Judge Garry Neilson’s Very Liberal Opinion on Rape and Pedophilia
This a long time dream of pervert War Lords, Royalties and wealthy Elites. Making pedophilia acceptable to ordinary people. So they can pick up who thay want among the subclasses and use them as sex slave without too much of a popular uproar. A first step toward desensitization has been accomplished when a weird Australian judge has incurred the wrath of child protection and gay rights advocates after stating that incest and pedophilia may no longer be considered taboo, comparing incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”. [1] District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted. He’s on record saying, as quoted by Australia’s Fairfax Media, that:
A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner. [2]
Neilson made this incredibly bizarre statements that was guaranteed to offend virtually everyone while he was presiding over a criminal case back in April 2014. The disturbing case involves a 58-year-old man charged with raping his younger sister over and over again when he was 17 and she was 10 or 11 years old, and then raping her some more when she was 18 and he was 26. [3] The man had earlier pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 after police recorded a telephone conversation between the siblings in July 2011 in which he admitted to having sexual contact with her when she was “a kid”. But he has pleaded not guilty to the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with an alternative charge of incest, regarding the 1981 events. On April 7 2014 a jury was empanelled and the Crown Prosecutor requested the jurors be told of the earlier misconduct to show MRM had a tendency to have a sexual interest in and have sexual intercourse with his sister. The Crown argued that without the background information, the jury might find it hard to understand why MRM began raping his sister “out of the blue” and why she did not report it to her parents or police. In the mid-1970s MRM had warned her not to tell their parents because they had just lost another son in a car crash and she remained fearful of upsetting her parents when the abuse recommenced in 1981. But Judge Neilson refused to admit the evidence, saying the sexual abuse which had occurred when the girl was 10 or 11 and the youth was 17 occurred in a different context to the sex which happened when she was 18 and he was 26. By 1981, she had had sexual relationships with two men and had a young child. “By that stage they are both mature adults. The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become ‘free’ when the second relationship broke down,” Judge Neilson said. [4]
The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we’ve come a long way from the 1950s … when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful. [5]
He went on to say incest only remains a crime “to prevent chromosomal abnormalities” but the availability of contraception and abortion now diminishes that reason. He then mused his way into more trouble by spouting about the triad of abortion, rape and homosexuality as he discussed his evidentiary ruling. Neilson said that the primary reason for incest still being a crime is the high risk of genetic abnormalities in any children born as a result of the relationships. But even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and ready access to abortion. [6]
If this was the 50s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone. [7]
The jury was discharged. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the Crown’s appeal, setting aside Judge Neilson’s ruling and ordering a different judge preside at the trial, due to be held in Parramatta District Court in September. A new jury will be empanelled. [8]
Do Rich Elites want Pedophilia “Normalized”?
This was not his first and only questionable decision. The judge was also found to have given a 55-year-old rapist a lighter sentence because he did not ejaculate inside his young niece or “treat her roughly.” She was 15 and 16 when she was raped in 2007 and 2008. “His Honor took a favorable view of the most serious offense, count five, because there had been no ejaculation,” Appeal Court Justices Lucy McCallum, Monika Schmidt, and Derek Price wrote in their appeal ruling in March 2013, Australia’s Daily Telegraph reported. [9] Hetty Johnston – founder of Australian child sexual assault charity Braveheats – wrote to New South Wales Attorney-General Brad Hazzard, calling for Judge Neilson’s suspension. Johnston told the Telegraph:
It is just the most outrageous statement. What sort of decisions has he been making? I think the community deserves to be reassured that this is not a view that is shared among the judiciary. [10]
Dr. Cathy Kezelman, president of Adults Surviving Child Abuse, told Fairfax Radio Network that Neilson’s comments were archaic and “beyond belief.” She said that profound damage is inflicted upon children when family lines are crossed in incest cases:
It’s finally been spoken about. But attitudes do need to shift. There are still a lot of myths, still a lot of entrenched, very damaging beliefs and that’s why we need to speak out about it, attack those myths and educate people, so we’re not hearing these outrageous statements. [11]
