Paedophile Rights?

[Túrin Turambar]

...but think about it would you join this party when you don't do the act itself or maybe contemplating of doing it.

Though I really really doubt non-would-be pedophiles are joining this, from a legal standpoint, I don't think you can view it like this. I support the legalization of various things - marijuana, prostitution, gambling, ect - that I have zero desire to actually participate in. Again, I doubt that's the case here, but legally I don't think this argument is relevant.

For the record, the treasurer of the party is a convicted paedophile (he was fined for molesting an 11-year-old boy, and personally, I find it more shocking that the penalty for child rape in Holland is a fine than anything this party says or does).

Another issue – there is talk of ‘would-be paedophiles’. Do you have to molest children to be a paedophile, or should it be used to describe a sexual orientation whereby someone is attracted to children?

Warning – Highly controversial statement ahead:

Why this topic caught my interest is that I often wonder what progressive movements of the future are going to look like. What will hard left student activists in the 2040s be pushing? The 2080s? Therefore, when I read about a movement like this, I have to wonder whether it is ever going to gain momentum and/or legitimacy. Personally, I sincerely hope it doesn’t, and I also think that it is quite likely that it will go the way of other crazy ‘progressive’ movements over the years.

On that note, I also wonder that about the other parts of this party’s platform, such as the pornography on daytime television, public nudity or banning eating meat and fish.

And in case I haven’t been clear, my position is the same as Ethel’s:

It's not okay. It's as far away from okay as it's possible to get. Children cannot give consent to adult acts. They do not have the wherewithal. Full stop.

[Impenitent]

...but think about it would you join this party when you don't do the act itself or maybe contemplating of doing it.

Just for the record...I didn't say that. You misattributed the quote - Lurker made that statement.

[Lurker]

Ethel wrote:

I'm really uncomfortable about this because surely the sexual abuse of children is the vilest crime possible, but I have to agree with yov. It's the First Amendment of the US Constitution, you see, which I revere. Freedom of speech includes freedom of vile speech as well as any other kind, or it means nothing. And freedom of speech also includes freedom of political activity.

None of which is to say that I support the existence of a Pedophilia Party or a White Identity Party. I find either idea abhorrent. What I support is their right to exist - a very different thing.

Your freedom ends, when my right begins.
What I couldn't comprehend is why do you support their right to exist when in fact you condemn their activities? Just because freedom of speech includes freedom of political activity it doesn't mean that they have the right to exist when their activities are illegal.

LM quote:

Another issue – there is talk of ‘would-be paedophiles’. Do you have to molest children to be a paedophile, or should it be used to describe a sexual orientation whereby someone is attracted to children?

Yes, under the law just having pictures of naked children other than your own in your hard drive can be grounds of having you arrested. How can it be sexual orientation when we have only two sexes male and female, it doesn't say male, female, children, animals and androids or do you mean the act itself should be considered "sexual orientation". I apologize but just the mere thought of discussing this make my blood boil.

Side note rant: I was researching at a local library a few years ago and I was sitting by the window where you can see the children's playground. There was this guy pretending to be studying, he had the book opened on a page he hasn't touched nor read, when in fact I glanced at him every few minutes his eyes were fixed on four little girls playing there. Man, it was really scary. He was staring at them like a cat waiting to pounce its prey. I can't do anything, I don't have any evidence he is in fact, watching the girls, there is nothing wrong at looking, right? So what I did was I put a note on the suggestion box for the library to put blinds on the window facing the playground and told them what happened. After a week, the blinds were drawn down, thank god!!!

It really makes me sick, I can't do anything about it.

[yovargas]

I'll put it simply - To my knowledge, there is no law, no part of the U.S. Constitution, that cannot be overturned if the proper legal procedures are followed. In my view, a group of people can get together to oppose and try to change any law in a country with a basis of government along the same lines as the U.S. has.

[Lurker]

The thing is the activity of the assembled party is illegal according to the laws of the country therefore pursuing a legal status is invalid. Are you telling me if the Mafia wants to start their own political party you will say it's freedom of expression because they want to legalize their activities? I don't get it, why are you guys telling me an illegal activity is a freedom of expression. It's a crime.

[yovargas]

Trying to change a law is not a crime. As far as we can tell, they are following the legal process to try and change a law they disapprove of. Of course, while the law is still on the books (as it wll hopefully be forever), they cannot commit these vile acts.

