Australian court shows lack of cultural understanding

[Mycroft]

Gang rapists told age, culture no defense

Three Pakistani gang rapists who are facing life in jail yesterday begged a judge to be pardoned, citing cultural differences that led to the brutal attack, immaturity on their part and hardship within their families if they were imprisoned.

But Supreme Court Justice Brian Sully said "culture or no culture", a strong message needed to be sent to other young men that such horrific sex crimes against women will not be tolerated in modern society.

Andrew Haesler, for one of the defendants, known as MMK, 17, said his client was immature and had lived in Australia for two years without the "restrictive boundaries" in his home country.


And the crime…

Five males, four of whom are brothers, were found guilty last year of nine counts of aggravated sexual assault in company - which carries a maximum life sentence - on two girls, aged 16 and 17, at the brothers' Ashfield family home on July 28, 2002.

The girls were repeatedly raped, threatened with knives and bullets and one was told the other had been killed because she had resisted her attackers. None of the men can be named because the younger brothers, MMK and MRK, 18, were minors at the time. Another man, known as RS, is 25.

Two of the men, known as MSK, 25, and MAK, 23, sobbed openly in court, maintaining their innocence and begging for "another chance".

The brothers are representing themselves because they believe an anti-Muslim conspiracy has prevented a fair hearing. Their father, a practising doctor, told the court they should be pardoned because they "did not know the culture of this country".


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/01/1078117369680.html?from=top5

Sorry, forgot the link.

[waitew]

Well,give us more details.We need more details!I can't decide whether to be angery or sympathic without more details.Did they or didn't they gang rape two girls? & what does culture have to do with it anyway?If it's Ok to gang rape woman in Muslim cultures then perhaps all muslims should be imprisioned for life.If they did what they are accused of doing..culture or no culture..let them hang!!They aren't in Saudi anymore are they?!!

[reprise]

Could you link to the original article? There are several of these cases going on at the moment and one of them has just been sent for retrial by an appellate court.

FWIW, rape is punishable under Islamic law, too, so the "cultural differences" argument doesn't hold up.

[Toastrider]

I think we've got a classic case of hiding under the skirts of 'native culture' here, folks.

Doesn't surprise me, though. Many of those hardcore Islamic countries treat women as second-class citizens, and if a woman is raped, she's the one at fault. It makes chauvinism in America look downright civil by comparison.

--Toasty

[reprise]

One reason why the defendants in this case will try anything and everything to influence the sentence they receive is because the NSW courts have been taking a hardline stance against pack rape recently.

Sword of Justice fells worst rapist (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/15/1029113983342.html)

We also have this case (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8874381%255E26462,00.html) before our courts at the moment.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I am under the impression that in Pakistan the penalty for rape is death. Let's respect his culture when it comes to sentencing.

Of course in Pakistan it's harder to get a rape conviction than in Australia.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I am under the impression that in Pakistan the penalty for rape is death. Let's respect his culture when it comes to sentencing.

Of course in Pakistan it's harder to get a rape conviction than in Australia.

You are correct - but there must be four male witnesses to the rape. Also, under Pakistan rape law a woman can kill her rapist and it's regarded as self-defence. As in many similar countries, what the law says and the attitude towards enforcing it are two very different things.

Thes pack rapes and the appalling defences offered for them have done more to create ill-will towards Muslim males in this city than all the terrorist attacks of the last few years combined.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by reprise
You are correct - but there must be four male witnesses to the rape. Also, under Pakistan rape law a woman can kill her rapist and it's regarded as self-defence. As in many similar countries, what the law says and the attitude towards enforcing it are two very different things.

Thes pack rapes and the appalling defences offered for them have done more to create ill-will towards Muslim males in this city than all the terrorist attacks of the last few years combined.

How common is it?

[davefoc]

Anybody from Australia have any thoughts on how likely it is that main perpetrator will be incarcerated for the full 40 years?

What are the chances his appeals will have any success?

Question for anybody:
I understand that women under some Islamic governments have less rights than we would consider normal in the west, but is there anything remotely valid in their cultural difference defense?

Just a short barely related story:

An Egyptian friend and I were discussion the Mike Tyson rape trial when it was in the news. My view was that the evidence as I understood it just barely measured up to meeting the beyond a reasonable doubt bar.

His view was that once the woman had gone voluntarily into Mike Tyson's room at night that there should not have been a rape conviction period. This is not to say that Mike Tyson had any right to rape the woman , just that the law should not punish him if he did. His view was that this was the way Egyptian law would work and he thought that was the way the law should work. I think his reasoning was that women needed to understand that putting themselves into compromising situations could result in a rape that wouldn't be prosecuted and that if women understood this they would be less likely to put themselves in a compromising situation.

[Cleopatra]

I find extremely interesting the argument that the defence chose to present and it's another example of what we were discussing in other threads about Muslims in Western societies.

The defense brough the argument that knew very well that counts in western societies: Cultural differences. Knowing that western people are very sensitive towards them and there is a big discussion about aknowledging and protecting cultural diversity.

So, I repeat to this thread the same question. What must we do in order to protect western societies from those that take advantage of their privileges in order to violate their Laws ?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by davefoc
Anybody from Australia have any thoughts on how likely it is that main perpetrator will be incarcerated for the full 40 years?


There has recently been a very highly publisized case involving Lebanese youths where the ringleaders were thrown inside for 40 years. This is a very rare event in Australia and many people are uneasy that killers get less than this. These youths described what happened as consensual group sex, they were found guilty of pack rape and I've got no reason to believe the verdict is not fair. There was much ranting surrounding the case and it gave some racists some airtime to try and convice us that all our rapists are arabs.. despite there being no link between rape rates and race or religion...The newsapapers now put all rapes where the accused are Muslim on the front page as they try to keep breath in the dying "muslim rapists" story... But hey...it sells newspapers doesn't it.

