tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post178139070037294129..comments2023-05-19T13:43:33.131+02:00Comments on LLanito World: Age of ConsentLlanito World-Robert Vasquezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-91835047803463816542010-11-20T16:59:40.506+01:002010-11-20T16:59:40.506+01:00One further comment: while it's been good to s...One further comment: while it's been good to see the FCO and UNITE in Court backing up Alvarez on the age of consent case at the Supreme Court, where were they in the hard times when noone wanted to even TOUCH the issue of same-sex rights in Gibraltar? Another sign, perhaps, of the success that this gentleman can chalk up in his campaigns, as otherwise I very much doubt that either of these new entrants would have had the courage. It took Alvarez's hard work and campaigning to make it 'safe' for them to enter the arena. And that's just a hard fact! Though now, ofcourse, there'll be many who want to pin the 'florecitas' on their lapel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-42672477529043936292010-11-20T16:52:44.349+01:002010-11-20T16:52:44.349+01:00Ay yes, it's good to remember how Alvarez has ...Ay yes, it's good to remember how Alvarez has consistently stood up for human rights across the board. It's easy to forget the hard work he did on pressuring for a Sex Offenders Register for Gibraltar, but it was Alvarez that brought that to the fore with his campaigning - if I remember rightly, Govt said they'd be introducing it (the Cassano case has just come up - but has anything at all yet been established?). About time Alvarez got some public recognition for his valuable and valiant work. I once spoke to him I remember and I remember him telling him that what mattered was seeing how, in time, the rights work he was pursuing would eventually become mainstream and Gib would have progressed. The man was right - and he still continues to be right. Chapeau Mr Alvarez!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-13036916529934874342010-11-20T03:09:40.250+01:002010-11-20T03:09:40.250+01:00This gentleman not only has balls but cares for th...This gentleman not only has balls but cares for this community and loves his country:<br /><br />"The protest went well. I was not arrested though subject to expected level of police attention! It happened at 11.40am Madrid time at the Spanish Parliament building - known as "Las Cortes". <br /><br />There are two symbolic lions half way up the steps to Las Cortes with machine-gun armed guards. I managed to climb up onto one of the symbolic lions and unfurl the Gibraltar flag with the slogan "Gibraltar is Free - No to Coercion" whilst accompanying this with shouts of "No to Coercion either from the United Kingdom or Spain. Gibraltar has the democratic right to decide its future for itself!" <br /><br />There was a media presence, so the photos should get out within the next few hours. <br /><br />I am bruised and hurting somewhat so will probably need to be seen in hospital once I arrive in Gibraltar, which is likely to be tomorrow some time"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-83683020338471264012010-11-20T00:41:00.995+01:002010-11-20T00:41:00.995+01:00Anonymous at 20:41
HEAR HEAR!Anonymous at 20:41<br /><br />HEAR HEAR!Llanito World-Robert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-8789842803557169202010-11-19T20:41:01.034+01:002010-11-19T20:41:01.034+01:00Heartening to see open and democratic debate on th...Heartening to see open and democratic debate on this issue. What a difference from the pre-GGR days (i.e. before they established in September 2000). There is no doubt at all that, as an NGO, GGR has worked effectively in not only fomenting social debate, but in its campaigning strategies both at a local and international level. Perhaps the ONLY community group that has managed to corner our all-powerful Chief Minister and put him exactly where he did not expect to be - in the Courts, and socially and politically cornered! Hats off to Felix Alvarez for his patient, sustained and successful work in this community (which few people have, undeservedly, lauded) and for having had the wisdom and know-how to know when to present a hard activist front and when to switch rhythm the reasonable, judicial approach he now pursues. Having won over the media and public opinion, I am certain that in this gentleman Gibraltar has a citizen with a lot yet to offer in the advance of our community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-28724395782682405302010-11-19T09:15:15.264+01:002010-11-19T09:15:15.264+01:00Ghost
you seem like a person with the GSD inside ...Ghost<br /><br />you seem like a person with the GSD inside track.<br /><br />Perhaps you will enlighten us as to why the GSD are taking this matter to Court given that our parliament has already voted on the matter?<br /><br />Why is the GSD apparentyly second guessing parliament ? there is something more to all this is there not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-21084719636260448362010-11-19T07:59:26.071+01:002010-11-19T07:59:26.071+01:00Fred implies that he is in the 16 & 17 age gro...Fred implies that he is in the 16 & 17 age group which is the subject of this debate. Who are you trying to kid, mate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-11601059322531682482010-11-18T19:36:42.141+01:002010-11-18T19:36:42.141+01:00Fred says:
Ghost, by the way you say: "parti...Fred says:<br /><br />Ghost, by the way you say: "particularly given the impact that green lighting anal sex at this tender age will have", it seems you are under the impression that as soon as the law changes we are all going to run out onto the streets and start having anal sex with each other like there is no tomorrow!<br /><br />Have you perhaps thought that a lot of people simply do not like anal sex, or are not intrested in it? Furthermore, some of my gay friends positively detest it, and prefer to indulge in other activities. (I beleive Noel Coward had an absolute distate for penetrative sex of any sort).<br /><br />The law should not even mention particular sexual acts; it should deal with the age of consent issue, and then address the antiquated sexual offences that were reported in today's Chronicle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-43955677840809505642010-11-18T16:53:29.611+01:002010-11-18T16:53:29.611+01:00Chapeau!!
