Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Ad Lib]

Ad lib is eight in that there isn't a medical argument that doesn't also apply to thousands of other relationships, and there isn't a moral argument which isn't already covered by other crimes.

But it's a nice evening, so I'm not getting involved in this.

 

On the contrary, it's pissing it down in Glasgow.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You have no moral objection to legalising incest. Most reasonable people would take that as the same as being "for" incest.

I took that to be his position too.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Absolute nonsense.

Just because some instances involve abuses of power doesn't mean they all do. Some people end up in relationships with siblings having not even grown up around each other, for example.

If your concern is children or vulnerable adults, put protections in place for them. Don't criminalise absolutely every incest case.

95% of child abuse cases involve someone directly known to the child, quite often a relative.

Of course it's flaming relevant.

[Granny Danger]

Ad lib is right in that there isn't a medical argument that doesn't also apply to thousands of other relationships, and there isn't a moral argument which isn't already covered by other crimes.

But it's a nice evening, so I'm not getting involved in this.

^^^^ Too busy shagging his sister.

Sorry CCH but I couldn't resist that. Hopefully you can.

[Ad Lib]

95% of child abuse cases involve someone directly known to the child, quite often a relative.

Of course it's flaming relevant.

Literally no one here isn't saying that relationships of power aren't relevant to sexual abuse of children. Go and burn your straw man in a field somewhere else.

What is being pointed out is that it isn't the fact that someone is known to the child, or that they are a relative, that is the reason the person in question should be criminalised. The reason they should be criminalised is exactly the same reason someone not known to a child should be criminalised: because they've raped them. The problem you are identifying is appropriately dealt with in the criminal law by the law of rape, the law of sexual assault and the law concerning the age of consent. A child cannot lawfully consent to sexual activities with another person.

It is also true, in general, that a significant majority of victims of rape or sexual assault among the adult population are attacked by people who they know. This does not mean that we have a justification for criminalising sexual activities with people you know.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Literally no one here isn't saying that relationships of power aren't relevant to sexual abuse of children. Go and burn your straw man in a field somewhere else.

What is being pointed out is that it isn't the fact that someone is known to the child, or that they are a relative, that is the reason the person in question should be criminalised. The reason they should be criminalised is exactly the same reason someone not known to a child should be criminalised: because they've raped them. The problem you are identifying is appropriately dealt with in the criminal law by the law of rape, the law of sexual assault and the law concerning the age of consent. A child cannot lawfully consent to sexual activities with another person.

It is also true, in general, that a significant majority of victims of rape or sexual assault among the adult population are attacked by people who they know. This does not mean that we have a justification for criminalising sexual activities with people you know.

And what would the age of consent be?

How could, for example, incestual grooming be avoided?

[Ad Lib]

And what would the age of consent be?

How could, for example, incestual grooming be avoided?

 

The age of consent, in this country is 16, or 18 where the other person is in a position of trust.

 

That balance is about right. Once someone turns 18 they should, unless evidence is clearly demonstrated to the contrary, be presumed to be able to give informed consent to sexual acts.

[mjw]

Bigotry and child abuse posts on a Friday night are usually confined to the Rangers celtic forum.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The age of consent, in this country is 16, or 18 where the other person is in a position of trust.

That balance is about right. Once someone turns 18 they should, unless evidence is clearly demonstrated to the contrary, be presumed to be able to give informed consent to sexual acts.

And the second question?

[Ad Lib]

And the second question?

 

Through the existing law that protects children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation from those who are not genetic relatives, just like we do already. There is an arguable case to develop the law to impose a higher duty of care or a higher burden of proof of informed consent where one of the participants is a vulnerable adult. That would be a good way to protect against grooming or abuses of power if there was evidence that the existing law was insufficient.

 

What is clear is that, much like the sectarianism legislation, the law of incest does not meaningfully assist the police in successfully prosecuting abusers of children or young adults, and it criminalises the actions of a number of people who either do not need to be protected, or are not in practice protected, by the existence of the law.

 

ETA:

 

As a functional example, the Sexual Offences Scotland Act imposes the higher age of consent for any instance where the senior person is or was at any point in the past someone who had any parental responsibilities for a child (i.e. a stepmother or stepfather or a less formal partner of a parent or guardian). This is in contrast to parents or adopted parents, who are covered under the law of incest contained in the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

 

There is no reason to believe that children are any more susceptible to grooming by those who are blood related or adoptive parents than by adults in a less formal or non-blood-related relationship who is otherwise in the same functional position. Yet even into adulthood, one set of people commit a crime if they engage in consensual sexual acts, while the other doesn't.

