Bizarre, Criminal law, International

Finland’s Courts Just Ruled That Sex With A Ten-Year-Old Girl Was Not Rape

Statutory rape is a crime that has critics over its application and scope. Some object to the use of the law against teenage boys but not the girls in a consensual affair. Others object to cases where age is concealed or close to the age of majority or the other partner. However, few people disagree that sex with a child can ever be truly consensual . . . outside of Finland. Finland’s Supreme Court recently rejected the appeal filed by prosecutors of  a three-year prison sentence for sexual crimes. The lower courts rejected rape charges on the ground that the 10 year old girl consented to sex in 2016 with an adult man. The man, a 23-year-old asylum seeker, argued that he did not force the girl into the sexual relationship with him and the courts agreed.

Prosecutors sought not just a lower sentence but greater damages for the victim. However, the District Court and the Turku Appeal Court confined the conviction to aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced him to a three-year custodial sentence. Despite finding sexual intercourse with the child, the court rejected the rape charge due to the absence of evidence of violence against the child or incapacitation of the child.

Yet the victim was 10. What good is any notion of consent with a ten year old girl in a sexual relationship with a grown man?

The ruling has led to a call for the reexamination of the criminal code. However, it is hard to image a code that allows consent from 10 year old children.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/supreme_court_denies_appeal_in_sexual_abuse_of_10-year-old/10188676

107 thoughts on “Finland’s Courts Just Ruled That Sex With A Ten-Year-Old Girl Was Not Rape”

  1. ” a 23-year-old asylum seeker”

    For some reason good brains often turn to mush when an asylum seeker is involved.

  2. I wonder if the Finnish courts would reach the same the decision if the act had been committed by a Finn? To ask the question is to answer it.

    To sum it up:

    White, Western, Christian = presumed to be evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, victimizers and predators.

    Non-White, Non-Western, Non-Christian = presumed to be a victim and cannot be judged by outsiders.

    Cultural Marxism in a nutshell.

    antonio

        1. “1. sadness for yourself because you think you have a lot of problems or have suffered a lot: 2. care and sadness about your own problems: .”

          Yes, it means exactly what I thought it meant.

          1. No, it doesn’t, or you would not have made the accusation against him. He said nothing about himself, explicitly or implicitly.

            1. Unless he was failing to include himself, it was definitely selfpity which he hoped to include the wider group in. There is no way to rech that conclusion without drowning in white tears. If you need me to define white tears (which only includes the self-pitying ones) I’ll be happy to.

            2. Enigma’s feelings of victimhood make him believe all sorts of strange things.

      2. @enigmainblackcom

        Many well meaning Black Americans sincerely believe that when America is no longer a predominant European derived country, a multicultural utopia will result. Nothing could be more wrong. Asians and Hispanics feel absolutely no guilt for Blacks or their condition and non-whites do a good job of treating one another badly at times. It isn’t just a whitey against everyone else thing though this is news to most Americans.

        For whatever it is worth, I am Hispanic myself. Just not a politically correct Hispanic who sees themselves as a victim of the larger society, nor supports the supposed right of millions to sneak across the southern border.

        antonio

        1. antonio – Nothing in your comment or my response had anything to do with what black Americans feel or think. It spoke bout the poor plight of white people around the globe and why people unfairly perceive them so negtively. Many well-meaning Hispanics perceives themselves s white and not a minority. Unfortunately, they are often disappointed when it comes to being accepted as such.

          1. I am Hispanic and a Donald Trump supporter and what you think about that (or me) is absolutely irrelevant. I am surprised at your comment because it is usually white liberals who dislike my politics, blacks usually do not regard my views one way or the other. White liberals and SJW’s opinions are also irrelevant. Don’t need them to save or help me.

            I love telling white liberals that they still have to like me, I’m Hispanic and watch them start to convulse.

            antonio

              1. please define “white tears” i never heard of that

                is that anything like “white pride worldwide” perchance?

