NVD: Paedophilia and politics
We have a new poltical party! It is called the NVD: "Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit" roughly translated as "Neighbourly Love, Freedom and Diversity". They created a storm of protests in Holland as well as internationally. The NVD proposes some radical political issues like legalizing both hard & softdrugs, legalizing streaking, enforcing everybody to become vegetarians and... legalizing paedophilia. The party proposes to allow children aged 12 and up to feature in pornmovies and legalize consenting sex between adults and children of 12 years and older. As you may imagine, the storm of protests has little to do with the legalizing of drugs.
I have a very open mind regarding anyone's political or religious standpoints... but I personally consider this really as over the edge. However, besides the enormous stereotypical mediahype which has jumped these people there are some very thoughtprovoking issues that deserve to be adressed properly. Properly meaning: rational consideration of the implications instead of a fervent first passionate reaction. I am not a very big fan of baseball-bat politics.
My first point is morally. I am a liberal. I strongly believe that sexual urges are a very personal matter and as such the urge should never be classified as legal or unlegal. Giving in to certain urges is another matter. Conscious or unconscious action by any individual is subject to the rules and laws of society. Whether we like it or not, only society decides what is wrong. I am a very happy heterosexual living in a state which has defined such borders quite clearly and quite broad. Paedophilia is outside those borders. Homo/bisexuality, prostitution and a whole range of other so-called "undecent" behaviours is legal and should be so. I don't practice/make use of it but if other people need that freedom that is very fine by me. Who am I to judge them? Paedophilia is another matter entirely. It is unlegal and immoral simply because it is a relationship between people who are not equals. There is a reason we consider children to be minors; we don't allow them to vote or hold citizenrights simply because they haven't grown up (stating the obvious is an art ;) ). Part of not being grown up is the freedom of responsibility. Children should not be forced to carry responsibility or expected to make decisions on an equal level as an adult.
Thus by it's very nature paedophilia results in abuse. Abuse, at the very least, because you force children into making decisions they should not have to make. Sexual abuse, no matter how many proposals anyone does, is a crime and should remain so. Sexuality in any form is a matter between consenting equals.
A second point which makes me think are the political aspects. If these people want to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections (May 2007) they should register at the electorate commision with a list of at least 60.000 signatures. I cannot possibly imagine them collecting such an ammount. But if they did, should we prevent them to? I fear we have little to stop them and I am wondering if I would be in favour of a ban. When they meet the official criteria for becoming a party a ban would be very damaging to our democracy. Probably more damaging than allowing them to participate. Who in this nation can be trusted with the power to allow or disallow politcal parties/thoughts/ideas on moral grounds? The answer in a democracy is by it's very nature of course 'nobody'. Compare it to the euthanasia debate which raged during the 90s. Before legalizing active euthanasia in The Netherlands it was considered murder and immoral. In short it was as much a crime as paedophilia. Nonetheless it became a political issue and eventually after a heavy and long debate a parliamentary majority approved a law which under certain conditions legalized euthanasia. Regardless of my personal opinion, isn't this the very same thing? If it is, should that not mean that if the NVD meets all criteria to participate they should be allowed to do so and be engaged in democratical debate? The real issue here is do we trust democracy enough to be capable of handling these extremes?
I have a very open mind regarding anyone's political or religious standpoints... but I personally consider this really as over the edge. However, besides the enormous stereotypical mediahype which has jumped these people there are some very thoughtprovoking issues that deserve to be adressed properly. Properly meaning: rational consideration of the implications instead of a fervent first passionate reaction. I am not a very big fan of baseball-bat politics.
My first point is morally. I am a liberal. I strongly believe that sexual urges are a very personal matter and as such the urge should never be classified as legal or unlegal. Giving in to certain urges is another matter. Conscious or unconscious action by any individual is subject to the rules and laws of society. Whether we like it or not, only society decides what is wrong. I am a very happy heterosexual living in a state which has defined such borders quite clearly and quite broad. Paedophilia is outside those borders. Homo/bisexuality, prostitution and a whole range of other so-called "undecent" behaviours is legal and should be so. I don't practice/make use of it but if other people need that freedom that is very fine by me. Who am I to judge them? Paedophilia is another matter entirely. It is unlegal and immoral simply because it is a relationship between people who are not equals. There is a reason we consider children to be minors; we don't allow them to vote or hold citizenrights simply because they haven't grown up (stating the obvious is an art ;) ). Part of not being grown up is the freedom of responsibility. Children should not be forced to carry responsibility or expected to make decisions on an equal level as an adult.
Thus by it's very nature paedophilia results in abuse. Abuse, at the very least, because you force children into making decisions they should not have to make. Sexual abuse, no matter how many proposals anyone does, is a crime and should remain so. Sexuality in any form is a matter between consenting equals.
A second point which makes me think are the political aspects. If these people want to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections (May 2007) they should register at the electorate commision with a list of at least 60.000 signatures. I cannot possibly imagine them collecting such an ammount. But if they did, should we prevent them to? I fear we have little to stop them and I am wondering if I would be in favour of a ban. When they meet the official criteria for becoming a party a ban would be very damaging to our democracy. Probably more damaging than allowing them to participate. Who in this nation can be trusted with the power to allow or disallow politcal parties/thoughts/ideas on moral grounds? The answer in a democracy is by it's very nature of course 'nobody'. Compare it to the euthanasia debate which raged during the 90s. Before legalizing active euthanasia in The Netherlands it was considered murder and immoral. In short it was as much a crime as paedophilia. Nonetheless it became a political issue and eventually after a heavy and long debate a parliamentary majority approved a law which under certain conditions legalized euthanasia. Regardless of my personal opinion, isn't this the very same thing? If it is, should that not mean that if the NVD meets all criteria to participate they should be allowed to do so and be engaged in democratical debate? The real issue here is do we trust democracy enough to be capable of handling these extremes?
posted by Gertjan at
8:14 am
3 Comments:
I think that if a political party goes *well* beyond the borders of what we (the society) consider legal and just (however subjective those terms may be), that political party should be banned.
Just like I can not (or should not be able to) create a party that promotes assassinations, there should not be a party that promotes paedophilia.
As you stated, sex between an adult and a minor is per definition not consenting sex between equals. And therefore it is rape. And I don't think we want to make rape legal. There is not even a valid argument for it, certainly not from the point of view of the child. Anyone who thinks this could be part of sexual education, should explain this idea to me, because I don't get it.
On a side-note. I don't have a lot of confidence in the democratic value of any party who would *force* their citizens to become vegetarians. It seems to me this party has a lot to learn about the freedom of choice, and the unacceptability of forcing their (minority) moral code on others (majority).
Oh I agree. But the point remains where do you draw the line? I mean as I stated, euthanasia used to be murder. Something which is also *well* beyond the borders of what we consider legal and just. Nobody banned the political parties that promoted those ideas and currently they have become well accepted and legal.
Absolutely, but in the case of euthenasia one could at least argue for the "freedom of choice" "medical need" and "an end to inhumane suffering". And regardless of your position, these arguments are at least a basis for debate. I don't see any of such lofty ideals for the legalisation of paedophilia.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home