Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[The Brain]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.

Poland 1944: "The camps are status quo. State your case for change plz!"

[Berkut]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.

Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.

The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.

Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.

[Barrister]

Speaking as a lawyer, who has had numerous arguments about whose burden is whose...

arguments about the "burden of proof" are a remarkably ineffective way to make your point.  Tell people why what you think is correct.

Judges want to come to the "correct" decision as they see it, and few things are ever decided on the basis of "well whose burden is it".

[derspiess]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.

Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.

The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.

Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.

I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed.  Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.

[The Brain]

Speaking as a lawyer, who has had numerous arguments about whose burden is whose...

arguments about the "burden of proof" are a remarkably ineffective way to make your point.  Tell people why what you think is correct.

Judges want to come to the "correct" decision as they see it, and few things are ever decided on the basis of "well whose burden is it".

Canadian justice system is best justice system.

[Barrister]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.

Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.

The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.

Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.

I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed.  Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.

No, Berkut would not fail such a purity test, because Berkut is the only arbiter of who does or does not believe in liberty.  You believe in liberty is Berkut decides you believe in liberty.

[Berkut]

Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo.  If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.

Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.

The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.

Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.

I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed.  Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.

No, Berkut would not fail such a purity test, because Berkut is the only arbiter of who does or does not believe in liberty.  You believe in liberty is Berkut decides you believe in liberty.

No, I am perfectly capable of judging someone who consistently comes down in any argument on the side of "Fuck personal liberty" as being someone who pays only lip service to liberty.

Being capable of making such a judgement does not make me the arbiter, it just makes me someone with a well supported opinion that drives you nuts because you can't refute it except by resorting to personal attacks like this.

[derspiess]

Beeb is oh so clearly driven nuts with your accusations, Berkut.

[Berkut]

I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.

However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.

[crazy canuck]

CC - I don't suppose you have a citation for that case?

Here is the cite for the BCCA decision denying the Defendent's appeal on his preliminary decision to quash the charge based on the fact that at the time of the sexual relationship she was not a "child".  The court ruled that the word child did not related to age but relationship and since the father new the "child" was his daughter he had the necessary mes rea. 

R. v. S. (M.)
1993 CarswellBC 1095, [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 2624, [1993] W.D.F.L. 1554, 21 W.C.B. (2d) 132, 35 B.C.A.C. 313, 57 W.A.C. 313

Here is the cite for the BCCA decision which refers extensively to the findings of fact made by the trial judge.  On reviewing it my memory failed me on a couple of issues.  First the first sexual encounter was when she was 17.  The second is that the court did find that risk of genetic defect was a factor to take into consideration.

R. v. S. (M.)
1996 CarswellBC 2501, [1996] B.C.W.L.D. 3027, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2302, [1997] W.D.F.L. 052, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 467, 137 W.A.C. 104, 33 W.C.B. (2d) 8, 40 C.R.R. (2d) 216, 4 C.R. (5th) 113, 84 B.C.A.C. 104


The most relevant passages for the people who think incestual relations are just like any other are:

The accused submits that there should be no sanction against a father having sexual intercourse with his adult biological daughter. He says no one is hurt: Incest between consenting adults is a victimless offence. He maintains that such a sanction is an unjustified intrusion into the lives of consenting adults. I will later itemize the freedoms the accused alleges are infringed by the sanction.

But I hold that the reservations set out in s. 1 of the Charter apply. Section 1 reads as follows:
     1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I hold that if any freedoms of a biological father are limited by s. 155 above, the Crown has established that the limits are (a) reasonable, (b) prescribed by law (s. 155) and (c) demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I do not mean to suggest that the freedoms of consenting adults guaranteed by the Charter have been breached by s. 155. What I have decided is that even if they have been, on the various reports and evidence adduced by the Crown, it is established that many people and interests in the community are threatened by the occurrence of incest whether or not both of the participants are adult. Not the least of those who may be adversely affected are the progeny of incest.

The trial judge accepted expert evidence that incest is harmful to all children, regardless of age, because of the power a parent has over a child; that it is damaging to the family as a whole; and that it significantly increases the risk of genetic defects.

[Barrister]

I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.

However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.

No, I am bothered by it because I can't get past the hubris of someone believing they can know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

[crazy canuck]

I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.

There is certainly one person here who, in the absence of any evidence to support his position, is ideologically driven to a particulary result. 

[derspiess]

However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty what I think about you.

FIXED

[Berkut]

I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.

However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.

No, I am bothered by it because I can't get past the hubris of someone believing they can know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

The irony of that statement in sharp contrast to your support of laws restricting the right of individuals to make their own choices about their relationships is really quite stunning.

I don't pretend to know your heart or mind, I just know that in every case EVER on languish, you casually and consistently dismiss any concern about individual liberty. You are ok with the state telling people who they can have sex with, you are ok with the state demanding that people be married to people they don't want to be married to, because YOU know what is best for THEM.

I don't have to know anything about your heart or mind to conclude that you don't care about liberty. You provide all the evidence necessary.

I don't have to be Stalin's therapist to conclude that he doesn't care about liberty either, and it isn't "hubris" to draw reasonable conclusions from the facts given.

[alfred russel]

I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.

A few examples:
-public nudity bans
-seat belt laws
-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions
-public sex act bans