        2. Antonio I take note of your healthy attitude and outlook. It is good to hear. Too bad that it appears some have to blame others on a continuous basis and can’t move forward. That is a sick attitude.

      3. Enigma, your comment of “Self-pity much?” dismissing bias and bigotry against white Christians, especially white males, is a common tactic of Democrats. Comments others have made include white men should stop whining about women fabricating rape charges against them.

        Following this logic, why should anyone be concerned with bigotry and bias against one group, unless we stand against such mistreatment of all groups? It is rational to comment on injustice, regardless of the skin color of the victim.

        Someone is either concerned with justice or identity politics. The twain don’t often meet.

        1. While it’s certainly possible and true that an individual white person and I’ll allow you to throw in Christians are subject to discrimination. The concept that as a whole they are the most persecuted people on the planet is absurd, particularly when they often usurp the rights of others to obtain/retain control.
          The image of white men falsely persecuted by women fabricating rape charges is absurd when you look at the actual sentences of some white men actually convicted of rape. like Brock Taylor or Alex Cook (I assume your Google works). The penalty for actual white rapists if they are college athletes or have no record can be as little as probation or a few months. Jeffrey Epstein was basically on work release in plush surroundings (admittedly that was as much about power as race although it did Bill Cosby no good). Historically, the penalty for allegedly looking at a white woman could be death for black people, let alone a white woman lying on them.
          The answer to your question about why concern yourself with bigotry and bias is to eliminate all of it. Not only when it occasionally reaches your shores.

    2. The age of consent in Christian Europe has been as low as NINE for girls.

      2. For those that believe women have little worth what you say might make sense. Women can be used for all sorts of things unless one recognizes that a woman ought to have the same rights as a man.

        1. “but believe that they should agree to conform to contemporary standards for betrothal and consummation.”

          I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but why? Should the EU be setting the criteria for nations outside of the EU?

          1. EU should not set diddly. I was just saying in general. I mean in terms of norms that we discuss not laws.

            I believe laws should be determined by the people of the nation expressed in legitimate political processes. Not supranational EU bureaucrats nor invaders.

            I just mean to say, that I am ok to talk to Muslims and not mention Aisha and question things like that, if they seem like they have emerged from the 700s into contemporary times.

            1. “in terms of norms that we discuss not laws.”

              Whose norms?

              “expressed in legitimate political processes.”

              Not every national political process is legitimate. In fact for the most part they aren’t.

              “nor invaders”

              Who is supposed to tell an invader what to do?

              “I just mean to say, that I am ok to talk to Muslims and not mention Aisha and question things like that, if they seem like they have emerged from the 700s into contemporary times.”

              If you restrict your dialogue how do you know when someone has emerged?

                1. Oky, there is a bit of insanity that is on the loose. Self hate is dominating and ignorance prevails in certain places. Just look at Peter Shill.

                  1. I just had a couple of minutes to post. Yes, to much insanity , if they drank to much on occasions they might have part of an excuse, but it seems most of them are just nuts.

                    Anyway so more Corporate Nuts:

                    Amazon Bows to Sharia: Removes Products That Are ‘Offensive to Muslims’ After CAIR Request But Anti-Christian Items Still For Sale

                    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/amazon-bows-to-sharia-law-removes-products-that-are-offensive-to-muslims-after-cair-asks-them-to/

                    2. Corporations are scared sh!tless of the extreme nutty left always worried about some type of boycott, accusations and violence. They pass on their costs to the consumer who pays the taxes. Anyone who is alive has undoubtedly committed some type of action that can be made into a heinous crime against humanity. The nuts of the world have more power than they are entitled to thanks to a media that is corrupt.

        2. Mr Kurtz, here is the Aisha conundrum for modern Muslims. Allah is omniscient. Mohammad was the Prophet. He claimed that his own life was the standard by which all future Muslims should emulate. The Qu’ran is supposed to be eternal and timeless, and the literal word of God. We understand the Bible to be written by Prophets, fallible human beings, not actually dictated verbatim by God. That is why there are different witnesses to Jesus’ word that may discuss different points of the same events or time period, and the customs noted differed over time.

