"Pizzagate" Explodes

[Hi_Henry]

TEDx | Pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation | Mirjam Heine | University of Würzburg (Germany)

Mighty interesting that this drive to legalize/normalize this sickness is dead square in Europe.

We have this aberration winning a singing contest (a tool for social engineering) - _https://i.pinimg.com/736x/db/9f/f1/db9ff1760a8c1b78b7b436e69684c522--gay-icons-bearded-lady.jpg
The German politician - He regrets being called out and losing the fight
Then this covered up "leak" of the hidden world - Gone and forgotten "Who was involved?"

So it looks like they are not giving up on reconstructing Babylon.

 

[aragorn]

If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend watching it. Fiona Barnett tells her horrific story in this documentary called 'The Candy Girl'. She seems like a incredibly strong individual. Be warned though, some of the stuff - well actually most of the stuff - she tells is beyond horrific.

 

[aragorn]

Another excellent documentary that was released only days ago:

Paedophiles In Parliament (2018)

I'm getting the sense, that these evil practices are way more widespread and coordinated than you'd ever think.

 

[JGeropoulas]

If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend watching it. Fiona Barnett tells her horrific story in this documentary called 'The Candy Girl'. She seems like a incredibly strong individual. Be warned though, some of the stuff - well actually most of the stuff - she tells is beyond horrific.

Well I just finished watching the whole thing. People just have no idea what goes on in this world! It's hard enough to comprehend this happening to others, but I can't imagine being a child and experiencing it. The most amazing part is that Fiona maintained "co-consciousness" throughout her programming, which protected her mind from complete captivity bu at the expense of intensifying her horror. The hardest part hearing this kind of cruelty is being thrown back into the age-old theological question of how can an all-powerful "God" permit evil to have such free reign. I've heard all the standard answers provided by various religions or philosophies, but none ever gives me any kind of peace or satisfaction. I guess the one good that comes out of hearing all this is that I'm sickened and enraged about it, which at least shows I'm on a very different path from these perpetrators.

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1025880276260540416

August 04, 2018 10:11 PM
Video 02:30
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Several children ranging in age from 1 to 15 are in CYFD custody after Taos County deputies discovered them among haggard conditions at a makeshift "compound" while executing a search warrant Friday, according to the Taos County Sheriff's Office Facebook page.

Three women "believed to be the children's mothers" were also found at the Amalia, New Mexico compound surrounded by tires, the post by TCSO states.

The warrant was a result of a joint investigation involving authorities from Clayton County, Georgia, the State of Georgia, and the FBI on the abduction of a 3-year-old Georgia boy by his father, Siraj Wahhaj. TCSO says investigators had reason to believe they were at the compound.

Authorities have been searching for the boy and his father since December, according to the Clayton County Police Department's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/944282011887431680

TCSO says the missing boy was not found at the site, but two men were arrested, including Wahhaj. He was arrested on his no-bond warrant for child abduction issued in Georgia, while Lucas Morten faces charges of harboring a fugitive.

The females were released after being detained for questioning, the post states. None of them provided information on the missing Georgia boy.

TCSO's release did not identify the other children or adults found at the compound, but "it is reasonably believed (the missing boy) was there a few weeks ago."

The release states Taos County Sheriff Jerry Hogrefe decided to execute a search warrant when a Georgia detective informed them of a message sent to a third party that stated, in part, "We are starving, and need food and water."

The TCSO post states there were no major incidents or injuries as the compound was being raided, but the suspects initially refused to surrender to authorities. They had an AR-15 rifle, four pistols and several magazines with them in the compound, which consisted of "a small travel trailer buried in the ground covered by plastic with no water, plumbing or electricity."

Hogrefe in the post states that five adults and 11 children were discovered and "looked like third world country refugees not only with no food or fresh water, but with no shoes, personal hygiene and basically dirty rags for clothing."

The TCSO post also states that, upon further search of the property, the only food they could find were some potatoes and a box of rice.

Our NBC partners in Atlanta reported that the boy and his father were last seen in a single-vehicle crash on Dec. 13 in Alabama. They were traveling with other adults and children en route to New Mexico "for a camping trip," WXIA reported.

WXIA also reported the boy is supposed to take medication as he suffers from seizures and an inability to walk since birth. His mother told WXIA in Atlanta that she wasn't sure "if her child has any medication with him" at the time he was abducted.

