debt obligations rated “Baa” by Moody’s and determined that they were 10 times more likely to default than equivalently rated corporate bonds. The article went on to say that an S&P spokesperson, when asked if they actually examined the underlying mortgages in the pools, answered: “We are not auditors; we are not accounting firms.”

source: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7853.html

Even the Congress was of the same opinion, but still the rating agencies are not punished, neither criminally or in civil court.

“The story of the credit rating agencies is a story of colossal failure,” according to Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a statement released on Wednesday.

Rep. Waxman’s committee is investigating the credit crisis and put much of the blame on those agencies such as Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Moody’s for giving top ratings to securities backed by subprime mortgage loans.  The committee held the first of two days hearings on the crisis Wednesday titled “Credit Rating Agencies and the Financial Crisis.”  The second hearing on Thursday will deal with the role of federal regulators in the crisis.

According to Andrew Taylor, writing for the Associated Press, the committee released internal documents showing that executives of the rating agencies were “well aware that there was little basis for giving AAA ratings to thousands of increasingly complex mortgage-related securities but the companies often vouched for them anyway.”

The three biggest ratings agencies, S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, Inc.; made huge profits for giving top ratings to the securities.  The agencies apparently relied on ever increasing home prices for the confidence they placed in the mortgages.  Two of the agencies, S&P and Moody’s, have now downgraded thousands of their previous top ratings.

Rep. Waxman blamed the rating agencies and federal regulators for putting the entire financial system at risk and betraying the public trust.

Source:

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/10232008_Ratings_Agencies_.asp

More information:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16802834/Liability-of-the-Rating-Agencies-for-the-Current-Financial-Crisis

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

At issue her is:

• Legal punishment for sexual “crimes” against minors is a modern witch hunt.
• Totally out of proportion to damage caused by it.
• Hysteria
• Purposeful confounding of criminal violent sexual crime against minors nearly or totally harmless fondling or consensual sexual acts
• any reasonable open-minded unbiased discussion or scientific analysis of the issue regarding underage sexuality  is totally shunned, repressed, ignored, prohibited.

The blog cited below is pretty extreme. I am not saying that I totally agree with all of this.  It is an interesting “devil’s advocate” article meant to shake up ingrained prejudices.

In spite of being Devil’s advocate, I personally still think that messing with children is somewhat of bad taste and maybe should not be totally liberated.

What I question, though, is if it is such vile a crime as it is being treated by the law in the US and most other countries.

My doubt is:

• Is it really necessary that the punishment for slightly fondling a child is higher then for throwing the same child out of a third story window or throwing boiling water on it and getting the child seriously injured?

all quotes from http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/5/1990675.html

Of course among these sex offenders are indeed some criminals who have caused extreme harm: violent rapists of adult women as well as children. A few of them have kidnapped, tortured or murdered their victims.

Dr. Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins University Sex Disorders Clinic in Baltimore estimates that such crimes account for less than 1/10th of 1% of all sex offenses in America.

His studies also show that fewer than 10% of child sex offenders re-offend—though recidivism is usually given as a reason for draconian measures against them.

As child abuse experts point out, about 50 children are reported kidnapped and raped or murdered by strangers annually, compared to more than 3,000 children murdered by parents and other family members in non-sexual cases.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

Or lonely, geeky gay men—teenagers some of them—who sought mutual sexual release with adolescent boys.

Or young female teachers who succumbed to the wiles of handsome adolescent boys or girls. Or young men who got drunk and pushed their girlfriends over a line that is now called date rape.”

Yet the media, police, prosecutors and politicians continue to insist that children are in dire need of protection from serial rapists and murderers.

Two-thirds of parents surveyed said they feared their children would be kidnapped and or murdered by strangers. Facts simply do not matter when hysteria is involved.

Explosives and grenade launchers were discovered on the mother ship when Portuguese special forces boarded “with no exchange of fire”, Lt Cmdr Alexandre Santos Fernandes said.

“It was almost a kilogramme of high explosives. If used correctly it can open a hole in the hull of a ship and sink her,” Lt Cmdr Fernandes said.

“It is the first time we have spotted high explosives on board a pirate ship, normally they just stick to AK-47s and RPGs (grenades).”

The 19 pirate suspects were released because they had not attacked Portuguese property or citizens.

I really wonder if that is furthering human happiness, or if it contributes to more suffering, encouraging further piracy by the same criminals and by others encouraged by their impunity.

But as all dogmas, maybe they should be questioned.  Setting pirates free after expensive capture, does that not encourage piracy and create human suffering? Potential victims of the next attack of the same pirates? Victims of other pirates who join the profession, because they see that their biggest risk is spending a day on a war ship, getting fed and then sent back home? Everyone in the world who pays higher cost for higher insurance premiums due to piracy?

And if they get caught and actually sent to court? Due process means that a dozen witnesses get flown in from all over the world to their court date? If they don’t come, the criminals go free. What about the cost, financially, and simply loss of time for spending a week in Kenia to go to a hot court? Not to talk about the cost of locking criminals away for 10 years. Would not an investment in hospitals and schools be more humane then wasting HUGE amounts on jails?

I understand that these topics are complex, I don’t suggest easy solutions. But I am against unquestionable dogmas that can cause unsolvable problems.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/ delves further into similar issues

Pirates have attacked more than 80 boats this year alone, four times the number assaulted in 2003, according to the Kuala Lumpur-based International Maritime Bureau. They now hold at least 18 ships — including a Belgian tanker seized Saturday with 10 crew aboard — and over 310 crew hostage, according to an Associated Press count.

From http://latestnewsworldwide.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-ships-helicopters-hunt-down-7.html