http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-11/judge-referred-to-judicial-commission-over-incest-comments/5589990

Quote:

A New South Wales District Court judge who said the community may no longer see incest as taboo in the same way homosexuality is now widely accepted has been referred to the Judicial Commission. NSW Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has also asked the Chief Judge of the District Court to remove Judge Garry Neilson from presiding over any criminal trials until the Judicial Commission has dealt with the matter. Judge Neilson sparked community outrage by comparing incest to homosexuality while presiding over a case of a man charged with repeatedly raping his sister. He said the community may no longer see a sexual advance of a brother towards his adult sister as taboo, in the way that homosexuality was unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s but was now widely accepted. Mr Hazzard said he was concerned to read the comments. "In my view the community would be rightly appalled at his reported comments," the Attorney-General said. "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. "Accordingly I have taken advice as to the appropriate course and have today determined that I will, on behalf of the NSW Government and on behalf of the NSW community, refer His Honour to the Judicial Commission of NSW. "I will also be writing to the Chief Judge of the District Court to request that His Honour remove Judge Neilson from undertaking any criminal trials whatsoever until the Judicial Commission has dealt with the necessary processes it must undertake."

Reasonable comment from the Judge IMO.

Swagman wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-11/judge-referred-to-judicial-commission-over-incest-comments/5589990 Quote: A New South Wales District Court judge who said the community may no longer see incest as taboo in the same way homosexuality is now widely accepted has been referred to the Judicial Commission. NSW Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has also asked the Chief Judge of the District Court to remove Judge Garry Neilson from presiding over any criminal trials until the Judicial Commission has dealt with the matter. Judge Neilson sparked community outrage by comparing incest to homosexuality while presiding over a case of a man charged with repeatedly raping his sister. He said the community may no longer see a sexual advance of a brother towards his adult sister as taboo, in the way that homosexuality was unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s but was now widely accepted. Mr Hazzard said he was concerned to read the comments. "In my view the community would be rightly appalled at his reported comments," the Attorney-General said. "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. "Accordingly I have taken advice as to the appropriate course and have today determined that I will, on behalf of the NSW Government and on behalf of the NSW community, refer His Honour to the Judicial Commission of NSW. "I will also be writing to the Chief Judge of the District Court to request that His Honour remove Judge Neilson from undertaking any criminal trials whatsoever until the Judicial Commission has dealt with the necessary processes it must undertake." Reasonable comment from the Judge IMO.

Fifty years ago 'Homosexuality is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal' would have been the accepted view of most judges.  Neilson is paying the price for standing up to the new-agers, not that it necessarily was his intention to do so?

GA wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:01pm:

"Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal.

I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter.

Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

GA wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter.

It's what being imposed upon us by liberalism as being politically acceptable.


Quote:

Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

Fat chance the left will take you up on that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

GA wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter. Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

Family don't like it: gee, that wasn't so hard to explain now was it..  ;)

many families don't like their dear little Johnny becoming a poofter either. Whats the difference?

Anybody notice the words, 'that a man has been charged with RAPING his sister numerous times.

This has nothing to do with incest and everything to do with Sexual Assault. The Judge should be jettisoned now there's an appropriate word.

nowhere in the article does it say that he believes incestual rape will one day be acceptable like hummersexuality. And the justification for the gagging was clearly articulated - that incest - period - should be labelled disgusting and criminal - clearly distinguishing it from hummersexuality.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

GA wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter. Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

maybe you didnt read about this family..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522483/Children-Australian-incest-cult-living-deformed-mute-valley.html


The ragtag children born into a horrifying incest 'cult' in Australia spent their days having sex and mutilating the genitals of their animals, it emerged today.

New disturbing secrets have emerged that shed more light on what happened in the remote homestead discovered in a picturesque New South Wales valley.

Investigators found unwashed children born from generations of incest lived there suffering from physical deformities in a 'cult' of 40 adults and youngsters.

The cult engaged in a sexual 'free-for-all' where brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts had sex with one another over four generations.