[reprise]

Originally posted by davefoc
Anybody from Australia have any thoughts on how likely it is that main perpetrator will be incarcerated for the full 40 years?

What are the chances his appeals will have any success?

Question for anybody:
I understand that women under some Islamic governments have less rights than we would consider normal in the west, but is there anything remotely valid in their cultural difference defense?

Just a short barely related story:

An Egyptian friend and I were discussion the Mike Tyson rape trial when it was in the news. My view was that the evidence as I understood it just barely measured up to meeting the beyond a reasonable doubt bar.

His view was that once the woman had gone voluntarily into Mike Tyson's room at night that there should not have been a rape conviction period. This is not to say that Mike Tyson had any right to rape the woman , just that the law should not punish him if he did. His view was that this was the way Egyptian law would work and he thought that was the way the law should work. I think his reasoning was that women needed to understand that putting themselves into compromising situations could result in a rape that wouldn't be prosecuted and that if women understood this they would be less likely to put themselves in a compromising situation.

There is a provision under New South Wales law which allows prisoners to apply to have their sentences redetermined if the laws relating to the crime they committed change substantially enough that their sentence is totally out of line with contemporary sentencing for the same crime. Should the legislators of NSW at some future time decide that the maximum sentence for aggravated rape should be - for instance - 15 years, then the particular person whose non-parole period is currently set at 40 years would be able to apply for a redetermination of his sentence.

Cleopatra, it happens that to date all of those who've been tried for aggravated rape under our new laws and who've been sentenced under those laws have been of non-Anglo heritage. Right now, charges are about to be laid in a case where the alleged perpetrators are all Aussie. We need to protect our society from certain types of behaviour - regardless of who perpetrates that behaviour and where they come from. The case which is currently pending will give many of us idea of whether these toughened aggravated rape laws are going to be applied equally to those who were born and raised here as they are to those who were not. I - for one - will be absolutely horrified if Australian born men get lesser sentences for similar crimes than those born elsewhere.

[reprise]

For those living outside Australia, I should point out that there is a lot of controversy here about the new sentences being given for aggravated sexual assault as those sentences are significantly longer than what would be served by your "average" murderer. There is very real concern that if the penalty for aggravated sexual assault is in excess of that generally given for murder, then assailants will have a vested interest in ensuring that their victims do not survive to bring sexual assault charges.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I find extremely interesting the argument that the defence chose to present and it's another example of what we were discussing in other threads about Muslims in Western societies.

The defense brough the argument that knew very well that counts in western societies: Cultural differences. Knowing that western people are very sensitive towards them and there is a big discussion about aknowledging and protecting cultural diversity.

So, I repeat to this thread the same question. What must we do in order to protect western societies from those that take advantage of their privileges in order to violate their Laws ?
Could you explain who you feel is privileged and what those privileges are?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by reprise
For those living outside Australia, I should point out that there is a lot of controversy here about the new sentences being given for aggravated sexual assault as those sentences are significantly longer than what would be served by your "average" murderer. There is very real concern that if the penalty for aggravated sexual assault is in excess of that generally given for murder, then assailants will have a vested interest in ensuring that their victims do not survive to bring sexual assault charges.

I think that we have discussed this together before. Nasty defense tactics have lead to more severe legislations that cause more serious problems on the long run. What bothers me most is that the litigators who practice this kind of law are considered by the majority as good lawyers.

To return to the subject, there is not doubt that laws must be applied equally I pointed out something else though. The argument the defense brought. They tried to bring as an excuse a cultural difference because they know that in western societies those things count and a discussion might start and at the end they will accuse the court that convicts them because they are muslims and not because they are rapists.

In muslim societies on the other hand cultural diversity doesn't exist even as a thought.

Why they brought this issue up in court? Who gave them this right? This is what makes me wonder.Won't somebody condemn this attitude?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I think that we have discussed this together before. Nasty defense tactics have lead to more severe legislations that cause more serious problems on the long run. What bothers me most is that the litigators who practice this kind of law are considered by the majority as good lawyers.

To return to the subject, there is not doubt that laws must be applied equally I pointed out something else though. The argument the defense brought. They tried to bring as an excuse a cultural difference because they know that in western societies those things count and a discussion might start and at the end they will accuse the court that convicts them because they are muslims and not because they are rapists.

In muslim societies on the other hand cultural diversity doesn't exist even as a thought.

Why they brought this issue up in court? Who gave them this right? This is what makes me wonder.Won't somebody condemn this attitude?

Don't worry, I think it has been pretty roundly condemned. The jury found them all guilty of the most serious charges brought, and the judge finished it off with a life in prison.

The lawyers were corrupt enough to take the money of the family of the boys, knowing full well the defense would fail. The family, apparently, did not realise that their boys were going to jail for a long time from the moment the evidence was in that they were guilty. Apparently, during the trial, the ring leader was acting as if he was still in charge of the whole scene, snapping his fingers to his girl friend, showing no remorse, acting like he was in charge. It has slowly been dawning on him that he is in fact in jail for life, and he has no way out. He did try some stupid schemes for getting out, but these were discovered.

[reprise]

Why they brought this issue up in court? Who gave them this right? This is what makes me wonder.Won't somebody condemn this attitude?

The Justice to whom the plea was made was extremely curt in dismissing "cultural differences" and "youth" as grounds for special consideratiion. Notably, he was also the dissenting Justice in another case which has just been sent for retrial.

