Moslem leader speaks on Women

[Valke2]

Who gave you the right to tell everyone to ‘use this man’s comments as a springboard’ to do anything?

The Mufti made some comments highly offensive to right-thinking moral people and he should be criticized for it, and that’s the only purpose of criticizing him.

You know what? The rest of your ‘use this man’s comment as a springboard etc.’ is (surprise, surprise) a red herring.

He also apologized, didn’t he?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
Your flurry or responses doesn’t deserve a line by line, because it belies a fundamental truth: you didn’t read the reports I cited.

I would just like to clear up something. You cited a ‘report’ by a Law Reform Commission, not by a court. Court reports are what you should have cited because you made claims about cases. I thought you’d want to show a case as an example of what you claim.
I have my Butterworths Legal Dictionary, but this on-line site (albeit American) will suffice…
reports
n. the published decisions of appeals courts in all states and federal courts, which are found in federal, state and regional series (called “reporters”) which are constantly updated with pamphlets called “advance sheets” which are soon followed by bound volumes. There are also reports of specialized courts and particular subject matters such as taxes, bankruptcy and federal procedure. Thus there are Massachusetts Reports, Georgia Reports, Kansas Reports, California Supreme Court Reports, California Appellate Reports and similar series for every state. Regional reporters include Northeast, Atlantic, Southeast, Southern, Northwest, Pacific and so forth, and combine several states’ decisions. For Supreme Court cases there are three major reporters, including U.S. Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyer’s Edition Supreme Court Reports. These reports are available in almost all law libraries.
dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1798&bold=||||
In legal parlance a report is a published decision. What you cited was a general look at laws per se, not a specific case. Specific Commonwealth cases, for instance are referenced in a volume marked CLR (Commonwealth Law Report). If you had any particular case you had in mind, you’d have cited it. This is not to downplay the work of such Commissions, but I thought you’d have cited some specific case. Anyway, let’s examine your précis of rape case defence.

Look at what kinds of defences are admissible, and what kinds of cross examination can occur under them whenever a complainant gives testimony.

I did read what you cited. My comments still stand. Your ‘attack’ was that these laws don’t exist at all. You said that they were completely lacking

You said…

For the complete lack of rape shield laws in Australia and the way evidence law victimizes rape victims:

They aren’t lacking. I cited a post earlier looking at the fact that those shield laws exist. Your own citation says this.

The fact that “rape shield laws” aren’t incorporated into evidence law contributes to the sluggishness of reform. Read the reports.

Firstly, you didn’t cite ‘reports’ (plural). You cited the same report twice.

The citation you made gives the conclusion that such ‘incorporation’ is not warranted…
20.80 Other than those mentioned elsewhere,[116] the Commissions received few other comments supporting the enactment in the uniform Evidence Acts of provisions already contained in state or territory criminal procedures or other legislation. Accordingly, the Commissions make no recommendation for change in this regard.
austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/102/25.html#Heading98
This is your citation! It goes on to note several sections of law aren’t immediately confined within the Uniform Evidence Acts.

It’s why in fact I gave you great lee-way in this off-topic rant because I know from experience now how poor your research is. The fact you’re still persisting with it also speaks volumes.

 

[Montalban]

As for crime stats, they don’t list offenders and victims by religion.

That’s not true. There are stats on so-called “Hate crimes”. Maybe you think Tom Calma doesn’t exist. The very fact we have ‘racial vilification’ cases used to prosecute those who attack Moslems (such as in Victoria) completely undermines this assertion of yours.
So, show me your evidence.

To know that, you’d have to be connected to particular cases. You can keep denying that if you want, but it’s a fact that it happens.

Hence you should cite particular cases. Hence my little excursion into the meaning of ‘report’ above.

They’re not just imperfect; they’re so bad that I haven’t met a single attorney here who would unreservedly recommend that a victim report the crime to police and seek prosecution.

That is still yet more side-tracking.

The Mufti didn’t urge men to rape either, so your demand for evidence of that is nonsense.

In Islam you’re allowed to force a woman to have sex (even within marriage) that’s still rape. You’re allowed to beat the woman, and she’s ‘cursed’ if she doesn’t put out.

Rather, the Mufti said women should be blamed if they are raped when they go around immodestly because they were in a sense “asking for it” like a piece of meat…and this is an argument that Australian courts allow in criminal trials (you can see that in the reports).

It’s not an argument that they can make, I already points out this in your REPORT (singular) you cited no reports (plural). You cited on site twice that doesn’t agree with you.

