paedophiles in politics
-
Cromcruaich
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:59 pm
- Location: North West, UK
The key point here is consent, children/minors have a definite status in law. They cannot give reasonable and responsible consent. Lowering the age of consent is effectively saying that at that age they are able to take complete responsibility for their actions.
Crom, Druid of Na Fianna Dragun
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...the A(nimist)-Team
Cue music for full effect.
Thanks to Tuthmes for the link.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...the A(nimist)-Team
Cue music for full effect.
Thanks to Tuthmes for the link.
Well that's the argument isn't it though, that the law is possibly wrong - that kids can in fact give reasonable consent, again it's a matter of maturity and also a matter of education, if kids are better educated about the situation then they can better make those kind of decisions, likewise not every kid is too immature to make the right choice at an age younger than the current age of consent. It's partly that kids aren't currently educated much about sex and the choices surrounding it that they are often so easily manipulated by those who set out to abuse them.Cromcruaich wrote:The key point here is consent, children/minors have a definite status in law. They cannot give reasonable and responsible consent. Lowering the age of consent is effectively saying that at that age they are able to take complete responsibility for their actions.
OFFICER XEST - PROTECTING YOU AGAINST FORUM CRIME
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Yeah, bunch of commiesXest wrote:Jesus christ they want free train travel for all, there's no way we can possibly let this group continue to exist.
.Prydwen
Lairiodd Level 50 Nightshade and Legendary Grandmaster Smith (1065) check prices here
Lairirian Level 50 Mana Mentalist and Legendary Spellcrafter (TDD)
Lairgreybark Level 50 Arb Animist
Lairmindlock Level 50 Bard (TDD)
Camlann
Lairthall Level 35+ Friar
Stocking one 99% of most of the useful spellcrafting gems at Houses 3304 and 3306
Over 150 gems at 99% stocked
Lairiodd Level 50 Nightshade and Legendary Grandmaster Smith (1065) check prices here
Lairirian Level 50 Mana Mentalist and Legendary Spellcrafter (TDD)
Lairgreybark Level 50 Arb Animist
Lairmindlock Level 50 Bard (TDD)
Camlann
Lairthall Level 35+ Friar
Stocking one 99% of most of the useful spellcrafting gems at Houses 3304 and 3306
Over 150 gems at 99% stocked
Yeah, they have a mechanism where people can force a referendum on certain issues.<ankh> wrote:
Hmm...was it switzerland where they sometimes do the ol "count hands" way of deciding? (if you get what I mean).
/Ankh
One issue with democracy is that 51% of the population can control the other 49%. There are no "real" democracies anyway. Most have some kind of constitution so that the majority cannot abuse their position.
Exactly. There are people who think the law is wrong but who don't break it. Also, there are people who wouldn't do the action even if was legal but still think it should be legal.Ovi wrote: 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.
In this case, there are a few groups of people ranging from actual paedophiles to those who just think the law should be changed. People should be allowed discuss it, and if necessary form a political party. That party can then be defeated in debate rather than silenced.
You might think the speed limit should be higher, but most people will still respect them anyway (say only breaking by 10 miles/hour
).I think a good test would be if the child when looking back as an adult would consider it abuse. However, that is not exactly practical to test.Xest wrote: 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.
Parents (and the law) protect children because they less experienced. However, it shouldn't prevent them from doing what they would want to do if they did possess the experience. I will conceed that that would create a major grey area
.I think a related issue is things like criminal punishment for children who commit crimes. Some children honestly just didn't know better and such they are innocent. However, you also see interviews with children who basically tell the police that they committed the crime because they knew that the police couldn't touch them. The second group of children should be prosecuted as adults. They understand what they did is wrong and understand what criminal punishment is. However, again major grey area. In any case, very hard to prove.The key point here is consent, children/minors have a definite status in law. They cannot give reasonable and responsible consent. Lowering the age of consent is effectively saying that at that age they are able to take complete responsibility for their actions.
Prydwen
Lairiodd Level 50 Nightshade and Legendary Grandmaster Smith (1065) check prices here
Lairirian Level 50 Mana Mentalist and Legendary Spellcrafter (TDD)
Lairgreybark Level 50 Arb Animist
Lairmindlock Level 50 Bard (TDD)
Camlann
Lairthall Level 35+ Friar
Stocking one 99% of most of the useful spellcrafting gems at Houses 3304 and 3306
Over 150 gems at 99% stocked
Lairiodd Level 50 Nightshade and Legendary Grandmaster Smith (1065) check prices here
Lairirian Level 50 Mana Mentalist and Legendary Spellcrafter (TDD)
Lairgreybark Level 50 Arb Animist
Lairmindlock Level 50 Bard (TDD)
Camlann
Lairthall Level 35+ Friar
Stocking one 99% of most of the useful spellcrafting gems at Houses 3304 and 3306
Over 150 gems at 99% stocked
yes focussing on the legal status and not confusing it with the political issue of freedom of speech is much more productive. If you focus on the legal norms then you start to ask much more productive questions like. If the age of consent was 12 does this mean if a child has sex at that age that this would be a question of consent and would subsequently be a problem for rape law rather than child sexual abuse?
Does the law currently sanction child sexual abuse with more severe sentences than say rape?
Once you start thinking simply about the one issue it gets a bit easier to talk about. Does the law actually protect children more because they are 'minors'?
Does the law currently sanction child sexual abuse with more severe sentences than say rape?
Once you start thinking simply about the one issue it gets a bit easier to talk about. Does the law actually protect children more because they are 'minors'?
Na Fianna Dragun
Karak-Eight Peaks, Kiera ze Witch Hunter
Eve online - Kaminjosvig.
Karak-Eight Peaks, Kiera ze Witch Hunter
Eve online - Kaminjosvig.
Yes that true in writings but it hasnt worked well in 3 cases that the Raper has gone free becouse She Looked Older or she didnt said NO ( becouse she was drunk or druged ) ...<ankh> wrote:In sweden its concidered to be rape if you have sex with an underage no matter if its on their own free will or not.
/Ankh
Karak-Hirn:
Luin, Displine of Khaine lvl 24
Epof, Squig Herder lvl 19
Blueraven, Marauder lvl 20
8 Peaks:
Blueraven, Archmage 6 NFD
Luin, Bright Wizard lvl 10
Luin, Displine of Khaine lvl 24
Epof, Squig Herder lvl 19
Blueraven, Marauder lvl 20
8 Peaks:
Blueraven, Archmage 6 NFD
Luin, Bright Wizard lvl 10
With issues of this type, I think you have to have start out with saying:
If I believe in the right to make public your beliefs, then I believe in it for the beliefs that I hate and despise.
Imo, you cannot really say you believe in freedom of speech otherwise.
But that's a starting point. Because quite separately from the above stance, there is a question of: 'will the actions of these people in the political arena, encourage criminal acts elsewhere'. This is a valid question I think, and in this situation probably the crucial one.
Normally, you can argue the case for something that is criminal with some level of immunity. So for a number of years people have argued for the legalization of illegal drugs without much trouble. In fact, any time you argue the law to be changed, you're arguing to allow what is at the time quite illegal. So that on its own doesn't seem to be enough reason to dismiss the rights of these people in Holland.
The law, afaik, says you can argue against a law, or argue in favour of a law, so long as you don't actively encourage people to do something whilst it is still illegal. But the question here is, can you apply it to these people?
One thing public debate on an issue will generally do, is change people's perception of the issue. People may argue charismatically in favour of some idea, and even if it used to be utterly rejected, for some people this may change. So there is the question: 'is the fact that these people may 'persuade' others to agree with them (and thus be 'tempted' to break the law) enough reason to outlaw them?' Again, for me, this on its own isn't enough reason, as it the same thinking could also outlaw types of causes.
Another thing political focus does is give an idea some amount of legitimacy. Not in the sense that it becomes law, but in a more subtle sense that since it is being discussed it may become law. So it could be argued, probably correctly, that open discussion of paedophilia in parliament will make it much less taboo, and be seen as a tiny bit more ok by some people.
Those are the sort of areas I was thinking in anyway.
One other thing I'd add is while there's no harm thinking about this side of the problem, it does always alarm me how little attention is given to other sides of the same problem. If you live in the UK you know how the media/politicians generally treat the issue. I have never seen any public attention on why people become paedophilic, on how the incidence of it may be reduced, on how to educate children about it. All these things are distinct from the normal debate in that they may actually help reduce the harm that paedophilia does to individuals and society.
If I believe in the right to make public your beliefs, then I believe in it for the beliefs that I hate and despise.
Imo, you cannot really say you believe in freedom of speech otherwise.
But that's a starting point. Because quite separately from the above stance, there is a question of: 'will the actions of these people in the political arena, encourage criminal acts elsewhere'. This is a valid question I think, and in this situation probably the crucial one.
Normally, you can argue the case for something that is criminal with some level of immunity. So for a number of years people have argued for the legalization of illegal drugs without much trouble. In fact, any time you argue the law to be changed, you're arguing to allow what is at the time quite illegal. So that on its own doesn't seem to be enough reason to dismiss the rights of these people in Holland.
The law, afaik, says you can argue against a law, or argue in favour of a law, so long as you don't actively encourage people to do something whilst it is still illegal. But the question here is, can you apply it to these people?
One thing public debate on an issue will generally do, is change people's perception of the issue. People may argue charismatically in favour of some idea, and even if it used to be utterly rejected, for some people this may change. So there is the question: 'is the fact that these people may 'persuade' others to agree with them (and thus be 'tempted' to break the law) enough reason to outlaw them?' Again, for me, this on its own isn't enough reason, as it the same thinking could also outlaw types of causes.
Another thing political focus does is give an idea some amount of legitimacy. Not in the sense that it becomes law, but in a more subtle sense that since it is being discussed it may become law. So it could be argued, probably correctly, that open discussion of paedophilia in parliament will make it much less taboo, and be seen as a tiny bit more ok by some people.
Those are the sort of areas I was thinking in anyway.
One other thing I'd add is while there's no harm thinking about this side of the problem, it does always alarm me how little attention is given to other sides of the same problem. If you live in the UK you know how the media/politicians generally treat the issue. I have never seen any public attention on why people become paedophilic, on how the incidence of it may be reduced, on how to educate children about it. All these things are distinct from the normal debate in that they may actually help reduce the harm that paedophilia does to individuals and society.