Pedophiles waiting in line....

[betsy]

This is beyond outrageous! :angry: Has anyone here gone to university? Learned how to research and what constitutes a reliable source? Same standards here. Provide legitimate sources only please. Otherwise your claims have no merit.

CHRISTIAN WEBSITES ARE NOT A SOURCE. TO PROVE A POINT, YOU MUST COME TO THE TABLE WITH FACTS.

IT DOESN'T WORK WELL WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOURCES TO BACK UP UNREASONABLE CLAIMS OR MAKE LINKS WHERE THERE ARE NONE.

Whew!

Paedophilia and homosexuality are 2 SEPARATE things.

Paedophilia: Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls or boys. That is it. Gender is not very important, they are attracted to children. Period.

Homosexual: Sexual attraction to the same sex. That is it. Has nothing to do with children.

Quite an opinion you've got there. But sorry, personal opinions don't count. Your own words, remember?

fair is fair. Same rules apply to everyone. Including you. Back it up!

[A Hermit]

Most of the "research" quoted by anti-gay bigots comes from Paul Cameron, who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association 20 years ago for ethical violations, including falsifiying data and misrepresenting the work of other researchers.

A full rebuttal of his lies can be found HERE

[YankAbroad]

Hey, I can reverse this around to demonstrate its absurdity.

Betsy, I think you and people like you are more likely to be pedophiles and shouldn't be near children. This is a strong suspicion I have, and I will link to a few web pages me and people like me have written to condemn you.

Now I know nothing about you, but that doesn't matter. It's up to you to link to hundreds of web pages to prove that you're not planning to molest children and bring down civilisation.

Well, get cracking. I'm concerned about our children and the threat that you represent to them! Prove you're not a pedophile and not going to become one, and also prove to me that my silly conjecture is false. Your opinion doesn't count right now -- I want facts! Lots of facts.

[betsy]

I love how betsy's blood libel is cloaked in phoney "concern for children."

Someone who would use child welfare as a political club to attack their enemies is beneath contempt.

YankAbroad, I think getting personal is not a progressive way to discuss an issue. It's understandable that sometimes debates can become heated to the point of getting out of hand.

I suggest you and me have a little break from one another. C'mon....let's both take deep breaths.

<Group Hug>

[A Hermit]

Back it up?

Here ya go Betsy:

Freund et al., 1989

Jenny et al., 1994

Groth & Gary, 1982

Look `em up....

[YankAbroad]

Well c'mon Betsy. Prove you're not a pedophile.

Use facts, not opinions.

We're waiting -- and the future of our children is at stake!

[YankAbroad]

I suggest you and me have a little break from one another. C'mon....let's both take deep breaths.

<Group Hug>

Sorry, I cannot hug someone who represents such a threat to our children and society at large.

You don't work with children, do you? I am extremely concerned.

[betsy]

Friday, September 30, 2005

Columnist Section

Uncle Wally, Aunt Sally, Huck Finn, Puppies and a BC pervert

Written by Anthony Oluwatoyin

Friday, September 30, 2005

Nina Grewal’s Bill C-313, went down in flames, 169 to 100. The Conservative MP’s private member’s bill would have raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. But she knew, even when her bill started life as private member’s motion M-221 back in the Spring, it had all of a snowball’s chance in hell.

Les Liberanos, our federal Liberals, those masters of perverse pleasures, were as gleeful in reminding critics that it was Mulroney’s Conservatives, in 1987, who lowered the age to 14, as Chrétien used to be in pointing to the same source for the GST.

Leading the charge against the age raise, Justice Minister Cotler said he did not want to criminalize teenage “puppy love.” But normal Canadians worry about much older predators taking advantage of youth. Cotler’s move is plain deception, so much so as to make people wonder if the liberal understanding of puppy love involves actual puppies.

Don’t blame these Twisted non-Sisters for knowing how to reap from recklessness. The Liberal agenda in maintaining the lowest age of consent in most of the civilized world is a testament to the bankruptcy of diversity.

