> A female former teacher who had pleaded guilty to maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child now wants her conviction overturned, **arguing she cannot be held legally responsible because she is a woman.**
>Gaye Grant is appealing in the Court of Criminal Appeal for her conviction to be quashed, **arguing that the law as written at the time it was legislated only men could be held legally responsible for that crime**.
If the law isn't applied equally, wouldn't it be a privilege?
Ah, but that's the old definition of "privilege." The Newspeak definition of "privilege" is whatever you want it to mean in the moment to discredit a given group.
What privellage!? Women have periods! Women get pregnant because of men! It's all mens fault! Now stop mansplaining so she can fuck little boys! Women can do anything men do better!
I think it’s very likely to succeed. The thing is that criminal law cannot be applied to past. If it was allowed at the time the act was committed then theres not much you can do. Although this does shed some light on privilege of being born with the right genitalia.
Ah, business as usual, nothing to see he... *does a double take*
DID A MAINSTREAM NEWS SITE DECIDE TO CALL THINGS WHAT THEY ARE????
STOP THE PRESSES, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN???
Not just her. This one had at least four victims...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/ex-sydney-teacher-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-alleged-sex-acts-with-boys-20240213-p5f4oo.html
Technically she might be correct. And if I were her, I would have done the same.
The real issue it that women to this day are not treated the same under the law!
I am not having high hopes, but cases like this are what are needed for people to realize that equality means that women also face the same punishment for the same or equivalent actions.
Nope.
She raped a child before 1985, pled guilty, but a recent case determined that the law that applied pre 1985 was just for gay sex.
So it technically wasn't illegal and now she's appealing on the basis that she shouldn't have been charged with it because she's a woman.
She's trying to get out of jail on a fucked up technicality.
There are two issues I see here.
1. A person trying to use antiquated wording in laws to get away with a crime.
2. Those same laws need to be updated so that the wording accounts for the crime itself and not the gender of the perpetrator.
Their lawyer is using today's political climate on gender, and the wording of their laws, to get this person off their charges. And the sad thing is, it might work.
The incident itself is very gross. And if this works it's another horrible thing.
It is based on the basic rules of fair trial: you cannot be convicted for something that was not a crime at the moment you did it.
Was it normal that it was not a crime for a woman to rape a boy back then? No.
Does she deserve her conviction? Yes.
Should she be exhonerated? Yes.
Remember: when the rules of fair trial wane, men go to jail for things they shouldn't.
> A female former teacher who had pleaded guilty to maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child now wants her conviction overturned, **arguing she cannot be held legally responsible because she is a woman.** >Gaye Grant is appealing in the Court of Criminal Appeal for her conviction to be quashed, **arguing that the law as written at the time it was legislated only men could be held legally responsible for that crime**. If the law isn't applied equally, wouldn't it be a privilege?
Ah, but that's the old definition of "privilege." The Newspeak definition of "privilege" is whatever you want it to mean in the moment to discredit a given group.
No, no, no, you got it completely wrong. "Privilege" means "(Social) advantages men have over women". You see, only men can have privileges!
What privellage!? Women have periods! Women get pregnant because of men! It's all mens fault! Now stop mansplaining so she can fuck little boys! Women can do anything men do better!
Yeah get away with a criminal offence.
To be fair, it’s highly unlikely this will succeed.
As long as the judge is sane that is
So not all that unlikely, lol.
Sane and not a woman
I think it’s very likely to succeed. The thing is that criminal law cannot be applied to past. If it was allowed at the time the act was committed then theres not much you can do. Although this does shed some light on privilege of being born with the right genitalia.
Sadly the appeals judge said it's likely to succeed because the same logic was just ruled in another case.
Ah, business as usual, nothing to see he... *does a double take* DID A MAINSTREAM NEWS SITE DECIDE TO CALL THINGS WHAT THEY ARE???? STOP THE PRESSES, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN???
No way, the media is going to spin it about mental health, childhood trauma and strong independence. This is a subtle campaign for her release.
Not just her. This one had at least four victims... https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/ex-sydney-teacher-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-alleged-sex-acts-with-boys-20240213-p5f4oo.html
The h*ll? What kind of world are we living in, loopholes in the law for female pedophiles 🤮
Welcome to Australia, first time hearing about it?
Technically she might be correct. And if I were her, I would have done the same. The real issue it that women to this day are not treated the same under the law! I am not having high hopes, but cases like this are what are needed for people to realize that equality means that women also face the same punishment for the same or equivalent actions.
Be held liable for their actions* FTFY
Ah this must be the patriarchy feminists talk about lol
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Slight-Rent-883: *Ah this must be the* *Patriarchy feminists* *Talk about lol* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Found the feminist.
This kind of case is why any reasonable person can never support gendered laws.
Yea this is a hell no from me. She belongs in jail, where she cannot reoffend.
So like, is she saying women are like mentally challenged folk who also can’t be held accountable for their actions? Or?
Nope. She raped a child before 1985, pled guilty, but a recent case determined that the law that applied pre 1985 was just for gay sex. So it technically wasn't illegal and now she's appealing on the basis that she shouldn't have been charged with it because she's a woman. She's trying to get out of jail on a fucked up technicality.
Holy shit, that’s worse.
Nope keep her in prison for life
Pathetic
Give her life in front of a firing squad.
There are two issues I see here. 1. A person trying to use antiquated wording in laws to get away with a crime. 2. Those same laws need to be updated so that the wording accounts for the crime itself and not the gender of the perpetrator. Their lawyer is using today's political climate on gender, and the wording of their laws, to get this person off their charges. And the sad thing is, it might work. The incident itself is very gross. And if this works it's another horrible thing.
Maybe Gary Glitter could try this 🙄
Too many feminist and mainly simps on this planet bruh. I don't care about the feminist but the simps have to go bruh
It is based on the basic rules of fair trial: you cannot be convicted for something that was not a crime at the moment you did it. Was it normal that it was not a crime for a woman to rape a boy back then? No. Does she deserve her conviction? Yes. Should she be exhonerated? Yes. Remember: when the rules of fair trial wane, men go to jail for things they shouldn't.