LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I have no doubt in the future if the Liberals, Socialists and Libertarians get they way they Pedophilia will be legalised.Originally Posted by g hall
It may sound shocking now but no one could have imagined 50 years ago that homosexuality would be legalised or that men would be allowed to kiss and cavort in public.
Only a Traditional Conservative government can stop this descent into the abyss.
With respect Harry, UKIP are tainted by this and seriously diminished. It does not mean that UKIP also hold those views but it means that they should have expressed as much. His views are, of course, true Libertarianism which is itself sick and corruptive.
Mr Gabb takes his beliefs in individual liberties to absolute lengths. Those who spoke to him on the idea of aplying to the list were unaware of some of his,shall we say more contentious views.
Though flattered and pleased by th eoffer I overheard his response.
He thanked the proposer very kindly and pointed out to him that he would be an appalling liability to UKIP. So he would support the party from the outside.
As the President of the Libertarian alliance he is a useful and influential friend. As a candidate, nay even as a member he would be impossible. A fact that he is self aware enough to not only recognise but also honest enough to warn people off.
Frankly what people do in other countries is up to them to decide, I'm concerned about England and our laws. It would be interesting to know from the above, although the age of consent is as low as 12, whether the Porn industries in said countries (if they exist) require an age of 18+ to partake.As low as 12 and as high as 18 so how can we define a child with cultures varying so much ?
You can be 16 in this country and consenting but I believe appearing in pornographic material would require you to be over the age of 18.
If we agreed pornographic material could only feature 18+ consenting adults then I have no problem with that. Obviously policing that is difficult if people are bringing things from abroad, but it would certainly give the police the power as they have now to arrest people who purchase pictures of children being abused.
With common sense I think we can tell what is an innocent picture of a child taken by their parents whilst playing in the garden, and a sick picture of a child being raped.Perhaps under 12 ? but we all have had pictures taken in the past when very young which these days are deemed inappropriate or perhaps it's the use that the pictures are put to ?
See aboveWhat about families that practice nudism or naturism any pictures they have could be deemed offensive but could just be family or social group pictures
I agree with your anti-predator law that that seems a sensible idea.
Ea of dune
I don't care what he's saying, in my book anybody who wishes to look at Child Porn is nothing more than a twisted pervert!
I agree Geoffrey. See Gawain's post above as it is a good a response as I was about to post. Sean Gabb's views on this matter were not known when he was asked to stand as a candidate and so can hardly be used against UKIP. As Gawain says, he recognises he would be a liability whch is fortunate.
I don't think Mr Gabb has done any damage whatsoever to the party and I don't see why he should in the future. Everyone is entitled to their views, but his affiliation cannot be construed as anything else. I think we can be pretty certain it would never be UKIP policy to legalise child porn so the matter is irrelevant.
No, Harry some views have to be beyond the pale. For how long is it just a view? Thought leads to action and remember the one expressing the view is fortifying and encouraging others. It helps build up the moral climate of permission or prohibition because we don't live as isolated individuals but share a world and thus influence each other. Those who preach otherwise are philosophically bancrupt.
You said "everyone is entitled to his views" and are therefore justifying them. Have a good look at your children or grandchildren next time you think that.
Well said david H!
I think the view that creating and distributing images of illegal activity (IE where someone has been harmed and in this case children), is closer to ouright anarchy.
I certainly don't agree with that.
mkpdavies no longer posts on this forum
The parameters of normality, are what separates the 'normal' from the mentally ill. It is this, which must be identified as the central issue. Should Gabb be tolerant of child pornography, has he an equal tolerance of necrophilia? Both the child, due to immaturity and, the deceased, negate any defence based on consensuality.
Many people, who by choice, indulge in drug-taking, frequently find that they do not possess the 'choice' to desist, when the consequences of their addiction, are fully realised. They become sad and unfortunate people: frequently the perpetrators of crime, to feed that habit which has destroyed them. Compulsion on others increases, to provide funds for their welfare, ensures an increasing number of the, 'privileged' from below.
Let us search for context. A couple of weeks ago, a UKIP member, most unwisely, spoke at a BNP meeting. His subject, was the oft repeated claim, that treason charges could be brought against former Cabinet Ministers and Civil Servants. Legally, it has no basis for a successful prosecution whatsoever. The leadership made it clear instantly, that they want this man, not only reprimanded, but out of the Party. Last Saturday, they entertained with relish Dr Gabb. Enquiries were made to ascertain if he would like to be a UKIP candidate for the 2009, Euro-elections. Apparently, as a further inducement, would his place on the nomination list, be an influencing factor in his final decision. If we are stupid enough to constantly get into these difficulties, will we be clever enought to solve those problems which are the result? As John Milton once said, 'What hope therefore, is there in faith, but what consolation in despair'. In increasing numbers, many are asking the same question today.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks