THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
So I am not the only one...
Harry's Place is down

Yet more Gadding about

Link: Longrider » More Gadding About.

Longrider's analysis is excellent. Take a look. If paedophiles truly operated under the compulsion of a mental illness, they would not be  criminals at all. They would deserve compassion. Legally they would be innocent and should never be imprisoned in the first place. If, on the other hand, they are sane and capable of making free choices, then when they break the law they are criminals like any other. Their statistical tendency to recidivism  (little different, I suspect, to that of other criminal groups) does not mean a given individual should be denied the chance to reform when he has served his time. Arguing that Paul Gadd should be allowed to live in freedom unless and until he commits another crime, is not to condone what he did. No-one who has argued against the new powers the Government has introduced - and which the odious Jacqui Smith is now brandishing to the applause of the mob, is supporting paedophiles or advocating paedophilia. House of Dumb, in condemning "the lefty blogosphere"  (I have not been called "a lefty" since my days as a teenage Maoist) writes;

If you're going to insist that paedophiles have the same rights as everyone else, then you're arguing that everyone should be treated as though they were a paedophile. Once you claim there's no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the average citizen and degenerate filth, then you're faced with either letting maniacs run free or clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved.

Take the word "paedophile" and replace it with "murderer", "racist", "homophobe" or (in an earlier age) "homosexual" and the passage works just as well as demagoguery. Everyone should have the same legal rights as everyone else unless and until convicted by due process of law. Those rights should then only be removed (or rather suspended) until the expiry of the sentence passed by an indpendent court in accordance with the law. It is not libertarianism which is leading to "clamping down on the rights of the non-depraved," it is such addled, tabloid emotionalism as this.

The witch-hunters cannot have it both ways. However much they may describe any attempt at rational thought as "...near-lunatic ranting..."  If they are allowed to get away with their afternoon-TV, chav sentimentalism, what next? After all those with criminal convictions for violence are a statistical threat to children when released. Why should such individuals be allowed their liberty when their sentence is served? Or what about someone who has killed a child by dangerous driving? Might he not do so again? When every threat to the children has been removed, what about other young people? What about the elderly? What about other vulnerable members of society? What about everyone?

What is it about sex that robs the British of their senses? Yes, paedophile sex is a vile assault. It is a repulsive attack upon innocence. So are many other kinds of assault on the weak and defenceless. These people seriously speak of the "weirdness" of the libertarian position. Yet they are quite prepared to set free, perhaps to re-offend, someone who has killed, maimed or raped. Whose position is "weird" again?

I could understand if those who seek to bind Paul Gadd with legal restrictions for the rest of his life were to argue that paedophilia should carry a life sentence. For that matter, I could understand if they argued it should carry a death sentence. At least that would be honest. At least there could be a sensible debate about comparative sentencing for different crimes. But the hybrid position they are defending now is quite simply stupid.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Like you Tom I prefer to put emotional aspects of arguments aside when rationalising but I think you are failing to focus on this one.

The issue is that society is generally failing to tackle crimes which :

1) Have a long-term dehabilitating or traumatic effect on the victim.

Combined with

2) High rates of recidivism in the perpetrator group.

New laws on human rights focus on protecting the individual from the state but there are no complimentary laws to protect the individual from recidivist criminal and many feel this is an aberration of society to protect the innocent; I agree with this concern.


Speaking for those of us from a distinct minority who want less, not more government control of our lives - They’re at it again - The liberal paternalists are proposing to ban the display of tobacco in shops and are currently soliciting the opinion of their electorate. Banishing cigarettes will cost ordinary taxpayers more money, inconvenience thousands of consumers, and threaten the livelihoods of shopkeepers all over the UK.
I’m sick and tired of more of the same from Nanny - obsessed with dictating how people live their lives but brushing the big issues, like knife crime and recession, under the carpet. They’re planning to hide tobacco, and they are already policing alcohol, red meat, fatty foods, and salt to name a few.
I’m sick of seeing pubs closing down where I live. I’m sick of being made to feel guilty because I eat and drink as I please.
I’m sick of Nanny. How about you? Got Freedom?

tired and emotional

I am not at all comfortable with you lumping Britain's disgust for paedophilia in with the obsession you say the Brits have with sex.

Paedophilia is not sex any more than rape is. It serves no procreative function and consent cannot legally be given by a child, even if it is sought by the paedophile.

Don't allow whatever small value your points might have to lead you into normalising paedophilia. Society needs to operate lawfully but it also needs to know in its heart what is beyond the pale and it needs to be able to express that.

In a perfect world that did not contain human rights shyster lawyers your way might be sufficient. We do not live in a perfect world. We face challenges Thomas Paine's ideas are insufficient to deal with on their own.



Rationalize, intellectualize... all the same. "We are all minorities in one respect or another and the best way to look at it is that each of us is a minority of one".
Yet the nature of mind I observe has a male-female dichotomy. We are not one. Did you not find your 'better half'? And in that finding discover an ego and learn to respect that person and not use her for your own selfishness?
Have you not discovered material things are less than the freedom of consciousness? Have you not returned to the child you once were, when sidetracked by judgements and vanities of life until you learned forgiveness?

A person does not need to identify with anything. Beware those who do. For those who define themselves within walls incubate themselves, not as individuals but as justifiers. The cruellest are the most Justified.

Islam (submission), Stonewall... reveal a lot about themselves. No child should be exposed to them, yet they want to be in the schools. Why? Why not wait until children are adults to choose for themselves? But adults won't, never will, unless by the fear of the sword that inverts and sears their conscience. A coward-fear grows within a person as if has a life of its own, needing to be supplicated and cannot bear the light.

On the other hand, children are a lot easier as they are by development impressionable.

The hysteria then is not against Paedophiles, it is the realisation that children are already exposed to negative self-identity by single parenthood, homosexuality, promiscuity and their howls of the masses are of the pain that this is just the fruit of worse things to come. Gadd is merely a scapegoat for denying-the-present. The our media and government, this blog, have consistently told us to look away. There are fewer and fewer outlets for 'legitimate' protest.

A society is how it raised it's children.

Tom Paine

Kinderling, I am sick of special pleading for (and against) particular groups. We are all minorities in one respect or another and the best way to look at it is that each of us is a minority of one. I am not defending any group here and I therefore don't give a damn whether any group would defend me. I am just trying to argue as rationally as I can for an important principle which is a foundation stone of a free society. If that's naieve, so be it.


Excellent post -- very thoughtful.


There is a phrase Homosexuals often like to use "he who cast the first stone..." as they, being unwilling to condemn the Paedophile, have thus earned the piety of a Christ. It an inverted world of self-deceit. If you only knew what conspires when Homosexuals get together.
You are naive defender of those who will certainly not defend you.

The comments to this entry are closed.