          Modern, moderate Muslims just ignore about 2/3 of the Qu’ran, like the part about killing Jews behind every rock where they hide. However, if they believe the Qu’ran, the Qu’ran is the holy word of God, and it is rather explicit on things such as killing Jews, enacting a jizyah tax on non believers or killing them, having sex with sex slaves, having sex with their wives who are expressly forbidden to say no, even while riding their camels, beating their wives, and wiping out entire villages if they don’t hear the call to prayer in the morning. This is all behavior that is anathema to modern Westerners, including Muslims who are moderates. Most just don’t go to Mosque much, so they don’t really know about these parts, or they just don’t think about it and figure everything will just work out.

          However, when Mohammad married a 6 year old and consummated his marriage to her at 9, when she was still playing with dolls, and the Qu’ran is the direct, unchangeable word of Allah, and the life of Mohammad is to be the prime example of the best Muslim life (that of a slave owner, warrior, rapist warlord), then what do you do with Aisha? How do you enact laws in Muslim countries against child brides or having sex with young children when not only did Mohammad do it, but he claimed he was the prime exemplar of a good Muslim? It’s not like the Old Testament in the Bible, where we know that polygamy and giving your handmaiden to your husband to bear you a child was part of a culture thousands of years ago. This is the template by which Muslims are supposed to live…forever. It’s that direct, unchangeable dictate, as true today as it was a thousand years ago that is the problem. I can understand how marrying Aisha was not considered outrageous at the time. They didn’t have the medical and psychological knowledge we have now. But Mohammad had a direct line to Allah, who was supposed to teach everyone how to live for all time. His life is the basis upon such laws are routinely defeated in modern Muslim countries.

          That’s why any moderate Muslim that I know of never talks about Aisha, or sex slaves, or pretty much about 2/3 of the Qu’ran. They just stick to the Peace versus, which were written before Mohammad had his army and any power, and was instead trying to cajole people into following him.

          I consider moderate Muslims who ignore most of the Qu’ran to be Muslim Protestants or reformers, even if they don’t see themselves that way. No religion is free from a need for reform at some point in its history, and Islam is no exception. It needs reformation on many abuses, just as the Catholic Church has a dire need to reform the Church of pedophiles and abuse, from the Holy See down. If Muslims literally excised all those Sword versus, and all the rapey parts, then the Qu’ran would be a very serene, encouraging, comforting Book.

          1. That said, Muslim countries are not the only ones who advocate child brides and sex with minors. It is a problem in many parts of the world, and yet another example that the Western view on such matters is in the minority.

          2. Karen S — Difficult to believe that you have actually read a competent translation of the Quran.

            1. David, I bet Karen has read significant competent portions of the Quran as have I. If you would like I can quote a translation from some parts of the Quran as I have done in earlier threads. Trust me. What is said is not pretty and not something that one can hide from. I think you are making yourself look foolish.

            2. David – why yes, I have. I’ve been offered to go on Haj, too, but as I had no interest in converting, I declined. I’ve been to many Muslim events, been to a mosque, and had other experiences on which I base my opinion.

              Realistically, if you have Muslim friends, you’re going to hear some pretty strong anti-semitism at some point at a family gathering or dinner. Antisemitism is a prominent part of the faith. I also know that there are parts of the Qu’ran that are really uncomfortable for moderate Westernized Muslims. Or you’ll learn of an arranged marriage to protect a young woman from getting killed by the family she went to visit overseas who found out she’d lived with a boyfriend. Or a young girl will get sent to an arranged marriage with a far older man back in her home country after her foreign exchange is over. Or there was that girl who was arrested while visiting family in Iran because she was wearing nail polish and riding in a car with her maternal cousin, who did not share her surname.

