Is Ireland correct to declare war on boys who have consensual sex with their girlfriends?

[femtastic]

Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.

Court hears 'Romeo and Juliet' laws appea

THE Supreme Court has been urged to overturn as unconstitutional the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent prosecution of the girls.

The court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal, which opened yesterday and will resume on a future date.

Section 3 of the 2006 act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. Section 5 of the act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those "who bear the least adverse consequences" of it, she said.

Outlining the boy's appeal against that decision, John O'Kelly SC said the kernel of the appeal was that both parties involved in this sexual act were children in law aged under 17, with only about a year between the two of them.

The boy's case was they engaged consensually in an act of sexual intercourse but under the act, one of them was liable to be convicted and possibly jailed for up to five years while the other was guilty of no criminal offence at all.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly noted the 2006 act is neutral as to whether the act of sexual intercourse is consensual or not and the court was not getting involved in that issue in the appeal.

John Finlay SC, for the state, opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, he submitted.

[claig]

'I will not engage with name calling any further.'

Of course you won't. You can dish it out alright, but you can't take it.

dittany didn't ask for any of the attacks you made on her to be deleted. I'm not surprised that you ask for criticism of yourself to be deleted.

I hope it stayed up there long enough for people to read it, as I think it said some valuable home truths that needed saying about your behaviour.

[claig]

'We know who was responsible for it. But why drag it into yet another thread?'

because the people who were responsible for it are right here on this thread, playing the innocent, wronged party as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouth.

[claig]

'I think yes, reporting it was a mistake because it is probably best left stood'

then withdraw your request to remove the post. Let it stand for all the world to see.

dittany bears no grudges. Just do the right thing.

[claig]

Well you were wrong about this thread and now you're wrong about dittany.

[claig]

'However I draw the line at name calling'

pity you didn't draw the line earlier during your 2 say 2000 post threads.
Are you drawing the line now because finally someone has pulled you up on it?
Is that why you are appealing to mumsnet posting rules? They didn't seem to concern you when you were having a go at dittany.

I didn't bring the other thread up - lenak did and then you chimed in. That's how we got onto the subject of you and that thread.

[claig]

I won't keep it up. I've said what I think needed saying.

'I am sorry to everyone else on the thread.'
I hope that includes dittany too.

[claig]

OK, well maybe with time you will reconsider.

[lenak]

To answer your question Claig - I feel like I have difficulty discussing equality on the feminist board, because as soon as it becomes apparent I identify as an equalist and not a feminist I get accused of being an MRA or and anti-feminist - (of which I am neither) either directly or by inference that all equalists are MRA's which you continue to make.

You would be one of the first to correct anyone who said that all feminists were man-haters even though some man-haters hide behind the feminism label an distort feminism arguments to their own ends and that, said that feminism was a cause of misandrist champions, yet you seem incapable of taking on board the notion that just because MRA's hide behind the equalist label and distort its arguments, it does not mean that all equalists are MRA's.

Is there a reason for that unwillingness to listen?

You have patronised and insulted me twice now - firstly by suggesting that the feminist board probably wasn't for me, saying that it didn't seem like I was interested in equality (because you narrowly equate equalism only with MRA's) and maybe [misogynist] MRA boards were more for me and secondly by "hoping that I see the light".

I have only come back over here, to try and discuss the equality issues that are important to me after the assurances from other Feminism Board posters that the perception of bullying, intimidation and patronising insults was not the norm for the board.

I was hoping that I could explore the common ground that my views may have with some aspects of feminism in order to work towards achieving shared goals quicker.

Unfortunately, your attitude is doing nothing to convince me that it would be possible to do that which is a shame because while I enjoy productive debate and discussion I do not enjoy constantly having to defend my perfectly legitimate and long thought about views to people who don't understand them due to having already made up their minds about what they think I am saying without listening to what I actually am saying.

[claig]

lemnak, I don't care if you are an equalist. I'm all for free speech and free exchange of ideas. I will debate with anyone.

I felt you were putting down posters on the feminism board and describing them as unreasonable and unlovely and you used terms like bitchfest. You said you steered clear of the feminism board for that reason. I am glad you have overcome this and are now here. You don't have to defend your equalist position against me. You are free to believe what you want to believe. I don't think that all equalists are MRA, but it is my belief that the MRA use equalism as a Trojan horse, and it may suck some unsuspecting equalists up unknowingly in unison with them. But I want you to follow your beliefs, just as I do mine.

[claig]

HRHMJOFMAGICJAMALAND
I don't know if you were bullied and received kickings and maulings or not. I don't know what your history of namechanges is, so I don't know what posts or threads you are referring to.

All I know is that I felt that you were bullying dittany.

[claig]

'you formed a one sided opinion that I am a two faced coward'

I don't know your history. I based my view on teh fact that you persisted in disparaging posters without naming them opnely so that they could defend themselves in the open.

It was lenak who referenced the other thread and I felt it would be impolite to bring it up to her, as she seems to be a new poster on this board and was previously reluctant to post on this board, and I felt it would be churlish to bring up such a minor mumsnet rule and disrupt her point.

[claig]

As for derailing the thread. The thread had basically finished once we all discovered that the boy you had been defending was a rapist who buggered an underage girl.

I've just noticed that my post has been deleted now. Thanks for that.

[lenak]

I used the term 'bitchfest' solely in relation to the AIBU thread:

"Therefore, I will stop posting on this thread for the time being, unless the discussion moves away from the bitchfest it has become, in which case, I may come back." Quote from the AIBU thread.

You yourself have said it turned into an attack. I never, at anytime, suggested that the feminism boards were a bitchfest - you chose to see what wasn't there.

I also said that there were a lot or reasonable and lovely posters on the feminist board who I thought I could engage with. There are. Sure, that means by inference that some are unreasonable and not lovely and there are some people like that, but is that not the case everywhere? I was paying people who had tried to engage in a constructive way a compliment, trying to explain that I did not think that the whole of the feminist boards were unreasonable, yet you have chosen to twist that.

You now say that you do not think all equalists are MRA's yet you have consistantly said that equalism is an MRA trick and the point of it is to complain about feminism and strip away womens rights.

I have no problem with you showing concern that equalists may be hoodwinked by the MRA's misappropriation of equalist arguments, by the same token I would hope you would show the same concern that some feminists may be swept up and hoodwinked by the misappropriation of feminist arguments by misandrists.

However, it does seem, imo, that on more than occassion you have completely dismissed equalism as the enemy of womens rights.