Legalizing Pedophilia by copilot

Quote:
Originally posted by meangoldfish:
there's no way this is real. is this real? even if it is real, there's no way in hell it will pass.
i want a link to something official looking.

you mean like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5038682.stm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 9:21 AM

This isn't a real news story. It's just another smear to make "liberal" Europeans look disgusting. The Dutch won't stand for this party, any more than Americans would stand for NAMBLA:

http://216.220.97.17/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 9:26 AM

It's a real news story, just that the party has no chance of ever being elected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 10:11 AM

SASSALICIOUS

That's fucking sick.

I can't decide which infuriates me more: that they want to lower the age for sex (presumably for the purpose of an adult sleeping with a 12 year old and not so 12 year olds can sleep with each other), child pornography should be allowed, or the fact that they include a couple of legitimately good ideas with all the sick stuff, which may serve to give them some credence.

P.S. Who is Sway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's a real news story, just that the party has no chance of ever being elected.

Exactly so why report them at all? Why select this as a news story, instead of reporting on the sickos in America doing exactly the same thing?

Answer: make it look like weirdo liberal Dutch tolerate paedophilia and bask in American higher standards when that isn't the case.

Either that or Nigel Powers is pushing news stories again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 10:44 AM

This is news in Holland. As a piece of background info back in 1996 a pedophile ring in neighbouring Belgium was discovered, one of the perps had kidnapped little girls and two he had hidden in his basement starved to death when he was briefly jailed. So as you can imagine it's sturred some controvacy there.

Now if you are asking why American news outlets consider it news I can't answer. When Elizabeth Smart -- a cute middleclass blonde white girl-- was kidnapped the national US media was all over it for weeks. At the same time a poor black girl was kidnapped and hardly reported at all. What bleeds leads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2006 1:05 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

I like the way it mentions this as if they're the same thing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 5, 2006 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
This is news in Holland. As a piece of background info back in 1996 a pedophile ring in neighbouring Belgium was discovered, one of the perps had kidnapped little girls and two he had hidden in his basement starved to death when he was briefly jailed. So as you can imagine it's sturred some controvacy there.

His name is Marc Dutroux, aka The Monster of Chaleroi, and controversy doesn't BEGIN to describe it.. there's just no words for the size and scale of what occured, look it up yourself, for I will not detail it here.

While the freaks don't directly have an organized political party here in the US, some of their (mostly financial) ties with the Libertarian Party make me leery of said party, and they also heavily donate to politicians via fronts like the euphamistically named "Free Speech Coalition" that helped get Patrick Naughton off the hook, or such and such "foundation" or "fund"... but dig deep enough and you find that money comes from the third party gateway systems they use to collect the ill-gotten gains from their content sites.

If you think the freaks don't have a voice and financial bloc in US politics, think again.

Till recently, we didn't have anything but Outrage in response, till we got Protect.org up and running, finally, and that took ten years longer than it should have.

One hopes that backlash against this idiocy is what the folks spouting this stuff are *really* hoping to accomplish, cause that's what it sounds like to me, a PR Stunt designed to cause backlash.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 5, 2006 7:18 PM

MAMASAID

I don't think this makes Holland look bad. When NAMBLA-Pedapholiles Inc. formed, there was quite a controversy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 5, 2006 7:43 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
This isn't a real news story. It's just another smear to make "liberal" Europeans look disgusting. The Dutch won't stand for this party, any more than Americans would stand for NAMBLA:

http://216.220.97.17/

I've heard of NAMBLA, they are disgusting , what I don't understand about that group is why are they allowed to hold conventions and things like that when they are out promoting illegal acts, everyone in that organization should be arrested for promoting illegal activities, its beyond sick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 5, 2006 7:47 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
This is news in Holland. As a piece of background info back in 1996 a pedophile ring in neighbouring Belgium was discovered, one of the perps had kidnapped little girls and two he had hidden in his basement starved to death when he was briefly jailed. So as you can imagine it's sturred some controvacy there.

His name is Marc Dutroux, aka The Monster of Chaleroi, and controversy doesn't BEGIN to describe it.. there's just no words for the size and scale of what occured, look it up yourself, for I will not detail it here.

While the freaks don't directly have an organized political party here in the US, some of their (mostly financial) ties with the Libertarian Party make me leery of said party, and they also heavily donate to politicians via fronts like the euphamistically named "Free Speech Coalition" that helped get Patrick Naughton off the hook, or such and such "foundation" or "fund"... but dig deep enough and you find that money comes from the third party gateway systems they use to collect the ill-gotten gains from their content sites.