What really, REALLY, needs to happen is for one of these cases to be appealed all the way to the High Court. While community attitudes are already hostile towards pleas of "cultural differences" (BTW, the defendants in this case represented themselves because they believe that an "anti-Muslim conspiracy" exists), we really need our ultimate appellate court to come down hard on the issue and bind the lower courts to do the same. Unfortunately, that would mean the victims having to go through several more hearings before the issue is ultimately determined.

[reprise]

I also need to point out that the pleas which are being reported in the paper were those made to the judge to take into account before passing sentence. Juries in Australia play no part in the sentencing process and pre-sentence reports and pleas, along with victim impact statements, are all presented to the judge AFTER the jury has found the defendant guilty (and before the judge passes sentence) - so it isn't strictly true to call this a "defence", rather, it's an attempt to get the judge to consider cultural differences and youth as a mitigating circumstance which should lessen the sentence imposed.

I don't think that they'll get life, but I'd be very surprised if they get less than 20 years.

[Zep]

More background. Although Australia happens to be one of the most multicultural countries in the world (and that particular adjective is in use commonly here), there are still undercurrents of "cultural ghettos" in the major cities, and thus there are differing views inside some of those "ghettos" as to how life is lived and how the law should apply.

I'm happy to say that the vast majority of our "new Australians" tend to integrate well. However there are some that, as we say here, "bring their country with them". Their views on how laws should be applied are radically at odds of how it is applied. Very often these views are confined to these cultural ghettos, where English is still a rarely used third or fourth language, and scores are settled "the old way".

And so we have the rise of cultural gangs, for whom life here is seen and lived no different from wartime Beirut or the mean streets of Hong Kong or Karachi or Seoul. For them, it is that world of warlords, total warrior-male dominance, honour and family and revenge, guns and knives, rape and pillage. In short, they are thugs, but here their actions tend to stand out more - it is many decades since there have been families fighting it out in the streets with machetes and shooting up houses and police stations.

The main point is that lying and corruption are so much a part of these thugs' lives that they think they are fireproof and see it as a successful way to avoid any pitfalls that may occur...like arrest and trial. AUP cited above an example of one of these young thug's actions in court - this is quite typical street behaviour for them, as I can attest first-hand.

Luckily for us, these thugs are few and far between, and their own communities and religions look down on them too, generally. Most of them came here to get away from all that in the first place. They will be happy to see these guys get life, and know it really means LIFE.

But a previous thread on deportation springs to mind too. If there were shorter sentences imposed, I would add a mandatory revokation of Aussie citizenship and permanent deportation, immediately on completion of sentence.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by reprise


You are correct - but there must be four male witnesses to the rape. Also, under Pakistan rape law a woman can kill her rapist and it's regarded as self-defence. As in many similar countries, what the law says and the attitude towards enforcing it are two very different things.


You forgot to add that in the absence of the four male witnesses, the act cannot be found to be rape and instead the woman is guilty of adultary under Sharia Law. The punishment for this is death by stoning.

Maybe that is the "cultural" difference these defendants are refering to?

[The Fool]

Sharia law is irrelevant in determining the guilt of Australian criminals.

Nothing is irrelevant in a mitigation plea. If you wish you may plead that your clients are martians or that the cia forced them to do it....or that they were conditioned to this sort of behavior by the culture that they came from.... Its freedom of speech and its your time in court for you or your lawyer to have your say before you are sentenced... The lawyers do this because it is thier duty, a duty they swear an oath to uphold Every person, like it or not, is entitled to be defended vigorously..

As usual, instead of worrying about the factors that produce crime ridden areas of our cities we tend to get all wrapped up in which ethnic groups are currently over-represented in these areas and look for some sort of external causes....after all, its much more palatable to see it as a problem that has come here from a foreign land than see it as a problem of Australian society...

Are we Australians forgetting the Anita Cobby case already, easily the worst pack rape and murder for many decades. Committed by Anglo-Celtic youth from the same depressed areas....There was no attempt to turn it into an "anglo crime" or a "christian crime" The exact same sort of hard luck misunderstood victims of the system claims were made in mitigation and they were equally quickly and rightly dismissed.

These rapes are Australian crimes, not muslim crimes...we can't shift the responsibility that easily. Lets start by asking ourselves why there are roaving bands of youths who feel that disaffected that they do not identify as Australian first...Maybe, just maybe, it does have something to do with the way Our society deals with these issues....

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...snip...

Why they brought this issue up in court? Who gave them this right? This is what makes me wonder.Won't somebody condemn this attitude?

Didn't they represent themselves? The Australian system (I believe) allows for mitigating circumstances to be considered and they thought they'd try "cultural differences". The judge rightly (in my opinion) said, to paraphrase "Cultural differences in this case are not mitigating circumstances".

What are you asking to be "condemned" here?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Darat


Didn't they represent themselves? The Australian system (I believe) allows for mitigating circumstances to be considered and they thought they'd try "cultural differences". The judge rightly (in my opinion) said, to paraphrase "Cultural differences in this case are not mitigating circumstances".

What are you asking to be "condemned" here?

The defence brings arguments that think that they will work, they will make the judges look the accused ( or guilty in our cases as reprise explained) under a different prism.

I found interesting that the defense asked the court to take into consideration an element that the cultural background of the convicted lacks characteristically!

[reprise]

The Anita Cobby case (in which all the perpetrators are classified "never to be released", although Les Murphy still keeps trying to have that designation removed from his sentence on the basis that he was sexually abused as a child) is the reason why I believe that NSW courts will never award a life sentence for rape (no matter how viscious) alone.