[Lurker]

Yeah, trying to change a law is not a crime but have the pedophilia party complied with the rules and procedures of forming a party, don't they check if the party is doing illegal activities in the Netherlands. If it's as easy as pie, then the Mafia or the KKK or the Communist party (legal here in Canada) would have started their own political party by now, right?

[elfshadow]

I think that there is a difference between discussing pedophilia and committing pedophilia. In this case, so far as we know, the party is doing the former. As Ethel said, they have already put themselves out in the open, and I would assume that those who have been convicted of pedophilia are already highly scrutinized by law enforcement officials. I expect that the Dutch government will keep especially close watch on these individuals who have declared themselves to be part of the pro-pedophilia party. I would hope that the Dutch laws concerning pedophiles are already strict (although if the party leader was let off with just a fine... ) and that any person, whether they be a member of this party or not, that is convicted of pedophilia will be harshly dealt with.


Hopefully, the media coverage of the "pedophilia party" will only spur those of us, the huge majority, who abhor pedophilia into action against the party and it's disgusting platform. Maybe the Dutch laws will become even stricter (as they should be) towards those convicted of molesting children. The thought of a pro-pedophilia party sickens me, but I strongly value freedom of speech and I do not believe that the party itself is illegal. But like I said before, I hope that the Dutch government does its best to convict these scum of any pedophilic crimes that are committed. In the meantime, the rest of the country will probably be keeping close watch over their own children. Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call that there are many twisted people out there who believe what they're doing to children is not wrong.

[MithLuin]

Ethel, I did not equate homosexual behavior with pedophilia. I said that this case (the Dutch party) was not the first time people have been worried that pedophilia would be considered "normal" as a next step. [Lord Morningstar used the words "next step" in his opening post.]

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its catalogue of mental disorders. At the time, some people were concerned that (if homosexuality were removed) it was only a matter of time before other behaviors (in particular, pedophilia) were also removed. Needless to say, pedophilia is still on the books as a disorder.

I also mentioned Kinsey, the researcher whose work in the 1950s caused a stir and helped to fuel some of the controversy and fears. I said that I have not read the Kinsey Reports, so I am not claiming that they advocate pedophilia. I am merely stating that some of his research on the sexual response of children helped to fuel fears that pedophilia would someday be considered "normal." (Some of the information in the research was obtained from the detailed journal of a pedophile.)

I also mentioned that pedophilia was not the only form of sexuality that is considered deviant and illegal. Nel's example demonstrates that quite clearly, but of course any form of rape is always illegal.



This political party is trying to change the laws, but what they are advocating is a lot more serious than legalizing marijuana or gambling. I think one could argue that it would not be legal for the Netherlands to legalize pedophilia even if they wanted to - the EU or the UN may forbid it, for instance.

UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child

There are rules governing the formation of political parties that do not apply to just any group of citizens. After all, free speech may protect the right of the North American Man/Boy Love Association to exist, but that doesn't mean they are allowed (or able) to form a political party. My guess is that if they tried to do so, the government would find a way to harass them until they stopped. I mean, the group finds it hard enough to maintain a website as is.

The concern isn't that the Dutch Party will take over - the concern is that they were organized enough and got enough support (however much of a minority that must have been) to form a political party in the first place. It just raises questions about what sort of things are not being followed up by police in the Netherlands. And of course the prevalence and availability of pornography is another issue entirely; so kind of them to stipulate that participants should be 16.

[Ethel]

Ethel, I did not equate homosexual behavior with pedophilia. I said that this case (the Dutch party) was not the first time people have been worried that pedophilia would be considered "normal" as a next step. [Lord Morningstar used the words "next step" in his opening post.]

No, you didn't. I felt there was an implication there, though, and if I'm wrong, I apologize. That you were suggesting this was somehow a slippery slope, and if we let homosexuals have sexual relations without prosecution, the next step is legalizing pedophilia. I could not disagree more. To me it seems so simple: what happens between two consenting adults, if it does not involve a crime, should be no part of the law's business. This can never be true for sexual contact between adults and children, in my opinion, because a child simply cannot consent. To anything. That's why they have parents.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its catalogue of mental disorders. At the time, some people were concerned that (if homosexuality were removed) it was only a matter of time before other behaviors (in particular, pedophilia) were also removed. Needless to say, pedophilia is still on the books as a disorder.

