Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Lucia US Pedophile protection act

Unbelievable. I am stunned. While many people could see that this would be the eventual outcome of the normalisation of homosexuality, it's one thing to predict something, it's quite another to see it actually happen. First hate crimes elevate homosexual persons to a protected class, and now this.
Wrote Porter, "I've written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do. It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term 'sexual orientation' which has been added to the 'hate crimes' legislation includes them in the American Psychiatric Association's definition of various 'sexual orientations."

Related Link: Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'
'Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'philias'
~ WorldNetDaily

13 comment(s):

Libertyscott said...

Of course Ted Kennedy promotes it, the Kennedy family is known to be a bastion of morality. How many "philias" can Ted be linked to?

Canterbury Atheists said...

Don’t you think this is a bit-rich LM given that, of the 15 largest Catholic Countries in the world, six think 12 year olds should be able is to engage in sex?

The average age of the 15 was 14 years old.

Interestingly The Vatican City (not one of the list I surveyed by the way, refer to link at bottom) has the lowest age of consent in Europe – also set at 12 years old!

Although it varies from state to state, by and large the U.S has similar laws to New Zealand i.e. 16year old deemed to be able to consent to sex, regardless of orientation. Some states set the homosexual age higher.

LM why you want to highlight this small ‘nothing’ article and then overlook 12 year-olds lawfully having sex with adults in so many of the predominately Catholic nations around the globe, including The Vatican itself, is beyond me?

As a New Zealander I am horrified to think of girls the same age as my daughter, engaging in sex.

I can only think you agree with the notion, given the apparent blessing of your Church, that twelve is the appropriate time for children to engage in sex?

Overall so-called Christian countries offer children less protection from sexual exploitation ,than if they had have been born in a secular country, even if you wish to ignore the elephant in the room.

Gotta go.

Nice talking.


LINK: http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2009/04/legacy-of-mary-vatican-city-approves-12.html

Madeleine said...

I am not surprised at all. When I did my infamaous pedophile research and learned far more about how the minds of pedophiles work and the lengths they will go to to tell themselves that what they do is healthy and good I could see that this sort of thing had been in development for years.

Non-NZ based IP's can go to the US site that features the fruits of my research you can actually read Jim Peron's pedophile apologist journal written back in the 1980's and you will see some of what I mean. [NZ based IP's will be breaking NZ law if they read it, the site and the report I wrote are legal to read, just don't touch the Unbound download if you are NZ based]

Peron's own article is a rant about the difference between men who love boys and men who rape children - the latter are despicable, while critics of the former are hysterics.

To complete my research I actually had to make contact with a psychologist that had been published in Peron's publication who wrote the most hideous articles about how healthy and good for children pedophilia was.

The minute you accept the sexual orientation argument the floodgates were just waiting to be opened. Pedophilia, necrophilia, incest and polygamy - which we are already seeing being mainstreamed. It is so hard to draw lines if you leave God out of the picture.

Lucia Maria said...


many Catholic countries allow abortion, which is considered to be such a grave sin that it incurs automatic excommunication upon anyone who procures one.

Catholic countries have also directed serious anti-Catholic persecutions against their own countrymen and women.

Any country that contains a large number of Catholics is not necessarily going to follow Catholic morality ... your own posts about how Catholics in NZ ignore contraceptive rules proves that.

So, what's your point again?

ZenTiger said...

And yet Paul, you are prepared to excuse Family Planning Clinics from failing to report cases of older men having illegal sex with minors, as well as hiding this information from their parents.

All in a secular country.

Canterbury Atheists said...

The Vatican City is not a Catholic Country – now you guys are taking the piss.

Brazil is not a Catholic Country?

Italy? Philippines? Mexico etc.

These countries I surveyed are all predominately Catholic with religion involved in the very fabric of society.

Many of these Catholic countries see fit to draw-up laws which permit adults have sex with a 12 year-olds.

In terms of what your article is wishing to highlight, the mass (get the pun?) legalised abuse of children in Catholic countries is way higher in so-called Christian countries than secular/atheist countries.

It’s disgusting The Vatican City itself sees fit to think 12 year olds can have sex with an adult – so as a Catholic you tell me why The Vatican City etc sets 12 as the age of consent?

This must be the most Catholic Place on the planet, yet a man can have sex with a child - legally!!

Because it's legal in Catholic Countries it makes it right, eh?

See ya, off to work.


Lucia Maria said...


