When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Well, that new information changes things a bit, doesn’t it? So why then could this editorial not be titled “A Policy of Murder”? Why is all its emphasis on the rape of women and none of its emphasis on the murder of men? Why is this revelation thrown away as a tagline at the end of the article and offered only as “an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur” rather than as an indication of how utterly we are failing to direct equal compassion and attention toward the atrocities inflicted upon men?

“this policy of rape flourishes only because it is ignored” while the death of men simply does not matter

Adam Jones, author/editor of Gendercide and Genocide (2004), has studied these issues in depth. Genocide may be defined as the attempt to exterminate a given population. Gendercide is the selective mass killing of one gender. As Jones makes clear, the gender of choice for extermination is nearly always the male gender. In part, males are selected because males are more easily assumed to pose a threat, but also because males may be slaughtered without over-burdening the slaughterers with guilt and trauma. Moreover, you can slaughter males and provoke only minimal world outrage. In fact, the media will focus mainly on hardships faced by the women deprived of men. [...]

“One of the best indicators of the special vulnerability of men and boys is the frequency with which relatives and friends sought to disguise them in women’s clothing,” asserts Jones. “The African Rights report ‘Death, Despair and Defiance’ cites a number of examples of such procedures, which are reminiscent of similar practices followed in the Bosnian and Kosovan conflicts of the 1990s.”[5] Clearly, if females were specially targeted, males would not be donning female clothing. Yet, as the media reaction to Rwandan atrocities makes plain, women will be presented as the victims almost no matter what the truth. Jones continues: source

• Feminist rape laws don’t apply to male prison rape victims
• "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
• Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago
• Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?
• Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape" & the Perversion of Language
• Way over 50% of rape accusations are false. 7.4% blatantly enough to prosecute (Bavarian Police research report)
• What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!

Why discrimination against males, exaggerating female suffering to the extremes?

Human-Stupidity strived to look behind the facts. we want to understand WHY things are as they are. Why is mail hurt, male suffering and male victimization actively ignored to the point of falsifying statistics. How come that a "Violence against Women act" was not shot down as unconstitutionally sexist by the supreme court.

Why can Hillary Clinton get away with saying that women are the main victims of war, because their husbands and brothers die in war? Not to even mention that there are credible sources that Hillary Clinton battered Bill Clinton in the White House, of course, unpunished.

Even in China, special protection for women, ignoring men

Well, you’ve absolutely got to admit Female Victimization in Bosnia, or Arabia, or China, or whatever . . . right?” People look at me then as if to say: Either he admits MP/FV or his credibility is totally shot. Well, I could be wrong but the best evidence I know of does not support the MP/FV paradigm anywhere at all. My research indicates that matrisensus influence is always a match for patriarchal influence, and brutal places are brutal to both sexes. China? Over a ten-year period, 59,543 men and no women died in coal mining accidents alone![19] Male slaves trafficked into China find prosecuting their slavemasters particularly difficult because Chinese law only protects women from being trafficked in as slaves.[20]

You can go to a brutal place, catalogue only the brutality toward women, and on that basis conclude that women are the victims, but if you don’t research conditions for men, if you don’t compare the female victimization against male victimization, your conclusion is logically bankrupt. Even worse, our perceptions of gender reality are further distorted when the only comparison that is regularly made is the comparison between conditions experienced by the average woman vs. conditions experienced by the elite male. source

Footnote [20]       See, Kang Yi, “Some human traffickers may walk away in ‘slave’ case,” June 15, 2007, www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm. “‘Those traffickers who lure migrant workers, mainly adult males, to do forced labor will not be convicted as the criminal code only covers those who traffic women and children,’ Guan Zhongzhi, a lawyer with Zhonghuan Law Firm told chinadaily.com.cn. The legal loophole has put male victims in an awkward position when fighting against their traffickers in the court of law.”

