Ya, but a two bit judge in Morontario said you weren’t allowed to call drag filth groomers. Hey, I know. I’ll just call them pedos.
bingo. a ‘groomer’ is also someone advising a young person dating standards, including what they wear. or grooming a rookie to run for political office.
but PEDO is vastly more exacting in the target group.
I believe the new approved terminology is MAP. It stands for Minor Attracted Pedophile.
It actually stands for Minor Attracted Persons. But I nit pick. Also, I like your explanation better, it gets right to the point.
The least people … exactly.
Here’s my “I’m not shocked face”. They have judicial protection now don’t they?
How long till some Liberal judge accepts a Charter argument that the Criminal Code sections prohibiting distribution/possession of kiddie porn are unconstitutional.
BC has already set the precedent with the ruling that prohibiting addicts from shooting up in parks and playgrounds is stigmatizing and causes the addict irreparable harm. Some judge somewhere will cite that in saying that criminalizing sex with kids causes the predator irreparable harm.
Just looked into this a bit further and see that the accused is in BC. From this article —
…touching a person under 16 for sexual purposes, sexual interference of a person under 16, possession of child pornography, and importing or distributing child pornography…”
My prediction: this is the case that will be used to attempt to decriminalize at least some of those items, and a BC judge will cite the “irreparable harms” drug use case. As I understand it, though, the drug use case overturned a provincial regulation and not a Criminal Code offense. But I still think a BC activist judge will try to pull this off.
Does that mean we should skip criminalizing them and just go straight to causing them irreparable harm? ( Asking on behalf of a friend..)
Fox in the hen house.
Why should anyone be surprised that if they have a predilection, they are going to show up in groups that give them access to their desires?
Similarly, you don’t “Drag time story hour for Seniors” because they aren’t the preferred targets…
always a problem in life using the exit as an entrance.
A pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Judges are stupid.
Ya, but a two bit judge in Morontario said you weren’t allowed to call drag filth groomers. Hey, I know. I’ll just call them pedos.
bingo. a ‘groomer’ is also someone advising a young person dating standards, including what they wear. or grooming a rookie to run for political office.
but PEDO is vastly more exacting in the target group.
I believe the new approved terminology is MAP. It stands for Minor Attracted Pedophile.
It actually stands for Minor Attracted Persons. But I nit pick. Also, I like your explanation better, it gets right to the point.
The least people … exactly.
Here’s my “I’m not shocked face”. They have judicial protection now don’t they?
How long till some Liberal judge accepts a Charter argument that the Criminal Code sections prohibiting distribution/possession of kiddie porn are unconstitutional.
BC has already set the precedent with the ruling that prohibiting addicts from shooting up in parks and playgrounds is stigmatizing and causes the addict irreparable harm. Some judge somewhere will cite that in saying that criminalizing sex with kids causes the predator irreparable harm.
Just looked into this a bit further and see that the accused is in BC. From this article —
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fort-st-john-man-charged-with-child-sex-crimes-1.7076997
— the guy is charged with —
…touching a person under 16 for sexual purposes, sexual interference of a person under 16, possession of child pornography, and importing or distributing child pornography…”
My prediction: this is the case that will be used to attempt to decriminalize at least some of those items, and a BC judge will cite the “irreparable harms” drug use case. As I understand it, though, the drug use case overturned a provincial regulation and not a Criminal Code offense. But I still think a BC activist judge will try to pull this off.
Does that mean we should skip criminalizing them and just go straight to causing them irreparable harm? ( Asking on behalf of a friend..)
Fox in the hen house.
Why should anyone be surprised that if they have a predilection, they are going to show up in groups that give them access to their desires?
Similarly, you don’t “Drag time story hour for Seniors” because they aren’t the preferred targets…
always a problem in life using the exit as an entrance.
A pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Judges are stupid.