I can envisage situations in which the court might well view "cultural differences" to be mitigating circumstances, but the pack mentality (sexual assault is not the only crime in which these packs of predators get on their mobile phones and get their mates to come from all over Sydney to join in the "fun") is unlikely to ever be regarded by either the community or our justice system as one of those situations, regardless of the ethnicity or religion of those involved.

Cultural differences are not entirely irrelevant in the day to day operation of our legal system. It is recognised that some of our immigrant youth have come here from countries where the law is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently, and it isn't at all uncommon for the police to ask community leaders (who generally hold considerable influence over the youth of those groups which are marginalised from our legal system) to work with them on conveying to their communities where the limits of legal behaviour lie and the likely consequences of crossing those lines. This isn't just done with immigrant communities, it occurs quite often with our Aboriginal communities, too.

Nor is this a new problem. In my lifetime, it seems to have taken about a generation for whichever immigrant group is the newest to make the transition from "the old ways" to "the new ways" and violence is often a part of that transition. Go back 10 years, and the gangs we were talking about were primarily Asian. Go back to my childhood and they were primarily Italian or Greek. Go back to my parents' generation and they were primarily Irish.

To my knowledge, our embassies world-wide do encourage people moving here to assess whether our culture will be compatible with their own values, but the circumstances which many people are fleeing probably make such a question seem irrelevant at the time - most people who come here simply want to live somewhere which is 1) safe and 2) affluent.

The immigration status of the family involved in this particular case is not given in the article, but it's possible that the offenders do not have permanent resident status (IIRC, this is not granted for 2-3 years) which means that the government can refuse to grant the offenders such status and can deport them upon completion of their sentences. A hardline "you will be deported if you do this" attitude for serious offences will do a lot to discourage people from committing them, although it will be many years in the case of these particular individuals before such deportation occurs. We do need to get a lot tougher on those immigrants who do the wrong thing during their qualification period and offer more protection to those who do the right thing.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by reprise
I can envisage situations in which the court might well view "cultural differences" to be mitigating circumstances, but the pack mentality (sexual assault is not the only crime in which these packs of predators get on their mobile phones and get their mates to come from all over Sydney to join in the "fun") is unlikely to ever be regarded by either the community or our justice system as one of those situations, regardless of the ethnicity or religion of those involved.


Leaving the incident in question aside I find this an interesting observation.

Personally I would be very much alarmed if courts started taking into account cultural differences. You don't need to have immigrants in order to have differencies in the way a culture is expressed. Greece is smaller in size than the State of New York and yet you can spot significant differences between the north and the south of the country and among the islands. Legislation is a factor that unifies people and legislation takes into account the cultural background of a country ( that's why I am so against of sudden and light-hearted abolishments of laws that have to do with marriage, parenthood etc) but courts and juries should judge taking into account the law and only the law.

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Fool
Sharia law is irrelevant in determining the guilt of Australian criminals.

Nothing is irrelevant in a mitigation plea. If you wish you may plead that your clients are martians or that the cia forced them to do it....or that they were conditioned to this sort of behavior by the culture that they came from.... Its freedom of speech and its your time in court for you or your lawyer to have your say before you are sentenced... The lawyers do this because it is thier duty, a duty they swear an oath to uphold Every person, like it or not, is entitled to be defended vigorously..

As usual, instead of worrying about the factors that produce crime ridden areas of our cities we tend to get all wrapped up in which ethnic groups are currently over-represented in these areas and look for some sort of external causes....after all, its much more palatable to see it as a problem that has come here from a foreign land than see it as a problem of Australian society...

Are we Australians forgetting the Anita Cobby case already, easily the worst pack rape and murder for many decades. Committed by Anglo-Celtic youth from the same depressed areas....There was no attempt to turn it into an "anglo crime" or a "christian crime" The exact same sort of hard luck misunderstood victims of the system claims were made in mitigation and they were equally quickly and rightly dismissed.

These rapes are Australian crimes, not muslim crimes...we can't shift the responsibility that easily. Lets start by asking ourselves why there are roaving bands of youths who feel that disaffected that they do not identify as Australian first...Maybe, just maybe, it does have something to do with the way Our society deals with these issues.... Yes, indeed. Full agreement here. And you might care to take this to our wonderfully understanding prime minister and the former minister for immigration (now attorney-general), who instigated the recent "us and them" immigration (restriction) legislation. Children overboard my foot!

[Zep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Leaving the incident in question aside I find this an interesting observation.

Personally I would be very much alarmed if courts started taking into account cultural differences. You don't need to have immigrants in order to have differencies in the way a culture is expressed. Greece is smaller in size than the State of New York and yet you can spot significant differences between the north and the south of the country and among the islands. Legislation is a factor that unifies people and legislation takes into account the cultural background of a country ( that's why I am so against of sudden and light-hearted abolishments of laws that have to do with marriage, parenthood etc) but courts and juries should judge taking into account the law and only the law. Agree totally, but in this case it is a bunch of young thugs who think they are above ANY law, religious or otherwise (probably because they have never been disciplined previously, either where they came from or after they arrived here, and have "fallen in to a life of crime"). I would imagine that if they had committed such crimes in a strict Mulsim country that their punishment would be somewhat worse than a long stretch in gaol, probably a lot shorter and with more finality.

This particular situation of claiming cultural differences is not new nor restricted to Muslims either. And also, it is sometimes a successful ploy to exploit cultural differences to avoid criminal prosecution.

