UK Guardian: Pedophiles Need Support

The paper the Guardian has become Britain’s newest champion for a minority of sorts. In a January 3 article, the UK paper has taken up the cause of pedophiles who claim they are just “ordinary members of society” that only need a little understanding.

The paper seriously presented pedophiles as but a misunderstood minority that do no real harm. As Telegraph writer Damian Thompson points out, “this is not some sick send-up” on his point. The UK Guardian is wholly serious.

Guardian feature columnist Jon Henley uncritically quotes convicted pedophiles like Tom O’Carroll who said that children enter into such “relationships” voluntarily. “If there’s no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm.”

Henley then trots out a few “experts” that present “proof” that kids are not harmed by the predators that abuse them.

Thompson points out that this is the same sort of absurdly permissive attitude that caused Catholic Churches across the world to “adopt a mild, nuanced approach to suspicions of clerical pedophilia.”

This isn’t a new phenomenon, though. Only last year America’s Gawker website also published a story that gave pedophiles the benefit of being treated as abused minorities.

As in the Guardian article, throughout the Gawker piece passive language was used to soft peddle child rape. The Gawker piece also constantly claimed that sex between adults and children is just a “choice.” The pedophile quoted in the Gawker piece even maintained that the sex he had with his seven-year-old niece was consensual. Gawker simply takes his word for it without protest.

Further, Gawker similarly trotted out “experts” claiming that child rape is no big deal.

This attitude about adults that predate on children is a growing topic of discussion and is the next horizon for defining criminal behavior downward.

Ex-Burglars Admit Gun Owner-Outing Map Helps Criminals
Hillary Clinton Movie Is Hot In Hollywood
  • Brett Buck

    Of course, it’s a natural progression. Kill babies to enable you to screw anyone you want any time without being “punished with a baby”, allow people with obvious mental defects to marry each other with the same legal and societal sanction as normal people, then they start in trying to make pedophilia acceptable. After that, bestiality, presumably. Whatever makes *you* feel good, must be right. There are no absolute standards.

    • jim_m

      allow people with obvious mental defects to marry each other with the same legal and societal sanction as normal people

      I don’t see any recourse other than continuing to allow lefties to get married.

    • Commander_Chico

      What right does the state have to stop people “with obvious mental defects” from getting married?

      Who is the state to judge these issues? What is the line? Mild neurosis, OCD, BPD, an IQ under 100?

      This is the authoritarian mentality – the state should decide who can get married on the basis of mental state. And this fascist got five votes up. So much for FREEDOM!!

      • Vagabond661

        If society has seen fit to commit the mentally ill to an institution because they are a danger to themselves or other people, why would you let them get married?

      • herddog505

        Ask Mr. Justice Field:

        The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama in the punishment provided for the offense for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person. The two sections of the Code cited are entirely consistent. The one prescribes, generally, a punishment for an offense committed between persons of different sexes; the other prescribes a punishment for an offense which can only be committed where the two sexes are of different races. There is in neither section any discrimination against either race. Section 4184 equally includes the offense when the persons of the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offense against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.*

        Or Mr. Justice Holmes:

        We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

        Now, I would say that both of these rulings are pretty monstrous, the one because it clearly violates (dare I say it?) the natural right of two competent adults to marry, and the latter because it involves using the power of the state to sterilize people deemed mentally feeble**.

        On the other hand, there’s been quite a lot of thundering from the left lately about THE LAW. There’s also been a lot of yap about the obligation of “the rich” to pay more in taxes, or gun owners to give up their rights For the Children(TM). Stipulating that both sides do it, what should we make of this? Are there not times (as Mr. Justice Holmes points out) when the State – The Many – can logically make demands on The Few? When The State can demand that The Citizen give up this or that right (including the right to his very life) for the benefit of “Society”? I think that we would all agree that there are times when it can, but WHEN? And how to make that decision?

        The Pace court and the legislators in Alabama who wrote the anti-miscegenation law presumably thought that they did what they did for the benefit of society; we may assume that the Buck court and the Virginia legislators who wrote the sterilization law also had a benevolent intent. Good intentions do not necessarily make good law, and even the best intentions may well screw over somebody.
        Where do the rights of the individual end and those of Society begin?

        Thank God, we’ve got that musty, dusty old document, the Constitution, that provides at least some guidance (even if it was written, like, more than fifty years ago by slave owners). O’ course, I guess my deep respect for that document makes me some radical tea bagger pseudoterrorist throwback to the ’50s…


        (*) Overturned in Loving v Virginia 388 US 1.

        (**) Members of Congress had better look out for themselves!

        • Vagabond661

          I lost it at “For the Children(TM)”.

          • herddog505

            As, I fear, we all will.

        • Commander_Chico

          Yeah those cases are all explicitly or implicitly overruled.

          You might as well have cited Hammurabi’s Code.

          • herddog505

            No, actually Buck had NOT been overturned. Society changed and the idea of eugenics (especially forced sterilization) became loathesome.

            At any rate, whether the laws were overturned or not, the point is that the government has and can determine who may marry, who may have children, etc. Given the current mania over health care costs, I suggest that we’re not far from punishing (through fines or elevated premiums, for example) people who are “obese”.

            There’s your FREEDOM for you.

      • 914

        Does this mean you are against Obamacare? Same thing with the state deciding who gets what, who pays what and who lives or dies.

      • Brett Buck

        Same reasoning applies to pedophilia. I mean, really, all they are doing is fulfilling themselves, what right does the state have to impede their pursuit of happiness? This is precisely what is happening in the article and in your response.

        While we are at it, why can’t people just kill anyone they feel like killing? Aren’t we impeding the rights of homicidal maniacs by arresting them for their natural behaviors? What about FREEDOM!!?

        It’s the same argument. Society DOES have a right to draw a line somewhere, and that means the state certainly does have the right to regulate behavior.

        And make no mistake, the two are not equivalent. I actually agree that consenting adults can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, and the state should not interfere. It doesn’t harm society and any harm to the individuals is indeed their own issue. I think that is fundamentally different from pedophilia, which involves people who cannot consent.

        Right now, society has accepted that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is indeed their own business. Society has not accepted, and repeatedly voted, that same-sex marriages are over the line. You, champion of freedom that you are, won’t accept that and instead appear to seek to force the issue by bypassing the will of the people.

        The argument in the article is, however, making the equivalent argument for pedophilia. These are exactly the same sorts of arguments made previously for any number of other items considered wrong.

        BTW, before you call me a “facist” – a term that you clearly have not a glimmer of understanding about – what would your opinion be on gun regulation? I suppose that any sort of gun control laws, in addition to being specifically mentioned as a fundamental right in the US Constitution, would be similarly “authoritarian” restriction on your rights. Anyone should be able to get a gun of any type at any time, right? And anyone who says otherwise is a “facist” authoritarian, right? If I search your responses here, I suppose I won’t find anything that contradicts that, you are all for immediate delivery of machine guns to anyone who wants one. No? Well, who are you to decide what is right and wrong?

        Human society certainly does have the right to regulate personal behavior, your argument to the contrary.

        • Commander_Chico

          First, I called you a fascist, not a facist. I am a facist, because I like good looking women. No butterfaces for me. I am a facist sexist in that way.

          You are a fascist because you believe the state should make judgments about people’s rights based on some hazy idea of “mental defects” or “human society.” “regulat[ing] personal behaviour.” That give the collective too much power over individual liberty, including freedom of contract.

          Second, I am in favor of gun rights to protect my rights from people like you and the rest of any “will of the people” that attempts to take my inalienable rights away.

          • herddog505

            I think that we are in great accord here, but I wish to point out that “regulating human behavior” in the interests of the greater “human society” is much of what the law is about. For example:

            — Should we arrest and prosecute people for driving while impaired even if they’ve not damaged any property or hurt anybody?

            — Should we arrest and prosecute people for using or selling various “illegal” drugs?

            — Should we arrest and prosecute people for possessing this or that firearm or other weapon even if they haven’t used (or apparently plan to use) it to threaten, rob or harm another person?


            The tax code is another case of using the law to regulate – or attempt to regulate – human behavior, such as “sin taxes”.

          • Commander_Chico

            Obviously the test is harm or creating a substantial risk of harm to others through intent or recklessness.

            But to answer your questions – yes, no, no, unless they’re a felon.

          • herddog505

            Define “substantial risk”. Going back to Buck, the authors of the sterilization law as well as the Court thought that allowing idiots to have children presented a “substantial risk”. The gungrabbers currently aver that merely OWNING a certain type of firearm presents a “substantial risk”.

            I suggest that a more sensible approach is, in general, to punish actual harm or intent to harm, not “risky” behavior as “risky” is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Commander_Chico

            Risk of direct harm, not indirect harm. that is the case of drunk driving.

          • herddog505

            The British have, I believe, banned kitchen knive that have a pointed tip (nakiri knives for all!). Their view, in light of all the stabbings they have after essentially banning guns in their blighted islands, is that owning a pointy kitchen knife represents a substantial risk to the public. What say you? I think you would agree that one can definitely do “direct harm” to another person with a ten inch chef’s knife.

          • Or they’re selling ‘bath salts’ or other crap that impels users to go suck face in the worst possible meaning…

            Hmm. Come to think of it, haven’t seen any news articles about stuff like that lately. I wonder if it’s no longer ‘news’, or head shops have gone “This shit’s fucking dangerous – I’m not going to carry it no matter the profit margin. I WANT my customers to come back and buy more stuff down the line…”

          • Brett Buck

            So, you don’t have a problem with the concept of authoritarian rule, as long as you personally get to decide what to control and what not to control. Your rights are precious, and the rest of our rights are worthless unless approved by you. Noted. And to “protect” your precious (and yet entirely nebulous personal notions of) rights, you are perfectly willing to ignore everyone else’s specific enumerated rights. “Rule of Man” vice “Rule of Law”. Noted and not remotely surprising. And you want to call *me* a fascist?

            I actually believe in voting my conscience (as prescribed in our Constitution) and letting the system take care of the rest. You seem to be the one that wants to override that, and force people to accept your opinion.

            And this impassioned yet moronic and anti-American screed is all *to defend the rights of pedophiles*!!? I think you hit the trifecta of liberal stereotypes.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’m not trying to control who you marry, or anything else you do that does not directly harm me or others.

            Don’t try to shift the debate from your advocacy of adults being prevented from contracting freely to marry based on state judgments of “mental defect” to pedophilia.

  • herddog505

    As a general rule, the only “help” pedophiles ought to get is help up the steps of the gallows.

  • GarandFan

    “The paper seriously presented pedophiles as but a misunderstood minority that do no real harm.”

    Why am I not surprised? I’m sure someone from the paper will soon be writing about those engaged in bestiality. Just another “misunderstood’ minority.

  • Vagabond661

    Once the acceptance of pedophiles is achieved the nest step is obviously marriage. The argument they will use is “the child enters into the relationship voluntarily”.

    Boil a frog. In the 60’s, TV wouldn’t show Rob and Laura Petrie in the same bed. My oh my, you sure know how to arrange things. You set it up so well, so perfectly.

  • Commander_Chico

    Thompson points out that this is the same sort of absurdly permissive attitude that caused Catholic Churches across the world to “adopt a mild, nuanced approach to suspicions of clerical pedophilia.”

    Warner, be warned. Any criticism of the Catholic Church’s handling of its pedo problem is treated here as hatred and bigotry by some commenters.

    Even though a Catholic priest, Paul Shanley, was among the founding members of NAMBLA.

    • herddog505

      No, condemnation of the Catholic Church and implications that the First Amendment ought to be suspended for it because of the disgusting behavior of a relative handful of pedophiles and their enablers are treated (rightly) as “hatred and bigotry”.

      If you want to criticize pedophile priests or bishops who cover up for them, I am with you: I think that the full weight of the law should fall on their heads.

      But if you want to claim that the Catholic Church is somehow corrupt and therefore not deserving of the protections we have historically given churches in our country (“We’ll show those mackerel snappers that they aren’t above THE LAW!”), then we part company.

      • Commander_Chico

        I read that the AG of Massachusetts considered prosecuting the Archdiocese of Boston and Cardinal Law under state RICO and other charges, but backed off because of the politics.

        It’s not a matter of stripping any protections other than the ones like that – treat them like anyone else.

        The Catholic Church is corrupt. The Prime Minister of Ireland gave a speech saying so. Of course he isn’t infallible, but he’s not the only one saying so, and there are hundreds of instances of cover-ups and specious legal defenses supporting the case.

        It will be rotten as long as they keep the unnatural doctrine of celibacy, which attracts perverts who hope that the discipline and God’s help will help them curb their unnatural appetites.

        • herddog505

          I will look past the idea of a politician being an authority on corruption and merely state that a few hundred million (if not a few billion) Catholics see it differently: when they file into the pews, they do not think they are part of a “corrupt” organization.

          As for celibacy being “unnatural”, I suggest that many of the church’s laws going back to the Ten Commandments require “unnatural” behavior:

          — “Honor” my parents? Even when my mother nags me about my weight or my father won’t shut up about the game? Really?

          — Look, if I bump off that SOB, I should get a friggin’ medal! He’s a jerk and the world won’t miss him.

          — Hey, my neighbor’s wife is SMOKIN’! And… well… It’s not like I’d be the ONLY one in the neighborhood who’s sampled the goodies, you know?


          We overcome our “natural” impulses to do violence to each other, to steal from each other, to f*ck any hot chick who stands still long enough, etc. through discipline, morality and the law. For those of us with a religious bent, we also do it through appeal to God for a little help and, honestly, fear of Him not being impressed with our excuses and (ahem) pressing the “down” button when we have to stand in judgement.

    • herddog505

      With regards to this Shanley:

      1. Wiki indicates that he was not a founder of NAMBLA;

      2. He was defrocked by his church, though I admit that they should have done it sooner and handed him over to the police. Therefore, he is NOT a Catholic priest any more than Alcee Hastings is a federal judge.



  • Pedofiles need only one kind of understanding, GOD’S WORD SAYS IT VERY CLEAR. . . “I would that you be cut off,” you go figure. I agree with God BTW!

  • Harry Reid must be in on this some way, among other things and people in the WH!

  • LMJ313

    All pedophiles should be executed. No exceptions.

  • Pingback: The slippery slope???? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()