In a statement to KOB, CYFD Secretary Monique Jacobson said, "CYFD has been working around the clock on this case. We will continue to work closely with Law Enforcement on this investigation. The children are in our custody and our number one priority right now is their health and safety."

 

[aragorn]

This interview was streamed just some hours ago. This guy seems to be in real danger and in a very desperate situation. Very brave of him to come out in the open. I's suggest that you all help to spread this by sharing on SM – more exposure could give him some additional protection.

 

[Oxajil]

Thanks for sharing all this info, aragorn. Would it be an idea for you to put them all together (your latest posts) and make an article out of it? I've noticed that when it comes to this topic, there are also several articles out there that are clearly disinformation (for example this one), which might make people think the rest must be too. There are many stories out there that are difficult to verify! So it helps I think to get all the data and facts, if possible, all together to get the word out, so to speak. Just a thought!

Oh, one last thing. Barnett mentions something called EMDR, that stands for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, as a way to retrieve suppressed memories. Hav any of you guys looked into that?

Yeah, it's my plan to learn this method. As far as I understand, and I'm still studying it, there has to be a traumatic memory from the person (so, not a suppressed one) that will be used during EMDR which could help minimize the effects of that particular traumatic experience on the person's life, but it is possible that details could come up that were suppressed. But I'll have to look deeper into it.

 

[hiker]

Isaac Kappy has named Stephen King as a pedophile. At first I thought, no way. How could someone who is able to weave characters with such skill, and who seems to able to identify and feel empathy for the characters, be a pedophile?

Again, there is the other side of the coin.

-In the book "It", King describes an orgy between the main characters who are 11 years old.
-In some of his other books there are questionable parts when it comes to sex, e.g. rape scenes.
-Personally I have found it bothersome how he seems to downplay conspiracy theories and hail the "mainstream". For example, he repeatedly states that (zionist) conspiracies don't exist, Oswald killed JFK, 9/11 happened as the officials say, etc. Is it pure ignorance or is the behaviour intentional?
-On his twitter account he goes after Trump viciously, and of course King is a staunch Killary Clinton supporter.

Is he a pedophile? Nothing would surprise me at this point.

I came accross some new info on Tom Hanks, below is a quote taken from a reddit thread (I have censored the swear words).
Hank's instagram feed is indeed really disturbing.

www.reddit.com/r/PedoGate/comments/92ynwe/tom_hanks_pretty_sure_your_career_is_fucked_and/

EXHIBIT 1)

His own f*cking Instragram.

Yes, just like the other celebs mentioned above, Tom Hanks' IG account is a glaring admission of some disgusting, dark psychology. The prevailing theme that dominates and monopolizes almost the entirety of his profile is featuring single discarded or lost gloves and shoes. Often, they are childrens' gloves and shoes. On each one, he jokes with a tongue-in-cheek quip. Except if you take these captions *literally*, you begin to understand how f*cking demented this guy is, and the true implications of these posts. Ultimately, looking at things in a literal sense it will become how truly obvious this guy is about his demons. I think this probably happened around the time of The Da Vinci Code, and this is not who he's always been (but did have the potential to be).

Please keep in mind, this summary will become very grotesque. At some point, Hanks transformed into an absolute psychopath able to joke about an unspeakable violence with incredible indifference and even demented humor.

For example: r/https://www.instagram.com/p/BNDILrRAsea/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1c2drsl0hpp7x
Caption: "Why is the baby so fussy? Here's why! Cold out there. Hanx." Hanks is joking that whatever baby this article of clothing DID belong to, the baby was literally fussy.

How about this one: r/https://www.instagram.com/p/BWNinVbBJSM/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=15ilqdzxd32tv
Caption: "That girl? Hopping around the park on one foot? Here's why. Hanx." Again, think literally.

Another: r/https://www.instagram.com/p/BB_botLF7T8/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1mks24aqlaibl
Caption: "Cold hand somewhere! Hanx" Yes, literally.

As your browse his posts, you'll see almost every single photo and caption are like this. In addition, he also features an ominous building in NY with no windows and asks in hyperbole "WTF goes on here???" Well, you probably know better than us, Tom.

In another, he features the album-art of a son's friend (who he himself is a -flicked- up artist) titled 'Sorry', featuring a little boy, eyes closed in a mask and looking dead. Why would Hanks feel compelled to promote this work, over all his other Entertainment peers? And you wouldn't think that the artists' fans are necessarily Tom Hanks' target-audience. And why wouldn't someone like Hanks be worried about the backlash this photo could create? Hubris. It all comes down to hubris.