For example: An man of Greek descent shot and killed a businesswoman here in Sydney, and fled back to Greece to avoid arrest and trial. The woman's husband tracked him down in Greece, and managed to instigate criminal proceedings against him there, because he would not return to Australia to be tried. However he was found Not Guilty in Greece in what appeared to be a "local verdict" - the judge would not believe that a local man would do such a thing, etc, etc, and no conviction, not even approval for forced deportation to Australia to stand trial here. It's called "looking after your own", ie. exploiting cultural differences. Reference here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/1044927597149.html

Edit: detail corrected

[reprise]

I would count the Mabo decision as one in which taking into account "cultural differences" (ie, the European concept of "ownership" vs the Aboriginal concept of "affinity") resulted in EXACTLY the right decision.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by reprise
I would count the Mabo decision as one in which taking into account "cultural differences" (ie, the European concept of "ownership" vs the Aboriginal concept of "affinity") resulted in EXACTLY the right decision.

OK Zep. Please have mercy on an 'iggerunt' Norteamericano. :D

What is the Aboriginal concept of "affinity" and what is this case? Something to do with property rights, I assume? Thank you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


OK Zep. Please have mercy on an 'iggerunt' Norteamericano. :D

What is the Aboriginal concept of "affinity" and what is this case? Something to do with property rights, I assume? Thank you.

Their whole culture was based on the land, with 'sacred places' abounding everywhere. They had just about the longest, continuous culture on the planet.

When the land was gone, so were they to a large extent. The story goes that they had no concept of ownership of land. When white settlers turned up and asked to take ownership of land, they thought they were just sharing it out, not saying goodbye to it forever.

They also had some quite attractive cultural practices, like you didn't ever talk to your mother in law.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


OK Zep. Please have mercy on an 'iggerunt' Norteamericano. :D

What is the Aboriginal concept of "affinity" and what is this case? Something to do with property rights, I assume? Thank you. OK, Mabo is shorthand for a legal case in 1992 where a group of aboriginal people akin to a "tribe" laid claim to land on the grounds that it was effectively an integral part of their tribal life, the word "affinity" being probably closest to that sense. They claimed that it could not be bought or sold in the "Western" sense of ownership by title or proclamation.

The major point of the claim was that their tribal affinity for the land overrode the concept of "terra nullius" (empty land), by which Captain Cook was able to claim Australia for England by right of proclamation in 1770. At that time it was a "given" that the aborigines had no formal and legally recognisable title over the land, and therefore the English claim was legitimate.

The Mabo decision of 1992 was a landmark in that terra nullius was legally rejected in favour of "land rights" for aboriginal people (under limited circumstances, actually). Aboriginal tribes could now make real claims on land ownership when they had demonstrated "prior ownership" by means of "tribal affinity to the land", not just legal claptrap.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/text_only/places/cth/cth18.htm

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, Mabo is shorthand for a legal case in 1992 where a group of aboriginal people akin to a "tribe" laid claim to land on the grounds that it was effectively an integral part of their tribal life, the word "affinity" being probably closest to that sense. They claimed that it could not be bought or sold in the "Western" sense of ownership by title or proclamation.

The major point of the claim was that their tribal affinity for the land overrode the concept of "terra nullius" (empty land), by which Captain Cook was able to claim Australia for England by right of proclamation in 1770. At that time it was a "given" that the aborigines had no formal and legally recognisable title over the land, and therefore the English claim was legitimate.

The Mabo decision of 1992 was a landmark in that terra nullius was legally rejected in favour of "land rights" for aboriginal people (under limited circumstances, actually). Aboriginal tribes could now make real claims on land ownership when they had demonstrated "prior ownership" by means of "tribal affinity to the land", not just legal claptrap.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/text_only/places/cth/cth18.htm

Very interesting. I agree with you that the decision is right.

The closest USA equivalent would be "Indian reservations". Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean land we have reserved for them. It means land they have reserved for themselves, having ceded the rest in "land for peace" treaties.

Treaties were broken, but not since 1902. Teddy Roosevelt stopped the policy of bad faith and extermination.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Very interesting. I agree with you that the decision is right.

The closest USA equivalent would be "Indian reservations". Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean land we have reserved for them. It means land they have reserved for themselves, having ceded the rest in "land for peace" treaties.

Treaties were broken, but not since 1902. Teddy Roosevelt stopped the policy of bad faith and extermination. I agee that the decision was right, but it's a crying shame that it took 220+ years to make it so. Paternalistic racial attitudes, entrenched pastoral barons and compliant government inertia had a lot to do with this. Eddie Mabo, who originated the claim, had been dead some years when the decision was finally handed down. It's still being fought even today.

Which segues back to the subject at hand - Australia has had, and is still not free from, issues to do with racial villification. However we ARE trying to work on it...

Incidentally, if you have ever seen the Australian film The Castle, there's a passing humourous reference to Mabo in that. (Also, Mabo is pronounced "Mar-boe", rhymes with oboe).

A question about Indian reservations: Wasn't one of the tribes forcefully moved many hundreds of miles from their traditional lands and "settled" in another area that belonged to another tribe?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The defense brough the argument that knew very well that counts in western societies: Cultural differences. Knowing that western people are very sensitive towards them and there is a big discussion about aknowledging and protecting cultural diversity.


Maybe, but not everyone. Diversity is by it's nature a tribal process that is simply not good for the country. If a culture was so important it should not have been left in the first place. The manifestations of "diversity" yield points of difference between groups, a problem which people of good will have been trying to eliminate for some time now. It is simply dangerous feel good pablum.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ed

Maybe, but not everyone. Diversity is by it's nature a tribal process that is simply not good for the country. If a culture was so important it should not have been left in the first place. The manifestations of "diversity" yield points of difference between groups, a problem which people of good will have been trying to eliminate for some time now. It is simply dangerous feel good pablum. Disagree. We do like to celebrate our cultural diversities here - it's quite a healthy thing to acknowledge where you have come from and its history and cultures. No problem for us Aussies at all (us "white folks" are mostly convict-bred anyway!). But not to the point that we simply become little islands of other countries thrust together and forced to live butting into each other (remember, Australia is one of the MOST urbanised countries in the world - the city is where this happens). There is a middle ground between cultural diversity as a good thing, and bringing the abject horrors of some mother-countries here - one we want, one we don't.

