Posted on 03/02/2011 5:02:39 AM PST by Westbrook
OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.
Bill C-54, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code, seeks to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties or punishment on sexual offenders of children for particular crimes.
Parliamentary discussion on February 14 centered on the mandatory minimum imprisonment and how offenders respond to treatment. Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, experts on the issue, were called to witness.
“When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory,” said Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal.
“Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality,” emphasized Van Gijseghem.
“True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” He added, however: “He may however remain abstinent.”
MP Serge Ménard later praised the witnesses. “Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Quinsey,” said Ménard, “corrected some of our impressions.”
However, MP Marc Lemay of the Bloc Quebecois challenged Van Gijseghem’s definition. “I have to admit that I was not expecting, on this Valentine’s Day, to be talking about this inappropriate type of love. It is not really love. It has more to do with violence and control. I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem … because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.”
“That is what I said,” continued Van Gijseghem.
Lemay pursued the point, asking if it therefore should “be compared to homosexuality.”
“Yes, or heterosexuality,” responded Van Gijseghem. “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
During his witness, Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, said that pedophiles’ “sexual interests” “prefer prepubescent children.” “There is no evidence,” he said, “that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
“You can manage the risk that sex offenders present - even pedophiles,” added Quinsey, “It’s not necessarily that they need to change their sexual orientation; they need to learn to control themselves, with our help.” “In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation,” said Lemay, “I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it … I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011. You are telling me that even if we were to impose a five-year minimum on people it would not solve the problem. Once they get out of jail, they reoffend. That is worrisome.”
One columnist in the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley, expressed shock at Van Gijseghem’s testimony: “what really shocked me was the Universite de Montreal professor, Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, who showed up to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” He argued that “it’s time to take our country back by ignoring the ‘experts.’”
Contact information for Members of Parliament
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
“They think ugly is beautiful.”
That’s #23 on the Communist plan to destroy Western Civ:
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
I believe that Ayn Rand was wrong about some important things, but she understood some things very well. She had read her Aristotle. A=A. There are no contradictions. If you think you have found a contradiction, check your premises.
The post-modernists are bad philosophers. Very bad.
You may be right.
some times I wish it would hurry up
Me too.
No kidding? It seems like it to me.
Meanwhile, we have a job to do
Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Go to the link. It has been around for decades..........
Yes, well, being a SOCIOPATH is a “mental condition”, does that mean we ignore the body count?
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
I believe this as the truth though. What he is saying is perverts will be perverts, they can't change and those who are true pedophiles don't WANT to change. Stopping them from wanting to have sex with children is like trying to stop you or I from not getting turned on when a beautiful woman (or man) is coming on to you, it just isn't going to happen.
Now that they admit this then they have to admit that you can't cure it either, a pervert will be a pervert in his head no matter how you try to "reform" them. It will be up to them to abstain if they have the opportunity to rape a child because they admit here it can't be counseled out. It will all come down to having to trust them to "do the right thing", which will never work.
A sociopath is no different, and we lock them up forever for societies sake, his admission to this should amount to the same view towards perverts, either lock them up or make it impossible for them to act out their fantasies.
Will do. I wonder if the Libs know they are commies or are just stupid?
When does it get added to the Social Justice shopping cart of horrors?
If you're doin' it right you do!
Hey it is the Democrat Party Platform! They should just change their name to Communist.
The Communist goals for America has been around for a long time.
“The Naked Communist” was the book that listed them out, and was written in 1958.
And, they’ve implemented most of them. Back when it was written, people scoffed at any of these goals ever being successful. Well... read them and tell me which ones are “unreasonable” now.
Watch this -
http://agendadocumentary.com
More proof that the truce that the RINO’s are calling for on social issues is a very,VERY bad idea...
It is very obvious. We are being run by the Communist Party USA. They did it.
When one of them rails against somebody over being racist or sexist, just ask them "why do you insist on imposing your value system on X?", pointing out that the position that racism is bad is itself a moral judgment. Watch their heads explode.
From the Agenda movie: either they’re ignorant or evil, and the more you study the issue, the more you come to the conclusion that ignorance isn’t the likely conclusion.
I think part of it comes from their belief in “utopia” - the promise of the perfect egalitarian society “once we get through the rough part”.
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.