 

How is this logical if your motive is to protect against grooming? What constructive effect does criminalising incest have?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Shades75]

"It's Friday night, i'll argue the case for incest on P&B."

😳

[Jambomo]

Ad lib is right in that there isn't a medical argument that doesn't also apply to thousands of other relationships, and there isn't a moral argument which isn't already covered by other crimes.

But it's a nice evening, so I'm not getting involved in this.

I'm not sure that's true. There was some research which indicated mental illnesses in Amish people due to inbreeding (since they only marry and breed within their own community).

Whilst of course that doesn't stop people using contraception, there are pressure that parole face that may make these not an option I.e religion, cultural issues. We can't assume everyone over 18 has perfect freedom to decide as many people in this country don't, without being particularly considered as vulnerable people.

But like CCH, I'm not going to argue - I'm off to catch a plane 😄

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm not sure that's true. There was some research which indicated mental illnesses in Amish people due to inbreeding (since they only marry and breed within their own community).

Whilst of course that doesn't stop people using contraception, there are pressure that parole face that may make these not an option I.e religion, cultural issues. We can't assume everyone over 18 has perfect freedom to decide as many people in this country don't, without being particularly considered as vulnerable people.

But like CCH, I'm not going to argue - I'm off to catch a plane 😄

One only has to look at the inter-marrying Habsburgs to see the genetic problems of relationships between close relatives.

[strichener]

Advocating and accepting are different things. The clue is in the fact that they're different words, with different meanings.

Well done you! However, I have not used the word accepting and neither has Ad Lib. So perhaps you can clarify where this post is directed.

I see lots of instances of people advocating that things that they find unacceptable, that are currently a criminal offence, to be decriminalised.

Edited May 20, 2016 by strichener

[Ad Lib]

Well done you! However, I have not used the word accepting and neither has Ad Lib. So perhaps you can clarify where this post is directed.

I see lots of instances of people advocating that things that they find unacceptable, that are currently a criminal offence, to be decriminalised.

If it was a criminal offence to wear a Rangers top I would argue vociferously for it to be decriminalised.

This means NEITHER that I "advocate" the wearing of a Rangers top, nor indeed that I think it is "acceptable". I strongly discourage the wearing of Rangers tops and am against Rangers tops.

I am not "for" Rangers tops. I think the wearing of them is fucking disgusting and not in the best interests of those involved.

Substitute the wearing of a Rangers top for the participation in incest and you can see exactly why it's total nonsense to say that someone is "for" incest just because they don't think it should be a criminal offence.

[strichener]

If it was a criminal offence to wear a Rangers top I would argue vociferously for it to be decriminalised.

This means NEITHER that I "advocate" the wearing of a Rangers top, nor indeed that I think it is "acceptable". I strongly discourage the wearing of Rangers tops and am against Rangers tops.

I am not "for" Rangers tops. I think the wearing of them is fucking disgusting and not in the best interests of those involved.

Substitute the wearing of a Rangers top for the participation in incest and you can see exactly why it's total nonsense to say that someone is "for" incest just because they don't think it should be a criminal offence.

It just gets more and more surreal.  Just so that the context of what you stated in not misconstrued, the actual post was:

 

 

 

I have no moral objection to the legalisation of heroin, cocaine, crack, crystal meth or incest. There are good instrumental reasons for placing regulatory controls on the supply of those substances that are not directed by personal morality, but by the harm principle and the impact of relationships of power subverting the freedom of individuals to make their own informed choices, but I do not believe it is for the state to say that the consumption of those substances or the engaging in those acts is in and of itself immoral. As long as no one is being coerced or exploited it is none of your, my or the government's business what people snort, smoke, inject or who they share a bed with.

 

I also believe in strong free speech protections, including the right of horrible people to say hateful things without criminal sanction. The only restrictions on speech I believe are necessary are defamation laws and a recognition of incitement for other criminal acts.

 

I am now finished with this circular conversation, everyone can make their own judgement on your position for or against incest.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I shuddered at the thought of Ad Lib doing a David Walliams style "bitty".

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Mind you he looks a happy chap here.

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/595895705140654081/photo/1

Edited May 20, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Ad Lib]

It just gets more and more surreal.  Just so that the context of what you stated in not misconstrued, the actual post was:

I am now finished with this circular conversation, everyone can make their own judgement on your position for or against incest.

"I do not believe it is for the state to say that the consumption of those substances or the engaging in those acts is in and of itself immoral. As long as no one is being coerced or exploited it is none of your, my or the government's business what people snort, smoke, inject or who they share a bed with."

Is not the same as being "for" incest.

Thanks for playing, but you win zero points.

[John Lambies Doos]

Incest is fukin wrong... just look at joffrey