The Dutch paedophile political party PVND

[Hazzle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...822972,00.html

Dutch court lets paedophile party contest country's general election

· 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.

Rita Verdonk, the country's immigration minister, recently caused controversy by saying that aspiring Dutch citizens should be shown a DVD highlighting Dutch liberal values. Muslims complained that this was targeted against them because it featured a gay couple kissing.

The general election was called after the coalition government collapsed in a row linked to the debate on Muslims. The small centre-right D66 party withdrew from the coalition after Ms Verdonk stripped Dutch citizenship from (and then restored it to) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former MP who is one of the country's sharpest critics of radical Islamists and is now to emigrate to the US.

Testing times

Events that have shaken the Netherlands' liberal reputation:

February 2002 Pim Fortuyn kicked out of the Livable Netherlands party after saying immigration should be restricted and discrimination permitted. His Pim Fortuyn List becomes the second-largest party in May's parliamentary elections

May 2002 Fortuyn shot dead nine days before elections, by an animal rights activist who said he wanted to prevent the politician exploiting vulnerable elements of society

November 2004 Film-maker Theo van Gogh murdered on an Amsterdam street by a Muslim extremist. Van Gogh had become a target because of his film Submission, which dealt with violence against women in Islam

Now I like to think of myself as an open-minded, relatively liberal sort of person, and generally I'm all-for freedom of expression but does anyone else think this is a step too far? I'm actually in favour of legalising possession of child pornography as a matter of principle, but going after those who make and distribute it with harder sentences. But lowering the age of consent to 12?!?!

[Digital_Ice]

...thats... just......... wrong.

[AureaMediocritas]

Mhmm little boys... yummy.

[Foeni]

In a democracy, they're allowed to have these opinions, however sick normal people find them. And they are, and should be, allowed to form this party. Don't get me wrong, I think they're sick and I hope and believe the Dutch population is too smart to vote for them. But then again, in other ways they're not that smart. But that's a whole other discussion.

[hasselbrad]

Legalizing possession of kiddie-porn cannot happen. It's not like legalizing the possession of drugs. If I have a quarter bag of hairy kind bud, I haven't harmed another human being in the process of acquiring said kind bud. However, the possession of kiddie-porn means that at least one child has been harmed (most likely, irreversably) in the process of the production of said kiddie-porn. It's not a victimless crime.

As for this party, it seems like a colossal waste of media space. Surely to God the Dutch have enough common sense to bury these scumbags in a general election.

[Steve84]

Thats all fucked up.

theres a reason for Legal ages to have sex.. that 16 year olds are mentally capable of coping with it (well, somestimes not lol).

I can't believe the courts are letting this party become candidates..

[Foeni]

It's a democratic right. You can't ban opinions or groups in a democracy unless they're working against the law.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Foeni

It's a democratic right. You can't ban opinions or groups in a democracy unless they're working against the law.

Well, they are breaking the law if they are in possession of kiddie porn or are engaging in sexual relations with children under 16.

[Foeni]

True, but that's not the issue here. It would be a whole other matter. I'm sure that they don't - as a political party - posseses illegal material, and it hasn't been proved otherwise as far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean they don't posses it individually, though. Therefor the organisation isn't going against the law. Not like Hizb-ut-tahrir, for instance that has been banned in many countries (not Denmark, yet).

[Hazzle]

We wouldn't allow a party to stand that openly advocated genocide. There's got to be a line drawn somewhere between legitimate free expression and hate speech.

I must take issue with what you said Brad. You pointed out that possession of drugs is victimless because to acquire it noone has been harmed. TECHNICALLY to merely ACQUIRE child pornography doesn't require any harm to be committed. Making and distribution should remain crimes, but possession is a thought crime and we should be opposed to such things. Criminalising paedophilic thoughts is a slippery slope. Paedophilic ACTS is where the real crime lies.

Equally there's the issue of pseudo-child porn to consider. As far as I'm aware owning pornography depicting consenting adults engaging in sex, where the images have been doctored to make it appear like children is not illegal (it's been a while since I studied this though). Seems a bit difficult to draw a logical distinction between the non-crime committed there, and the crime committed by possession of child pornography. Your point about harm to the child is noted, but that's not a crime committed by those who possess such things.

Otherwise one might argue that possession of images of crime scenes makes you guilty of the crimes which're depicted. It's hard to see how that's any different.

[deviljet88]

If the Dutch population, as the article claims, is against the party, what's to worry if they're allowed to be in the running in the elections? Noone's going to vote for them. You do need a majority of votes to actually have power...

[Hazzle]

It's not about whether they'll be elected, it's more to do with the idea of whether they should be allowed to spread their message.

We criminalise paedophilia and make a big deal of spreading around material designed to make paedophiles disgusted with themselves (with good cause) in the hopes that we can actually PREVENT these sorts of crimes (rather than merely punishing child abuse afterwards, by which point it's too late).