Blame Husband’s infidelity

Bossip.com even finds a way to blame the father’s infidelity for it: The serial cheater who berated his longtime girlfriend just before she drowned herself and their three kids in the Hudson River won’t face any charges in the tragic deaths

Jezebel-sucks deletes dissent

Human-Stupidity posted a comment on Jezebel that this is a psycho assassin infanticidal mother. We mentioned that feminists would not look for psychological explanations if the father were the assassin like father shot family dead.
It took Jezebel.com-sucks 8 entire minutes, at 7 am, to delete our comment. Admirable efficiency. Dissenting opinions are not welcome. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Armstrong, 25, drowned along with 5-year-old Landon, 2-year-old Lance and 11-month-old Lainaina. Only her 10-year-son Lashaun escaped the tan van turned death trap NY Daily News

Of course we, unwisely, could not refrain from mentioning that if the father had slightly fondled the kids in wrong ways, they would not try to find deep motivations in the father’s past but rather want to jail him for 20 years.
(no, we don’t condone inappropriate fondling of children, but we think that assassination is a much more serious crime. See our teenage sexuality and child porn witch hunt topics)

River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments

Tragic final moments of the murderer?  a multiple child assassin? What about the tragic moment of the drowning kids? And the grieving father?

Anna North — A day after a Newburgh, New York mom killed herself and her children by driving into the Hudson River, interviews with survivors reveal some clues about her emotional state — and the family problems she was struggling with. River Murder-Suicide Mom’s Tragic Final Moments | Jezebel sucks

Her emotional thought? that is the fist thing feminists at Jezebel-sucks think after a multiple child assassination. Pre-meditated. Even announced it on Facebook!

According to her surviving son, ten-year-old Lashaun, she told her kids "I’m sorry, I’m going to do something crazy," and "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." But just before Lashaun escaped the sinking van, she grabbed his pant leg and said, "I made a mistake."

While your car is sinking you hold your kid by the pant legs to have a chat? Probably she tried to hold him by the pant leg so he would drown too. My suspicion is confirmed by the MSNBC TV report. Obviously she was not sorry enough so she would try to save the kids.

Initial reports made it sound like Armstrong had intentionally let Lashaun out of the car, but it now appears that he slid out through a window and swam back to shore,

No, she wanted to kill the fourth child too.

The newspaper quoted Ryan as saying that Lashaun’s mother held her children as the minivan slipped into the river, saying: "If I’m going to die, you’re going to die with me." MSNBC

It is the father’s fault!

It is unbelievable. We thought Jezebel was bad. It can get worse:

Epitome Of A Bad Father: Deadbeat Dad Won’t Face Charges Even Though His Restraining Order Violation Drove Ex To Drown Herself And Their Kids

The serial cheater who berated his longtime girlfriend just before she drowned herself and their three kids in the Hudson River won’t face any charges in the tragic deaths.[...]

Pierre and Armstrong were fighting over his infidelities just before she took the six-block route into the river.

James said that Pierre arrived around 6:30 p.m., causing a ruckus until he left around 7 p.m. Armstrong, 25, posted a Facebook message apologizing in advance for the murder-suicide at 7:13 p.m. [...]

Lashanda Armstrong, 25, kept a steady job and took college classes but was abandoned by Jean Pierre — the fly-by-night father of the three dead children — and had nowhere to turn for help.

“He was terrible to her. He was very domineering and controlling over her. He was just so cruel. She just wanted a normal family,” said one friend, Christine Santos, 29, who lives nearby.

The dad also threatened to claim custody of the kids.

“That’s what pushed her over the edge,” said Santos. “He must have broken her spirit and taken away her will to live.”

Here we got the motive:
Kill the children to make sure the the serial cheater father can not get custody of the kids.

Maybe the father was a jerk. Cheating is one thing, but if he really left a 2 year old roaming the freezing streets for lack of attention, then he is quite irresponsible. For feminists this is probably worse then intentional mass assassination perpetrated by a serial killer woman.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Helmut Seifert, 47, an ethnic German originally from Russia, was enraged when he heard his 17-year-old daughter was having a relationship with Phillip Genscher, 57.

He went to police in the town of Bielefeld where he lives but officers said they were powerless to intervene.

“The man then recruited two work colleagues at his factory and then went to the house of the victim,” said police.

“The man was forced to remove his trousers and, fully conscious, he was castrated. The severed testicles were taken away by the perpetrator.”

