Tuesday, 26 August 2008

I Think He's Right....

Very perceptive post on the Gary Glitter brouhaha over at 'House of Dumb':
Look at the proportion of liberals in the MSM (approximately 100%) who denounce anti-paedophilia activism as 'hysteria'. Really? What would be the correct reaction to child rape? Apathy? Ironic detachment? Warm applause? And if the abduction and subsequent sexual torture of a child doesn't raise any hackles on the left, what would? The assailant having a cigarette afterwards?
Read the whole thing.

6 comments:

Longrider said...

Sarler's original point was a valid one - ill or bad; take your pick. I'm inclined to agree with both her and the Devil's kitchen on this one. Either you (we) decide that these people are sick, in which case section them indefinitely or they are criminal, in which case gaol them for a good long time and when they come out, that's it.

Where I vigorously disagree with the likes of the linked article is that it is just another baying voice in the mob. A mob that has been whipped up to treat this particular crime out of proportion. Paedophilia has always been with us, it always will. It is up to parents to take reasonable steps (providing they are not the abuser, of course) to protect their children and for the state to take reasonable steps within the law to deal with offenders.

The level of paranoia that now pervades our society - to the point where parents cannot take photographs of their naked children (as my parents did) is disproportionate and corrosive.

What Sarler and the others were also on about was the grandstanding by the home secretary who, appealing to the mob, wishes to make law up on the hoof to deal with a particular perp for her own political ends. Frankly, that was sickening.

So, in general, no, I don't think he is right.

JuliaM said...

"...and when they come out, that's it."

For most crimes, I'd agree. But there's a much better agreement among psychologists than among scientists regarding 'global warming' that there's an element of compulsion in paedophilia that makes them unsafe.

And perhaps if that agreement had been uppermost among justice system officials in the last 10-15 years, we wouldn't have the 'moral panic' that we now have - to the point where over-zealous officials patrol parks to stop people taking photos.

Certainly, the media bears a large responsibility for the 'OMG Paedo!' response but the justice system (in not treating it as seriously as it should have been treated in the past) bears far, far more.

Longrider said...

For most crimes, I'd agree. But there's a much better agreement among psychologists than among scientists regarding 'global warming' that there's an element of compulsion in paedophilia that makes them unsafe.

In which case, a life sentence or indefinite sectioning would the appropriate penalty for conviction.

Which rather goes back to Sarler's point - far from being a "piece of dreck" it's a thoughtful examination of society's confusion and lack of coherence.

All major crimes are damaging to the victims and all of the victims are innocent and do not deserve to have their lives shattered. So, yes, the criminal justice system is not working as it should. Murderers walk free while the victim's relatives endure a life sentence.

The level of hysteria on this particular crime is not justified and helps no one.

I'm also somewhat bemused at the misdirection here - is DK, for example, or Tom Pain for another, now a lefty liberal? First I knew of it. Carol Sarler may be, but there are those on the opposite political spectrum who agree with her on this one. I am one of them.

Frankly, I'm sick of the screaming headlines and the likes of the NSPCC playing on the paedo in every bedroom and on every street corner insinuation with their blatantly anti-parent propaganda. It is for this reason that I will never, under any circumstances give them a penny of my money.

Yes, paedophilia is a real problem that damages lives of innocent victims. It needs a dispassionate and proportionate response from the state when dealing with the perpetrators. Hysteria is neither. Nor was the home secretary's grandstanding last week.

JuliaM said...

"I'm also somewhat bemused at the misdirection here - is DK, for example, or Tom Pain for another, now a lefty liberal? "

No, I'd have classed them as what they class themselves - libertarians. Meh, sounds similar..;)

"Frankly, I'm sick of the screaming headlines and the likes of the NSPCC playing on the paedo in every bedroom and on every street corner insinuation with their blatantly anti-parent propaganda."

Ditto. It seems that beyond a certain size, single-issue charities are prone to do more harm than good, in their increasing struggle to get their name in the papers and ensure the continuation of a need for them to exist.

"Yes, paedophilia is a real problem that damages lives of innocent victims. It needs a dispassionate and proportionate response from the state when dealing with the perpetrators. Hysteria is neither. Nor was the home secretary's grandstanding last week."

That was indeed truly disgusting. I can't, however, see that any other party would have played it differently. And that's a worry for the state of politics in this country.

But it's true that there are predatory paedophiles out there, unmonitored and untreated. Maybe not on the scale that the papers would have you believe, but sufficient to cause considerable worry.

Longrider said...

No, I'd have classed them as what they class themselves - libertarians. Meh, sounds similar..;)

Or Classical liberals, which is how I define myself. Not the same thing as the Americanised "liberal" at all. Nor the one being lambasted by the House of Dumb.

That was indeed truly disgusting. I can't, however, see that any other party would have played it differently. And that's a worry for the state of politics in this country.

I agree. For a fleeting moment I felt sympathy for Gary Glitter - what does that say about the state of affairs?

But it's true that there are predatory paedophiles out there, unmonitored and untreated. Maybe not on the scale that the papers would have you believe, but sufficient to cause considerable worry.

Pretty much the same as when I was a child - so no I don't believe the papers one jot. It's a risk, but we should keep it in proportion and react accordingly. My parents exhorted me not to talk to strangers. Sound advice.

Where I agree with Sarler, DK, TP et al and disagree with House of Dumb is that I remain wedded to the idea of a dispassionate and impartial justice system that doesn't get a fit of the vapours every time the word paedophile is mentioned.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I don't want to sully such a well-written and thought-provoking blog with graphic sex, but if you pop over here, you may well find some thoughts that make it even more confusing. Agree with longrider that HoD is being D on this one.