Parents are very important and in the s...Chapeau!! <br />Parents are very important and in the society where I believe marriage is more of a comodity than a lifetime commitment (till death us do part) parents in many cases are missing or they are in battle with each other. Victims of this the child. I believe that this is the work and role of the religious institutions.<br />They should be doing more in passing the message of family values ie respecting each others partners and to be more tolerant to each other than wasting time and effort in condemning gay couples.<br />It is difficult as I said above for the catholic church (of which I am a member of)to try to inpart moral values when they have to clean up morality within.<br />Why have they not condemned outright and kicked out those disgusting priest and others who have abused children in the past?? <br />Charity begins at Home!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-57733144502313030022010-11-18T16:51:53.699+01:002010-11-18T16:51:53.699+01:00Anonymous at 13:12 and Ghost:
I do not consider i...Anonymous at 13:12 and Ghost:<br /><br />I do not consider it is for the law to impose the strictest moral code. I consider that the law should impose a reasonable code, which both reflects trends in society but does not encourage the transgression of basic principles that are intended to protect the vulnerable in society.<br /><br />Strict moral codes are for parents to teach following their moral and/or religious judgment. In this regard I feel that some adherents to Christian religions have much to learn from our muslim and jewish breathren.Llanito World-Robert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-27668950689062841692010-11-18T15:02:46.865+01:002010-11-18T15:02:46.865+01:00Ghost says:
RV, I think I agree with the entirety...Ghost says:<br /><br />RV, I think I agree with the entirety of your last post! That'll be a first. <br /><br />I would say however that Gibraltar and our community are almost regulated by the very nature and closeness of our society and our fundamental principles, which in the main are driven by religious faith and respect. <br /><br />One might argue that although from a legal perspective 16 is the way to go, increasing the age might be a debate worthy of consideration, particularly given the impact that green lighting anal sex at this tender age will have. Quite apart from our legal obligations, there is the message that this new legislation will deliver and which needs to be considered.<br /><br />GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-58428515626837581912010-11-18T13:12:17.239+01:002010-11-18T13:12:17.239+01:00Thanks for your opinion and I agree with most of w...Thanks for your opinion and I agree with most of what you said. The reality is that thinking that everyone is equal is definately the way forward even if you are Christian, Muslim, Jew or Straight or Gay. This is showing a real democratic credentials. I remember having a discussion on a similar issue with a fellow student in relation to gender equality. The person happened to be a woman who was a feminist. I argued against feminism. Why? simple, because feminists are usually woman who campaign not for the equality of woman but for woman to be in a superior position to men. Therefore I argued the point and said that I believe in total equality and that no one should be above anyone in relation to sex, creed, race, religious beliefs sexual orientation etc etc. And I am convinced that if Jesus were alive today in our society he would be of the same opinion. We are all equal under the eyes of god and not one more equal than others. This message is directed at all those who argue the religion as a smokescreen for their prejudice and homophobic views and it includes Our Chief Minister who has been the one who has brought about all these discriminatory views and is frankly dividing our society even more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-72608120980887455572010-11-18T12:42:34.213+01:002010-11-18T12:42:34.213+01:00Anonymous at 11:08
I have purposely avoided givin...Anonymous at 11:08<br /><br />I have purposely avoided giving my own opinion on the issues that you raise because that is all it would be my opinion but I will give it for what it is worth. I believe in the equal treatment of all without discrimination on the grounds of gender. <br /><br />I see no objection to gay civil partnerships recognised in law so that all tax, inheritance and other legal rights should be enjoyed by gay couples in equality with heterosexual married couples. As to adoption the primary concern should be the well being of the child. This does not preclude gay adoption.<br /><br />On the issue of the age of consent, without psychological and/or sociological studies and advice, it is not possible to decide to reduce the age. My personal view is that unless and until there is expert opinion to support a reduction in the age, 16 is reasonable. <br /><br />I have obliquely previously expressed the view that increasing the age of consent is unworkable. It would be at odds with how society views sexual relationships today and the reality of the gae at which these start. If the age is increased, parents would need to change their own views toward thier own children, many parents would be acting hypocritically and larger prisons will need to be built because of the reality of what happens amongst the young everywhere!