              As I’ve mentioned multiple times, the Catholic Church has a problem with pedophiles, probably going all the way up the Administration. That’s the only way to explain the long history of protecting them and inflicting unsuspecting lambs with them. It’s not like Islam is the only religion to ever require a reformation. I just strongly believe that the faith is due for one.

              Here’s the deal. if someone can sharply criticize the culture of the KKK, or the white male patriarchy, or gender bias, or the war on women, or any other Lib cause, then one has to also take a realistic look at global cultures who abuse women, children, gays, apostates, etc. Or they kill people for drawing the Prophet or for criticizing traditions like Female Genital Mutilation or beating a woman for not wearing a hijab or roosari. Personally, hitting a woman for her fashion choices is not justifiable.

              As I’ve also mentioned, moderate Muslims just ignore about 2/3 of the Qu’ran and get along just fine. It’s the ones who want to follow it more strictly that are the problem, not only to non believers but also to the moderates whose they can justifiably say don’t follow the dictates of Mohammad. I also believe that when you do a blanket import of a cross section of an entire society of a Muslim majority country infamous for terrorism and attacks on Christians, then you’re going to have problems here. It’s better to give merit based acceptance, so that we welcome with open arms the Malala Yousafzai’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s of the world, not the Taliban.

              Now, here’s the problem. There are cultures, such as Saudi Arabia, that hate Jews so badly that they are not allowed to set foot in the country. But they can be very generous hosts. They care deeply about their families. But they will drown their daughters in the family swimming pool to reclaim their family honor if she strays. The women wear couture under their abayas, but they are not allowed to drive until the very recent slight easing under bin Salman. For the most part, it’s a mixed bag. Some cultures have quite a bit of savage violence against women, such as in some parts of Africa where women are raped with knives or guns. You don’t want to import anyone who has raped a woman with a knife. When you don’t have some sort of requirement, or interview that somehow probes someone’s values, then you just get everyone, including those who would treat women the same in the West as they treated them in the Middle East or Sub Saharan Africa.

              Perhaps this article will shed some light on the problem with admitting people without weeding out the ones who don’t believe in our cultural values, and have no interest in changing:

              https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/11/africas-forever-wars/

              Now, read that article and think really hard what it would mean if you just let whomever wanted to come from the impacted regions to do so. I think we should offer places to those whom we can help, who don’t want to continue the violence they are supposed to leave, and who want to assimilate with the West. Think also of the Muslims from Libya who threw the Christians overboard to their death while illegally immigrating to Italy. A blanket policy of accepting everyone means those who guys would get accepted. How would that change the US? One can see how Europe has become an increasingly dangerous place for Jews and women to anticipate the change.

              https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/index.html

    3. antonio:

      There is no question the Communist plan for destabilizing the West involves dividing its factions – racial, ethnic, or otherwise — and filling its citizens heads’ with identity victimhood. Classic divide and conquer and the gullible/perpetually aggrieved are most at risk to be fooled. So to that extent, you’re right. The real crime is the Western intelligencia actively promoting it or being suckered into it, or worse yet, engaging in it for profit. Their apparatchiks in the media and academia are a fifth column that needs to be brought to heel which will sink the movement in this information age. All said, I’m glad we’ve got this reawakening to our national identity via Trump and others, and I’m happy to report that here on the ground local people get along fine and filter out the revolutionary noise.

      1. i would ask is it just the communist plan or have there been a lot of international capitalists like geo soros whose plan for the world utopia was not much different than the communist plan in the first place

        remember the marxist considers evolution from feudal to capitalist forms a precondition to the communist phase. thus we can see how capitalists have advanced “liberal democratic reforms” in any place they did not like such as Tsarist Russia which was opposed by Jacob Schiff who considered the Tsar a retrograde antisemite and heavily underwrote the Kerensky government.

