The world wide repression of “illegal drugs” with all its terrible side effects originates from the USA.
“Harry J Anslinger was head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics which enforced the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S.A. from 1919 to 1933. When prohibition was repealed, Anslinger, in order to keep and justify his existence and job, created the Orwellian lies about a new killer drug – marihuana. […] In 1937 Anslinger had a hearing conducted before Congress which resulted in the Marihuana Tax Act and henceforth the whole legal injustice took off.”THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG LAWS AND WHY THE DRACONIAN PENALTIES ?
All irrational witch hunts seem to originate in the USA.
All irrational witch hunts seem to originate in the USA(child porn witch hunt, teenage sex witch hunt, anti prostitution witch hunt, and illegal drug witch hunt). And the USA imposes the witch hunt upon the rest of the world.
Why is this so? Who has the answers?
Drug Liberalization in Portugal and Holland: a success
Portugal just reports clear successes with legalization of drugs. Holland legalization of drugs and most of teenage sex is a resounding success.
“Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001. The outcome, after nearly a decade, according to a study published in the November issue of the British Journal of Criminology: less teen drug use, fewer HIV infections, fewer AIDS cases and more drugs seized by law enforcement. Adult drug use rates did slightly increase — but this increase was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug policies. The use of drugs by injection declined.” Read more: Portugal’s Drug Experience: New Study Confirms Decriminalization Was a Success
“The Dutch are known for their liberal attitudes toward sex and drugs: while not officially legal, marijuana use and sale in “coffee shops” is tolerated in The Netherlands, as is prostitution, most notoriously in the street windows of Amsterdam’s red light district. Pragmatism, the Dutch have long believed, is better than punitive prohibition — and they’ve got lots of data on their side.While 12% of the American population has smoked marijuana in the last month, for example, the same is true of only 5% of citizens of The Netherlands.” Read more: What the U.S. Can Learn from the Dutch About Teen Sex
Mr. Emerson was a private practice physician. A series of unproven allegations by his adulterous wife, (and later by a female WalMart cashier) got him into jail, made him lose his medical license & practice, lose the children, obliged him to pay child support to his ex-wife. Without his medical license he was unable to pay child support and got $ 70 000 in debt with his adulterous wife. He lost his drivers license due to nonpayment of child support. Of course he could never see his daughter.
Years later, when his then 15 year old daugher (who got spanked by her step father) wanted to move in with her father, he got another anonymous child abuse complaint regarding the 3 year old kid of his girl friend. Mr. Emerson spent multiple times in jail, lived with his father or friends as a favor, lived under a bridge, Over 10 years of ordeals. Life ruined. Because of accusations of an adulterous wife. And a legal system that suspended due process and inverted the burden of proof in most feminist issues like child sexual abuse, wife beating, child porn, etc.
Human-Stupidity.com analysis: Mr Emerson’s life was ruined by government and legal system
extreme feminist laws protecting women, inversion of burden of proof (guilty until proven innocent), no due process.
together with a vengeful wife and power seeking government attorneys
It is sad if any good law abiding citizen can get ruined by government & vengeful women
Half of the complaints against Mr. Emerson were unproven, the other half obviously wrong or ridiculous:
We are also astounded to find that going through a cashier’s checkout line at Wal-Mart once or twice a week [based on testimony and cancelled checks provided by Joe Emerson]can be construed as a basis for a stalking complaint.
The story began in 1998. According to court records his then wife, Sacha, was having an affair with her hairdresser and petitioned for divorce on August 28, 1998, and requested a restraining order against Dr. Emerson, claiming he had threatened her paramour during a telephone call.
[ . . . ]
Note that about half of the hundreds of married men who have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation have been charged with domestic violence or abuse after finding their wives were having an affair. Allegations of domestic violence or abuse are a standard tactic in a divorce today with virtually no recourse for the husband. Under current laws such false allegations are standard as they give the adulterous wife the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants with no questions asked, i.e., due process is a thing of the past. She will also almost certainly receive child support even if the child(ren) prove not to be her husband’s. And there is no penalty for her perjury.
More child porn insanity! Children nowadays need legal counsel to know if and how they can photograph themselves or have relations with other teenagers, or else they can spend years in jail and remain the rest of their lives on sex offender lists.
US court on ‘sexting’: Child porn or child’s play?
01/15/2010 PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The first criminal case involving “sexting” reached a U.S. appeals court on Friday — a case that asks whether racy cell-phone photos of three girls amount to child pornography or child’s play.