<br /><br />Increasing the age and not enforcing it against heterosexual couple and only enforcing it against homosexual couples, apart from being unconscionable behaviour by the State, would be an institutionlised discriminatory application. I believe that this would be capable of scrutiny and review by our courts.Llanito World-Robert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-45545226925669444502010-11-18T11:08:37.905+01:002010-11-18T11:08:37.905+01:00To Robert and blogger Buenas Noches, I understand ...To Robert and blogger Buenas Noches, I understand you are both lawyers, so am I, but the discussion is age of consent and you both are now discussing primary legislation, order in council, constitutions etc. Hey can you both come down from cloud nine since I have not had any of you comment on the posting 13.24 above! So what is the opinion of both Learned friends on what the age of consent should be 16,17, 18 or 14 like it is in "Catholic Spain?!!!". <br />And if you both want you could even comment on gays adopting children in certain circumstances. <br />Remember I am a Practising Catholic and straight who will not imposed my beliefs on others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-74057764749797306542010-11-18T10:57:47.398+01:002010-11-18T10:57:47.398+01:00An Act of the British Parliament is not judicially...An Act of the British Parliament is not judicially reviewable per se - parliamentary sovereignty. The exercise of any powers given by an Act of the British Parliament is judicially reviewable including delegated legislation.<br /><br />In GHCQ they tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that Orders in Council were in fact primary legislation (non-reviewable and the courts had no role to play) but that attempt to equate it with the same legal status as that of an Act of Parliament clearly failed - Lord Fraser's obiter remark has so far survived without any critical scrutiny in the courts. It would be legally correct to say that Orders in Council are part of UK Imperial Law.<br /><br />An Order in Council is part of English Law. Definitely. It's, however, wrongly assumed locally that it is primary legislation because it simply happens to be the primary legal source through which Gibraltar was formerly governed by the UK. The delegation of those powers started under the 1969 Constitution and recently in the terms of the 2006 Constitution.<br /><br />Your final paragraph, however, is most definitely correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-61126508073351582632010-11-17T21:26:49.321+01:002010-11-17T21:26:49.321+01:00Anonymous at 01:28
Thank you for your "buen...Anonymous at 01:28 <br /><br />Thank you for your "buenas noche" and "buenas tarde" to you.<br /><br />In truth I was using an element of journalistic licence in the comment that you have replied to. I did not want to resort to dry legal argument out of deference to readers who are not lawyers. The fact that I am a lawyer does, it seems, not allow me such licence. I will summarise the dry legal argument as briefly and succintly as possible, so as not to bore the non-lawyer readers of this blog. I am happy to debate these with you in person and support my statements with a closer review of the case law mentioned. I would respect your anonymity to others if you did so.<br /><br />I accept that strictly speaking non-judicially reviewable primary legislation can only be made by the UK Parliament. I do not agree that Orders in Council are not "primary legislation". if such Orders In Council are the exercise by the Executive of its prerogative power to make laws, such as the 2006 Constitution, such laws are primary legislation, especially as viewed from Gibraltar (you admit that it is a piece of English law). Nowhere in the GCHQ case or in the subsequent Chagos Islands case is this disputed or is Lord Fraser's statement to the effect that an Order in Council is primary legilsation contradicted. Some of the argument in those judgments is that, precisely because it is legislation by the Executive (and so not subject to Parliamentary or other democratic scrutiny), judicial review is the only safeguard available to those subjected to such laws. <br /><br />I accept that they are not primary legislation in two senses. First that the UK Parliament can override an Order in Council by an Act of Parliament (exemplified in the Preamble to the 2006 Constitution which states that sovereignty can be given away by an Act of the UK Parliament). Second that in certain narrow circumstances, limited to subjectmatter, Orders in Council are susceptible to judicial review, usually for abuse of power.