June 01, 2006

paedo–shock

Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5038682.stm

The BBC is reporting that “a political party with a paedophile agenda has been registered in The Netherlands, prompting outrage among many parts of society”. Basically they want the legal age of sex to be reduced from 16 to 12, partly because they “want to break the "negative" stigma surrounding paedophilia by getting into parliament”, other notable claims that they make include that “they want paedophilia to be freely discussed, arguing that a ban just makes children curious.” I wasn't aware children were curious about getting abused… They also want to have free rail travel right across the country – it almost seems reasonable by comparison.

One worrying thing about the whole thing though is that “MPs say they will ask the government to do something to stop the new party” – can it ever be right to stop a political party? Even one with goals like this… they won't get into office if people don't agree (which they won't); so as long as the people in the party aren't active paedophiles; is this party a problem?


- 4 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. The BBC article doesn't go into that much detail, so I'm not going to pass judgement. They could be asking for a dropping of the age of consent, which, done properly, isn't necessarily a bad thing (should we criminalise sexually active 15 year olds?). The 'taboo' of chilhood sexuality is commonly reffered to as an underaddressed issue, although the 'taboo' of adult–child sexual relations and child pornography, I think goes in the pile of 'taboos too far'. (Aside: I once heard a liberal dem policy was to lower the age retrictions on porn 'participants' from 18 to 16, not sure if it's still the case).

    As for being able to be a political party… why not? It may seem a bit laissez–faire to people, but there are no barriers to political freedom, aslong as power and influence remain proportional to the support a party recieves.

    02 Jun 2006, 00:18

  2. I think they already have fairly sensible laws on consent there. If I'm not mistaken then you can have sex at any age so long as the person you are doing it with isn't more than 4 years younger than you (unless you are over 16 – when it's fair game for anyone). They specifically want to be able to have to have sex with 12 year olds as 46 year olds.

    The rules about girls having to be over 18 to be in porn but it being legal to have sex at 16 is stupid; I could have sex with a 16 year old, but if I took a picture then I would be breaking the law… it's madness on stilts!

    02 Jun 2006, 17:09

  3. Christopher Rossdale

    Thanks for the Bentham homage mate :)

    02 Jun 2006, 23:55

  4. MY GOD! Does that mean you AGREE with the liberals Joe?

    03 Jun 2006, 17:03


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Our Society

This is the blog of the International Current Affairs Society at Warwick. Any member can contribute, and anybody at all can comment on the entries.

Please see the ‘About Us’ link to find out more information about what we do.

June 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
May |  Today  | Jul
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30      

Search this blog

Blog archive

Loading…

Most recent comments

  • Perhaps the monitors were paid more because they would need to be relatively strong and smart. If yo… by on this entry
  • these 'firms' would hire a 16th man, who would typically be paid more then the others It would inte… by on this entry
  • Many one–way systems in this country have been designed with only motorists in mind. In countries su… by on this entry
  • I think the funniest thing about this was boris johson's responce. When asked what he thought he sai… by Scott on this entry
  • all part of getting rid of the small farmers independence. example, USA 1930's. on my travels, i not… by cal on this entry

Tags

Tracker

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX