Forbidden to forbid propaedophilia lobby in NL, court said

[Legendary Apophis]

ban-lifted-on-propaedophilia-group-in-the-netherlands

A Dutch appeals court has lifted a ban on an organisation which lobbies for the legalisation of sex between adults and children, after finding that the group was not breaking any laws in The Netherlands.

A civil court in the north-eastern town of Assen last year ordered the Martijn foundation to disband, saying its stance was “a grave infraction of the values of our society”.

But an appeals court in Leeuwarden has ruled that the group, which claims it does not promote sexual abuse and insists it is “a platform for discussion of paedophilia”, could not be outlawed because its existence did not threaten society, the Dutch News website reported.

The court accepted arguments a group lobbying for paedophilia did go against “certain principles in the Dutch criminal system” but argued society was strong enough to withstand such “undesirable statements and abhorrent behaviour” without banning it.

And while a number of its members have been jailed on child pornography charges, the court found that the words and photographs on the organisation’s website did not break any laws.

The head of the organisation, Martijn Uittenbogaard, said the group’s 60 members would meet to decide what to do next.

Christian groups said they would continue to try to change the law and get the group, which is widely reviled in the country, banned.

[ljietuvis]

So what's wrong with this? They have freedom of speech and they should be allowed to say that they want something to be legal - be it gay marriage, paedophilia, or murder. As long as they don't actually molest children, it's OK. Especially since clearly nobody agrees with them and they have no chance of achieving their goals.

[Legendary Apophis]

What's wrong with this?

Paedophilia isn't an urban legend, if you enable lobbies to talk and promote it, people with pedo orientation will just feel like they are free to do so and feel encouraged, get advice from said lobby and act. Not to mention people who might for x y z reasons get into practice what happened to be a mere suspicion of being attracted by these people. Because with lobbies come papers, advice, networks etc...

But well, I am not a "progressist", so how could I understand that it's ok to promote child abuse and paedo-pornography, I'm such a conservative narrow minded in front of so called "progress" of society.
"Progress" society where the only two things that matter are make money (regardless how) and have orgasms everyday regardless with who or what you do it.. Therefore "discrimination" against pedos will lighten once again with time, if that lobby is doing its job efficiently that is.

Especially since clearly nobody agrees with them and they have no chance of achieving their goals.

For now...
You would be surprised how many subjects had such a reaction in past and ended nonetheless to be ok after a little bit of constant lobbying by its supporters. The same will happen with paedophilia, because that's all in the name of "progress". "Progress" in the sake of "progress". Discriminate paedophils will become a sign of being "reactionary" and "conservative" after a couple decades.

[Loki™]

Baby steps, baby steps.

[Legendary Apophis]

The fact that we are talking whether it is OK to lobby for paedophilia or not, shows they have already won a step or two in their lobbying, for a part of the public opinion.

[ljietuvis]

What's wrong with this?

Paedophilia isn't an urban legend, if you enable lobbies to talk and promote it, people with pedo orientation will just feel like they are free to do so and feel encouraged, get advice from said lobby and act. Not to mention people who might for x y z reasons get into practice what happened to be a mere suspicion of being attracted by these people. Because with lobbies come papers, advice, networks etc...

But well, I am not a "progressist", so how could I understand that it's ok to promote child abuse and paedo-pornography, I'm such a conservative narrow minded in front of so called "progress" of society.
"Progress" society where the only two things that matter are make money (regardless how) and have orgasms everyday regardless with who or what you do it.. Therefore "discrimination" against pedos will lighten once again with time, if that lobby is doing its job efficiently that is.

Especially since clearly nobody agrees with them and they have no chance of achieving their goals.

For now...
You would be surprised how many subjects had such a reaction in past and ended nonetheless to be ok after a little bit of constant lobbying by its supporters. The same will happen with paedophilia, because that's all in the name of "progress". "Progress" in the sake of "progress". Discriminate paedophils will become a sign of being "reactionary" and "conservative" after a couple decades.

I don't know how about you, but to me free speech isn't that much of a "progressive" idea, since the concept has been with us for a while. And a single lobby isn't going to make pedophilia accepted, the same way a single lobby wouldn't make rape acceptable, and pedophilia IS rape. The North American Man/Boy Love Association was founded in 1978, and it doesn't seem that they have achieved anything so far.
As for what you said about "progress", I really don't know who you're trying to convince with such useless rhetoric, since you're attacking a position so vague that nobody is going to identify themselves with it.

[ljietuvis]

The fact that we are talking whether it is OK to lobby for paedophilia or not, shows they have already won a step or two in their lobbying, for a part of the public opinion.

And if I think that both Communists and Fascists have the right to lobby, does that mean that both left-wing Atheist extremists and right-wing Christian extremists have won me over?

[Loki™]

Homosexuals used to be about equal with pedos in people's minds. Good marketing has changed that. Ofc paedophilia is a heinous act while homosexuality isn't. But people used to think so about it.
I don't know if I really got my point across but idc.

[Legendary Apophis]

Because in America you have strong lobbies on both sides who neutralize each others more or less, one gaining advantage to the other depending on the context.
However, America is generally considered to be "conservative" within European point of view, therefore, what might not work within America, doesn't mean necessarily that it will fail elsewhere, especially when the counter lobby (christian-democrat parties in this case) isn't necessarily in the upper side of the conflict.


Regarding communism and fascism lobbying, you would be surprised to know how well these two are doing once again in Europe nowadays in a few countries...(communism in France, Greece for example and fascism in Greece)

Homosexuals used to be about equal with pedos in people's minds. Good marketing has changed that. Ofc paedophilia is a heinous act while homosexuality isn't. But people used to think so about it.
I don't know if I really got my point across but idc.

That's what I meant in my comment regarding things considered not ok at all in the past and considered well now. I didn't want to bring this up so early because of all the outrage it would cause (that's how it usually goes). But the fact remains, what used to be unacceptable in the past isn't so much or at all now...one would argue that it's not the same, but back then, people were saying the same. Lobbyists are there to find arguments to have what they defend acceptable for public. So they will find something...

[jedi~tank]

So what's wrong with this? They have freedom of speech and they should be allowed to say that they want something to be legal - be it gay marriage, paedophilia, or murder. As long as they don't actually molest children, it's OK. Especially since clearly nobody agrees with them and they have no chance of achieving their goals.

**Filtered**. Nip this **Filtered** in the bud now.

[jedi~tank]

Homosexuals used to be about equal with pedos in people's minds. Good marketing has changed that. Ofc paedophilia is a heinous act while homosexuality isn't. But people used to think so about it.
I don't know if I really got my point across but idc.

People still think this.

[Rudy Peña]

Homosexuals used to be about equal with pedos in people's minds. Good marketing has changed that. Ofc paedophilia is a heinous act while homosexuality isn't. But people used to think so about it.
I don't know if I really got my point across but idc.

People still think this.

Which is really only the older people/older generation people. While more younger people just dont care about who is homosexuals or not.

As the older people keep dieing off, that group keeps getting smaller and smaller.

[ljietuvis]

But the fact remains, what used to be unacceptable in the past isn't so much or at all now...

And it would be helpful is if you provided an example of something which can be demonstrated to be harmful and which used to be unacceptable but now isn't. Women wearing pants used to be unacceptable, but it doesn't cause any harm. Same goes with homosexuality: it too doesn't cause harm except in the case of rape (in which case it is no better and no worse heterosexuality). So please, give me just one example of something which directly harms another person and is acceptable nowadays.

[Loki™]

But the fact remains, what used to be unacceptable in the past isn't so much or at all now...

And it would be helpful is if you provided an example of something which can be demonstrated to be harmful and which used to be unacceptable but now isn't. Women wearing pants used to be unacceptable, but it doesn't cause any harm. Same goes with homosexuality: it too doesn't cause harm except in the case of rape (in which case it is no better and no worse heterosexuality). So please, give me just one example of something which directly harms another person and is acceptable nowadays.

Homosexuality was thought to harm mentally in the past.
If the society took enough wrong turns they might end up thinking that if both consent pedophilia is k.
I know it's unlikely and there would have to be decades of continous bad decisions before that'd happen but lets not even take this first step in that direction.

[ljietuvis]

Homosexuality was thought to harm mentally in the past.

Whether it does or not is irrelevant, since it's not a conscious decision. Unless you meant that it is harmful to be in a homosexual relationship. And for a heterosexual it would no doubt be, but if someone claims that it's harmful for a homosexual to be in a homosexual relationship, that has to be demonstrated.