The Psycho & The Simpleton

Ahhh.. further folly from the shit-for-brains at AZU.

First, a truly disturbing post from The Psycho:



Holy crap.. I really hope this person doesn't have children as there's something seriously wrong with him/her and clearly any children in his/her care would be at very real risk. If Marina truly cares about the wellbeing of children, she will immediately contact the authorities and pass on this person's IP so he/she can be traced and investigated.

After that truly frightening post, some humour is needed to lighten things up and, as usual, it comes from AZU's resident court jester: Clay Keys.



ROFL!! Clay is still banging on about not being a paedophile as though his sexual orientation has any relevance at all. He may not be a paedophile but his criminal record proves he's a child abuser and that is far, far worse than being a paedophile. The majority of paedophiles (and hebephiles) never harm a child whereas Clay already has. And now he seeks to distract people from his true nature by banging on about not being a paedophile. The simple minded AZU bloggers may be beguiled by his distortions but I won't be.

CLAY, YOU'RE A CONVICTED CHILD ABUSER: STOP TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING YOU'RE NOT!!!

Of Mice And Men

This is the face of a man accused of a truly horrific crime. Last week an 11 year old girl was brutally raped. Her rape was so violent she ended up in hospital needing surgery to repair the damage done to her. Make no mistake, if this guy did actually rape that girl, he should be locked up for a long, long time. Rape is a terrible crime and anyone who commits it must face a long time behind bars.

So, what's the sting in the tail of this case? In their attempt to catch the suspect, police released his picture to get assistance from the public. He was spotted and a couple of members of the public restrained him until police arrived to arrest him. Right? Well actually, no. He was indeed spotted but when he denied being the rapist a mob proceeded to beat him senseless, including one coward using a board to bash him. In fact, the beating continued until the police arrived to stop it. The suspect was left in a critical condition in hospital. But that's ok as mob justice is fine when it comes to someone who raped a little girl right? Well, again, things are not so black and white here either. Not only is he only a suspect, the police are yet to even charge him with the crime.



I have no problem with a citizen's arrest being enacted as long as it's done in a civilised manner but, as is completely clear from the footage above, what happened here fits no-one's definition of 'civilised'. Let's face facts; whilst some of these thugs were legitimately angry about what happened to the girl, I've no doubt that a number of the mob were just exploiting an opportunity to beat the crap out of someone. In my opinion, they overstepped the mark and should be charged with assault.

In reading various comments and blog posts, I'm constantly astounded at the simple-minded people who support vigilantes. A vigilante is neither noble nor brave. The reality is that a vigilante is nothing more than a coward and a criminal and must be treated as such. What was done to the suspect in this case is no different to the mob beatings I saw on the news following the Rodney King decision in the early 90's. It was simply mob violence where a gang of people decided to bash an individual person who was unable to defend himself. The people who make comments supporting these scum try and make an argument that we have to support one side or the other. That's pure rubbish. If the suspect did rape that girl, he is a disgusting, opportunistic human being and I want to see the book thrown at him. The mob that bashed him are also disgusting, opportunistic human beings and I want to see the book thrown at them.

I again come back to the cornerstone of the western justice system: a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. By supporting people who go around making their own decision about who is guilty and what the appropriate punishment should be, we're supporting the undermining of our entire way of life. I don't know if this bloke is guilty of the rape but, more importantly, none of the thugs that bashed him knew either. I just hope that the family and friends of the suspect don't decide to dish out some vigilante justice of their own and attack the cowards responsible for the bashing... although I'm sure there would be plenty of misguided people who'd support them if they did.

NEWS STORY 1
NEWS STORY 2

Deep Thoughts Pt5

Quote from Logue Hater

I imagine a search of Derek's hard drive would turn up some things that would put him in prison.

Enjoy your disability (and freedom), Derek. While it lasts.
Logue Hater | 04.16.09 - 5:13 am | #


Yes Logue Hater, we all know what sort of imagination you have. This is your second time being featured in Deep Thoughts after being the inaugural scumbag in the series for your unforgivable pleasure derived from fantasies of Derek being raped.

So you know Derek has things on his hard drive that would put him in prison? Of course not. It's all in your warped imagination.

You are one seriously sick individual.

Deep Thoughts Pt4

Quote from Violent Leaves:

Your (sic) bragging about getting sexually excited over seeing a little girl half naked (WITHOUT HER CONSENT) you visually raped her. 

Well, according to VL's standards pretty much everyone I know is a rapist. Seen an attactive woman on the beach and gotten aroused? You're a rapist. Seen a hot guy on the bus and allowed yourself a little fantasy? Yep, you're also a rapist. Been to a fashion show and gotten a little excited by the models? You guessed it, you're a rapist. In fact, if you're a normal person with a normal sex drive you're probably a rapist by VL's definition. 

Perhaps VL is abnormal or frigid enough to have never seen another person and felt even a little sexually excited but I'd venture to say she's in a very small minority. For the rest of us, by VL's reckoning, we're all rapists.

What Have We Come To?

Is this picture child pornography? Apparently it may be as a library in the West Australian city of Perth decided it shouldn't be included in an arts exhibition in case people were offended by it. 

How did we come to the ludicrous stage where such an innocent picture could be banned for being potentially offensive? Going from media reports, it would appear the hysteria whipped up last year over the work of internationally renowned artist Bill Henson is the catalyst. Henson included topless photos of an early teen girl as part of an art exhibition and the resulting media storm has made people extremely nervous of displaying artworks that any politically correct crackpot could claim to be child pornography. 

Personally I see nothing sexual or pornographic about this picture and think it's a great shame that a warped bunch of do-gooders have distorted something innocent and wholesome into something that can be banned for being offensive. Shame on you.

Lies, Damn Lies and Idiots

As usual, the comments section of AZU is awash with deliberate misrepresentations and blatant lies. There was a time I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt and presumed they'd simply misunderstood what I'd said but I've been exposed to them for long enough now to know that there is no misunderstanding - just outright fabrications. Recently Static posted the following piece of fiction:

I find it extremely telling that you can so easily support the right of the pedophiles to publish their books (which we have stated several times), and the right of Amazon to sell those books (which we have stated several times), but can't seem to support our right to complain about it and the right to refuse to shop at Amazon. You being the "fair-minded," "freedom-supporting," "reasonable" person you are- you should have no problem with us exercising our rights as well as the pedos.

Let me state my position clearly so there can be no further 'confusion': 

• I fully support the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to defend themselves against bigotry and discrimination.
  
• I fully support the right of the AZU contributors to speak their 'minds' on any issue.
  
• I fully support Amazon's right to sell any legally available literature.
  
• I fully support the right of anyone to refuse to shop at Amazon, or any other retailer, if they disapprove of the product being sold. 
  
• I believe in, and support, freedom of speech regardless of whether or not I agree with what is being said. 

Static's claim that I don't support either their right to complain or their right to refuse to shop at Amazon is a lie as evidenced by my clear statement above. I expect nothing more than lies and deceipt from one such as he.

The 'Romeo & Juliet' Con

In sexual offense terms, the reference to 'Romeo & Juliet' is made when the two participants are relatively close together in age. Usually it refers to a circumstance in which one particpant is underage whilst the other is over; but it can also refer to a circumstance where both participants are underage.

This is an interesting (and controversial) subject. I personally don't agree with Romeo & Juliet laws. To me it's a cop out. It's a con. Someone is either capable of consenting to sexual activity or they're not. The age of the person to whom they're giving consent is completely irrelevant. Presently in my country the age at which people can legally give consent is 16 in most states. This means that up to, and including, the age of 15 years and 364 days they are not considered legally capable of making the decision to give consent to sexual activity... period. (I'm yet to grasp what magically happens at midnight on the night a person turns 16 but that's a topic for another day.) The age of the person they want to have sexual activity with shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. The possible consequences of sexual activity (which is what they supposedly are not intelligent enough to comprehend) are the same whether they're active with someone who is 14 or 40. I'm yet to hear anyone give a rational or convincing refutation to this fact. I appreciate there are arguments that there's a power differential when an older person is involved but, again, that's a separate issue as I'm very aware of the power peer pressure holds over people of all ages.

So why do I consider this concept to be a con and a cop out? Well, it's clear that if we need to relieve people of a certain age from the burden of choosing what to do with their bodies, this must be uniform and without exceptions. There's no grey area. They're either capable of making choices of a sexual nature or they're not. What's interesting is that there are people on both sides of the fence in favour of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws. So what's their motivation?

For those who champion age of consent laws there's a big upside to these laws. Enforcing age of consent laws when the 'sex offenders' are other young people would be a massive PR disaster. So, to avoid having such a PR problem they're willing to sell out the very people they claim need protection. This not only makes them hypocrites but completely destroys their credibility. In the vacuous language of AZU, they would be known as 'enablers'.

For those who oppose age of consent laws it introduces a grey area that can be exploited. It opens a line of logic that underage people are actually capable of choosing whether or not they want to be sexually active. It is effectively the thin end of the proverbial wedge.

As I said earlier, the concept of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws is a con and a cop out. Our law makers have decided at what age a person is capable of choosing to engage in sexual activity and everyone should be treated equally under the law... regardless of age. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

Deep Thoughts Pt1

Yeah, I know I'm pinching this concept from Daydreamer of Oz on the AZU site but they say that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery so I'm sure she won't mind. The quotes here will be outrageous for one reason or another. I thought I'd kick it off with an absolute doozy:


You just know Logue was on his belly, paying his dues to his cellmate, on a nightly basis.

Prison was the one place Derek's quivering lips were a highly sought after commodity.
Logue Hater 10.24.08 - 9:44 pm #


Although it's hard to believe anyone could be so callous, the lowlife posting as 'Logue Hater' is actually taking joy from the idea of someone being raped. You can't get much lower than that.