Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election
Originally posted by eggmayo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html?gusrc=rssThe Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country yesterday when a new political party formed by paedophiles was told it could contest this year's general election.
A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court in The Hague said in a statement.
Article continues
The court declared that curbs on freedom of expression could only be applied where public order is at risk. "They [opponents of the party] only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party. It is up to the voter to give a judgment on the arguments of political parties," Judge H Hofhuis was quoted by the Dutch news agency ANP as telling the court.The ruling will be seen as a powerful example of the Netherlands' liberal approach to social issues. The country has famously relaxed views on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage.
The paedophile party will be free to stand in November's general election if it meets the usual requirements of submitting a list of candidates and providing the signatures of at least 500 supporters.
The court's decision angered the anti-paedophile campaign group Solace, which brought the case, and whose views appear to be widely reflected in Dutch society.
No Kidding, a group campaigning for children's rights, called on the Dutch government to act against the party. "Dutch citizens must make their voices heard if we do not want to sacrifice our children to paedophile interests," it said.
The new party, which was formed in May, pledged to intensify its campaign to remove the taboo on paedophilia which, it claims, has worsened in the past decade after the arrest of the notorious Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux. In his most notorious crime, Dutroux kidnapped and imprisoned two young girls and starved them to death.
Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the chairman of the new party, was quoted by ANP as saying: "We expected to win. We are not doing anything criminal so why should you ban the PNVD?"
The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.
Such ideas have proved too much for 82% of the Dutch population, who want the government to outlaw the party according to a recent opinion poll. Publicity for the party last month provoked such a backlash that one of its founders had to flee a caravan park after receiving threats.
The reaction against the new party comes at a sensitive moment in Dutch history. The difficulty of integrating many members of the country's Muslim population has prompted even mainstream politicians to call for immigrants to be denied citizenship if they do not accept the country's liberal values.
Rita Verdonk, the country's immigration minister, recently caused controversy by saying that aspiring Dutch citizens should be shown a DVD highlighting Dutch liberal values. Muslims complained that this was targeted against them because it featured a gay couple kissing.
The general election was called after the coalition government collapsed in a row linked to the debate on Muslims. The small centre-right D66 party withdrew from the coalition after Ms Verdonk stripped Dutch citizenship from (and then restored it to) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former MP who is one of the country's sharpest critics of radical Islamists and is now to emigrate to the US.
I can't ****ing believe this liberal bullshit. America should invade the Netherlands, not some toilet country in the desert. I didn't read the part about the Muslims, I was talking about the pedophiles. They should all be shot, and so should anyone who supports them. Oh, and go burn in Hell like you deserve, billyjoebobsue.
Re: Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I can't ****ing believe this liberal bullshit. America should invade the Netherlands, not some toilet country in the desert. I didn't read the part about the Muslims, I was talking about the pedophiles. They should all be shot, and so should anyone who supports them. Oh, and go burn in Hell like you deserve, billyjoebobsue.
Yes, that would work great guns. Instead of invading dictatorships with the intention of spreading "democracy" you'd like to invade actual democratic nations that understand the meaning of the word and defend it and allow it to work, along with things like free speach.
Re: Re: Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, that would work great guns. Instead of invading dictatorships with the intention of spreading "democracy" you'd like to invade actual democratic nations that understand the meaning of the word and defend it and allow it to work, along with things like free speach.
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're embarassing yourself, Nogood. How many people in this thread have said they wanted the peds to win any elections?
Has anyone in this thread suggested that that would be a good thing?
And yet you're throwing a temper tantrum and talking about how letting people you don't like form their own part should be grounds for invasion.
Oh look, you think tollerence is bullshit. Well there's a shocker.
Originally posted by Gregory
You're embarassing yourself, Nogood. How many people in this thread have said they wanted the peds to win any elections?Has anyone in this thread suggested that that would be a good thing?
Agreed, but can you blame him? We're talking about pedophiles here. What's next, a murdering rapist party?
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Finally, someone with logic (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic, which I can't tell because there's no way to denote tone of voice with typed words).
I wasn't being sarcastic in reference to you... You were embarrassing yourself with your tone and some of the things you said i.e. "America should invade". But having said that, I think your heart was in the right place. Just my own personal opinion, but pedophiles deserve no mercy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Have you read the rest of the thread? The things others have said? It is all far more useful then your bombastic shouting on the subject of right and wrong.
Do so and answer the following: Who has sympathised with them?
Who has agreed with them (other then the sock of a banned member?)
Who has said "yeah, that sounds good!"?
You will find, other then the sock that no one has. My point this is democracy, and this is freedom of speech. They have a Right to express their view. And at the moment that is all they are doing - not breaking any laws. If they get the party together they will be defeated in the election. In a major way. Such a thing is infinitely more revealing then slapping a ban on them.
Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, but can you blame him? We're talking about pedophiles here. What's next, a murdering rapist party?
I don't blame him for being disgusted, no. On the other hand, if murdering rapists wanted to star their own party, so what? They'll get their name on the ballot, be the subject of widespread ridicule, and go down in flames every election (in America, they wouldn't even garner one electral vote; not sure how the Netherlands handles elections).
It would set a very bad precedent if the government was allowed to decide that because they thought some goupd had abhorent views, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the democratic process.
Here's a update on this situation straight from country in question itself.
As said, but let me remind you; the court has rejected the multiple requests to deny this party's right of existence based on freedom of speech and the right to vote for the chancing of laws. Furthermore the court believes that the party is not promoting, or participating in, illegal activities as of yet and are only voting the desires of a certain group.
This decision went against the wish of a vast majority in the Netherlands, but it is juridically correct.
As also mentioned;
Within the first days of going public, this party has been rejected through petitions, polls, and lawsuits by over 80% of the Dutch population, with the other 20% most likely feeling just the same but not taking the afford to express that.
As officially legal, the PNVD has been preparing for the upcoming 2nd chamber elections, in which they expect to win 1 chair (out of the 150 it holds).
The parties wanting to take part must register 43 days before the elections, supplying a list of at least 30 candidates. Parties that do not have any sitting candidates in the chamber must also pay a deposit of 11.250 euro and provide 30 signatures of support from residents of each of the 19 electoral districts in which they want to collect votes.
That's 570 signatures and the PNVD is still struggling to obtain them, latest reports indicate that they gained a few dozen in 4 months with less than 3 months to go before the next elections.
Their party also only has about 7 official members, nowhere near the required 30 candidates.
The PNVD has no notable financial recourses, their main office is a caravan for god's sake! It is unlikely that they will be able to pay the required deposit. And the fact that their chairman got fired from his job in a hospital because of his sexual preference isn't exactly helping out.
Then it is obvious that even if they make it to the elections, they will never get a number of votes worth mentionable and will bite the dust.
Then there is the tragic tendency of political extremists getting murdered around here lately, and with the death-threats addressed to the PNVD, they might never see the elections at all... Not that I would approve of this, but I wouldn't shed a tear over it either....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paedophile party allowed to run for election
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
While I agree with you that some of thier demands are extreme, absurd, and only self-serving, they still have the right to a voice.
Would I ever legalize child porn? Not really....to me a child is only a child before adolescence.
If a 13 or 14 year old want to have sex, or even want to do pornography, it's thier choice. However, most 10 year olds and under don't even know what sex is, much less develop a means for consent...i would probably limit it there......
Now to call a peadophile an "animal" is just as rediculous as some of the demands they are making. Do you know any peadophiles? Do you even know the difference between a peadophile and a child rapist ?
"Sense of right and wrong" is irrelevant, since every one's sense of right and wrong is different. Diverse morality is the only morality that truly exists, there is no uniform morality, so you need to get that notion out of your head.
This is how I see it.....if a young teenager wants to have sex with an adult...its thier choice, and seeing how consent was given, the adult does not commit rape in this situation.
However, if an adult forces himself or herself onto a youth without consent, or on a youth who is so young they don't even have the concept of sex in their minds yet......then, and only then, is it truly rape and truly subject to judgement and punishment.
Thirteen? Jesus. Maybe in Urizen World (which appears to be just to the left of Bizzaro World), children immediately become responsible adults after puberty, but here in the real world, a child who has just undergone puberty is still a child.
(The question isn't whether the kid says yes; the question is whether some kid whose entire sexual knowledge consists of an awkward lecture from his parents and three weeks of sex-ed in Junior High is capable of giving intelligent consent.)
Originally posted by Gregory
Thirteen? Jesus. Maybe in Urizen World (which appears to be just to the left of Bizzaro World), children immediately become responsible adults after puberty, but here in the real world, a child who has just undergone puberty is still a child.
So a 16 year old is still a child ?
There are no horny 13 or 14 year olds ?
You're telling me that 13 and 14 year olds don't wanna have sex ? 🙄
Give me a break....what world do u live in ? A true child is one who is naive, immature, underdeveloped, and who has no sense of adult qualities, sex being one of them. When a so called child develops the desire to have sex and the ability to give consent, they are no longer a "real child".
There is a difference between a teenager and a child dumbass.
Yes; there is a difference between a child and a teenager. The difference is approxomitely a second. On the one hand we have a twelve-year old just short of her thirteenth birthday. She's just a child, incapable of consenting to sex. The day plods on. Fifteen hours until her birthday ... twelve ... she goes to bed ... and when she wakes up, thirteen years old, she has magically transformed into a sexual creature creature who desperately wants sex. When did that magical transformation occur? At midnight, I suppose. One second ... a child. The next second ... a cock-hungry teenager. Because there's a differenmce between a child and a teenager! Sure there is.
Originally posted by Gregory
Yes; there is a difference between a child and a teenager. The difference is approxomitely a second. On the one hand we have a twelve-year old just short of her thirteenth birthday. She's just a child, incapable of consenting to sex. The day plods on. Fifteen hours until her birthday ... twelve ... she goes to bed ... and when she wakes up, thirteen years old, she has magically transformed into a sexual creature creature who desperately wants sex. When did that magical transformation occur? At midnight, I suppose. One second ... a child. The next second ... a cock-hungry teenager. Because there's a differenmce between a child and a teenager! Sure there is.
Everyone reaches a sexual peak at a different age....putting out 12 or 13 are just generalizations.....
Ofcourse there is a transition, but ultamately it doesn't matter....teenagers are not children. According to your logic, once a person reaches 19, they turn automatically from "child" to "adult". That's absurd.
On the other hand....would you say that an 8 year old and a 16 year old are both children? Are they both the same ?
I think the argument would be better if you would explain to me what you define as "child" and what you define as "teenager". If you don't see the difference, then you are blind.