If you think the freaks don't have a voice and financial bloc in US politics, think again.

Till recently, we didn't have anything but Outrage in response, till we got Protect.org up and running, finally, and that took ten years longer than it should have.

One hopes that backlash against this idiocy is what the folks spouting this stuff are *really* hoping to accomplish, cause that's what it sounds like to me, a PR Stunt designed to cause backlash.

-Frem

have you read the Franklin cover-up
there seems to be a culture of pedophiles in all branches of our government that goes all the way up to the highest office including the presidency, senators, congressmen, judges, News reporters and owners of media, Corporate heads and the list goes on an on..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 11:32 AM

Oh i'm very well aware of it, Jen, probably in slightly more detail, actually, since this is an issue i've been pissed about since 1993, when a local kid (George Burdynski) went missing, and the FBI incompetently stumbled upon a fully-networked and entrenched set of freaks operating on AOL, with a nod and a wink from the service itself.

The FBI wasn't gonna do anything about it, but people who knew people started screaming to certain personal friends in the Justice Dept, which coerced the FBI to act, so they launched the innocent images program, and completely softballed the initial investigation - they identified 9000 perps, arrested only 12, released 9, and charged 3 with petty and minor offenses, resulting in a completely outraged and irate set of locals which asked certain folk, including yours truly, to make like somewhat miserable for the bastards.

It's been a long, long road since.

Even the most superficial investigation scares the everlivin crap of out folk - they don't believe it because they don't WANT to believe it, and to be honest a lot of the metaphsyical trappings used by these scum are just window dressing to make any testimony sound ridiculous to a judge or jury, a dodge that has worked well for many years.

Progress has been made, at least abuse within the catholic church is no longer met with the outright scorn and refusal to believe that it was back then, and when the political end of this finally blows, it's going to make that scandal look like a wet firecracker.

If you wanna know who's moved in on Franklins action, look no further than Abramoff, you'll note that the press is trying very, very hard to not expound on the fact that many of these so-called prostitutes he was providing, were not old enough to possess a drivers license.

There's little point, however, in discussing it with the general public as they don't believe it no matter what the evidence because it completely destroys their precious little plastic bubble reality, and that bubble is rather important to them - the few rare times I will discuss the matter in detail, are only with evidence in hand, and only to folks with the power, authority, and will to do something about it.

Our former state attorney general, and current state governor, Jennifer Granholm, is one of those folk, we have a good setup here, especially in the Wayne County PD, folks who know how to handle this business, but an investigation of the size and scope that would be required is beyond the resources of anyone but the Feds, who are involved too deeply to want to investigate it, and thus will move to stifle anyone who stands a chance of changing that status quo.

There's also social impact to consider as something like this could plunge our entire social structure into chaos, as it's not so very far from that right now thanks to misadministration.

Ain't no easy answers for this one, but if you're GOING to address this topic, don't just drop that whole package on folk, the automatic-denial response will file it under goofy conspiracy theory (as folks used to with the catholic church, for example..) and dismiss it without a second glance.

You explain in BRIEF, reasonable, up-front fashion, only what can be outright proven beyond all doubt, and show evidence - and let people make their own decision on whether to follow it up or not.. by putting the choice in their hands, you reduce the risk of them dismissing you, your arguments, and the entire issue out of hand.

In short, you're using an artillery piece for a pistols' job, kiddo.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 12:12 AM

PIRATEJENNY

are you in law enforcement??

I know many people don't want to believe the stories, but thats just it, there is alot of evidence and proof backing these stories up, one of the biggest problems is the fact that if most people don't see it on the T.V they don't believe it.

The evidence and proof is out there, but I hear what your saying, most people even when confronted with proof or evidence still don't want to hear it or see it., they like their bubble to much..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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
This is news in Holland. As a piece of background info back in 1996 a pedophile ring in neighbouring Belgium was discovered, one of the perps had kidnapped little girls and two he had hidden in his basement starved to death when he was briefly jailed. So as you can imagine it's sturred some controvacy there.

His name is Marc Dutroux, aka The Monster of Chaleroi, and controversy doesn't BEGIN to describe it.. there's just no words for the size and scale of what occured, look it up yourself, for I will not detail it here.

-Frem

When the story broke I was living in southern Holland so I saw the "local reaction" first hand. The question was is this a real news story? If you live in that part of the world it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 4:23 AM

The world is going mad!

