Italy...While they host the Olympics, take a look at what else is going on

[Larry_OHF]

• Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli recently flaunted a T-shirt displaying one of the controversial cartoons on state TV this week.
  
  Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has asked Calderoli to resign. Eleven people were killed and an Italian consulate was burned in Libya on Friday night during protests resulting from this.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...ons/index.html
  ================================================== ============================
• Italian court: Not a virgin? Then sex crimes aren't as serious.
  
  Sexually abusing a teenager is less serious a crime if the girl is not a virgin, Italy's higher court said on Friday in a controversial ruling that immediately drew a barrage of criticism.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

[ 02-17-2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

About the second one: WHAT?! Rape is rape. It's not sexual, it's about power. Are they saying that it's less serious to, say, rape a slutty person? Are they out of their flippin' MINDS? Then again, I suppose people everywhere think that... That's what they did during the Kobe case.. People are dumb, I suppose. But I kind of expected more from Italy.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: About the second one: WHAT?! Rape is rape. It's not sexual, it's about power

I'm not sure that these can be separated so readily. It's about both IMO; they feed off the power and that is sexual to them.

[/qb]Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Are they saying that it's less serious to, say, rape a slutty person? Are they out of their flippin' MINDS?

I not convinced its right for judges to base their judgements on it, but I'm surprised that this is controversial from a moral point of view.

Rape is a crime, nobody denies that. But to take someones virginity in the process is surely an even worse crime? You deny them the chance to give that gift to the person they love - more is taken away from the virgin in the assault. Plus, from a purely practically point of view, being sexually inexperienced they are much less likely to be able to cope mentally with the rape and therefore more seriously affected by it.

The same reasons underlie the age of consent - we assume that having sex with a girl of 15 year 11 months is infinitely worse than one of 16 years and a day. It may be arbitrary, but the crime is worse because in the former there is assumed to be a taking of innocence that doesn't occur in the latter.

The age of consent law is trying to acknowledge the fact that more occurs during the losing of virginity than simply the breaking of the hymen. The 15 year-old is not deemed legally capable of assuming the responsibility for losing her virginity and it is this 'something extra' which is lost that the judges are trying to quantify when they are deciding the seriousness of a crime.

Not altogether crazy in my opinion, although they should be saying that 'raping a virgin is an even more serious crime' rather than 'raping a non-virgin is less of a crime'. The distinction I'm trying to point out above doesn't have to lead to leniency.

[Aerich]

Well, note that the guy hasn't been sentenced yet. The public outcry may yet persuade the judges to put the hammer to him.

Second, this man sexually assaulted his 14-year-old stepdaughter, although as the act did not include intercourse, it is technically not "rape" as we define it.

That said, considering the abuse of power/trust for sexual gratification... off with his nuts!

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Aerich: Well, note that the guy hasn't been sentenced yet. The public outcry may yet persuade the judges to put the hammer to him. Second, this man sexually assaulted his 14-year-old stepdaughter, although as the act did not include intercourse, it is technically not "rape" as we define it.

"Rape" as it is legally defined in this country is forced or coerced, nonconsentual penetration of the fingers, penis, or tongue in the mouth, anus, or vagina.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: About the second one: WHAT?! Rape is rape. It's not sexual, it's about power

I'm not sure that these can be separated so readily. It's about both IMO; they feed off the power and that is sexual to them.
[/QUOTE]Thaaaat is interesting. One can certainly look at it that way, but I was thinking in more literal terms... That we now know rape isn't how people used to think (She wears revealing clothing, he gets horny and "loses control" and rapes her out of lust)

[johnny]

Preach on sister.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: "Rape" as it is legally defined in this country is forced or coerced, nonconsentual penetration of the fingers, penis, or tongue in the mouth, anus, or vagina.

Ah, ok. The Canadian definition was changed years ago to "sexual assault" because too much of the focus in trials was on the specifics of the act, rather than determining that there was sexual interference and then determining consent.

[Sir Degrader]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: [QB][list][*]Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli recently flaunted a T-shirt displaying one of the controversial cartoons on state TV this week.

Good for him! His shirts get publicity, his views get known, and the Italian PM gets to tell him off in public, and get some PR points! About rape: Wrong, but taking someone's virginity is even worse. I'm still in favor of mandatory execution either way.

[DBear]

During WW2, when Hitler order Danish Jews to wear the yellow star, the next day EVERYONE, even the royal family, wore one.

I wish EVERY member of Italian parliament were wearing the cartoons.