Just go back to the submission five years ago to the federal Justice Dept. on the matter of age of consent by EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere).

Beginning with the observation that gay and lesbian youth are “likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them,” in youth and support groups, EGALE goes on to the outrageous and, of course, illogical, conclusion that age of consent limits would mean “cutting off access to this vital resource,” causing “substantial harm.”

Is EGALE actually saying that so-called “youth” groups for gays and lesbians are nothing but a front for sex? Otherwise, why would age be such a central concern? As long as it’s a “youth” group, its focus would be on opportunities for discussion, group activities, support programs.

So a few years age difference, here and there, older or younger, would be nothing to the purpose. It is EGALE that is reducing gay-lesbian youth connections to mere sex in exactly the manner it would otherwise refer to as a right-wing homophobic stereotype.

What is worse, EGALE wants to make it easier for older participants to have this “access.” What a switch!

When conservatives accuse gay-lesbian groups of being co-opted by out and out pedophiles like the satanic NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), liberals cry foul. But not a beep out of them when so-called support groups seem to be fronting for plain sexual exploitation.

And there is no wiggle room here. EGALE points directly at the “close-in-age” exception in Canadian law. That would be the infamous section 150, Part V of our Criminal Code: “in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented… unless the accused (a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years; ( is less than two years older than the complainant....”

EGALE says it flat out:"Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception.” In other words, worry less and less about that darn age gap. And we ain’t talking Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher here. Get offa that!

So-called right-wing bias is a buffer, it turns out, between kids and EGALE’s liberal Namblarism. If any kid needs to be protected from older associates, by age gap limits, surely it would be the kid who would be the most ashamed or afraid to complain to the police in the first place.

Just two weeks or so ago, Joel Johannesen posted one of his best biting blogs on all this (see September 16; partially repeated on Wednesday, 28 Sept.). With reference to US magazine editor, Tim McDarrah, busted for trying to pick up a 13 year-old girl on the Internet for sex, Joel reminded us of Canada’s “progressive” tolerance of sexual contact with those younger than 14.

As he said: “[A]t the rate of “progress” we’re making in Canada under the liberal-left, the age of consent might well keep getting lower and lower.” Indeed, we would be providing the world with a model defense to consent in the growing industry of pedophile-tourism.

What with the internet: You don’t even have to worry about leaving home without it. Take the case, right here in British Columbia, of ex-teacher, George Kraus involving possession of child porn. The 60 year-old pervert who taught elementary school in Surrey/White Rock was caught last Spring with over 25,000 images, including ones of child rape and bondage. He is to be sentenced in late November.

Believe it or not, that is not the ugliest aspect of this unspeakable story. Here’s what Kraus said of the images, to a reporter no less, on being caught back in March: it’s not hurting anybody...they’re all overseas.”

So, quite naturally, at Kraus’ recent Court hearing, Crown prosecutor Winston Sayson did not recommend jail time for the predator.

That’s the prosecutor, mind you. Not the odious creature’s defense attorney. Rather, the attorney for the Crown, which Crown, of course, represents the people. The peoples’ attorney. Doubling for the defense, apparently.

New B.C. Attorney General, Wally Oppal, in a letter to the editor in The Province (September 23), defended prosecutor Sayson, claiming that the Crown in fact did seek jail time for Kraus but settled for a conditional sentence based on case law (previous rulings in such matters).

Oppal, who is also our “Minister responsible for multiculturalism,” said not one word about the “overseas” comment. We still don’t know where “overseas.” We do know that Haitian children have featured in recent molestation allegations involving BC pervs.

Oppal, who was musing a few weeks ago about tougher sentences for property crime in BC, is apparently not so worried about pedophiles making property of kids. We let our pervs get off easy with the overseas kids then we allow the overseas pervs to sample our tolerant “access” to kids here.

It’s quite a New Age ethnic exchange, if you think about it.

For now, the law allows for a maximum five year sentence in the Kraus case. Case law does not prevent the Crown from seeking tougher sentences reflecting growing community disgust and righteous anger regarding such unconscionable violations of innocence.

