Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Vote Yes on Proposition 12
May 30, 2006 7:59 AM   Subscribe

Vote Yes on Proposition 12? As in proposing a 12-year-old. Dutch pedophiles form a political party (English Wiki link)
Of course, they are not a one-idea party. They also favor "consensual sex between animals and humans".
posted by FeldBum (43 comments total)

 
How do you propose a twelve-year-old? Is that like "Hans, what shall we use to stop-up the dyke?" "I propose the twelve-year-old, Grettle."
posted by cytherea at 8:05 AM on May 30, 2006


Yuk. I thought this had to be a fake, but apparently it's not. (Link to Google cache so you don't have to visit revolting "Ped Community" site.) Still, it's just a publicity stunt with no conceivable impact on real life, unless the Dutch are a lot dumber than I think they are.
posted by languagehat at 8:06 AM on May 30, 2006


Quick, make Rick Santorum the Dutch ambassador!
posted by Heminator at 8:07 AM on May 30, 2006


Bark once if you want to go for a walk, bark twice if you want to throw on some Barry White and do some humpin'.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:08 AM on May 30, 2006


How do you propose a twelve-year-old? Is that like "Hans, what shall we use to stop-up the dyke?" "I propose the twelve-year-old, Grettle."

Ah yes, I meant propositioning. There went my pun :(
posted by FeldBum at 8:08 AM on May 30, 2006


Quick, make Rick Santorum the Dutch ambassador!

I second the nomination.
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on May 30, 2006


The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.

I am all for daytime porn, not so sure about the need for "violent pornography" at all, though.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

And these guys are radicals? Sounds pretty milquetoast to me.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:25 AM on May 30, 2006


I propose a 12 year old Nebbiolo Prunotto, but 1995 was a better year for many Piedmont winemakers
posted by matteo at 8:26 AM on May 30, 2006 [1 favorite]


The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

Charity, Freedom, and Diversity. Indeed.
posted by three blind mice at 8:31 AM on May 30, 2006


let them group: that way they'll float to the surface and can be watched.. doing something with what they say: no way!

plz remove 'amsterdam' as a tag here, don't want my hometown linked to this sjizzle.. Amsterdam != Netherlands
posted by borq at 8:58 AM on May 30, 2006


I'll not click on languagehat's link for fear that my computers will soon be carted out the door and I'll be lumped together with Pete Townsend.

I do know of a case where a prosecutorial target was done in when a cooperating witness called him up and said "hey, you gotta check out these wild pictures I found online, can I email them to you?"

Two hours later he's in custody, now sentenced to a couple of years.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:59 AM on May 30, 2006


Although their agenda is clearly objectionable and probably a publicity stunt, you must put it in context. Lowering the age of consent to 12 can be seen as a shocking thing in the US but in other countries the age of consent is already very low. It's 13 in Spain and Japan, 10 in Romania, 14 in italy and many other countries.
I lived in Amsterdam for seven years and in the city center you can have a McDonald's and a sex shops on the same steet. And I saw perfectly healthy and happy kids eating their happy meal while walking in front of a window with extremely explicit sexual images.

I don't necessarily agree with the party's agenda - although I have nothing against daytime pornography and I think 16 as the minimum age to appear in porn movies is not such a heretic statement - but I find the right wing christian conservative agenda much more shocking and unnatural.
posted by keepoutofreach at 9:05 AM on May 30, 2006


free train travel for all.

Hee, I can just imagine the policy meeting:

Paedophile Chairman: So, now that we've settled all the having sex with children and animals policies, does anyone have anything to add?

Paedophile Trainspotter: Free train travel for all!

Paedophile Chairman: Brilliant idea, added to the manifesto. Anyone fancy a pint? Or some sex with children?
posted by jack_mo at 9:08 AM on May 30, 2006


12? Hell, I don't have the patience to deal with anyone under 30.
posted by mischief at 9:11 AM on May 30, 2006


They also favor "consensual sex between animals and humans".

They no doubt are trying to broaden their base so they won't remain a splinter party.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:38 AM on May 30, 2006


How is it possible to have consensual sex with animals?
posted by jokeefe at 9:45 AM on May 30, 2006


I'll bet even these guys are creeped out by the Furries.
posted by maryh at 9:46 AM on May 30, 2006


NAMBLA: We're not killers!
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:50 AM on May 30, 2006


Hey, these guys want free train travel for all.

I guess so that they get can get to their child lovers more easily?

I don't think that sexual contact between children should be banned, but obviously what these guys are mainly after is the ability to exploit them.

