A party for pedophiles

[lembeh]

So much for the glimmer of rationality.

 

OK. I give up. I seem to be the only person perturbed by the consensus on this board that it is OK to deprive those with whom we disagree access to the democratic process. Facism lives. Fortunately however, the Dutch court saw the broader picture.

 

As "playtheblues" gave me a quotation, I will give one back, and I hope the relevence here is obvious:

 

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

 

-j-

[..]

I'm firmly in your corner on this Josh. FWIW.

 

Since we are tossing out quotes: "...I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. -- Voltaire"

 

Cheers,

SD

[playtheblues]

Sorry to disappoint.

 

I stick to democracy as the least bad form of political representation (Churchill again, yes this is the day for quotes!). It has serious flaws though, including the ablility to vote itself away - as the Germans made us painfully aware in 1933. And thus also to the ability to let a majority of voters let evil things through, like (hypothetically) permitting child molesting.

 

I find this discussion somewhat academic. Since almost all of us, like the overwelming majority of people in the world's democracies object against molesting children, the Dutch example may be seen as one of those accidents that now and then happens in an imperfect system like the democratic one.

 

 

 

[Guest lazyphil]

ok josh you win, i'll go back to my cave and tend my wounded pride over and out.

[elef]

During the Vietnam war an amercian student union decided by a majority decision that majorities always are wrong.

[Flashermac]

<< It has serious flaws though, including the ablility to vote itself away - as the Germans made us painfully aware in 1933. >>

 

Ahem. The Nazis never got a majority in any national election. Hitler was made chancellor under a coalition government.

 

 

 

[elef]

Even if you're correct mac, phil isn't completely wrong either as that election often is mentioned as the election where 2 undemocratic parties (nazis and communists) together got the majority.

[playtheblues]

Nominally, that is correct of course, the Nazis won 44 per cent of the votes in the 1933 election (one third in Nov 1932). But still, "a greater electoral victory than the Nazis achieved is difficult to conceive" as one of my history text book puts it. And "it cannot be overlooked that Hitler, whose party had openly claimed that it stood for the destruction of the Weimar constitution, had won one-third of the votes in November 1932".

 

So it's fair to say that voters played a great role in elimiating the Weimar constitution. The weakness of the Weimar system, Hindenburg's belief that the parliamentary crises could be ended by appointing Hitler as chancellor, underestimating Hitler among nationalists etc did the rest.

 

So I guess we are both right.

 

 

 

[playtheblues]

The above is my reply to flashermac.

[Steve]

Question, does Holland have something similar here in the states where one is arrested for breaking a law on the books but in court can challenge whether that law is constitutional and violates their rights?

If they do and I assume someone who is arrested for being a pedo argues in a court of law that the law violates his 'rights' and if so, then its settled?

I don't know how the legislature works in Holland but must you form a political party to change a law?

It appears from the article that it won't come to be anyway as it will fall short of required amount.