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
2Timeless

Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 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. 

Yes, it existed during that time, but there is a biiiiiig difference between that time and today. 

At that time, and even up until the last 100 years or so (before things like tv, radio, internet were widespread), if you wanted to see a women who was scantily dressed or be with a prostitute, you had to go to a certain area. Most people knew where those areas were and people with good morals stayed away from those areas. Women who were not prostitutes didn't dress like prostitutes and it was very clear who was and wasn't a prostitute and men who didn't go to those areas probably never even saw a women who was dressed in anything other than normal conservative dress. There were variations in 'normal conservative dress', for example some women didn't cover their hair or the upper part of their breasts, even in those days, but this was within very clear and defined limits. 

Compare this to now. I was watching a kids show a few days ago with one of my children, and all of a sudden, an add came on with a women in a skimpy bikini. I never asked to see this, was not looking for it, nor did I consent to it. Yet it happened. I'm sure every single man here (unless he lives in a cave with no electricity) has many similar stories, I have many more, but I don't want to bore people, you get the point. 

So times are very different nowdays. We are living in an world which is altogether different, where certain groups feel that they have an absolute right to pollute the world with this sort of imagery (which has biological effects which can be measured). Most muslims also support this and think it's ok. Most muslim women, including most here, feel that they have an absolute right to dress any way they please, regardless of the effects it has on those around them. They are empowered by secularism, social media, etc. If the whole world tells you something is 'ok and fine to do', but with Allah(s.w.a) it is still not 'fine and ok to do', then is it 'fine and ok to do'. No. There is a reality that is above public opinion. 

I'm not trying to justify what this guy did in this particular case, obviously it is completely wrong and he had no right to do it, no matter what they women was wearing. One violation of Haqq does not justify another violation of Haqq. 

But we cannot say that we are living in the same world as Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Imams(a.s) were with regards to this issue. We are not, at all. For most men, even religious ones, this is a very difficult issue to deal with. You either have to go live in a cave, which is not an option for most people, or just figure that you will be exposed to this at some point. It is the greater part of Jihad An Nafs, these days. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, monad said:

Ohh please, let us share a bed naked, but you better behave like a good saint and not touch me

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


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

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.

Please forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the term 'social standpoint' in this context, and how it gives one a licence to call someone who has been acquitted of all charges a rapist. 

I've heard of a 'Feminist standpoint,' but even then it would be wrong to call someone who has been proven innocent as a rapist.

Is calling someone who has been acquitted of all charges, a rapist, not overstepping the mark? None of us were in the courtroom and I don't believe anyone has access to all the information/evidence that was presented.

Is your claim not overstepping the mark? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Please forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the term 'social standpoint' in this context, and how it gives one a licence to call someone who has been acquitted of all charges a rapist. 

I've heard of a 'Feminist standpoint,' but even then it would be wrong to call someone who has been proven innocent as a rapist.

Is calling someone who has been acquitted of all charges, a rapist, not overstepping the mark? None of us were in the courtroom and I don't believe anyone has access to all the information/evidence that was presented.

Is your claim not overstepping the mark? 

Well, there is a difference between what can be proven legally and what is true. For example, many people who are actual murderers and drug lords and so on get away with it because they kill the only witness who could testify to their crimes. Legally, you can't say that person is a murderer because the court never found them guilty but we would normally still consider such people murderers and so on. Stories like this are quite common in the mafia/drug business and so on, no?

Of course, there is a fine line and allowing your opinion to let you make an accusation could possibly also result in you accusing an innocent person at times. It's not always easy to know the truth, but I guess in this case, you could say that if the only sign of her 'consent' was that she was wearing a particular type of underwear and she told him she didn't want to do it - or, at least, didn't ask him to engage in sexual activity with her - then what happened was without consent and therefore criminal. Maybe there are more details we don't know, but from the details that have been shared, it doesn't seem like she consented, at least not to me.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read about this and there was only one witness that came forward.  He said that the man had his hand around the girls throat and she was saying that he had just raped her.  Seems like there is info missing here.

Anyway the sad thing about cases like this, especially where they are given such immense media exposure, will ensure that women (and young girls) will be even more reluctant to come forward.  This happens everywhere. 

 

Edited by Maryaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

Well, there is a difference between what can be proven legally and what is true. For example, many people who are actual murderers and drug lords and so on get away with it because they kill the only witness who could testify to their crimes. Legally, you can't say that person is a murderer because the court never found them guilty but we would normally still consider such people murderers and so on. Stories like this are quite common in the mafia/drug business and so on, no?

Going back to the original case, there are also incidences where women have consented, felt guilty, and then tried to put the blame on the man as they can't deal with the guilt. In the case of the trial being discussed by the sister, I don't believe that there is any evidence directly implicating the man. On what basis does the sister believe that he is guilty? Feelings and gut instincts alone? That's wrong, no? Generalising and always blaming the man in rape cases is wrong too, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Is your claim not overstepping the mark?

By 'social standpoint' I intended this case to be discussed in terms of the implications it will have on young boys and girls. Such a case will teach young people that if a girl is wearing something particularly provocative, she is signalling for all the men to violate her in the most horrific way possible. It will teach young men and boys that they can get away with such a disgusting violation. This will significantly damage our society not just temporarily, while this "feminazi craze" lasts, but it will have permanent negative impacts on the way our society is operated. 

As for me believing him to be a rapist, that is my own personal opinion, you are free to believe otherwise. According to what I've read about the case, I believe the victim. Firstly, I doubt any seventeen year old girl will particularly enjoy sitting in a courtroom, having her underwear waved around, and watch a man ten years older than her defend himself against rape charges. Secondly, as @Maryaam put so eloquently, rape is always about power. It is never about sexual gratification. Look at the power dynamic between the two in this case. The victim is a 17 year old girl, and the defendant is a 27 year old man. Where did the rape take place? In a "muddy alleyway". All of these facts provide us with at the very least, a rough idea of who was in a more vulnerable and compromising position. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...