The man was close to bleeding to death but managed to call police. His life was saved but he remains a eunuch for life. [...]

He told police: “I received a phone call anonymously that my daughter was involved with a guy 40 years older than her. You said you couldn’t stop him – so I did.

“I saw it as my duty as a father.”

German man castrates teenage daughter’s 57-year-old boyfriend (The Telegraph)

This was republished here Dad, 47, in Germany castrates man, 57, for dating 17-year-old daughter (NY Daily News)

• Note: nowhere did the article say that the couple actually had sex with each other
• even if they did, the age of consent in Germany is 16, there is absolutely no legal problem
• keep reading to see the murderous scary comments by the NY Daily News Readers
• So a harmless man is mutilated for having an affair with a much younger but legal woman, and the good citizens cheer and want to join the lynching

Naomid

2:59 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Why is everyone calling this guy a perv?? He was DATING the girl, not raping her! If an 18 year old guy was dating her, would you call him a “perv”?? Remember, Charile Chaplin married his wife when he was 54 and she was 17, and they had 8 kids together and stayed married for 30 years until his death, and she never remarried and is now buried next to him. Is that being a perv? If anyone is a perv, it’s a psychopath who cuts off *****. What do you think that is going to do to his daughter? She is going to be terrified to get into any kind of relationship again.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18gndinDh

Compare:  Michel Temer (70), new Vice-President of Brazil was 63 when he married Marcela Temer at age 20. Borderline Pedophilia or healthy human sexuality?

Interesting discussion among the NY Daily News Readers

here

Dangerous vigilantes

The correct legal situation info about German law

brooklynNYC

1:14:58 PM
Dec 14, 2010

The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 14 As specified by Sections 176 (Sexual abuse of children) and 182 (Sexual abuse of youths), which read: § 176: “(1) Whoever commits sexual acts on a person under fourteen (14) years of age (a child) or allows them to be committed on himself by the child, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to ten years [...]” § 180: “(1) Whoever abets the commission of sexual acts of a person under sixteen years of age on or in front of a third person or sexual acts of a third person on a person under sixteen years of age: 1. by actin

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gPfl3nc

Positive and understanding opinions

anabelle23

4:23:30 PM
Dec 14, 2010

the little strumpet knew EXACTLY what she was doing. this entire puritanical hypocrisy is the stuff puke is made from. the older man probably treated her better than most young men who pretend to love, deflower, and dump leaving them emotionally scarred and damaged. the father was wrong, wrong, wrong – hope they castrate him then throw him into a gay prison for 20 years. there is a reason why girls can make babies at 13 so stop pretending they are innocent little angels. some of them are more savvy and cunning than professional streetwalkers.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gRii1bv

Chad66

1:47 PM
Dec 13, 2010

The girl likes older men. So who cares. Or was Daddy jealous because she was dating this other guy and not her own Daddy. Beisdes, like someone mentioned, nothing was said about having sex. AND why did Daddy need other people to help him. And if she likes older ment , there will always be older men around. Daddy should get 40 years in jail. at lest.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gg3eB4A

lebinz

1:51 PM
Dec 13, 2010

You’re all talking about two different things. 1. whether or not this is a child molestation case (i tend to think that this is an insult to REAL cases where 9 and 12 year are being raped), and 2. whether older men should date younger women. The first is clear, the children should be protected, the second is not only stupid, but insulting to women. Just like we shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their own bodies; just like it is wrong for muslim women to be stoned for cheating; we should respect their decision. Whether you feel comfortable or not isn’ the issue, that is your opinion and it is none of your business.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ggW8rfW

lebinz

1:55 PM
Dec 13, 2010

And it is funny how, as a manager, I can’t tell a 20yr old “I don’t hire women so young” but we as total strangers can say who they get to date and who they don’t get to date. Even by imposing restrictions on the “age limit” they are allowed to date is simply treating them like a piece of property. No one says this about boys. Boys do whatever they want with whomever they want. Demmi Moore picks up someone younger than she is and she gets a pat on the back. Donald Trump dates a model and people are angry. Women are property. Simple as that. This is why some of you are so outrage at the simple fact that there is an age difference.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gghjRrQ