I daresay some people were concerned. I think they were mistaken. I think there is no relationship at all between homosexuality and pedophilia. What do you think?

I also mentioned Kinsey, the researcher whose work in the 1950s caused a stir and helped to fuel some of the controversy and fears. I said that I have not read the Kinsey Reports, so I am not claiming that they advocate pedophilia. I am merely stating that some of his research on the sexual response of children helped to fuel fears that pedophilia would someday be considered "normal." (Some of the information in the research was obtained from the detailed journal of a pedophile.)

I am familiar with Kinsey's work with respect to homosexuality. I was not aware that he was believed to have supported pedophilia, and if that's true, I am horrified. Can you provide a link?

I also mentioned that pedophilia was not the only form of sexuality that is considered deviant and illegal. Nel's example demonstrates that quite clearly, but of course any form of rape is always illegal.

Indeed. But my position is that we need not get down into the weeds with non-monagamous-heterosexual sexual practices. If they involve a crime, then the state has a legitmate interest in stopping it. If not, not.

This political party is trying to change the laws, but what they are advocating is a lot more serious than legalizing marijuana or gambling. I think one could argue that it would not be legal for the Netherlands to legalize pedophilia even if they wanted to - the EU or the UN may forbid it, for instance.

I don't disagree on any of these points. But what is the legal grounding by which you would prohibit this speech, assembly, or formation of a political party? Because it's so offensive? Which it certainly is. But who gets to decide what is too offensive? You? Me? A court? That's where it all falls apart. If you give a person or group the power to decide, "Nope, you can't have a political party with this focus" - how do you control that? What if that person or group decides there can't be a (say) Christian party either? Who will stop them? Do you see where I'm going with this?

There are rules governing the formation of political parties that do not apply to just any group of citizens. After all, free speech may protect the right of the North American Man/Boy Love Association to exist, but that doesn't mean they are allowed (or able) to form a political party. My guess is that if they tried to do so, the government would find a way to harass them until they stopped. I mean, the group finds it hard enough to maintain a website as is.

What are these rules governing the formation of political parties? I am not familiar with them. I thought anyone who wanted to do so, could. Isn't it just a question of filing some papers? Just as anyone who wanted to form a new religion, could. Am I mistaken?

The concern isn't that the Dutch Party will take over - the concern is that they were organized enough and got enough support (however much of a minority that must have been) to form a political party in the first place. It just raises questions about what sort of things are not being followed up by police in the Netherlands. And of course the prevalence and availability of pornography is another issue entirely; so kind of them to stipulate that participants should be 16.

Here's where we differ, Mith. You cannot possibly hate this idea more than I do. I experienced sexual abuse as a child, and I know first hand how much damage it can do. But I cannot think of a way to prohibit this political expression without also empowering whoever does the prohibiting to also stifle legitimate political expression. I'm not willing to sacrifice the First Amendment just because these people make my skin crawl. I think there are other ways to fight them.

[yovargas]

I'm not willing to sacrifice the First Amendment just because these people make my skin crawl. I think there are other ways to fight them.

Just wanted to heartily agree with that.


eta:

I was not aware that he was believed to have supported pedophilia, and if that's true, I am horrified.

The movie, iirc, showed him attempting to study pedophiles in an objective, scientific manner. Given that he was a scientist, I think that's commendable, but I don't know what conclusions, if any, he came to.

[vison]

I believe Kinsey also determined that children are, in fact, sexual beings. This is not a popular item of knowledge.

He did not say that meant they should have sex; merely that all humans are sexual beings to one extent or another and that it is wise to remember that.

[MithLuin]

I did not see the movie, and I have not read any books on Kinsey. As I said, there is no indication, as far as I know, that he supported pedophilia. It was merely the fact that he was studying the sexual response of children that, as you say, made people's skin crawl. It raised concerns - it was controversial.

I was providing a recent historical context, not commenting on the issue myself. I find that no one can discuss such things rationally, and I am no exception.

You mentioned that forming a party would involve filing some forms. So, presumably a government agency processes these forms and charges standard fees. My father filed for a non-profit a year ago in the US; they still haven't looked at it. These things always take time, and if the gov't wants to, they can hold up the process, causing nuisances and delays. Presumably, they could delay it indefinately, or find enough 'problems' that need to be resolved...just nitpick the whole application. There was a reason I called it "harassment." I am not suggesting that such behavior is good or legal...merely that it would happen if someone tried to do something like that in the US. No one would help them through the process - they would demand full compliance on all counts, and enforce maximum waiting periods, requirements and fees. If the group thought it could prove harassment, they could sue.

