http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24425596-2761,00.html
This story highlights perfectly why the business of securing justice should be left to those who are trained in the area. I'm sure the fuckwits who put this pamphlet out thought they were so very smart and were securing some sort of 'people's justice' by publicly naming a convicted sex offender. Whilst the perpetrators sit back smugly enjoying their perverse schadenfreude, the original victim now has to deal with being publicly named and the ramifications of this. One of the big fears of anyone who's been sexually abused is that their ordeal is made public and sadly this is what's happened due to the selfish actions of an ignorant individual (or possibly a group of ignorant individuals).
I hope everyone responsible for this is caught and prosecuted to act as a deterrent to others.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Is Bestiality Rape?
http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/09/sheep_molester_not_a_sex_offen.html
First things first: I have no idea how someone can find an animal sexually attractive. Personally I find the idea of engaging in sexual activity with an animal to be repulsive. But then again I don't know how a man can find another man sexually attactive and I find the idea of homosexual sex repulsive. So rather than making random judgements on who to condemn and who not to, I make a conscious decision not to condemn those different from me and who have attractions I don't understand. It's not always an easy approach to take but centuries of homophobia was based on bigots making value judgements using their own sexual attractions as the only acceptable model and condemning anyone different and I'm not keen to join the ranks of the bigots.
So, having said that I come to the point of the push to include this man on a sex offender register. What is the point of a sex offender register? The official reason is to highlight men and women who may potentially pose a sexual threat to others. Others argue that its purpose is to marginalise those with attractions alternative to the mainstream in the same way different people have been marginalised based on race, religion and sexuality throughout the ages. I personally believe the true intentions are a combination of both. Regardless, unless sheep read sex offender registers, I don't see the point of including people such as this on a register. After all, its not even decided yet if it's possible to rape a sheep. Does the issue of consent even come into play when an animal is involved? Do those who consider sex with an animal to be rape also consider the killing of an animal to be murder? It seems a bit odd that we consider it fine to kill a a sheep but abominable to shag one.
The obvious approach should be one of protecting animals from cruelty. If the action of shagging an animal hurts it, the offender should be charged under animal welfare legislation and treated in accordance with the law. This is entirely reasonable. Placing people on sex offender registers may conform with their marginalising purpose but certainly doesn't meet their other alleged purpose of protecting the public.
First things first: I have no idea how someone can find an animal sexually attractive. Personally I find the idea of engaging in sexual activity with an animal to be repulsive. But then again I don't know how a man can find another man sexually attactive and I find the idea of homosexual sex repulsive. So rather than making random judgements on who to condemn and who not to, I make a conscious decision not to condemn those different from me and who have attractions I don't understand. It's not always an easy approach to take but centuries of homophobia was based on bigots making value judgements using their own sexual attractions as the only acceptable model and condemning anyone different and I'm not keen to join the ranks of the bigots.
So, having said that I come to the point of the push to include this man on a sex offender register. What is the point of a sex offender register? The official reason is to highlight men and women who may potentially pose a sexual threat to others. Others argue that its purpose is to marginalise those with attractions alternative to the mainstream in the same way different people have been marginalised based on race, religion and sexuality throughout the ages. I personally believe the true intentions are a combination of both. Regardless, unless sheep read sex offender registers, I don't see the point of including people such as this on a register. After all, its not even decided yet if it's possible to rape a sheep. Does the issue of consent even come into play when an animal is involved? Do those who consider sex with an animal to be rape also consider the killing of an animal to be murder? It seems a bit odd that we consider it fine to kill a a sheep but abominable to shag one.
The obvious approach should be one of protecting animals from cruelty. If the action of shagging an animal hurts it, the offender should be charged under animal welfare legislation and treated in accordance with the law. This is entirely reasonable. Placing people on sex offender registers may conform with their marginalising purpose but certainly doesn't meet their other alleged purpose of protecting the public.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Such Charming Folk
I mentioned in my opening post that although I often frequent the Absolute Zero (AZU) blog and find the posts to be thought provoking, I find the comments section to be a disappointing mire of self congratulatory backslapping, substandard thought processes and outright hostility to anyone not blindly accepting of the views and ideology of the blog's authors. Questioning the logic of a post or disagreeing with the listed contributors usually leads to an outpouring of vitriol or, on occasion, accusations that the sceptic is actually either a paedosexual or a 'paedo enabler' (an essentially meaningless made up term addressed previously on this blog). In the past I've seen the rather pathetic attempts by a poster who goes by the name of 'lameo' to ingratiate himself with the main contributors when they've turned on him. His crime? He questioned whether a quote attributed to a politician may have been misinterpreted by Stitches77 in her post (see post and comments). I ended up feeling quite sorry for the guy as he reminded me of the loser at school who tries so hard to hang out with the popular gang and never quite gets that they have nothing but contempt for him.