How is it possible to have consensual sex with animals?

That's been debated here before, belive it or not.
posted by delmoi at 9:53 AM on May 30, 2006


"the bitch was asking for it"
posted by matteo at 10:11 AM on May 30, 2006


Hell, she was howling for it
posted by InfidelZombie at 10:25 AM on May 30, 2006


What's great about having sex in the shower with a 10 year old? You can slick his hair back and pretend he's 5.
posted by geoff. at 10:30 AM on May 30, 2006


sonofsamiam, FTW! "We at NAMBLA are productive members of society who, admittedly, like to molest small boys..."

God I love Mr. Show.

Romania age 10 consent? I can see 16, but 10? Jesus. Doesn't West Virginia have an age 14 age of consent?
posted by symbioid at 10:56 AM on May 30, 2006


How is it possible to have consensual sex with animals?

As someone who has worked with/owned horses and dogs: if they don't like the way you're messing with them, they will surely let you know.
posted by Drexen at 11:39 AM on May 30, 2006


It can also be very obvious if an animal is in the mood for sex. Never seen a dog humping a couch?
posted by Drexen at 11:42 AM on May 30, 2006


Romania age 10 consent?

I think he made that up. It's 15.

I don't think that sexual contact between children should be banned, but obviously what these guys are mainly after is the ability to exploit them.

Quite. I've always thought 16, the age of consent in the UK, is too high, if only because it technically criminalised me and everyone I had sex with before the age of 16, despite the fact that these were all wholly consensual sexual relationships with other people under the age of 16. I know cases like that are rarely prosecuted, but it seems wrong to send a message to two 13 year olds that their sex life is wrong/illegal...

I reckon a law taking into account age difference would make more sense, so that two 12 year olds having sex with each other would be fine, but an 18 year old having sex with a 12 year old would not. (Seems some countries, eg. Slovenia, take age difference/maturity
posted by jack_mo at 11:44 AM on May 30, 2006


... into account)

Something ate the end of my post there.
posted by jack_mo at 11:45 AM on May 30, 2006


*slowly backs away from Drexen*
posted by Zozo at 11:47 AM on May 30, 2006


Colorado has an age difference law, too.
posted by jack_mo at 11:52 AM on May 30, 2006


Zozo: "*slowly backs away from Drexen*"

I thought I had implied enough of a disclaimer, but I don't like or advocate bestiality. I'm just pointing out that some of the common arguments against it don't show much knowledge of animals.
posted by Drexen at 11:56 AM on May 30, 2006


I'm just pointing out that some of the common arguments against it don't show much knowledge of animals.

I don't think anyone argues that animals are incapable of demonstrating that they aren't enjoying shagging a human, it's more that animals are too stupid to provide consent in a meaningful sense, so we shouldn't shag them. (If you're looking at it from a strictly consent-based point of view, that is. There are, obviously, several other reasons why shagging animals is not a good thing!)
posted by jack_mo at 12:07 PM on May 30, 2006


it's more that animals are too stupid to provide consent in a meaningful sense

See, that's the thing - I don't agree. Firstly, explicit verbal consent clearly isn't a pre-requisite for sex even between humans - things like body language, and not fending off the other party etc, are enough. Secondly, an animal (well, something as intelligent as a dog/horse) is clearly able to 'ask for', say, being fed, going for a walk, fetching a stick, etc.

There are, obviously, several other reasons why shagging animals is not a good thing!

Since I'm playing devil's advocate anyway, I presume you mean things like disease, physical danger, etc. Well, I imagine there are scenarios where those aren't an issue, at least not enough to require a law. I haven't got the stomach to figure out the details, but presumably it's so. In that case, I don't think we should let disgust get in the way of something that isn't harming anyone/thing, any more than we should for something similarly tricky in terms of consent like BDSM, or something that has been called 'disgusting', like homosexuality. If it hurts/damages/distresses the animal, that's what animal abuse laws are for.

Bear in mind that we as a culture are quite happy to kill and/or maim animals when it suits our purposes, and we also subject them to not-explicitly-asked for sexual contact in breeding and in gamete collection.

(Well. This was an interesting intellectual excercise. I think I need a cup of tea now. And having said all that, I certainly wouldn't vote for these Proposition 12 people.)
posted by Drexen at 12:37 PM on May 30, 2006 [1 favorite]


Applauds Drexen
posted by Wolfdog at 12:40 PM on May 30, 2006


"Ten years ago we were 'on speaking terms' with society. But since [Belgian paedophile killer] Marc Dutroux there is no more discussion. All paedophiles are being put in the same box. We are being hushed up," Ad van den Berg, the co-founder of the NVD party, told newspaper 'AD'.

