paedophiles in politics

[<ankh>]

I believe in free speech and democracy, but when someone crosses the boundary line and violates someone elses human rights, their rights to democratic free speech can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Which is why democracy doesnt work. Tbh I doubt the is any kind of goverment that works fully
Another problem with democracy is that it tend to be more talk than action (which ofc can be good sometimes).

/Ankh

[Norcott]

To bring it back on topic.. (or just do wot i do best... add )

This has just hit the news here in the uk.. this is a copy of the article:
...............................................................

There is outrage in the Netherlands after paedophiles launched a political party to push for a cut in the legal age of consent.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party wants the age dropped from 16 to 12, before having it scrapped completely, and also wants child pornography and sex with animals to be legalised, sparking a massive backlash in the liberal country.

The vast majority of the Dutch public now believe the government should step in and outlaw the group.

One of the NVD's founders, Ad van den Berg, said: "A ban just makes children curious. We want to make paedophilia the subject of discussion.

"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals."

But, right-wing politician Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established.

And Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Paedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."

The NVD says toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in porn films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, it said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalising all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

edit. heres the link. its off my homepage so u may not get it yahoo peeps will most def.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/31052006/356/d ... trage.html
..............................

The worlds going mad... man will make and man will destroy...himself

[<ankh>]

Cheers Norcott! Was a good addition to the thread!

/Ankh

[Norcott]

Cheers Norcott! Was a good addition to the thread!

/Ankh

your joking.. i actually added and it was contributing... hmmm i must be more careful..

[<ankh>]

your joking.. i actually added and it was contributing... hmmm i must be more careful..

Hehe yepp now step back and be quiet! ]/Ankh[/B]

[Sharkith]

what is democracy though? Personally I see it as one of the main processes for politics which itself is a system of communication about making collectively binding decisions.

What people are doing here is crossing social norms with politics. Social norms are protected by the legal system. Problems of social norms are not political problems or only become political problems when the political system makes them such. So for example the democractic norm of free speech which is held sacrosanct and legally protected in a lot of political systems can often be refined because of a perceived threat from outside.

Likewise the norm that people should only have sex after a certain age is protected by law. This does not mean it cannot become an issue for politics. Of course we might feel violated and upset but personally I do not see any threat to the legally sanctioned norm. A more interesting question is the degree to which 'rabid preaching' became such a political issue that it led to a change in the norm of freedom of speech. I think thats the most recent example in the UK and US that can act as a nice comparison. In this instance the likelihood of a similar change taking place would be highly improbable.

Now in this thread we also have a very interesting thing happening. Some of you are saying that it is not 'normal' to talk about underage sex. You are saying that this is wrong either that or you are confusing having underage sex with talking about it. Whatever the case if your saying it is wrong to talk about underage sex you are in effect claiming that politics in this particular code should be subject to the law. To what extent should politics be controlled by the legal system in this case?

I personally would prefer it to remain autonomous despite the fact that the judges would perhaps see it otherwise.

[Cromcruaich]

Could you say it again cos i didnt really understand what you're trying to say, and i'll be happy to give you my opinion.

A person who was an adult by age, but mentally was still a child, who was in a situation which would be interpreted as an abusive situation. Not sure how the law handles that.

[Xest]

Jesus christ they want free train travel for all, there's no way we can possibly let this group continue to exist.

[Cromcruaich]

Which is why democracy doesnt work. Tbh I doubt the is any kind of goverment that works fully
Another problem with democracy is that it tend to be more talk than action (which ofc can be good sometimes).

/Ankh

I disagree on that, just human rights need to be legally and correctly tied in with the democratic framework - they certainly arnt mutually exclusive.


Gosh, I really gotta do some work now so am gonna have to bow out for a few hours.

[<ankh>]

Jesus christ they want free train travel for all, there's no way we can possibly let this group continue to exist.

I actually missed that part your right, we cannot accept their unrealistic ideas into the goverment....all the discussions had actually made me belive what they wanted was ok until you mentioned this

/Ankh