| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Judge faces sack over remarks on incest, gays |
| 2014-07-11 |
| [SMH.AU] A senior public official has referred the state's judiciary to the royal commission into child sexual abuse in the wake of a public outcry over comments made by a judge who has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality. So now it's 'LGBTIP.' Get used to it. The move comes after Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has referred District Court Judge Garry Neilson to the NSW Judicial Commission, and has written to the Chief Judge of the District Court, Reg Blanch, requesting that Judge Neilson not sit on any criminal trials until the commission had examined his complaint. Mr Hazzard said he was acting on behalf of the community. "Tut tut, sir! You will go before The Commission!" Judge Neilson could become the first judicial officer sacked by Parliament if the Judicial Commission finds against him. "Bailiff! Throw him out the window!" Chief Judge Blanch late Friday said Judge Neilson would not sit on new criminal matters until the issue had been addressed. "Who're you gonna replace him with, mate?" "Judge Jeffries!" "His calendar's kinda full..." "Judge Lynch, then." ''I was extremely concerned to read the comments of his honour Judge Garry Neilson in regard to his views on incest,'' Mr Hazzard said. ''In my view the community would be rightly appalled at his reported comments. Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal.'' You mean it's wrong? But how can that be in this day and age? 'Course, he didn't say it was wrong, only 'criminal,' and there's all sorts of things that used to be criminal that are now not only legal but socially acceptable. And when was the last time you saw anybody reprehended? It is understood that on Thursday a senior federal official referred the NSW judiciary to the royal commission after it was determined it could be defined as an ''institution''. I guess the NSW judiciary could be regarded as an institution. But I don't make the connection to Hizzoner's impending defenestration. Mr Hazzard's intervention came a day after Fairfax Media revealed comments made by Judge Neilson, who told a court that, just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, "a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner". We've gone over this before. Probably you need a sense of right and wrong to categorize jumping Sis as 'wrong.' If your morals tell you there's nothing wrong with jumping your sister, what's wrong with jumping Mom? Or jumping Pop? We'll leave jumping Fido out of the conversation and refrain from telling the joke about the duck that ends "If the egg can get out I can get in!" He also said the "only reason" that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships "but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion". Toldja so. The only reason jumping Mom or Grannie's a crime is the risk of pregnancy. Any fool can see that. Judge Neilson made the comments in April in the case of a 58-year-old man, known for legal reasons as MRM, who is charged with repeatedly raping his younger sister in the family's western Sydney home in 1981. MRM has pleaded not guilty to the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with an alternative charge of incest, and will face a jury trial in September. 'Ladies and gents of the jury, my client is being charged with humping his sister, both when she was ten years old and again when she was an adult. Let him or her who'd never been involved in a similar peccadillo throw the first stone!' [THUNK!] Mr Hazzard had initially refused to be drawn on Judge Neilson's comments while MRM's trial was pending "Wattlestone! See which way the wind's blowing!" but in an about-face he issued a statement on Friday saying he had to refer the judge to the commission because ''confidence in the judiciary is a critical part of ensuring broader community support for the legal system''. "It's gale force, sir!" "Very well! Get The Commission on the line for me and then get to the storm cellar! And stay away from your sister!" "She's not my sister, sir! She's my... ermm... niece! Twice removed..." On Friday it was revealed Judge Neilson had in November 2011 ruled the sexual assault of a man against his 16-year-old niece was less serious because there was ''no ejaculation'' and therefore the victim had not been put ''at risk of pregnancy or disease''. There used to be a rule about "penetration, however slight..." I guess that's been discarded in our more civilized age, huh? In March 2013 the appeal court cut his non-parole period by six months but found Judge Neilson's comments regarding ejaculation were ''entirely questionable'' and his attitude towards pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases ''plainly had no foundation''. At least the appeal court has a sense of right and questionable. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 On Friday it was revealed Judge Neilson had in November 2011 ruled the sexual assault of a man against his 16-year-old niece was less serious because there was ''no ejaculation'' and therefore the victim had not been put ''at risk of pregnancy or disease''. "It wasn't 'rape rape'. " |
| Posted by: charger 2014-07-11 19:31 |
| #3 The truth is buried, but still easy to dig up |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-07-11 18:56 |
| #2 When breeding is random and scrambly One's tree may grow rambly and brambly. Genetically gambly Or fruitlessly nambly, Please don't keep it all in the fambly. Anyone sharper than me happen to notice whether there's an Islamophobiaphobia angle to this? |
| Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220 2014-07-11 17:44 |
| #1 One of the articles where whatever you say about the article will invite shrill diatribes. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-07-11 17:36 |