• Dutch court outlaws pedophile association Martijn, says it breaches country’s moral values
    134 replies, posted
[quote="Associated Press, Published: June 27"] THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A Dutch court outlawed a pedophile association Wednesday, saying its promotion of sexual contact between adults and children breaches the country’s generally accepted moral values. The civil court in Assen ordered the association, called Martijn, to immediately be dissolved. The court said in a statement that Martijn is a threat to public order because it “glorifies sexual contact (between adults and children) and presents it as something that should be normal and acceptable.” Its chairman, Marthijn Uittenbogaard, called the decision “an attack on the freedom of expression.”[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/dutch-court-outlaws-pedophile-association-martijn-says-it-breaches-values/2012/06/27/gJQAktLF6V_story.html[/url] Whatever you think about the people who are responsible for that association [I](the former chairman was actually convicted for posessing child porn)[/I]; whatever you think about child abuse; whatever you think about pedophiles in general, I agree with Marthijn that outlawing an organization that does not break any laws based on the idea that they breach [I]"generally accepted moral values"[/I], is a blatant attack on freedom of expression.
Bullshit
Does it promote illegal activity though? The court's statement says it does. I'd be in line to ban an organisation which promoted killing Africans, so I don't see how this is different. It's not like it's "paedophile support group to help people deal with their urges" - that'd be different.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36562893]Does it promote illegal activity though? The court's statement says it does. I'd be in line to ban an organisation which promoted killing Africans, so I don't see how this is different. It's not like it's "paedophile support group to help people deal with their urges" - that'd be different.[/QUOTE] Well it's hard to say isn't it. I'll take a guess and I imagine they don't promote actual illegal activity, but rather they promote that some illegal things should be made legal. In essence they're promoting changes in our perceptions of things and changes in the law. And even if you can conscrew some of their messages as a "Hey let's all go rape children", I still find it to be a wobbly foundation to use for outlawing it. The court itself said they [I]"glorified"[/I] and [I]"presented"[/I] and [I]"promoted"[/I] things. Come back when they're actually [I]doing[/I] illegal and harmful things rather than just talking about them.
I can see how banning associations, no matter which, can be an infringement on freedom of expression. But there are some cases such as this one where this is perfectly understandable. I mean, you can't make an association defending murder, rape or slavery, I don't see why sick fucks who want to stick their dong up a kiddie's pooper should be an exception.
[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36562953]I mean, you can't make an association defending [...] slavery,[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Klan-in-gainesville.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36562998][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Klan-in-gainesville.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Now it's mostly a bunch of associations more or less legal scattered all around the place. They're considered a religious group if I well recall. How would an association for pedophiles be considered?
[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36562953] I mean, you can't make an association defending murder, rape or slavery, I don't see why sick fucks who want to stick their dong up a kiddie's pooper should be an exception.[/QUOTE] Are you sure you're actually not allowed to do that? I think those examples are simply ignored because nobody can really argue for them. But if you somehow had the opinion that murder, rape and slavery wasn't harmful to anybody, shouldn't you be able to argue for your case? I think that's the essence of what Martijn was trying to do. They don't think adult-child sex has to be harmful and thus it doesn't have to be illegal. They're not proposing that we should be allowed to do harmful things, but that there are some things that might not be harmful despite common belief. If an organization down right commits illegal and/or harmful acts, then by all means I agree let's get that thing out of here. But I don't think any organization should be stopped from expressing [I]ideas[/I]. If an organization thinks that murder doesn't have to be harmful, then let's hear it. Surely we can disprove them in a fair discussion rather than trying to censor them?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36563030]They don't think adult-child sex has to be harmful and thus it doesn't have to be illegal. They're not proposing that we should be allowed to do harmful things[/QUOTE] Yes, they were. They were actively campaigning to remove the minimum age limit for sexual intercourse, and wanted to allow sex with anybody no matter what age, even babies. Additionally, multiple people have claimed to have gotten tips/help on how to not get spotted/clean up the kid afterwards and similar things.
I like this, pedos should really be stopped in any way possible. Their ways are by no means acceptable.
they think fucking kids is okay i dislike them deeply and believe that outlawing the organization is fine and dandy. (most people would probably think that having them shot would also be acceptable. freedom of expression or not, if you openly believe that mercilessly plowing children is fine, most people would happily execute you.) [editline]30th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36562837]Bullshit[/QUOTE] i too support the idea that child fuckers should be allowed to freely spread their child fucking ideology. i also enjoy mlp, what a coincidence.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;36563169]they think fucking kids is okay i dislike them deeply and believe that outlawing the organization is fine and dandy. (most people would probably think that having them shot would also be acceptable. freedom of expression or not, if you openly believe that mercilessly plowing children is fine, most people would happily execute you.) [editline]30th June 2012[/editline] i too support the idea that child fuckers should be allowed to freely spread their child fucking [B]ideology[/B]. i also enjoy mlp, what a coincidence.[/QUOTE] There's nothing to suggest they actually assaulted kids, or distributed CP among themselves. Being a paedophile isn't an ideology, it's a fetish. What this boils down to is thought crime. They weren't doing anything wrong, and they were busted for it. Are you really so terrified of people who can't help what they are attracted to that you feel the need to do a gloriously accurate impression of a redneck homophobe? I think you know you're on weak ground anyway, considering your first argument was a personal attack regarding my taste in TV; which isn't even relevant.
