I’ve considered this, and I for one am entirely happy with this party existing. I believe they have the right to bring forward their views and to campaign for them, even though I (and many other people) are very much against them. I don’t believe they have a hope in hell of actually getting a candidate into office. In addition, I see an upside; political candidates must (obviously) reveal who they are, and so people who may not have known their views before now will and so know to be cautious around them.
What are your thoughts on people who deny the Holocaust?
People in Europe are going to jail for expressing that opinion. If these pedophiles should, as you say, have the right to bring forward their views, why shouldn’t everyone else too?
How about a “Re-enslave all black people” party, or “Legalize all murder” party.
My question is, are there any issues that are so horrorfying that society has a right to restrict any attempt at legitimizing it?
Dunno; in order to be consistent with the concept of free spech and association, I ought to be OK with such a party existing, but when people with a common interest meet together in connection with that interest, it’s not at all unusual for the interest to be pursued and promoted within the meetings and through the group at large. My concern would be that the very existence of such a group could provide an infrastructure by which the (currently illegal) desires of its members could be more readily practiced.
I think that that’s wrong. Holocaust deniers should be allowed to state their views, form a political party, etc.
I would say yes. In legal terms, any horrifying issue can be put forward as long as the stating of it itself is not illegal, and the terms of setting it out aren’t considered incitement to act illegally. In my own opinion i’d say the second of those reasons is probably the guiding rule; as long as what you’re saying isn’t by itself going to cause harm to someone, it should be allowed.
Perhaps I’m just suffering from lack of imagination here, but historically, political movements to campaign for equal rights for oppressed races have included members who were not actually among the oppressed targets; similarly, political movements campaigning for eqal rights for wome have included members who were men. I just don’t see that sort of thing being likely the case with a campaign to permit paedophilia; isn’t is going to be the case that the membership consists exclusively (or nearly so) of paedophiles?
If so, I’m not quite sure what difference that makes, but it creates a nagging doubt in my mind about the potential activities of the group; is it being formed purely as a means of raising awareness of the issue, or is it going to be just another network that exists to further enable ongoing paedophile activity.
Such issues are, by definition, self limiting. If they are so horrifying, they will not get the support necessary to change the law. If they are not that horrifying, it is legitimate to re-examine the laws against it. Any additional efforts against it by society are either unnecessary and irrelevant, or a dangerous limitation on the democratic process.
I don’t intend to be sympathetic to anyone who has sex with someone without full consent (including people who should not be able to give consent), but isn’t equating lowering the age of consent to 12 with paedophilia a bit extreme? I think society should be able to have a discussion about what a consentable adult, sexually, is, and I don’t know what I think the answer is, but I don’t think twelve-year-olds and, say, five-year-olds can be fully equated.
Yes, wasn’t 12 the age of consent in some US states until comparatively recently? The definition of pedophilia is clearly a movable feast.
There’s nothing earthshakingly original in this Dutch party. Doesn’t NAMBLA have similar aims (and motives!) I say, sure, let them organize. If they want to identify themselves as nonces, all the easier for us to keep track of them.
I don’t know if European countries have anything roughly equivalent to the US Constitution’s First Amendment (particularly the free speech part) or not, but I say if you want to deny the holocaust or verbally advocate any other position, sure. Actually re-enslaving black people or whatever would be illegal. Getting the law changed would be legal, although extremely unlikely.
At least in theory, new laws will not be created unless they’re good for the people, so go ahead and try. If you succeed, great, and if you don’t, then the legislative system did a good job of preventing your bad idea. Doesn’t mean you should never have brought it up.
So is having sex with children. My example of re-enslaving blacks was to be one of equated disgust that almost all of us also have towards pedophilia.
I’m surprised that any such movement in Europe is allowed at all, seeing how they jail authors and lectures for nothing more than disbelief.
Who is more dangerous: A guy who froths at the mouth babbling that the holocaust didn’t happen, or a guy who wants to make it legal for adults to screw kids?
I think from the point of view of having sex with an adult, they are not that far off, because the adult is in a position of authority over a 12-year-old, just by the nature of how adults & children interact.
