Oh *****.

On 16 Aug 2006 10:48:08 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@bluebottle.com> wrote:

Oh *****.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:48:08 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The real danger of a Dutch court's loony decision

Oh please, just because they have the right to "run" doesn't mean anything.

You know we have a Communist party in the US and they run all the time?

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:48:08 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The real danger of a Dutch court's loony decision

Oh please, just because they have the right to "run" doesn't mean anything.

You know we have a Communist party in the US and they run all the time?

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-07-19td.html


Theodore Dalrymple

Power to the Pedophiles

The real danger of a Dutch court's loony decision

19 July 2006


Once upon a time, satire was a commentary on life, but nowadays it
seems as if life is a commentary on satire. How else are we to describe
the decision of the Dutch court to allow the Brotherly Love, Freedom,
and Diversity Party to contest the next elections?

The party was formed by pedophiles, and its political program consists
of lowering the age of consent to sexual intercourse from 16 to 12, the
legalization of the possession of child pornography and of sexual
intercourse with animals (provided, of course, that they are not
ill-treated and do not suffer as a result), as well as legal license to
broadcast pornography during the day and violent pornography at night.
It wants also to remove the taboo on pedophilia-a taboo that party
spokesmen claim has strengthened since the conviction of Marc Dutroux
in Belgium, who kidnapped six girls for sexual purposes and starved and
tortured four of them to death. Perhaps he wouldn't have felt obliged
to kill them, the party contends, if pedophilia had not had such a bad
name in the first place.

The problem with the court's ruling is not that it is likely to bring
the Brotherly Love Party to power. The party is most unlikely to
receive the 5 percent of the votes that it needs to attain
parliamentary representation. Nor is it likely to encourage many of the
Dutch to change their sexual practices, though it might in the long run
encourage experimentation precisely because of the breaking of the
taboo.

But the ruling opens even wider the dangerous gulf between the pays
l=E9gal and the pays r=E9el. According to a survey, 82 percent of the
Dutch population want the party outlawed, and this huge majority cannot
consist entirely of straitlaced Calvinists. It is not as if Dutch
society were illiberal and offered no opportunity whatever for the
expression of sexual difference, or as if it prescribed an inflexible
sexual code. But even the liberal Dutch obviously feel that society has
to draw a line somewhere.

Courts do not exist merely to codify the prejudices of the population,
of course, however strong they might be. Yet when court rulings are too
radically disconnected from the moral sensibility of the population,
the law itself comes into disrepute and loses the legitimacy that is
nine tenths of its power. There is then a risk of a breakdown of law
and order, and of a violent political backlash. It is not surprising
that one of the leaders of the Brotherly Love Party recently had to
flee a trailer park where he was staying.

There is another nagging worry about the ruling in Holland's present
circumstances. If society cannot protect itself from the activities of
a handful of pedophiles whose ability to threaten it with violence is
minimal, how will it protect itself (and on what basis) against the
activities of the far more numerous, determined, and dangerous
Islamists? Will this ruling be seen in times to come as but a sentence
in the long Dutch suicide note?

Remind us all how old Mary was when god impregnated her. Around 13?

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-07-19td.html


Theodore Dalrymple

Power to the Pedophiles

The real danger of a Dutch court's loony decision

19 July 2006


Once upon a time, satire was a commentary on life, but nowadays it
seems as if life is a commentary on satire. How else are we to describe
the decision of the Dutch court to allow the Brotherly Love, Freedom,
and Diversity Party to contest the next elections?

The party was formed by pedophiles, and its political program consists
of lowering the age of consent to sexual intercourse from 16 to 12, the
legalization of the possession of child pornography and of sexual
intercourse with animals (provided, of course, that they are not
ill-treated and do not suffer as a result), as well as legal license to
broadcast pornography during the day and violent pornography at night.
It wants also to remove the taboo on pedophilia-a taboo that party
spokesmen claim has strengthened since the conviction of Marc Dutroux
in Belgium, who kidnapped six girls for sexual purposes and starved and
tortured four of them to death. Perhaps he wouldn't have felt obliged
to kill them, the party contends, if pedophilia had not had such a bad
name in the first place.

The problem with the court's ruling is not that it is likely to bring
the Brotherly Love Party to power. The party is most unlikely to
receive the 5 percent of the votes that it needs to attain
parliamentary representation. Nor is it likely to encourage many of the
Dutch to change their sexual practices, though it might in the long run
encourage experimentation precisely because of the breaking of the
taboo.

But the ruling opens even wider the dangerous gulf between the pays
légal and the pays réel. According to a survey, 82 percent of the
Dutch population want the party outlawed, and this huge majority cannot
consist entirely of straitlaced Calvinists. It is not as if Dutch
society were illiberal and offered no opportunity whatever for the
expression of sexual difference, or as if it prescribed an inflexible
sexual code. But even the liberal Dutch obviously feel that society has
to draw a line somewhere.

Courts do not exist merely to codify the prejudices of the population,
of course, however strong they might be. Yet when court rulings are too
radically disconnected from the moral sensibility of the population,
the law itself comes into disrepute and loses the legitimacy that is
nine tenths of its power. There is then a risk of a breakdown of law
and order, and of a violent political backlash. It is not surprising
that one of the leaders of the Brotherly Love Party recently had to
flee a trailer park where he was staying.

There is another nagging worry about the ruling in Holland's present
circumstances. If society cannot protect itself from the activities of
a handful of pedophiles whose ability to threaten it with violence is
minimal, how will it protect itself (and on what basis) against the
activities of the far more numerous, determined, and dangerous
Islamists? Will this ruling be seen in times to come as but a sentence
in the long Dutch suicide note?

Remind us all how old Mary was when god impregnated her. Around 13?