Well, they're legal, now:
Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12. The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the appeal of political parties.
The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely dubbed the "pedophile" party, it is unlikely ever to win a seat in parliament. The group would need around 60,000 votes, and pollsters estimate it would get fewer than 1,000.
Opponents had asked The Hague District Court to bar the party from registering for national elections in November, arguing that children have the right not to be confronted with the party's platform.
"Freedom of expression, freedom ... of association, including the freedom to set up a political party, can be seen as the basis for a democratic society," Judge H. Hofhuis said in his ruling.
"These freedoms give citizens the opportunity to, for example, use a political party to appeal for change to the constitution, law, or policy."
He noted that the PNVD party, the Dutch abbreviation of Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity, had not committed a crime, but was calling for a change in the law.
"It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political parties," he said.
The party sparked outrage when it proclaimed its existence in late May, but prosecutors declined to prosecute its members as a threat to public order.
"We expected this result," said party treasurer Ad van den Berg, 62. "We are not doing anything illegal so there is no reason to ban us."
Van den Berg was fined and given a suspended prison sentence for molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. After his background became known last month, he was chased from the trailer park where he lived in the city of Oostvoorne.
Anke de Wijn, an attorney representing the party's opponents, said the group was abusing Dutch tolerance.
"Victims feel hurt by the wish of pedophiles to make their desires known in public," De Wijn said. "There are few limitations on free speech, and that's good, but this group is making misuse of the privilege, to provoke."
The PNVD's known members were a president, a secretary and a treasurer, as required under Dutch law. In order to stand in elections scheduled for Nov. 22, it will have to submit a list of candidates and the signatures of at least 30 supporters to get on the ballot in any one of the country's 19 voting districts.
Ireen van Engelen of the Solace Foundation, which researches pedophilia, said the party likely would fail to register for the elections because pedophiles seek anonymity.
"They will never want to connect their name to the party and without the signatures they can't go in the elections," she said.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Marthijn Uittenbogaard, president of the PNVD party, named after the Dutch acronym for Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity, is seen during an AP interview at his home in Leiden, the Netherlands, Sunday, July 16, 2006.
----------
It puts a whole new spin on the phrase, "going Dutch."
I can see the campaign pitch now, "66% of party members have not been arrested for pedophilia."
OK, for all those with Libertarian leanings, what exactly is wrong with a party devoted to pedophilia? Just because you don't like it and think its immoral/disgusting/whatever doesn't make it so. People thought homosexuality was immoral. People thought miscegenation was immoral. Why is this any different?
I have no problem whatever consenting adults do with each other. A lot of people under the age of 18 make some poor choice/decisions, but the people who prey on that should be punished. I know adults make poor choices, but some people prey on youngsters who need attention and and the youngsters will do just about anything to get it.
If a 12 year old isn't getting much emotional support in their lives, they would be very prone with having sex with an adult who will give them that attention.
-C
Why is this any different?
I guess if the thought of some 30 or 40 year old pervert diddling your 10 year old son or daughter doesn't bother you
it's no different at all.
what exactly is wrong with a party devoted to pedophilia?
Nothing. No problem at all. Free speech.
Now, when they start practicing it, we have a problem.
This is about a group of individuals having the right to say what they think.
I disagree. I think it is about the disintigration of Western culture and of any sort of Western moral code.
"When people cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."
G.K. Chesterson
BrokenPaw, I don't think anyone in the thread has argued for banning this party, either. I do find it humorous that you say "Morals have nothing to do with it," and then immediately start talking about your moral position that allowing the Pedophile Party is a "good" thing. The right to free speech is also a moral concept.
Ok, I'll clarify, then.
The morality (or lack of morality) of a pedophile's desires has nothing to do with their right to speak freely in a political sense.
Hope that clears up my position.
-BP
BrokenPaw, I don't think anyone in the thread has argued for banning this party, either. I do find it humorous that you say "Morals have nothing to do with it," and then immediately start talking about your moral position that allowing the Pedophile Party is a "good" thing. The right to free speech is also a moral concept.
I guess I agree, though, about allowing the party to have their say.
OK, I'll be the first.
The party ought to be banned. Its principles and goals are not only abhorrent to normal people but, as pointed out, its very existence legitimizes the inherently illegitimate and encourages even worse behavior. If we do not draw the line somewhere then anything can be countenanced under the banner of free speech. Yes, I hear some people already stammering "but but, if you ban this party then you can ban any party." Poppycock. There are many democracies flourishing just fine that have bans on various political parties. It is a slippery slope argument and is not borne out by experience nor by logic.
So your argument that the party should be banned is that it is a slippery slope, but in addressing the free speech counterclaim, you dismiss the slippery slope. Interesting.
Telperion,
It's just another example of the moral relativism of the right-wing. :-D
-BP
(for the humour-challenged among you, relax and take a deep breath. If my comment made you angry, meditate upon why it made you angry).
So your argument that the party should be banned is that it is a slippery slope, but in addressing the free speech counterclaim, you dismiss the slippery slope. Interesting.
No, thats your argument. My argument was consistent.