And the fact of the matter is, you’ve got an extremely low conviction rate for rape in Australia (at least, so say the prosecutors and the polic here)…so your juries and judges aren’t just allowing the argument, they’re buying it in a lot of cases.

Show me that this low conviction rate is related to the accused getting off because of a ‘they deserved it’ attitude -that is your claim.

But hey, just as I predicted…no one wants to turn this into a discussion on victimization of women. It’s about bashing Islam, and that’s all that matters.

No this is not a thread about general victimisation of women. If you really championed that, you’d start a thread about it. This is about victimisation by women by Moslems - because in Islam you view women so cheaply, as say, a piece of meat.

In summary your ‘defence’ is a waste of your and my time - lucky I don’t charge like a barrister. You simply cite evidence that undermines your position. Or you appeal to evidence that doesn’t exist. And you misrepresent what little evidence you do present, and also that which others put to you.

 

[Montalban]

He also apologized, didn’t he?

Read the quote at bottom of the second post.

His ‘apology’ is that he’s sorry that he was misunderstood. His own Council says he was misrepresented. He genuinely believes that if women are locked up at home, they won’t be raped - for him this is his advocacy of women’s rights - so he is ‘supporting’ the protection of women, in a different frame-work, mind.

 

[pro_universal]

That’s not true. There are stats on so-called “Hate crimes”. Maybe you think Tom Calma doesn’t exist. The very fact we have ‘racial vilification’ cases used to prosecute those who attack Moslems (such as in Victoria) completely undermines this assertion of yours.
So, show me your evidence.

It has to be classified as a hate crime to make it into the database. Not every attack by a non-Muslim on a Muslim is a hate crime, as you well know.

Hence you should cite particular cases. Hence my little excursion into the meaning of ‘report’ above.

Citing a particular case to prove a general point would be dumb.

The Law Reform Commission Reports (there were two, you just didn’t bother to look up the first from Victoria) survey the problem, and they’re easy to find. If you want a research paper, you can pay me by the hour.

Show me that this low conviction rate is related to the accused getting off because of a ‘they deserved it’ attitude -that is your claim.

Here’s some more:

parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/5f584b237987507aca256d09008051f3/71315ae49c0b9c38ca257212008356a5!OpenDocument"

and:
parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/5f584b237987507aca256d09008051f3/7c88653c1974646fca25720c000ec89b!OpenDocument

Note that both points are specific to the jurisdiction you’re in.

In summary your ‘defence’ is a waste of your and my time - lucky I don’t charge like a barrister.

Lucky for you, that is. I suspect business would be in short supply.

You simply cite evidence that undermines your position. Or you appeal to evidence that doesn’t exist. And you misrepresent what little evidence you do present, and also that which others put to you.

Like I said, you didn’t read the evidence. That’s the only thing that could possibly result in this claim of yours. Or, you cannot read the evidence. I’m not sure which, but it’s one of the two.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, once again you got slammed. Remind me never to hire you as an attorney.

 

[Montalban]

pro_universal:

It has to be classified as a hate crime to make it into the database. Not every attack by a non-Muslim on a Muslim is a hate crime, as you well know.

It doesn’t matter, again! You said that there are NO statistics on the matter at all. When I asked you for proofs you said that there wasn’t any. You were dealing with an absolute. Just like when you made the statement about no laws protecting women. That’s twice you’re wrong in making such statements. But you just plough on ahead regardless

Montalban:

Hence you should cite particular cases. Hence my little excursion into the meaning of ‘report’ above.

pro_universal:

Citing a particular case to prove a general point would be dumb.

Citing any case would be a start. You said you knew of ‘specific cases’. Obviously now, by your own admission you were talking about ‘dumb’ points of proof for your case! Man how you like to tear up your own argument!

pro_universal:

The Law Reform Commission Reports (there were two, you just didn’t bother to look up the first from Victoria) survey the problem, and they’re easy to find.

Firstly, it’s in effect two different cites of the same report - just different parts of the same page. (more about this later). Neither of which are from Victoria. Your evidence is from a national report; it’s a giveaway in the title Australian Law Reform Commission. It deals with a survey of laws, from Victoria, and other jurisdictions. You continually misrepresent your own evidence. The “Australian” Law Reform Commission is a Commonwealth Government project - just look at the little logo the top right of the web-page. See the little logo with the kangaroo and emu? That’s the Commonwealth government. And they (the pages) are the same web-site.

pro_universal:

If you want a research paper, you can pay me by the hour.

I wouldn’t pay you to tell me what time it is. Both your links go to the same type of ‘evidence’ re: a general look at rape shield laws and this general look at them is as noted, evidence that doesn’t prove your point. And the conclusions are enough to show you this. I’ve already pointed that out twice, though cited one of them once… because both being the same site, obviously have the same ‘conclusion’.

