Pedophiles Party

Dump the Democrats.
Reject the Republicans.
Leave the Libertarians.

Join the new Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party.....[SIZE="1"]if your Dutch[/SIZE].

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

They can do this without the American Civil Liberties Union to help them. Now that's a free country. :eyebrow:

I heard it on the radio. :vomit:

Oh great, I wonder if NAMBLA is going to jump on this. Of course the ACLU will undoubtably back them up, it's discrimination to not allow 'consentual and loving relationships' right?

Children can't consent. The ACLU would not support it.

It's stuff like this that makes me want to leave my country and emigrate so I am rid of idiot things like the NVD.

:mad:

There are idiots everywhere. You can't run away from them.

You have a point. Still, stuff like this makes me feel ashamed to be Dutch...

Tse Moana wrote:

You have a point. Still, stuff like this makes me feel ashamed to be Dutch...

It appears to obviously silly to be real. Sounds more like a joke. Or maybe an attempt by anti-pedophile political forces to incite more hate of pedophiles? That attempt to change the law just too absurd to be real. Maybe instead be ashamed of a bad joke.

HappyMonkey wrote:

Children can't consent. The ACLU would not support it.

The ACLU would not support the actual change in law they are proposing, but they absolutely would support their right to form the party and pursue their goal to the fullest extent.

Children can't consent. The ACLU would not support it.

Age of consent is only a concept of law, and laws can be changed. To rephrase correctly, children do not hold power of concent. How exactly the ACLU would support them depends on the current political climate, but saying they support NAMBLA's right to pursue having the age of concent laws changed could quickly turn into direct support in the right climate.

Are you saying that the ACLU secretly approves of pedophiles and is just biding its time until liberals control the government, and then they will push the pedophile agenda outright, and stop hiding behind their civil liberties cover?

I'm not saying they currently hold views one way or the other. But your accusation is interesting, are you implying that pedophiles do not deserve the same rights as all of us? Careful with your reponse, and bear in mind that thirty years ago you could have replaced pedophile with homosexual in your post.

What accusation?

9th Engineer wrote:

saying they support NAMBLA's right to pursue having the age of concent laws changed could quickly turn into direct support in the right climate.

No it couldn't. The ACLU has supported Nazis and Communists and right-wing nutjobs and left-wing nutjobs, in all political climates. They support everybody's right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, even if they disagree with the grievances.

9th Engineer wrote:

I'm not saying they currently hold views one way or the other. But your accusation is interesting, are you implying that pedophiles do not deserve the same rights as all of us? Careful with your reponse, and bear in mind that thirty years ago you could have replaced pedophile with homosexual in your post.

No, the question is whether children deserve the same rights as all of us. And the answer is no. Children have more protections and fewer freedoms than adults..

You're still missing my point. Everyone is assuming we all share an immutable definition of what defines someone as a child. I think we'll hear the argument made that 'child' only describes those under 12 years old, not teenagers.

The thing is that it is not illegal to be a pedophile, it is only illegal to act on it. (& please don't say that if someone is a pedophile they will act on it. Not true. People get help.)
I have had this discussion on another board and people keep forgetting that.
The one point that was made that is funny is that these groups always throw out a cookie. For them it is "vote for us and get free train rides!", how stupid do they think people are?

9th Engineer wrote:

You're still missing my point. Everyone is assuming we all share an immutable definition of what defines someone as a child. I think we'll hear the argument made that 'child' only describes those under 12 years old, not teenagers.

You could hear any argument, it's a free country. People can make any argument they like. If someone tries to shut down NAMBLA for making the argument, the ACLU may support them, but they won't support the argument itself.

Just for note, the current federal age of consent guidelines are "12 if the age difference is under 4 years, 16 otherwise", and a few states have their own.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Just for note, the current federal age of consent guidelines are "12 if the age difference is under 4 years, 16 otherwise", and a few states have their own.

Interesting, HM, I wasn't aware of Federal guidelines, I'd thought it was all the several States. Link to a source on this?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Interesting, HM, I wasn't aware of Federal guidelines, I'd thought it was all the several States. Link to a source on this?

How about http://www.ageofconsent.com. Contains a page on PL 105-314 which may be HM's "Federal guideline".

tw wrote:

It appears to obviously silly to be real. Sounds more like a joke. Or maybe an attempt by anti-pedophile political forces to incite more hate of pedophiles? That attempt to change the law just too absurd to be real. Maybe instead be ashamed of a bad joke.

Bit late, but it's no joke, they're completely serious. They see this as an attempt to make pedophility normal and more mainstream.

MaggieL wrote:

How about http://www.ageofconsent.com. Contains a page on PL 105-314 which may be HM's "Federal guideline".

That's probably it. Though it looks like for the federal rule to kick in you have to do something "interstate", which is probably pretty loosely interpreted.