It's not that all the countries you list are not countries with a predominant Catholic population - obviously they are. However, secular and church law are most often separate. The Catholic Church does NOT operate as a theocracy. Lawmakers are free to pass laws that contradict church law - the church will protest - but there's no way of enforcing Catholic morality on Catholic lawmakers.

The Vatican City of course, you would think, would be immune from all of this as it's main reason for existing is as the home state of the Pope. However, all Vatican City laws have up until just recently, been automatically adopted from Italian law as part of the Lateran Treaty signed over 80 years ago. That is up until just recently when the Vatican decided it was no longer going to automatically adopt Italian law because there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles. (see Vatican divorces from Italian law.

So it's most likely that the Vatican did not set 12 as the age of consent - Italy did - and that age of consent was automatically adopted by the Vatican City.

Also, Church law does NOT allow for sex outside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is considered a mortal sin (ie you go to Hell).

I certainly do not want my 12 year old to be engaging in sexual activity, but in reality, if he decided to in NZ (and it is illegal in NZ for him to do so), would the law prosecute him or his sexual partner?

We all know the answer to that, don't we?

ZenTiger said...

The age of consent is effectively 15 in the Vatican City if there is an adult involved. All the Vatican laws were inherited from
Italian laws on its formation in 1929.

This is all theoretical though, because there are typically no child citizens. The population is around 600 to 1000. Citizenship is granted to resident workers who lose it on termination of employment.

A few citizens also serve outside of the Vatican City - living in other Countries etc, reducing the actual population of the Vatican City.

A day time population of around 3000 people represent workers who live outside the City and commute.

Your complaints about the Vatican do not take into account that it inherited Italian law, and there have been no cases testing the age of consent and therefore little inclination to change it.

People committing a crime in the City, get turned over to Italian authorities, although the Vatican pays the legal expenses involved in the courts - an outsource agreement effectively.

Crime comes largely from "visitors" who come in during the day to commit petty thefts due to the huge numbers of tourists.

Your complaints about the Vatican are all about posturing and nothing on substance.

The topic of the post is the legal implications to passing laws as discussed in the post, and the implications it becomes hate speech to speak out against the immorality of various sexual fetishes, or how any action against such people can be categorised as a hate crime, where the same action against some-one else is a mere misdemeanor.

You care about that or not?

Libertyscott said...

Madeleine said "It is so hard to draw lines if you leave God out of the picture."

No it isn't. It is simple. Consenting adults own their bodies, what they do is their business in a legal environment where women de jure and de facto have equal treatment to men.

Until children are old enough to understand the nature and consequences of what they do (i.e. are adults) they cannot legally consent to sexual activity with those who do.

You don't need religion to oppose harming and hurting children.

I.M Fletcher said...

libertyscott, it depends upon the culture though. For example, I believe that in ancient Roman culture it was considered normal to have sex with young boys (or was that Greek?).
In any case, it looks like our culture is on the cusp of swinging in that direction too, if Lucyna's article is anything to go by.

If you leave God out of the equation, you're not basing laws on a benchmark of morality, you're just making up your own morality based on groups of people agreeing on certain things, eg, the popular vote.

If enough persons agree that a certain thing is moral or immoral that doesn't make it so - not when measured against God's Law.

David Winter said...

Ugh, you have to stop believing everything you read wingnut daily. The act
doesn't make any 'protected classes'. It makes crimes motiviated by prejuduce
based on sexual orientation,religtion (WND just lied about that one),
ethinicity etc etc a distinct sort of crime with potentially greater penalties
and fedral support for investigation.
I think that's dumb, laws should be about what people do, not what they think
while they're doing it.

But it can only "criminalise christianity" (as claimed in the
article) if being chirstian requires one to commit crimes againsts minorities.
(it doesn't, does it?)

ZenTiger said...

There's theory, and there's practice David.

If a Priest makes a sermon saying that sodomy is wrong, then no doubt well will see a homosexual take action against an implied opinion about homosexuality amounting to "hate speech".

If we see Gay rights groups attacking people and property in a Church (and we have) you can bet it will not be processed as a "hate crime" - indeed some twisted logic will some-how make the Church responsible for their violent reaction.

It's a bad law even without the liklihood the practice of the law will differ from the theory behind it, and at least most rational people can see that.

Anonymous said...

"In the article entitled “Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate” (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of “sexual orientation” includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called “paraphilias” specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI [Illinois Family Institute] apologizes for the error."

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.