plsstoptheHate101

1:49 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Josie911 I take personal offense to your statement because I am one of those that has benefited from Viagra, and I am putting my 19yr old girlfriend to college. So what do we have in common, she is getting a free education and I keep a smile on my face, what is wrong with that.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18gjL5S3A

plsstoptheHate101

2:17 PM
Dec 13, 2010

I was going Yeah good for him until I realise that I am 55 and dating a 19yr old…thanks to Viagra she is very happy. I tell you what, there is not a young man today if he lives to be an old man who will not appreciate Viagra. Pryor to Viagra men committed suicide.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=40&tstart=0#ixzz18ghbZvjc

OBJ

3:19 PM
Dec 13, 2010

Zeke: And Hindus and French Catholics and Canadian. In much of the world young women marry older men for stability and security. Their philosophy is why marry a guy and be with him during the struggling years when you can marry someone who is already established. And end up a well-off widow.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502&start=80&tstart=0#ixzz18goI9woN

Violent reactions

RickEvans033050

7:57:08 AM
Dec 20, 2010

The number of sociopath posters applauding this guy’s actions is appalling. Yes the age difference is disturbing however a 17 year old is not a little girl. Also, using ‘man’ to describe him is a stretch considering the coward had to recruit a couple of thug pals to restrain the victim. It’s one thing for this 47 year old to man-up and go one-on-one against the 57 year old victim over his daughters’ “honor”. This was a cowardly lynching

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in_germany_castrates_man_57_for_dating_his_17yearold_daughter_cops.html#ixzz18gSm8S1y

giantnyc

12:21 PM
Dec 13, 2010

While involvement with a teenager is despicable, I generally do not agree that people should be left to impose their brand of justice. Disguisting, yes, but was the low-life committing an illegal act? Was she at the age of legal consent? What if the father decides other things are his duty; restrictions based on religion, race, political leanings, anyone older than any age he decides is too old? Where is the limit? That is tough to say, but there is the law. He should probably have put on his thinking cap on and addressed why his young daughter is getting involved with an old man in the first place. Instead, he will be in jail, unable to help his daughter deal with her issues. Maybe this was more about him than his daughter. I dunno.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=118502#ixzz18gdTvsUd

Again and again, he [the officer] tried to subdue the 19-year old. But the struggle continued. Suddenly, from the sidelines jumped the girl’s 17-year old friend. She shoved the officer out of the way. [...] He closes his fist, winds up, and lands a hard right to her face.

[Human Rights proponent:] I don’t excuse her behavior. She was clearly in the wrong. But again, a force of a punch to the face is not justifiable.
See the entire video with transcript & subtitles

Human Rights seems to be mainly concerned with protecting criminals. People who are wrong. You don’t resist a police officer. You don’t shove a police officer. First you put yourself outside of the law, and then you look for protection of the law.

How does a police officer arrest 2 unruly women? If he maced and tasered them, that would be ok? He has to do a profound analysis, if the girls will escalate? How does he know if more people will interfere? Or if one woman has fighting skills, weapons? So a police officer has to take risks to protect the human rights of girls that are clearly wrong and that attack him!?

Interestingly, dictatorships do not have major crime problems. Nor do Brazilian shanty towns dominated by criminal gangs, or cities controlled by the mafia. Most smaller criminals can get subdued by rigorous law and order.

Devli’s advocate s provocative proposal
The suspension of due process, normal in alleged rape, child abuse and child porn cases, should be applied to crimes with real violence and real victims, where public safety is at stake. If simple unproven accusations would suffice to arrest and try bullies and street criminals, maybe public safety could be reinstated

.

More about the Rodney King Case

I myself have been brainwashed by mainstream political press. Only now, reading up on the case, did I see how much King was wrong. A clear carrer criminal wife and child beater, robber, habitual drunk driving drug addict.