The burden is both on Australians to allow for cultural diversity in a positive sense (i.e. not smacking the Danish accent out of you when you get off the plane!), and on the new immigrant to understand and accept that there are general cultural norms here that are required and expected to be adhered to when they live here (non-violence, rule of law, tolerance and respect for others, etc). In cases like the one this thread is about, these burdens are not being met by someone, and that it is no good appealing for dispensation from the same. That is the judge's message, really.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zep
Disagree. We do like to celebrate our cultural diversities here - it's quite a healthy thing to acknowledge where you have come from and its history and cultures. No problem for us Aussies at all (us "white folks" are mostly convict-bred anyway!). But not to the point that we simply become little islands of other countries thrust together and forced to live butting into each other (remember, Australia is one of the MOST urbanised countries in the world - the city is where this happens). There is a middle ground between cultural diversity as a good thing, and bringing the abject horrors of some mother-countries here - one we want, one we don't.

The burden is both on Australians to allow for cultural diversity in a positive sense (i.e. not smacking the Danish accent out of you when you get off the plane!), and on the new immigrant to understand and accept that there are general cultural norms here that are required and expected to be adhered to when they live here (non-violence, rule of law, tolerance and respect for others, etc). In cases like the one this thread is about, these burdens are not being met by someone, and that it is no good appealing for dispensation from the same. That is the judge's message, really.

The most extreme level of diversity that I am comfortable with is when the mics eat corned beef and cabbage on St. Paddies day. And even that gets me nervous.

[reprise]

We are one, but we are many,
And from all the lands on earth we come.
We share our dreams, and sing with one voice,
I am, you are, we are Australia.

[Zep]

Originally posted by reprise
We are one, but we are many,
And from all the lands on earth we come.
We share our dreams, and sing with one voice,
I am, you are, we are Australia. Exactly. Thanks, Reprise. It's a corny song but I embrace its sentiment.

[reprise]

Perhaps you'd prefer the lyrics to Shelter, they're a bit less corny.

To the homeless and the hungry, may we always open doors
May the restless and the weary find safe harbour on our shores
May you always be our dreamtime place, a spirit's glad release
May you always be our shelter, may we always live in peace.

[Zep]

Sounds like the words on the Statue of Liberty:

THE NEW COLOSSUS
Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Brian]

/knee jerk 6 pack reaction
Arab, English, American, ect.... shoot them in the nuts
/knee jerk 6 pack reaction

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zep
(Also, Mabo is pronounced "Mar-boe", rhymes with oboe).
Apparently I've been mispronouncing "oboe" all these years. :confused:
A question about Indian reservations: Wasn't one of the tribes forcefully moved many hundreds of miles from their traditional lands and "settled" in another area that belonged to another tribe?
I think you're referring to the infamous "Trail of Tears". (http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html)
On a somewhat related note, I was somewhat surprised last week to discover, while driving through Montana, that the battlefield where Gen. Custer and his men were wiped out is smack in the middle of a Crow Indian reservation. Too bad I won't be there for the big re-enactment this summer.

[Cleopatra]

Zep

The case you mention seems weird because according to the paper he will be tried but a three member court, the fact that he won't face a mixed court means that he is charged with less serious accusations that the article implies. I don't know details. Also, the Greek Law doesn't protect Greek citizens for crimes they have committed abroad and obviously the accused has persuaded the Greek Authorities that if they extradite him his life is in danger, also the Australian government obviously hasn't insisted enough. It's a fact though that the Greek Law over protects the accused and many times scums take advantage of loopholes to delay the attribution of Justice.

[a_unique_person]

Another culture that is going to get hammered, the macho footy players are going to be told that they have had a free reign for too long.

Women are now coming out and saying that they have been raped.

It has taken longer to deal with than the rapists from the Lebanese community, admittedly, and I think there are a lot of people who have known what was going on and have covered it up and should hang their heads in shame.

But the geni is out of the bottle now, and it won't be going back in.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594337887.html

What is needed is for the football players themselves to face up to what has been going on.

I would expect nothing less than a long prison sentence for this crime.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Zep

The case you mention seems weird because according to the paper he will be tried but a three member court, the fact that he won't face a mixed court means that he is charged with less serious accusations that the article implies. I don't know details. Also, the Greek Law doesn't protect Greek citizens for crimes they have committed abroad and obviously the accused has persuaded the Greek Authorities that if they extradite him his life is in danger, also the Australian government obviously hasn't insisted enough. It's a fact though that the Greek Law over protects the accused and many times scums take advantage of loopholes to delay the attribution of Justice. He's on a charge of murder in Australia. The woman's husband has been trying to get him extradited to Australia, OR charged with murder in Greece. The previous trials were held in the man's "home town", not Athens, and the decisions seemed to be very much favouritism for the local boy. They do not reflect well on the Greek legal system in this case. His life won't be in danger if he returns - we don't do vigilante killings! But his arse will go to gaol for decades if he is convicted (and running away tells us that he already knows he is guilty).

Exploitation of cultural differences, this time to avoid the law.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
What must we do in order to protect western societies from those that take advantage of their privileges in order to violate their Laws ?

