Nigeria gets it

[mtpockets]

DAKAR, Senegal — A new law punishing child rapists with castration and death has come into force in a Nigerian state.

Men convicted of raping children under age 14 will have their testicles surgically removed before being executed, under legislation that the governor of Kaduna state signed on Wednesday. Women will have their fallopian tubes cut out.

Many Nigerians clamoring for action in the face of a countrywide rape crisis have greeted the new law enthusiastically, but critics say it is a populist move incompatible with the country’s Constitution. They predict it will lead to fewer rapes being reported.

Kaduna’s governor, Nasir el-Rufai, said the new measures were “required to help further protect children from a serious crime.” Why rapists would be castrated if they are then going be executed was not immediately clear.

Those convicted of raping people over age 14 also face castration, followed by life imprisonment under the new legislation.

The Kaduna state government is the only one in the West African country to adopt such harsh punishment for rape, but castration has been tried elsewhere.

[NorwichGrad]

Good!

In the meantime, in California ****philia has been legalized and normalized.

We are Sodom and Gonnorhea on steroids.

[j1nevertogthr]

Praise God, Lord willing the world will follow suit

[LWW]

Good!

In the meantime, in California ****philia has been legalized and normalized.

We are Sodom and Gonnorhea on steroids.

Notice Elrond is silent with these politicians it’s because he don’t care about other states, guys like Elrond wait till it’s too late.

Remember this boys and girls.

[OldFartTom]

Don't misinterpret this response as any sympathy or apology for child rapists, I have no sympathy for that.

I do question the overall law in the state of Kaduna (remember the laws are state and not country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_in_Nigeria) as I don't agree with Sharia law.

While there have been examples of women stoned to death for adultery while the men in the cases received no sentence. Seems hard to defend that system.

Also rape victims are more likely to be forced to keep quiet or receive death threats from friends and family of the rapist, or be killed to avoid trials, so despite sounding good justice at first, the laws can continue the victim's suffering and make things worse.

I totally agree with harsh sentencing of child rapists. I'm no bleeding-heart liberal. But Kaduna state is not a good example for any kind of good law or policing discussion

[induced_drag]

Good!

In the meantime, in California ****philia has been legalized and normalized.
.

There is actually a law that just passed that removes the mandate to register as a sex offender if there is less than 10 years seperating rapist and victim. Meaning, a 25yo can sodomize and rape (sex with a minor is considered statuary rape) 14 yo and they are not required to register as a sex offender.

The LBGT community lobbied hard for this bill because they say the gay community is unfairly targeted by it. (Yes...I am not making this up).

AND...it not only passed, but was signed into law 6 days ago by the gov.....


Law is attached

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ne...s-with-a-minor


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200SB145

[7Seconds]

There is actually a law that just passed that removes the mandate to register as a sex offender if there is less than 10 years seperating rapist and victim. Meaning, a 25yo can sodomize and rape (sex with a minor is considered statuary rape) 14 yo and they are not required to register as a sex offender.

The LBGT community lobbied hard for this bill because they say the gay community is unfairly targeted by it. (Yes...I am not making this up).

AND...it not only passed, but was signed into law 6 days ago by the gov.....


Law is attached

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ne...s-with-a-minor


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200SB145

The law just widens a loophole that already existed. Current CA law makes it a felony for any adult (18+) to have sexual contact with any minor (<18). There was previously a provision in that law that a judge could waive the sex offender registration for a person who had vaginal sex with a minor aged 14-17, if they were less than 10 years older and circumstances warranted. SB145 expands that provision to include all sex acts (oral, anal, etc) because it was viewed that the previous exclusion for only vaginal sex unfairly targeted LGBT+ youth. Those people used to have to be registered automatically, where a judge now has discretion to determine if they should register or not. In the case of a 19 yr old having oral or anal sex with a 16 or 17 yr old the judge can determine if they are a sex offender instead of them being required by law to register. You can disagree with the law in the first place, but I’m not sure how including anal & oral sex makes it egregious.

[ElrondHubbard]

Notice Elrond is silent with these politicians it’s because he don’t care about other states, guys like Elrond wait till it’s too late.

Remember this boys and girls.

Primarily because Norwich Grad is lying. California did no such thing. So why should I come in all upset about what California politicians did when they didn't do it?

[ElrondHubbard]

There is actually a law that just passed that removes the mandate to register as a sex offender if there is less than 10 years seperating rapist and victim. Meaning, a 25yo can sodomize and rape (sex with a minor is considered statuary rape) 14 yo and they are not required to register as a sex offender.

The LBGT community lobbied hard for this bill because they say the gay community is unfairly targeted by it. (Yes...I am not making this up).

AND...it not only passed, but was signed into law 6 days ago by the gov.....


Law is attached

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ne...s-with-a-minor


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200SB145

25 - 14 is 11, not 10. Seriously, does reactionary ideology really make people this stupid?

And removing the mandate means the judge is allowed to decide whether it was serious enough to require registration. You made it sound like the perpetrator is automatically off the hook. That's not true. A lot of the things you post are not true. Seems to be SOP here.

[ElrondHubbard]

Don't misinterpret this response as any sympathy or apology for child rapists, I have no sympathy for that.

I do question the overall law in the state of Kaduna (remember the laws are state and not country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_in_Nigeria) as I don't agree with Sharia law.

While there have been examples of women stoned to death for adultery while the men in the cases received no sentence. Seems hard to defend that system.

Also rape victims are more likely to be forced to keep quiet or receive death threats from friends and family of the rapist, or be killed to avoid trials, so despite sounding good justice at first, the laws can continue the victim's suffering and make things worse.

I totally agree with harsh sentencing of child rapists. I'm no bleeding-heart liberal. But Kaduna state is not a good example for any kind of good law or policing discussion

You can also go to jail in Nigeria for being an atheist. So, all things considered, I think it's safe to say that Nigeria does NOT "get it."

[induced_drag]

does reactionary ideology really make people this stupid?

Boy arent you smart. I made a typo... I have met quite a few like you. People who THINK they are smart. People who are truly smart dont have to talk about it. I see though your BS a mile away buddy....you aint all that. FWIW, I am smart enough to know how truly stupid I am in comparison to a select few out there. You are not one of them btw. Some might brag about being in the 99.9 percentile sounds impressive, but then you realize the rarity is only 1 in 600. The world is a BIG place and lots of smart people out there. But it is pretty easy to see you are not one of the 600. [edit] 99.83 before you decide to check my math again is 1 in 604] Go on about your way little boy....

And removing the mandate means the judge is allowed to decide whether it was serious enough to require registration. .

Have you seen most of the California judges leanings? Gee....I can give you a guess at how they will decide....

[LWW]

Primarily because Norwich Grad is lying. California did no such thing. So why should I come in all upset about what California politicians did when they didn't do it?

Yeah that’s not true yet everyone who goes to a Trump rally dies.

You are about as silly as Biden himself.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Have you seen most of the California judges leanings? Gee....I can give you a guess at how they will decide....

Well, I think any of us with any common-sense know fully well it's going to be a field day out in ole Cali.

I've known as friends and worked professionally for many years with folks that are gay. Many are wonderful folks and are repulsed by this whole thing. Others... I've known for a very long time had (have) a passion for young boys and do their best to groom them. One couple that were attorneys had a constant parade of young boys who worked as runners for them. Eventually, it did catch up with them and one of them was fired as the chief advisor for a politician... nothing else happened to him he was well connected (in the Democrat Party btw). Another that was a Priest was whisked away by the powers that be and I don't know what happened to him. I know a score (as in MANY) of Interior Designers who employed extremely young boys to do 'odd jobs' for them in their studios (and homes). This kind of thing is a part of the gay culture I am afraid to say.

[ElrondHubbard]

Yeah that’s not true yet everyone who goes to a Trump rally dies.

You are about as silly as Biden himself.

You too, eh? Can you point out where I said that, or are you also making false statements.

Sure is obvious that the over 35 Misc is a true misc, because half the people with any remaining teeth are lying through them.

[ElrondHubbard]

Well, I think any of us with any common-sense know fully well it's going to be a field day out in ole Cali.

I've known as friends and worked professionally for many years with folks that are gay. Many are wonderful folks and are repulsed by this whole thing. Others... I've known for a very long time had (have) a passion for young boys and do their best to groom them. One couple that were attorneys had a constant parade of young boys who worked as runners for them. Eventually, it did catch up with them and one of them was fired as the chief advisor for a politician... nothing else happened to him he was well connected (in the Democrat Party btw). Another that was a Priest was whisked away by the powers that be and I don't know what happened to him. I know a score (as in MANY) of Interior Designers who employed extremely young boys to do 'odd jobs' for them in their studios (and homes). This kind of thing is a part of the gay culture I am afraid to say.

And that's not part of what the law addresses any more than the "adventures" of Dennis Hastert is. Someone in a position of power who abuses a minor, whether homo or hetero, is in a very different situation from a couple in a personal relationship that falls outside the boundaries of the law.

People who groom minors for sexual abuse can still have the book thrown at them, they can still find themselves on the sex offender registry. The difference is, the judge's hands are no longer tied. The law can now distinguish between the two types of offenses, which are in reality very different.

[ElrondHubbard]

Boy arent you smart. I made a typo... I have met quite a few like you. People who THINK they are smart. People who are truly smart dont have to talk about it. I see though your BS a mile away buddy....you aint all that. FWIW, I am smart enough to know how truly stupid I am in comparison to a select few out there. You are not one of them btw. Some might brag about being in the 99.9 percentile sounds impressive, but then you realize the rarity is only 1 in 600. The world is a BIG place and lots of smart people out there. But it is pretty easy to see you are not one of the 600. [edit] 99.83 before you decide to check my math again is 1 in 604] Go on about your way little boy....



Have you seen most of the California judges leanings? Gee....I can give you a guess at how they will decide....

A typo, perhaps, but even without that you still misrepresented the law and its intent. You didn't seem bothered at all by the fact that vaginal sex is already given to a judges discretion. You and a few others here seem upset only that the discretion is now extended to oral and anal sex. In other words, before this bill only heterosexual incidents were eligible for judges discretion, gay incidents were required to end up on the sex offender registry.

So in your mind, if a pair of heterosexual 17 year olds are having a sexual relationship, and the male turns 18, that's perfectly understandable, and while their affair is now illegal, that doesn't automatically make the guy a ****phile. But if the couple is gay, then one of those should spend the rest of his life on the sex offender registry. You think that should an acceptable difference in the eyes of the law? All the new law does it put both situations on an equal level. It's NOT giving a pass to ****philes.

This has nothing to do with being smart. It's merely basic fairness.

Seems like the majority of my posts on this section of the forum are a response to blatant misrepresentations by a consistent few individuals. It doesn't take a genius to point out obvious arm-wavy bullsh*t. With that in mind, for those few people who want me not to post here, maybe they could try telling the truth for once in their lives.

[induced_drag]

This has nothing to do with being smart. It's merely basic fairness.

.

So that is 'fairness' as you call it.


The point of the reply was a call into question the far left values of Kalifornia. NG said :

In the meantime, in California ****philia has been legalized and normalized.

Well 'fairness'....fairness in what? Who needs a law saying that as long as there is not a decade spread then you are not a ****phile. A decade....really. So an 18 year old, and a 9 year old can be discretionary?

3 years, Maybe 5...but a decade? So even if you take the other end and say a 16yo and a 25yo. What about that relationship is consensual. Either end of the range is wrong on so many levels, but just 'normal' so we give 'fairness' to the LGBTQ....W..N..J...xyz.

The point as a whole was look at the cesspool that is California.


You on the other hand try to pick out even the smallest details and claim victory.... I think you are a bored old dude, with no one to talk to....or if I stoop to your level, I might assume you like little boys and this is where all this comes from. You kinda have that creepy old dude **** look going on.

[LWW]

You too, eh? Can you point out where I said that, or are you also making false statements.

Sure is obvious that the over 35 Misc is a true misc, because half the people with any remaining teeth are lying through them.

What was that comment you made about a million man march, coughing on each other, dying being part of that cause??????

There’s only one chance you got and it weights to steer you into the logical direction because you are over 40, (people who don’t learn by age 40, there not much hope). But cookie cutter routines won’t do it.

[ChazWood]

You on the other hand try to pick out even the smallest details and claim victory.... I think you are a bored old dude, with no one to talk to....or if I stoop to your level, I might assume you like little boys and this is where all this comes from. You kinda have that creepy old dude **** look going on.

That's way over the line. Despite being a virtual arena, respectful social conduct should apply here. This isn't the general misc.

Add to that, your disgusting comments say more about you and your state of mind, than they do about your intended target.

We're all on edge but let's try to remain civil here.

[bustasinclair]

That's way over the line. Despite being a virtual arena, respectful social conduct should apply here. This isn't the general misc.

Add to that, your disgusting comments say more about you and your state of mind, than they do about your intended target.

We're all on edge but let's try to remain civil here.

cosigned

[induced_drag]

That's way over the line. Despite being a virtual arena, respectful social conduct should apply here. This isn't the general misc.

Add to that, your disgusting comments say more about you and your state of mind, than they do about your intended target.

We're all on edge but let's try to remain civil here.

I am a civil person. Confrontational for sure, but civil. That my friend all flew out the window after the guy several times has called me a clan member. (or any number of attacks on my character) So no old creepy guy comment will come close to what has been thrown my way. Two wrongs dont make a right...but the more I think about it, my dig at him hold a lot more plausibility than his.