Rodney King’s criminal history played a large role in the high-speed chase that led to his arrest, in his controversial and violent arrest, and in the trials that followed. King explained his decision to flee–at a speed exceeding 110 mph–from CHP officers as resulting from a fear that his arrest for speeding would lead to a revocation of his parole and a return to prison: “I was scared of going back to prison and I just kind of thought the problem would just go away.” Sergeant Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at King’s arrest, concluded (correctly, it turned out) from King’s “buffed out appearance” that he was most likely an ex-con who had been working out on prison weights–and assumed therefore that he was a dangerous character. Finally, it was King’s criminal history that explained the decision of prosecutors to keep him off the witness stand. If King testified, defense attorneys would be allowed to present the jury with his record of arrests–a record that might influence their deliberations. The Arrest Record of Rodney King

Why were the cops beating Rodney King? The politically correct answer is: Because he was black. But so were the other men in the car with him, when he was leading the police on a high-speed chase — and none of these other black men was beaten. What was the difference? Anyone who knows anything about police procedures, even if only from watching TV programs like “Cops,” knows that the police often order suspects to lie face down on the ground while they handcuff them behind their backs when they arrest them. That is what the police ordered Rodney King to do. But instead he shook his behind at the cops. They tried to wrestle him down but he was too big and strong for them. They fired electrified darts into him that were supposed to immobilize him, but that didn’t get the job done either. Twice he got up and advanced on the cops. At that point, they had not had a chance to search him and had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not. Arresting a huge, strong, and defiant man is something that most people have — fortunately — never had to do. You might think that this would make observers reluctant to second-guess whatever desperate measures were taken in this situation. But for some people, ignorance simply liberates them from the narrow confines of facts. Even after Rodney King was finally gotten down on the ground, he would not turn face down with his hands behind him, so that the police could handcuff him and search him. In the edited selection of videotape that shocked so many people, Rodney King was still not complying with these instructions. He was trying to ward off the blows — and to get back up — which would have posed a danger both to the cops and to himself. If he ended up succeeding in leaving the police no choice but to shoot him, that would have been the worst-case scenario for all. Rodney King was not beaten for his race

Somali pirates

Elsewhere I had mentioned, that Somali pirates, who were arrested robbing international ships, gain political asylum in European Countries with the rights to bring their families. How come, normal law abiding Somalis don’t get invited to have a new life in Europe?

Years of Jail for "clicking on child porn link". But lynching videos are legal & Border arrest & instant jail for owning DVD with young looking 19 year old porn star. Any honest citizen risks jail

.Depictions of violent child & adolescent beatings and killings are shown on prime time TV.  Tasteful nude photos of adolescents are VERY illegal, a crime, a terrible felony.

Unconscious stupidity and taboos analyzed

Why different standards for clicking and linking to various illegal material

Would someone be sent to 5-45 years of jail for CLICKING drug or prostitution LINKS?

• click here for illegal prostitutes (over 18)
• click here to buy hemp seed legal in Holland
• click here to buy cocaine
• click here to get info where to buy cocaine & crack

But clicking on “Click here for illegal child sex” is a crime.

What problem is there in possession of pictures of lawful events, or linking to them

filming and photographing FACTS that happen anyway

• teenagers filming themselves naked
• teenagers filming themselves having the sex they have anyway and they can legally have because of similar age
• toddlers filmed naked by their parents

Nobody gets harmed, nothing illegal happens. Why are there enormous penalties for possessing depictions of legal non-violent events?

Posessing depictions of real sexual abuse like sex play with a toddler carries much worse then REAL physical abuse

Even possession of REAL child pornography of the worst kind, while in bad taste, does not warrant higher penalties then allowing REAL child torture. A mother got 6 months in jail for allowing and watching her boyfriend torture her 3 year old child regularly with burning, drowning, locking into the freezer …. The penalty for the real perpetrator and torturer (5-8 years?) is way less then the 20 years expected for possession of a DVD with 23 year old Little Lupe Porn

6-foot, 210-pound Piskorski spanked Noah with a belt, forcibly held the child under 130-degree water causing extensive second-degree burns and pressed the child’s hands against a wall heater until grill marks were burned into Noah’s skin http://dailyme.com/story/2010050800001108/oregon-city-man-convicted-scalding-beating.html#ixzz0nj4shULq

Normally the criminal gets punished, not the person having depictions of the crime.