It’s called precedent and it is the bloodline of the law. Following precedent does not stand in the way of setting new precedent. It cuts both ways. Otherwise, how did old precedent get to be precedent in the first place? Indeed, why have judges? Simply program computers with past rulings and they will spit out new ones quicker than those one in a trillion DNA calculations.

But never mind all that. Back to: it’s not hurting anybody...they’re all overseas.

I am driven to recall Aunt Sally in Huckleberry Finn on being told of a steamboat explosion. Asking if anybody was hurt, and on being told, “No Ma’am. Killed a Nigger,” Aunt Sally replied, “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.”

Liberals who can’t wait to exploit black civil rights experiences to push for gay marriage and every other “alternative lifestyle,” don’t want anyone to see the real analogy in terms of saving our kids. Ain’t it somethin’.

As Joel says (in that more recent Sept. 28 blog), come election time, Conservatives will be able to say, beyond lefty cliché, it really is for the kids.

Anthony Oluwatoyin, a columnist for The Afro News, writes on community issues and religion. Originally from Nigeria in West Africa, he attended Universities in Canada and the US.

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/columnists...nd_a_bc_pervert

[A Hermit]

but this issue is more than just a silly little game for me.

More than a game for me too, Betsy. As a parent I take the issue very seriously, I assure you, and also as someone who has friends and relatives who are gay. You and the bigots you quote to back up your misperceptions would deny equal rights to some of the finest people I know on the basis of lies, distortions and guilt by false associations.

This "gay=pedophile" argument is nothing but character assassination, and you're doing it to people you've never even met; people whomI know to be honourable, moral decent people.

I take that very seriously.

[CCGirl]

but this issue is more than just a silly little game for me.

More than a game for me too, Betsy. As a parent I take the issue very seriously, I assure you, and also as someone who has friends and relatives who are gay. You and the bigots you quote to back up your misperceptions would deny equal rights to some of the finest people I know on the basis of lies, distortions and guilt by false associations.

This "gay=pedophile" argument is nothing but character assassination, and you're doing it to people you've never even met; people whomI know to be honourable, moral decent people.

I take that very seriously.

Here-here!

[YankAbroad]

I think Betsy and the Right Wing Rights agenda is pushing pedophilia -- it's pretty obvious from that article.

[tml12]

I think Betsy and the Right Wing Rights agenda is pushing pedophilia -- it's pretty obvious from that article.

Anyone who bases their thesis argument on the fact that being gay means being a pedophile neither understands the concept of homosexuality nor knows what a pedophile is.

[YankAbroad]

I agree, and it's why we gays fight that agenda so hard.

Note that Betsy cannot produce a single article which proves she and her Right Wing Agenda isn't pushing pedophilia. Very interesting!

[betsy]

When incest and child abuse came to the fore some years back, child welfare advocates have all concluded that SILENCE was the reason why it had gone on for generations undetected.

Nobody believed the children that any sexual abuse was being perpetrated at homes.

Some authorities even turned the tables around to suggest the children were just lying.

When women were being battered, the shame of admitting being battered by a spouse had caused so many to suffer in SILENCE. People simply looked the other way. Some justified the beatings!

Now, when all that is being raised is a legitimate concern, instead of trying to reach an understanding in a constructive way, a virulent pressure is being enforced for us to remain SILENT.

Ironic.

[YankAbroad]

Well that silence is why we're rising up to confront you and your agenda of pedophilia, betsy.

The children need us to fight for them against your ilk.

[geoffrey]

Well that silence is why we're rising up to confront you and your agenda of pedophilia, betsy.

The children need us to fight for them against your ilk.

You have no ability to stay on an issue and not attack people do you?

Saying that betsy promotes pedophilia makes you look stupid.

[YankAbroad]

I figure that one insulting and gratuitous insult deserves another.

I have as much evidence as batty--ehrm, I mean betsy does.

All I need now is a dose of righteous indignation and I can be in the "protect the children" outrage business too, and make spurious accusations against entire groups of people.

[betsy]

I figure that one insulting and gratuitous insult deserves another.

I have as much evidence as batty--ehrm, I mean betsy does.

All I need now is a dose of righteous indignation and I can be in the "protect the children" outrage business too, and make spurious accusations against entire groups of people.

I have not insulted you in any way.

If you think that pointing out that you are wrong is a form of insult, then you ought to understand that this is a forum. Opposing views are most likely to prove each other wrong.

There were a lot of other posts that came from others who opposed my views. Some would be considered as personal insults....but I understand that sometimes, highly controversial topics such as this can get the better of even some educated ladies and gentlemen. They were just said in the heat of the moment and should not be taken personally.

However, you have embarked on a personal attack against me. Even after my suggestion that we should take a break from one another. You are persistently attacking me with my every posts that no longer directly address you.

I can take the heat, mind you....obviously, you cannot.

I'd like to remind you of the Rules and Guidelines in this forum.

I have explained that this is not painting all gays with one brush. I even volunteered the information that majority of the gay members have no knowledge about NAMBLA or any pedophile groups being members under the same association...that only the high level officials knew of it until the scandal broke out.

If it is your purpose to goad me into turning this forum into trash, then you ought to re-think how this is reflecting badly against you. Others may just totally dismiss your rant...while others may silently reflect that you protests too much.

[scribblet]

I figure that one insulting and gratuitous insult deserves another.

I have as much evidence as batty--ehrm, I mean betsy does.

All I need now is a dose of righteous indignation and I can be in the "protect the children" outrage business too, and make spurious accusations against entire groups of people.

I have not insulted you in any way.

If you think that pointing out that you are wrong is a form of insult, then you ought to understand that this is a forum. Opposing views are most likely to prove each other wrong.

There were a lot of other posts that came from others who opposed my views. Some would be considered as personal insults....but I understand that sometimes, highly controversial topics such as this can get the better of even some educated ladies and gentlemen. They were just said in the heat of the moment and should not be taken personally.

However, you have embarked on a personal attack against me. Even after my suggestion that we should take a break from one another. You are persistently attacking me with my every posts that no longer directly address you.

I can take the heat, mind you....obviously, you cannot.

I'd like to remind you of the Rules and Guidelines in this forum.

I have explained that this is not painting all gays with one brush. I even volunteered the information that majority of the gay members have no knowledge about NAMBLA or any pedophile groups being members under the same association...that only the high level officials knew of it until the scandal broke out.

If it is your purpose to goad me into turning this forum into trash, then you ought to re-think how this is reflecting badly against you. Others may just totally dismiss your rant...while others may silently reflect that you protests too much.

Too bad we can't discuss this issue without someone starting with the slurs etc. Maybe we should be using the word pederast rather than pedophile.

People are gradually being conditioned into accepting the lower age of consent and will eventuality have been conditioned enough to accept the lower age of consent for young boys. Self righteous or not I would prefer to err on the side of caution and protect the children. I see no reason for anyone, straight or gay to want the age of consent lowered to 14 for homosexuality, if not for nefarious reasons. My preference would be to equalize it all to 16.

[betsy]

People are gradually being conditioned into accepting the lower age of consent and will eventuality have been conditioned enough to accept the lower age of consent for young boys. Self righteous or not I would prefer to err on the side of caution and protect the children. I see no reason for anyone, straight or gay to want the age of consent lowered to 14 for homosexuality, if not for nefarious reasons. My preference would be to equalize it all to 16.

"And there is no wiggle room here. EGALE points directly at the “close-in-age” exception in Canadian law. That would be the infamous section 150, Part V of our Criminal Code: “in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented… unless the accused (a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years; ( is less than two years older than the complainant....”

EGALE says it flat out:"Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception.” In other words, worry less and less about that darn age gap. And we ain’t talking Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher here. Get offa that!

So-called right-wing bias is a buffer, it turns out, between kids and EGALE’s liberal Namblarism. If any kid needs to be protected from older associates, by age gap limits, surely it would be the kid who would be the most ashamed or afraid to complain to the police in the first place.

Just two weeks or so ago, Joel Johannesen posted one of his best biting blogs on all this (see September 16; partially repeated on Wednesday, 28 Sept.). With reference to US magazine editor, Tim McDarrah, busted for trying to pick up a 13 year-old girl on the Internet for sex, Joel reminded us of Canada’s “progressive” tolerance of sexual contact with those younger than 14.

As he said: “[A]t the rate of “progress” we’re making in Canada under the liberal-left, the age of consent might well keep getting lower and lower.” Indeed, we would be providing the world with a model defense to consent in the growing industry of pedophile-tourism. "

This is really disturbing for me. We need to cement something so that there won't be any loopholes that will leave the young so unprotected.

I worry that laws can be twisted and maneuvered around by crafty lawyers.

[betsy]

Just two weeks or so ago, Joel Johannesen posted one of his best biting blogs on all this (see September 16; partially repeated on Wednesday, 28 Sept.). With reference to US magazine editor, Tim McDarrah, busted for trying to pick up a 13 year-old girl on the Internet for sex, Joel reminded us of Canada’s “progressive” tolerance of sexual contact with those younger than 14.

Someone is already "testing the waters" here. All it takes is a winning precedent in court and boom!...suddenly it's okay to have sex with kids under 14!

It's so easy to corrupt and seduce children that age...hormones are kicking off and curiousity for sensuality and sex are raging!

[Argus]

the fact that any of you are trying to link homosexuality to NAMBLA is outrageous. Come on.. :angry: .

Man-Boy Love? Uhmmm, not an expert here, but as Cartman would say "That's so gay!"

[Argus]

Paedophilia and homosexuality are 2 SEPARATE things.

Paedophilia: Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls or boys. That is it. Gender is not very important, they are attracted to children. Period.

Homosexual: Sexual attraction to the same sex. That is it. Has nothing to do with children.

Sorry. Don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned if you're a guy molesting young boys you're gay. I cannot, as a Heterosexual, imagine why I or any other Heterosexual male, even if attracted to youngsters, would want to molest boys instead of girls.

BTW, I think people are mistaking the term paedophile here. Paedophiles, so far as I'm aware, are normally drawn to small children. They are not drawn to adolescents. I believe that most of the "problem", be it perception or real, with homosexual men is gay culture's obsession with youth. I've certainly heard often enough that if a gay man looking to pick up a "date" the younger (and smoother and prettier) you look the better. Now mainstream culture also has a youth obsession, but it has its limits. Most adult men might look at a particularly pretty 16 year old in a revealing outfit, but wouldn't seriously consider doing anything with one, much less a fourteen year old, legal or not. But that restraint does not appear to exist in the gay male community.

And while, thanks to Paul Martin and Jack Layton, who heartily endorse the idea of adults having sex with 14 year old, this is entirely legal in Canada, it is a crime in the US and is considered child molesting.

[YankAbroad]

if you're a guy molesting young boys you're gay

So if you're a guy molesting young girls or a woman who molests young boys, you're straight?

And since the vast majority of sexual abuse is opposite sex, we have to put limits on heterosexuality to ensure our children are safe, right?

[Argus]

if you're a guy molesting young boys you're gay

So if you're a guy molesting young girls or a woman who molests young boys, you're straight?

And since the vast majority of sexual abuse is opposite sex, we have to put limits on heterosexuality to ensure our children are safe, right?

The vast majority of sexual abuse is within families. Thus that finding has no bearing on the suggestion that gay men - and let's face it, we're not talking about gay women here, but gay men - molest boys more often than heterosexual men molest girls. It's as spurious as saying that women are more likely to commit violent child abuse than men. Which is true, but based on the fact that the great majority of care-givers are women, not on women being more violence prone than men.

But what we're talking about here is molestation outside the family, by predators, and most of that appears to be men molesting boys, not men molesting girls. Given the fact homosexuals represent something lik 1% of the population that would imply they are something like 100 times more likely to be involved in chilid sexual abuse than heterosexual men, would it not?