Dutch Pedophiles Form Political Party

[Sulkdodds]

Thank you Kangy for this...er, wonderful news? D:

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.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding that the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium. "We have been hushed up. The only way is through parliament."

The Netherlands already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, but the NVD is unlikely to win much support, the AD quoted experts as saying.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the daily.

The party said private possession of child pornography should be allowed although it favors banning the trade of such materials. The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

Reuters

I for one am outraged. Free train travel? It's disgusting!
No, but seriously, I find this slightly disturbing.

 

[Ludah]

I'm so moving to Holland.

 

[Cormeh]

.....

D:

Sickening.

 

[Yuri]

I'm so moving to Holland.

Yeah, I like having sex with children and animals, too. Also child animals.

 

[theotherguy]

Wow...how rediculous. So basically they're forming a party so it can be legal for them to rape little children...how wonderful.

 

[el Chi]

This is completely ridiculous and doesn't strike me as any real cause for alarm. Of course they're abhorrant individuals but it's not as if they can really sway anyone over to support them unless they're already a bestiality-enthused nudist trainspotting junkie paedophile.
I don't really see them becoming a viable political entity.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Hahahaha! That has to be one of the most absurd things I have ever heard! Where do they come up with such random ideas? 24/7 nudity and free train travel??? WTF?? Would you really want to sit on a train where other naked people have been sitting and sweating and losing little hairs for hours even if it were free?? No thanks. Hopefully not much will come of this....

 

[Cormeh]

Wonder what their policies on tax and health care are?

"WTF? We just want nekked kiddies"

 

[baxter]

Yep, I can see them getting masses of people turning up to their political rallies, mainly armed with baseball bats and large bits of wood.

 

[Reaktor4]

The bestiality and paedo stuff is ****ed up. They have the right idea about drugs though.
There are groups like this in america and elsewhere, btw.

 

[el Chi]

They have the right idea about drugs though.

Really?

 

[Element Alpha]

their site: http://www.nvd.nu

I speak dutch, so I read a couple of their pages.

This is what I'd like to call: a "provocative party". I don't know if you guys have such parties overseas.

They aren't promoting pedophilia or whatever. They're making all kinds of bold statements. I'm no expert on the issue (I don't live in Holland), but it strongly looks like they're trying to get a debate going. Some laws (says their site) weren't agreed upon by parliament, instead, judges decided one day this or that wasn't legal anymore, meaning these "laws" didn't follow proper procedures. That's why their statements seem outraging on the surface, but contain a deeper tought.

If you're still shocked by their statements after my explanation, you either don't care enough to seriously debate/think over the issues, or you're simply un-smart.

 

[Raziaar]

Woo! Go Civil Liberties!

:x

****ing sick.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

You think that is bad, It already happened in Ireland. Basically there was a court case where a man had consentual sex with a girl who cliamed to be over the age of consent, He resonably assumed that since she was in a pub she must be 18+. Well the next day it turns out she's 15 and he gets taken to court.

The supreme court found that the 1935 law(Basically any man who has sex with a girl 15 or under is guilty of a crime) is unconstiutional as the man wasn't aware of her age at the time. Now here's the problum,The entire Statutary rape law was removed meaning that all the child rapists are being held in prison under an unconstiutional law, And of course the ****ers are appealing their sentances and one of the shit heads already got off.

TBH Moving to Holland looks like the more appealing option where an obscure political party is makeing a small fuss is better then whats currently in Ireland.

Don't believe there is THAT much of an incompetant government?

 

[$kelet0r]

You think that is bad, It already happened in Ireland. Basically there was a court case where a man had consentual sex with a girl who cliamed to be over the age of consent, He resonably assumed that since she was in a pub she must be 18+. Well the next day it turns out she's 15 and he gets taken to court.

The supreme court found that the 1935 law(Basically any man who has sex with a girl 15 or under is guilty of a crime) is unconstiutional as the man wasn't aware of her age at the time. Now here's the problum,The entire Statutary rape law was removed meaning that all the child rapists are being held in prison under an unconstiutional law, And of course the ****ers are appealing their sentances and one of the shit heads already got off.

TBH Moving to Holland looks like the more appealing option where an obscure political party is makeing a small fuss is better then whats currently in Ireland.

Don't believe there is THAT much of an incompetant government?

it's fairly ****ed up alright - most days since are just paedo's walking free because of that one ruling

 

[Reaktor4]

Really?

Really.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I would like to point out that when it says 'Dutch pedophiles' at the beginning of the news report, that's likely correct. Reuters wouldn't run a story where an assertion like that was made unsubstantiate it. The fact that it appears at all means it's been fact-checked. I'm aware that it's likely this party wants to provoke debate...but it's also likely they want such legislation in their own interest.

 

[el Chi]

Really.

Well I'm glad we got that sorted.

 

[ríomhaire]

You think that is bad, It already happened in Ireland. Basically there was a court case where a man had consentual sex with a girl who cliamed to be over the age of consent, He resonably assumed that since she was in a pub she must be 18+. Well the next day it turns out she's 15 and he gets taken to court.

The supreme court found that the 1935 law(Basically any man who has sex with a girl 15 or under is guilty of a crime) is unconstiutional as the man wasn't aware of her age at the time. Now here's the problum,The entire Statutary rape law was removed meaning that all the child rapists are being held in prison under an unconstiutional law, And of course the ****ers are appealing their sentances and one of the shit heads already got off.

TBH Moving to Holland looks like the more appealing option where an obscure political party is makeing a small fuss is better then whats currently in Ireland.

Don't believe there is THAT much of an incompetant government?

Most of what people are saying about that is bullshit. 1 law turned out to unconstitutional as a result 2 charges are now non-existant. 7 people in the entire country will be able to get out of prison for it (and all of them can be then charged with other offenses) not 'dozens' as some of our papers are spouting. And we don't have an open season for pedaphiles as other fools are stating, there are plently of other charges that a pedaphile can be charges with many of which have harsher sentances): sexual assault, rape, etc.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Most of what people are saying about that is bullshit. 1 law turned out to unconstitutional as a result 2 charges are now non-existant. 7 people in the entire country will be able to get out of prison for it (and all of them can be then charged with other offenses) not 'dozens' as some of our papers are spouting. And we don't have an open season for pedaphiles as other fools are stating, there are plently of other charges that a pedaphile can be charges with many of which have harsher sentances): sexual assault, rape, etc.

True enough, it may be blown out of proportion but its still something that pisses me off.

 

[JNightshade]

...
D:

 

[The Brick]

I found this out this morning (I deliver the AD) and at school we had a good laugh about these idiots. This is NEVER gonna work. Seriously. They don't stand a chance against the democracy here.

So unpack your bags fellas, no party here tonight.

 

[Reaktor4]

Well I'm glad we got that sorted.

me too.

 

[gick]

I'm all for a permissive society, and im a big fan of Dutch social Liberalism, but this is just a thinly disguised excuse for people to take advantage of children.

 

[Element Alpha]

(in dutch) http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/entry.php?id=37013

Arlright, I did a little research. As a disclaimer, I state that I completely disagree with almost all of their proposals (well, I didn't check em all).

Still, I searched a little to find out what the fuss is all about, seeing that Reuters wasn't able to translate their name correctly: it's not charity, it's "love of the next person" (like Jesus would have said it). I'm 99% sure the author of the Reuters article used babelfish to translate 'naastenliefde'. That alone made me doubt the article.

Seems the NVD-part has ties with a pedophile association called Martijn. I wasn't able to find an exact "tie" though. Anyway, the article I linked to is written by one of the NVD members, and tries to explain their view.

It's a little strange at first, but they do have some very valid points. It says a lot that the comments left under the NVD article all scream bloody murder while that's exactly what this party is trying to point out. It's a little hard to explain, but I'll give it a shot. They point out a few things.

First, they state that the media has too much power: they decide what is normal and what isn't. Through the use of polls, they determine every day what a moral standard should be. Because of its nature, this system of polls is a threat to almost every minority out there: it assures only that the majority is satisfied.

Furthermore, they have a problem with the way legal precedents are used to simulate a law. They advocate a return to clearly distinct powers in the governament (legislative/executive/legal).

Another interesting point I found was the return to more local authority, instead of national. They are not especially againt 'Europe', but they would like to make sure legislative boundaries are clear.

I only found out about all this because of this thread, so I stand quite unsure in my statements. But I'm always curious when I see journalists of 'reputable' sources all point their finger collectivly and laugh. Reuters didn't even take the time to translate their name correctly for crying out loud.

edit: There's a lot more to be said about it, but I really don't feel like playing these guys' advocate. All I'm trying to say is that it's very easy to point and laugh, but there's more to it than the propaganda machine would like you to believe. However, I won't be argumenting/discussing why today. If you want to know, look it up yourself. Interesting bonus question: would you guys be ok if pedophile sexy romance books (without pictures/images) were sold in your area?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't see how the article was particularly derisive. The fact is, if the label 'dutch pedophiles' wasn't true they could get sued for quite a lot of money. So it seems likely it was checked.

I agree that there's a certain amount of demonisation of paedophiles. Many people seem to find it hard to differentiate between paedophies and the act of abusing children. Many of their points there are actually very interesting - but if their centrepiece policy is reduction of the age of consent, legalisation of child pornography, etc, they aren't going about it the right way at all.

Maybe they're making a point. If so, it seems as if they're making it entirely the wrong way - a tasteless and rather nasty way at that.

And in answer to your question...I would be disturbed and disgusted, but on a purely 'should it be allowed' front then yes, I maybe would be 'okay'. Reason being that it's better someone masturbates than feels the need to actually abuse children. If the sale of such materials stopped even one case of abuse I'd be in favour of it. As long as it was subject to the same regulation that all other pornography is, if not far stronger.

On the flipside, we're talking about a type of sexual activity where it is very rare (some would argue impossible) for both parties to be consenting. We're also possibly talking about the possible 'promotion' of such activities, even the 'promotion' of paedophile culture. As much as that sounds like the kind of horrible self-righteous media watchdogging we're all familiar with, I think there's certainly an argument against the 'promotion' of such activity where there is no such argument against the 'promotion' of homosexuality (which I mention with reference to Thatcher's attempted laws in the 80s).

 

[Gray Fox]

Isn't this great, now the police know which people to to keep a tab on.
And trough then they can uncover more pedophiles.

 

[Ikerous]

but if their centrepiece policy is reduction of the age of consent, legalisation of child pornography, etc, they aren't going about it the right way at all.

The article says the child pornography would be for youths ages 16 and up. If the age of consent there is 16, then I don't really see a problem with this at all.
If they can have sex with whomever they'd like, why should it be a crime to film the activity?

As for the reduction in consent age for sex, it's almost impossible to make a good argument that at exactly one certain age, all children should be allowed to have sex if they want. Many children develop younger and many much later. So you can't really argue in favor of one age over another. (Of course with some more obvious lower bounds)

 

[Sulkdodds]

If the age of consent there is 16, then I don't really see a problem with this at all.

You realise that actual children are involved in the production of that pornography...right?

As for the age of consent, it has to be conservatively placed. Some start early but others are late bloomers; since as you said it's impossible to pinpoint one particular age when all children should be allowed to have sex, the age of consent should be at a point quite late in development where it's likely all children are ready. Sixteen, I think, is high enough to be absolutely damn sure while low enough not to be silly. Granted, other countries have some very low ages of consent and are able to pull it off, but that has more to do with culture than legislation.

The fact is, this party also claim they want to eventually abolish the age of consent.

 

[Ikerous]

You realise that actual children are involved in the production of that pornography...right?

No...

 

[Mr Stabby]

if they ever get any major electoral support, then democracy doesn't work

 

[Ikerous]

The fact is, this party also claim they want to eventually abolish the age of consent.

So do the libertarians :/

Libertarians are never wrong.

It's pretty easy to imagine the libertarian argument against it. They think that the responsibily lies in the hands of the individual and the family/parents of said individual. Not the state who doesnt have the knowledge or power to determine an appropriate age.

Not to mention their general opposition to state mandates (Based on fairly valid principles)

 

[Sulkdodds]

There are a lot of flaws in that. Since when do parents necessarily have that knowledge or power? Since when do individuals necessarily have that knowledge or power? What about 'grooming'? What about pressure? A 60 year old could have sex with a 12 year old who hadn't finished puberty and it'd be legal if her/his parents said so. Like I said, it's best that the age is relatively high. 16 isn't exactly high anyway - not all that many people have sex before they're 16.

As for child pornography...yes. That is why it is so universally and heavily regulated. Of course, there's drawn, computer-generated, faked kiddie-porn using dolls or midgets or whatever...but a large proportion of it involves actual children.

 

[Ikerous]

There are a lot of flaws in that. Since when do parents necessarily have that knowledge or power? Since when do individuals necessarily have that knowledge or power? What about 'grooming'? What about pressure?

Because families are best apt to know whats best for their children... and are most likely to do whats in their best interest. They're a whole hell of a lot more equipped for the job than big brother. And the idea that the individual knows whats best for him/herself is the very basis for democracy :/

As for child pornography...yes. That is why it is so universally and heavily regulated. Of course, there's drawn, computer-generated, faked kiddie-porn using dolls or midgets or whatever...but a large proportion of it involves actual children.

As long as all participants are above the age of consent (16 in this country) I don't see a problem with it. And thats all they seem to want to do.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But if they're above the age of consent it's not technically child pornography, is it?

Because families are best apt to know whats best for their children... and are most likely to do what in their best interest. They're a whole hell of a lot more equipped for the job than big brother. And the idea that the individual knows whats best for him/herself is the very basis for democracy :/

1. People can only vote at 18 - an age where they're supposed to be able to exercise their own judgement. Therefore the idea that the individual knows what's best for him/herself at a certain age is the very basis for democracy. Same thing with...well, everything.

2. Quite often it's parents themselves who are involved in child abuse.

3. Families very often don't know what's best for their children.

Adults very often aren't able to take proper responsibility for themselves. :|

 

[Ikerous]

But if they're above the age of consent it's not technically child pornography, is it?

No, it isnt. Which is the problem...
The article says they're argueing for 16+ to be shown in porn. In this country 16+ can have sex. Hence why they're right...

1. People can only vote at 18 - an age where they're supposed to be able to exercise their own judgement. Therefore the idea that the individual knows what's best for him/herself at a certain age is the very basis for democracy. Same thing with...well, everything.

2. Quite often it's parents themselves who are involved in child abuse.

3. Families very often don't know what's best for their children.

1. Hence where the family comes in
2. If it's abuse in any way it's still a crime for other reasons
3. Very often the government doesn't know whats best for our children. But I trust parents to raise their kids more than i trust the government to do it.

I'm going to stop argueing this point.. mainly cuz i suck at it... But it really goes down to the very basis of libertarianism

 

[VirusType2]

When I was like 15, I wanted to do my friends mom so ****ing bad. For like 5 years. Bro she was sexy as hell at about 34 years old. I think she wanted me too. There was another broad (This lady's best friend) who was about 31. Fine as ****ing shit. I was only 14 or 15, but I didn't feel like it would have been child abuse if something would have happened. Actually, I was trying my best to score. They both flirted with me sometimes, so it's a shame that it couldn't have been something because they were scared or whatever. I mean because I really liked her, and I was old enough IMO.


there were some young ladies that were around 19 that used to flirt with me when I was about 8 or 9 as well. Things like , "you want some milk" (laughing with her friends) I was ready to have sex at this age but too young to know what to say to something like this, and I'm sure they were to scared, and of course I insanely shy.


I guess what I am saying is: I can understand that children have sexual drive too, even at a very young age, but 12? I think they will be too young to stand up for themselves and are easily pressured into doing things they don't really want to do.


Also, this Dutch "political party" make themselves sound ****ing extreme!

Nude train rides with child and animal sex! where do i sign up?!

 

[Sulkdodds]

It says that "private possession of child pornography should be allowed". Er?

1. What if the family's stupid/uncaring/responsible for abuse?
2. ...aaaaand?
3. The government's not raising the children in this case. All the government's doing is going 'look, better to be safe than sorry, rite? Children can be easy to co-erce, easy to groom, easy to force, and often can't decide for themselves especially since the standards with which they decide are formed during childhood. If you're 14 and she's 14 then you're not going to be prosecuted because frankly nobody will care enough to report you, and even if you do the sentence will likely be lenient, and all this will mean we can concentrate on the cases where you're 18 and she's 4.'

Not to mention that parents very often don't know how to raise their kids. At all.

 

[Ikerous]

It says that "private possession of child pornography should be allowed". Er?

Ya.. this whole time i've been talking about "youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves"
I thought it was obvious :/ sry

 

[Ome_Vince]

omg, that story is about the biggest piece of crap i've ever heard of! Unfortunatly, even the biggest moron can raise a political party.

About the animal sex part, that doesnt make sense (its allready legal..). Some time ago it was on the news that a guy raped a pony (SOURCE IN DUTCH), the cops arrested him, but couldnt do anything about it since it was NOT illegal to have sex with animals as long as they dont get any injury from it.. (omg that does sound disgusting )
This story smells like alot of hyped bs..