Legalizing Pedophilia

POSTED BY: copilot
UPDATED: Monday, January 27, 2025 00:50
VIEWED: 9365
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 8, 2006 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I just wish people would understand in their reluctance to deal with it... is causing or letting it continue to happen, even for the most skeptical person out there. ther is still so much evidence that it should at the very least raise their suspisions, and curosity enough to want to have it directly addressed and resloved in some fashion.

No, not a cop, in fact leaning somewhat more to the other end of the spectrum, but i am not at all adverse about putting good, useful information in the hands of folk with better resources and actual authority to get something done, even if they do fumble the ball so much.

As for getting that bit through to folk - you can't... they eventually will come to this realization on their own with a little encouragement... or they will not, and that's not a choice i'd have anyone make for me, i will not make it for them.

As above, when i mentioned Dutroux (and there's far more dirt on that, like his connection to Wayne Camolli of Ft Lauderdale, and Yahoo's blind-eye nod and wink about WC's "Candyman" E-group processing material, etc etc) and just left it at that without feeling the need to post every link or supporting bit of data, other than the above, soley for folks who don't believe his network extended here - hand them enough to do their own investigating, and those inclined WILL investigate, and likely mention it to others.

Eventually this reaches what is generally called the "100th monkey" breakpoint, and social consciousness changes, and it does so rapidly and with all the surety of an ocean tide - again, case example being the catholic church and it's history of abuse.

Those who doubt it was willful can go have a look at the church of the servants of the paraclete, the cc's recycling center to process known offenders and sneak them back into other parishes.

<< Oh really? Care to point out anyone who has called anyone an "anti-freedom fascist"? Care to point out any of their insane proposals that have been allowed?

Yep, the ACLU, via Proxy-Defense of NAMBLA, a move that angered so many people that they felt the need to post this.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

Not only did they chose to defend the organisation, they did so in a certain kind of legal manner that involved sticking their necks way out, something they have NEVER done for ANYONE else - capsice ?

But when my people are on the spot, they tell us to stuff it ?

I remember Tempest Smith, and always will, and the ACLU can kiss my ass, they may have their uses, but that one was a bridge too far.

<< If we're not careful then stupid laws do get passed.

Protect.org exists to make damned sure that doesn't happen, at least on this one topic.

The ACLU cares about free speech
The NRA cares about gun ownership

Whether you agree or disagree, the single, razor point focus of these groups makes them effective, and the wide-focus of many folks addressing more than one social issue at a time makes them less effective, are you with me ?

Kids don't vote, and by the time they grow up, this crop of politicians will be out to pasture, so what do they care about serving that section of their constituency ?

Protect.org cares about children in the same fashion, with the same razor point focus, and the same big-stick threat as any other PAC, deliverable blocks of votes, ability to publicly humiliate, etc.

Get to the folks with the power and authority to MAKE the needful changes, and apply a little bit of the PAC cattleprod to their fat, chair-polshing asses, and then, and only then, will you get substantive results that will make a difference.

You and I make a small difference, individually and by the people we influance, but via strongarming the makers of policy, we make an impact.

Clear enough ?

-Frem

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 8, 2006 4:55 PM

There are people whose sexual preference runs to children. Thanks to PN and PJ, at this point I'm assuming that the main reason why those deviants and their organizations aren't getting busted is because they're protected at the very top, by people who do business with people like Jack Abramoff.

But organized child sexual abuse isn't limited to NAMBLA. Thousands of children in the USA are abused under the guise of religion. We have our own little Taliban in Utah and Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania as well as in the Catholic (and other) Churches.

Quote:
Among sect members, girls as young as 13 are forced into marriage, sexual abuse is rampant, rape is covered up and child molesters are shielded by religious authorities and law enforcement.

www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-sect12may12,0,6456040.story

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIMONWHO

Thursday, June 8, 2006 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhodri:
OK then, I was generalising but here goes.

