Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

A man was acquitted of raping a 17 year old girl in Ireland because of the undergarments she was wearing. Apparently, what she was wearing meant that she consented. I was going to link an article on it, but it contained images of said undergarment, and wasn't sure if that broke any rules. If anyone wants to read more about it, you can just Google it. 

Thoughts? Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent? Was this case decided correctly from a social standpoint?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What kind of lawyer would even think of using a pair of underwear to defend the rapist, this is beyond ridiculous.  Put this case aside, some men have this mentality where they feel the need to u

Still. Men's desires can be aroused even in places like Iraq. I've heard disgusting looks and comments even to women wearing the big black abayahs. Men need to control themselves. Most can. It doesn't

Yes, there are women who dress provocatively and revealingly with the intent of attracting men, but that doesn't mean men are supposed to give in to your base desires and rape her. I don't care if a w

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

this is ridiculous. 

this is so ridiculous

this is really ridiculous.

I have lost hope in humanity.

3 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent

no way! Unless she says YES, then no, it doesn't imply sugar honey iced tea!. These rape stories make me So mad. 

6 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Was this case decided correctly from a social standpoint?

no, noo, nooo, noooo, nooooo

Link to post
Share on other sites

boohoo,.

A: no article as been presented.

B : An article is not what was presented inside a court, this implies we are not told the true nature of the evidence. Articles are sensationalism so that you can go :mod: and the owner can twiddle their thumbs because you made them rich..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

No woman merits to be raped however even if the man must be punished for what he did she was also stupid to think she could wear such dress and dont be harassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/17/2018 at 7:01 AM, alidu78 said:

No woman merits to be raped however even if the man must be punished for what he did she was also stupid to think she could wear such dress and dont be harassing.

I partially agree. Firstly, I don't know what the poor girl was wearing over her undergarments. But, the court acquitted the man because her undergarments were said to be too provocative, and indicated consent. Secondly, yes, if a person wears something that's provocative or attention-seeking, then attention will be the response given. However, that never ever justifies harassment. By that logic, the harassment hijabis and niqabis get in the West is justified because it provokes non-Muslims' attention. That is wrong. 

Found this, could help others understand the case better:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I read this in Marie Claire:

"Using a rape victim’s underwear as evidence in court is a heinous act of victim blaming. The only person responsible for rape is a rapist. Not the victim’s underwear."

I couldn't have put it better myself. 

Edited by Aflower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

 Should a woman's clothing immediately imply her consent? 

In countries like Pakistan and India (some) men hoot, jeer, wolf-whistle and make women the object of their catcalls, even when these women are fully clad in clothes from head to toe. Sadly, vile perpetrators will continue with their wrongdoings irrespective of what a woman is wearing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On 11/17/2018 at 7:53 AM, 2Timeless said:

I partially agree. Firstly, I don't know what the poor girl was wearing over her undergarments. But, the court acquitted the man because her undergarments were said to be too provocative, and indicated consent. Secondly, yes, if a person wears something that's provocative or attention-seeking, then attention will be the response given. However, that never ever justifies harassment. By that logic, the harassment hijabis and niqabis get in the West is justified because it provokes non-Muslims' attention. That is wrong. 

Found this, could help others understand the case better:

[Mod Note: Video was removed. See the video in the post above.]

There is a big difference between having clothes provoking attention by their look and having revealing clothes which are "sexy" and arise sexual desires of men in general. I know what I say is not politically correct but this is just a fact. 

Edited by Hameedeh
Mod Note in the quote.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, monad said:

A: no article as been presented

OP @2Timeless had already explained in her introductory post why she chose not to include the article.  A simple Google search will reveal umpteen articles pertaining to this issue. 

If it helps, try these two words in Google search: Underwear Rape. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
25 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Still. Men's desires can be aroused even in places like Iraq. I've heard disgusting looks and comments even to women wearing the big black abayahs. Men need to control themselves. Most can. It doesn't matter what a woman does or wears. It is never an invitation for such a violation or abuse. 