Personally I feel like boycotting the movies and books by these suscepts.

If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend watching it. Fiona Barnett tells her horrific story in this documentary called 'The Candy Girl'. She seems like a incredibly strong individual. Be warned though, some of the stuff - well actually most of the stuff - she tells is beyond horrific.

I watched the documetary and am speechless, utterly disturbed and angry. I was aware of the pedophilia phenomenon in the power circles previously, but watching and reading these new allegations have hit me like a ton of bricks, it seems to be literally everywhere, from politics to entertainment industry. Pedophilia alone is disturbing, but the satanic angle adds an utterly sick element to it all. Maybe there are some exaggerations included in the accusations(?), but all the evidence seems to point to majority of it being true, like aragorn concluded in an earlier post.

I guess what we can do is to follow Barnett's advice: feel anguish about the pedophilia situation and be emphatetic to the victims, and not join the crowd that is actively discrediting the victims. It could be added that one should continue to self-improve and aim to be a decent person to counter this devastating evilness.

 

[aragorn]

I hear you, hiker. I had a similar reaction!

We've all seen news about pedophilia and the evil practices that go along with it for many, many years, but as you start to realize how widespread and common this thing is, it really makes you sick to the stomach and angry! Many of these high profile cases have not yet been conclusively proven, but there are too many coincidences, too many features and details that these individuals share for it all to be just fantasy. One of the things that makes me especially angry is how these sickos enjoy displaying their pedophilia in form of symbols, jokes etc. in various half-hidden and suggestive ways. Just look at the tattoos some of these Hollywood stars have on them: known symbols of pedophilia. Just today I saw a tweet with Johnny Depp having the 'double heart' (a known symbol for love for small girls) as a tattoo on his arm, and several images of him hanging with Marily Manson.

Now, even if you are not a sicko, why would you tattoo something like that, and why would you associate yourself with people like that?
I suspect that these people enjoy showing these suggestive symbols and other stuff, to show their omnipotence, like "Haha, these people are stupid...here I am showing all these clear signs of pedophilia...but they can't do anything about it...they don't even notice it...I'm untouchable!" It could also be, that in certain "Satanic" circles, they believe that feeding this stuff to peoples subconsciousnesses gives them some kind of power.

One of the explanations for the prevalence of these practices has to be, that the "system" is designed that way: if you want to have fame and fortune, you're forced to associate yourself with these evil people and once lured to join, you get yourself "infected". I'm sure some of them don't realize what they've gotten themselves into before it's too late, before they are compromised (e.g. by a video with them at some party fondling a naked child). Or, it could also be, that as with psychopaths (as I'm sure most of these people are anyway), they probe and search for people like themselves, and once they recognize a "peer", they invite them to join.

The other "already known" thing that hit me was the faces and demeanor of these predators. I've known for long how psychopaths (especially the "best" ones) can fool anyone, and can appear über-normal. However, somehow seeing these kind and normal lookin faces of convicted professors, teachers, policemen, musicians, movie stars etc. (some of them having done unimaginably evil things) has made the horror of the situation really sink in. For instance, reading some of these pages you learn that the most "teddy bear" and kind looking university professor has raped babies, tortured and murdered children. I'm probably sounding paranoid, but right now I feel that anyone could be a suspect. I can't but wonder, how many of the people I know and of the people I meet on the streets, stores, schools, universities are into this evil stuff.

 

[aragorn]

A short analysis of Isaac Kappy's body language by Bombards Body Language [10min]:

In short, she's saying that Kappy has the personality of an attention seeker and someone who has not quite grown up, but that he's being truthful.

I surprised when the presenter ('Bombard') said at the end, how she's not going to watch the whole video or similar exposing testimonies, because she doesn't like to deal with the subject.

 

[goyacobol]

A short analysis of Isaac Kappy's body language by Bombards Body Language [10min]:

In short, she's saying that Kappy has the personality of an attention seeker and someone who has not quite grown up, but that he's being truthful.

I surprised when the presenter ('Bombard') said at the end, how she's not going to watch the whole video or similar exposing testimonies, because she doesn't like to deal with the subject.

aragorn,

I was kind of surprised that the body language analysis she gave still lends credibility to Kappy's storyline even though he has an attention seeking personality. I think I liked the Candy Girl video the best because it seems more detailed in a personal way that is very believable. What I am wondering is whether the victims or even the supporters of victims are themselves being used for cointelpro unwittingly.

