Pedophiles unite!

[Fragony]

Well everyone can make a political party nowadays huh? So why not one that says raping baby's isn't that bad because they can't say no yet. Here is the website, every time I think my country couldn't become any sicker....

http://www.nvd.nu/

Don't really feel like commenting as I would probably break forum regulations. :shame:

edit: but then you wouldn't know what filth this is. Well, we have this foundation here that thinks we are really intolerant if we think that adults should keep their hands of children. They used to be at these sex shows spreading their filth (ohhhhhhhhh childporn isn't that bad after all) but even the people there would rather tolerate them with four horses and some rope. Well these perverts now have a political party, the party for 'tolerance freedom and diversity'. World, learn from us.

[mercian billman]

It's to bad the site isn't in english, otherwise I could have a good laugh. As much as I hate little kids, it does seem pretty sickly to me that pedophiles would start their own political party. Who knows maybe the kids could start their own political party to counter the pedophiles.

[English assassin]

Say what you like about the Netherlands, the Org would be a more boring place without the combination of Dutch weirdness and Frag, wouldn't it?

We need it in English though Frag, I only understand Dutch after eight pints

[Redleg]

You can find a similiar site in the United States in the Man boy love association that is NAMBLA - some associates should be made considered illegal by there very nature -especially ones that advocate breaking the law.

http://www.nambla.org/

[Louis VI the Fat]

Come on Fragony, just try googling 'political party NVD netherlands' for an english source:


Neighborly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Naastenliefde, Vrijheid & Diversiteit) is a political party in the Netherlands. They have no parliamentary representation, because they were founded more recently (April 2004) than the latest elections. It was founded by Marthijn Uittenbogaard, better known for his being publicly self-identified as a pedophile and for his involvement the pedophilia advocacy and activism group MARTIJN.

They take many controversial or uncommon opinions, including lowering the age of consent to 12 years, eventually eliminating it, lowering the voting age to 12 also, legalizing hard drugs for people 16 or older and soft drugs for people 12 and older, and permitting public nudity anywhere in the country. In addition to wanting to grant many social rights to children as young as 12, they also have a comprehensive pro-animal rights platform.
I think you should shoot them.

[LeftEyeNine]

Freedom of speech, eh? Oh my..

[Fragony]

Come on Fragony, just try googling 'political party NVD netherlands' for an english source:


Hey you are good! Try the same thing in the Floriday shooting thread, Tribesman wants I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N and D-E-T-A-I-L-S.

Would be fun having the french work for us for a change ~;)

[English assassin]

Yes, but, do be do be do, other than the aminal rights thing for which they should certainly be shot, maybe its better to have them out in the open where we can keep an eye on them than hanging around school gates. I mean, even in Holland, its not like they are going to form the next government?

[doc_bean]

Why aren't they all under investigation for owning/trading child pornography ? Something is bound to turn up then.:dizzy2:

Pedophilia charges are really a big deal here, certainly after Dutroux, so I can't see a party like this being formed in Belgium anytime soon.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

12 hmm interesting this cant be good :no:

[Kralizec]

That's disgusting. I hope somebody is keeping tabs on these perverts.

However I should add that it's a good thing that they're allowed to state such things, advocating for the legalization of fulfilling their disgusting urges. I honestly believe that "free speech" would be completely hollow if such a site was forbidden.

[A.Saturnus]

As one who can read that website, I have to say it's much less outragous than I expected. But of course, it doesn't take much to outrage Fragony. Ok, they promote that children of the age of 12 should "have the choice to engage in sexual relations". They also want to give them the right to vote BTW. Of course, coming from self-declaring pedophiles it's transparent what they mean with that.
They have the right to form a political party. If they harm children (or animals), punish them, otherwise ignore them.

[GoreBag]

What frigging ever. Shoot them all, with everyone else who wants to challenge taboos. Also, let's get rid of fat chicks and men with combovers.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Freedom of speech, eh? Oh my..
See? That's why you should support the Imperialist Club.


I told you all it was a good idea. But did you listen? Noooooooooooooooo....

