Dutch Oks Pedophile Party


A Dutch political party that openly embraces pedophilia won a major legal battle this week, avoiding a possible state ban in a decision handed down by The Hague District Court of the Netherlands.

The PNVD, widely known as the “pedophile” party, caused a stir in May when the group announced on a newly-registered official website its goal of lowering the legal age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and ultimately scrapping the age requirement altogether. The group believes children should have the right to make sexual decisions without state interference.

“People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they do,” the party states on their website. “Children as young as twelve should have the freedom to have sex, vote, gamble and live with whomever they want.”

On its website the group also fledged support for the legalization of child pornography and bestiality and recommended that individuals as young as 16 be allowed to perform in pornographic videos.

According to officials at The Hauge, the court ruled not to ban the fringe group on the basis that it had done nothing illegal.

“It is not illegal to try democratically to change the system - which is what these people are trying to do,” said a Hague spokesperson, summarizing the ruling of Judge H. Hofius.

“They are exercising their freedoms of speech and association, and as such cannot be banned by the state.”

Yet, you can get persecuted for supposedly “blaspheming” Islam? What a perverted country the Netherlands is.

I can’t imagine campaigning in my area as the pedophile candidate. This is so far beyond strange that it is hard to comment.

On the other hand, let them have their party. That way will know where they are.


:banghead: {{Stunned}}


I finally figured it out.

**There is now ‘The New Morality’. It’s basically etiquette as a moral code.
If you offend against it, in comes The Inquisition; the unthinking followers of the liberal consensus.

So if you’re a pervy, drug-taking, greedy, criminal, proud mediocrity, you can be lauded on prime-time TV, as long as you have the correct set of opinions.

If, however, you pipe up that that going against the religion of your forefathers so drastically is a bad idea, you get jumped on.

Plenty of scope for a good satirist there.

No. The “New Morality” is immorality. Orwellian doublespeak in action.

Yeah it’s kind of like that party in the United States that supports homosexual marriage, killing of the unborn, embryonic stem cell research, taking away your freedoms with dumb laws etc…
What’s that party’s name again?:confused: :eek:

How very true! Political Correctness seems to be The New Morality. Thanks for this insight!

While I strongly disagree with the party’s goals, I do not disagree with the Hague court’s reasoning:

“It is not illegal to try democratically to change the system – which is what these people are trying to do,” said a Hague spokesperson, summarizing the ruling of Judge H. Hofius.

“They are exercising their freedoms of speech and association, and as such cannot be banned by the state.”

The problem people have with freedom of speech is that it means that some speech will be allowed even if unpopular. Banning speech and ideas is a much riskier proposition than banning a political party with unpopular ideas.

Sounds familiar… :hmmm: :wink: Maybe we should ask these guys?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


To: Peregrinus_WA.

Oh it’s a morality, all right. It’s a set of norms. There no ten commandments, but it’s there.

I read recently about something called ‘cognitive dissonance’; conflating two ideas; one pleasing to the test subject, one not. In order to overcome the tension of the displeasing idea, it is accepted, and brainwashing is accomplished.

*e.g. "Homosexuals are on a par with women and black people. They are oppressed. You don’t support oppression, do you? Of course not. Then you should support gay marriage. You’re not a bigot, are you?

Theeerrrreee, all better now. Brainwashing complete."*

They have three public members.

(By the way guys, their actual name isn’t the pedophile party :rolleyes: )

These guys are SICK, but insignificant. The rise in support of the BNP in the UK is more worrying to be honest.

The entire thread has been bashing a straw man.

2006 is pretty old news.

The PNVD doesn’t seem to have progressed, politically, in the meantime.

I don’t think it’s a straw man. There is an organization NAMBLA: North American Man Boy Love Association nambla.org/ located in San Francisco/New York with similar objectives. An undercover FBI investigation in 1995 found 1,100 people on the roles of this association. It is the largest organization in the umbrella Ipce (formerly International Pedophile and Child Emancipation).

