A victory in the Netherlands for freedom of expression:
A political party formed by paedophiles cannot be banned because it has the same right to exist as any other party and is protected by democratic freedoms, a Dutch court has ruled. The Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD) was launched in May to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from 16 to 12 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, provoking widespread outrage in the Netherlands.
The Solace group, which campaigns against paedophiles, sought a ban on the group, asserting that the party infringed the rights of children, and that its ideas were a threat to social norms and values in a democratic state. But a court in The Hague held otherwise.
– The Times (from the Reuters report)
Good for the court. Even easy-going Dutch society is prey to populism, it seems. Without constraint on ‘democracy’, then eventually non-majoritarian views will squeezed out; not defeated in argument, but denied even consideration.
Worth noting (1): Solace [can anyone find a web-site? I will link it if so], who would rather nobody hear the views of the PNVD, made their claim based on some putative ‘rights of children’. I would like to know quite how it enhances anyone’s rights to exclude from the political sphere discussion of policy on the age of consent, pornography, the treatment of animals, or the use of drugs – those questions that have aroused populist ire. Have any actual children complained? And if so, how have they been injured by ideas?
Worth noting (2): What is causing most frothing at the mouth both there and here is the idea of lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. But that is the most plainly arbitrary, indeed vapid, of all the fringe policies on offer. While opponents can not bear the idea of even discussing a change, the precise age (unlike in Britain or the US) has not been agressively and rigidly policed in the Netherlands, and prosecutions of cases without actual rape or breach of trust are very rare. Those exceedingly law abiding teenagers who can not wait until they are 16 can hop on a subsidised train to France (15), Germany (14), or Spain (13) for a dirty weekend.
(His Most Catholic Majesty’s Kingdom of Spain is not generally pointed out by moralitarians as on the brink of social collapse – but then 13 is a rise from the Franco era, so perhaps it is more democratic…)
“non-majoritarian views”: that has to be the understatement of the week. Kiddie-porn disgusts most of us – including me – because the persons being looked at are not enough old to form a mature, adult judgement about what they are doing (hint: this is why we call them children).
I am as ardent a defender of free speech as anyone, but that does not mean that my stomach does not turn when I read about outfits like this. Beyond parody.
Mm.
If all NAMBLA did was talk about having sex with little boys, I wouldn’t give a damn about them.
But they don’t just talk about it, they go out and do it.
I suspect this group is very likely to be quite similar.
With that said, I don’t think that banning them is the appropriate action. It’s better if everyone knows who these people are.
The test is what are you allowed to say, not what are you allowed to do. The latter cannot be rationally agreed with any very great limit on the former. Few of our regulars has much sympathy for the BNP (the political party, not the bank), nor am I in much doubt that it has members who go further than advocating racial segregation, but I don’t want their views silenced. Partly because I acknowledge the possibility that my own views (let alone my tastes and visceral reactions) may be wrong; partly because I know that the majority unconstrained would silence me too.
Hemlock is a mild reward for the impious by the standards of most societies in history. I don’t wish to revert to priest rule and mob governance.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, so I applaud the dutch court. Along with paedophiles I am quite happy to allow holocaust deniers (banned in Germany) their say or even so called “hate speech” (which the Mohammedans are doing without censure anyway in the name of multiculturalism and a distorted one sided application of “tolerance”)
Quite contrary is the situation in neighbouring Belgium, where the Vlaams Blok, a quite mainstream and increasingly popular party, is banned under the pretext of “racism”. These days racism has become such a catch all to demonise any political opponent that might have a reasonable chance of unseating one.
I fear that the Dutch “tolerance” has more to do with the realisation that the PNVD will find little resonance with the public at large, while the Vlaams Blok is being banned precisely because it does.
“the precise age (unlike in Britain…) has not been agressively and rigidly policed”
Are you suggesting that it IS rigidly policed in Britain?
If so, you are somewhat off-beam.
When did you last hear of a prosecution in the UK of a teenager for statutory rape after his 13- or 14-year-old “girlfriend” got pregnant?
It never happens.
Here’s a recent case, although the girl in question was 11.
(Link)
It’s certainly true that a lot of cases are tacitly ignored by social workers and the CPS.
The kiddy-fiddlers are entitled to have their say. Everyone else is entitled to shout them down and they will.
BTW – Excellent points Steven Groeneveld!
I don’t know how regidly it is policed, but I was told that if I knowingly allowed my 15 year old daughter to have sex with her 15 year old boyfriend I could be liable to prosecution, as could both of them!
Excellent points from Steven Groenveld – if we ban everything we find offensive, they can ban anything they like, as soon as they find someone, anyone, to claim to have been offended by it. “Bollocks to Blair” T shirt anyone?
And what’s more MarkE, you might all end up as registered sex-offenders.
Don’t European age of consent laws have age range exceptions attached to them? In most (and probably all) US jurisdictions the age of consent is really just the age at which a person can have sex with any adult. (Usually that is 16-18.) But the laws make it legal for a teenager to have sex with another teenager by creating an exception for anyone with a set number of years old, usually 2-4 years. So, in most jurisdictions, a 16 year old can have sex with a 14 year old but an 18 year old could not.
The goal of age of consent laws is to keep minors from being exploited by adults not for keeping horny teenagers apart.
Shannon Love – Sadly not the case as far as I’m aware in the UK, although such exceptions would be sensible. I always thought it had something to do with the Anglo Saxon fear of sex, but if the largely Anglo Saxon US take a more mature view I may have to admit to being wrong.