Monsters like this use his Freedom of Speech to spout his disgusting ideas.
Anyone who oppose their opinions are highlighted as being anti-freedom fascists infringing their "human rights", and consequently these insane proposals are allowed.

Personally I think peadophiles should be shot...

Again...

And again...

Anyhow y'all get the picture, as i exercise my right to voice my opinion on these sick B#*%$#DS and their Vile practices.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 1:26 PM

>> Anyone who oppose their opinions are highlighted as being anti-freedom fascists infringing their "human rights", and consequently these insane proposals are allowed.

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?

Didn't think so.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 4:29 AM

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:13 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:32 AM

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?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:58 AM

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 8:14 AM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 9:02 AM

DEEPGIRL187

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...."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:02 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:08 AM

AGENTROUKA

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!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:37 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 12:12 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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 3:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've always believed that rape and child abuse should have a 'two-strikes' rule. In it, one conviction on one count gets a 'normal' sentence. Anything beyond that and you go to jail for life.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 4:06 PM

MAMASAID

Simon, I don't believe I follow your connection between freedom of speech and rape legislation. The lack of dialogue on child abuse legislation is a self imposed one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:01 PM

SASSALICIOUS

What you said brings me to an interesting sort of tie-in.

There's a case in WI right now. This man was found guilty of a rape he didn't commit. There were 16 different people supporting his alibi and whatever. Maybe he was somehow involved in the crime, but the point is he didn't rape her. He went to jail for 18 years. He got out a few years ago because DNA evidence exonerated him. What happened afterward?

In October, a twentysomething woman goes missing. Last seen on this man's property. He's instantly the suspect. Turns out he did it. The man's 16 year old nephew ratted him out a few months later. The both raped her and killed her, but it was spur of the moment. Just last week the 16 yr olds story has now changed to it was an elaborately laid plan between the two of them to abduct her, rape her, and then kill her.

I can't remember the man's prior history, but this case is causing all kinds of legal drama. Some people are even citing it as a reason to bring back the death penalty, which I don't get.

To me a rape is a rape. It shouldn't matter if the victim was a child or an old woman, wearing revealing clothes or a burqua, drunk or sober, developmentally disabled or not, married to the perpetrator or not. Go to jail, serve your time, enter yourself into the sexual offenders database, and if you do it again be removed from society forever. Nonconsensual sex is nonconsensual sex. Speaking of spousal rape, it's harder to get recognized and when it does, I think it usually falls under "abuse". When it comes to consensual sex, I will admit, the line can be fuzzy when say a 14 year old is dating a senior in high school OR the younger person hit puberty fast and then lied about his or her age, but I don't have a solution for that. I guess the best thing I could say is that parents should talk to their children and know their children, and teach them to handle situations that may arise so that the person can confidently say "yes" or "no" and have it hopefully be the right choice for them.

Things like this can slowly get really complicated. We should all go from being prepubescent to fully developed adults (with an adult mental capacity as well) overnight. 12 to 18. It would be so much easier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 9, 2006 3:41 AM

Yes, there are places where the issue gets murky, I for one don't think an 18yr old dating a 17yr old is a matter for anyone but the parents of the two, myself - but when has common sense ever been common ?

Actually, grey areas are why we have (supposedly) impartial judges, and why we have juries - it offends the everlivin hell out of me that judges are not *allowed* to do their job because they are threatened so often for doing their job, which is many cases is deciding what of the possible sentences to hand down... conversely, some judges have misused this to hand out ridiculously light sentances to predators which result in them not being removed from a society they are a proven, clear danger to.

Such grey areas are also why we have juries, and over time unfortunately this basic check and balance has been corrupted into a rubber stamp for the judges decision, as jurors these days are regularly charged with contempt, fined, or threatened, for doing their civic duty as a juror, instead of blind obediance to the more or less illegal instructions of a judge.

The Judge/Jury/Trial system is a needful check and balance against such grey areas being exploited by the wicked, or used in a ridiculous manner, and as a check and balance against bad and/or stupid laws, that's WHY it exists.

Not only to decide if the law was violated, but also to decide if the act in question was illegal at all, or if the law is being misused or misconstrued....

The fact that we *need* something like FIJA is deeply and profoundly offensive to me, because it means a vital part of our justice system has been corrupted, and without all the needful parts it will not work correctly, any more than an engine would, if you removed or damaged several critical parts.

It's bad enough that we allow prosecutors to routinely violate discovery, disallow evidence that doesn't fit the desired outcome of the trial, block and/or bar witnesses that don't support the outcome the prosecutor would like...