Do what western societies are supposed to do. Put them on trail and present the evidence to a jury. That seems to work for most decent western countries

[reprise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Another culture that is going to get hammered, the macho footy players are going to be told that they have had a free reign for too long.

Women are now coming out and saying that they have been raped.

It has taken longer to deal with than the rapists from the Lebanese community, admittedly, and I think there are a lot of people who have known what was going on and have covered it up and should hang their heads in shame.

But the geni is out of the bottle now, and it won't be going back in.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594337887.html

What is needed is for the football players themselves to face up to what has been going on.

I would expect nothing less than a long prison sentence for this crime.

This is precisely the case to which I referrred earlier in this thread. Should there be any quarter given because in this case the accused are Aussie celebrities, then I will truly weep for the state of our justice system - the accused in this case should be charged under the same "aggravated sexual assault in company" laws which have recently been applied to other pack rapes. The courts can sort out whether the accused are innocent or guilty, but there will be no excuse whatsoever for laying lesser charges against these particular accused.

Edited to add that I agree with the right of players who are not even suspects in this matter to refuse DNA testing and I'm appalled at the media and community attitude which is trying to force them to "prove themselves innocent".

[reprise]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Zep

The case you mention seems weird because according to the paper he will be tried but a three member court, the fact that he won't face a mixed court means that he is charged with less serious accusations that the article implies. I don't know details. Also, the Greek Law doesn't protect Greek citizens for crimes they have committed abroad and obviously the accused has persuaded the Greek Authorities that if they extradite him his life is in danger, also the Australian government obviously hasn't insisted enough. It's a fact though that the Greek Law over protects the accused and many times scums take advantage of loopholes to delay the attribution of Justice.

Some of our appellate courts here consider cases before a bench of three justices with no jury, so this would not even have seemed unusual to most Australians had you not pointed out that it's "weird".

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
A question about Indian reservations: Wasn't one of the tribes forcefully moved many hundreds of miles from their traditional lands and "settled" in another area that belonged to another tribe?

The Cherokee were force-marched from North Carolina to Oklahoma, even after the Supreme Court of the United States said it was wrong.

Andrew Jackson's legacy. He is still on the $20 bill.

edited to add: This is called "The Trail of Tears".

[reprise]

I'm going to make a comment here which probably won't make much sense to those who live outside Australia.

I am sick and tired of the Australian adulation of sporting heroes which allows us to say "oh, but, this will ruin their career and that's not fair".

Less than a month ago one of our competitive shooters was facing a domestic violence allegation. Under the laws of most states of Australia any firearms licences held by an individual are automatically confiscated when a domestic violence allegation is made - to be returned or revoked when the case is actually heard in court (which, in NSW, is generally within 7 days). The particular confluence of events in this case meant that the competitor whose firearms licence had been revoked would miss the Olympic trials were scheduled to be held before the domestic violence matter went to court.

As it turned out, the Australian Olympic Committee came up with a solution to the problem which did not compromise the integrity of our legal system, but for the several days that the media was arguing that this person should be given some kind exemption from the law in order to participate in the trials, I was horrified. We cannot make exceptions to our laws just because someone might miss a "golden opportunity" if we do not, and I'm glad that in this particular case we DID NOT make such an exception. The domestic violence charges were dismissed, the AOC came up with a way to allow this person to qualify, and the integrity of our legal system remained intact - but there were a hell of a lot of people at the time who thought that an exception SHOULD have been made.

[Zep]

Two topics in one post, Reprise, and again it's Sydney-speak only.

1. The Olympic shooter (I watched him win in 2000!) probably would have had to go through precisely the same qualifying rounds he is now even if the AVO never happened. He has some serious competition this time, and the Games berths aren't decided yet! It's a pity he had to have the AVO business added to a tough time qualifying, but I have no problem in seeing the law applied to him without exception.

2. Football players are only different from you and I by virtue of the fact they are in the media more than we are. In other words, they are no more exempt from the law than you or I, and must face the music. I believe Mr el Masri's reason for refusing DNA testing is quite justified - he hasn't been implicated or charged in the incidents, so there's no legal reason for him to submit a DNA sample. If they want a sample, arrest and charge him, or leave him alone. Sounds like the coppers are just getting over-enthusiastic. I also think it's utterly deplorable that his family is being harassed, but there are some despicable people everywhere who like to do this sort of thing - they should crawl right back down the sewer they came from.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
Two topics in one post, Reprise, and again it's Sydney-speak only.

2. Football players are only different from you and I by virtue of the fact they are in the media more than we are. In other words, they are no more exempt from the law than you or I, and must face the music. I believe Mr el Masri's reason for refusing DNA testing is quite justified - he hasn't been implicated or charged in the incidents, so there's no legal reason for him to submit a DNA sample. If they want a sample, arrest and charge him, or leave him alone. Sounds like the coppers are just getting over-enthusiastic. I also think it's utterly deplorable that his family is being harassed, but there are some despicable people everywhere who like to do this sort of thing - they should crawl right back down the sewer they came from.

I disagree. Already another rape victim from some years ago has spoken up, who was convinced to stay silent on the matter. There is a lot of bad behaviour by these teams that is covered up.

[Zep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I disagree. Already another rape victim from some years ago has spoken up, who was convinced to stay silent on the matter. There is a lot of bad behaviour by these teams that is covered up. Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I think we both agree that any illegalities MUST be investigated properly, and that famous football players are not exempt in any way from the weight of the law.