Freedom of speech is an important right. Even offensive speech is protected. But I see little compunction to protect evil speech, myself. Discussing pedophilia is not evil - we are doing that now. Encouraging people to engage in sexual activity with kids? That is evil, and I really have no problem shutting that person up. But then, I have less respect for gov't and law than I should. [I should clarify - by 'shutting someone up' I don't mean taking them out or throwing them in jail - I just mean making it difficult for them to have a platform.]

[vison]

I believe Kinsey also determined that children are, in fact, sexual beings. This is not a popular item of knowledge.

He did not say that meant they should have sex; merely that all humans are sexual beings to one extent or another and that it is wise to remember that.

John O'Hara's novel "Butterfield 8" deals in part with the occasion and the aftermath of child sexual abuse. It is a very good book, but parts of it are hard to read. O'Hara wrote this book before Kinsey did his research.

[nerdanel]

I only recall a very brief snippet of the movie Kinsey referring to anything to do with pedophilia/child sexuality. Am I forgetting something major? The main thrust of the movie was Kinsey's groundbreaking work on adult sexuality - specifically, the notion that what the adult members of our society desire sexually, and the extent to which we act on those desires, are very different than what we are willing to acknowledge when we emerge from behind closed doors.

[Primula Baggins]

This is a dicey issue because there are many people in the United States who express the same visceral disgust toward homosexuality that we have all been showing (justifiably) toward pedophilia.

I am not, not, not equating them. As others have said, what consenting adults choose to do in private is an entirely different issue from sexual activity involving children, who cannot consent.

But if we're going to restrict political speech because the subject is revolting to us and the activity under discussion is illegal, we should remember that both of these applied to the widespread opinion of and legal status of homosexuality a generation and more ago, and people advocating the rights of homosexual adults would have met (did meet!) with much the same disgust in many quarters. Revulsion for the subject doesn't justify repression of legal speech and activity.

I am not at all saying that a generation from now our society will accept pedophilia as a valid and healthy sexual orientation. The vast majority of people agree that children need to be protected, and I strongly doubt that that will ever change.

At least, if it does, I'm moving to another planet.

[nerdanel]

But if we're going to restrict political speech because the subject is revolting to us and the activity under discussion is illegal, we should remember that both of these applied to the widespread opinion of and legal status of homosexuality a generation and more ago, and people advocating the rights of homosexual adults would have met (did meet!) with much the same disgust in many quarters. Revulsion for the subject doesn't justify repression of legal speech and activity.

Prim is wise (and it is very clear that you are not equating the two things.)

[JewelSong]

I think in many ways, that Kinsey was a fruitcake. Yes, he did some ground-breaking research about human sexuality - ground-breaking simply because no one had attempted to tackle the subject in such a way before.

But the man himself was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, if you ask me.

[axordil]

It's probably worth noting that we're talking about three, count them three, men trying to found the party, last I checked, at least one of whom is obviously good at playing the media.

[eborr]

Seems to me that there are a number of issues of great importance here.

1, The dutch liberal concensus, certainly the Netherlands had become a byword for tolerance of all manner of things, and kn some ways the results of this could be viewed postively, I believe though am happy to receive correction, that the Dutch have realtively low levels of hard drug abuse, violent crime, rape, offences against children, however their liberalism and freedom is now causing them some problems with regard to their immigrant community.

2. Why is paedo different, it is not just because it's a crime, per se, its because its cruel and wrong, in the same way the a party in favour of rape or burning witches or discrimination against the disabled would be wrong and cruel.

3. It;s a common tactic of the paedo to associate themselves with homosexuality and alternative life-styles, but this of course is bogus.

4. We are facing social changes which say that the age of voting should be lowered, and the age of criminal responsibilty should be lowered. This implies that young people are of an age when they can make responsible choices, this whole notion in the context of paedo is highly dangerous.

5. Because older more mature people in postions of responsibility can exert influnce on younger folk, we have had some changes in the UK law which make it an offence for people such as teachers to have consensual realtionships with under 18's .

So we have a real mess -