Supreme Court upholds law allowing prosecution of boys, and not girls, for underage sex

2012-02-24T02:01:04+00:00

Well I'm only a casual observer in this subreddit but I have to admit that this law is fucking wrong and unfair

ToraZalinto · 2012-02-23T20:19:21+00:00

That law is fucked up as all hell. They both participate in consensual (though underage) sex and only ONE of them gets hit with it because he can't get pregnant? >_> FUCKING RETARDED.

meninist · 2012-02-23T23:35:19+00:00

According to the Supreme Court, rape laws are only designed to protect women against pregnancy. So I guess if a woman's infertile, it's okay to rape her.

eskachig · 2012-02-23T19:56:21+00:00

Sorry if it's been posted before. Did a search, but if it has been posted let me know and will delete.

Also I forgot to put in the title that this is the Irish Supreme court. Not very important but possibly worth noting.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-02-24T00:20:22+00:00

In 2010 the High Court rejected his challenge because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

Oh, I guess child support isn't a consequence. Also, apparently the person who is hurt more can't be guilty at all. Sounds like primary aggressor policies all over again.

What if a girl rapes a boy and she gets pregnant? Is he now a criminal?

MRMRising · 2012-02-24T01:33:53+00:00

law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

Least adverse consequences!?!? He's the one going to jail!

daniel_da · 2012-02-23T21:04:00+00:00

Wow, welcome to the Orwellian feminist state

Discrimination is equality

carchamp1 · 2012-02-23T21:57:16+00:00

In 2010 the High Court rejected his challenge because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

You'd think being charged with a sexual offence would be worse than being pregnant. God forbid girls should be taught about having responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Neither should be prosecuted of course, and this is completely wrong. Teenagers will have sex - get over it.

2012-02-24T00:58:07+00:00

Anybody else notice that the boy is called a "teenager," but the girl is called "underage," despite the two of them being almost the same age? That's linguistic privilege right there.

2012-02-24T03:16:45+00:00

Boys risk pregnancy, too.

2012-02-24T00:38:37+00:00

ECHR - http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#Protocols

ARTICLE 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

CFHREU - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Article 20

Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21

Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

UNDHR - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

JeremiahMRA · 2012-02-23T21:19:39+00:00

In 2010 the High Court rejected his challenge because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences.

In other words they first came to the conclusion that boys are bad and must be punished but girls are innocent and sweet, then scrambled to find a flimsy justification for the conclusion they'd already drawn. This is how the Supreme Court works in the US as well, which is why they made discrimination ("affirmative action") legal as long as it was against certain groups like whites and men. Hence, the disparate impact baloney in order to justify enforcement of equality of outcome rather than equal treatment. Of course, disparate impact is okay as long as it's men who are affected. Men are >90% of workplace deaths? Young women make more money than young men? Who gives a shit?

In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.

This is pretty interesting because the 1964 Civil Rights Act is supposed to prohibit discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, but this "disparate impact" clause actually requires discrimination against classes that are not protected, like men and whites, in order to achieve equal outcomes.

pcarvious · 2012-02-24T00:20:30+00:00

Time to add to the legislative round up

hardwarequestions · 2012-02-23T20:48:16+00:00

what country is this in?

2012-02-24T08:18:02+00:00

WHATTHEACTUALFUCK

luciansolaris · 2012-02-23T20:39:23+00:00

There will come a day that men will cease listening to the court, and when the court attempts to sanction for contempt, that they will fully resist with lethal force against the court and its agents.

ucofresh · 2012-02-24T04:44:45+00:00

What a joke ruling.. 2010 and we still have our lawmakers passing ridiculous and discriminatory measures such as this one. Idiocy.

td9red · 2012-02-24T15:34:34+00:00

It shouldn't be a crime for a fifteen yr-old to have sex with a 14yr-old. I understand the parents are mad, but, they shouldn't have involved the legal system. Just ground them for the week and be done with it.

MRMRising · 2012-02-24T16:21:31+00:00

Add one more female privilege to the list...

Macer55 · 2012-02-24T18:21:09+00:00

Even those of us who pretend that we don't have some level of sexism on these issues - as I sometimes do, myself - have to acknowledge that we view these things different. Yes, maybe it is a bad law. But that is a different issue from whether it is constitutional.

kragmoor · 2012-02-24T18:43:06+00:00

the fuck is this

Brecken · 2012-02-24T18:51:16+00:00

Next step, International Court of Justice in Haag.

2012-02-27T09:38:19+00:00

This makes me burn up inside im so angry.

Title	Supreme Court upholds law allowing prosecution of boys, and not girls, for underage sex
Author	shamrock771
Upvotes	171
Comments	51
Date	February 23, 2012 7:55 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/q2xn9/supreme_court_upholds_law_allowing_prosecution_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/supreme-court-upholds-law-allowing-prosecution-of.1027167 https://theredarchive.com/post/1027167

Comments

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.