The second one is simply a page of headings…(which is still ‘national’ not from ‘Victoria’)
138.25.65.50/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/102/

If you go to the rape shield laws heading it takes you to…
Rape shield laws

20.11 All states, the ACT and Northern Territory have passed legislation which deals specifically with the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence.[10] These ‘rape shield laws’ are said to have three principal aims. These are to:

• prohibit the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation;

• prevent the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant as a ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity; and

• exclude the use of a complainant’s sexual history as an indicator of the complainant’s truthfulness.[11]
138.25.65.50/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/102/25.html#Heading51

The other ‘cite’ says…
Rape shield laws

20.11 All states, the ACT and Northern Territory have passed legislation which deals specifically with the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence.[10] These ‘rape shield laws’ are said to have three principal aims. These are to:

• prohibit the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation;

• prevent the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant as a ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity; and

• exclude the use of a complainant’s sexual history as an indicator of the complainant’s truthfulness.[11]

They are the same site, just different parts on the same page. You keep saying that this is two reports, it’s not. You should actually own up to this mistake.

That’s several mistakes just there:
a) They’re not two different reports.
b) Neither is from Victoria.*
c) They are the same Commonwealth report.
d) The conclusion disagrees with the point you’re trying to make, even though this point is off-topic.

*- It might seem to some others to be a trivial point, but Pro_Universal is trying to make the pages to be different reports - at least one of them, according to him is from Victoria… to differentiate it from the ‘other’ report - which is in fact the same report, from the Commonwealth, just a link to a different part of the same page of the same report.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Show me that this low conviction rate is related to the accused getting off because of a ‘they deserved it’ attitude -that is your claim.

pro_universal:

Here’s some more

It’s not ‘more’ you’ve not shown any up to this point. Stop misrepresenting your own evidence

pro_universal:

parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/5f584b237987507aca256d09008051f3/7c88653c1974646fca25720c000ec89b!OpenDocument

This is not evidence for you in anyway. It deals with, at least, some low convictions. Not the specific reason you claim. And, you are shifting again! This time from a general attack on the law regarding ‘she-deserved-it’ type of defence, which you made initially, you now want to deal with over-all prosecution rates - which could be for any number of reasons. And it’s a question to a minister if he knows that the figures presented are the case and he says he doesn’t know.

The second one although still from parliament actually does go somewhat to showing that there’s a general failure in the legal system, it does show that the system is being improved. Thus although this begins to help your latest argument, you need to be reminded again
a) no one’s trying to argue its perfect, and;
b) this still doesn’t help your initial argument.

Let’s see how you’ve shifted over the course of this thread.
Allegations made against Moslem attitudes to women - evidence from the Mufti
You claim that the majority of Moslems don’t agree. This is countered by the fact they’ve not sacked the Mufti, plus I introduce the words of your prophet, plus two expert sites.
You then shift to a specific complaint about Australian laws with respect to the protection of women in rape cases. You said…

pro_universal:

But curiously, “Australian courts free rapists who use ‘she wanted it’ defence and force victims to be victimized again at trial” doesn’t make any headlines…unless of course, the perps are Muslims.

You’ve gone from citing evidence that doesn’t support this (you claim that there was no such protection), to now making a general criticism of Australia’s legal system with regards the protection of the accused, and the low prosecution rates.

You made an allegation that courts were letting the accused go. I asked for specific cases. You both argue that you can’t offer this evidence, and that it would be ‘pretty dumb’ to do so.

Now it’s true I indulged you somewhat in your off-topic rants, more for week-end amusement. But you’ve moved so far away from the OP and done so without regard for real evidence that it’s time to say ‘enough!’.

In complete contrast to the Australian legal system which is at least attempting to remedy problems we’re left with Moslems who believe if she wears skimpy attire, she’s asking for it. We’re now back to the OP - the general attitude of Islam towards women. It’s appalling.

Montalban:

In summary your ‘defence’ is a waste of your and my time - lucky I don’t charge like a barrister.

pro_universal:

Lucky for you, that is. I suspect business would be in short supply.

I don’t see much work from Moslems, no. But I’m not starving, because of it

Montalban:

Quote:You simply cite evidence that undermines your position. Or you appeal to evidence that doesn’t exist. And you misrepresent what little evidence you do present, and also that which others put to you.

pro_universal:

Like I said, you didn’t read the evidence. That’s the only thing that could possibly result in this claim of yours. Or, you cannot read the evidence. I’m not sure which, but it’s one of the two.