Our hope is that if you spread the message "If you're a paedophile you're a disgusting sicko and noone thinks that your sexual deviancy is acceptable merely because you have no control over it" then paedophiles won't justify their behaviour as merely being their sexuality (and akin to homosexuality being illegal once).

By even allowing this party to stand we actually attach legitimacy to the idea that this is merely another form of sexuality that should be given equality alongside heterosexuality and homosexuality. Whether they succeed in spreading that message to normal people (and they won't) they'll be undoing years of hard work. Many paedophiles who otherwise would not have acted on their urges (because we've succeeded in making them disgusted by it) might now act.

[hasselbrad]

I must take issue with what you said Brad. You pointed out that possession of drugs is victimless because to acquire it noone has been harmed. TECHNICALLY to merely ACQUIRE child pornography doesn't require any harm to be committed. Making and distribution should remain crimes, but possession is a thought crime and we should be opposed to such things. Criminalising paedophilic thoughts is a slippery slope. Paedophilic ACTS is where the real crime lies.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. To me, it's no different than the act of receiving stolen property. Possession steps over the boundry of thought. If a guy has a computer full of pictures of little girls straddling see-saws and bicycles that he wanks to, that's thought. If the same guy has pictures of little girls being forced to straddle dildos, that's gone beyond thought.

Equally there's the issue of pseudo-child porn to consider. As far as I'm aware owning pornography depicting consenting adults engaging in sex, where the images have been doctored to make it appear like children is not illegal (it's been a while since I studied this though). Seems a bit difficult to draw a logical distinction between the non-crime committed there, and the crime committed by possession of child pornography. Your point about harm to the child is noted, but that's not a crime committed by those who possess such things.

So long as the "model" (God I love Bill Hicks' routine about "models"...Ice knows what I'm talking about) is over eighteen (here in the states), it doesn't really matter. If a nineteen year old dresses like a fifteen year old Catholic school girl in a porn video, then it falls under your "thought" provision. If guys beat off to that illusion, then it is thought. However, if a fifteen year old girl does the same thing, then it is a crime. And, like a stolen watch, the person with it on their wrist is guilty as well.
Admittedly, the line can be blurred. Traci Lords is a perfect example. Lord knows how many "criminals" were created by her over developed, fifteen year old body. However, documentation laws have been enacted in an effort to avoid a situation like hers happening again.

Otherwise one might argue that possession of images of crime scenes makes you guilty of the crimes which're depicted. It's hard to see how that's any different.

Ah, but the crime scene photos are simply evidence and/or a record of an event. A man being gunned down in cold blood is an "event". A twelve year old girl involved in sexual activity is not an "event". I doubt very seriously there are too many crimes, save for the serial killer who likes to see his work on the news, that are committed with the intent of creating crime scene photos.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

Ah, but the crime scene photos are simply evidence and/or a record of an event. A man being gunned down in cold blood is an "event". A twelve year old girl involved in sexual activity is not an "event". I doubt very seriously there are too many crimes, save for the serial killer who likes to see his work on the news, that are committed with the intent of creating crime scene photos.

Both are depictions of a crime taking place. They're both "events" in that sense. You can't distinguish the two, except for your point about intent. But then that intent is on the part of the person who creates the pornography. You can't use the intent of another to distinguish why one is criminal and the other isn't.

You should also know that distribution of crime scene photos can be illegal, depending on how graphic they are, so there's no distinction to be drawn. Distribution should be illegal because of obscenity laws. Making should be illegal BECAUSE it involves committing a criminal act (having sex with a child) and is therefore no different to punishing the murderer for murder.

If you want something even more on-topic, snuff pornography. Possession of snuff is actually legal. Making it and distributing it is not. Even REAL snuff porn (where people are really killed) is legal to possess. Distinguish that from possessing child porn if you will. Both involve pornography, the making of which requires a crime to be committed, and the distribution of which is illegal.

Your second paragraph misses my point. The illusion is real in the eyes of the person in possession of the pornography, so why is his crime any less than the man who owns real child pornography? These people don't always KNOW it's pseudo child-porn, and so the crime is identical. Maybe I'm not explaining myself, I'll use an example:

Man A has genuine child porn, is arrested and convicted.

Man B has pseudo-pornography he believes is real and is not convicted.

Their crimes, both acts and mental states, are identical. The only difference comes at the OTHER end, the manufacture of the pornography. So because of the conduct of another we're distinguishing two crimes? That's illogical.

Legally it's also wrong. If you "steal" property that is actually yours, but you don't know this...if the police can prove that you didn't know it was yours, you can be convicted of theft. The state of mind is crucial. There is no distinction between the two. So either we punish possession of pseudo-pornography equally (which then starts a whole trail of where we draw the line...) or we accept that possession of these materials isn't a crime. I don't like that conclusion (in fact it sickens me) but when I studied obscenity it was unfortunately the only correct conclusion to draw.

Distinction of crimes based on the crimes of another is also why you're wrong to state that the man who wanks to children on bikes is only guilty of thought whilst the other has gone beyond thought. How? Where exactly is the distinction between thought and act there? The only difference between the two comes at the end of the maker, not at the end of the possessor. Both are guilty of paedophilic thoughts, neither is guilty of paedophilic acts. The difference comes from the act of the makers.

No offence Brad but your understanding of receiving stolen property is flawed. The person receiving stolen property must either have the intent to aid the thief or the intent to profit from the goods despite knowing they're stolen. Neither of these are present in possessing child pornography. Having studied the two crimes closely, they are not analagous. The crime is analagous to distribution of child pornography but not possession thereof. Possessing stolen goods in and of itself is not a crime if your only intention is to get a cheap watch for yourself.

I'd probably feel different if I was a parent but that's why law-makers have to insulate themselves from their own personal feelings. The law must be robotically logical.

[hasselbrad]

Both are depictions of a crime taking place.

No...that's kiddie porn.
Crime scene photos are of a crime that has taken place.
The only crime scene photos (film, actually) that show a crime being committed (that I know of) are the Zapruder film, Oswald getting shot, Sadat's assassination and Hinckley's attempt on Reagan. And, those are part of public record, and, were taken as an event was happening...not in a seedy motel room.
Of course, that takes us to Marion Berry smoking crack.
Beyond these images, there are the L.A. Riots and Reginald Denny's unfortunate decision to hit the pedal on the left instead of the pedal on the right. Once again, that was a news event.

Possessing stolen goods in and of itself is not a crime if your only intention is to get a cheap watch for yourself.

Your laws must be different, then. Intent to distribute has no effect on illegality here.

Exhibit A

[runangl]

any of you read camille paglia? i have a feeling that she'd be almost thrilled with this... although she herself said pornography shouldn't be out there in public view, forcing others to see it. she was all for widely available pornography though.

oh that pagan woman camille paglia. hehe

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

No...that's kiddie porn.
Crime scene photos are of a crime that has taken place.

Technicality. Both are depictions of events that came about as a result of a crime having been committed. Equally you've yet to disprove my point about snuff which is far more on-topic.

Your laws must be different, then. Intent to distribute has no effect on illegality here.

Exhibit A

I'm aware of that (having studied US criminal law too ). I'm speaking as a matter of the underlying principle. The underlying principle of making receipt of stolen property a crime is to prevent the crime being covered up or profit being made through trafficking of the property. The same logic only applies to distribution of child pornography.

The underlying rationale is the same. The law does not like those who profit from crime, even if the crimes are committed by others. Even acquiring stolen goods with no intent to distribute is still profiting because (one would think) you've acquired the goods at lower than market value. Acquiring goods at market value will normally make it harder for the jury to infer belief the goods were stolen. There's no profit in merely possessing child pornography.

Let me ask you something. If a man has child pornography in his possession, what are we punishing him for exactly? For being aroused by children performing sexual acts? How is that anything but a thought crime? You can't hold him vicariously liable for the child abuse to make the pornography.

[hasselbrad]

Leverage. A prosecutor can (and often will) file charges if they think that the receiver of said goods (stolen or kiddie-porn) can provide a link to someone in distribution.
I'm all for striking consensual crime from the books, but the problem is, this is not a consensual crime, since the victim is beneath the age of consent.

I didn't mean to ignore your point about snuff. It should be illegal to possess as well. Period.

Man A has genuine child porn, is arrested and convicted.

Man B has pseudo-pornography he believes is real and is not convicted.

Man B is just lucky. If the "models" are above the age of consent, he's in the clear.

The whole notion of "what a person thinks" in a given situation could, in theory, be used to make everything a "thought" crime. This is why I am against "hate crime" legislation. We're allowing too many lines to be blurred.
How is beating a man to death with a lead pipe any more grave of a crime if the murderer yelled "faggot" or "nigger" whilst doing it?

[acliff]

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.

And abuse of young children would not?

I wonder what would happen if the police raided the homes of the party members.

I'm not particularly well versed on law, let alone the laws discussed on this thread, but my moral compass tells me that this is ALL kinds of wrong.
Following a Jimmy Carr gag about paedophiles in Mexico explaining themselves to the police - " But she looked twelve to me!"

Foeni, whereas I understand what you're saying, I'm sure you'd take a slightly stronger stand against it if you had young children, or a younger sibling.

[Foeni]

I have younger siblings, 18 (not really that relevant), 16 and 12 (now, that is relevant). I agree with you that it's morally wrong . I just see it as a democratic right to form a party that works within the law. If they, however, are caught in breaking the very laws they wish to change, the party should be banned. Up until that, they're not different than other legal parties with strong and sick opinions.