Proof: see two videos and some pictures below, of maiming, lynching, mistreating real people. Nothing about the pictures is illegal, they were transmitted by prime time Television.

Why are depictions of sexual activities so much worse then depictions of killing children and violence against children?

(1) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, but if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, or sex trafficking of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html

Would someone be sent 5 to 45 years in jail for for "production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of depictions of extreme violence and extreme physical abuse of a child"? NO! See examples below But there are jail terms for having 2 grainy low resolution photos of a nude teenager in a thumbnail database. That is a terrible crime.

Sorry for posting very tasteless violent pictures and movies, but I am trying to make a point. You may want to skip the movies

• One can show, store, possess, distribute a video killing a child (16 year olds nowadays are called children).
• If he were naked, masturbating, or making love to his girl friend, then this would warrant 5-45 years of jail.
• but a movie of him clubbed to death, that is perfectly, see below

Human Rights, when overdone as a inflexible dogma, encourage crime.

Somali pirates embrace capture as route to Europe

Pirates captured after attacking a Dutch vessel have gone on trial in the liberal Netherlands and at least two of them have declared their intention to stay on as residents.

Geert-Jan Knoops, an international criminal law attorney and professor at the Royal University of Utrecht, has suggested that the Dutch trial might encourage pirates to surrender just in order to seek a better life in Western countries. [ . . . ]

“Life is good here,” said one of the defendants, named Sayid, about his experience in a Dutch jail.
[ . . . ]

“My client feels safe here. His own village is dominated by poverty and sharia [Islamic law] but here he has good food and can play football and watch television. He thinks the lavatory in his cell is fantastic,” he said.

Mr Ausma has told the Somali that he will be considered for a residence permit after serving his sentence, expected to be a maximum of four years in prison.

“He intends to send for his wife and children as soon as he is released from prison. He knows he cannot easily be sent back to Somalia. He loves it here in the Netherlands,” Mr Ausma told the NRC Handelsblad newspaper.

Mr Ausma has also warned that ongoing piracy trials in the Netherlands, France and the United States will encourage pirates to commit crimes, for the purpose of being captured, rather than deterring attacks on Western flagged vessels.

“Anything is better than Somalia,” he said.

Prof Knoops has called for an international tribunal to deal with Somali pirates.

quoted from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/5350183/Somali-pirates-embrace-capture-as-route-to-Europe.html

Maybe the old time solution of sinking pirate ships and letting the pirates drown, or executing them on high seas would be a better service to humanity.  It would be more humane to worry about the safety of law abiding citizens, instead of worrying about the well being of violent dangerous criminals.

Interestingly, nobody worries much about the human rights violation of the average law abiding Somali citizen who was not captured by a foreign navy for being a criminal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736239.ece

From The Sunday Times
April 13, 2008

Pirates can claim UK asylum

THE Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.

Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.

The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.

[ . . . ]

Britain is part of a coalition force that patrols piracy stricken areas and the guidance has troubled navy officers who believe they should have more freedom to intervene.

The guidance was sharply criticised by Julian Brazier MP, the Conservative shipping spokesman, who said: “These people commit horrendous offences. The solution is not to turn a blind eye but to turn them over to the local authorities. The convention on human rights quite rightly doesn’t cover the high seas. It’s a pathetic indictment of what our legal system has come to.”

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/04/britain-hangs-out-welcome-mat-to-somali-pirates/

Britain Hangs Out Welcome Mat to Somali Pirates

A refreshing point of view follows:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736239.ece

Pirates must be hunted down and their vessels sunk on sight

Such ships must act promptly and ruthlessly, as piracy will spread unless it is stamped out. The Gulf of Aden is an exit from the Mediterranean, one of the world’s most important seas, crossed annually by thousands of ships. So our campaign must be ruthless and pitiless: pirate ships must be sunk on sight and the crews left to swim to safety, if it can be reached.

