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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
The moderation of comments is a strange concept and one I don't take lightly. When setting up this blog I was torn about whether or not I should moderate comments but the response I've had so far to this entry have confirmed for me that I made the correct decision. I've received several comments so far but none with any intellectual merit. According to the anonymous poster (hardly a surprise to see cowardice and stupidity being coupled together) my views mean I must be homosexual. Well, I can assure you that although I've no problem with people of other sexual orientations, I am personally totally heterosexual. The comments did give me a laugh but then I did feel a bit guilty about laughing at the moronic rantings of the mentally challenged. Oh well, maybe someone intelligent will comment soon
and quit trying to pretend you're smart. you're not.
LOL!! Such sparkling repartee. I tend to just delete comments such as these from the more mentally challenged contributors but Mr Anonymous has been quite the persistent fellow so I thought I'd give him a public voice. Presumably there's a kernel of logical thought in there somewhere stuggling to get out and be expressed so hopefully Mr Anonymous will continue to work on verbalising his more persuasive and well constructed arguments.
By the way my friend I am no Pedo. I just pissed them off a year ago and suddenly they say I am some guy posting on their site currently. Never been there in a year. Guess they found my info when I was there. Good thing the authorities are helping me with this slander and harassment.
Good thing the authorities are helping me with this slander and harassment.
okay, good luck with that. LOLOL
There is no definition of "Pedo-enabler" in Webster's, but you can find a good definition of AZU's meaning of pedo-enabler HERE:
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/04/troll-speak.html
"Pedo Enablers:" Anyone who disagrees with their view of "kill all sex offenders." If you are not condemning them to death, you are enabling them. If you call for reform, you are enabling. If you are not aggressive enough in condemning them you are enabling them. Somehow, they came to the belief that calling for reforms to make sex offenders legislation sensible and promoting stuff like prevention and education, you are somehow excusing sex crimes. Remember, I've already noted in previous threads, Patty Wetterling and The Pope were among the list of "pedo enablers."
Ironically, the real definition of "enabling" is encouraging an action through support or creating an environment conducive to behavior. Ironically, the AZU harass/annoy/stress gameplan creates such an environment.
I agree with what you said, Voice of Reason. I mean, the person haven't done anything wrong other than disagree with what the Antis said. Being an pedo enabler is such a vague term anyway.
Post a Comment