PDA

View Full Version : Dutch political party supporting child sexual freedom and pedophilia


freddie
31-05-2006, 22:36
I found this (http://www.rtvslo.si/modload.php?&c_mod=rnews&op=sections&func=read&c_menu=2&c_id=110075) article on Slovene national TV's website.
Rough translation:
Dutch public was shocked recently when advocates for legalization of paedophilia announced they're establishing a new political party.

The party would be established on the grounds of "Martinj" association, which supports paedophilia. It's official name will be "Neighborly Love, Freedom and Diversity”. Party members are advocating for a change in legislature where the law would actually allow sexual intercourse with a consenting minor who's over 12 years old.

Minors over 16 would be allowed to perform in pornographic movies. Among other agendas from their program are legalization of all forbiden narcotics, free railway transport for all and more rights for animals. They also demand a ban on a country's budget deficit (WTF?!-Freddie).

Other parties were outraged and called for a ban of "Neighborly Love, Freedom and Diversity”, who wants to be involved in dutch political life. Anti-paedophile activists warned that the party is trying to guise the goal of their efforts as a fight for the rights of childern, when really their program only blatantly benifits party members.

Surveys have shown that two thirds of the people in Holland supports punishment for those supporting or condoning paedophilia. On the other hand 25% of Dutch people think that banning a paedophile party would be an unacceptable form of censorship.

Right. So at first I thought it was a joke. But then I did a bit of browsing on google and it came up with the official website of this paedophile party (http://www.nvd.nu/main.html). It's in dutch though, so good luck. :p

Though I found a small promo advert in english as well:
Naastenliefde, Vrijheid & Diversiteit (NVD, Dutch for “Neighborly Love, Freedom, and Diversity”) is a new political party in the Netherlands launching on May 31, 2006. The founders are Ad van den Berg, Norbert de Jonge, and Marthijn Uittenbogaard. The party platform includes lowering the age of sexual consent to 12 and eventually eliminating it, lowering the voting age to 12, granting many other social rights to children as young as 12, permitting public nudity, legalizing hard drugs for people 16 or older and soft drugs for people 12 and older, and comprehensive animal rights.

So what do you think guys? Strangers with candy? :p

spyretto
31-05-2006, 22:57
...and comprehensive animal rights.

Like sex with animals then ?

Anouk
31-05-2006, 23:08
So many party's are being established every year here.. Doesn't mean they'll actually survive..


What can I say - yes, besides the fabulous me, we also have total opposites living here, complete morons so to speak :rolleyes:

PowerPuff Grrl
31-05-2006, 23:28
Looks like they'll join the ranks of NAMBLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), the North American Man/boy Love Association.

Although the whole thing is sick, their logo cracks me up.

haku
01-06-2006, 00:12
Looks like they'll join the ranks of NAMBLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), the North American Man/boy Love Association.
I remember the South Park episode about NAMBLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman_Joins_NAMBLA), hillarious. :laugh:

dradeel
01-06-2006, 21:32
It's not an ethical or moral issue or physiological isue, it's a legal issue. Capisch?
Yes, but does that mean we have to agree with it? Laws could/should be changed. That's all :)
Yes , they should have right to the medical treatment but I'm not sure you mean exactly that.
What you mean by medical treatment?

marina
02-06-2006, 11:00
What you mean by medical treatment?


Well , I try to explain myself. If someone feels unbeatable, unstoppable surge of sexual desire towards the children , to the point that he feels that everything goes out of hand , that he cannot control himself anymore and the next step all hell breaks loose : he /she could hurt the kid ( insert here anything that you like : touching the kid in that way , raping , talking to little boys and girls nasty lustful things with showing them porn and asking to try promising sweet candy for that to gullible little fools etc) . In that case , person has all the rights to seek medical help. What kind of help ? It’s not for me to decide , it depends of severity of the case I suppose. Drug them , sedate , control the hormone balance of his body with medication , lock them in the medical institution ..I don’t know . And frankly , I don’t want to know . What I want to is to feel safe and that children will be out of danger.

spyretto
02-06-2006, 13:03
Yes, but does that mean we have to agree with it? Laws could/should be changed. That's all :)




The question is not whether we're to allow adults to have sex with children but on the other hand it's debatable whether a person under the age of majority at the age of 16 or 17 is a child ( certainly not anatomically or psychologically as they're very much sexually aware and most of them sexually active ). Still legally they're considered "children". The most hypocritical society on the planet - won't say which one that is -treats number 18 as a magical number where suddenly once a person passes that age everything becomes normal, but before everything is forbidden - as if you can flick a switch and suddenly become an adult with everything that can entail. But this is such a grey area when the age of consent ( even in that society ) is 16 and over. So what happens when you're between 16 and 18 years old? You're sexually considered an adult but legally you're not.
Nevertheless, I can't see how a party would advocate a case of people under the age of consent to have sex and treat it as a "right" for them when they're both unaccountable for their own actions and also under the age where experts think that a person can safely be in a sexual relationship ( not that it's not happening of course ). As nath pointed out a child is unable to cope with the psychological burden of that as they're forming their own personality. That's why most people who end up becoming pornographic actors come from backgrounds where they were sexually abused in childhood. So it may be considered a right for the adult individual who engages in sexual acts with an underage person but it's certainly not a right for the underage person themselves.

dradeel
02-06-2006, 16:18
If someone feels unbeatable, unstoppable surge of sexual desire towards the children , to the point that he feels that everything goes out of hand , that he cannot control himself anymore and the next step all hell breaks loose : he /she could hurt the kid, [...] showing them porn and asking to try promising sweet candy for that to gullible little fools etc) . In that case , person has all the rights to seek medical help. [...]. What I want to is to feel safe and that children will be out of danger.
Of course... doesn't that go for everyone tho? I mean, there isn't only pedophiles that feel urges they cannot control. Everyone have the right for help. - But aye, in some countries pedophelia is illegal - just like homo sexuality have been illegal (became legal in '72 in norway I think). I'm not sure if pedophelia is illegal anymore tho. Pedophile persons are always reckoned to be mentally ill all together and just thrown inside the bars, without anyone to have a dialogue with them or a health service that can help them in need.

I think there are many pedophile persons that are peaceful citizens who'd never think about doing any harm to a child. It's not like all hetero sexual men who see good looking women simply have to rape them.
rapes or parties with 6 persons....or all kinds of situations where you'll get absolutely no feeling but just sex relationships where the women would be treated just as objects in the most perverse and dangerous situations...
We all have different sexual fantasies. I think it's much better for someone who like it violent to live them out on their own by watching movies where it's "fake" and done by "pros", instead of being violent irl - or to someone who doesn't like it like that at all.

And also, I don't think the women are treated as objects any more than men in porno movies. Again you have different kinds of fetishes and so on. You'll see both men and women being the master, and both sexes will be the sub ... an object. I'm no expert on the area and I'm not saying all women in the porno industry are treated nicely, but I do think it's somewhat of a myth that porn actresses are being used and treated badly. They are all filthy rich and they most probably do what they like. Or else they wouldn't have done it. I'm convinced that they have a choice. (At least in the american porno industry which is laaarge and where everyone is stuffed with money)

When it comes to having "kids" playing in porn movies --- as long as the law have a legal age of ... 18 or whatever, then of course kids shouldn't be allowed to play in porn movies. I'm only saying that maybe this "legal" age should perhaps be lowered or even abolished, having a whole new system where you get some rights along the way, and not all of them at one age... :) but that's a whole new different subject tho. Hehehe.
Either way, I disagree with this party's policy. They are simply too extreme and frankly kinda ignorant. As I said, the only good thing they wanted was to legalize all drugs :D

forre
02-06-2006, 16:32
According to the Constitution, you have a right to establish any party. If the actions will lead to propaganda of nationalism, racism, etc. - those are prohibited by a current law, then it becomes a legal case. Any party may suggest changes in the law of own country. So legally it's all ok. Another thing is how people use own Constitution and Law. As we see, there's no support of such a party generally and even more than 66% of people think that the party should be banned. Such bizarre things pop up now and then but disappear almost at once.

My personal view is another story here. I personally think that you can't allow everything. A society needs rules accepted by its members, otherwise there won't be any society. The idea looks very much criminal to me too. Crazy bunch of lunatics.

freddie
02-06-2006, 22:27
According to the Constitution, you have a right to establish any party. If the actions will lead to propaganda of nationalism, racism, etc. - those are prohibited by a current law, then it becomes a legal case.
That's true, but then again a majority of nationalist parties who're legaly elected to their domestic parliaments actually play the racism card. It's usually the back-bone of their campaign. They feed of fear and hatred towards other ethnicities and foreigners in general. And not even in a subtle way.