Let's start with the British National Party! For years they've been spouting their racist ideals with impunity in the UK. As a political party they were entitled to voice their rhetoric until our Government recently passed legislation making it an offence to encourage racial hatred. They still exist as a valid political party but are now unable to publicly campaign on a racist agenda.

I've not been able to find the source, but I know of a law passed in France or the Benelux countries similar to that mentioned in the thread BECAUSE NOBODY VOTED AGAINST IT as it was a pre-posterous idea...Apathy kills people.

Human Rights...seems to me that we've screwed this one up big time!
For the vast majority of us in "Western civilisation" Human Rights issues appear to concentrate on the rights of Convicted felons! More and more we hear of the inmates' rights to this and that, but what of the rights of the victims and their families. Now I'm not saying we should abandon Human Rights, but I think we need to seriously consider its application.
Tell me Simon, that I am wrong to revile a local man who sexually abused 3 of his children, a man who pleaded guilty only because my wife and I were testifying against him. A man who served three 36 month sentences for his crimes because in the eyes of the law they were minors, and as such cannot be victims of rape! I am not allowed by law to identify this pervert to my community because it is in breach of his Human Rights!

I could go on but I'm foaming at the mouth with bitter bile.

If we're not careful then stupid laws do get passed.

I'm confused. You seem to be speaking out against free speech when used by paedophiles and yet for it when racists want to use it. And the law you mention that targetted racial hatred failed the acid test when BNP members caught on camera effectively calling for any non-white to be thrown out of England still weren't convicted for race hates crimes.

Personally I think the sentences for a lot of crimes are too light, including sexual abuse, rape and murder but that doesn't change the fact that child abuse is a different thing than rape and you get charged with specific offences in court.

And there's some law in some country that allows something but you can't find a reference. Not that much of an argument, is it?

As for not being able to identify child molesters, sadly there has been proof in this country that the masses are imbeciles and to provide information like this is a) an invitation to mob rule and b) likely to lead to the deaths of innocent people in cases of mistaken identity.

Are you really prepared to put justice into the hands of those who attacked the office of a pediatrician?

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 8, 2006 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rhodri:
Tell me Simon, that I am wrong to revile a local man who sexually abused 3 of his children, a man who pleaded guilty only because my wife and I were testifying against him. A man who served three 36 month sentences for his crimes because in the eyes of the law they were minors, and as such cannot be victims of rape!

Not just Minors, but also that they are related to him - some time ago while no one was looking, some freak front lobbyists got incest categorised in the same criminal class as adultery, with of course, substantially lesser sentancing.

This, in effect, rewards freaks who grow their own victims, bad enough that our courts are wishy washy on the sentancing of even hard core predators, in spite of a @ proven recidivism rate *four times* that of any other crime... but in many states the expected penalty for molesting your own children is probation and a fine....

That in fact is the current project at Protect, closing the 'incest exception' loophole, and allowing these scum to be sentenced to something more substantial than probation - cause in all truth it's a worse crime for a child to be abused by someone they knew and trusted, who abused that trust to harm them, it is a treason and denial of all that makes us human and should be punished as such.

Can't do much about the creep in question, but you could help make sure they don't keep gettin away with it, that's something.

-Frem

@ - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex
US DOJ Statistics for Sex Offenders.

Scroll up just a bit for Recidivism rate info.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:14 PM

I know nothing about the subject matters, so excuse my ignorant question...

Does this incest law differentiate between an adult abusing a related child and two adults having a consenting incestuous relationship?

Not that I'm a fan of the latter, but that one's a victimless crime, much different from the former...

DEEPGIRL187

Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:02 PM

In many states, two adults having a incestuous relationship is not something that is actively pursued by the authorities, but I do believe it is considered a crime. Sad, but true.

**************************************************

"I'm going to sing the doom song! Doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, dooooooom...."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 8, 2006 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I know nothing about the subject matters, so excuse my ignorant question...

Does this incest law differentiate between an adult abusing a related child and two adults having a consenting incestuous relationship?

