Posted on 07/15/2014 3:06:01 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
SYDNEY, Australia – A judge in southeastern Australia has been partially suspended after he declared that the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a normalization of incest.
According to a report last week from The Sydney Morning Herald, Garry Neilson is a district court judge in Sydney, Australia. In a recent sexual assault case, Neilson suggested that an adult male may not have been in the wrong for having sexual relations with his younger teenage sister over 30 years ago.
The 58-year-old man, known for legal reasons as “MRM,” has admitted to raping his sister in the mid-1970s when she was 10 or 11 years old. He again abused her in 1981, but he claims those later actions were legal because he allegedly had her consent. Judge Neilson evidently agrees.
“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,” Neilson reasoned.
(Excerpt) Read more at christiannews.net ...
This is effing perversion.
The desensitization campaign has already begun
Pics of Judge Neilson’s sister might illuminate his comments.
IS it acknowledged we are in the cesspool yet? How low can we go?
Although this is from Australia, it certainly could easily be a ruling from the 9th Circuit. It is not just America’s Moral Compass that has shattered.
“...has been partially suspended...”
Huh? Can judge on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday? Can judge between the hours of 9:00 - 11:59 am?
This judge has done something like this before, too, so you have to wonder why he still has his job:
“Sydney’s Daily Telegraph also reported that Neilson gave a lighter sentence to a man who had raped his niece in 2011. It is said that Neilson felt that as the man had not ejaculated in the teenager he was not brought to full responsibility for his crime.
The appeal judges reviewing that case criticized Neilson’s judgement, saying: ‘it is difficult to see how that was a matter which could have been considered to reduce the objective seriousness of this offence in any real way.’”
The ultimate gaffe: he told the truth.
He was reprimanded because he was saying accepting of homosexuality would lead to acceptance of incest. He would have been reprimanded if he had said it would lead to the acceptance of beastiality.
Was he reprimanded for insulting homosexuals with the truth?
All he had to do was just wait a few years to open his trap about it and he would have been hailed as a visionary civil rights icon.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.