In the past couple of days I've questioned a post on AZU in which they placed a lot of importance on a quote from a man who tortured and sexually assaulted two children. He made a comment that "The truth is that I am not an exception, I am the rule! Most sex offenders are just like me". The contributor who posted the article, Daydreamer of Oz, considered it so relevant that he even titled the post based on it. My point was simply that, when criminals like this man make statements in support of their actions they are roundly decried and their statements treated as lies and propaganda so it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for AZU to suddenly quote him as though his statement is truth and they accept him as an authority. The response to my audacity in questioning this was:
Yes, that's correct. Because I disagree with the self proclaimed experts, I must therefore be some sort of imbecile who is unable to read or comprehend (see post and comments).
It's a shame that the contributors take this approach as, quite frankly, their back catalogue of comments show that as passionate as they are, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed and could really benefit by listening to others.
Now, I have no doubt that by constructively criticising the good folk at AZU I'm opening myself to the likelihood of being attacked as a paedo, a paedo enabler, a blame gamer or some other nonsense term but I'm not about to be bullied into silence. It's these very attitudes that prompted me to start this blog and offer a forum for both sides to be able to post without worrying about being cyber bullied. I just hope I can continue to maintain the neutrality.
In the past couple of days I've questioned a post on AZU in which they placed a lot of importance on a quote from a man who tortured and sexually assaulted two children. He made a comment that "The truth is that I am not an exception, I am the rule! Most sex offenders are just like me". The contributor who posted the article, Daydreamer of Oz, considered it so relevant that he even titled the post based on it. My point was simply that, when criminals like this man make statements in support of their actions they are roundly decried and their statements treated as lies and propaganda so it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for AZU to suddenly quote him as though his statement is truth and they accept him as an authority. The response to my audacity in questioning this was:
"Can you not read? I don't think his statements hold any validity whatsoever. Just like the RSO activists today don't.
Why should we put weight on the propaganda they are spreading that is EXACTLY like Duncan's?
HOW are they different?
It appears to me you have a definite bias and are unable to comprehend the question.
Stitches
"
Why should we put weight on the propaganda they are spreading that is EXACTLY like Duncan's?
HOW are they different?
It appears to me you have a definite bias and are unable to comprehend the question.
Stitches
"
Yes, that's correct. Because I disagree with the self proclaimed experts, I must therefore be some sort of imbecile who is unable to read or comprehend (see post and comments).
It's a shame that the contributors take this approach as, quite frankly, their back catalogue of comments show that as passionate as they are, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed and could really benefit by listening to others.
Now, I have no doubt that by constructively criticising the good folk at AZU I'm opening myself to the likelihood of being attacked as a paedo, a paedo enabler, a blame gamer or some other nonsense term but I'm not about to be bullied into silence. It's these very attitudes that prompted me to start this blog and offer a forum for both sides to be able to post without worrying about being cyber bullied. I just hope I can continue to maintain the neutrality.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Truly Horrible
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24324436-2761,00.html
We all know that hardcore child pornography is disgusting and illegal for a reason but this story is truly disturbing and makes one's stomach turn. I don't understand how someone can be turned on by the picture of a baby bound and gagged. The man who plead guilty to downloading these images has been gaoled which is a fair sentence but I really hope that he'll receive the counselling he needs.
Of course, what is far more concerning than the person who is attacted to these pictures is the person who did this to a baby in the first place. I personally don't believe a baby is able to give consent to such sexual activity and should be protected from such abuse. Let's hope the perpertrator is caught, locked up, and given the psychological help he so clearly needs.
We all know that hardcore child pornography is disgusting and illegal for a reason but this story is truly disturbing and makes one's stomach turn. I don't understand how someone can be turned on by the picture of a baby bound and gagged. The man who plead guilty to downloading these images has been gaoled which is a fair sentence but I really hope that he'll receive the counselling he needs.
Of course, what is far more concerning than the person who is attacted to these pictures is the person who did this to a baby in the first place. I personally don't believe a baby is able to give consent to such sexual activity and should be protected from such abuse. Let's hope the perpertrator is caught, locked up, and given the psychological help he so clearly needs.
Monday, September 8, 2008
A Total Disgrace
http://chris-drejaj-pedophile.blogspot.com/
"Chris Drejaj currently lives with his pedo enabler parents Paul and Kelly Drejaj, who are both fully aware of his online activities and admitted sexual attraction to little girls. Anyone having contact with these people should be very concerned about the safety of their children."
This is an excerpt from the site linked to above. Now, the question of the ethics of publishing the name and address of an alleged paedosexual and thereby exposing them to the risk of being physically assaulted by a mindless vigilante is a valid topic of discussion and one that I'll likely raise here on another date. The issue I want to address now is the vitriol directed at the parents of the alleged paedosexual.
Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term. From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals. The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act.
Whilst the condemnation this site passes on the parents for not disowning their child is fully deserving of one's contempt, what is worse is that the site's author goes on to claim that the parents pose a direct danger to children and posts their address and details of their places of work. As I said earlier, the question of the ethics of posting the private details of an accused paedosexual online is one that is open to debate but what is not open for discussion is whether or not it is acceptable to deliberately set out to damage that person's family. There is simply no possible justification for such behaviour and betrays the dangers of the fundamentalist mindset of some of the antis.
My challenge to those who feel it's acceptable to post the personal details of this man's family is to post your own personal details first. If you don't feel that it's appropriate to do this, then don't post the personal details of other innocent people. After all, they've not even been accused of being paedosexuals so there is no possible rationale for your attempt to sabotage their lives.
"Chris Drejaj currently lives with his pedo enabler parents Paul and Kelly Drejaj, who are both fully aware of his online activities and admitted sexual attraction to little girls. Anyone having contact with these people should be very concerned about the safety of their children."
This is an excerpt from the site linked to above. Now, the question of the ethics of publishing the name and address of an alleged paedosexual and thereby exposing them to the risk of being physically assaulted by a mindless vigilante is a valid topic of discussion and one that I'll likely raise here on another date. The issue I want to address now is the vitriol directed at the parents of the alleged paedosexual.
Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term. From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals. The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act.
Whilst the condemnation this site passes on the parents for not disowning their child is fully deserving of one's contempt, what is worse is that the site's author goes on to claim that the parents pose a direct danger to children and posts their address and details of their places of work. As I said earlier, the question of the ethics of posting the private details of an accused paedosexual online is one that is open to debate but what is not open for discussion is whether or not it is acceptable to deliberately set out to damage that person's family. There is simply no possible justification for such behaviour and betrays the dangers of the fundamentalist mindset of some of the antis.
My challenge to those who feel it's acceptable to post the personal details of this man's family is to post your own personal details first. If you don't feel that it's appropriate to do this, then don't post the personal details of other innocent people. After all, they've not even been accused of being paedosexuals so there is no possible rationale for your attempt to sabotage their lives.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Licensed To Hug
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html
This is a Civitas Blog entry from a couple of months ago. It's about a paper released by a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent in the UK investigating the current state of paranoia regarding child molesters and the effect it's having on intergenerational relationships. Some of the stories related to the author are very sad and highlight how social engineering often comes with unintended negative consequences.
One story that I found particularly poignant is that of a 2 year old girl who drowned in a pond. It transpired that a man had seen her wandering the streets as he was driving his car but didn't stop to ensure she was safe as he was fearful of being accused of attempting to abduct her. In this case, the climate of fear and suspicion that is so prevalent today led directly to the death of a child when, had things been different, she would likely have been picked up by the man and returned home or to a police station. I must admit that I doubt I'd have stopped either. The stigma of being labelled a paedosexual is one that can ruin your life and far too big a risk to undertake lightly.
I found this to be a very interesting article and would encourage those who visit the Voice of Reason to take the time to read it and, if you feel inclined, to make comment.
This is a Civitas Blog entry from a couple of months ago. It's about a paper released by a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent in the UK investigating the current state of paranoia regarding child molesters and the effect it's having on intergenerational relationships. Some of the stories related to the author are very sad and highlight how social engineering often comes with unintended negative consequences.
One story that I found particularly poignant is that of a 2 year old girl who drowned in a pond. It transpired that a man had seen her wandering the streets as he was driving his car but didn't stop to ensure she was safe as he was fearful of being accused of attempting to abduct her. In this case, the climate of fear and suspicion that is so prevalent today led directly to the death of a child when, had things been different, she would likely have been picked up by the man and returned home or to a police station. I must admit that I doubt I'd have stopped either. The stigma of being labelled a paedosexual is one that can ruin your life and far too big a risk to undertake lightly.
I found this to be a very interesting article and would encourage those who visit the Voice of Reason to take the time to read it and, if you feel inclined, to make comment.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Accused Child Molester Seeks Compo
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24282278-3102,00.html
This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.
So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?
My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.
This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.
So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?
My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.
Monday, September 1, 2008
What's the Point?
If you've managed to stumble across this little site from amongst the millions of blogs that clutter cyberspace, you're probably wondering what on earth the point is. Well, quite simply, I wanted to provide a forum for rational, respectful debate about issues that effect children.
For some time I've frequented blogs and activism sites set up by anti's and also those by paedosexuals and have found myself increasingly frustrated at the lack of dialogue between the two groups.
My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts. Similarly, the posts on Girl Chat tend to lack any serious debate of issues in favour of a pretty uniform opinion.
I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that.
So... discuss away... (cue: sound of crickets chirping)
For some time I've frequented blogs and activism sites set up by anti's and also those by paedosexuals and have found myself increasingly frustrated at the lack of dialogue between the two groups.
My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts. Similarly, the posts on Girl Chat tend to lack any serious debate of issues in favour of a pretty uniform opinion.
I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that.
So... discuss away... (cue: sound of crickets chirping)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