I think many of us would love to see the "big fish" get caught and that makes us take the bait eagerly when there is even a hint that supports our suspicions. The downside I think is that when these sometimes flimsy accusations are discredited it causes the whole topic to be debunked as a hoax or just conspiracy minded nonsense.

As I was recently reminded in a discussion of this subject the, Cs gave a caution over the subject of the Clinton's depiction as described in a book Trance Formation of America by Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips. You can read the background in The Wave Chapter 21.

Here is what they had to say:

The Wave Chapter 21: Roswell Revisited or Shades of the X-Files

September 19, 1998

Q: (L) I have several things from the little mail list that I would like to get to first because I think they may go fairly quick. The first is this book called Trance Formation of America; The True-Life Story of a CIA Slave by Cathy O’Brien with Mark Phillips. There is a rather lengthy quote from this book here that we have all read. I certainly am not going to read it out loud because I don’t want to have to type such a thing myself, so I won’t read it, but I am sure you are aware of what it says. What I would like to know is: what is the motivation behind the authors of this book?

A: Disruption.

Q: (L) Disruption of what?

A: Anyone disruptable.

Q: (L) It specifically seems to be aimed at the Clintons or the power structure. Are any of these descriptions of the behaviors of Hillary and Bill Clinton as explicated in this extract anywhere near close to reality?

A: Anywhere near? Well maybe, but not as described.

Q: (L) Is there such a thing as this girl describes? These CIA slaves that are sexually mutilated and programmed with this mind control programming that she has described?

A: Any such experiment would be handled by the cellular structure of pseudo-governmental satellite, not normally by CIA.

Q: (L) So, what you seem to be implying is that what is described here is taking place?

A: To an extent, but the story as related is fictional.

Fiona Barnet repeatedly refers to the CIA as the main perpetrators and that may be understandable. I think she has been as truthful as any abused victim could be. We really just don't know how much has been possibly obscured from her own memory. The recent accusations of famous Hollywood actors could be a kind red herring to in the end "disrupt" the whole pedophilia/sex trafficking horror story from being taken seriously.

 

[Yas]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I wanted to share it somewhere.

Apparently France has passed a law that is causing controversy, concerning child protection against pedophilia.

As far as I can gather, at first the debate was about establishing an a minimal age of consent under which minors wouldn't be allowed to give consent to sexual intercourse and ANY intercourse with kids under that age would automatically be considered a crime.

Then, France decided to pass the law without establishing this age of consent but adding some more "subtle" language to determine whether there was a rape or not and painted it as a concern with "human rights".

Here's a DeepL translation from a news article in French:

Child protection associations were outraged after the adoption of the law against sexual and gender-based violence. According to them, the government has broken its "promise" by renouncing to set a minimum age of sexual consent.

On 3 August, the bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa Law, was adopted officially by Parliament, but children's associations denounce a withdrawal by the government on a "promise": to set a minimum age for sexual consent.

In a statement, the associations Coup de pouce, Agir contre la prostitution des enfants and the Conseil français des associations pour les droits de l'enfant protested: "This was to be the flagship measure of the bill: the introduction of an age below which children would automatically be considered unable to consent to sexual relations with adults."

The wish of these associations was as follows: see written in the law that any penetration on a young minor would have constituted in fact a rape. This abandonment of the legal age of consent may indeed be surprising, since the debate initially focused on the appropriate threshold: 13 or 15 years. Finally, the choice was made to abandon the minimum age principle.

In its final version, the Schiappa Law provides that, for children under 15 years of age, "moral coercion or surprise characterize the abuse of the victim's vulnerability without the necessary discernment for these acts". For the former Minister for Women's Rights and Socialist Senator Laurence Rossignol, these notions of "vulnerability" and "discernment" leave too much space for judges to judge freely.

Jacky Coulon, of the Union Syndicale des Magistrats, pointed to "a government communication problem" and explained to AFP: "Criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence, a principle that dates back to the declaration of human rights. If this presumption of guilt had been retained in the law, it would have been deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council." The judge also states that the penalty for rape of a minor under 15 years of age is 20 years' imprisonment.

Then another article adds how the law focuses on the child's consent:

"It will always be up to the child to prove that he did not consent." The penalty for rape of a minor under 15 years of age is 20 years imprisonment, it stresses. The text adopted on Wednesday evening aims to strengthen the repression of rape and sexual abuse committed against minors, after two cases in which 11-year-old girls were considered by the courts as consenting to sexual relations with adult men. "The final text makes confused reference to the 'abuse of vulnerability' and the victim's lack of 'discernment'. (...) It will always be up to the child to prove that he did not consent to the sexual act with an adult", denounce the associations.

So these illogical people decided that a solution would be to focus even more on the child's consent??? I mean, you have a case that proved how ineffective it is to focus on a child's consent because it will always be harder to establish the facts based on something as ambiguous as "consent", and you decide that expanding the notion to even more ambiguous terms such as "moral coercion", "surprise", "vulnerabilities" and "discernment" are going to solve the issue? What is wrong with these people?!

They're painting it as even more protection when they're actually leaving children more vulnerable. And then there's the statement by Jacky Coulon which misleads on the issue of presumption of innocence. Having an age of consent in the law would NOT infringe that principle because (and I'm rather surprised that this man wouldn't have thought of this) an adult accused of raping a minor under the age of consent could be considered innocent before being condemned. Nobody ever said that they would be condemned immediately without due process. The difference would be that the process would be focused on the FACT of the sexual intercourse with a minor, that is, whether or not the adult had the intercourse or not... and NOT on the consent by the child, which is more difficult to "prove" and leaves too much ambiguity.

I don't know the deep details of the law, so my assessment might be off, and that's also why I wanted to share it here. For me, this law certainly shows how the authorities are really refusing to protect the children in France.

(The cases mentioned and the draft for this law were also mentioned in this SOTT article)

 

[aragorn]

It seems like the guy at LiftTheVeil is doing a pretty good job in trying to expose these sickos, and he seems quite balanced. He helped the recent whistleblower Michael (see the video in one of the previous posts) with moving him in to a safer location (there were apparently other people involved also), and gave some money to him for basic necessities. As always, we need to be careful with who we follow, but so far this guy is looking to be one of the smarter 'white hats' out there. Here's a recent clip:

 

[Yas]

I don't know the deep details of the law, so my assessment might be off, and that's also why I wanted to share it here. For me, this law certainly shows how the authorities are really refusing to protect the children in France.

Now, after thinking some more and re-reading Pierre's article, I'm confused on whether the demands to have a more explicit age of consent are something to defend or not. The thing is that the law concerning legal age of sexual relations is somewhat different to other countries, and that's probably where the confusion arises.

In his article there's this:

The important point here is that, unlike France, most other Western nations make no distinction between the legal age for sexual relations and the concept of consent. In Ireland, for example, the legal age below which it is a crime to have sex with a child is 17 - if an adult engages in sexual relations with a child below 17 then it is presumed that no consent can be given by the child.

And...

Despite these attempts by the French government and courts to deceptively sneak this legislation in through the back door, many people in France are still asking why the draft law doesn't make the age of consent explicit and keep it at 15?

So in that occasion the debate was about lowering the age of consent to 13. Now, the issue is that the law doesn't add an age of consent at all. It just says, as it was before, that any intercourse with a minor under 15 is considered "atteinte sexualle" (corruption of a minor) and it only adds some more conditions under which the judges can determine that the minor didn't consent and therefore charge more severely. In theory, that would be good, because it adds things as "moral coercion" and the notions of damaging the child's vulnerabilities. So maybe I'm wrong in thinking that these notions are too ambiguous to rely on them?

In Pierre's article:

Simple presumption of non-consent VS irrefutable presumption of non-consent

Most countries have set the age under which it is illegal to engage in sexual relations with a child at 15 to 18 while considering that below this age there is a simple presumption of non-consent and that age difference is a legal parameter.

What this means is that while the court presumes that the victim did not give consent, the accused can provide evidence that there was consent. France, on the other hand, is taking almost the exact opposite approach by setting in stone a very low age at which a child can be presumed to be able to consent (13) while considering that below this age non-consent is irrefutable, while being legally vague about age difference.

In this context, imagine an 18-year-old boy and a girl aged 12 years and 11 months. Even if the accused boy provides evidence that the victim repeatedly requested sex, had extensive experience in the domain, and provided a fake ID stating that she was, say, 15-years old, according to the French draft law, the victim did not consent. The 18-year-old accused will consequently be declared guilty of rape and spend about 15 years behind bars.

As you can see, 'age of consent' is not a simple black-and-white topic. Every case is different and the law should leave enough room for the judges to examine each context and judge accordingly. This context-specific approach allows the court to deal in a more just and flexible way with exceptional cases. Exceptional cases are unfortunately growing in number because of powerful cultural factors.

So the issue there was, again, that they wanted to lower the age to 13, but I'm wondering, is it OK to leave it as it is now? Is this new law actually OK and people who are outraged by it are just making noise? Wouldn't it be better to have an actual age of consent explicitly declared as in other countries were there is an assumption that there's no consent under the age of, say, 15. From what I read there, this is how things worked in France even if the law itself was (and is) a bit ambiguous about it... So what's all the outrage about if it's basically the same thing?

 

[Windmill knight]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I wanted to share it somewhere.

Apparently France has passed a law that is causing controversy, concerning child protection against pedophilia.

As far as I can gather, at first the debate was about establishing an a minimal age of consent under which minors wouldn't be allowed to give consent to sexual intercourse and ANY intercourse with kids under that age would automatically be considered a crime.

Then, France decided to pass the law without establishing this age of consent but adding some more "subtle" language to determine whether there was a rape or not and painted it as a concern with "human rights".

We had an article brought to the attention of Spanish Sott that said that France had pretty much 'legalized pedophilia'. As Sott editors, we wanted to know what this was about. While it is true that a number of associations in France complained about the issue of the age of consent, there were many confusing articles about it, both in English and French, some contradicting each other. I was so confused myself that I went read the relevant fragments in the actual law, and this is what I found:

Lorsque les faits sont commis sur la personne d’un mineur de quinze ans, la contrainte morale ou la surprise sont caractérisées par l’abus de la vulnérabilité de la victime ne disposant pas du discernement nécessaire pour ces actes. [...]

Hors le cas de viol ou de toute autre agression sexuelle, le fait, par un majeur, d’exercer une atteinte sexuelle sur un mineur de quinze ans est puni de sept ans d’emprisonnement et de 100 000 € d’amende. [...]

Lorsque l’accusé majeur est mis en accusation du chef de viol aggravé par la minorité de quinze ans de la victime, le président pose la question subsidiaire de la qualification d’atteinte sexuelle sur la personne d’un mineur de quinze ans si l’existence de violences ou d’une contrainte, menace ou surprise a été contestée au cours des débats.

Translated with Deep L:

When the acts are committed against the person of a minor under 15 years of age, moral coercion or surprise are characterised by the abuse of the victim's vulnerability without having the necessary discernment for these acts. [...]

Except in the case of rape or any other sexual assault, the act, by an adult, of sexually assaulting a minor under fifteen years of age shall be punishable by seven years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000. [...]

Where the accused of full age is charged with rape aggravated by the victim's 15-year-old minority, the President asks the subsidiary question of whether a person under the age of 15 is sexually assaulted if the existence of violence or coercion, threat or surprise was contested during the proceedings.

Wikipedia says:

En France, l'atteinte sexuelle sur mineur est une infraction prohibant et réprimant les relations sexuelles, y compris consenties, entre un majeur et un mineur sexuel. Cet acte est considéré comme un délit.

Translated:

In France, sexual assault of a minor is an offence prohibiting and punishing sexual relations, including consensual ones, between an adult and a sexual minor. This act is considered an offence.

What I understand from the above quotes is that sexual acts with a person less than 15 years old is still always illegal; that is what "atteinte sexuelle" is, which Deep L translates as "sexual assault", but could also be translated as "sexual infraction", and is punishable with 7 years in jail and a 100,000 eur fine. That is, even if there is 'consent'. On top of that, there can also be rape, which is more serious. The law has made it easier to classify an act with a minor as rape, because "moral coercion or surprise" can be presumed because of "abuse of vulnerability". Obviously, it will be up to the judge to decide that, and one problem is that if rape is not automatically assumed, the decision has to be made on a text which is rather ambiguous.

So, while strictly speaking there is no age of consent (because in theory sex with a minor may not be rape), it is also not true that 'pedophilia has been legalized in France', as some alternative outlets were claiming. As I understand it, 'atteinte sexuelle' is the equivalent to statutory rape in other countries, but it's not called rape. And, I think the associations are complaining because they want an age of consent, i.e. an age under which it is always assumed that rape took place.

So the law is not as bad as some in the media were saying, but I'm still not comfortable with the fact that the language seems to have relaxed (or was it always like this?), which may eventually make it easier on pedophiles.