Beautiful.
posted by moira at 1:05 PM on May 30, 2006


Removal of "Amsterdam" tag seconded. This post has about as much to do with Amsterdam as any post about United States politics has to do with New York. If you insist on naming a city for some reason, go with The Hague - the seat of government.

</geo-nitpick>
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:47 PM on May 30, 2006


"The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all."
What a trip! A trainful of naked stoners.
posted by Cranberry at 3:48 PM on May 30, 2006


If we’re going to lift restrictions on sex, why can’t we do the same with violence?
As Drexen points out, we are just fine with killing/maiming animals when it suits us - why can we not extend this to people?
We tease ourselves with violence (movies, t.v.), but rarely do we get, if you’ll pardon the pun, penetration. Violence is not something to be seen, but something to be experienced. We hide the effects of violence, even as we glorify it.
Something like this proposition 12, gives me hope for my own Randomly Thrown Grenades party. Our platform is obvious, but we also support free trains - and not only to spread carnage.
Now granted, a grenade randomly thrown into a crowd or group of commuters, shoppers, what have you, may not be seen as consensual. However a great deal of personal wealth goes to taxes, in part to make war. We at the RTG propose that people not only get value for their dollar - in the form of a live grenade, but are required to carry and within a proscribed period of time use the grenade.
In this way we become a more participatory society, which benefits us all.
Obviously certain members of society will be better equipped to handle this environment and while this might be seen as unfair, well, we’ve got live grenades.

/yes, it’s an oblique parody to the situation here, not a non-sequitur.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:01 PM on May 30, 2006


RTG for you and me.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:40 PM on May 30, 2006


VOTE SMEDLEY*BLAM*
posted by scrump at 9:06 PM on May 30, 2006


In case anyone is curious about the Marc Dutroux "child abuse scandal" which The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party feel so oppressed by that they have approached the Dutch government for 'help'.

Marc Dutroux, a convicted pedophile, murderer and supposed leader of an international child pornography and prostitution ring, terrorized the city with his shocking crimes, between the mid 1980's and late 1990's.

Although Dutroux was an unemployed electrician earning welfare from the state, he managed financially by trading stolen cars in Poland and Slovakia, and selling young girls into prostitution throughout Europe. Dutroux owned seven houses in Belgium, most of which stood vacant, except for those houses in which he kept the girls he kidnapped, to be later sold into prostitution or for use in pornography videos.

On August 15, 1996 police raided Dutroux's house where they discovered a soundproof concrete dungeon in the basement...

Dutroux was not acting on his own, but was part of a network, along with Nihoul, colleague Michel Lelievre and his former wife, Michelle Martin...

Dutroux's ex-wife, Michelle Martin, left two girls to starve while Dutroux was in prison...


Maybe transportation of child prostitutes is why the NVD want free train travel as part of their "public policy"?

Can't believe I Googled the ethics of bestiality but after the subject was brought up here, I was curious if anyone had written anything on the subject. Sure enough.
posted by nickyskye at 11:46 PM on May 30, 2006


Bear in mind that we as a culture are quite happy to kill and/or maim animals when it suits our purposes, and we also subject them to not-explicitly-asked for sexual contact in breeding and in gamete collection.

I've just realised that my consent-based opposition to bestiality rests on the same, ahem, woolly thinking (preference utilitarianism) that has me believing that medical animal testing and meat eating (even cruel procedures to make yummy foods like foie gras) are not necessarily bad things. Ie, I take the reverse view to someone like Peter Singer, on the basis that the preferences of most (clever, valuable) humans outweigh the preferences of most (stupid, worthless) animals, despite this potentially having rather unfortunate implications when it comes to the im/morality of killing babies and the mentally deficient ;-)

Still, as soon as a chicken writes a novel, or similar, I will happily admit that shagging animals is okay and eating them is wrong!
posted by jack_mo at 4:36 AM on May 31, 2006


Amsterdam out; Netherlands in
posted by FeldBum at 6:10 AM on May 31, 2006


The NVD Program (link in Dutch, SFW) states at point 18.3:
Vlees- en visconsumptie door mensen wordt verboden.
Translation: Meat- and fish consumption by humans will be forbidden.

*off to cook dinner now, we are having porkchops*
posted by kudzu at 8:30 AM on May 31, 2006


« Older In Memoriam and in Protest...   |   The dog's nuts of the periodic... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments