Because It’s Not About the Children
7 October 2007The Signal, a media source which has been harassing Jack McClellan for months, has hit a new low by supporting “running a self-confessed pedophile out of California” and beheading paedophiles.
Before I discuss this, I’ll quote an excerpt from a relatively recent case involving the harassment of black people
“When Barney arrived, Dennis called the group together for a “town meeting.” Approximately twenty people were present, including at least seven minors. Dennis talked about “niggers” moving into the community and urged the crowd to join in running them out of town. Barney stood directly beside Dennis, remarked that whites needed to stand up to “niggers”
Running someone out of town because of who they are is not new. We all know that, years ago, they often did this to blacks, they did it to gays, they do it to us now, and they’re going to do it to other minorities in the future. The attitudes of the people who support criminal action against paedophiles are no different to the people who supported the oppression of other minorities; indeed I don’t doubt that they would have supported “vigilante action” against blacks and gays when such was popular.
This disgusting attitude against people who are attracted to children is often excused with claims such as “We’re only doing this to protect the children,” a claim also made by the author responsible for the editorial I’m discussing here. Unfortunately for those who make such false claims, the manipulation and the dishonesty are crystal clear. If such people are only interested in child protection, why are they trying to “run a paedophile out of town?” Such an action will not protect children, even if the person is a predator (which Jack is not); it will only make the person go elsewhere and continue to act exactly as they did before. If someone was preying on children in one state, it is senseless to think that they wouldn’t stop preying on children just because they moved to another state. It appears to be the case that the author of this article - and the council - want Jack out of California simply because they hate people who are attracted to children, and they know that the public feel the same. It will make them popular with the voting public and it will (in their minds) prevent them from having to worry about “mixing with the deviants.” Of course, when everybody in the state engages in such inexcusable, bigoted behaviour, no individual can feel guilty about what they do, and they consider it to be “okay because everybody else is doing it.” This is the same mentality which led to the persecution of previously repressed minorities; we quite rightfully accept blacks now, but before this was the case, the “mob mentality” excused bigots from having to worry about the horrific acts they were committing when lynching “niggers”
The author of The Signal’s article claims that “Preying on children is not a matter of free speech. It is most certainly not a victimless act.”
This is simply intended to confuse people, encouraging them to persuade themselves that Jack was actually preying upon or harming children, when most of them know that he engaged in no such behaviour. Attending events to watch children does not create victims, nor is it predatory, nor is it the business of others. Paedophiles will always attend places which are popular with children, not simply because we’re sexually attracted to them, but because we delight in the company of children. Our presence at such events does not cause harm; people don’t even know we’re there.
Running one non-offending paedophile out of town does nothing to protect children, rather it just relieves people’s minds from considering the presence of a man with deviant thoughts. People should know that there will always be paedophiles around their children. If they don’t have to think about it, however, they’re not bothered.
Media sources merely serve to spread fear, panic and hatred towards paedophiles. Such organisations do nothing to protect children, nor is child protection ever a priority for a corporate entity.
Moving on, the hatred of “deviant thought” is not dissimilar in the UK; it is simply more covert. Figures from 2004 and 2005 (sorry, that’s the most recent data I have) reveal the shameful fact that people convicted of sexual activity with a child under 13 were less likely to be imprisoned than people convicted for possessing/making (downloading) indecent images of children. This appears to be paradoxical, however it is evident that the hatred of paedophiles is again responsible.
Bear in mind that the court will be made aware of the motives for an offence, if they are known. The majority of cases involving contact offences children are not perpetrated by paedophiles, rather children are often abused by non-paedophile parents. Cases involving the possession or making (downloading) of indecent images of children are different, however, as most of these offenders are reportedly paedophiles. In short, sentencing is not actually based upon the harm caused to a child, it is based upon the perceived deviance of the individual’s thoughts.
The UK also happens to beautifully illustrate the obsessive concern with thoughts, through its determination to criminalise the possession of cartoon-style erotica depicting children. This was satirised campaign which involved writing to the Home Office about the proposal to criminalise such images.
The Home Office’s consultation drew highly manipulative responses from children’s charities, again exposing the sad fact that claims about protecting children are nothing more than political spin. Indeed, CHIS claimed that,
“Advances in technology have made it possible to create materials which are entirely artificial but which, in turn, are indistinguishable from photographs or videos of real events. In order to be consistent the law therefore needs to keep abreast of these developments as we know from experience that any loophole will swiftly be exploited by persons with a sexual interest in children.”
Now, maybe, just maybe, they don’t know that indecent images which have the appearance of a photograph actually are illegal, but one would have expected that they would have discovered such a highly relevant point while publishing a detailed article about UK child pornography laws. In reality, they are simply searching for reasons to excuse the criminalisation of material which they find distasteful; untrue claims about child protection are the easiest form of spin.