<br /><br />On the basis of both the GCHQ and Chagos Islands case an Act of the Gibraltar Parliament is judicially reviewable also on those same narrow grounds. This alone shows the deficit in self determination that the 2006 Constitution confers. It is well put at paragraph 53 of the judgment of Sedley L.J. (Chagos Islands case) in which the words (that can be found also in the 2006 Constitution) " ... for the peace, order and good government... " are categorised as words that confine the exercise of legislative power by a legislature to whom power has been delegated by an Order in Council such as Gibraltar's Parliament.Llanito World-Robert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-88305471983372522592010-11-17T13:24:37.018+01:002010-11-17T13:24:37.018+01:00To The blogger who said that the next thing is to ...To The blogger who said that the next thing is to have Gays adopting children and this comes from a straight person who is religious at that but will not impose my morals or other believes to others. Would you prefer to have a child starving or as seen on TV dying in the gut than to allow these children to have a happy life with a gay couple who will give him/her love and all their needs attended to?<br />Do you think that Gay couples are having sexa at all times of the day therefore your fear of them adopting? Or are you that ignorant that you think that the child will be Gay just because his/her adoptive parents are Gay? Bringing these issues to the forefront is good because it exposes the heartless neo-cons and fundamentalist ideas from our "Christian" society. I am a practicing Christian myself but ashamed to be called this since the Christian church is hiding the FACT that priests and other within the church have abused children for years. So in actual fact those "religious people " arguing against gays or any other group adopting children (and saying this in a flippant manner like the blogger above) would prefer children to be in the "hands" of those priests who have abused children than having gays adopt these children??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-44776483956601131972010-11-17T13:16:34.708+01:002010-11-17T13:16:34.708+01:00Each to his own, without judgment.Each to his own, without judgment.El Pavonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-70863162141631967512010-11-17T10:27:50.623+01:002010-11-17T10:27:50.623+01:00How is it that the CM thinks it is "draconian...How is it that the CM thinks it is "draconian" to try and influence how much people use their cars in Gibraltar, or "taliban" to try and impose a smoking ban in public places, but fine to weigh in on what consenting adults do with each other in private. <br /><br />Its laughable to see the government floating these "public health arguments" when apparently public health is of no concern for smoking in public places. <br /><br />Double standards. This whole farce is simply about the chief ministers personal moral / religous problems with this issue. Nothing else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-76714248910212551882010-11-17T09:30:15.111+01:002010-11-17T09:30:15.111+01:00Fred says:
Anon at 20:35,
I may have been flippa...Fred says:<br /><br />Anon at 20:35,<br /><br />I may have been flippant, but inessence:<br /><br />Homosexuality may be wrong to you, but not to others - you do not have a right to have laws against it, and you do not have a right to discriminate against them as if they were somehow inferior. Al you have to do is exercise your right not to indulge in homosexual activity.<br /><br />Anal sex may be practiced by whoever wishes to indulge in it, and it should not be legislated against.<br /><br />The health risks associated with ALL sexual practices should be part of a public information campaign, and the use of condoms in combatting STDs should be part of the same campaign.<br /><br />Our young and not so young should be told that caring and committed relationships are good for them and good for all, but we have to live with the reality that we all make mistakes on the relationship front - many of us for most of our lives if divorce rates and extramarital activity in Gibraltar is anything to go by.<br /><br />Exploitative/coerceive sexual relations of any sort should be stamped on by the law, but this should be part of a broader review that addresses sexual crimes, and not the law pertaining to the age of consent.<br /><br />Finally, I am right-of-Ghengis Khan in political terms, so far from PC, but I am a libertarian and a libertine.<br /><br />PS - I would not be so cruel as to suggest that you relocate to Afghanistan at this time of year, my chums in our dear Gibraltar Regiment tell me its awfully cold, and I would not be that cruel to anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-65099410586572841082010-11-17T01:28:19.223+01:002010-11-17T01:28:19.223+01:00Buenas noches Llanito-World,