It truly shows how insecure you are in the argument against pedophilia when you call for a pedophile organization to be banned because you cannot morally or intellectually challenge their beliefs.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36563325]It truly shows how insecure you are in the argument against pedophilia when you call for a pedophile organization to be banned because you cannot morally or intellectually challenge their beliefs.[/QUOTE] Or you could do all of these, as the court has tried to do. My judgement's out until I know more about what the organisation was actually doing.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36563270]words[/QUOTE] I, as a upstanding member of society, cannot in any way condone the actions or beliefs of somebody who believes that intercourse with children, newborn babies, is remotely acceptable. The chairman of the organization has already been convicted/found to posses child pornography, and that further boosts my view of the organization being nothing but a bunch of pedophiles. They didn't commit any crimes, that doesn't justify them spreading an idea that the overwhelming majority of society believes to be sickening. Frankly I couldn't care less if they had or hadn't committed a crime, what it boils down to is whether or not they were trying to justify, or make having sex with children (and babies!) legal. Oh, and nah, I just pointing out that I too enjoy MLP. No need to consider that as an attack on your person. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36563325]It truly shows how insecure you are in the argument against pedophilia when you call for a pedophile organization to be banned because [B]you cannot morally or intellectually challenge their beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE] :downs:
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;36563159]Yes, they were. They were actively campaigning to remove the minimum age limit for sexual intercourse, and wanted to allow sex with anybody no matter what age, even babies. Additionally, multiple people have claimed to have gotten tips/help on how to not get spotted/clean up the kid afterwards and similar things.[/QUOTE] Exactly, they were advocating that the system should be changed, not advocating actually just going out and recklessly doing those things. And if multiple people in the organization have been caught doing illegal things, then they should be dealt with like any other person. Like how the previous chairman was convicted for possessing child pornography. That is his fault and his responsibility, not the organization's as a whole. I don't know exactly what their arguments consisted of, but if you've read any of my posts in other pedophilia-related threads, you'll know that I have somewhat similar ideas. At the very least, I believe there is room for discussing these issues, like [I]"what should we do with the age of consent?"[/I]. See, exactly as I said in what you quoted, they're not promoting the doing of harmful things, they're promoting the idea that it doesn't have to be harmful, and that we should change the systems and perceptions so that it isn't harmful any longer. If you disagree that that is possible, then that is why we should have an open discussion about it rather than shutting down anyone who tries to say otherwise. Keep these in mind, I think they carry a lot of truth: [B][I]"The truth does not fear investigation."[/I] [I]"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;36563392][B]I, as a upstanding member of society, cannot in any way condone the actions or beliefs of somebody who believes that intercourse with children, newborn babies, is remotely acceptable. [/B] The chairman of the organization has already been convicted/found to posses child pornography, and that further boosts my view of the organization being nothing but a bunch of pedophiles. They didn't commit any crimes, that doesn't justify them spreading an idea that the overwhelming majority of society believes to be sickening. Frankly I couldn't care less if they had or hadn't committed a crime, what it boils down to is whether or not they were trying to justify, or make having sex with children (and babies!) legal. Oh, and nah, I just pointing out that I too enjoy MLP. No need to consider that as an attack on your person. :downs:[/QUOTE] I, as an upstanding member of society can not in any way condone the banning of an organization that has done nothing wrong other, especially when you consider that the basis for the ban was moral, not legal.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;36563392]I, as a upstanding member of society, cannot in any way condone the actions or beliefs of somebody who believes that intercourse with children, newborn babies, is remotely acceptable.[/QUOTE] But what if they can argue for it? I know you probably don't think they can, but I've been taking part of countless of pedophilia arguments here on this forum and many other places, and I can say that there is at the very least room for discussion. [QUOTE]The chairman of the organization has already been convicted/found to posses child pornography,[/QUOTE] Yes. Bad PR for the organization for sure, but that shouldn't mean they can't express their ideas, just because one important member did something bad. [QUOTE]and that further boosts my view of the organization being nothing but a bunch of pedophiles.[/QUOTE] No shit, but pedophiles aren't always bad people or criminals, and should have the right to say what they want and feel. [QUOTE]They didn't commit any crimes, that doesn't justify them spreading an idea that the overwhelming majority of society believes to be sickening.[/QUOTE] So you don't think it is okay to spread ideas that the majority dislikes? Need I bring up slavery, homosexuality and racism? I know you think this one is different, but they thought they were justified with those other subjects too. You have to realize that you [I]can[/I] be wrong, and therefore they should be allowed to spread their ideas. Furthermore I don't think spreading ideas need justification at all. Because of freedom of expression. [QUOTE]Frankly I couldn't care less if they had or hadn't committed a crime, what it boils down to is whether or not they were trying to justify, or make having sex with children (and babies!) legal.[/QUOTE] Right, you think the idea is crazy and abhorrent. But the way to deal with people who have deviant ideas isn't to opress and censor them. If you really think they're wrong, we should let them be open and engage in an open debate. Honestly I think once this happens, the overwhelming majority will lose the debate, but that is up to time to decide. [editline]30th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE]you cannot morally or intellectually challenge their beliefs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]:downs:[/QUOTE] I may just be a deluded and biased sick fuck, but I've been involved in enough debates about this to know that there is room for a lot of debate. And from my experience, the argument against these things are usually based on knee jerk reactions and assumptions. The debates usually go in the same direction and end up with people regurgitating old arguments.