Horrifying: The 40-strong 'cult' was found in the picturesque countryside of New South Wales (file photo)      +3

Left to their own devices, the children engaged in sexual activity and mutilated animals on the secluded plot of land 20 miles from the nearest town.

All local townsfolk knew of them was occasional visits by a woman driving a four-wheel drive car who turned up from time to time with children in the back to buy a few items. They didn't even know their names.

It is thought some family members had sold firewood and two of the men had worked as council labourers to earn money for the group.

The family - referred to by the authorities as 'Colt' to protect the children's identities - lived a life of depravity under the eye of the family matriarch, Betty Colt.

It is believed they had fled three other Australian states to avoid being uncovered before coming to rest in rural New South Wales.


More...
Children of horrifying incest 'cult' with four generations of in-breeding found living deformed, filthy and mute in scenic valley
Mother of missing Brittney Wood makes shocking plea to her own SISTER to reveal where body of teen who was 'about to expose family pedophile ring' is buried
When the girls became pregnant, they would deliberately miscarry on the farm to avoid the suspicions of doctors or health professionals.

The women claimed outsiders had fathered their children - itinerant men, a wheat worker, a Swedish backpacker. But DNA tests taken from swabs when they were found told otherwise.

The family told authorities the saga started in New Zealand, in the first half of last century when June Colt was born to parents who were brother and sister.

June married a man referred to as Tim and in the 1970s the couple emigrated to Australia, news.com.au reported.

The family would then move, several times, between South Australia, Western Australia, and Victoria, usually living in remote rural communities, shying away from public knowledge about the truth.

The case happened near Sydney (pictured) where authorities said it was one of the worst ever seen      +3


A complex family tree then started to take shape.

Tim and June gave birth to four daughters and two sons.

Three of the daughters - Rhonda, 47, Betty, 46, and Martha, 33, and at least one of the sons, Charlie, form the elder members of the family group in the NSW bush camp.

Betty had 13 children and claimed their father was a man called Phil Walton, now dead, who was known to the family as Tim.

But genetic tests show one of her children, Bobby, 15, was fathered either by her father, whose name was Tim, or the brother she was sleeping with.

Four more of Betty's children were fathered by a close family member. Betty's eldest child, Raylene, now aged 30, has a 13-year-old daughter, Kimberly.

Raylene insists Kimberly's father is a man called Sven, from Sweden or Switzerland. Testing identifies Kimberly's father as either her half brother, an uncle or a grandfather.

The children were raised in squalid conditions who themselves grew up to become intimate and have more inbred children.

Incapable of intelligible speech, some of the children were found with oddly-formed features as the result of being born to parents who were themselves related.

The children found living in filth in sheds and broken down caravans had numerous disabilities from their inbred births, including a boy with a walking impairment and severe psoriasis, another with hearing and sight problems and yet another boy whose eyes were misaligned.

Ruth, seven, who could not hear or write and had fragmented and stunted speech, was unable to bathe or dry herself and did not know how to use a toilet or what toilet paper was.

Ruth and Nadia said Albert, Jed and Karl showed them pornographic magazines, touched their breasts and Albert had sexual intercourse with them.

Kimberly said she had oral sex with her uncle Dwayne, nine, while her auntie Carmen, eight, watched. Her mother Raylene had been aware of the incident.

Sisters Ruth and Nadia, nine, had sexual touching wit

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

GA wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter. Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

Oh-oh. Softening us up for Paki cultural practices, are you, Gandy?

I don't see him as saying he accepted incest - he was commenting on the changes in social values.  Still doesn't justify rape or whatever.

You seen my sisters?  You wouldn't want to shag them either....

If a brother and sister were separated at birth and hooked up 18 years later oblivious to the situation, how  "reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal" would that be? :-?


red baron wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Anybody notice the words, 'that a man has been charged with RAPING his sister numerous times. This has nothing to do with incest and everything to do with Sexual Assault. The Judge should be jettisoned now there's an appropriate word.

A rape trial will want to determine whether any sort of ' consensual sexual relationship' pre-existed between the accused and the victim.