I think he is much more likely to have kiddie porn on his hard drive than I am to have ever been at a cross burning.

cosigned

Noted

[ElrondHubbard]

So that is 'fairness' as you call it.


The point of the reply was a call into question the far left values of Kalifornia. NG said :

In the meantime, in California ****philia has been legalized and normalized.

And NG lied. It does not normalize or legalize ****philia. Neither one of you has read the law. I'm not even sure you read the press release. Giving discretion in sentencing to judges is not legalizing or normalizing anything. The law allows judges to take certain well defined circumstances into account.

Well 'fairness'....fairness in what? Who needs a law saying that as long as there is not a decade spread then you are not a ****phile. A decade....really. So an 18 year old, and a 9 year old can be discretionary?

3 years, Maybe 5...but a decade? So even if you take the other end and say a 16yo and a 25yo. What about that relationship is consensual. Either end of the range is wrong on so many levels, but just 'normal' so we give 'fairness' to the LGBTQ....W..N..J...xyz.

The point as a whole was look at the cesspool that is California.


You on the other hand try to pick out even the smallest details and claim victory.... I think you are a bored old dude, with no one to talk to....or if I stoop to your level, I might assume you like little boys and this is where all this comes from. You kinda have that creepy old dude **** look going on.

I know you think you're trying to give as good as you're getting, but you're being pretty clumsy and hamhanded about it. You continue to base your entire argument on willful ignorance about what the law says. You posted a link to the bill, fine, but you didn't read the law it amends, or the actual amended law.

Eomrat will be highly offended that I bothered to go and actually read the law in question, since that means I'm just "trying to be right", which I guess in some circles around here is highly offensive. Much more socially acceptable to spout ideological nonsense and feel part of the self-congratulatory cool kids.

Here's the text of the bill.

Here's the relevant paragraph some of you are up in arms about:

"(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006."

Bolding mine -- there are conditions to this exemption, in other words.

So to see what those conditions are, you have to go to section 290.006

"290.006. (a) Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.

(b) The person shall register as a tier one offender in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, unless the court finds the person should register as a tier two or tier three offender and states on the record the reasons for its finding.

(c) In determining whether to require the person to register as a tier two or tier three offender, the court shall consider all of the following:

(1) The nature of the registerable offense.

(2) The age and number of victims, and whether any victim was personally unknown to the person at the time of the offense. A victim is personally unknown to the person for purposes of this paragraph if the victim was known to the offender for less than 24 hours.

(3) The criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior of the person before and after conviction for the registerable offense.

(4) Whether the person has previously been arrested for, or convicted of, a sexually motivated offense.

(5) The person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk level on the SARATSO static risk assessment instrument, and, if available from past supervision for a sexual offense, the person’s risk level on the SARATSO dynamic and violence risk assessment instruments.

(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021."

All the judge has to do in order to make the perpetrator register as a sex offender for 10 years, 20 years, or life is to find that there are circumstances justifying his decision, and state what his reasons are. It does not give anyone a free pass to ****philia.

About the 10 year span being wrong and too lenient, I tend to actually agree with you on that for the most part. The point that you have to remember, though, is that provision was ALREADY on the books prior to this bill being passed. It simply applied only to heterosexual acts at the time. The new law merely equalizes other forms of sexual behavior (which gays aren't the only ones that indulge in anyway). To get the 10 year span reduced would be fine by me, but it would have to be done in a way that applies across the board, and not merely to some groups but not others.

If you would base your outrage on actual facts and not Alex Jones-type conspiracy theories or Norwich Grad's trolling fantasies, you might be able to put up much more thoughtful and convincing ideas, and not waste so much of your precious time that you could spend on more productive evening activities, like cross burnings.

[ElrondHubbard]

I am a civil person. Confrontational for sure, but civil. That my friend all flew out the window after the guy several times has called me a clan member. (or any number of attacks on my character) So no old creepy guy comment will come close to what has been thrown my way.

Actually, what I accused you of was dishonesty. And racial bias.

Racial bias does not make one a klan member. You volunteered that association on your own. And the impression you left of being dishonest came only after I called your attention to the non-factual statements you were making, and you doubled down on them.

I don't go around casting aspersions on people at random. And you've had every chance to defend yourself, unlike some of those you smear.

[ChazWood]

If you would base your outrage on actual facts and not Alex Jones-type conspiracy theories or Norwich Grad's trolling fantasies, you might be able to put up much more thoughtful and convincing ideas, and not waste so much of your precious time that you could spend on more productive evening activities, like cross burnings.

IMHO, the last part is not constructive, which brings your underlying motivation for participating in these threads into question.

I know you're not so fragile as to be retaliating for the "creepy old dude" barbs. And you're smart enough to know that this venue is devoid of communication nuances provided in face-to-face critical exchange, so sarcasm is predominantly self-serving online.

For what it's worth, your stock went through the roof with me in how you faced, endured, and vanquished Cancer. Truly awe-inspiring stuff. With that said, please consider refraining from all the sand flinging in these emotionally charged subjects so us lurkers can gain insight with less face-palming.

[supramax]

IMHO, the last part is not constructive, which brings your underlying motivation for participating in these threads into question...

You're ignoring a skillfull use of smileys. It's completely obvious that the comment was a facetious referal. Your posts are usually spot on, though.

[LWW]

IMHO, the last part is not constructive, which brings your underlying motivation for participating in these threads into question.

I know you're not so fragile as to be retaliating for the "creepy old dude" barbs. And you're smart enough to know that this venue is devoid of communication nuances provided in face-to-face critical exchange, so sarcasm is predominantly self-serving online.

For what it's worth, your stock went through the roof with me in how you faced, endured, and vanquished Cancer. Truly awe-inspiring stuff. With that said, please consider refraining from all the sand flinging in these emotionally charged subjects so us lurkers can gain insight with less face-palming.

After reading Elronds last post, it’s obvious he’s still the class nerd, nothing wrong with being nerdy but he reminds me of the one who took neediness to a level that made him look like dumber than actually being smart, meaning zero common sense. He reminds of one kid who got so upset he stuck his face on the chalk board and began crying.

If El can’t see what CA Democrat politicians are about? He needs help, they like to manipulate words in those laws.

[ChazWood]

You're ignoring a skillfull use of smileys. It's completely obvious that the comment was a facetious referal. Your posts are usually spot on, though.

hehe, definitely not willful ignorance on my part; more likely a case of not being well-versed on smiley emoticon use and meaning. Specifically, the "wink" smiley which in the physical world can mean something different. Especially when it's one dude winking at another dude.

Cheers.

[ChazWood]

After reading Elronds last post, it’s obvious he’s still the class nerd, nothing wrong with being nerdy but he reminds me of the one who took neediness to a level that made him look like dumber than actually being smart, meaning zero common sense. He reminds of one kid who got so upset he stuck his face on the chalk board and began crying.

If El can’t see what CA Democrat politicians are about? He needs help, they like to manipulate words in those laws.

fact: Elron hasn't cried since 1957 while watching Old Yeller on "The Magical World of Disney".

[induced_drag]

Actually, what I accused you of was dishonesty. And racial bias.

Racial bias does not make one a klan member. You volunteered that association on your own. And the impression you left of being dishonest came only after I called your attention to the non-factual statements you were making, and you doubled down on them.

I don't go around casting aspersions on people at random. And you've had every chance to defend yourself, unlike some of those you smear.

One more shot at this. First off, slinging around accusations of racism are not often meet with smiles. Probably neither are those of peedophilia. (intentionally misspelled to get through the censors before you point that out.) I feel no need to defend myself and yet you have more than once made such statements.

That is what really got me thinking about it. Your integrity. So lets play out a scenario. Two headlines in the >35 misc.

1) Induced_Drag arrested for burning crosses along with a group of KKK on the lawn of a local city council leader

or

2) Elrond arrested for child pornography FBI finds his hard drive filled with child pornography.

It is difficult to assess, but I think if put to a vote, I would hazard #2 would be more believable.




I digress.... My REAL point is you cherry pick and THINK you are proving people wrong. I actually did read the law FWIW, but again, my general sentiment in posting it was not "equal treatment" it was, as I already posted.

The point of the reply was a call into question the far left values of Kalifornia.

So your response to me should not be about equality for acts of sodomy vs vaginal sex....a VALID argument would be to actually address my point. CA and it's values, or lack of.

You are too busy trying to type out your responses to actually read and understand the intent. even after it is clarified and spelled out in black and white.

[LWW]

fact: Elron hasn't cried since 1957 while watching Old Yeller on "The Magical World of Disney".

It was not an honor to be in the same class as this kid, but because our last names we had homeroom every morning, every year.

He would come into home room with uncombed hair everyday sticking straight up and I’d smile at him (cause he sat directly across) he would then proceed to put his hands on top of his head for half the period only to have his hair bounce back up, I’d laugh and he would say “ go to fuking hell” and the teacher would yell at him HaHa.