        I have read that he cut off loans to Lenin but I have also read that he did not. I never saw the loan papers so I would not know but I would guess probably not. LOL

        Armand Hammer another such like. One could go on and on. Jeff Bezos apparently has taken up the mantle too with his Wapo beating the drum for a borderless world that offers no impediment to amazon dot com shipments everywhere

  4. Behold, The cuckolded self-loathing courts of Europe. Obsequious to sharia and hellbent to decivilize the West by stooping before a 7th Century cult. In saner times, these black-robed perverts would be driven from office and banished. Today they’re icons of multi-culturalism. Here’s hoping these judges get their justice in the next world. Bring your suntan lotion. Finish skin is awfully fair.

  5. I suspect Jonbonet Ramsey would look mighty appealing to some of these sickos.

  6. The disreputable Mr. Sailer puts it thus: leapfrogging loyalties. Here we have members of the professional-managerial class (lawyers, who are the worst element within that class) granting indulgencies to exotics who have grossly contravened the vernacular standards of the country hosting them. It’s another indicator, in case we needed one, that we in the West are living in occupied countries, and the occupiers are our very own fancy people. Gelding this element in society is a necessity.

  8. SOUNDS LIKE CASE IS CONTROVERSIAL.. EVEN IN FINLAND

    The ruling it was ‘consensual’ is a deplorable decision. But even here, American courts often make rulings that outrage the public.

    Just two weeks ago Professor Turley told us about Jeffrey Epstein, the Palm Beach billionaire who hosted parties with under-age girls. He was essentially running a sex trafficking ring. Mr. Epstein was convicted only to serve a very minor jail sentence as noted by the professor.

    Mr Epstein is very wealthy and that, no doubt, allowed him to escape a long prison stretch. But there might be circumstances in this Finnish case that could illuminate the outcome; explaining ‘why’ this court ruled in such a way. More than likely we don’t have the whole story yet.

    Below is a link to ‘RT’ coverage of this case. ‘RT’ is not a regular source of mine. But it is one of the few sources I could find covering this case.

    https://www.rt.com/news/425925-finland-sex-migrant-10yo/

    2. Mr Epstein is very wealthy and that, no doubt, allowed him to escape a long prison stretch. B

      No, Epstein had the right connection and knew where some bodies were buried. We need to hook up some jumper cables to Alexander Acosta and start asking him just who he surmised was in danger from Epstein’s dossiers.

      Conrad Black was very wealthy. The federal prosecutocracy completely destroyed him.

      1. he pissed the wrong people off. oh and the courts in chicago are experts in fraud. really they are lol

    4. Wow, according to your source; ‘The judges also ordered the man to pay the child €3,000 ($3,600).’. So if anyone wants to traffick and train their kids into prostitution, apparently the Finnish courts have the course outline…..

    5. RT is a good news outlet in spite of what the Democrats say. OOps forgot to mention a lot of Democrats like RT too. Wth. Just not Hillarites. LOL

  9. They’re probably both Muslims, as the article described the adult male as an “asylum seeker,” and Europeans are fearful of passing judgment on the depraved “culture” of their barbaric new countrymen. Remember that Mohammed “married” Aisha when the girl was 7 years old, and his pedophilia serves as justification for his similarly inclined followers. It’s highly unlikely that a Finn named Erik or Rolf could get away with raping a little Finnish-Lutheran girl, but if a Muslim does it the liberal Europeans will look the other way.

      1. Doesn’t matter. It’s one plausible perspective, just like every other source of “news” and “information”.

    2. I think if they were both Muslims, we would have never heard about it. Western Europe has slowly drifted away from the biblical Christian ethos for so long, they don’t even fully grasp society’s moral compass no longer provides any direction at all. “Just another ruling from Helsinki’s finest legal minds, please pass me the herring, Inga.”

      1. They’ve lost all ethical moorings. They think the worst thing you can be called is a “racist” or “xenophobe” so they capitulate. The worst you can be called is a quisling.

    3. I agree. It serves the Finn’s subconscious racial superiority to set a lower standard of impulse control for the Muslim immigrant.

  10. The question begs: Can a ten-year-old girl be promiscuous? I am not condoning it, but I’ve seen some children made-up like adults and acting the same way. Perhaps the society should look into a mirror.

    1. Do you think it is possible for a ten-year-old to be made to look like an adult in such a manner that she is mistaken as an adult for sexual relations purposes?

      1. Obviously not, Darren, but I have seen enough children shake and go through sexually suggestive ‘dances’ that may overstimulate someone’s imagination. You know that the mind can be fooled into believing the unreal, especially if flaming gonads take over.

        1. Your words remind me of what I used to say sometimes to suspected child molesters during interrogations–when I was trying to get them to confess to raping a child victim. I would work on their mind by introducing into conversation that very same notion you suggested. First it was things like dancing, and then they would grab ahold and slowly start unraveling their sleaze with things like, “they wear sexy makeup and clothing.” and then “she came on to me”. I’d give them a false sense of kinship, and how I understood how it could happen to anyone. And often they would come around saying they were the victim, and it was the girl that seduced them. Soon the Lesters would admit to the molestation thinking that I believed their story, as in one case where a Lester tried to say how a young mentally retarded girl took advantage of him and he couldn’t help himself when he had sex with her. But au contraire, I just lulled them into a false sense of security and let them admit to the rape. It was both entertaining and satisfying being the one who got inside their mind and gave them the shaft in the end: all while doing so in such a way that they actually believed I was on their side. Schmucks.

          Give them enough rope, they’ll hang themselves every time.

    2. Savage:

      The question begs: Can a ten-year-old girl be promiscuous?
      **************************
      Answer: No. They don’t have the requisite legal capacity or maturity to make adult decisions. Hence adults who think they do proceed at their peril.

  12. Any person who condones abortion, the ultimate abuse of the most defenseless, helpless and vulnerable among us, is a worse person than a rapist who condemns raping.

    1. Vinegart, it sounds like you want to prosecute doctors, nurses and mothers. Is that a good use of courts? Do we want police and prosecutors totally involved in women’s health? I doubt if women want that.

      1. PH, we would be ecstatic if those doctors, nurses and mothers would stop murdering unborn human beings. Very sorry to see that you favor that atrocity.

    2. Vinegart-
      So your value system prioritizes a few fetal cells over independent living breathing fully formed humans? Strange form of “morality”.

      1. Samantha, I am not debating the question of abortion but your statement “a few fetal cells” tells us that you need to actually read a book on the subject.

  13. Sounds exactly like our next to be replaced Supreme Court Justice except she only went as far as age 12. We do NOT need anyone any where near like Ruth the Pervert Bader Gizzardburger.

  16. I suspect they are Muslims, since the adult man is described as an “asylum seeker.” European governments and courts are notably fearful of offending the “culture” of Muslim immigrants, and that would include having sex with children.

  18. A telling method of judging a society rests with how well it treats its most vulnerable. I am willing to defer holding an opinion on this measure for their parliament to correct this statutory construction defect. If they cannot summon the determination to recodify the child rape law in light of the Court’s ruling then their priorities and duty to their most vulnerable will be obvious.

  19. Western Europe is Gone, It’s a No Go Zone, the Islamic Nutjobs have finally overran it.

    1. interesting news

      https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/08/greek-priest-beaten-syrian-asylum-seekers-church/

      i was just saying how for decades assad has protected syrian orthodox christians and that was part of Baathist socialism in the Arab world, as a secular nationalist movement; but apparently some Syrians who ran away from assad are not quite so charitable. Probably the religious fanatics.

      better that such as these syrian refugees had stayed in Syria and got “barrel-bombed” by him

      better if “brutal dictators” like Quaddaffi or Hussein or Assad had kept those rabid dogs kenneled up over there than let them come over here.

Comments are closed.