Posted on 10/04/2019 7:53:29 PM PDT by jonascord
Oh. The title, “Justice,” confused me. Thank goodness, it isn’t about our Supreme Court. We’re somewhat okay for now in that way. Need one more good man like Kavanaugh.
And I hope, women encountering this man have a fundamental right to hit him in the head with a frying pan.
CC
This coming from a women judge and which leaves the door open for the illegals and Muslim invader rapists, “ my client your honor didn’t understand the word consent” or the word NO
>>A woman who is raped by someone like him,will also have a right to protect herself to the point of killing her attacker. Then, what will the judge say?<<
No she won’t. This case is in UK. She will need to submit, if her rapist is Muslim.
We do, the 1689 Bill of Rights, which yours was largely based on.
I saw the term “InCel” used in an article last week, referring to the kind of person that might shoot up a movie theater. Those in power to make up new words the media likes to use, say it stands for “Involuntary Celibate”. Or basically, A man without a girlfriend that isn’t gay...
Goes along with that imam who said it was okay to have sex with a nine year old provided they were married if only for an hour before divorcing her.
An expansion of the Muslim Rapist Automatic Exoneration Rule.
The judge is an imbecile. Autism has no correlation with low intelligence. In fact, people on the spectrum tend to be in the upper ranges..
Step One: find a way to buy a gun in the land of the Euroweenies.
Now the U.K. can begin to quit charging sexual assault crimes against “immigrants” who come from cultures where it is not understood that consent is required for sexual relations. My guess is that is the motive here. If one “natural inability” to understand consent is accepted, others WILL follow. The slippery slide in the law works its evil every time.
It certainly seems to omit the key rights like freedom of speech and religion and right to bear arms.
This is an uncomfortable verdict because it basically addresses the fact that mentally-retarded individuals are horny just like the rest of us, an unpleasant detail that most people would rather not discuss.
It advocated the right to bear arms for loyal citizens (i.e. protestants). Given the context of the time, when Catholics were murdering protestants on the continent and the deposed king and his supporters were all catholic, this was perhaps understandable.
Still, the free-speech protections seem nearly non-existent.
They were focused on the free speech of parliamentarians to criticise government policy in parliament. At that stage, nobody really considered that ordinary people should have that same right outside parliament, the American 1st amendment was an evolution of that earlier concept to give ordinary citizens the same right to criticise the government that elected parliamentarians had.
Whoopi’s Goldberg will interview this judge next week.
I know it’s wrong of me, but don’t you mean “Whoofy” Goldberg?
Do the women have the right to defend themselves from his unwanted advances?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.