Pickled Politics






Family

Comrades

In-laws







Site Meter

Charity, freedom and diversity


by SajiniW on 2nd June, 2006 at 8:41 am    

Charity, Freedom and Diversity; three perfectly inoffensive states to strive for, much like liberté, egalité and fraternité in France. Our colleagues in the Netherlands have reason to disagree; since these three words have been hijacked by the minority interest party with a difference.

Due to be registered on Wednesday, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity party has vowed to ’shake the Hague’. Formed to fight for the sexual rights of the children and those who wish to love molest them, the party was created as a response to the ’silencing’ of paedophiles after the Marc Detroux scandal in nearby Belgium.

The party is fighting to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether. The current ban on sex under 16 “makes children curious,” according to Ad van den Berg, one of the party’s founders.

Among their more esoteric wishes, party wants toddlers to be given sex education and the rights to having youth aged 12-16 appearing in pornographic films and prostituting themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of these creature should remain illegal.

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

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.

Opponents to the party have spoken, stating that “paedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state”.

I agree that ‘’breaking that taboo will just create more victims and more serious ones.”
Opening up the debate alone will not necessarily result in this happening.



  |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Digg this   |   Filed under: The World, Civil liberties




21 Comments   |  


  1. mirax — on 2nd June, 2006 at 8:58 am  

    I read the initial reports on the NVD with a sense of utter disbelief - and wondered if they were taking the piss. Doesn’t matter, what is for the good is that a completely objectionable and potentially criminal subgroup has just unmasked itself. The authorities and ordinary people should now subject NVD supporters to the closest scrutiny imaginable.

  2. SajiniW — on 2nd June, 2006 at 9:04 am  

    At which point do we define ‘potential criminal’ though?

    People who’d like to legalise an act that’s currently not so?

    People who have committed recent crimes, e.g. certain BNP members we laughed at last week?

  3. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 9:24 am  

    To be honest, I’d rather paedophiles didn’t hide in their filthy murky shadows and came out to make their sickening demands. They should all do it. Get other paedos to sign up for the party. At least this way they’re identified by the authorities instead of hidden away. Who knows? Maybe the dutch might just sober up from their stupor for long enough to go lynch the fuckers

  4. funkg — on 2nd June, 2006 at 9:33 am  

    at least those perverts are identifying theirselves, they should now be locked up and dealt with.

  5. SajiniW — on 2nd June, 2006 at 9:34 am  

    Whilst I find the actions of those who enjoy molesting children deplorable, I don’t think a Newsoftheworld-style ‘lynching’ is the answer.

  6. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 9:40 am  

    It’s not an answer Sajini, but it sure as hell would satisfy my curiousity

  7. sonia — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:14 am  

    interesting! well perhaps one could simply say -and are there any children in this party?

    its one thing to talk about the sexual rights of children ( its obvious children are sexually curious before they’re ‘legal’ - there’s no point in people denying that) but it’s quite another matter talking about the rights of an adult to have sex with a child.

  8. SajiniW — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:18 am  

    The one thing that stops the UK from lowering the age of consent (once the less pleasant consequences of teenage pregnancy are put to one side) is the ’slippery slope’ argument.

  9. sonia — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:31 am  

    strange as it may be, i do agree that ‘paedophiles’ ( or potential ones perhaps!) ‘announcing’ themselves is better than not announcing themselves. still i don’t think all molesters are about to join this party - sexual molestation of children is far far more widespread than we imagine. and statistically, more children are more at risk from close family members and trusted people rather than strangers hiding behind bushes waiting to pounce.

  10. sonia — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:34 am  

    hmm teenage pregnancy rates are high despite the age of consent being what it is - i don’t really see how lowering the age of consent is going to make any difference! the only thing is if teenagers are encouraged more to use birth control and that’s hardly likely to happen the more ‘undercover’ and ‘illicit’ the kids feel their sexual actitivity is.

  11. SajiniW — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:36 am  

    Most molestation, be it rape/of a child happens with a ‘known’ person.

    It certainly contributes to the hysteria about having the right to know where child sex offenders live.

  12. SajiniW — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:38 am  

    I think the difference in teenage pregnancy rates in Holland + Scandinavia compared to the UK, is birth control, not age.

  13. sonia — on 2nd June, 2006 at 10:42 am  

    makes sense what you say above Sajini.

  14. Chris Stiles — on 2nd June, 2006 at 12:19 pm  

    It’s a function of both birth control, and teens being less sexually active overall, which in turn is a function of education and societal attitudes.

  15. sonia — on 2nd June, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    i’m sure lots of animal rights activists will get worked up about this :-)

    still they did say something about free train travel for everyone - ha! now why can’t some sensible political parties opt for that one hmm?

  16. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2006 at 12:49 pm  

    Votes for goats

  17. Roger — on 2nd June, 2006 at 12:59 pm  

    The age of consent is an arbitrary thing that varies from country to country. It’s still necessary because the main objection to sexual behaviour involving adults and people who are legally still children is that adults are- just because they are adults- in a position of power.
    There’s a difference between the changing the age of consent and paedophilia: the latter iis sexual attraction to children before they have adult sexual characteristics. For obvious reasons, apart from the moral aspects, having sexual relations with such children can cause permanent physical and psychological harm.

  18. Fe'reeha — on 2nd June, 2006 at 1:08 pm  

    I think there is a fundamental fault in the party proposals. Just because children are curious about sex does not mean they are entitled to it.
    Children are curious about almost everything. From rubbish, guns, kitchen utensils to washing powder, space, aliens etc…children want to know and experiement with everything. Does it mean we should let them drink detergents and fire guns as well.
    Just to satisfy their curiosity?

  19. IanLondon — on 2nd June, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

    They’ve gone all about it in the wrong way, they should have dressed themselves up as a religious party, promote the idea of no sex outside marriage, and then lowered the age of marriage for females to 12.

  20. V — on 9th June, 2006 at 9:16 pm  

    If they had forbidden the out-marriage sex relations, they’d have to abolish it later for “exchanging” their wifes… but that ain’t a bad strategy in a first time: considered as a sect, they can easily gather pedophilians and make internal changes:

    start:
    “religious paty” face, dressed as puritans -► social-acception -► gather members and keep them.
    then:
    internal changes, only visible for members who already joined -► pedophilia enabled

    dressed a first as a political party, then do not have any chance. Hope they will quickly disappear, they make me sick.

  21. Joe90 — on 9th June, 2006 at 9:50 pm  

    Fe’reeha asks: “Just because children are curious about sex does not mean they are entitled to it.”

    I really doubt these creeps in Holland have the welfare of children uppermost in their minds.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2006. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.