Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Samoa Still Sending Consenting Adults to Jail

Samoa is still handing out criminal sentences to adults who have had consensual sex with each other. We now have an update on a case we have covered before. Here's a report at by Unumoe Esera. Interestingly, the website had a lovely illustration alongside the article.

A first ever case of brother sister incest in a Samoan Court, has landed the 24 year old brother in jail for two years and the 22 year old sister 200 hours of community work and Probation. The pair were convicted of 13 counts of incest from the 14 charges they faced.
Why? What is harmful about what they've done?
In sentencing the brother, Justice Vui Clarence Nelson ordered him not to appear before the court in the next three years. He was also ordered to stay away from his sister and not to come within 100 feet of her and not to live in the same household with her or with relatives. He is also not to have any contact with her or by any electronic means.

What a pointless and destructive intrusion into the private lives of consenting adults. This is infuriating. I hope they flee to a civilized country that doesn't try to control the bedroom activities of consenting adults.
Justice Nelson’s reasons for the prison sentence for the male “as he had failed in his duty as older brother to his sister in insisting and persisting in this relationship and flouting the moral code.”
He speaks as though sex is a bad thing. Maybe he does it wrong?

He also said the offending had impacted on his family. The Victim Impact Report prepared by the Probation Office stated the consequences that this matter has had on his family as the village subjects them probably to permanent ridicule and abuse from other members of the family.
Well then why not punish the bigoted bullies instead? If the only harm that anyone has been able to show is that prejudiced, ignorant haters pronounce judgment on the love lives of others, then there would be NO harm whatsoever if we stood up to the bullies, right?
The sister who is 22 years old was described by Justice Nelson as “more a victim of brother’s abuse.” He added that this was not an excuse for her conduct but it does mitigate penalty that should be imposed.

Women don't enjoy sex, you see... at least, apparently, in Nelson's experience. Again, maybe he's doing something wrong.
He said that the brother was more of a criminal out of the two of them and that’s why he was sent to prison.

Love is not a crime.
Justice Nelson noted that the defendant had been held in custody for some months but would not impose a prison sentence. She was also banished from her family and the village and she is a first time offender also.
So she's been in jail and has been banished by bullies. For what? Nobody has been able to cite any harm whatsoever.
He explained the non custodial sentence to the defendant as a way for her to “atone to family and to all for what you have done.”

Which was...? Again, notice that they are unable to cite any harm. Blabbering repeatedly that something is harmful, even from a judge's bench, does not demonstrate that something actually is harmful.
She was convicted and will be under Probation supervision for two years with special conditions to reside where approved by Probation Office.
This is not justice. The love between them is nobody else's business. The article gives some background...
The father of the defendants remarried after their mother passed away 12 years ago. This is when the brother was 12 years old and the sister was 10 years of age. With this new family situation, the family split up. The female defendant and her twin sister went to live with their Uncle and the brother and both the defendants little brother went to live with his father’s family. 
So they were split up late enough that Genetic Sexual Attraction usually wouldn't be a factor. However, the Westermarck Effect isn't always apparent in siblings who spend their entire childhood together, let alone those who have been split up, even as late as they were.
In 2004, the twins went to American Samoa and returned to live with their uncle’s daughter in 2007. But they had problems in that household and the girls decided to move out and searched for their biological father hoping to return to him. They were successful and in July this year, the twins, their brother, father and stepmother all lived together. This was the first time the male had seen the female for some 12 years.

They lived in houses next door to each other with extended family while the father and his partner lived in another area of the village. The first incident occured a few months later in September when the siblings had lengthy discussions of their lives to catch up since their mother had passed away. Their discussions covered previous relationships. They were two parties trying to make up for lost years.

One night in September this year, the brother sprained his ankle in a rugby game and took his injury to his sister for her to massage his leg.  It was during this course that the brother became sexually aroused, this led to a stage where he sat his sister up and kissed her and she responded resulting in their first sexual encounter.

The brother returned to his own fale that night knowing what he did was morally wrong but the two would not avoid each other’s company due to the proximity of houses and living arrangements, further acts occured. All were done with mutual consent until the pair were caught by an uncle one night. 
The uncle, and anyone else, should read this.

The article continues with pontificating from Nelson, but never once does anything but invoke Discredited Argument #2. The brother and sister should be allowed to be together and should be allowed to marry, if that's what they want. This whole thing is a miscarriage of justice.
— — —

1 comment:

  1. That is so sad :-( I really and truly hope they find a way to be together, and shame on their family and the judge for their actions x


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.