But to then demand jurors do what the judge tells them in clear defiance of the intent of the whole process ?

If we remove the check and balance of a jury, why have a trial at all ?

Fix THIS problem, allow justice back into our justice system, and the grey area issues will prettymuch solve themselves, you see.

-Frem

FIJA Website
http://www.fija.org/

"Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort – that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me."
-Patrick Henry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
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?

Simonwho...i'm not looking for, or making, an argument...if i want to debate Politics i'll do so in the correct forum, but i will clarify some of your confusion...

1, I am not promoting free speach for racists- i was highlighting the fact that they were able to use the law to promote their ideologies.
I beleive in the right to free speech, but am wary that certain parties abuse that right to promote ideas we find repugnant, i.e. paedophilia and racial hatred.

2, BNP on camera - Nothing to do with me! The law exists, whether it is enforced is another issue beyond my influence. Whites inciting hatred of non-whites is as bad as British-born Muslims declaring Jihad on white Britons!

3, Child abuse is different to rape?! A man forcing sexual intercourse on a woman or another man is rape! The same man performs the same act on his 3 kids and it is downgraded to "indecent assault" because they are minors! The law is an ass. But again it's beyond my influence.

4, The mysterious legislation...If i cared enough I'd go looking for it, but I don't. I have other things to waste my time on. If I ever find reference to it I'll be sure to let you know with the deserving priority.

5, Identifying child molesters is dangerous, I agree. The masses are largely ignorant and easily led. Mob-rule vigilantism cannot be allowed. In the case of our local pervert: we live in a small rural community - his identity could not be mistaken! However, as a law-abiding citizen I will be curbing my desire to see him publically pilloried.

6, No I am not willing to see justice put into the hands of bloodthirsty ignorant mobs. But I do want to see justice working for victims instead of criminals and lawyers!

My point when I initially replied to this thread remains the same. People must stand up and fight for what's right, BUT, they should also stand up and fight against what's wrong!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:17 AM

Oh, so free speech should be curtailed when you (or someone else) finds it "repugnant". So if I were to advocate, say, gay marriage, would that be allowed by you? Or even the legalisation of homosexuality, would you tolerate me saying I'm for that? Or that black people shouldn't be enslaved or is that repugnant to you also?

Child abuse is different to rape. For one thing, it is easier to prove - there is no question that a 5 year old could consent to sex. I certainly wouldn't consider it a lesser offence, indeed I could well argue it a worse offence, hence why it is important they are distinguished from each other.

>> "his identity could not be mistaken!"

"Don't worry, it's not loaded!", "I've done this a thousand times, it's perfectly safe!", "This'll be the best Christmas that Walford's ever known!".

My point about this thread was that the news story was an attempt to smear another country, done in a manner that allows readers to feel morally superior about their own. Certainly given the pathetic sentence a paedophile just received for raping a child while on parole, there's no cause for complancy in the UK.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Oh, so free speech should be curtailed when you (or someone else) finds it "repugnant". So if I were to advocate, say, gay marriage, would that be allowed by you? Or even the legalisation of homosexuality, would you tolerate me saying I'm for that? Or that black people shouldn't be enslaved or is that repugnant to you also?

Child abuse is different to rape. For one thing, it is easier to prove - there is no question that a 5 year old could consent to sex. I certainly wouldn't consider it a lesser offence, indeed I could well argue it a worse offence, hence why it is important they are distinguished from each other.

>> "his identity could not be mistaken!"

"Don't worry, it's not loaded!", "I've done this a thousand times, it's perfectly safe!", "This'll be the best Christmas that Walford's ever known!".

My point about this thread was that the news story was an attempt to smear another country, done in a manner that allows readers to feel morally superior about their own. Certainly given the pathetic sentence a paedophile just received for raping a child while on parole, there's no cause for complancy in the UK.

Hell yes, gay marriage is an acheivement to be welcomed. At last thousands if not millions of couples now have greater legal rights. Surprised?

What makes you think only black people were enslaved? All slavery should be stopped, but i'm not so naive to think that those still actively dealing in it are easily stopped.

I am disgusted that those sentenced for raping children are given less severe punishment than for raping an adult. Hardly something to feel morally superior about is it? In fact there's very little about the UK right now to feel morrally superior about!

And i could have sworn that i too stated that we shouldn't become complacent?

Simon, I beleive we're both on the same side of the discussion but have been blinded by the argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:00 PM