I have long believed that castration is an appropriate method of dealing with at least some sex offenders (by which I mean, the ones that we don't actually execute). So I was pleased to read that in the Czech Republic sex offenders are often sentenced to both chemical and surgical (i.e. real, physical) castration. It is wonderful to know that at least some European nations continue to apply proper punishment to paedophiles, rapists, and other related scum.
If only we had something similar here. Sadly, however, the sentences that some of our judges give out give me the impression that they've actually had the operation themselves.
Of course, the liberals are none too happy to see their beloved criminal perverts suffering. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture has raised the objection that some of those who were physically castrated did not give full and free consent, because they were told that if they did not so consent, they would face indefinite detention in a psychiatric institution.
Now, in my opinion, the Czechs are being rather soft in allowing these perverts (who, incidentally, need to have actually killed someone before they can be physically castrated) a choice. Rather, I believe that the only choice should be for the judge, and that should be, do you execute, or do you just physically castrate him? When you commit offences, you lose the right to object or consent to what is done to you in condign punishment for those offences.
But, notwithstanding my view that the Czechs are being a bit soft, I still envy them their way of dealing with these scum, and for the people at the Committee for the Prevention of Torture to kick up a fuss about this is disgusting. If they are really serious about stopping torture, perhaps they should take a look at saving more innocent people from sex offenders, rather than looking after the rights of these perverts. Really, words are inadequate to express my contempt for anyone who wastes their time or that of others complaining about anything that is done to a rapist or child abuser. Such vermin are just not worthy of our concern.
Update: On a related note, The Telegraph has a story about Jonathan King, one child abuser who definitely merits the application of the Czech method. Apparently, in his latest display of utter moral bankruptcy, King has released a music video on Youtube, praising Harold Shipman. At the time of writing, it's still up there, but I think I shall pass on linking to it myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You don't understand the term "paedophile."
I suggest you research the real definition before you continue to embarrass yourself.
People can't be punished for their thoughts.
IMPORTANT WARNING!
On reflection, I have decided to leave the above comment up, but I am going to warn readers that the links may be offensive to some. The site which they take you to is written by people, such as Mr Ribbon here, who feel an attraction to children, and feel that they are being unfairly vilified on that account, since they have not, they say, actually abused children.
My response to Brian Ribbon's comment:
1. As far as the word 'paedophile' goes, I am using it in the sense in which it is used on an everyday basis; i.e. as a term for people who commit sexual offences against children. If, as your link claims, one can be diagnosed as "suffering" from paedophilia without abusing children, then that is no doubt relevant for the psychiatric community, but I really don't see what it has to do with me.
2. As for "continuing to embarrass" myself; well, I have to say I don't really feel that I have particularly embarrassed myself by using the word 'paedophile' in accordance with its common usage. Nor does upsetting a few (non-practising) paedophiles really upset me all that much.
I'd also point out, that it's a bit rich for someone who, on his website, describes himself as "an 18 year old minor-attracted individual", to advise others on the question of self-embarrassment. Particularly given that your website also makes the claim that public dislike of paedophiles is morally equivalent to Nazi anti-Semitism, a claim which goes far beyond being embarrassing, into the realm of the deeply offensive and inaccurate.
3. I'd agree that people can't, in a free society, be punished solely for thinking something. As is evident from the post, the punishment I was proposing was for people who have actually committed sexual offences, against adults or children.
However, I would add that I see nothing wrong with imposing restrictions on people on account of their thoughts, in the interests of public protection. Thus, I would not want known paedophiles to be working in schools, even if they had not, as yet, committed an offence against a child. Equally, I think it is not unreasonable to compel paedophiles to have appropriate treatment for their perversion, even if they have not yet harmed a child. The writers at your website would, apparently, disagree. But then, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ban websites such as yours which promote the view that attraction to children is normal and acceptable.
"Nor does upsetting a few (non-practising) paedophiles really upset me all that much."
What is your reason for that lack of consideration? Would you be bothered about upsetting other minorities? Would you be bothered about attacking the "majority?"
"Particularly given that your website also makes the claim that public dislike of paedophiles is morally equivalent to Nazi anti-Semitism, a claim which goes far beyond being embarrassing, into the realm of the deeply offensive and inaccurate."
It's not exactly inaccurate. Such discrimination is based upon the principles of attacking characterisitics which are not chosen, nor "curable." In that sense, anti-paedophile and extreme racist sentiments are (im)moral equivalents.
