>>1126901

>Starting off a common law thread without referring to cases, but a statutory style definition.

You fail common law forever.

And no, it's not battery. For starters, "Socially acceptable" unwanted contacts are not battery. Brushing someone as you push your way through a crowded train isn't battery.

Secondly, parents have the right to make choices on behalf of their minor children, especially children who cannot even articulate themselves, and possibly cannot even form coherent thoughts.

Think of it this way. Getting an unwanted medical procedure is also battery. A surgeon can't arbitrarily decide you need an operation. However, if you have an ill child, it's the parent who consents to the surgery, not the child.

>All these considered, could baptising infants be, at least theoretically, illegal?

Anything can be theoretically illegal; you just need to get a legislature to make it illegal. It is not illegal under the common law of any country I'm aware of.


OP, be honest. Was this a legitimate inquiry, or just an attempt to masturbate about a religious rite being made illegal so you can tip your fedora?

>>1126901
This anon >>1126985 nails it. Look up the Skycity case if you want a good discussion on social acceptability as a defence.

>>1126901
>All these considered, could baptising infants be, at least theoretically, illegal?

No because the baptist was acting in loco parentis, and it is not illegal for a parent to dip his child in some water.

Any common law fags around? I'm doing a thought experiment. Would being born constitute battery under the common law?

According to a Wikipedia definition, battery is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them.

My question is whether the tort of battery is applicable to a mother. Intuitively I'd say yes, since I can't imagine climbing though a woman's vagina without permission to be legally acceptable.

All these considered, could being born be, at least theoretically, illegal?

>>1127288
But is it water or is it transubstantiated Jesus piss?

>>1127309

I wish OP's birth had been illegal.

>>1126901
Not on topic but this is as good a place as any to ask.

Is a law degree any good for anything other than being a solicitor?

I'd love to work in policy or the foreign service, that kind of thing, but I really don't want to be a solicitor

>>1127336

The Law makes no distinction.

>>1127378

Have you tried asking Google what the requirements are for the jobs you want?

>>1127378
Any law degree fags around? I'm doing a job experiment. Would getting a law degree constitute a good career path in common society?

According to a Wikipedia definition, getting a job is the act of intentionally (or in Australia, reluctantly) and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented hard or difficult job with a person or something closely associated with them.

Any common law fags around? I'm doing a thought experiment. Would circumcision constitute battery under the common law?

According to a Wikipedia definition, battery is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them.

My question is whether the tort of battery is applicable to an infant's soft wet penis, which can't speak (or even be fully erect) yet and therefore is incapable of consent. Intuitively I'd say yes, since I can't imagine cutting off any part of a baby's dick to be legally acceptable.

All these considered, could circumcising infants be, at least theoretically, illegal?

Any fags around? I'm doing a hot experiment. Would baby oil help fit D batteries up my anal maw?

According to a Wikipedia definition, faggotry is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, instinctively) and voluntarily bringing about an unlubricated harmful or offensive contact with a person's asshole or to something closely associated with their asshole.

My question is whether the D battery is applicable to my sphincter, which can't produce mucus and therefore incapable of auto-lubrication. Intuitively I'd say yes, since I can't imagine stretching my asshole to be lethally uncomfortable.

All these considered, could inserting batteries in my ass be, at least theoretically, possible?

>>1127676

0/10

>>1127616
Yes, that's why female circumcision is illegal in many countries. The only reason the male version is still practiced is because of a combination of cultural inertia, and fear of reprisal for such a law being seen as anti-Semetic.

>>1128388
Under UK law the much criticised case of R v Brown says circumcision is not assault while sadomasochism between men is. You can consent to an act like your dick being cut up but not to having your testicles lightly whipped. On the other hand I believe you can consent to having your partner's name sliced into your arse with a hot knife so long as she is your wife.

>>1126985
But medical procedures sound necessary for the health of a child. Dipping a baby in water doesn't. Infant baptism isn't a necessary rite according to most Christian persuasions anyway.

Pushing some in a crowded train doesn't seem like a similar case either. In that case also, there is an element of necessity. You have to push someone because there is no other way to get out of the train. If you push someone intentionally just for the fun of it (or because you have a weird religion that says you should push people), I suppose that case would be different.

As for the definition, I am aware of how the common law works, but I come from a civil law environment. Therefore, I wouldn't know any useful case law, that is why I was asking in the first place.

As for circumcision, OP question applies a fortiori, though I've there are some health benefits of it.

Congratulations for the memes by the way, definitely funny.