Kezelman also added that the attorney-general needs to investigate the issue and that it is necessary to look at the “caliber and awareness” of judges. Jed Horne, the policy and project officer of the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, told Australia’s Star Observer that “the comments attributed to the judge are completely unacceptable.” He said:
Not only do they make a highly offensive comparison between being gay and sexual offences, but they are an affront to members of the community which have experienced sexual abuse in their lives. [12]
The Christians are Outraged
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a national organization devoted to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda, said: “The slippery slope of sexual perversion and sin continues to yield stunning departures from healthy, Judeo-Christian morality.” [13] Although most people are totally shocked, the creationist Ken Ham isn’t, this is what he predicted would happen all along:
This news should not be a surprise to anyone! I’ve been saying for years that once you abandon the absolute authority of the Word of God, then ultimately anything goes—if you can get away with it. [14]
The Bible clearly speaks against incest. Several verses in Leviticus cut right to the heart of the matter, forbidding the practice: “None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness” (Lev. 18:6). Christians would argue that the Scripture doesn’t hold the sixties into account and consequently it doesn’t say that, if society changes and “progress” over the course of several thousand years, that makes incest acceptable all of the sudden, so you can have sex with your sister, your mother, your father, your brother, your aunt or your uncle. [15]
Is Judge Garry Neilson also a Pedophile?
The website Kangaroo Court of Australia asked “Has Judge Garry Neilson outed himself for being a paedophile given he implied incest and paedophilia are OK?” [16]
District Court Judge Garry Neilson has used a court of law to try to justify incest and paedophilia as being OK and acceptable to the public. What Judge Neilson has done is make it clear to everyone that he is a sick and perverted person who should be in jail. Judge Neilson said that “the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo” [17]
Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has moved fast and Justice Nielson has now been suspended from hearing criminal matters. Mr Hazard said he was acting on behalf of the community and that he had also written to the Chief Judge of the district Court, Reg Blanch, requesting that Judge Neilson not sit on any criminal trials until the commission had examined his complaint. The commission that will investigate Judge Neilson is the Judicial Commission on News South Wales which is “mostly a toothless tiger as they have no powers themselves and only make recommendations to the government. But at least that is a start” reported the Kangaroo Court of Australia [18]
Circumstantial Case that Judge Neilson is a Paedophile
When Judge Garry Neilson started making the scandalous statements in court he knew what would happen. This is the most incredible part of this whole situation. All judicial officers know what they say in court is recorded and dissected by many parties including the media and they are fully aware of the consequences. They also know what they say in court can be used as grounds for an appeal and then three judges will have a good look at what they said. Judge Neilson would have been fully aware that an appeal was guaranteed once he said what he did. So what can possibly be Judge Neilson’s reason for knowingly ending his own career?
- It is one thing to defend a person accused of being a paedophile as they might not be guilty but that is defending the person not the act. The only people that I have heard of that defend paedophilia as an act or as a crime is paedophiles themselves. I have never heard of anyone else defending it as an act or as a crime.
- Judge Neilson knew exactly what he was doing and he knew it would get media attention. It seems like a deliberate rallying call to other paedophiles to support the issue as they are under attack from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which is currently in progress. (Click here to read more on their website)
- Judge Neilson must be close to the mandatory retirement age of 70 so he would know there is little damage that can be done to him from a financial or career viewpoint. He will still get the full pension and I suspect this is part of his thinking in deciding to say what he has and when.
- Judge Neilson should have been investigated previously given his scandalous judgement in the matter where he “gave an incestuous rapist a lighter sentence” as quoted above.
- Judge Neilson could and should be charged with the criminal offence of Scandalising the Court as he would have been fully aware that he was undermining the public’s confidence in the courts before he said what he did. So why does he do it? In my view only a paedophile would say and do what he did knowing he was damaging the judiciaries reputation. [19]
Is the Normalization of Pedoophilia Part of a Social Engineering Plan?
The liberal socialist agenda is intended to destroy us morally and culturally. The world slowly divides between helpless people and powerful elites. The culture of weathy elites is power and the culture of ordinary people is degeneracy. The normalization of pedoophilia is part of this social engineering plan, as Alan Watt aptly explains in this excerpt from his show:
