This year, there was a news article in the classroom that explains the demise of Western culture that we see all over us these days. The European parliament , voted to decriminalize the custody of child pornography, downgrading it from a misdemeanor to a criminal act and reducing minimal sentences for hands and circulation.  ,
European lawmakers argued that decriminalization do “necessitate flexibility” to deal with the “large proportion of adolescent offenders” and would also guard parents and teachers who discover child porn on young people’s devices and complete them on to the appropriate authorities.  ,
But as critics clearly noted, instead of creating exceptions in the laws to deal with these kind of contingencies, European lawmakers downgraded , all , hands and supply of baby video — a move that was cheered by pro- molester advocacy groups. Anti-child porn laws, and all other constitutional prohibitions against pedophilia, are nothing more than anachronistic taboos that society must ban in the name of individual freedom and self-determination, according to the members of these groups. Krumme-13, or just K13, a party that championed the outcome, deplores the absence of any politician who has yet to “apologize to the thousands upon thousands of those impacted who fell target” to the now-defunct legal laws prohibiting the possession and distribution of kid movie.
Why is this occurring in a supposedly educated European country like Germany? It’s certainly a secret. European lawmakers, in fact, are simply applying the same twisted logic of acceptance that American lawmakers have long used to address various contentious issues. Consent has been the justification for the end of one social stigma after another, from gay union to the so-called “gender-affirming care.” So long as all events easily acceptance, goes the wondering, there’s virtually nothing that can be justly prohibited by law.
Dass is the opinion of K13 leader Dieter Gieseking, who has been accused of child porn ownership numerous times over the years. In a 2014 interview, he advocated for a 12-year-old to receive parental consent and said that sexual relationships between adults and young children may be “discussed differently.” Setting the age of acceptance at 12, Gieseking explained, is “long late in today’s intelligent world”. Why? Because some people “take the action” in a polite and intimate relationship with a pedosexual, especially boys and girls. So, there is a need for physical criminal law transformation that does justice to all involved”. A decade later, Gieseking has gotten his wish.
Nothing more than consent is necessary for a sexual relationship to have legitimacy, according to this corrupted view of things. The logic is this: Because minors are self-sufficient individuals with human rights, any restrictions on activities against their will are unfair. There is no legitimate basis for laws that criminalize pedophilia or child porn as long as the children involved give their consent, as in particular sexual self-determination. On a similar basis, laws that forbid minors from using puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or having irreversible surgeries that leave them mutilated or sterile are also viewed as unfair.
This is of course not just morally insane, it’s also profoundly disingenuous. The reason behind age-of-permission laws, which apply to anything, is that society recognizes that there are numerous categories of activities for which minors and children are not able to consent. They are n’t mature enough to comprehend a decision’s implications or consequences, and we have traditionally codified that reality in law. That’s why parents routinely make decisions on their children’s behalf. It’s also one of the reasons children ca n’t get tattoos or buy alcohol, among many other things. There is no difficult way to understand this, and there is in fact a general consensus regarding the fundamental belief that children cannot consent to or make their own decisions.
What justifications exist for the pro-pedophile crowd’s claim that children cannot consent to sexual relations with an adult if we say, as the pro-trans ideologues do, that children can indeed consent to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or irreversible surgeries? We ca n’t — and increasingly, we wo n’t.
Understand the recent discussion about” children’s rights” as what it is: a deliberate attempt to undermine both our long-held societal consensus that children are not independent and cannot make decisions for themselves. When politicians on the left invoke” children’s rights” over and against the rights of parents, as , one Canadian lawmaker did recently , in reference to a bill that would require parental approval for “gender- affirming care”, it’s almost always in the service of a radical social agenda intent on tearing down sexual taboos.
Pro-pedophile activists and their academic allies are open to this. Gieseking once said,” The taboo of pedophilia must finally be broken at all levels of society.” The best way to stop child abuse is if a pedophile can come out without fear of exclusion or even demonization.
However, there is a reason for taboos, exclusion, and shame. They discourage predatory and pathological behavior, and they protect vulnerable members of society, like children. Tearing down taboos, especially sexual taboos, serves a single purpose: to encourage that which was once forbidden. In Germany, the decriminalization of child porn will unforeseeably result in the proliferation of child porn, the purveyors and consumers of which will increasingly be perceived in a sympathetic light and eventually accepted by the mainstream without regard.
It’s the same for us here in America. If we want to stop this, we have to bring back taboos. If we do n’t, we should be able to use the same arguments that were used to support transgender ideology and gay marriage in the name of pedophilia.  ,
