Pro-pedophile lobby group to be disbanded

Palinurus

Palinurus

The Living Force
The following contains the latest news and a follow-up from this article:
http://www.sott.net/article/260472-Pathological-society-Dutch-court-reverses-ban-on-pro-pedophile-lobby-group

Source: _http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/pro-paedophile_group_to_be_ban.php

source slightly modified said:
Pro-pedophile group to be banned, Dutch Supreme Court says

Friday 18 April 2014

The pro-pedophilia organization Martijn should be banned, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled on Friday, marking the end of a legal battle which began in 2011.

The Court’s decision is in line with recommendations made by the advocate general in March. He said the organization should be banned because the protection of children should weigh more heavily than freedom of expression.

The Martijn Foundation campaigns for the legalization of sexual contact between adults and children and has been the subject of a convoluted legal battle for years.

Final

The public prosecution department took the case to the Supreme Court after an appeal court last year said the foundation cannot be banned because its existence does not threaten to cause social disruption.

That ruling overturned one from 2012 when judges banned the pedophile group, saying what the foundation does and says about sexual contact between adults and children contravenes the accepted norms and values in Dutch society.

Martijn was founded in 1982. It hit the headlines in 2007 after publishing pictures of crown prince Willem-Alexander's children on its website.

Several of its high profile members, including founder Ad van de Berg, have been jailed for child pornography offenses.

© DutchNews.nl
Click to expand...

EDIT: minor spelling
 
It's on SotT now: http://www.sott.net/article/277716-Pro-paedophile-group-to-be-banned-Dutch-supreme-court-says
 
Good. Not a minute too soon, that ban (although I'm not holding my breath, networks are alive and well).
And then of course there are always 'progressive thinkers' to try and defend the undefendable under the guise of 'freedom of speech'... Surely they must be joking?
What about kids' right not to be used as sex objects?
 
Mrs. Tigersoap said:
Good. Not a minute too soon, that ban (although I'm not holding my breath, networks are alive and well).
And then of course there are always 'progressive thinkers' to try and defend the undefendable under the guise of 'freedom of speech'... Surely they must be joking?
What about kids' right not to be used as sex objects?
Click to expand...

I have been researching some names of the people that signed that letter that was published in a Dutch newspaper. More than fifty people defended the group Martijn and they urged the Supreme Court not to ban this organisation. They also said that freedom of association would be jeopardised. One of them is ds. (reverend I think) Visser who wrote an article in 2001 saying that scientific research into sexuality between children and adults became impossible, whereas it would help in dealing with pedophilia. He went on to say that researchers Frits Bernard and Edward Brongersma had tried to approach pedophilia with nuance. What he didn't say was that both scientists were pedophiles.
Visser also called it an orientation.
Another name belongs to the chairwoman of the NVSH, the organisation that was promoting the 'work' of a task group for pedophilia during the seventies and eighties.

Added: Diederik Stapel also signed the letter. Remember him?

http://www.sott.net/article/237175-Netherlands-Tilburg-Professor-Faked-Data-in-at-Least-30-Academic-Publications
 
Mariama said:
Visser also called it an orientation.
Click to expand...

Well, that's their favourite argument. It's their orientation, therefore they are not responsible for it and they should 'have the right' to express it.
That's why they're so keen on jumping on the gay rights train. Which of course has nothing to do with their situation since homosexuality is between two consenting adults.

Mariama said:
One of them is ds. (reverend I think) Visser who wrote an article in 2001 saying that scientific research into sexuality between children and adults became impossible, whereas it would help in dealing with pedophilia. He went on to say that researchers Frits Bernard en Edward Brongersma had tried to approach pedophilia with nuance. What he didn't say was that both scientists were pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised?
Listening to these people's opinion (because let's be honest, what they do cannot be called 'research' when it's that biased) on the matter really is setting a wolf to guard sheep.
 
This is what Frits Bernard said at the end of his article that was published in Paidika, the Journal of Paedophilia in 1987:
"Paedophiles can enrich society by bringing into it new perspectives."