I quoted the summary from your own cited site! It shows you it doesn’t support you.

Now if you could even show how this is at all relevant to the Islamic idea which has not changed, that would be great.

It’s dishonest for you to argue off topic, it’s not a defence of Islam at all. It’s dishonest to continually move the goal posts as you do move off topic (from a specific allegation, to a general complaint about Australian law). It’s dishonest of you to continue to misrepresent the evidence that you do make use of. And it’s dishonest to keep doing these things.

 

[Montalban]

pro, once again you got slammed. Remind me never to hire you as an attorney.

I like it how he cites two parts of the same report and calls it ‘two reports’. He’d call an expert in to court, then later on his next expert would be the same guy but wearing a different tie.

 

[Montalban]

Pointing out that there is more to the context than just one person’s comments on rape is not a red herring.

a) You’ve yet to even show this; that there’s more.
b) You’ve been presented with more than just one Moslem’s opinion, but you must misrepresent that evidence to.

You ‘increase’ your own evidence by pretending that the same site is two reports. And you diminish the evidence against you. You’ve been given several Moslem’s opinions but you continually re-work this to be just ‘one’ Moslems’ opinion. Perhaps in fairness because you believe that this one opinion is representative of a larger number of Moslems?

You only consider it to be so because your aim is to bash Islam, not to consider the specific issue at hand (ie, the way rape victims are treated and should be treated.)

You’ve yet to give a rational response in defence of Islam.

 

[Montalban]

Let’s use this man’s comments as a springboard for debating the gross mistreatment of rape victims in Australian courts.

How would that help you? You’d be wanting to widen this to ‘debate’ something not in contention - the problems in Australian law. Islamic law is fixed. Australian law, whilst not perfect is changing. That is its nature.

“The law is a living entity and it must change and remain pertinent to social conditions as they alter”
Maher, F., & Waller, L., (1991), “An Introduction to Law” (6th ed), (The Law Book Company Limited; Sydney), p162.

Sharia/Islamic law is fixed. It says women are less than men. It is the idea from your god that this is so.

Let’s expand the discussion to look at the way that secular authorities of all religious backgrounds ignore the re-victimization of rape victims in Australia.

Start a thread.

Let’s get beyond bashing a religion and look at the root of the problem from a “let’s treat women better” perspective, instead of spending all our time asking “how bad is Islam?”.
How about that?

It’s inherent in Islam. You’ve not dealt with that at all. So much for your ‘desire’ to champion the rights of women!

AND
If you want to look at a positive influence of Christianity in the law, have a look at this thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=114333

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

He also apologized, didn’t he?

I think he did not apologize but said his comments were taken out of context - that he wasn’t talking about rape but adultery and marriage - but it is clear he lied because he made reference to a specific court case of gang rape where the Judge sentenced the ringleader to 65 years jail.

So, no, I don’t think he apologized. Instead, he tried to weasel out of trouble by lying.

 

[Montalban]

I think he did not apologize but said his comments were taken out of context - that he wasn’t talking about rape but adultery and marriage - but it is clear he lied because he made reference to a specific court case of gang rape where the Judge sentenced the ringleader to 65 years jail.

So, no, I don’t think he apologized. Instead, he tried to weasel out of trouble by lying.

Even his spokesman Keysar Trad is now saying that it’s ‘un-Australian’ to pick on him! He cites ‘Australian values’! ROFL!
Check out the photo
theaustralian.news.com.au/photogallery/0,9493,^^16956,00.html

The Australian newspaper gives his whole speech here
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20656690-601,00.html

and a good story here…
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20658335-601,00.html

 

[pro_universal]

I think that reading the flurries of posts you all put out, alternatively declaring this and demanding that, would be a good way to contract adult-onset ADD.

Just to get it clear: Victorian Law Reform Commission does not equal Australian Law Reform Commission.

It’s amazing…I post some quick info on the problems with treatment of rape victims in Australian law, and what follows are pages and pages of more demands.

No amount of proof will be enough to convince you that this is a problem for people other than Muslims, and no amount of proof is too miniscule to let you go on a tirade against Muslims.

This is religious bigotry in its lowest form, and I’m sad to see it on a Catholic forum. Despite my experiences, I’ve always brought myself to expect better.

 

[cestusdei]

And yet you are not offended when a senior Islamic cleric blames rape victims for being raped and uses Islamic theology to back up his assertion.

 

[pro_universal]

And yet you are not offended when a senior Islamic cleric blames rape victims for being raped and uses Islamic theology to back up his assertion.

