Evil relativist nonsense

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.

Click to expand...

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5252999%5E421,00.html



Even as an atheist humanist that tries to be tolerant of another's viewpoint I must say; this is ridiculous and evil as hell and racist. Had this happened to a white girl the guy would be dead. Yet another reason I condemn relativism.

Caffeine: It relates to relativism in that the rape is being sanctioned because it was part of a "culture". Such a viewpoint is known as cultural relativism and the science of anthropology has now been split in two over this. I'm condeming the man's rape of the girl,his threatening her,the families selling her into slavery, the racism in the acts and how the anthropologist used "cultural difference" to get the man off the hook.

Crazy: My values do not tell me such sex is wrong. They tell me raping a 15 year old, threatening her and placing her in bondage for a dowry is wrong. This to me is a matter of preference, but I would say this is an objective preference based on the recognition that humans have similiar biologies and actions have similiar effects on people. The proof depends on the exact nature of the moral theory.

 

Lastly  I do not see why it is therefore wrong to apply my preference to another or to say "Value X is stronger then value Y". Or that the standards of human rights are to be over-ridden by respect for other cultures. That to me doesn't follow from moral being a matter of preference, because some preferences are more shared, more intrinsic, more intense and more relavent in relation to other preferences then others. I see human rights standard as one of the strongest and most universal. In comparison to this, cultural "tolerance" fails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CrazyFingers: The relativist position in anything or constructivist I should say is that all beggining standards or axioms are on equal footing.

Now all ways of proving things involve supporting them by certain standards all the way down to self-evident axiomic standards. This can be done in the epistemic and ethical realm.

In the ethical realm these standards are for me certain emotional reactions that can be used to measure, sort of like my pleasure/mechanisms. And it should be understood that when I say I prove "X is morals" I am saying it in the same sense that I would say "X is more pleasurable." This would have nothing to do with me saying my pleasures or pains were better, in a vacuum then another's or that my responses stemming from my body make-up were better. Only that what was being measured was deemed more conductive to my mechanisms of evaluation.

 

Now a relativist seems to think these mechanisms all derive from culture or are invented by the person. I do not, I think these mechanisms stem from genes, conditioning and cognition. Most of which cannot be controlled.

In this sense values can be measured though not be some simplistic "better" or "worse" sense, except maybe as an overall summary. Morals can be measured by their intensity, durability, quality, generality, and relation/impact on other morals/values. Here checking the source becomes of the utmost importance, as that tells us a lot about the specific nature of the value which would otherwise have to be approximated at face value via emotional response. Note: I am in essence saying morality is an emotional reaction, much like pleasure and pain. A unique emotional reaction of a given quality. Morality is thus shown to exist by experiencing such an emotional reaction, one that we would call guilt,moral indignation and/or moral satisfaction/zeal. Back to the sources though, this is important in that it allows us to quickly see certain thing, lets say for example the source is biological, then we can assume it will be very durable, and general. Lets say the source is superstition, then we can perhaps argue that it is based on more or less, relation to other values and expected rewards if such superstitious practices are adhered to.

 

In regards to empathy I see this value as a biological, further ground into my nature by the proper conditioning. Sort of exegenetic then, like how certain animals already predisposed to agression can become even more agressive via conditioning. Such conditioning note; is physical in its effect and can be permamant. Conditioning then can make the emotion more intense,more durable etc. Likewise this desire to be empethetic, see justice done etc, does not stem from a superstitious practice which would make the moral an extrinsic one based on an imaginary reward to come, and/or detrimental to other values.

 

In essence then I would prove my point by starting with certain morally axiomic standards; those being, freedom for the girl, being humane, abhorence to rape, empathy,justice, and the value I attach to romantic love and it's free expression.

This for me would conflict with other values I hold dear like; cultural tolerance.

 

But acting against the aborigine in this case would be far more conductive to my overall value system and thus the best choice.

 

I'm sure the aborigines,anthropologist etc. are all bringing their value systems into play. Their main arguments stem from the value of cultural tolerance and tradition.

 

Tradition to me is neutral in any case. Tolerance here can work both ways, lets not forget individual tolerance for the little girl and humanist tolerance which demands laws be universal and human being be given equal rights regardless of race.

 

Who's overall value system is better? That depends on how these people are actually "built" more or less. There's may be inferior to mine if their courses of action and standards actually hamper their satisfaction of values in which case alteration on their part should be taken in regards to their actions. However this may simply be a case of variation or us being physically different in our overall emotional mechanisms. In which case we have what can be called a "value conflict" i.e. a fight. In which case I would have to oppose them and change their course of action by trickery or force.

 

In this case, IF all emotional mechanisms were best served by each respective parties course of action, there'd be no overall right or wrong that would apply to either. Though that is a big "IF". However there would be a right or wrong for each and I would expect each party to try to enforce this right or wrong to the best of each's ability. One may then object "but that's coercive surely compromise is more appropriate". But keep in mind that in this case my value lies in intervention and hence compromise would merely mean I lose. Also it presupposes that compromise in this case is to be valued. I think in this case though the protection of human rights and justice are of greater value.