Sex film lands man in court

Alan Abela-Wadge

Jul 7th 2008, 19:06

C Gatt,,

From when is the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible and of the Old Testament deciding the laws in 2008?

Even if the law is an "ass" you still has to follow it and that is not an option. As far as I know if the law is not "sensible" it will be revised by the current government. Also who are you to decide if a law is sensible or not? If a law is there, whether you like it or not you have to follow it.

Having said all that, I am not giving my oppinion on the subject, I am just stating the facts that a law is always the way forward untill it's removed and/or changed.

Regards,
Alan Abela-Wadge

Alan Abela-Wadge

Jul 7th 2008, 01:23

Without agreeing with Chris Grillo. I must say that he never said that he is breaking the law or is intending to do so. He just passed on his view on the matter, a view which I don't agree with at all.

Without taking a side if or if not Malta should decrease it's age of consent. I do believe that an adult is more responsible to decide whether he/she agrees or not to have a sexual relationship. I am a very open minded person, then again I believe that everyone should be responsible for his own actions, thus if a person is not legally responsible for all his/her actions I can't see the point of engaging in a sexual relationship.

Regards,

Alan Abela-Wadge

Stephen Mifsud

Jul 6th 2008, 22:36

Anyone under 18 is a minor and please lets protect and educate our young generations by letting them having real fun without any exploitation

c gatt

Jul 6th 2008, 21:34

PS On the topic of public morals, i strongly feel that there are privacy issues involved here too.
@Pierre lauri in answer to your comment : 'With regards to your sex claims, we have laws, which we all must respect.'
Not if the law is an ass.
Deuteronomy has a number of laws laid down for the Jewish people. Most sensible people would disregard a fair amount of them. Besides laws are made for men not the other way round.

Joseph Schembri

Jul 6th 2008, 20:52

As regards Pierre Lauri's comment. "we have laws, which we all must respect." Our laws are made by people and unlike God's laws they can change. Our laws are made by OUR representatives and If we feel that they are no longer suitable we should pressure our representatives to change them. In this case the age of consent for heterosexual or homosexual acts being set at 18 years is certainly not satisfactory and is leading to all forms of abuses. It should be lower. 16 years or lower is common in the Europe of which we are so proud to be members and the church has nothing to do with this.

c gatt

Jul 6th 2008, 19:59

I would really like a lawyer's confirmation on this story. Is it really possible that you are a minor till the age of 18? I thought you could marry at 16.
Other than that, this story has a number of implications.
Firstly is this a case of defilement becuase the man's some years older? Would it still be a case of defilement if both partners were 17? Would they be accused of defiling each other? Or is it only men that can defile women. This is a serious question.
Also since when is the video recording of a sex act which was obviously not for public consumption an offence to public morals? Does that mean that if the Pamela Anderson tape was found in Malta she would be prosecuted. Or does the act have to have occurred in Malta. Again I am very serious.

Pierre Lauri

Jul 6th 2008, 17:57

@ Chris Grillo
I would check with all commercial banks and MFSA before saying that bank do give Credit Cards to Minors (under 18)!!!!!
With regards to your sex claims, we have laws, which we all must respect.

Charles Sammut

Jul 6th 2008, 17:57

It appears from this report that even the "shooting or permitting the shooting of the video recording" is a henious crime. And how do public morals get offended by something recorded privately on a CD. This would be hilarious were it not so ridiculous. It would not surprise me at all if there is some obscure law which lays down that a couple is only permitted to perform the sexual act in the dark, under the sheets, doors and windows shut tight and no moaning or bed creaking which can be overheard by the neighbours. Mind you, if a way were to be contrived to tax sex, then all this would fly out of the window.

What crass hypocrisy in this holier than thou country.

Amanda Garzia

Jul 6th 2008, 14:14

While teenagers below the age of 18 may be more knowledgeble and experienced than we give them credit for, this does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that they possess the foresight of a well-adjusted adult.

Admittedly, young women (and men) who are not legal adults are also sexually active given the alarming rise in teenage pregnancies and STDs. This does not, however, make it acceptable to denigrate virginity by using the term "simpering virgins". Simpering is not a nice word in any context. If anything, simpering, meaning silly and self-conscious, may well be used to initially describe the youngsters who get themselves into messy situations which give them grief for the length of a lifetime.

Education, of course, is key but it has to start within a stable and loving family environment. A mocking, rather than balanced, attitude towards institutions which actively support the family unit as one of the most important building blocks of society does not help much as regards the formation of our children's moral fibre.

James De Giorgio

Jul 6th 2008, 12:36

I also ask Mr Grillo to be more attentive when reading an article. The girl is not being prohibited from having sex. The crime in question is the filming of a minor. Phooey and he goes round attacking the church...

James De Giorgio

Jul 6th 2008, 12:35

I ask Mr Grillo why he attacks the church in a case such as this one, where it doesn't have anything to do with it.

I also ask Mr Grillo if his reaction would be the same if the girl in question was his daughter, and his daughter was filmed having sex with a person and this film was carelessly let out on her and other people could access it.

If he still approves, then I believe such opinions are irresponsible, to say the least. Mr Grillo accuses the church of "stupid reasons". I believe approving of what has happened is the stupidest reason of all and seems to have come from you, grillo.

Joseph Schembri

Jul 6th 2008, 11:35

The age of consent of 18 years in Malta is the highest in Europe and is being used indiscriminately by the police and those who seek some form of vendetta to ruin the lives of so called 'defilers'. The average age of consent in Europe is 15 - 16 years. We, so called Europeans should immediately lower our age of consent to stop this witch hunt. Because of our laws a 20 year old who makes love to his 17 year old girlfriend - is immediately labeled a paedophile by the police and faces stiff prison sentences if the girflriend for some reason as in the case above wishes to ruin him.

Chris Grillo

Jul 6th 2008, 07:03

Why is a 16 year old girl (in this case 17) allowed to have a bank account, allowed a credit card, but not allowed to have sex?

In this modern world, one can see that most girls over 14 have attained puberty and become women, even mentally. Things have moved on since the 60s.

Children are no longer children by the age of 13-14...anybody dare oppose this? I feel that this law must be arranged a bit...18 , in reality, is far too old. Does anybody really believe that all our 18 year olds are simpering virgins? I think not.

As always, education is the key! And as always, the church will butt in with stupid reasons, along with the many 'goody-two-shoes' groups.