Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party

[roo_ster]

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."

[JAlexander]

I've always been a firm believer in not judging a book by its cover, but that dude just looks like a pedophile.  

James

[El Tejon]

It's an alternative lifestyle too!

Once one crumbles the cake of tradition, all kinds of roaches run out onto the floor for scraps.

[K Frame]

You know, even if I didn't know anything about that guy I would have him pegged as a potential sex offender.

[charby]

Things like this make me feel very happy to be living in America. So since the leftest want us to be more like Europe think it is a matter of time before this is brought here in the US?

-C

[The Rabbi]

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 doesnt make it so.  People thought homosexuality was immoral.  People thought miscegenation was immoral.  Why is this any different?

[El Tejon]

Lack of informed consent, rabbi?

[charby]

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

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

[Guest]

With that argument, then, if its ok for heterosexuals to have sex, they why is it wrong for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 10 year old?

[LadySmith]

Lack of evidence proving that adults having sex with children is a good thing.
Abundance of evidence proving that adults having sex with children is a bad thing. Bad for the children, and consequently, for society.

[Azrael256]

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.

[Antibubba]

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.

First, the limit is 12 years old.  And second, if they were to get the law changed, it wouldn't be a crime.

But yes, there are limits to informed consent.  The Dutch say a 16 y. o. can make that choice.  Few Americans (over the age of 30) agree.

[BrokenPaw]

Some people are making the mistake of combining two issues here.  Issue 1:  is pedophilia wrong?  Issue 2: Do people who believe a particular thing have the right to form a political party to advance that agenda, even if the agenda itself is abhorrent to many people?

Answer to issue 1: Pedophilic thought is protected by right, as is thought of any kind (notwithstanding encroachments like "hate-crime" legislation).  Pedophilic action is prohibited by law.  Most people would agree that pedophilic action is wrong, but that's neither here nor there in this case because:

Answer to issue 2: People have the right to think what they like.  A political party based upon a way of thinking is, more or less the definition of a political party.  Simply because what someone wants to push for, politically, is against the law, does not mean that the people pushing for that thing should be denied the right to combine their voices to call for change.

The Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example of this:  many of us wanted to be able to build EBRs on new receivers with as many evil features as we wished.  Yet to do so was against the law.  But we had the right to push for it anyway.

We don't need to throw around emotion-filled rhetoric about how people would feel different if their children were being molested, because that's not what this is about.  This is about a group of individuals having the right to say what they think.  And that should be inviolate.

If you don't like what a political party espouses, don't vote for them.

-BP

[roo_ster]

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]

Jfruser,

Morals have nothing to do with it.  The initial post was about a court refusing to ban a political party.  That has everything to do with the right of free speech for everyone, not just people who agree with you.

Banning a political party because you, or the courts, or the majority find its premise abhorrent is the end of freedom.

No one here is arguing that pedophiles are right, or that they should be able to prey on children (legally or otherwise).  What's being said here is that it's good that a court refused to ban a group because they think a particular thing.

If you disagree, and feel that banning people from political speech because you disagree with them is a good thing, then there's really little more to be said.

-BP

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[BrokenPaw]

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

[roo_ster]

My point was that the very existence of such a political party is a sign of cultural suicide and moral decay.

That their neighbors do not gather together to use old-fashioned tools like social ostracism, discrimination* in employment or (if they are self-employed) taking their business elsewhere in a conspicuous manner gives some weight to my assertion.  Perhaps a peaceful (though intense) demonstration outside their residence and a refusal to do business with them in any way, such as refusing to service their auto or selling them groceries would be signs that the Netherlands is not circling the drain.

Freedom of speech in general and freedom for these chomos in particular is something I support.  It makes it easier to identify the dangerous, anti-social, and anti-moral among us, now that we are so very tahhhhlerant.



* Freedom to say or think what one wills does not include freedom from consequences.

[The Rabbi]

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.

[Telperion]

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.

[BrokenPaw]

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).

[The Rabbi]

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.