Let’s see, how many times have I posted in this thread that the man’s comments were offensive and wrong?

let me recap for you:

pro_universal:

As well they should be outraged, but every indication is that Muslims are outraged by it too. I haven’t met a single one here who thinks what he said was legitimate.

pro_universal:

I already agreed with you there, they didn’t go far enough and he should step down. Especially since he’s representing a minority group in a western country, he should be held to the strictest standards.

pro_universal:

No, I don’t. He clearly was wrong and considered to be wrong by the rest of the Muslim community.

Leaders say dumb and incorrect things. Here’s an example.

That’s three separate times. You are either blind or a liar if you’re going to accuse me of supporting the comments.

 

[cestusdei]

And yet Muslims are NOT demanding he step down. The Arab News acted as you do. That it is our problem for criticizing him rather then a major problem in Islam. His views are not the minority view. Look at the stats in Denmark where rapes by Muslims are endemic. The problem isn’t that he said it, but that he got caught by us infidel. That’s the Muslim view. No Muslim has suddenly stood back and said “whoa, you know what, we Muslims have a real problem with how we treat women.” That’s the point.

 

[pro_universal]

And yet Muslims are NOT demanding he step down.

Every single Muslim I’ve talked to here about it thinks he should.

The Arab News acted as you do. That it is our problem for criticizing him rather then a major problem in Islam. His views are not the minority view. Look at the stats in Denmark where rapes by Muslims are endemic. The problem isn’t that he said it, but that he got caught by us infidel. That’s the Muslim view. No Muslim has suddenly stood back and said “whoa, you know what, we Muslims have a real problem with how we treat women.” That’s the point.

Look at the stats in the US for rape, where Muslims aren’t a significant percentage of the population. Does that prove that American culture is fundamentally evil and cheers on rape?

Same story here in Australia. You’ve got the evidence above on how rape victims are treated here, and how low the prosecution rate is…did Muslims write the penal code and do they control all law enforcement and the bar here?

The Muslim view is that rape is bad, and punishable by the death penalty. Your argument about Muslims and rape is garbage, pure and simple. It is based on a conspiracy theory: “he got caught by the infidels!,” as if there’s some secret meeting of Muslims somewhere discussing all these dastardly things so you can’t hear them.

 

[cestusdei]

Every single Muslim I’ve talked to here about it thinks he should.

Look at the stats in the US for rape, where Muslims aren’t a significant percentage of the population. Does that prove that American culture is fundamentally evil and cheers on rape?

Same story here in Australia. You’ve got the evidence above on how rape victims are treated here, and how low the prosecution rate is…did Muslims write the penal code and do they control all law enforcement and the bar here?

The Muslim view is that rape is bad, and punishable by the death penalty. Your argument about Muslims and rape is garbage, pure and simple. It is based on a conspiracy theory: “he got caught by the infidels!,” as if there’s some secret meeting of Muslims somewhere discussing all these dastardly things so you can’t hear them.

Where are the crowds of thousands of Muslims marching, burning him in effigy, and saying he has defamed Islam? I haven’t seen it. In Muslim countries women don’t report rape. Why? Because they need 4 witnesses to the act, rather hard to find. And if they don’t have them then they are confessing to adultery or fornication. Then what happens? Well…they dig this hole and gather some stones…So if you were female would YOU report a rape under such circumstances? It is the Islamic catch 22.

 

[pro_universal]

Where are the crowds of thousands of Muslims marching, burning him in effigy, and saying he has defamed Islam? I haven’t seen it.

If you did see it, you’d call them unruly rioters. They’re protesting his comments peacefully. Are you saying they should do it violently, and if they don’t, they’re bad people?

In Muslim countries women don’t report rape. Why? Because they need 4 witnesses to the act, rather hard to find.

Complete hogwash. This is not the law anywhere except Pakistan, and low incidences of reporting plague America and Australia…and little wonder, considering how victims are treated, and the light sentences that offenders get.

And if they don’t have them then they are confessing to adultery or fornication. Then what happens? Well…they dig this hole and gather some stones…So if you were female would YOU report a rape under such circumstances? It is the Islamic catch 22.

Again, your argument is garbage. Totally wrong on Islamic law. But it’s true, underreporting is a worldwide problem…blaming it on Islamic law is silly though, as it’s a problem in America and Australia too.

If a violent rape is proved in Saudi Arabia or any other strict Islamic country, the offender will definitely be executed. If it’s proved in the US or Australia, he might do a few years in prison and be out in time to enjoy a state funded retirement.

Your cartoonish comparison of Islamic and western legal regimes for rape is designed to bash Islam with dishonesty.