Again I don't invite at all to abuse and rape women who wear short clothes but this is a fact that men will be attracted by women who wear revealing clothes and you maybe saw men did such things toward women in Abaya THEY ARE A LITTLE MINORITY DESPITE WHAT YOU WILL CLAIM. And yes this is true that men should control themselves but women must also be responsible and wear correct clothes because even men who will never rape a woman will have disgusting thought toward a woman who wear revealing clothes and accept it or not but what I said is a fact. 

Khadim uz zahra I never said rape could be justified so read again my interventions thanks. 

Edited by alidu78
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

Again I don't invite at all to abuse and rape women who wear short clothes but this is a fact that men will be attracted by women who wear revealing clothes and you maybe saw men did such things toward women in Abaya THEY ARE A LITTLE MINORITY DESPITE WHAT YOU WILL CLAIM. And yes this is true that men should control themselves but women must also be responsible and wear correct clothes because even men who will never rape a woman will have disgusting thought toward a woman who wear revealing clothes and accept it or not but what I said is a fact. 

No one denied that some men have disgusting and vile thoughts towards women who wear revealing and provocative clothing. A woman may arouse and feul those thoughts, but ultimately, it is upto the man to control his thoughts and behaviour. You think in the time of the Prophet there were no prostitutes who's sole responsibility was to arouse men? You think the Prophet would've not been able to master the craft of controlling one's thoughts and behaviour? 

As for the "minority" of men in Iraq and Iran who have such disgusting thoughts and behaviour, that is false. That is not my personal experience, as well as the experience of other women I know online or in real life. Women get comments when wearing a full black abayah, 2 minutes away from the hadhra. Women get such disgusting looks that you can practically hear what the man is thinking. Many, many women agree with me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
15 hours ago, alidu78 said:

Khadim uz zahra I never said rape could be justified so read again my interventions thanks.

I never suggested that you did. I made my comment because your comments detracted from the man's culpability and focused on the woman's mistakes. No one is denying that immodest clothing is bad, and should be avoided. But timing is crucial for anything; when we have an incident like this take place, we can choose to focus on the woman's mistakes or the man's. At the end of the day, the man who raped someone is more responsible than the woman so by highlighting her mistakes, it serves to lessen his crime. To many of the people who are reading the forum, it may subconsciously imply that 'she was asking for it' or that 'she deserved it'. That kind of thinking is wrong. There's a time and place for everything, and I felt like your comments weren't right for this time. We can always discuss the need for more modest clothing at another time; the forum is full of such threads anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

No one denied that some men have disgusting and vile thoughts towards women who wear revealing and provocative clothing. A woman may arouse and feul those thoughts, but ultimately, it is upto the man to control his thoughts and behaviour. You think in the time of the Prophet there were no prostitutes who's sole responsibility was to arouse men? You think the Prophet would've not been able to master the craft of controlling one's thoughts and behaviour? 

As for the "minority" of men in Iraq and Iran who have such disgusting thoughts and behaviour, that is false. That is not my personal experience, as well as the experience of other women I know online or in real life. Women get comments when wearing a full black abayah, 2 minutes away from the hadhra. Women get such disgusting looks that you can practically hear what the man is thinking. Many, many women agree with me. 

I would actually say "some men" but "most men" have such thoughts when they see women wearing short clothes so here men and women must take their responsibilities this is not for nothing there is such dress code in Islam and I don't know for Iraq but I didn't see such things toward women wearing full veil in Iran despite your claims. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, alidu78 said:

I don't know for Iraq but I didn't see such things toward women wearing full veil in Iran despite your claims. 

You don't see such things, just maybe because you're a man and not a woman?? Just maybe, could be a factor. 

Neither country is paradise. Women get harassed in both countries. End of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

I never suggested that you did. I made my comment because your comments detracted from the man's culpability and focused on the woman's mistakes. No one is denying that immodest clothing is bad, and should be avoided. But timing is crucial for anything; when we have an incident like this take place, we can choose to focus on the woman's mistakes or the man's. At the end of the day, the man who raped someone is more responsible than the woman so by highlighting her mistakes, it serves to lessen his crime. To many of the people who are reading the forum, it may subconsciously imply that 'she was asking for it' or that 'she deserved it'. That kind of thinking is wrong. There's a time and place for everything, and I felt like your comments weren't right for this time. We can always discuss the need for more modest clothing at another time; the forum is full of such threads anyway.

No I never said that. At the end of the day the men who raped are disgusting and must be put to death. What I said is that men and women must take their responsibilities and wear correct clothes. That is what I tried to say since the beginning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 minute ago, 2Timeless said:

You don't see such things, just maybe because you're a man and not a woman?? Just maybe, could be a factor. 

Neither country is paradise. Women get harassed in both countries. End of. 

So a man who see a woman in bikini and a woman in chador will be attracted in the same way I guess? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

So a man who see a woman in bikini and a woman in chador will be attracted in the same way I guess? 

I don't know how men think. But I am 100% sure that women in chadors do get disgusting looks from perverted men, as well as disgusting comments. Obviously, not as much as if a woman in a bikini would in that same area. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

I don't know how men think. But I am 100% sure that women in chadors do get disgusting looks from perverted men, as well as disgusting comments. Obviously, not as much as if a woman in a bikini would in that same area. 

Exactly every women could face disgusting comportement from men. But some would face more than others because of their comportement and clothes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
This really highlights the control and influence of the Catholic Church in archaic ways in Ireland.  This is not super unique.  Women are blamed and shamed for many kinds of perceived sexual interaction and pretty much had (and still have) their lives ruined if they did not have the ability to move away.  
 
I don’t know why what is worn as underwear can be used as provocative unless she was not wearing anything else.  But the question should have been, why was he in a position to even see her underwear.  Why is a 27 year old man looking at the underwear of a 17 year old girl? If she was one year younger it would have been statutory rape. It is hard to tell the difference between a girl that is 16 or 17 so he must have researched this first to make sure she was of age.  Sounds premeditated and predatory to me.
 
It is hard to know how this man was acquitted but there must have been more than just the undies.  But then again maybe my sense of justice keeps me stubbornly naive despite some of the most bizarre scenarios I have read about.  
 
Lawyers will do anything to get their clients off.  A lovely lot they are...
 
Hilary Clinton, the Democratic Party touted supporter of all women, defended rapists. 
 
Clinton was able to get a 41 year old man off for raping a 12 year old girl with methods that have been exposed but that have been hushed by MSM due to political deference.  Clinton stated, "“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” Clinton offered no source for the claims. 
 
In a recorded interview with a reporter," Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him. For instance, Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”  
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc - Audio recording of Clinton discussing the case while laughing at the absurdity of it. 
Edited by Maryaam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

My eleven year old son discussed the morality element of this case for a whole hour on Friday during his PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) lesson at school. 

As @Khadim uz Zahra pointed out, it is impossible that an entire jury would have come to a conclusion based on one piece of 'evidence,' if you can even call it that. There were obviously many other elements and factors that were considered. I actually wrote something along these lines earlier, and subsequently deleted it, because I was concerned that I may have to face a barrage of criticism.

On a slightly different note, I've noticed that it's not what is said, or how it's said, that attracts positive/negative, or even some attention. It's actually who says it. I've come to realise that some of my posts have been paraphrased by certain individuals and they have been acknowledged. Yet mine have gone unnoticed when I've said the same things. Guess this comes down to the cliques. C'est la vie. 

Edited by Aflower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

There are a zillion threads on here about rape with mega supporting data and facts and studies....  Rape is not about romance and sexual attraction but is about power (such as a 27 year old man with a 17 year old girl) and control and opportunity and violence.  