I was only noting el Masri's position was that he wasn't arrested or charged with anything to do with any part of any investigation. He seems to have been just an innocent bystander, and the police were doing a mass-sweep through the whole club testing everybody and their dog. That was a bit over the top, really, and if it were me, I would be just as upset as el Masri. Charge him or leave him alone.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I think we both agree that any illegalities MUST be investigated properly, and that famous football players are not exempt in any way from the weight of the law.

I was only noting el Masri's position was that he wasn't arrested or charged with anything to do with any part of any investigation. He seems to have been just an innocent bystander, and the police were doing a mass-sweep through the whole club testing everybody and their dog. That was a bit over the top, really, and if it were me, I would be just as upset as el Masri. Charge him or leave him alone.

I did have to wonder why they did that. Did the police require it, or was the club trying to show that no-one had anything to hide. He is not a suspect, so he has no compulsion to give a sample, and he hasn't. I am just wondering, since this case is not isolated, that there may be a few more cockroaches in the kitchen that haven't come out yet.

[Zep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I did have to wonder why they did that. Did the police require it, or was the club trying to show that no-one had anything to hide. He is not a suspect, so he has compulsion to give a sample, and he hasn't. I am just wondering, since this case is not isolated, that there may be a few more cockroaches in the kitchen that haven't come out yet. I suspect there's more to come out yet, and not just in that club nor is it only recent, so it seems. We'll see...

[reprise]

Originally posted by Zep
Two topics in one post, Reprise, and again it's Sydney-speak only.

1. The Olympic shooter (I watched him win in 2000!) probably would have had to go through precisely the same qualifying rounds he is now even if the AVO never happened. He has some serious competition this time, and the Games berths aren't decided yet! It's a pity he had to have the AVO business added to a tough time qualifying, but I have no problem in seeing the law applied to him without exception.

2. Football players are only different from you and I by virtue of the fact they are in the media more than we are. In other words, they are no more exempt from the law than you or I, and must face the music. I believe Mr el Masri's reason for refusing DNA testing is quite justified - he hasn't been implicated or charged in the incidents, so there's no legal reason for him to submit a DNA sample. If they want a sample, arrest and charge him, or leave him alone. Sounds like the coppers are just getting over-enthusiastic. I also think it's utterly deplorable that his family is being harassed, but there are some despicable people everywhere who like to do this sort of thing - they should crawl right back down the sewer they came from.

Wow Zep, lest you thought that I was criticising the manner in which the whole Michael Diamond thing was handled I was merely trying to point out how such incidents can be managed without compromising anyone's opportunities or the legal process itself.

I have made myself very unpopular throughout this whole debate by pointing out that I used to be the SO of a reasonably high profile band member. I have seen - first hand - the lengths to which some people who happen to be males and happen to be band or sporting team members will go to exercise their "influence". I have also seen to what lengths some "groupies" (and it matters not whether it is a band or a sporting team or a major corporation) will go out of their way to exploit that perceived power base.

FWIW, I have reason to believe that the substance of these allegations are true (and under Australia's sub judice laws - quite rightly - I cannot reveal any privileged information), athough not - at this time - the detail. You still - however - don't get to hang a whole football club because some of their members have broken the law.

I

[Zep]

Originally posted by reprise
Wow Zep, lest you thought that I was criticising the manner in which the whole Michael Diamond thing was handled I was merely trying to point out how such incidents can be managed without compromising anyone's opportunities or the legal process itself.

I have made myself very unpopular throughout this whole debate by pointing out that I used to be the SO of a reasonably high profile band member. I have seen - first hand - the lengths to which some people who happen to be males and happen to be band or sporting team members will go to exercise their "influence". I have also seen to what lengths some "groupies" (and it matters not whether it is a band or a sporting team or a major corporation) will go out of their way to exploit that perceived power base.

FWIW, I have reason to believe that the substance of these allegations are true (and under Australia's sub judice laws - quite rightly - I cannot reveal any privileged information), athough not - at this time - the detail. You still - however - don't get to hang a whole football club because some of their members have broken the law.

I No no! First point well noted! And Michael Diamond's situation does seem to have been handled reasonably well, given the seriousness of the charges, etc.

I'm quite aware of what happens in some of these clubs - I doubt that all the dirt being dragged out will be false, or even news to most people! The only question for my mind is to make sure the guilty parties are identified properly and dealt with appropriately.

Personally, I have no time whatsoever for rapists of any stripe. Low scum - go directly to gaol, do not pass Go, stay there for a very long time.

[reprise]

Personally, I have no time whatsoever for rapists of any stripe. Low scum - go directly to gaol, do not pass Go, stay there for a very long time.

Once THE EVIDENCE convicts them in a court of law. It's the "trial by media" to which I object. I feel like I'm watching the Lindy Chamberlain trial all over again. I don't know how much more plainly I can state it without violating the rules of sub judice, but even though I have access to what could loosely be called "inside information", I think that the media should be whacked up the side of the head for most of the stuff which has been published about this incident so far.

Just to recap. I have reason to believe that at least one of the accused is guilty of the allegations made. I strongly object to "trial by media" - let those allegations be tested in a court of law, NOT in the tabloid media.

[Zep]

Originally posted by reprise
Once THE EVIDENCE convicts them in a court of law. It's the "trial by media" to which I object. I feel like I'm watching the Lindy Chamberlain trial all over again. I don't know how much more plainly I can state it without violating the rules of sub judice, but even though I have access to what could loosely be called "inside information", I think that the media should be whacked up the side of the head for most of the stuff which has been published about this incident so far.

Just to recap. I have reason to believe that at least one of the accused is guilty of the allegations made. I strongly object to "trial by media" - let those allegations be tested in a court of law, NOT in the tabloid media. Fully agree. I meant "convicted rapists".