Many would complain about such tactics but, in my opinion, pirates have no rights – indeed, it will be vital to exclude human rights lawyers from the anti-piracy campaign. To bring any captives to Europe or America for trial would probably be to grant them their dearest wish, which is to secure entry to a new life in the First World.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

At issue her is:

• Legal punishment for sexual “crimes” against minors is a modern witch hunt.
• Totally out of proportion to damage caused by it.
• Hysteria
• Purposeful confounding of criminal violent sexual crime against minors nearly or totally harmless fondling or consensual sexual acts
• any reasonable open-minded unbiased discussion or scientific analysis of the issue regarding underage sexuality  is totally shunned, repressed, ignored, prohibited.

The blog cited below is pretty extreme. I am not saying that I totally agree with all of this.  It is an interesting “devil’s advocate” article meant to shake up ingrained prejudices.

In spite of being Devil’s advocate, I personally still think that messing with children is somewhat of bad taste and maybe should not be totally liberated.

What I question, though, is if it is such vile a crime as it is being treated by the law in the US and most other countries.

My doubt is:

• Is it really necessary that the punishment for slightly fondling a child is higher then for throwing the same child out of a third story window or throwing boiling water on it and getting the child seriously injured?

all quotes from http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/5/1990675.html

Of course among these sex offenders are indeed some criminals who have caused extreme harm: violent rapists of adult women as well as children. A few of them have kidnapped, tortured or murdered their victims.

Dr. Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins University Sex Disorders Clinic in Baltimore estimates that such crimes account for less than 1/10th of 1% of all sex offenses in America.

His studies also show that fewer than 10% of child sex offenders re-offend—though recidivism is usually given as a reason for draconian measures against them.

As child abuse experts point out, about 50 children are reported kidnapped and raped or murdered by strangers annually, compared to more than 3,000 children murdered by parents and other family members in non-sexual cases.

Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are “Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.

Or lonely, geeky gay men—teenagers some of them—who sought mutual sexual release with adolescent boys.

Or young female teachers who succumbed to the wiles of handsome adolescent boys or girls. Or young men who got drunk and pushed their girlfriends over a line that is now called date rape.”

Yet the media, police, prosecutors and politicians continue to insist that children are in dire need of protection from serial rapists and murderers.

Two-thirds of parents surveyed said they feared their children would be kidnapped and or murdered by strangers. Facts simply do not matter when hysteria is involved.

Explosives and grenade launchers were discovered on the mother ship when Portuguese special forces boarded “with no exchange of fire”, Lt Cmdr Alexandre Santos Fernandes said.

“It was almost a kilogramme of high explosives. If used correctly it can open a hole in the hull of a ship and sink her,” Lt Cmdr Fernandes said.

“It is the first time we have spotted high explosives on board a pirate ship, normally they just stick to AK-47s and RPGs (grenades).”

The 19 pirate suspects were released because they had not attacked Portuguese property or citizens.

I really wonder if that is furthering human happiness, or if it contributes to more suffering, encouraging further piracy by the same criminals and by others encouraged by their impunity.

But as all dogmas, maybe they should be questioned.  Setting pirates free after expensive capture, does that not encourage piracy and create human suffering? Potential victims of the next attack of the same pirates? Victims of other pirates who join the profession, because they see that their biggest risk is spending a day on a war ship, getting fed and then sent back home? Everyone in the world who pays higher cost for higher insurance premiums due to piracy?

And if they get caught and actually sent to court? Due process means that a dozen witnesses get flown in from all over the world to their court date? If they don’t come, the criminals go free. What about the cost, financially, and simply loss of time for spending a week in Kenia to go to a hot court? Not to talk about the cost of locking criminals away for 10 years. Would not an investment in hospitals and schools be more humane then wasting HUGE amounts on jails?

I understand that these topics are complex, I don’t suggest easy solutions. But I am against unquestionable dogmas that can cause unsolvable problems.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/ delves further into similar issues

Pirates have attacked more than 80 boats this year alone, four times the number assaulted in 2003, according to the Kuala Lumpur-based International Maritime Bureau. They now hold at least 18 ships — including a Belgian tanker seized Saturday with 10 crew aboard — and over 310 crew hostage, according to an Associated Press count.

From http://latestnewsworldwide.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-ships-helicopters-hunt-down-7.html