Rapists become increasingly more violent - they are not increasingly overcome with romantic fantasies.  There is a big misunderstanding between an act of sexual intimacy and a crime of assault and violence.... hence the laboured posts about types of clothing worn by women.  Rape victims come in all shapes and sizes, genders, ages, and clothing.  

A rapist with the intent to rape and with clear opportunity could care less about a person's clothing.  

Edited by Maryaam
Link to post
Share on other sites

O W N A G E time x2

A: The defense lawyer was female.  Elizabeth O’Connell  <--- female!

Elizabeth O’Connell asked jurors at Cork Central Criminal Court last week to consider the teen had worn “A, B , C.”

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?” O’Connell asked jurors during closing arguments.

“You have to look at the way she was dressed,” she added.

The assault happened while she was a sleep, ( from the video )  and then it goes to some misogynistic diatribe.

A jury of eight men and four women acquitted the man unanimously after deliberating for 90 minutes,  that is 1h30min.

Questions :

  • What was she doing sleeping in a bed with a male, not wanting to consummate but in her underwear?. Getting a tan from the ceiling lights?
  • Did she not expect, that there is a possibility intercourse will happen?. This isn't a  movie.
  • Do women think they can do what they will, even with seduction and expect males to be subjugated?. We are dealing with biology and body language.
  • Ohh please, let us share a bed naked, but you better behave like a good saint and not touch me.

There were four women in the jury who could have abstained or given a different verdict. The evidence was against the female.

The feminists have taken this out of context and are using the underwear to ignore whatever other reasons where that lead to this intercourse without permission.

Carry on discussing nonsense. As usual the females need something to be hysterical about. EVIDENCE is king in the courtroom, yes, not queen but king.

Edited by monad
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Abu Hadi I agree, which is why i tried to be a little careful with the way I phrased my post. I meant that the Prophet as well as ahl al bayt all had all sorts of evil surrounding them, they still practiced self control and patience and never wronged anyone. Men tempted by women's clothing should practice the same. 

23 minutes ago, Aflower said:

As @Khadim uz Zahra pointed out, it is impossible that an entire jury would have come to a conclusion based on one piece of 'evidence,' if you can even call it that. There were obviously many other elements and factors that were considered. I actually wrote something along these lines earlier, and subsequently deleted it, because I was concerned that I may have to face a barrage of criticism.

Well, believe it or not, in this particular case, all that's being discussed is the underwear worn by the victim. If you find out otherwise about this particular case (not the way the law is generally practiced) I'd love to hear it. 

30 minutes ago, Aflower said:

On a slightly different note, I've noticed that it's not what is said, or how it's said, that attracts positive/negative, or even some attention. It's actually who says it. I've come to realise that some of my posts have been paraphrased by certain individuals and they have been acknowledged. Yet mine have gone unnoticed when I've said the same things. Guess this comes down to the cliques. C'est la vie

Lol not quite sure what you're saying here. Who is this intended for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1) It doesn't matter even if the whole courtroom was filled with females. Although this is hard for some people to comprehend, rape is not a feminist issue. It is a violation of basic human rights. If an individual responds with "boohoo" or anything remotely similar when hearing about a rape case, or any violation of basic human rights for that matter, then such an individual has no respect or honour for said basic human rights. So, enough with the useless retorts about feminazis. This is not a feminist cause. If anyone wishes to discuss feminism because they're so intrigued by it, they may do so on a separate thread. 

2) Please get your facts right. The rape took place in a laneway (another source described it as a "muddy alleyway") in Cork. No bed in sight. The man was 27, the girl was 17.

3)No matter how provoking a person is, you are a human and you control your desires. Men are not animals. Please understand that. Some men may have the inferiority complex and think they are incapable of dealing with their desires. 

