Pedophiles are fighting for “the same rights as homosexuals.” They claim they are being discriminated against because of their “sexual orientation” and that sexually desiring children is not a crime but is instead a legitimate activity; that they are not sick, disgusting criminals but simply “minor-attracted people.”
You can dress it up with as many pretty names as you like, but anyone having sex with children is a perverted, disgusting and repulsive criminal who needs to be treated as such, not coddled because they are “misunderstood.”
Naturally, a couple of Canadian [so-called] psychologists have declared that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation… just like… homosexuality.”
Was Hubert Van Gijseghem simply trying to rationalize his own criminal desires when he said the following to members of Canada’s Parliament?
“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 may, however, remain abstinent.”
Which is precisely why we place these criminals in jail cells… to aid them in remaining abstinent.
Before that same Parliamentary committee Dr. Vernon Quinsey promoted the same notion, even while describing the children who pedophiles would have sex with as “victims” and the “minor-attracted individuals” who have sex with children as “offenders.” I guess he was just being a little misunderstood himself, right?
Let me just make some distinctions for you. First of all, pedophiles are people who prefer prepubescent children. They’re not interested in 15-year-olds who have an adult body shape or anything like that. They’re not interested in those kinds of people. They have quite a restricted area of sexual interests in terms of the kinds of body types that their victims have. There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else. Treatment for those offenders shades into management, where you essentially have to teach someone to live within their sexual preference structure. They have to find other kinds of outlets. They have to avoid high-risk situations. They have to do all those sorts of things. But I think that most people would agree that this kind of sexual preference pattern—an actual preference for prepubertal children—is not alterable by any kinds of current treatments.
As absurd as this notion is, it’s gaining traction in supposedly rational circles. Harvard Health Publications wrote for example, in their July 2010 edition that,
“Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
It is commonly agreed that pedophiles and other sex offenders are highly unlikely to change. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing over that fact. Where the disagreement comes in is between folks like me who believe that sex crimes against children are just that… CRIMES… and those who would make any and all excuses for those poor, misunderstood sex offenders… er I mean “minor-attracted individuals” whose “sexual orientation” just means they like to screw little kids, not adults.
Okay…
But I wouldn’t go testing that theory with any children of God-fearing, gun-owning Christians…
Remember that BC judge who ruled back in the late 1980’s that the 34-year-old man who raped a 3-year-old child should be given a conditional discharge, and I quote, “because the child was sexually aggressive“?
Yes,that’s right. Judge Peter van der Hoop actually said that the 3-year-old girl was at fault for her rape at the hands of a drunken 34-year-old man.
Judge van der Hoop disappeared shortly after that ruling, never to be heard from again. Good thing, because I’m sure I wasn’t the only one asking myself this question:
“Who’s Judge van der Hoop screwing and how many years is it until that kid’s 10th birthday?”
Hey, here’s an idea… why don’t some of you “minor-attracted” folks try out your attraction with Ted Nugent’s grandkids… I’d PAY to see how that works out for you!
And as for my grandkids… all I will say is this:
“Good luck with that.”
*** My thanks to Don Laird for tracking down the name of that asinine judge for me. ***
Excellent article Christopher…
I am curious, which judge was it who accepted the argument that a 3 year old child was “sexually aggressive”
Regards, Don Laird
Edson, Alberta, Canada
I’m trying to dig that up. I used to have that stored away years ago, but can’t seem to find it. I tried searching the web, but pretty much all mention of that decision appears to have been scrubbed from cyberspace. When I was doing research for a screenplay about 7 years ago I was able to find lots of references to it, but not the actual decision. Now there’s nothing. Sadly I didn’t reference the judge’s name in my screenplay or I’d have it.
I’ll back up Christopher on this one, although I didn’t remember the exact age of the little girl or the judge’s name. Yes, a judge described a young child as “sexually aggressive” and let the molester walk without much more than a reprimand. He must have had something going with the judge who maybe disappeared behind a name-change, if he lived that long.
I don’t have the details at the ready, either, but I may have saved something that queer to my Nazi files that reference the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, Pink Swastika and the Kinsey Report (Alfred Kinsey promoted the idea of sex with children, the younger the better, because “a baby is sexual from birth and enjoys it”).
I’ll look.