Posted on 07/08/2005 10:28:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
Now that the gay lobby has successfully persuaded the Parliament of Canada to legalize same-sex marriage, the question arises: What will it do next?
Will it retreat for a time into inactivity and wait for the public to bestow semi-respectability on the new condition? Or will it brazenly push the government to silence Christian churches that carry the gay-marriage conflict into the next federal election by removing their tax deductibility status? Or will it open a new campaign to prohibit all criticism of homosexual practice on moral grounds by deeming it an exercise in "hate"?
Last week, eight days after the bill went through the Commons, Canadians learned the answer. While the lobby may pursue some of the above, it would also push forward against the last standing barrier to sexual "freedom." It would tackle the laws against sex with children.
Not directly, of course. Public opinion has not "advanced" sufficiently to accept pedophilia. But it will fight a current government move to tighten the child pornography section in the Criminal Code. The gays will insist that possession of material that represents sex with children remain legal in Canada on "educational" or "artistic" grounds, provided the representation is the product of a writer's or artist's imagination and that no actual children were involved in its production.
This exemption was made three years ago by a British Columbia court trying a self-confessed possessor of photographs and stories of children engaged in sexual activity. The court convicted him for possessing the photographs and acquitted him for the purely "imaginary" material.
This meant that drawings and stories of children engaged in sex could be freely bought and sold in Canada. Public outrage at the ruling became so severe that the government introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove this exemption. The amendment has passed the Commons and is now before a Senate committee.
Last Wednesday, the Globe and Mail, chief voice of the gay lobby in the Canadian media, in a lengthy lead editorial launched a formal attack on the amendment. While acknowledging that "politicians are right to seek to protect the victims of that sick abusive trade," (i.e., child pornography), "they are wrong to lose their sense of proportion in fighting it."
The amendment would jeopardize the legality of such literary works as Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita," says the Globe. It "covers a wide territory: A 16-year-old sneaking a picture of a 17-year-old in a shower, or a 16-year-old who invites someone under 14 to touch his or her body. Writers beware."
The amendment also sets minimum sentences for people convicted under the section, denying the courts the right to let them off with a wrist slap. This, too, the Globe saw as a threat. It quoted approvingly the warning of one senator not to "impose new minimum sentences simply because some people consider the legal system and sentencing proceedings to be ineffective."
Such "glaring flaws," says the Globe, are being overlooked because "emotion is over-riding research." The amendment represents "an attempt to whittle away at free expression."
The Senate will pass the amendment, as the Globe knows full well. But the question arises: Why did this editorial appear now? After all, the amendment has been before Parliament for three years. Coming, as the editorial did, right on the heels of the gay-marriage bill, some kind of strategy must be involved. Clearly, it signals the next move in the culture war, the opening attack on the last sexual taboo.
The real battleground will not, of course, take place in Parliament at all. Whether the amendment survives in Canadian law, or is deemed unconstitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will be decided in the courts. The Globe's editorial is not aimed at senators, but at judges. It serves notice upon them: Here is where we're going next.
"Educating the public" to this new reality will naturally take time. But the arts lead the culture. If purely imaginary drawings and stories of sex between children and adults can be made acceptable today, creeping first into literature and the visual arts, then into music, then into the movies, eventually the physical acts themselves will become acceptable as well. That's the way things work.
So it's onward until the last bastion falls. The fact that our whole society may be collapsing along with it has not been seriously considered. History alone testifies to that possibility, but so what? Who reads history?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Ah, what about necrophilia ?
This is just sick ..
ping
Later pingout. I saw this coming around '89. Around 91 or so I was living in SF and read about some professor at a college there (was it SF State? Or something) who taught a mandatory class for all freshmen, who promoted pedophilia. Actually edited or wrote for a Dutch homosexual/pedophile magazine. Naturally I wrote a lette to the Chronicle about it which of course they didn't print.
Good. It's about time.
I don't understand how pedophilia can fall under even the most liberal understanding of "free expression."
Because if they admit that anything is "wrong" the concept might take hold and other things might be "wrong". As they stand now, nothing is wrong except those who say some things are "wrong".
Liberalism is a mental illness.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
They are lumberjacks and they're ok.... not.
Well, for the ban on non-photographic kiddy porn, if Canada manages to do it they will have bested our own SCOTUS.
You mean..stories?!
Great. A "trashy romance kiddy" section at the bookstore.
You're thinking of psychologist DeCecco at San Francisco State University - he edited the pedophilia magazine Paidika from the Netherlands.
That was him. I was trying to remember the name of the mag.
You know all.
Their entire philosophy is founded in rank hypocrisy. No one can judge - except they can sure as heck judge those who judge. No one can say that anything is "wrong" - except saying something is wrong is the ultimate sin.
They are lying liars living a lie.
If they really thought that nothing is wrong they'd leave the Boy Scouts alone, and abortion "clinics" wouldn't mind protesters, and would allow women information about babies' development, and offer the alternative of adoption.
They are liars. They are the ultimate totalitarians.
I knew you were going to say that. :-) Seriously, I did, because you said that the last time this subject came up and I've had this information on the tip of my tongue just waiting for you to ask again. :-)
I really remember DeCecco because I was living in Santa Cruz at the time and remember reading about him and how he said sex with children isn't harmful to the children. Apparently after reading DeCecco's crap it was seared into my mind - perhaps I have him to thank for getting me in this culture war.
This is only temporary.
They will go down this road next, but, could I suggest to our Canucklehead neighbors to the north that bestiality come first, the better to make pedophilia normal?
Or, marriage to cow livers?
This would combine necrophilia and bestiality.
Age of consent measured in months?
What the heck, Eh?
coming back to this later
Let's not be too judgmental. Dims are trying to be really, really "tolerant and compassionate" of diversity, multi-culturalism, and the sexual preference proliferation (sob).
In the spirit of Dumbocrats (sniffle) sensitivity to all living things including Gitmo prisoners and the Koran (but excluding Christians, unborn babies, Terry Schiavo and flag-wavers), Dims are eager to flaunt their sexual tolerance, and win voters and contributions in the process.
As a prelude to 2008, Dr Dean, Bwaney Fwank, Hitlery and the rest of the "compassionate" libs, are gearing up to accomodate gays, transexuals, date-rapers, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, animal lovers, and whatever, to substantially increase the Dummycrat 2008 pervert vote.
As a means to achieve this end, Dims are creating sexually-oriented victim caucuses for the 2008 convention. The sexual identity caucuses consist of:
Unknown Gender Caucus (AKA heads-or-tails voters)
Necrophiliac Caucus (partners both genders as long as they are deceased)
Date-Rape Caucus (partner must be unconscious - as in Andrew Luster - Max Factor heir)
Inanimate-Object Caucus (partners non-humans such as cigars)
Bestiality Caucus (partners only with pets approved by PETA).
Transgender Caucus (whatever).
Sniffle.
The story of the ultra-liberal Dutch has yet to be told.
In the aftermath of the Natalee Holloway tragedy, the Arubans (governed by Dutch law) love to say their tiny island, whose 100,000 population is crammed into a space smaller than Manhattan, has only had one murder so far this year and that crime is rare.
Snort----crime is rare b/c nothing is a crime according to the notoriously ultra-liberal Dutch. In the Netherlands, life is cheap. Prostitution is considered no big deal as is their penchant for euthanasia on demand and pedophilia.
Aruba is also notorious as a stopping-off point for drug cartels.
The fact that 17-year old Joran vander Sloot was prowling casinos and bars, targeting young tourists---perhaps armed with date rape drugs to assure a score---is also indicative of liberal Dutch permissiveness.
Natalee Holloway's parents sent her to a place under the erroneous impression that values they prized predominated on Aruba.
How wrong they were.
What with its liberal Rube Goldberg justice system, a population with apparently no compunction about lying straight into the TV cameras, Aruba is the personification of Liberal Lies and Deceit Unlimited.
But, honey, I'm just DEAD tonight...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.