Another concern I have with the law as it stands is pseudo-equivalence; if two horney 15 year olds are sexual offenders, all offenders are equal, therefore the 60 year old having sex with a six year old is no worse than the two teenagers. In my book there is a world of difference.
It is when tolerating people whom you find truly revolting (such as these guys) that you discover who are the folks who really walk the walk as well as talk the talk when it comes to freedom of expression… this is certainly a case in point.
Next: Brothely Human Flavour Canibalistic Party
I find the entire idea of the government having the authority to ban political parties at all very alien. Why does the state have the right to control freedom of association at all?
I realize that under a parliamentary system parties are far more significant entities than under the American system but even so it seems like granting the status quo the authority to decide who can and cannot form a party is a recipe for abuse.
Indeed, Shannon Love, though strictly speaking it would have been the courts banning this one rather than the government, had they obliged the agitators by doing so.
In Britain, on the other hand, we have a special set of bureaucrats appointed by the government, rather than open courts, to control political parties, and another to determine who may be a politician and what they may do in office. (Since Anno Antonius 4, if you were wondering.)
“Bollocks to Blair” T shirt anyone?
Clearly sexist hate speech. Ban it.
Rich
I find the entire idea of the government having the authority to ban political parties at all very alien. Why does the state have the right to control freedom of association at all?
Thin end of the wedge? Peadophiles are the current tabloid public enemy number one and therefore a very soft target. Emboldened by such a ban might the state (any state) decide to widen it’s range of bannings?
There’s also something deeper at work here. Banning a political party for saying something illegal should be allowed is tantamount to introducing the concept of “thought crimes”.
PS. Perry made an excellent point. The true test of toleratance is to tolerate the obnoxious.
For the first time ever on this site, I’m speechless.
Jesus H. Christ.
Why? Would arguing to have the age of consent in the US made the same as (say) in Germany or Spain be so much worse than arguing to confiscate people’s money and property (i.e more usual political fare)?
This is mos probably the only time I shall see franco praised on Samizdata!
Kim is quite right.
Why? Because this is not about a political party, or freedom of expression, it is about a bunch of child molesting scrotes wrapping themselves in the flag of ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’
Dont think so? What is the party policy on Foreign Relations say, or Immigration…..They dont have one, its them being allowed to knob kids, sod all to do with politics.
And how is what you are and are not allowed to do not a political question? What makes immigration (which is about where you are allowed to live) “political”, in your terms, while sex is not? The fact that some people would like to ban that party from even the presentation of its views illustrates on the contrary that it is highly political.
(The only non-political questions are those which don’t attract public interest and dispute: where no one cares what you think. What’s non-political varies from place to place and time to time, but pretty much anything can be a matter for political controversy, even (or especially) where there’s nothing of substance in issue.)
And here we see that some people cannot distinguish discussion from action.
But we also see infantilism, one degree removed from the Libertarian position.
Sadly for the children on this site, if there are consequences from your words, you must choose them carefully.
ADE
Evidently intended de haut en bas, ADE, but I can’t discern a point. Perhaps I am too infantile.
Gah! I hate issues where people are only supposed to have one opinion.
So sod it, I’ll make a stand:
(1) I do not believe that any sane, talking, thinking person is unable to give meaningful consent to anything they can comprehend. If they make a mistake, it’s theirs to make.
(2) I see no reason to consider sex something that children intrinsically can’t comprehend, regardless how well they’re taught about it.
(3) I see no reason to consider sex something that ought to require special informed consent, like signing a major contract, rather than merely adult supervision, like other dangerous activities such as rock-climbing.
NAMBLA is legal, because we have freedom of association and freedom of speech. Ditto KKK, skinheads, etc. The content of their speech and common interests is offensive, highly so. A person or association may talk about currently illegal things without doing them. NAMBLA does not have child rape orgies, for example.
The answer to icky speech is more speech. Let this political party form, and let them bring their ideas and interests to the public forum.
I predict that it will be counterproductive to their interests. The general public will be aroused to fear for the safety of their children and pets and will insist on enforcement of the current laws or even clamor for a *higher* age of consent and stricter laws.
Being a registered sex offender is tantamount to being tattooed with a scarlet A. My state passed new laws this year adding to the list of places near which RSOs cannot live within x number of feet. It will displace MANY people.
Some states’ laws are poorly written, so that in Georgia, a woman who at age 17 had consensual oral sex with her 15 year old boyfriend is now a lifelong registered sex offender. Her living options are restricted, she has to report to the police, her neighbors are notified, she has to reveal the conviction on job applications, etc. Georgia has a strict 16 year old AOC. Iowa, my home state, says it’s 14. WTF???
If you want to visit a creepy website, go to ageofconsent.com. It lists objective information about the patchwork of laws. My colleagues and I use it to teach human services and counseling students about sex laws in social problems classes. However, the cherrypicker discussion boards are revolting. You’ll find adult men sharing strategies how to use the internet to befriend and seduce young people, and the big thing is not to take the kid out of state, everything is voluntary (no kidnapping/imprisonment). These creeps print out the state laws and the internet conversations and take it with them, in case the police show up and they have to advocate for their own freedom and against arrest. They share exactly how to work the laws and go after kids.
But…mold doesn’t grow in the sunshine. Get these creepy ideas into the public and people can really know what’s out there.