[Kagemusha]

We have this saying here that translates roughly "Here would be some work for axe". I think it pretty much sums up my thoughts on these sick people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Reminds me of the Yankee moving to the south thread...
And how 'He needed Killin' " is a valid defense.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

Haha, yeah right... ~:wacko:

Crazy people :inquisitive:

[Soulforged]

As one who can read that website, I have to say it's much less outragous than I expected. But of course, it doesn't take much to outrage Fragony. Ok, they promote that children of the age of 12 should "have the choice to engage in sexual relations". They also want to give them the right to vote BTW. Of course, coming from self-declaring pedophiles it's transparent what they mean with that.
They have the right to form a political party. If they harm children (or animals), punish them, otherwise ignore them.
Exactly, as much as this seems disgusting to anyone, not only they've the right to do so, but what they propose is completly legal. The part of rape in the first post is a clear exageration of the subject, it's not rape if there's conscent and the latter has juridic value.

[solypsist]

i hear gary glitter is looking for an apartment in amsterdam

[BHCWarman88]

lol Damn Perverts

These People are Sick,Public Nudity,Drugs,Meh,Mabye it time we stick them in looney Assylums or worse to get rid of these Nuts,my lord..

[Kanamori]

Bleugh.

[Reverend Joe]

You can find a similiar site in the United States in the Man boy love association that is NAMBLA - some associates should be made considered illegal by there very nature -especially ones that advocate breaking the law.

http://www.nambla.org/

Wow... and here, I thought NAMBLA stood for the "National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes."

Anyway, Stan and Kyle put it best when they said,
"Dude... you like to have sex... with children!"
"Yeah, I mean, we're all for freedom of expression and all that gay crap, but seriously, dude, **** you."

[Zalmoxis]

Wow... and here, I thought NAMBLA stood for the "National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes."

Anyway, Stan and Kyle put it best when they said,
"Dude... you like to have sex... with children!"
"Yeah, I mean, we're all for freedom of expression and all that gay crap, but seriously, dude, **** you."
Seconded, because as my first point I am not into the whole children thing, and second I saw that episode and there's no better way to put down a pervert.

[Radier]

Some parents ought to gang up and kick these people out of the country. If no other country wants them then I suggest we go with Louis suggestion: Shoot them.

[Duke John]

Some points of them about sexuality:

Sexual information starting at kindergarten.
12-year olds allowed to have sex (it appears as if they mean that adults can have sex with them).
Pornography can be broadcasted during the entire day.
Prostitution from age 16.
Walking nude in public should be allowed.
Private possession of child porn should be allowed.
Sex with animals should remain legal.
Marriage scrapped from inclusion in lawgiving.

:wall:

[Banquo's Ghost]

The part of rape in the first post is a clear exageration of the subject, it's not rape if there's conscent and the latter has juridic value.

Perhaps in South America, but in the UK and Ireland at least, children under age are considered unable to give consent, and therefore sex with them is automatically charged as rape.

I beleive that this age is 12 as opposed to the age of consent which is 16. This seems to me entirely sensible, because children are in no position to make informed decisions about sex, and they are always vulnerable to unequal power. Most child rape takes place within the family, and how is a child going to refuse its father or uncle even if she knows what he's truly asking?

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't Speak Spanish I can't read that site

[Ja'chyra]

Some points of them about sexuality:

Sexual information starting at kindergarten. Tad young maybe
12-year olds allowed to have sex (it appears as if they mean that adults can have sex with them). No:no:
Pornography can be broadcasted during the entire day. Cool
Prostitution from age 16. Well, you can marry, have sex, buy a house. Unsure about this one, if prostituion is legal in the country
Walking nude in public should be allowed. Only for fit females, no fat chicks or blokes
Private possession of child porn should be allowed. Nope
Sex with animals should remain legal. What???? Remain!!!!!!
Marriage scrapped from inclusion in lawgiving. Eh?

:wall:

Not all their points are bad, especially the porn one :2thumbsup:

[Husar]

Yeah, I should afound a party that advocates killing everyone you want without punishment, breaking taboos is good and helps the advancement of our civilization.:dizzy2: :rtwno:

[Peasant Phill]

Prostitution from age 16. Well, you can marry, have sex, buy a house. Unsure about this one, if prostituion is legal in the country

In the Netherlands, prostitution is legal (correct me if I'm wrong) but is highly regulated.

On the part that it should be legal for a 16 year old to prostitute him/herself, I'm against. The younger a person is the more this person can be influenced. Don't make it easier for some people to take advantage of someone and exploit them. The same goes for having sex with a minor.

[Ja'chyra]

In the Netherlands, prostitution is legal (correct me if I'm wrong) but is highly regulated.

On the part that it should be legal for a 16 year old to prostitute him/herself, I'm against. The younger a person is the more this person can be influenced. Don't make it easier for some people to take advantage of someone and exploit them. The same goes for having sex with a minor.

You may well be right but people have to start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions at some point, all that's left is to decide when, 16? 18? 21? Never?

I'm not saying 16 is correct, it all depends on whatever else the state has decided is a proper age to start making your own decisions.

Back on subject, I believe that being commited of certain crimes should bar you for life from running for office, paedophilia being one of the forerunners.

[Major Robert Dump]

Not in America!

Funny thing, a drug conviction, be it felony or misdemeanor, prevents you from recieiving federal financial aid for college. No other type of crime does that. Now thats humor. Failed, wailing, squirming drug war anyone?

[Banquo's Ghost]

:oops: I should clarify my earlier statement about statutory rape of children - as far as Ireland goes.

After I left for work, I remembered that there is a controversial case where the presumption of rape has been over-turned by the High Court, and is now due to go before our Supreme Court for a final decision.

Details here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0531/sex.html), and here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/sex.html), should anyone be interested.


Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional

23 May 2006 21:53
The Supreme Court has unanimously declared unconstitutional the law under which any man is automatically guilty of a crime if he has sex with a girl under 15.

The court made its decision on several grounds, including the failure to allow the defence that a genuine mistake had been made about a girl's age.

The successful challenge to the legislation was brought by a 23-year-old man.

He had admitted having consensual intercourse with a girl who, he claimed, had told him she was 16. He was 17 at the time in 2001.

Until today if a man or boy was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a girl under 15, even if it was consensual, he could face up to life imprisonment under the 1935 legislation and he would also be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

But the Supreme Court has shot down the relevant provision of the Act, which did not allow any defence to be offered where the fact of sexual intercourse was admitted or established.

The challenge to the Act was brought by a young man who was facing four charges of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old girl.

He admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed she had told him she was 16.

His senior counsel, Deirdre Murphy, pointed out that the law as it stood left men like her client without a reasonable defence even when positiviely convinced by the girl herself that she was over the statutory age.

She argued that that it was inconsistent with the right to a fair trial to deny her client the defence of mistake or mistake on reasonable grounds.

The Supreme Court agreed that the section offered absolutely no defence once the act of sexual intercourse was established.

Mr Justice Hardiman said that once a man has sex with a girl whom he honestly believes to be over the relevant age, a mentally innocent person is criminalised.

To criminalise in such a serious way a person who is mentally innocent inflicts a grave injury on that person's dignity and sense of worth, he said.

He said the right of an accused not to be convicted of a true criminal offence in the absence of intent was done away with by this Act.

But the court said today's decision does not prevent the Oireachtas from enacting different legitimate laws to discourage sex with very young girls.

[A.Saturnus]

Back on subject, I believe that being commited of certain crimes should bar you for life from running for office, paedophilia being one of the forerunners.

Paedophilia isn't a crime.

[Byzantine Prince]

Huh?:inquisitive: Paedophilia is an illigal act in most countries, as defined by law. Therefore it is a crime.

[A.Saturnus]

No, paedophilia isn't an act. The term describes a sexual orientation. Since sexual orientations are part of the inner life of a person, they cannot be outlawed. What is illegal though, is acting on these sexual desires, which is called pederasty.

[Byzantine Prince]

BUT, in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia you are subject to certain conditions, one of them being that you have acted upon your sexual preference, or they are in distress (which makes it entirely possible to commit the crime). Technically you might be right, but in eventuality no pedophiliac can hold back these intense urges. There is such a thing as preventative laws. Perhaps they should be established about pedophilia as well. After all nobody would let a self-prefessed terrorist on the loose just because he has blown anything away yet.

