We Have Gone Too Far

Sacraficing Freedom for Security

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382481,00.html
from JoeUser Forums

Pedophelia is a truly horrendous crime.  It robs the innocence from the most trusting and innocent members of society.  There is no level in Dante's Inferno for Pedophiles as the crime itself is too horrofic for even his 7 circles.  Yet it exists.  No one denies that it exists and no one denies that we must prosecute the criminals to the fullest, and hopefully put them away so that they can never practice their perversion again.

But we have gone too far.  To the point of branding people with the scarlet P for being what?  A teenager in love, or a loving father.  And that is as scary as the perpertrators themselves.  In the latest episode of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a father in England had to call the cops to prevent from being assaulted by a bunch of do-gooder bystanders for simply snapping pictures of his 2 boys.  What parent does not snap thousands of pictures of their children?  In almost every waking moment!  They change sop fast, that it is the only way to capture their joyful innocence and carefree nature.  Yet now every parent is suspect.  Every parent is a pedophile.  For taking pictures of their children.

Before this insanity became an obsession, I took a picture of my daughter taking a bath with her cousin.  It was a cute picture that my ex still has to this day.  2 3 year olds playing in a tub with their rubber duckies.  Today, I would be arrested and branded with a scarlet P.  For what?  For wanting to capture a youthful exuberance of my child.

A teenager in George is arrested and convicted and sent to jail for life.  his crime?  Having Oral sex with his 15 year old girl friend.  A life ruined because of a bit of passion - and it was consensual.

Children are taken from their parents for what?  A picture of their child, without clothes, they had developed at a store.  Their children, not in any sexual pose.  And they lose their children (and one wonders why I have no compassion for the CPS gestapo).

We have gone to far when we are locking up innocent people on the mere suggestion (sometimes made out of spite) of pedophelia.  The days of "innocent until proven guilty" are gone when it comes to this crime.  Many rejoice at this travesty. "It will save one child, that makes it worth it!"

And so another freedom is lost in the jihad to security.  Today pedophiles, tomorrow "Future Crimes Division" will get you before you can spit on the sidewalk - because it looked like you would. 

Many will laugh at this lament. Others will tar and feather the author for the message, and yes, even brand me a Pedophile for daring to speak out against this injustice.  Today.

Tomorrow they will not be able to.  For they will be in jail on a future crime as well.  That one will be less heinous than pedophelia, but the door has been opened.  And it is only a matter of time before it spreads to a lot more areas.  Freedom lost is a lot harder to regain than freedom maintained.  It is safer to outlaw all activity, but not freer.  There was no crime in the old USSR.  There was also no freedom.

6,349 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's much like the child abuse laws and pretty much every "protective" law passed in this country. They start out with very good intentions but then enforcement gets carried to absurd extremes.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

I agree 100 % I think one of the worst ones I heard is about a fellow now living in Europe, he is technically on the run from authorities in the U.S thanks to something that could have happened to any of us-

I forget what State he was living in at the time but he was 19 years old and was at the type of party quite common among 19 year olds. Lots of alcohol. Now keep in mind that he had no prior convictions, no criminal record at all when this happened. At one point in the night he was with some friends stumbling through a nearby park, he decided it was time to drain the vein. So he goes off into the bushes to take a leak and shortly thereafter he gets caught by the cops. No big deal, one would think maybe a charge for drunk and disorderly, maybe indecent exposure in public right? Maybe even just throw him in the drunk tank and let him sleep it off with a stern warning. Anywho. Nope. Turns out that about 30 feet away from the bushes he was watering, there was a group of kiddies having a birthday party or some such thing. 

Accusations were levelled against him that he was doing a little more than taking a leak in those bushes while watching this group (which he didn't even know were there in his drunken stupor) I'm not familiar with the exact charges he was brought up on but his defender told him he was guaranteed to be convicted as it came down to the cops testimony vs his drunken recollection, and that he was pretty much guaranteed to be given the dreaded label- sex offender. Apparently if you have those two words tacked onto your file it's pretty much game over. You have to constantly register and check in with authorities wherever you go. You have to inform your neighbors and employer that you are a sex offender, most of your personal, private information suddenly becomes publicly available online to anyone who wants to peruse the S.O website, etc. Plus you have to pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars a month to attend mandatory counselling, and this goes on for years.

Anywho, he realized that this would pretty much ruin his life before it even got started, soooo, he took off to Europe, where he went to college, settled down, started a family and built a life. If he would have stayed and faced the punishment for his 'crime' you can rest assured his life would be drastically different today!

Another really interesting piece on this matter you should read is this-

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/06/old-dogs-and-ha.html

 

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Don't worry, I agree with you here. It's a bad, bad crime, but you can't punish people for a picture of their children. (That is, if they don't use it for indecent purposes)

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
They start out with very good intentions
End of quote


It was truly a wise man that said the road to hell is paved with them.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Accusations were levelled against him that he was doing a little more than taking a leak in those bushes
End of quote


IN the realm of pedophelia, common sense has left the building. There are many more cases just like the one you describe - sometimes it is a matter of consenual sex, sometimes a drunken error. But instead of identifying the real criminals, all are lumped together. I do not have the wisdom of Soloman to say "this one is just a bad judgement call, but that one is a sick person". I doubt anyone does. Btu the way the laws are written, no one is given the opportunity to even try to be Soloman.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's a bad, bad crime, but you can't punish people for a picture of their children. (That is, if they don't use it for indecent purposes)
End of quote


Some out there do use it for indecent purposes. But we have gotten to the point (which this story demonstrates) that we are looking at ALL pictures of children as indecent. it has got to stop, but I dont see how or where as long as people are on their high horse and will point to that 1 in a million instances where a parent abused a child that way.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

And Political Correctness keeps on steam rolling, sure the childrem MUST BE PROTECTED. but this has once again gotten out of hand!

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Your right about the paranoia levels... the photos are just innocent pictures, but think of how the worrld that you and I grew up in was like, and what type of a world it is now. We played in the streets till all hours of the night, while today, its not safe to do such a thing without fear that some nut will take the kids away for the lasty time. its just a case of times changing for the worse.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
sure the childrem MUST BE PROTECTED. but this has once again gotten out of hand!
End of quote


At the expense of all liberties. That is the problem with extremism. They dont staop with the best solution, they only see absolutes, and so all liberties are sacraficed for the one in a million or billion.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
but think of how the worrld that you and I grew up in was like, and what type of a world it is now.
End of quote


I dont think the world is that much different. There were cases when we were kids (some just coming to light now). The difference is in the level of hysteria.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
its not safe to do such a thing without fear that some nut will take the kids away for the lasty time. its just a case of times changing for the worse.
End of quote


its not safe to do such a thing without fear that some CPS Agent will take the kids away for the lasty time. its just a case of times changing for the worse.
End of quote


Fixed.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

I agree we should protect kids but people need to have some common sense.  This wasn't a sexual case but a man had his son taken away from him because he bought a lemonade at a baseball game and they gave him a Mike's Hard Lemonade.  The dad didn't even know it was alchohol.  It just ridiculous. 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
common sense.
End of quote


Unfortunately in this area, that is severely lacking.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

I dont think the world is that much different. There were cases when we were kids (some just coming to light now). The difference is in the level of hysteria.
End of quote

Yes, its probably a flawed assumption. One thing I won't do is tell anyone how to raise or feed thier children... lol

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, it's nice to see so many actually agree on this, as well as I do. Now if we could only use our Constitutional rights to make sure things like this don't get out of hand.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gary Snyder wrote a poem about his partner/wife and their children bathing in which he lovingly described their nudity. Earlier this year in a class on birth and motherhood I saw a home birth in a pool where the entire family was naked helping the mother give birth. As for the case of the boy in Georgia, that was under reported. I actually had to hear it on the CBC. America has a huge problem with its sexuality and is ashamed of its collective naked body, so we see demons everywhere. We are so busy demon hunting that the real evil goes unseen.

I have, by the way, responded to your response.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
One thing I won't do is tell anyone how to raise or feed thier children... lol
End of quote


We have enough Dr. Spocks. ;)
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now if we could only use our Constitutional rights to make sure things like this don't get out of hand.
End of quote


They are out of hand - all in the name of the "children". People scream about the supposed liberties we have lost under Bush, not realizing they were lost a long time ago in the name of "safety". Before Bush.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Earlier this year in a class on birth and motherhood I saw a home birth in a pool where the entire family was naked helping the mother give birth.
End of quote


Eh, we went natural with all 4 of ours, but I dont think I would have gotten into a pool with her for the birth! But still, with 4 children, almost 10 years from oldest to youngest, the difference in what we could and could not do from the first to the last was remarkable. The first was sterile city! The last, I walked in from digging ditches and picked up my baby, no qualms from anyone. ;)
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
teenager in George is arrested and convicted and sent to jail for life. his crime? Having Oral sex with his 15 year old girl friend. A life ruined because of a bit of passion - and it was consensual

The girl in question is 15 and as per the law is a child and her boyfriend has certainly broken the law.

As a civil libertarian I am concerned about the publicity that surround convicted pedeophiles. If reformed they should not be made to carry the burden of their past conviction. Everyone has the right of privacy but as they say this should be balance with the rights of society to protect itself. Now that is noe difficult question.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The girl in question is 15 and as per the law is a child and her boyfriend has certainly broken the law.
End of quote


It is indeed a crime. But it is not pedophelia, and the penalty should not be long prison terms and the scarlet letter.

If reformed they should not be made to carry the burden of their past conviction.
End of quote


Unfortunately, real pedophelias apparently cannot be reformed. Thankfully, there are not a lot of them. But the bathwater here is branding all crimes as such, and so the "frisky" are stigmatized along with the true animals.

If indeed the "experts" (and I use that term loosely) are correct and real pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, then yes, I see them losing their "right of privacy" as a part of their punishment for their crime. But I am scared by how easily the charge rolls of the lips of "do-gooders" for anyone paying ANY attention to a child - even when it is their own.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bizarrely in the UK if a 15 year old boy sleeps with a 15 year old girl, the boy can be arrested and put on the sex offenders register, meaning they can never work with children for the rest of their lives+in other positions, I think. Oh, the girl can't be put on the sex offenders list I think, only the boy. It's crazy - who in their right minds would call a 15 year old having consensual sex with another 15 year old a paedophile?! Ironically only a few headlines away you then hear of some group proposing sex education from the age of 3...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's crazy - who in their right minds would call a 15 year old having consensual sex with another 15 year old a paedophile?!
End of quote


Apparently the UK and the US. The same situation happens here as well.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top

maudlin27 I'm am 99% convinced that you are mistaken.  Both parties can be arrested and put on the sex offenders register - there is no difference for males or females or the law would be take to the European Court for sexual discrimination.  There is also no formal defense for being under 16 as you are over the age of criminal responability but the police pretty much always turn a blind eye unless there is something else going on (for example if one party is mentaly hanicapped).

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is also no formal defense for being under 16 as you are over the age of criminal responability but the police pretty much always turn a blind eye unless there is something else going on (for example if one party is mentaly hanicapped).
End of quote


This is the insidious part too. A law that is enforced selectively is a tyranical law. It denies equal justice to everyone. While I am not familiar with the UK Tenets of law, I know that it in the US it violates the very core of the Constitution. Unfortunately, that does not seem to wake people up to the fact that a bad law is worse than no law.