Yet, since 1995, public criticism and law enforcement infilitration have heavily impaired the organization and headquarters is little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco from a previous high point of having monthly meetings around the country.

An outcry over this party also happened in the Netherlands.
Outcry over launch of Dutch Pedophile Party
smh.com.au/news/world/outcry-over-launch-of-dutch-pedophile-party/2006/05/31/1148956392681.html at the beginning of its launch. 82% percent wanted government to do something to stop the new party. 67% said that it should be illegal.

Yet, standards sometimes soften over time and can be changed with political activism. Perhaps years ago maybe 85% instead of 67% of the Dutch people would have thought the party should be illegal.

In Ancient Greece, pedastry (pedophilia) was considered an important tool in boy’s education. Men regularly slept with the sons of their colleagues. Even Zeus was pictured kidnapping for sexual purposes a young blonde boy in a widely celebrated painting The Rape of Ganymede. Though there existed criticism of this in many corners, for example Plato thought homosexual activity was unnatural and a law to ban it would be supported, it was widely accepted. Leading thinkers could even acceptably argue that pedastry was wise and virtuous.

See an excerpted summary from the Symposium, Plato’s discussion on the nature of love, taken from wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato

Pausanias, the legal expert of the group, begins by taking Phraedrus up on his chosen examples (180c) asserting that the love that deserves attention is not the kind associated with Aphrodite Pandemos (Aphrodite common to the whole city) whose object may equally be a woman or a boy, but that of Aphrodite Urania (Heavenly Aphrodite), which “springs entirely from the male” and is “free from wantonness”; the object of this kind of love is not a child, but one who has begun to display intelligence and is close to growing a beard (181e).

Pausanias claims that Elis and Boeotia are inarticulate regions that have nothing to say against pedophilia (182a-b); Ionia and other regions think it is disgraceful (182b-c), but they live under despots and think no more of philosophy and sport than they do of love. Pausanius then launches into a confusing discussion of Athenian law regarding pedastry. He says that Athens’ code is not easy to understand, but claims that it cheers on the lover, so long as he does not pursue the boy in secret and does not rush him into it. He says you would never know that the law explicitly approves the lover’s conduct by the way fathers behave when they get wind of the fact that some older man is sniffing around his son, or by the way the boy’s playmates tease him about having a lover. He adds that these contradictions are easily explained (183d).

Pausanias says that Athenian law makes a firm distinction between the lover who should be encouraged by the boy and the lover who should be discouraged. He says that when a boy surrenders to sex out of hope for money, political favors, or in a cowering fear that he will suffer abuse (a beating?) from the lover, his surrender is contemptible (184b). Only when the boy is hoping to become wise and virtuous is his surrender to the older man not offensive to human decency. Pausanias thinks that the law addresses itself to children and their “motives” for surrendering to adults. He says that a boy who is duped is no fool, but has shown himself to be one “who will do anything for the sake of virtue” (184e-185b)

Same-sex relationship were rarely egalitarian but almost exclusively pedastry in this tolerant Greek society. In America, although the media in Brokeback Mountain depicts same-sex relationships as egalitarian, if you notice actual lovers of gay men - large differences in age are extremely common.

Given how many heterosexual men turn to same sex sexual activity while in prison, is large scale public disapproval of same sex sexual activity and pedastry based on cultural taboos originating from Judeo-Christian moral values or is it something that many more people might accept and even praise and promote through the law if the cultural taboos were lifted as they did in Ancient Greece.

The article is about a court ruling that the government could not outlaw a political party based on freedom of speech and freedom of association rights. The court did not endorse pedophiles.

The thread is about the reasons why pedophilia is wrong. No one is contending otherwise. Because the thread doesn’t address the subject of the article, its a straw man bash.

There is a serious, not unsurprising, disconnect here.

It’s simple.

*]It’s not what yer equipment’s for, laddie;
*]Unhygeinic too;
*]Doesn’t make babies;
*]Denounced by holy men for thousands of years.

Therefore, avoid.

Are you talking about Dutch political parties?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.