[Vladimir]

You may well be right but people have to start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions at some point, all that's left is to decide when, 16? 18? 21? Never?

I'm not saying 16 is correct, it all depends on whatever else the state has decided is a proper age to start making your own decisions.



Just to throw out an age: I believe the human brain doesn't fully develop until around age 25. Or at least that's when the action=consequence part fully develops. You may have noticed how your car insurance rates changed abound that age. Sure at one time the ages of consent were much lower but so was the average life expectancy. Some things to consider.

[doc_bean]

BUT, in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia you are subject to certain conditions, one of them being that you have acted upon your sexual preference, or they are in distress (which makes it entirely possible to commit the crime). Technically you might be right, but in eventuality no pedophiliac can hold back these intense urges. There is such a thing as preventative laws. Perhaps they should be established about pedophilia as well. After all nobody would let a self-prefessed terrorist on the loose just because he has blown anything away yet.

Lots of pedophiles have probably never acted on their desires though, you just don't know they are pedophiles. I'm sure someone can dig up some studies that show this.

I'm actually going to be a liberal wimp about this: pedophiles who haven't acted on their desires should be able to receive free counselling and help. It would be much better to help these people, and to help adapt them to society then to just them run free without any form of control or guidance.
That said, people who have acted on it should be locked away for life.

[Ja'chyra]

No, paedophilia isn't an act. The term describes a sexual orientation. Since sexual orientations are part of the inner life of a person, they cannot be outlawed. What is illegal though, is acting on these sexual desires, which is called pederasty.

Ok, my bad, how about pedantic? :juggle2:

[Soulforged]

Perhaps in South America, but in the UK and Ireland at least, children under age are considered unable to give consent, and therefore sex with them is automatically charged as rape.

I beleive that this age is 12 as opposed to the age of consent which is 16. This seems to me entirely sensible, because children are in no position to make informed decisions about sex, and they are always vulnerable to unequal power. Most child rape takes place within the family, and how is a child going to refuse its father or uncle even if she knows what he's truly asking?
No it's the same, but the group is proposing to change the legal age. Though I recently heard that they also want this to "progress" to a certain point in wich there's no age limit. That's too much IMO. If stadistics show that there's a mojority of 12 year old children with those characteristics then lowering the age for legal consent is not a bad idea, I repeat, only if the facts demostrate that the social structure has changed, thus there will be no reason to keep the old legal structure in opposion to a factual situation. It will be hard though, and not entirely necessary. I also suppose that there are a lot of 12 year old, that, though informed about sex, they cannot have sexual relationships only because their bodies cannot withstand it, they're not prepared physically.


After I left for work, I remembered that there is a controversial case where the presumption of rape has been over-turned by the High Court, and is now due to go before our Supreme Court for a final decision.Interesting Banquo. I agree with that. Presumption should be for purely abstract issues not to ones that are related to facts and proof.

[AntiochusIII]

I suppose investigations should be made on the members--though of course with proper court warrant and legal procedures--to make sure that they are not consuming child porn, being that such a consumption is illegal in most countries, and for very good reasons.

The rape of the youth undoubtedly cause the youth's development to "crash," resulting in problematic adults, a direct burden to society. That, of course, is not mentioning the individual part of the damage, far more serious in moral terms.

They can speak up, though, no matter how much "disgusted" we are. It is their right as long as they are within the law.

[A.Saturnus]

Ok, my bad, how about pedantic? :juggle2:

I don't think it's pedantic, it's relevant, at least if I understood you correctly. You said pedophiles shouldn't have the right to run for an office. If you meant pederasts, I may agree with you, if you mean pedofiles I have to object on basis of the human rights. The founders of this political party are as far as I know pedophiles, but not pederasts.


After all nobody would let a self-prefessed terrorist on the loose just because he has blown anything away yet.

Locking up a self-professed terrorist without proof that he or she was actually planning any terrorist attack would be an act of oppression.