• 'I don't want to go to jail', 71yo accused of genital mutilation says in conversation played to Sydn
    24 replies, posted
[quote]A NSW Supreme Court trial into the alleged genital mutilation of two young girls in Sydney and Wollongong has heard a tearful conversation between the woman accused of performing the procedures and a sheikh. The former midwife, a member of Sydney's Dawoodi Bohra community, allegedly performed female genital mutilation (FGM) procedures on the two sisters at different points between 2009 and 2012 when each of the girls was seven years old. Also standing trial is the girls' mother, for allegedly arranging the procedures, and senior clergy member Shabbir Vaziri, who is accused of being an accessory after the fact. "I am quite in trouble," the 71-year-old former midwife, who cannot be named, said in a recording of the conversation, weeping as she spoke. "I do not want to go to jail at my age." The jury was played a series of phone conversations, translated from two Indian languages, that were recorded by police during their investigation in 2012. In one, the girls' father, who also cannot be identified, spoke with Vaziri, sharing his concerns about an impending police interview. "Those people will ask us everything ... 'Whether you practice circumcision or not', and all that," he said. Vaziri advised him to be careful about what he said to the police. "If you will tell anyone at all that, if you will say, 'Yes, has been done', then also there will be trouble," Vaziri said.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/dont-want-to-go-to-jail-71yo-accused-of-genital-mutilation-says/6795792[/url] If she had a hand in doing it I have no sympathy for her. Let her rot in jail.
From the article linked at the bottom of the page: [quote]But senior counsel Robert Sutherland, appearing for the mother and Vaziri, said what took place was a "ritualistic ceremony" that did not involve any injury. He said when the girls were examined by a medical expert, "there was no evidence of scarring and the external genitalia appeared normal".[/quote] I hope he's right about that. What they're being accused of is not okay here. Not morally okay anywhere, but flat out illegal here.
oh boo hoo youre old and you did something straight up illegal. that doesnt make you any less guilty, and you get to serve the same time as anyone else. god damn crocodile tears and a poor pity me sympathy plea. pisses me off.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;48737138]oh boo hoo youre old and you did something straight up illegal. that doesnt make you any less guilty, and you get to serve the same time as anyone else. god damn crocodile tears and a poor pity me sympathy plea. pisses me off.[/QUOTE] People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] Ex Nazi guards are generally 90+, and the case is entirely different.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] People defend nazis not just because they're old, but because committed their crimes 70 years ago. This happened in 2009 and 2012. I'm not necessarily agreeing with that position, just pointing out the key difference.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] Yes they do, like... all the fucking time dude?
They were following orders and they weren't doing anything wrong by the law of the day, which means any convictions are retroactive and that isn't justice. No one cares what you do to nazis but don't dress it up as justice and act like you're on the moral high ground But when a 71 year old does something that is illegal according to the law of the day, you deal with them accordingly
This is disgusting behavior, just because you are elderly doesn't give you a free ticket to do whatever you damn well please even if illegal. Absolutely pathetic, I hope this person serves their time that they deserve.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] other people have said it for me but i feel its worth repeating just in case. ex nazis werent breaking the law [B]at the time they did it[/B]. what they did was fucked up most definitely, but all the laws used to punish the ex nazis were put in place [B]after[/B] their actions, with the intent of punishing them for their actions before the laws existed. thats why people defend them, because thats an abortion of justice of w/e the saying is.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] Yes I'm sure those drafted accountants and radio operators deserve to be held accountable to millions of peoples deaths.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] On this forum? Its usually nazi hunters going after radio operators or people the swept the floors. Not the guards that pulled the trigger, the politicians that made the laws or the guy the experimented on children. Also these people don't have an authoritarian state forcing them.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;48737601]A lot of them were just following orders. Do you think convicting Americans who are operating drone strikes should happen in 80 years time when people finally realise how fucked up it is? It's pretty much the same thing.[/QUOTE] no it most definitely is not the same thing at all
that's fucking awful and I seriously hope she goes to jail
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48738669]They were following orders and they weren't doing anything wrong by the law of the day, which means any convictions are retroactive and that isn't justice. No one cares what you do to nazis but don't dress it up as justice and act like you're on the moral high ground But when a 71 year old does something that is illegal according to the law of the day, you deal with them accordingly[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but when something is so morally bankrupt such as helping to facilitate mass murder, if doesn't matter that the law being used to punish is retroactive.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48741170]I'm sorry, but when something is so morally bankrupt such as helping to facilitate mass murder, if doesn't matter that the law being used to punish is retroactive.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That's not how civilized punishment works. Even so, the people we're talking about here are 70-80 year olds that committed these acts several decades ago. Most of the people affected by their actions have passed anyways. Considering that, coupled with their more-than-likely limited involvement in the actual criminal acts and the fact that it wasn't a crime at the time of committing, it's hardly an issue. For example: Let's say that, during the war in Vietnam, crimes were committed by US troops on innocent locals including sexual abuse and murder. Would it be right to punish, say, the people delivering supplies to these men? The doctors keeping them healthy and able to carry on with their heinous acts? The other men who were involved by association only? No. Only the people committing the crimes should be punished for the crimes committed. Men in the infrastructure are exempt in all but the most extreme cases where they knowingly and voluntarily contributed to the crimes. My example is not one of these situations, and neither is the situation you're commenting on. You're still wrong.
Okay, let's change the word punish to convict. I'm not suggesting punishing people that are in their 80s and 90s, but there is a need to ensure that justice is done. Murder (or accessory to murder) cannot go unpunished if proved, even if it happened over 50 years ago and it wasn't in law back then. [QUOTE=MrWhite;48742650] For example: Let's say that, during the war in Vietnam, crimes were committed by US troops on innocent locals including sexual abuse and murder. Would it be right to punish, say, the people delivering supplies to these men? The doctors keeping them healthy and able to carry on with their heinous acts? The other men who were involved by association only? [/QUOTE] I am not sure how this is relevant. My response was only to retroactive laws.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48742842]Okay, let's change the word punish to convict. I'm not suggesting punishing people that are in their 80s and 90s, but there is a need to ensure that justice is done. Murder (or accessory to murder) cannot go unpunished if proved, even if it happened over 50 years ago [B]and it wasn't in law back then.[/B] I am not sure how this is relevant. My response was only to retroactive laws.[/QUOTE] [quote]and it wasn't in law back then.[/quote] this is just the worst idea. you dont get to change the laws and then punish anyone for what they did before the law was enacted. surely you can see why thats a bad idea. it appears to me that your argument is purely an emotional one. "they did something morally wrong, and they should be punished for it" but the fact is, they didnt break the law. yes, i agree its fucked up, but there is a need for consistency in the justice system, and these people are no exception. we dont punish someone just because we think they deserve it. we punish people because they broke the law. and no matter how much you dont like it, these people did not break the law.
Welcome to the world outside the United States. Only some countries have protection against retroactive and retrospective laws for this reason. It's a different world out there. For instance, retroactive laws are allowed in Australia, and have indeed used to punish certain war criminals for crimes that were not crimes at the time of the act. I personally see retroactive punishment and conviction for participation in such atrocities as the Holocaust as something that is acceptable (provided the person actually had an active role), but I can understand people's objection. Not every justice system is the same. And there was justification for the punishment for those involved in the Holocaust.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;48743736]Welcome to the world outside the United States. Only some countries have protection against retroactive and retrospective laws for this reason. It's a different world out there. For instance, retroactive laws are allowed in Australia, and have indeed used to punish certain war criminals for crimes that were not crimes at the time of the act. I personally see retroactive punishment and conviction for participation in such atrocities as the Holocaust as something that is acceptable (provided the person actually had an active role), but I can understand people's objection. Not every justice system is the same. And there was justification for the punishment for those involved in the Holocaust.[/QUOTE] well for that, i apologize about my ignorance towards the justice systems and courts outside of america. my experience to them is next to nothing.
[QUOTE=kenji;48737301]Yes they do, like... all the fucking time dude?[/QUOTE] Go check out the thread about the 91 year old radio operator. I beg to differ
Any society that supports FGM as a main tenant of the treatment of women and young girls is abhorrent. Any culture that disrespects women so much that they disable their ability to enjoy sex and even excrete urine and give birth properly must be obliterated. It's a damn shame that over 150 million women and girls are suffering from the effects of FGM worldwide right now, and I'm sure that those who know about the unsanitary conditions FGM is usually performed under, such as using broken bottles and razors [b](I've even seen a picture of someone using a wrench and a soldering iron)[/b] without anesthetic, would agree with me. Every time I hear in the news of some animal doing this, I get angry. Hopefully she gets a just prison sentence.
[QUOTE=Doozle;48737155]People never have this attitude when they find ex-nazi guards who've been found guilty of murder[/QUOTE] Not really, if they personally executed people then they can fuck off. If they're a bookkeeper or radio operator then we've got complaints.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.