Not that I'm a fan of the latter, but that one's a victimless crime, much different from the former...

Nope, it doesn't differentiate whatever.

That being exactly our problem with it, the latter is at worst a nuisance and at best none of our business - the former is a crime that needs to be a felony.

To class the rape of a child in the same legal realm as incest and adultery, which, might i add here, is in many states considered less grevious than stealing chickens....

That goes back to the whole concept of viewing children as property rather than people, and that is NOT a can of worms you wanna open with me around, so we won't, cause it strays from the topic at hand.

Personally I could care less (and would honestly prefer NOT to know, so please don't share..) if you are cheatin on your wife by banging your first cousin, none of my damned business if you're all consenting adults...

The proposal isn't to increase the penalties of any 'crime' in that bracket, but rather to remove abuse of a child from that low-misdemeanor bracket and upgrade that, specifically, to a B-Felony or greater.

It's common sense, but heaven help you getting politicians to fekkin DO it - it's not been easy, and we're still workin on it.

-Frem

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, June 8, 2006 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The proposal isn't to increase the penalties of any 'crime' in that bracket, but rather to remove abuse of a child from that low-misdemeanor bracket and upgrade that, specifically, to a B-Felony or greater.

So the fact that a child is underage and thus unable to give legal consent to any sexual activity even if it were so inclined (which is ridiculous) ...doesn't factor in at all??

Huh. That's... mindblowing.

What about just plain physical abuse, beatings and such. Doesn't sexual abuse of a minor figure into that somewhere, too?

I somehow have trouble believing that any pervert out there can molest his or her children and get a slap on the hand for it and nothing else!

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Thursday, June 8, 2006 8:37 PM

No one can afford to ignore the laws around rape, especially child rape. Politicians never want to touch them (unless an incident is all over the papers, then they fall over themselves to "protect our kids") but it's incredibly important to be aware of the law, and potential changes to it.

Let me share a story from this side of the Atlantic. In Ireland, the law says that any man who has sex with a girl under 16 years of age is automatically guilty of statutory rape, which means that if it's proven they had sex in a court of law then he goes to jail. There is no defence, not even if he thought she was over 16 years old at the time. Not even if she told him she was. They have sex, he goes to jail.

Until last week that is. One man successfully argued that it was unconstitutional not to allow him to defend himself on the grounds that he made a genuine mistake about the girl's age. So they overturned the law.

The result? A man who plied his daughter's twelve year old friend with alcohol until she passed out and then raped her, argued successfully to the high court that the law that convicted him was now unconstitutional, so his detention was unlawful. In other words, he walked out of jail a free man.

To say that this caused controversy is an understatement of mythic proportions. Especially since five other men on similar charges had been convicted on the basis of the now-illegal law, and were likely to walk out too. Thankfully emergency legislation was brought in and the guy is back in jail, but the problem is nowhere near resolved.

How long had the law been in effect? Since the 1930's. Why the *&^% hadn't someone dealt with the issue before? Because no Minister for Justice would touch it with a fifty foot barge pole. Who would? Laws like this are a gigantic can of worms. Lots of people believe that someone who makes a genuine mistake should be able to defend himself. But if you allow it then you open the way for traumatised kids getting questioned on the clothes or makeup they were wearing when they were raped. Any adult who has been through that in court will tell you what an ordeal it is. It's also the reason why conviction rates for rapists suck in so many countries - including mine. Especially mine, actually. I think we're one of the worst in Europe.

There are no easy answers, but the one thing you must never do is ignore the question. The horrible situation we had last week, which brought a nightmare home to a kid who thought the man who'd hurt her was safely locked up, shows just how bad things get when these issues are ignored.

Desktop Hippie: at one with the 'verse

SIMONWHO

Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:12 PM

Exactly so. Which is why demanding that restrictions be placed on freedom of speech on this topic is so dangerous. By muzzling the side of the argument no-one wants to hear, the argument isn't heard at all. The result? Bad laws that get kicked out when held up against contemporary rights.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE