paedophiles in politics

[Satyn]

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.

Think i understand where you are coming from. But that is a totally diffrent thing than men (or women) who deliberatly sexually abuse a baby or toddler. What my concern is tho is that grown men/women could pretend to be mentally ill just to get away with their perverted actions.

[Lieva]

the scarey thing also

its a charity according to norcotts thingy

doesnt that mean they get X amt of free money from the government and/or prolly have people giving money too them...

[Satyn]

the scarey thing also

its a charity according to norcotts thingy

doesnt that mean they get X amt of free money from the government and/or prolly have people giving money too them...

yep, i'm glad he found the article cos i been trying to find it all morning... shows you how sick they are.

[Ovi]

You are missing the point "Some paedophiles decided to run for election in Holland."

Notice..which means they already ARE paedophiles. I seriously doubt they would stop being so just because they become politicians.

Edit: Sure, its nice they stand up for what they belive..but do you want any of them in a society? Would you like the serial killers to become politicans to fight for what they belive too? Imo I a paedophile is worth less than a serial killer in my eyes so why not..

Edit 2: I never did say they would break the law just because they are politicians, but they are fighting for a twisted way of life that Im pretty sure 100% of us in this forum concider to be wrong. And to fight for this, you have to belive its right...and if you do - your a scum.

Edit 3: Paedophiles should have no rights at all. And btw - I don't belive in democracy. Why? Cos its just the reason why these kind of things can happen.

Edit 4: I better add that I have no trust in any type of goverment or Anarchy.
/Ankh

Sorry, given that they are not incarcerated I assumed that was a label someone had given them because they disapproved of their policies as much as any actual evidence of the crime.

Even in the news Norcott linked it still appears to me that the term was used as a label for what they stood for, and not based on actual crimes etc.

I don't have any support or sympathy for Paedophiles, and would quite happily see the death penalty re-introduced for them. However just because someone is given a label by the press or any-one else does not make them guilty of the crime.

Out of interest if you don't trust any type of Government or Anarchy, which do distrust the least? Since there has to be either a type of Government or Anarchy, which is the lesser devil that we can realistically expect?

I personally don't trust any form of Government either, however I do think that the best we can realistically expect is Democracy, at least it gives the multitude some form of expression.

[<ankh>]

Out of interest if you don't trust any type of Government or Anarchy, which do distrust the least? Since there has to be either a type of Government or Anarchy, which is the lesser devil that we can realistically expect?

I personally don't trust any form of Government either, however I do think that the best we can realistically expect is Democracy, at least it gives the multitude some form of expression.

I ofc prefer a goverment before anarchy. But I can't specify what kind of goverment. None of them appeal to me.

Democracy would be nice if it worked, but unfortunatly I havent seen any land with democracy that actually HAVE democracy...in the end we got very little to say.

Hmm...was it switzerland where they sometimes do the ol "count hands" way of deciding? (if you get what I mean).

/Ankh

[Ovi]

No, they will do no good what so ever in the goverment. They need medical treatment (no idea what kind..but I know they need SOME kind of treatment or help) and NOT political power.

/Ankh

I would be very disappointed with the Dutch if enough voted to get even one member elected, even using PR.

[Ovi]

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.

Be careful not to confuse Freedom of Speech with Democracy. Freedom of Speech is the right to say what you want, and rightly needs to have boundaries. This freedom is given to us because that is what we, as a democracy, have decided it is what we want.

Democracy is the form of governance which decides what the laws of the state are, how to enforce them etc. Does a Democracy really have boundaries? Afterall it is only doing what the populace want it to do.

Of course that is all theoretical, and there is no true democracy in the world to actually put the theory to the test. What current Democracies are actually reasonably good at is ensuring extremes don't get their way. Of course it also means that a lot of good ideas also don't get listened to either!

[Quinlan]

I would be very disappointed with the Dutch if enough voted to get even one member elected, even using PR.

Dont worry that wont happen. They will never get there, not scared of that. Think they do this more to make a statement. They realise they dont stand a chance but now they have achieved what the wanted: Attention.

and now for the controversial point:
In some countries homosexuality is illegal and people are killed over it. Up to some point it was considered a crime in Europe too and still there are shitloads of people who consider them sinners, criminals etc.

Now this situation exists for pedofiles. But is it wrong if a kid (and dont be fooled currently a 14 year old one knows more then many adults on the sexual area) wants to have sex with a..ermm lets say 35 year old? If both parties agree is it then something bad?

You all seem to focus on unwanted instances but the other side exists too and from the dutch news i read that is what they mean.

[Xest]

I think the key in your statement Quinlan is seperating child abuse from underage sex, whilst some will say that underage sex is child abuse I think they're somewhat different things, if a child is happy with a situation then it doesn't exactly fall under the definition of abuse and that's where the problem in seperating the two things lies. In that respect it's a little like discussing the anti-British sentiment amongst many Pakistani communities living in the UK, if you bring it up many will cry racism to silence the issue, likewise if you try and discuss lowering the age of consent then many will cry child abuse and paedophile to again silence the issue.

Another thing to bear in mind is that in most of the US the age of consent is 18, in countries like Sweden and Vietnam it's 15, that's a 3 year difference. Taking that into account, is reducing the age of consent in say, the UK to 13 - 3 years less than it is previously any different to the 3 year difference between the US and Sweden? One of the underlying problems with the age of consent is that people simply don't mature at the same rate, whilst some people mature by 12 others don't mature until 17 or so, therefore one age of consent in terms of maturity really does not suit all.

[Satyn]

When you are 14 and you get attention from an older guy then you are flatterd and very glad. Been there done that. I think adults should respect that a child is a child and an adult is an adult. Have sex with ppl over 18 and let kids be kids. If a 35y old has sex with a 14y old then IMO its the 35y taking advantage on the 14y. When you're that age you're still exploring so many things, and you're in now way capable of seeing something bad in making love with a much older guy that says that he loves you.
Like what is said before, kids need to be protected for themselves, its not an easy thing to do cos i still remember my puberty years but ppl should still try.