Let's not forget the pity ploy. They are wolves, pretending to be sheep:

In an information brochure from 1973 the goal of the workgroups was presented as follows:

The primary goal of the national and local workgroups is to provide the chance for paedophiles to meet each other and thereby help them to emerge from isolation. This opportunity in itself is a liberating experience.

Expert assistance for paedophiles who are in distress is being organized, and furthermore efforts are being made to relieve the plight of this oppressed group.
Click to expand...

The article in itself is quite revealing or so I thought.
Now I am going to look for a bucket, so that I can puke.
 
The journal of paedophilia?!? What the f... paedophiles enriching society by bringing it to new perspectives? I tell you, these people are so lucky that there aren't more people reading news sites such as SOTT (everyday) or the outrage from non-parents & parents would be humongous.

Mrs. Tigersoap said:
Mariama said:
One of them is ds. (reverend I think) Visser who wrote an article in 2001 saying that scientific research into sexuality between children and adults became impossible, whereas it would help in dealing with pedophilia. He went on to say that researchers Frits Bernard en Edward Brongersma had tried to approach pedophilia with nuance. What he didn't say was that both scientists were pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised?
Listening to these people's opinion (because let's be honest, what they do cannot be called 'research' when it's that biased) on the matter really is setting a wolf to guard sheep.
Click to expand...

And opinion/belief has set our species down a path where we might not be able to turn from. :headbash:
 
A bit more about the mindset of these pedocriminals from 'Betrayal Trauma' by psychologist Jennifer J. Freyd:

Another sort of doubt that plagues the field is that sexual abuse causes harm (Ramey 1979; J. Henderson 1983). For instance, Kinsey and his colleagues seemed to minimize the negative consequences of sexual abuse: "It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sex contacts" (Kinsey et al. 1953, p. 121). Similartly, Domeena Renshaw, in her 1982 book Incest: Understanding and Treatment, wrote: "Our contemporary struggle to understand and eliminate child abuse has mistakenly launched an overzealous crusade to regard all incest as criminal child abuse. In a minority of cases, rape or coercive noncoital incest presents a crisis of both physical and sexual abuse. But incest may be tender, affectionate, consensual, non-abusive and noncoital" (p. 73). This book later suggests: "To incest participants who may read this book and who may identify with or relate to segments on any page, I would like to say, You are not alone. You have experienced another kind of love which has been condemned in our society. It may have puzzled and distressed you, but you have had strength and courage to live with quiet dignity. You have learned as you grew that life presents ambiguities and differences (p. 160).
In an interview conducted in Amsterdam in June 1991 and published as "Interview: Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager" in the winter volume of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, Ralph Underwager, who was involved in the creation of the FMSF [False Memory Syndrome Foundation] and served on its advisory board until this interview was circulated, was asked, "Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?" He responded:

Certainly it is responsible. What I have struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices I have made." (Underwager quoted in Geraci 1993, pp. 3-4)

Later on in the interview, Hollida Wakefield, a member (as of this writing) of the advisory board of the FMSF, said: "It would be nice if someone could get some kind of big research grant to do a longitudinal study of, let's say, a hundred twelve-year-old boys in relationships with loving paedophiles. Whoever was doing the study would have to follow them at five-year intervals for twenty years. This is impossible in the U.S. right now. We're talking a long time in the future" (p. 12).
Click to expand...
 
All I can say is the world has gone mad. These pedo-criminals really can't see anything wrong with their perverse habits, they think it's normal. No amount of rehabilitation is going to make them normal, they need to be kept away from children and the general public.


Mariama said:
This is what Frits Bernard said at the end of his article that was published in Paidika, the Journal of Paedophilia in 1987:
"Paedophiles can enrich society by bringing into it new perspectives."

Let's not forget the pity ploy. They are wolves, pretending to be sheep:

In an information brochure from 1973 the goal of the workgroups was presented as follows:

The primary goal of the national and local workgroups is to provide the chance for paedophiles to meet each other and thereby help them to emerge from isolation. This opportunity in itself is a liberating experience.