If the accused and victim are brother and sister then discussion / comment involving incest would have to be relevant to the trial surely?  Otherwise the impartiality of the Judge could be questioned.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

Oh-oh. Softening us up for Paki cultural practices, are you, Gandy?

Oh look - Soren who is sooooooo sick of hearing about islam, bringing up islam again.

Perhaps they should go on the reality show, 'Bogans of the year'

Although homosexuality & incest are both disgusting I

think screwing another blokes stinking bum is the worst of the two.  :o

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

GA wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:01pm: "Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal. I'm genuinely surprised that this is the "politically acceptable" position on this matter. Why would only certain types of consensual sexual relationships between adults be seen as acceptable? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

I totally agree.
The problem is that the word "incest" has become an emotionally loaded word. When most people think of incest they think of cults such as that described in cod's post which is clearly criminal.

In my opinion the so called Judge is rightfully held to account else his peers will fall into the sweet state of do-nothing. How many cases of rape are caused by women rapists? It is usually always men, aka walking dicks, that come (sic) along and stand over somebody to get their jollies off - oftentimes causing stress and detriment that can last the victims life. In counterpoint there may be reason to say one should wash one's foul linen within the family in private at home. Whatever. Reading the article via the link one notes tre Colt family moved often, they intrinsically knew that they were wrong in the eyes of society about them whom usually don't sleep with their immediate nuclear family or cousins. This is a case of bizzare behaviour perpetuated by the menfolk and most likely where the females where coerced to believe what they were doing the norm. Seneca once wrote, "All my life I have been seeking to climb out of the pit of my besetting sins and I cannot do it and I never will unless a hand is let down to draw me up".

I always thought it was a judges job to apply the law without favour not excuse criminal behaviour.....It is not the judges job to make moral judgements it is his job to apply the law as it is written.....If the judge does not like the laws he should lobby to have them changed.....Until then his comments are at odds with the community and legal interpretation that should see him struck off the bar!!!

:-? :-? :-?

I think the relevant word is rape.

The judge's comments about how community values change over time is completely true.
I am old enough to remember back to a time when if a single girl became pregnant, she would often go into a home to have the baby then have it adopted out, to avoid the shame of neighbours or relatives finding out.
And that was only back on the late '60s and '70s. It was starting to change in the '80s, but single motherhood was still not highly thought of.

Look at where we are now, with people openly living together and some single women deliberately trying to get pregnant.

So attitudes do change, but I think the attitude to rape has actually gone the other way, with sexual assault now more in the news. Things a man may have gotten away with or that may not have been taken so seriously 40 years ago could now see a man up on charges. (think eg RH)

Having read the description of the family, it would be interesting to know if it was actually rape though, as it sounds a bit as if everyone was having sex with everyone else.

I would like to know how the rape charge came about-did the woman herself initiate it or did authorities push her into it after DNA tests?

I think incest will be one of the last taboos to fall, there are good reasons why it shouldn't be encouraged. The social taboos of thousands of years are there for a reason.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:09am:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:34pm: Oh-oh. Softening us up for Paki cultural practices, are you, Gandy? Oh look - Soren who is sooooooo sick of hearing about islam, bringing up islam again.

It's hard to avoid ...

"The tradition of marrying a cousin is becoming more entrenched among British-born Pakistanis living in Bradford than it was a generation ago, writes Winifred Robinson.

This has been the surprise finding of the Born in Bradford research project . It's a huge long-term study of 14,000 mothers and babies in the city, the largest ever undertaken in the UK. Half of the families in the project are Asian.

Cousin marriage has important implications for health because marrying a cousin increases the risks of passing on genetic disorders. Bradford has three times the national rate among children for disabilities including deafness and blindness".

link

How much do these defective offspring cost the British welfare state?

It's no wonder the British House of Lords was presented with a paper that showed migration since the mid-50's has been of zero benefit to the native Brits.

Incest pedophilia and bestiality are all sexual orientations which proves that sexual orientation was never an equal or human right but the homosexual activists obviously were the ones pulling for every sexual orientation to become legal by making up the two faced lie that sexual orientation is an equal or human right.

What does homosexuality have in common with bestiality, incest and pedophilia? They are all sexually defective.

The one sexual orientation that stands alone is heterosexuality because thanks to heterosexuality we even exist.

If it were up to homosexuality to sustain the human race we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective.

This judge however by trying to make incest legal is also encouraging more birth defects through where such sex leads so he is quite obviously in the wrong. But you can thank homosexual activists calling sexual orientation an equal or human right for that. I say that (Of the judges decision) with the exception of that perhaps if he is just doing what he feels necessary to point out the fact that sexual orientation never was an equal or human right. I already did contact all of them.

Come have a look at my new release here in the "Thinking Globally" forum and look for the title "World Becoming Aware of Homosexual Activist Lies" of which 214 parliaments etc. . 20 000 elected and appointed officials of Earth now have.

It will likely blow your mind how these homosexual activists have been using lies and deceptions to make fools out of all of you.

My pleasure

love

David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 7:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:09am: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 8:34pm: Oh-oh. Softening us up for Paki cultural practices, are you, Gandy? Oh look - Soren who is sooooooo sick of hearing about islam, bringing up islam again. It's hard to avoid ... "The tradition of marrying a cousin is becoming more entrenched among British-born Pakistanis living in Bradford than it was a generation ago, writes Winifred Robinson. This has been the surprise finding of the Born in Bradford research project . It's a huge long-term study of 14,000 mothers and babies in the city, the largest ever undertaken in the UK. Half of the families in the project are Asian. Cousin marriage has important implications for health because marrying a cousin increases the risks of passing on genetic disorders. Bradford has three times the national rate among children for disabilities including deafness and blindness". link How much do these defective offspring cost the British welfare state? It's no wonder the British House of Lords was presented with a paper that showed migration since the mid-50's has been of zero benefit to the native Brits.

You realise that marrying cousins is legal in Australia, right?

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

I always thought it was a judges job to apply the law without favour not excuse criminal behaviour.....It is not the judges job to make moral judgements it is his job to apply the law as it is written.....If the judge does not like the laws he should lobby to have them changed.....Until then his comments are at odds with the community and legal interpretation that should see him struck off the bar!!! :-? :-? :-?

Did the judge not apply the law as written?

I don't think the Judge was trying to make Incest legal....
he was making an observation about how easily it could become a norm ... using homosexuality as an example.

One thing for sure though is that 2 blokes rogering each other in the privacy of their own home are not going to produce offspring.

Whereas the same activity of an incestuous sexual relationship has a very high risk of producing offspring with genetic deformity.

In breeding is stupid .... take a look at some of the history of the Royal families. ;D

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 12:20pm: I always thought it was a judges job to apply the law without favour not excuse criminal behaviour.....It is not the judges job to make moral judgements it is his job to apply the law as it is written.....If the judge does not like the laws he should lobby to have them changed.....Until then his comments are at odds with the community and legal interpretation that should see him struck off the bar!!! :-? :-? :-? Did the judge not apply the law as written?

Well, he made a ruling that prior conduct evidence not be admissible at trial. OK.

It is comments in his reasoning for the ruling for which he is under the hammer.

While it is true that some people in the community may believe that adult incest should not be illegal, I don't see the relevance of its reference in the trial situation where jury members decide on the FACTS presented in evidence.....personal view on our incest law forms no part of its charter.
   
Indeed adult incest has been removed from the statute books of some countries. Australia is not one of them.

I'm still scratching my head...crazy comments in a trial context. 

Gnads wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:14am:

I don't think the Judge was trying to make Incest legal.... he was making an observation about how easily it could become a norm ... using homosexuality as an example. One thing for sure though is that 2 blokes rogering each other in the privacy of their own home are not going to produce offspring. Whereas the same activity of an incestuous sexual relationship has a very high risk of producing offspring with genetic deformity. In breeding is stupid .... take a look at some of the history of the Royal families. ;D

Throw in the pet sheep and you have the 'Barnardi' argument.... ;D