"The 2006 Const...Buenas noches Llanito-World,<br /><br />"The 2006 Constitution is a piece of primary English Legislation of the Privy Council".<br /><br />Unfortunately, that statement's not legally correct in English Law - it's wrongly taken in other instances from Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence in 'GCHQ' and from Lord Fraser who mistakenly agreed with him.<br /><br />Primary legislation emanates from the Westminster Parliament only and takes the form of an Act - NOT judicially reviewable.<br /><br />An Order in Council is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative which is vested in the British Government and exercised by the latter in the Monarch's name - IS judicially reviewable. <br /><br />It's the UK Government, in the name of HM The Queen, exercising EXECUTIVE power - which is, as is well known, nowadays severely curtailed (through statutory provisions) but still employed in the governance of COLONIES and a couple of other simpler matters.<br /><br />Therefore, an Order in Council and the Gibraltar Constitution are one and the same thing and of equal legal weight. <br /><br />It follows, that any Act of the Gibraltar Parliament validly passed under the Constitution (i.e. is NOT in breach/conflicts with it) is of similar legal weight.<br /><br />An Order in Council/Gibraltar Constitution obviously rank below an Act of the British Parliament.<br /><br />Gibraltar's entire legal system emanates from the exercise of executive [political] power i.e. No. 10 Downing Street and an Order in Council is only the mechanism through which it is done. <br /><br />It's a Government decree (post 1688) and historically a decree of the Kings & Queens of England as Supreme Governors by divine right and might.<br /><br />One constitutional commentator, in the UK press, recently described recent Orders in Council as: "that most undemocratic of Tudor governance devices"...<br /><br />An Order in Council is very definitely 'totally English'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-6621333038911840722010-11-16T20:38:23.298+01:002010-11-16T20:38:23.298+01:00Anonymous at 20:35
You misquote and purposely mis...Anonymous at 20:35<br /><br />You misquote and purposely misunderstand the arguments made, which does your cause no good.Llanito World-Robert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03683191110402987525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-25443784529375565142010-11-16T20:35:16.898+01:002010-11-16T20:35:16.898+01:00If we are to believe Robert, anal sex does not inc...If we are to believe Robert, anal sex does not increase the risk of AIDS. I have to agree with him because if not I will be accused of being immature and a homophobe and Fred will suggest that I move to Afghanistan. Or Fred might say that I am a closet homosexual like those Taleban who keep "dancing boys." By the logic of the PC tyrrany if I disapprove of sodomy I am actually saying that I approve of sodomite priests. This nonesense summarises the last few entries and one thing is for sure when it comes to issues of homsexuality no one can speak out without risking a verbal backlash. The next target in the Gay Rights agenda is adoption of children by gay couples and woe betide anyone who should question that. Ironically the less intelligent supporters of the Gay lobby and fellow travellers display more intolerance of ideas and debate than the worst Soviet commissars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-68730658231188877102010-11-16T19:02:03.733+01:002010-11-16T19:02:03.733+01:00Fred says:
Perhaps the homophobes and fellow trav...Fred says:<br /><br />Perhaps the homophobes and fellow travellers should re-locate to Afghanistan? I understand that the Taliban share their views on homosexuality, but conveniently keep "dancing boys" to help them through those cold nights on the Hindu Kush. This means that the homophobes & co. could conveniently turn a blind eye to certain priests, and the suchlike, who sodomise children against their wishes.<br /><br />Live and let live and stop using health and other spurious reasons to justify your arguements. As I have said on other posts: it's not as if the GHA has a credible health campaign on the STD issues. Then again they would have to advise about the use of condomns...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2247742529089642474.post-37228342899184083982010-11-16T18:28:19.389+01:002010-11-16T18:28:19.389+01:00I strongly disagree with 0831. On your arguments s...I strongly disagree with 0831. On your arguments smoking should be banned, so should kebabs, all sports which carry any risk, driving, cycling....where does it end? Excess salt intake heightens the risk of hypertension....do we ban salt too? This is NOT a nanny state. The govt has a duty to educate people about health risks, and to spread the message of safe (or safer) sex, but no govt has the right to tell people over the age of 16 who they have sex with. And does any hypothetical risk suddenly cease on the man's 18th Birthday?<br /><br />And Robert, your analogy on driving may sound like a nice sound bite....untill you give it more than a second's thought. We all have a right to use the roads in safety and we therefore accept certain rules to ensure that safety, because our actions on the road have an impact on other road users. My actions in the bedroon however have no impact on anybody except me and my partner. <br /><br />No matter how many times a person has sex, or who they have sex with (as long as they are consenting over 16's) it makes no impact on society as a whole, or on anybody else.<br /><br />A man having sex with another man should be of no concern to anyone other than the participants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com