Expert assistance for paedophiles who are in distress is being organized, and furthermore efforts are being made to relieve the plight of this oppressed group.
Click to expand...

The article in itself is quite revealing or so I thought.
Now I am going to look for a bucket, so that I can puke.
Click to expand...


What the heck? They actually have a Journal that they publish in?! Reading this saddens me no end and I too want to :barf:
 
Arwenn said:
What the heck? They actually have a Journal that they publish in?! Reading this saddens me no end and I too want to :barf:
Click to expand...

Oh, but they have much so more than that: they have lobby groups, a political party, conventions and conferences, an annual day, Facebook groups, magazines, sex dolls, etc.

And this is just the 'legal', authorized list of 'achievements for their cause'. Because then you have the paedo-pornography side, a 'business' which generates millions of dollars a year. Somehow, people imagine that there are just a few paedo's in the world. But it does not take a very clever man to understand that if this business generates so much money, it means that there is a huge demand for it.
 
Mrs. Tigersoap said:
Arwenn said:
What the heck? They actually have a Journal that they publish in?! Reading this saddens me no end and I too want to :barf:
Click to expand...

Oh, but they have much so more than that: they have lobby groups, a political party, conventions and conferences, an annual day, Facebook groups, magazines, sex dolls, etc.

And this is just the 'legal', authorized list of 'achievements for their cause'. Because then you have the paedo-pornography side, a 'business' which generates millions of dollars a year. Somehow, people imagine that there are just a few paedo's in the world. But it does not take a very clever man to understand that if this business generates so much money, it means that there is a huge demand for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's all so depressing. If the masses can't get over their cognitive dissonance & confirmation biases on the issue of paedos, how will they reach & enter the arena of psychopaths running things? Just look at how many mini steps forum members had to take to reach the "lesser" psychopathologies - info on manipulators & then all the system 1, system 2 "you are not so smart" adaptive unconscious material. It's almost hopeless. I had to use the word "almost" just as a reminder for me not to give up hope, & that's getting increasingly difficult. I'm still trying to get my head around a paedo Facebook group. Lord give me strength.
 
I actually am kind of shocked by the supreme court decision. It usually is a highly valued ideal is modern democracies that the state doesn't interfere or prevent the forming, of peaceful law abiding groups who's values it disagrees with. This ruling seems to go against that. With the same logic, they could ban advocacy/lobby groups that advocate the repeal of smoking bans in restaurants and bars.

I think, what should have been done, is to prove just 1 instance this group encourages/abetted/aided someone to commit a criminal act against a child. If the police spent any resources on this I suspect there is examples to find. Then I think they could have brought charges against the organization. Instead, how I take the above is the Court decided to argue the limitation of freedom of speech to Dutch values.

the rhetoric: "the organization should be banned because the protection of children should weigh more heavily than freedom of expression" I think is completely off base because it implies the group is harming children, but then they should have made criminal charges. It seems at one point these were made, but the group was found not culpable of "social disruption" i.e encouraging the breaking of law.

I think the good news, is not so much this ruling, but the change in culture in the last 30 years. I think since the lawsuits against the Church, the Sandusky scandal, the Savile scandal, many people are more likely to see what this group for what it is and to reject the arguments. This group exists in a fantasy world, and I think the public is much more discerning of reality today in this regard. I know in the UK there was similar groups decades ago, but there is hardly tolerance any more for such a group in the public sphere.

If this group in Belgium, did make national attention in 2007, you would think they would have targets on their backs, and I would have thought they would have disbanded already. So, I see perhaps it was a public outcry that pressured the Supreme Court to take the case, and rule the way they did.
 
Oxajil, thank you for your post, but I think it belongs in the other thread :):

Paedophile hoarding images of baby torture & rape allowed to run child clinic
 
Mariama said:
Oxajil, thank you for your post, but I think it belongs in the other thread :):

Paedophile hoarding images of baby torture & rape allowed to run child clinic
Click to expand...

Oops, yes. Hopefully a mod could move it there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom