Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen election

by jc » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>· Policies include legalising sex at 12 and child porn · Judge says voters must decide on arguments Nicholas Watt, European editor Tuesday July 18, 2006 The Guardian The Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country today 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. 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… <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html</a><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore The blizzard, the blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold and it has overturned the order of the soul <hr></blockquote> liberal values…? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|">

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:59 pm

Liberal values my arse they are devos. But thats the thing about tolerance. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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.<hr></blockquote> And quite frankly there is nothing wrong with a political party expressing their views. I mean the Nazi party still exists and their are Nazi organisations that are trying to be recognised as legit. I think that in Wisconson in the states at the moment there is a fuss over allowing Nazis to march in a rally. Quite frankly Dutch views on gay marriage and soft drugs are way cool. If you don't like them, don't go there. And while prostritution is a thorny issue, legalised prostitution offers more opportunity to protect women in the industry. The only issue I have with paedophillia or anything else is the damage it does to the victims, something that is undeniable and unavoidable. That is criminal action. However a political movement to change the laws is perfectly all right. Regardless of how ugly that movements motivations are. That is part of the price of freedom. I mean you outlaw this and every anti marijuana prohibition party is also in the same boat. And given the bullshit that goes with the drug war. the US's attempt to extradite Mark Emery is a case in point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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.<hr></blockquote> Perhaps another party should run with a platform that expressly prohibits the promotion of groups and ideas that expoit children. You can't outlaw stuff on the basis of a media pole. That reminds me of the Simpsonism with Kent Brockman. "Unless prop 21? passes and we are all hoping it does." What would you rather Fascist thought police or scumbag arseholes out to exploit a democratic process? I know which one I'd choose.

by **HMKGrey** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:08 am

Repulsed as I am by these scumbags, I'm with Joe. That's freedom. It's either freedom for everyone or it's a dead concept. Sad but true in this case.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:07 am

I have noticed a real trend in the last few years to focus on the potential 'dangers' of freedom and tolerence. As if "Safety" is more important. One good thing about those pushing the Pedo party, at least they have outed themselves. There are many prices to freedom, but one of the most obvious and the one I am always willing to pay, is risk of pain and harm. Time for a durrie.

by **blanc** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:55 am

Freedom? I'm confused. will they allow 12year olds to vote as to whether they want the freedom to serve pervs? or must they wait until they are 18 for that.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:06 am

3 rd time lucky? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>will they allow 12year olds to vote as to whether they want the freedom to serve pervs?<hr></blockquote> Its the age of consent. No still means NO. They don't need to vote they just need to say piss off you ugly bastard. There is a difference between rape and statutory rape. One involves an act of power and the ignoring of the other person's wishes. The other is based on a manipulation of someone who is not an adult, and therefore not necessarily capable of making decisions in a mature way. They are not promoting the right to kidnap 12 year olds and then torture and rape them.(Rape) Just the right to try and seduce them.(Statutary rape) Now I once saw a piece of grafitti that said "Romance - Rape by seduction" But that is a view I don't hold to. (Mind you I don't want to seduce 12 year olds. I would actually consider that rape). Look they are scum, but they are trying to make sexual consent something you can give at 12. Sexual consent is given at 16 to 18 in our culture, about the time many other adult rights or privileges become available too, such as driving a car, drinking, smoking, legal responsibility in a civil and criminal sense. It is obviously an adult thing. Sure teenagers fuck around, even 12 year old school kids. But so long as they do it with other kids their own age its not really a problem for me. If it were my kids maybe, cos I don't think its right that kids have sex at 12. But they do. Nothing I say or do will stop that. And that will probably be part of the argument these dutch pervs use. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> they do it anyway we want in on the action<hr></blockquote> Which is crap cos they are still effectively Kids, playing. They don't really understand what sex is about, or how powerful it is. But as offensive as what they pedos are proposing is, they are not committing crimes that harm individual victims by saying it. The harm lies in the action. If pedos JUST fantasised and jerked off in their own rooms or dunnys no one would be harmed. (I know they don't and if they do its not all they do but ) The harm is in the inflicting it on someone else. I smoke pot but its illegal. there are no victims except perhaps me. But I don't see myself as one. A crime is committed when an act that harms someone else occurs (Oh and IMO looking at a photo of a child in sexual activity or for sexual arousal does harm them in some weird esoteric way, even if its over the net on the other side of the world. And diminishes them as people.) You cannot say "you cannot think this or express this idea", well you can if you want, but it is against freedom. Freedom is exactly that. Freedom. (as the ants said Horrible horrible freedom) You can make a law preventing someone from acting on it and then enforce it, as a measure to protect society. (Fuck I'm turning into a reformed anarchist). BTW There is no way a 12 year old is mature enough to have sex IMO. They are certainly not mature enough to have sex with someone over 15. I mean where is this argument going. Should we organise premptive jailing for life if we suspect someone may commit peadophillia in the future? Thats getting dangerously close to Bush's anti terror attitude. These scumbags have probaly committed crimes against children. But until you can provide evidence against them that will convict them, the only comeback you have is to kill them yourself. Or cut their knobs off. And personally I think thats how it should be. But if you kill someone yourself and they haven't committed a crime, your suspicion was wrong. And you have committed a crime yourself. You can't bring a dead person back. Besides our society isn't that fucked, - they won't get in. Or if they do, perhaps its time to start subscribing to the Georgia guidestones view.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:15 am

When I was 14 or younger some fuckwit judge came out in Melbourne and said the age of consent should be lowered to 10. I just remembered that. Biao might be able to chase that one up. he was publically flayed (metaphorically). Think it ended his career. Hope so anyway.

Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen election

Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen election

Re: Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen elect

Re: Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen elect

Re: Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen elect

age of consent

Re: Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen elect

Re: Dutch court lets paedo party contest country's gen elect

Who is online