- Education and Science»
- Law & Legal Issues
Is Pedophilia The Next Liberal "Civil Rights" Issue
Protecting our children is not a violation of the rights of those who would abuse them!
Normalizing Immoral and Criminal Behavior
In this age in America and around the world, it has become normal to look for the next "civil rights" issue to normalize. Civil rights as defined by "The American Heritage" dictionary is: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the rights to due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
Does that freedom from discrimination include more than just civil issues such as gender, race, religion, age, etc.. to condone immoral or illegal behavior? According to some that are always screaming about having other's morality pushed down their throats, isn't that is exactly what they are doing by pushing their immorality down our throats? Aren't these commonly accepted rules for behavior what make a society civilized to begin with?
It seems that since relative truth has been pushed throughout our educational system and society, that we're now confused about what discrimination, civil, and moral issues really are. Discrimination is to make a clear distinction or to make distinctions on the basis of preference or prejudice. Making a clear distinction according to accepted rules of behavior is quite different from making distinctions according to prejudices one holds.
Moral is defined as: Conforming to established standards of good behavior. Of course many would like to do whatever is seen as right in their own eyes, with no rules to constrain their behavior in anyway. This would be anarchy; the absence of any governmental rules or laws, or confusion and disorder. Let me asure you that you would soon find this to be horrible when your rights were no longer respected. Those that hold to this anarchist view will soon find themselves among many other anarchists in prison.
Although prison isn't an anarchist society, it still has many more rules to try to maintain order. This is where a civilized society sends those who refuse to accept the normal moral rules of civilization.
Pedophilia is the psycho-sexual disorder with an abnormal attraction for sexual activity with prepubertal children. According to Fox news and other reports, there has been conferences of mental health professionals to normalize pedophilia actions against children. According to this Fox News report the lobbying group B4U-Act states: "According to the group, which is said to not endorse every point of view expressed, the speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged."
Just take a look at the promo video by B4U-Act; a group lobbying for the decriminalization of acts of pedophilia against children. I couldn't include showing this video here at hubpages due to explicit language in one of the videos that automatically follows it. This link takes you to statements documented by doctors on behalf of pedophiles.
Most civilized people should be in an uproar over this push to declare this sexual deviant behavior as normal and decriminalize it, thereby making our children fair game for these predators. That children could be considered mature enough to consent to sex with an adult is ludicrous. While most might say that pedophilia could never be considered normal and decriminalized. Isn't this a similar path through which homosexuality became viewed as normal?
While I don't condone the homosexual lifestyle, this is not an attack on homosexuals. This is merely examining the path through which pedophiles are trying to normal their lifestyle, and realizing that it is a similar one. Prior to 1973, homosexuality was viewed as a disorder by the the American Psychiatric Association according to DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) In 1973 and 1975 changes were made by the APA to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM as a disorder. This would appear to be a similar path to normalizing Pedophilia, what is now considered deviant sexual behavior.
Pedophilia differs from homosexuality in that the later are both consenting adults, whereas the former has a child victim. This push to decriminalize pedophilia seems to ignore that there are child victims to this crime. As in the case of rape there is a victim. Even in cases of those adults that are not mentally competent to give their consent; such as drugged, mental illness, and others , it is still a crime. Why would these psychiatrists normalize pedophilia, acquiescing to those whose sexual behavior victimizes our children. The groups at the conference sought to "change public perception towards pedophiles and encourage tolerance."
According to the Washington Times, in 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality published a special double issue in which it referred to child-adult sex as " male intergenerational intimacy." Now those with normal sexual morals are viewed as the ones that are ill, because of holding to established norms. Is this the "slippery slope" that Christian conservatives warned us about?
Aren't there some moral and criminal laws that should be retained for the good of civilization and humanity? Or should we just cast off all laws and live in a state of anarchy, "doing whatever is deemed right in our own eyes?" Weren't these laws established to protect the weak and innocent from those who would exploit and oppress them? After this, what's next on the agenda for the radical liberals that seek to change social norms to their own perverted views? Aren't these all relevant questions?
In this article, I have sought to be fair and balanced in my views and not discriminate against the civil rights of any persons or groups of people. I'm not in anyway encouraging any hate speech or discrimination against any people or groups. I'm only trying to examine civil, moral, and criminal behavior and how tolerance has blurred and changed our definitions of these issues.
We as humans are always called to judge between right and wrong actions, so that we might continue to live in a civilized society. Those that refuse to judge their own actions or those in society around them, either end up in prison for doing wrong themselves or supporting a government bent on evil such as the Nazi regime during the holocaust.
In Yemen, the parliament overturned the law limiting the age of consent for marriage, saying that the parents should be the ones to determine when a child may marry. This resulted in the death of the 8-year-old child bride pictured at the top, from internal bleeding on her wedding night.
The Silence on the Issue of Pedophilia continues.
America's Most Wanted tells the story of a nationwide sex slave ring that kidnaps young boys and girls and sells them into the sex slave trade. It's now estimated that there is over 2 million forced sex slaves around the world, many of them children.
Pictures of three young boys gagged and bound were sent to the mother of Johnny Gosch, who was abducted when he was 12 yrs. old from Des Moines, Iowa in 1983.
Larry King who oversaw the Franklin Bank in Omaha was convicted and sentenced to 15 yrs. for embezzling millions from the bank, but the issue of forcing children into being sex slaves for rich and high powered elites was conveniently swept under the rug. Allegations of Larry King bringing children to Washington and even the Whitehouse for drug and sex parties with American politicians and children supplied by King were rampant, but conveniently covered up.
A documentary financed by the Discovery Channel named the "Conspiracy of Silence," about the use of boys and girls from Boystown to service prominent individuals and politicians sexually, was banned from being aired. Over 80 different children were witnesses to the crimes involving forcing orphaned children into child prostitution.
Did the FBI and other law enforcement officials cover up evidence of a child sex slave ring, so as not to expose the involvement of many of America's rich and high powered government officials? Or was the cover-up really to hide CIA involvement of using the now failed bank to launder money from the Contra guns for drugs program?
For those interested in more information on this, the book "The Franklin Scandal," by Nick Bryant details the Omaha scandal with Lawrence King as a pimp supplying children for the power base in Washington. According to Nick Bryant in "The Franklin Scandal, a civil lawsuit brought by Paul Bannaci, the judge ruled against Larry King, stating:
"Judge Urbom wrote in his decision, “Between December 1980 and 1988, the complaint alleges, the defendant King continually subjected the plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults, false imprisonments, infliction of extreme emotional distress, organized and directed satanic rituals, forced the plaintiff to ‘scavenge’ for children to be a part of the defendant King’s sexual abuse and pornography ring, forced the plaintiff to engage in numerous sexual contacts with the defendant King and others and participate in deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies with other minor children. The defendant King’s default has made those allegations true as to him. The issue now is the relief to be granted monetarily."
Why would this judge rule against King in this matter, if these allegations were not true? At the same time, the FBI refused to investigate these allegations, possibly even threatening witnesses in the case to recant their testimony.
He also looks into the Finders, a group with supposed ties to Satanism and possibly even our CIA; as some sort of group that used mind control to train children as assets to gain control by blackmail of politicians and law officials. As bizarre as these allegations seem, Tallahassee and Washington police charged members of "the finders" with various charges involving abuse of children. The charges were all dropped and all investigations were ordered to be stopped. It was declared to be an internal matter for the CIA and was considered a matter of national security. This was according to an U.S. Customs report.
These reports of a connection between a child sex slave ring with the CIA and Satanism were obviously never proven, but most investigations were stopped quickly and witnesses to the child sex slave ring were threatened into silence in the "Franklin Scandal" in Omaha.
Ex-FBI agent Ted Gunderson also confirms these ties between a child sex slave ring and Satanism, that includes a cover-up by government agencies. Recent allegations of U.K witches using young girls in ritualistic sex acts have led to charges against several individuals. Read more at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/28/witches-sex-abuse-allegations-children-court. When these situations involve government officials, such as in the Franklin Scandal, they are usually swept under the rug.
New revelations about the BBC's Jimmy Savile being involved in a child sex ring that hosted parties for the elite to engage in sex with children shows just how perverse and demonic many in the ruling class are. It also shows that these problems are worldwide, and though they were covered up in the above Franklin Scandal, sooner or later, these perpetrators should realise that their sins will be exposed.
A recent article on this can be viewed at http://theintelhub.com/2012/11/14/child-sex-rings-reveal-the-worst-of-the-power-elite/.
Are government agencies working to cover up acts of pedophilia being done by the rich power brokers and politicians to gain control of them?
Is there a sex slave ring with ties to government officials or agencies that sanctions it? Why are most of these incidents swept under the rug by the government and mainstream media?
Penn State revelations that officials knew about molestations and rape according to FBI
Shall we decriminalize mass murder and rape too?
The argument that this is just the way they were born, that it isn't a volitional choice, but rather a preference is ludicrous. The same thing could be said for many criminal behaviors; such as for compulsive lying, stealing, or serial killing. Shall we view this perverse attack on our children as just another sexual preference without a real victim and decriminalize it?
Now that anything we have always felt a preference to do is to be considered right in the eyes of society, should all actions be acquiesced to? President Assad of Syria will be glad to hear that murdering his own people is alright as long as he's always felt that as a preference! After all Hannibal Lector was a quite normal gentleman in many settings of the movie, so shouldn't we disregard murder and cannibalism as just another preference that he was subject to.
I understand that Hannibal was a fictional character in a movie, but it seems that we are living in a world just as fictional, where choices and consequences are irrelevant. Obviously, the morals of our pediatricians and psychiatrists is something that we should question from this point forward.
Relative Truth Destroys Moral Character
When university and hospital officials cover up the rape of children to protect their businesses, their football program, their reputations, or "to be more humane towards the molester," at the expense of the children involved, it shows how perverted our morals and good character have become.
It's one thing to not spread unsubstantiated rumors, it's quite another when there is sufficient evidence of criminal acts done to children to continue to cover it up. Putting sports programs or someone's career and reputation above the human rights of the victims shows just how our society has gotten turned upside down in the issues of right and wrong.
Even the few people reading this hub attests to the fact that it's an issue that nobody really cares about, as long as it's not affecting us. We've become a selfish society that no longer cares about the rights of those oppressed around us, unless we might get famous and go on Oprah for doing so.
Just maybe we are afraid, as recent civil rights history shows us that standing up for what's right may cost you your job, your reputation, and your freedom when you stand up to the powers that be for their wrongs done to others. Like the janitors at Penn State who said nothing after witnessing rapes, because of the blatant cover up of these crimes by university officials.
If we won't stand up for right or against things that are truly wrong, we don't deserve our freedom. And there's liable to be no one brave enough to stand up for us later, when we are the ones being oppressed.
Are we afraid of being accused of a hate speech crime by those that turn issues such as this from being a moral, criminal issue into a new civil rights issue? Obviously, this is also true of myself in light of my own disclaimers on this hub. It is not a matter of hating a person or a group of people. It is a matter of judging between right and wrong and taking a stand against wrongs being done to those too afraid or unable to stand up for themselves.
I've learned that if I won't stand up for the weak against those who oppress them, for fear of what may happen to me, by condoning their wrong actions by my inaction, I'm just as guilty.
How long will we continue to allow our children to be victimized by indiviual perverts or government agencies that would exploit them for blackmailing politicians?