An outcry recently by Holland's media as the PNVD (Party for Charity, Freedom and diversity). This advocates the legalization of child eroticism, and a reduction of the age from 14 to 12 years, and is therefore entitled to be a "pedophile" party. Much ado about nothing? Or is there more to it?
way: The foreign word "pedophiles" are the two Greek words "Pädos" and "Philo" meaning: child and lover. Ad absurdum is now the word "child lover" as a synonym for "child molester" misinterpreted. What is meant by the term actually means really pedosexual and describes the sexual preferences for children before puberty.
Back to topic: Without wishing to talk to deviate from what age a person as "ripe for sexual conduct is to apply ", will arise the question of how left far such decisions to the individual and the need to set the criteria for absolute age limits. protection measures have their place, even only as to unwanted pregnancies to be prevented. The substantive discussion should at least not with a primitive mud fight be stopped, as is achieved in this way is no solution.
In our society, one proceeds with a strict rejection of any sexuality of children under 16. As it officially is, should this approach the fight against child abuse. What are outgrowths of this absolutism lead, however, can show the following examples:
-In Australia, someone dragged to court because he published a porno for the fun of cartoon characters. It was about the American cartoon series The Simpsons. " (The TV series "The Simpsons" is an average American family and is an internationally popular everyday comedy). The two figures of children, "Lisa" and "beard" are also "verschandet" pornographic and loaded onto a facebook profile. Whether this is funny or not, everyone should decide for themselves. But the fact is that someone has a trial at the neck, although he has harmed anyone with his drawings. Is it justifiable for example, that someone in the Corner of child molester is made, just because he made some drawings?
-A well-known case is the Swedish children's film "Madicken. An absolutely harmless film by Astrid Lindgren plays around the time of the first World War II and revolves around the Swedish countryside. In a brief scene, the actress and her little sister Madicken be seen naked, but absolutely no sexual consent. This totally harmless film can be broadcast in prime time on Swedish regional stations. In the U.S. you vertretet apparently a different perspective as the film was declared as child pornography pädophiliefördernde-light and it started a recall campaign. The Swedish film company "Nordic Art" had a "trabeculae version of" produce, which this film is totally ridiculous.
The ban on the production of real child pornography is justified by the paralysis of children. It is considered abuse, unzurechnugsfähige people pose for porn leave and is therefore prohibited by the Youth Protection Act. The ban would have, but on the specific production target with real models. If all the general representation of all types are interpreted as child pornography images or the mere possession of which is punishable by the law practice gets into ridiculous depths. The criminality criterion must therefore turn to whether effective for the image a child has been abused or not. To view pictures of drawings, animations and artificial innocuous children's films would be harmless, because no real person in the game for it. The state has the task of the producers of real child porn sanction because minors takes place in real life and not in the virtual world.
is interesting that certain politicians have allowed themselves. What Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Green MEP and earlier in a violent radical leftist group with Joschka Fischer, the highest German Green, made in a kindergarten, can be best explained by his quote: "....
constant flirt with all children soon erotic moves "assumed" I could really feel how the little girl had learned of five already, to make me. "And how" several times happened that some kids my codpiece have opened and started to stroke me, "
he qualified this statement in retrospect a little with following statement: "5-year-old girls are too young to me. I prefer 7 -.. Years, I'll not know everything to teach themselves, "
front by a hysteria triggered due to benign images in children's films and drawings to in this way real to hide from children practiced perversions What emerges is a totally absurd reference to the real problem.
0 comments:
Post a Comment