I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong? I've been thinking about it and I can't, except for the fact that children (children being anyone under the age of consent in a given region) cannot legally give consent. However, if the body is ready, what exact part of it is wrong? (I'm not interested in arguments based on morality because that's obviously why most people consider it wrong; I'm just challenging the thinking behind it)
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36563454]But what if they can argue for it? I know you probably don't think they can, but I've been taking part of countless of pedophilia arguments here on this forum and many other places, and I can say that there is at the very least room for discussion. Yes. Bad PR for the organization for sure, but that shouldn't mean they can't express their ideas, just because one important member did something bad. No shit, but pedophiles aren't always bad people or criminals, and should have the right to say what they want and feel. So you don't think it is okay to spread ideas that the majority dislikes? Need I bring up slavery, homosexuality and racism? I know you think this one is different, but they thought they were justified with those other subjects too. You have to realize that you [I]can[/I] be wrong, and therefore they should be allowed to spread their ideas. Furthermore I don't think spreading ideas need justification at all. Because of freedom of expression. Right, you think the idea is crazy and abhorrent. But the way to deal with people who have deviant ideas isn't to opress and censor them. If you really think they're wrong, we should let them be open and engage in an open debate. Honestly I think once this happens, the overwhelming majority will lose the debate, but that is up to time to decide. [editline]30th June 2012[/editline] I may just be a deluded and biased sick fuck, but I've been involved in enough debates about this to know that there is room for a lot of debate. And from my experience, the argument against these things are usually based on knee jerk reactions and assumptions. The debates usually go in the same direction and end up with people regurgitating old arguments.[/QUOTE] whats with the apologist agenda for pedophiles oh and the post mining
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36563690]I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong? I've been thinking about it and I can't, except for the fact that children (children being anyone under the age of consent in a given region) cannot legally give consent. However, if the body is ready, what exact part of it is wrong? (I'm not interested in arguments based on morality because that's obviously why most people consider it wrong; I'm just challenging the thinking behind it)[/QUOTE] Because sex is an important act which can have severe physical/psychological effects, and a prepubescent child is not mentally-developed enough to undertake that decision.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36563736]Because sex is an important act which can have severe physical/psychological effects, and a prepubescent child is not mentally-developed enough to undertake that decision.[/QUOTE] I said pubescent, not prepubescent.
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36563690]I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong? I've been thinking about it and I can't, except for the fact that children (children being anyone under the age of consent in a given region) cannot legally give consent. However, if the body is ready, what exact part of it is wrong? (I'm not interested in arguments based on morality because that's obviously why most people consider it wrong; I'm just challenging the thinking behind it)[/QUOTE] Personally I think there is nothing [I]inherently[/I] harmful about it, but in our current day and age, there is a lot of bullshit that [I]makes it[/I] harmful. For example, children aren't being taught much about sex and sexuality, so they literally don't know what it is. They then later find out that society has a bunch of moral rules that deem such interactions morally wrong, dirty and wrong. If they actually liked and trusted the person that molested them, the hurting factor is often a feeling of betrayal. I guess this is because in many molestation cases, the pedophile uses various ways to get the child not to tell. [I](I also think being forced to keep such a heavy secret is harmful in itself)[/I] So the adult will do something like threatening the child or lying to the child or not telling the child important things, and thus manipulating the child. Here's an article that tries to explain what makes sexual abuse harmful: [url]http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146941/the_trauma_myth%3A_understanding_the_true_dynamics_of_sexual_abuse?page=1[/url] So I personally believe that if we just started thinking of sex as a simple, natural and healthy thing to do, instead of a dirty, naughty, mature and dangerous thing, it wouldn't be so dangerous as long as down right force and violence isn't involved. [QUOTE=Vasili;36563729]whats with the apologist agenda for pedophiles oh and the post mining[/QUOTE] Well I sort of am on the pedophile side of these issues. So. And I'm not post mining, it's just an issue that fires me up and gets me posting a lot. [B]EDIT:[/B] A lot, apperantly. I didn't intend to go all debate extravaganza on this, but I guess it just happens. [B]EDIT:[/B] And indeed, even though I may be biased when it comes to pedophilia-related discussions, I am not when it comes to the gist of this topic. I feel that no organization should be outlawed, no matter how outrageous their ideas are. Spreading ideas and advocating your views should be possible for anyone as long as they aren't actually actively hurting anyone. Doesn't necessarrily have to be pedophiles, can be anyone at all, like for example if a website wanted to argue that mass murder is okay, then I say go ahead and argue that as long as you don't go ahead and actually murder people. [QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36563736]Because sex is an important act which can have severe physical/psychological effects, and a prepubescent child is not mentally-developed enough to undertake that decision.[/QUOTE] But it isn't, really... The physical effects can be handled through normal consideration and protection, and isn't hard to understand at all. The psychological effects are many as of right now, but that isn't [I]sex itself,[/I] that's society outside that puts a lot of meanings on sex that it doesn't have to have. For example, the notion of "innocence" and something being "dirty" isn't something that [I]has[/I] to exist. Sex could be a totally innocent thing, because really it is. If we removed all that, the only psychological effects would be intimacy and physical closeness, which children also understand. This of course excludes down right rape, which is harmful no matter what age the victim is.
[QUOTE=Vasili;36563729]whats with the apologist agenda for pedophiles oh and the post mining[/QUOTE] There's no apology there, he's just saying that you can't arrest paedophiles for being paedophiles, for the same reason you can't arrest gay people for being gay. There's no difference between the orientations, though there is a difference between the act of sex.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36563825]There's no apology there, he's just saying that you can't arrest paedophiles for being paedophiles, for the same reason you can't arrest gay people for being gay. There's no difference between the orientations, though there is a difference between the act of sex.[/QUOTE] Right, thanks. I may have shot off a tangent and gone off-topic. This is the main thing here. I'd support any group or organization's right to argue for and advocate anything. I'm not particularly talking about pedophiles there so you could call it an apologist agenda for free speech in general instead.
The age of consent and the misnomer of sex with a pubescent 15 year old being considered "pedophilia" needs to be looked at. However, the act of having sex with a prepubescent child is unquestionably immoral. The child not only can't consent and doesn't understand what's going on but they don't get anything out of it at all, except possible physical and psychological damage.
don't really see how an organization that harbored possible child predators and and even a former head of the organization being convicted of having child pornography being shut down is a violation of their freedom of expression.
It's funny that the article doesn't mention that Martijn has been actively helping and giving tips to pedophiles on how to do it, how to clean up and how to prevent being caught. Fun fact: the last chairman got arrested for having tons upon tons of CP. He claimed it was an archive and he kept it for 'scientific purposes'. Too bad he was on tons of the pictures too.
[quote]There's no apology there, he's just saying that you can't arrest paedophiles for being paedophiles, for the same reason you can't arrest gay people for being gay. There's no difference between the orientations, though there is a difference between the act of sex.[/quote] Oh fuck off. "there's no difference between the orientations" Yeah sure, we should just learn to accept pedophiles for who they are. No. Being a pedophile is damaging to others if acted out upon and is damaging to the pedophile regardless. Should we learn not to hate them irrationally? Absolutely. Should we just accept their socially dangerous disorder and not try to help them? Fuck no.
The whole idea that people can defend pedophiles is just laughable. Any sane person who has a child (and isn't a pedophile) would agree that under no circumstances should the idea that pedophilia being remotely acceptable being spread around is "good" or "acceptable" You can argue as much as you want, but in the end, people who wish to have intercourse with children are dangerous people. They may not stab people, or rob people, or commit fraud, but they wish to (or like to) have sex with kids. Saying that doing so shouldn't be against the law may be legal, but as many people have said, it's morally wrong. It's a social extreme, many people believe that pedophiles should be executed, and it isn't hard to understand why (given that you aren't somebody who sees only in black and white.) There's a line in the sand when it comes to freedom of speech/expression. Trying to argue that fucking children doesn't cross that line is partially (read: entirely) retarded. Then again, I do not enjoy or partake in the fucking of children, nor have I ever spoken to somebody who enjoys fucking children, so I'm heavily bias. I should probably just ignore the fact that these people (who enjoy fucking children) are trying to justify and make acceptable the fucking of children. Yeah, lets just ignore them. No harm could come of a organization arguing the illegality of fucking children.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.