The desire to criminalise the possession of cartoon erotica depicting children is clearly related to the demand for the criminalisation of adults role-playing sexual activity with children, an activity which has reportedly become popular at MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft. Now, World of Warcraft is a game which involves the role-playing of murder, however this activity is not the subject of controversy. Is the role-playing of sexual abuse more harmful than the role-playing of murder? The exact same arguments against the role-playing of abusive activity could apply to each example, so the only difference must relate to the feelings perceived to be present in the fantasy perpetrator. These perceived feelings are, of course, paedophilic.
It is quite clear that people hate paedophiles simply for being attracted to children, not because they actually consider paedophiles to be such a major danger to children. The question is, are people deliberately manipulating the public with false claims about protecting children, or are they sub-consciously excusing their own desire to harm people who are attracted to children?
If you wish to discuss The Signal’s article with the editor (who presumably wrote the article), you may use the contact details posted here.
4 Responses to “Because It’s Not About the Children”
October 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Barrister Patterson informs us that the Santa Clarita Valley duo are in contact with attorneys in Oregon, as well as a newspaper there. We wish our neighbors to the rainy north well. They just may make the same moves taken here in the SCV, effectively banishing the deviant from Oregon.
Undoubtedly, when he is effectively “chased out” of every state, the “beast” will either disappear altogether or grow wings and fly.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Out of interest, what figures do you have for convictions for sexual activity with a person under 13? And do you have comparative figures for people convicted of burglary, theft, and violent assault? That should help put things into perspective – especially when it is considered that approximately 80% of the figure will involve family members or pseudo-pedophiles, and of the remaining 20%, it is probable that a proportion of these were non-coerced relationships.
I am sure that the bulk of the hatred directed towards pedophiles has little to do with the protection of children; but I would also suggest that this hatred also has little to do with pedophiles, per se. The hatred will exist in any event; it is simply that pedophiles have become the most convenient target. To borrow (very loosely) from the writings of Girard, people born into hierarchical societies have an inherent feeling of lack of power; this operates (in most) below the level of awareness, and manifests itself in the competitive desire to defeat a rival/kill a scapegoat, with the illusory belief that this will overcome their powerlessness.
In this respect, one scapegoat is as good as any other: it’s sole purpose is to alleviate aggression. Hence the mob of lynchers who string up their scapegoat experience a temporary alleviation of powerlessness. The ruling regimes encourage such behavior; the masses need to have their scapegoats in order to deflect violence away from the community and its institutions. Clearly such alleviation of aggression can only be temporary, since it can never lessen the sense of weakness which it subconsciously aims to ameliorate.
Considered from this perspective, the hierarchical structure of society needs to change to a more egalitarian status. With a lesser inherent feeling of the powerlessness that exists in the lower orders of the hierarchy, the masses would have less need to alleviate their aggression through scapegoating. Consequently, as you suggest in your post, the whole issue of ‘protecting the children’ is merely a chimera; a convenient rallying cry to the lynch mob. People are largely unaware of this – including the major organizers/perpetrators – they genuinely believe that they are doing ‘what is right’; they fail to see the fact that their choice of scapegoat is simply a primitive rite designed to address an inner powerlessness that they do not conceive.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:13 am
The details of sentencing for other offences can probably be found here, but I will not open an Excel document from the internet because Excel has too many security bugs.
My figures for sex offences are from Newsnight (video courtesy of Nigel/WM):
2004:
People convicted of possessing or making (downloading) indecent images of children = 1,240
Percentage jailed = 50
2005:
People convicted of sexual activity with a child under 13 = 141
Percentage jailed = 44
People convicted of sexual activity with a child under 16 = 522
Percentage jailed = 56
People convicted of gross indecency with a child = 124
Percentage jailed = 62
There are clearly many reasons to not commit these offences, despite the low imprisonment rates, such as the harm caused by contact offences (even those who don’t think that children are harmed by sex must agree that any legal process involving sex offences is harmful to children), ethical issues, societal revulsion and other legal issues such as the sex offenders register and bans on working with children.
“it is considered that approximately 80% of the figure will involve family members or pseudo-pedophiles”
The relevancy of this is that a Judge is more likely to hand out a custodial sentence to someone who is probably a paedophile (such as someone who downloads indecent images of children) than to someone who is probably not a paedophile (such as someone who has sex with a child). Such is indicative of a greater concern over thought than behaviour, which is what this article was condemning.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:22 am
This is not the first time that the children’s charities try to manipulate public oppinion.
Have into account that their jobs are at stake, most of these “charities” bosses are in the £50.000 a year and their way to get more money from people is by scaring them to death that there is a child rapist around every corner.
I met last week a children charities fundraiser on the street and you would not believe the pack of lies and rubbish they tell to the people, apparently in the UK, thousands of kids are kidnapped and raped every year by pedophiles, now I just wonder why the media only report two cases a year…