"I would add that I see nothing wrong with imposing restrictions on people on account of their thoughts, in the interests of public protection. Thus, I would not want known paedophiles to be working in schools, even if they had not, as yet, committed an offence against a child."
I don't think you're alone in not wanting paedophiles to work with children, but I'd like to question the reasons for your (and society's) opinion on this matter. Many people have fantasies which would - if acted upon - be abusive. The fact is that people are usually reasonable enough to refrain from engaging in sexual abuse, regardless of their sexual attractions. You may hear of 200-300 examples each year, in which paedophiles do abuse children, but considering the huge number of people who are attracted to children, those abusive people are rare among paedophiles in general.
"I think it is not unreasonable to compel paedophiles to have appropriate treatment for their perversion, even if they have not yet harmed a child"
You can't "cure" someone's sexual attractions. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to "identify paedophiles" and very few are prepared to self-identify, for obvious reasons.
"I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ban websites such as yours which promote the view that attraction to children is normal and acceptable."
Well, I think that's because you find ANU's authors to have distasteful opinions. Sadly, many people believe that offensive opinions should be censored, which is against the very fabric of free speech. I consider some of your opinions to be racist, etc, which I vehemently disagree with, but I would still defend your right to express any opinion which is legal to defend; many would not defend that right.
--
Finally, I've noticed that you refer to people who "haven't offended yet". There are many reasons for paedophiles not to offend, which is why many never offend. I explained this in detail, here
My jaw hit the floor when I read Brian's claim of minority status - as if it's a legal thing!!
Brian, not wishing to get into technicalities with you, but in my view a peado is some scum who will have sexually abused a child or viewed child porn that has resulted in the sexual abuse of a child.
If this is you, then come within 100 feet of my children and I will cut your testicles off with a rusty knife and no anesthetic, and yes that is a threat.
If you like looking at pictures of naked kids a la natural that are not related to you, then there is something seriously wrong in your head and I suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately before your condition deteriorates to the point where I need to get out said rusty knife you filthy, depraved individual.
"My jaw hit the floor when I read Brian's claim of minority status - as if it's a legal thing!!"
Umm, being a paedophile is legal. Other things which are incorrectly referred to as "paedophilia" are illegal.
"If you like looking at pictures of naked kids a la natural that are not related to you, then there is something seriously wrong in your head and I suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately before your condition deteriorates to the point where I need to get out said rusty knife you filthy, depraved individual."
Actually, even non-abusive pictures would be illegal if they contained nudity, so I don't view such images, even though I feel that possession without purchase should not be illegal.
I will repeat this yet again - paedophilia is not "curable." No amount of "therapy" can make someone feel an attraction towards adults if they don't already have that attraction. Believing that a paedophile can "stop being attracted to children" is as absurd as believing that you can "stop being attracted to adults."
Regarding my opinion on the "morality" of adults having sex with chldren, I share society's view.
You really can't make assumptions about people just because they refer to themselves as a paedophile.
In short, I defend paedophiles, which means defending the people who fall under the real definition of paedophilia, not your definition or society's definition. If you have a problem with me defending people's attractions, which is apparently the case, that's nothing but bigotry. Most bigots are people who feel insecure about one or more aspects of themselves.
"The fact that you are so free to admit and argue for something so heinous shows a certain horrifying lack of remorse"
Remorse for what? I do not have sex with children. Having fantasies about children does not harm children. I will repeat - I am not defending adults having sex with children. I'm tired of explaining this.
"If you ever lay one of your evil fingers on any child, I hope they lock you in jail and throw away the key."
I would hope so too. I suggest you read what I write before you accuse me of intending to do things which I have no intention of doing.
I think you need to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, because you are obviously unable to separate the two. You consider my attractions to be disturbing, but I find the lack of differentiation between fantasy and reality - which is clearly evident in your thought processes - to be dangerous.
"The practical consequence of your activity is to encourage would-be child rapists to imagine that their urges are less heinous and socially unacceptable than they might initially have believed."
Can you explain how you make the giant leap from fantasy to reality? Do you understand the difference? I often make the point that acting on such urges is wrong. As I have already said, people such as yourself, who don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality, are the people who are genuinely a danger to society (and in the case of a heterosexual, a danger to women). Most people who do sexually abuse children are not paedophiles anyway; they're heterosexuals such as yourself.
"You deserve to die."
Thanks. These are the types of comments which make me defend paedophiles with an even greater level of determination. ANU wasn't a particularly serious organisation until people started attacking us, but we thrive on being challenged.
I only write the articles which you find offensive because paedophiles are so frequently attacked and abused by society. If people such as yourself didn't attack people based on what they think, I wouldn't need to defend myself.
The more people fight me, the harder I fight back.
Brian Ribbon - I think you will be going to jail fairly soon. Your attempts to justify child rape fantasies are pushing you ever closer to the prison gate.
Anyone who finds such thoughts entering their consciousness has a moral duty to banish them and seek immediate help. Yet you prefer to push paedophiles in the opposite direction - encouraging them to indulge sick appetites by refining and developing child rape fantasies.
Your hopeless bragadacio - "The more people fight me, the harder I fight back." - won't save you when hard men loom over you with murder in mind. They will break you and snuff out your wretched life because you are paedophile-justifying vermin.
Contemplation of your horrifically painful demise is one 'fantasy' we call all enjoy.
"Anyone who finds such thoughts entering their consciousness has a moral duty to banish them and seek immediate help"
That's like asking you to stop thinking about adults. Are you deliberately not understanding this? Most people fantasise about things which would, if acted upon, be abusive. They can't change those thoughts, but they can refrain from acting upon them.
"Yet you prefer to push paedophiles in the opposite direction - encouraging them to indulge sick appetites by refining and developing child rape fantasies"
I tell people not to feel bad about their thoughts. I know that fascism (which this blog appears to support) treats people differently based on aspects which they can't change - hence the common misconception that it is the equivalent of Nazism - but you can't expect me to hate myself because of my fantasies, nor can you expect anyone else to hate themselves because of what they fantasise about.
"Contemplation of your horrifically painful demise is one 'fantasy' we call all enjoy."
You talk like a tough guy, but like a typical bigot, you post as an anonymous coward, which is pathetic.
Ribbon - your fantasies are sick and evil. You can control them if you choose - by seeking urgent medical help. To say "I have these fantasies so they must, ipso facto, be right" is as illogical as it is immoral.
Contrary to your assertion, normal people do not have abusive fantasies. Most people enjoy happy and healthy sexual relations with their fellow adults.
On a purely pragmatic level we can see that many paedo-fantasists seek to enact their perverted urges. It's too, too easy because the targets of their twisted lust are helpless innocents.
Fortunately we'll soon advance as a society to the stage where paedophile tendencies will be detected by a simple test.
Then we will treat you. And if you don't respond to treatment, we will lock you up.
And if you touch a kid, we will terminate you.
Choose - drop your wretched, self-justifying paedo shit or die.
First of all, why are you refusing to post without using your regular screen name?
"You can control them if you choose"
Look, people can't control who they fantasise about, otherwise most gay men would be heterosexuals. Whether or not you choose to equate homosexuality with paedophilia, you have to admit that if it were possible to control fantasies, gay men would "decide to have fantasies about women." The only thing which paedophiles need to be aware of is that acting on the urges is wrong.
You really have no right to complain about my fantasies, because, quite frankly, they don't affect you or anyone else.
"To say "I have these fantasies so they must, ipso facto, be right" is as illogical as it is immoral."
That's not what I said. I said that there is nothing wrong with fantasies.
"Contrary to your assertion, normal people do not have abusive fantasies. Most people enjoy happy and healthy sexual relations with their fellow adults"
You are wrong and you clearly know very little about this subject. Most people have abusive fantasies but don't act upon them. It's mentioned here, at Times Online - http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article1341377.ece?token=null&offset=0
"On a purely pragmatic level we can see that many paedo-fantasists seek to enact their perverted urges."
Question: Would you have sex with a woman if you thought you would be abusing her and go to jail? No? That's why most paedophiles don't have sex with children.
"Then we will treat you. And if you don't respond to treatment, we will lock you up."
This statement makes me laugh.... literally. Nobody will respond to therapy. You can't cure someone's sexual attractions. Believe it or not, you wouldn't have enough space in prison to lock up non-offending paedophiles, even if you somehow managed to enact legislation which literally criminalises thoughts. We are everywhere and we always will be. You will never be able to eradicate paedophiles. Get used to it.
Finally, if it were possible for an attraction to children to be cured, why do you think that paedophiles don't "choose to become attracted to adults?"
Post a Comment