 

Edited by 2Timeless
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

Well, believe it or not, in this particular case, all that's being discussed is the underwear worn by the victim. If you find out otherwise about this particular case (not the way the law is generally practiced) I'd love to hear it. 

A jury makes a decision primarily based on two criteria: 

1. Direct Evidence

2. Circumstantial Evidence.

Rape cases are almost always largely reliant on circumstantial evidence. This was true in the case of this trial too. Non-consensual sex is termed as rape, and unless there are witnesses or CCTV camera footage, it is infeasible to present direct evidence. Such trials will, sadly, almost always come down to 'He said' and 'She said.' The fact that the defence lawyer had to rely on some 'knickers' as her evidence in the first place is very telling about the lack of direct evidence. As the boys in my son's class quipped: "That's absolute pants." Very bad use of pun - but that's a bunch of eleven year olds for you trying to get their head around a very disturbing and mature issue. 

1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but the rape took place in a LANEWAY, dear brother. LOL

Dear sister, as you yourself stated in your introductory post, the defendant has been acquitted of all charges. Irrespective of your personal opinion, you can not call this man a rapist. Indeed you could say that he has committed Zina, but you can't call him a rapist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2Timeless said:

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but the rape took place in a LANEWAY, dear brother.

yes, different articles seem to present it with alterations. However I still blame the 17year old.

She went out on a date with an older guy and decided to dress in a particular way to be more appealing. She clearly was not wear those items by it self, so something led him to believe she was seducing him, and that were his signals to follow through. Of course in her mind, she was still playing the innocent little girl, playing dress up, imitating the magazine and movie covers.

He was most likely a hyper aggressive male, thus the ability to seduce her on a date. He won her from the countless of males that thought or decided to ask her out, but he did it. That is a sign of his aggressive nature and not showing his confidence. The nonsense regarding controlling desires, also falls back on the females. It works two way to initiate something, females want it both ways.

I suggest stop using humans rights to justify emotional opinion. He was acquitted, as the evidence was on his side. The articles are nothing but sensationalism, to get the females in a uproar. I wrote bohoo, knowing that the discussions would be nothing but conjecture, as we have no evidence.

 

Edited by monad
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Rape cases are almost always largely reliant on circumstantial evidence. This was true in the case of this trial too. Non-consensual sex is termed as rape, and unless there are witnesses or CCTV camera footage,

I know, from a legal standpoint, I am incorrect, hence in my original post, I asked about views on this case from a social standpoint. Legally, he is not a rapist. In my view, according to the things I've read, and the argument presented by the defence and prosecution, I think he is a rapist.

EDIT - I also don't know the complete facts of the case. One can never be sure when it comes to cases like this one, but according to the things I know at the moment, he sounds like a rapist. 1 in 10 rape cases are even brought to court, and 1 in 4 get any satisfactory outcome (according to the MP in the video I attached earlier).  

Edited by 2Timeless
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, monad said:

. However I still blame the 17year old.

Victim blaming will not really allow me to read the rest of your post and actually take anything you say seriously. Women do not want it both ways. Some men just keep looking for ways to excuse disgusting and beastly behaviour. You can keep posting incredibly insensitive and offensive things, just know nothing you say will be held in high regard at all. Please rethink the things you've said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, monad said:

The assault happened while she was a sleep, ( from the video )  and then it goes to some misogynistic diatribe.

What was she doing sleeping in a bed with a male, not wanting to consummate but in her underwear?. Getting a tan from the ceiling lights?

Where are you getting this from? According to multiple news reports, the incident took place in an alleyway. Saying it happened in their shared bed while she was in her underwear is VERY different from it happening in an alley while she was dressed. Since this is a serious matter, I'll ask you to please provide a reference, or I'll edit your post to remove the factual inaccuracy.

Secondly, even if they were sleeping in a shared bed and she was in her underwear, why would you want to have sex with someone while she's sleeping and not even aware of what's happening? It's just not right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...