A county prosecutor in northeastern Pennsylvania threatened to pursue felony charges if the girls skipped his “re-education” course on such topics as sexual predators and “what it means to be a girl in today’s society.”
The photos show two 12-year-olds in training bras at a sleepover and a topless 16-year-old stepping out of the shower.[. . . ]
“Naked pictures of children on the Internet draws predators the same way a swamp draws mosquitoes,” argued lawyer Michael Donohue of Scranton, who represents the prosecutor’s office. Authorities must sometimes protect children from themselves, he argued. newsok.com/3-face-charges-in-texhoma-sexting/article/3480534
“Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movies really attract chainsaw murderers like a swamp draws moskitoes.
Cop Killer rap music really incites violence against police and school authorities.Soccer stadiums attract violent hooligans like a swamp draws mosquitoes. Let us close down all soccer stadiums.
Photos of knives, swords, and guns attract murderers.
Actually, the analogies are much more convincing then the lawyer’s statement in column 1, which is devoid of any logic or scientifc support. Pure manipulative nonsense. It is intriguing how utter nonsense is socially acceptable whenever it is backed by feminism and women’s studies. No clue about logic and scientific method. But absolute masters in manipulating public opinion.
Here is the root of the insanity. Unproven hysterical statements, with no scientific backing, are the excuse for a witch hunt. Feminists use real predators, real rapists, kidnappers and child murderers as an excuse for their political goals. So innocent girls photographing themselves naked get arrested! Why should it be a crime to photograph yourself? Maybe it is also a crime for the girls to look into the mirror?
I dare to say something really taboo: what is the problem if dirty old men like to look at nude adolescent pictures and do absolutely no harm whatsoever. Why should they get 10 years in jail?
So even if it were true that naked pictures of children on the internet draw predators. For what? To look at photos in the privacy of their home? What is the problem? Maybe this is positive, so they don’t go out trying to check out what real adolescents look like naked.
The most recent tension came from Pakistan’s decision that it will monitor Google, Bing, Yahoo (and other sites) for blasphemous content. Now it is the EU’s turn to try to impose checks on search engines through its controversial "Written Declaration 29."
Written Declaration 29 Italy’s European Member of Parliament, Tiziano Motti, is the author of the proposal, commonly known as Written Declaration 29, adopted last week. His aim was to protect children from abusers and paedophiles lurking on the web by requesting that user data from search engines be stored and used by governments to track sexual offenders.
A large percentage of children grow up in poverty stricken families, unintegrated into middle class society, condemned to low level of schooling and an unsuccessful life.
Hundreds of millions of our children will live an unhealthy life and die early, due to obesity, wrong nutrition, lack of exercise.
Hundreds of millions of children also will be victims of bullying at school, threatened, intimidates, psychologically damaged.
And now, search machines are supposed to become government spies? In violation of civil rights of hundreds of million law abiding internet users. With the intent to catch a few dozen dangerous "pedophiles" and entrap a couple of thousand harmless surfers who have bad taste and seek photos of young kids?
Watchdog Privacy International immediately stepped up to the plate by issuing a joint statement with search engine Ixquick, entitled: Ixquick: Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament. Ixquick has built its reputation on not storing any user search data and therefore feels it has been singled out by the Declaration. For Robert Beens, CEO of Ixquick, Written Declaration 29 would jeopardize the privacy of over 500 million people across Europe when it should really uniquely concern known offenders. "Sex offenders exchange files through underground networks. They don’t find this stuff through search engines," Alex Hanff of Privacy International said in the statement. "I spent eight years helping law enforcement track down online sex offenders and never once did we see a case where search engine data was useful."
A critique of Victim Rights Groups (VRG) in relation to sex offender info and legislation A hilarious rating of “victims rights” groups. Most of them got bad grades for perpetuating false myths and distorting reality. But one group earned his A rating. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation (www.jwf.org): […] “A+ (24 points): The JWF sets a gold standard for all VRGs to follow. The site is well put out, their information is free, easily ccessible, and factual. Few other VRGs take a sensible approach to the sex crime problem. Simply put, its as close to perfection as VRGs go “.
I am a FORMER Registrant currently residing in Alabama. On February 20, 2000 I was arrested in Alabama for making sexual contact (kissing) with an 11-year-old girl I had known while I was in college (around my 23rd birthday). I plead guilty to one count of 1st degree sexual abuse and received a six year sentence. I served 3 years at Bullock County Correctional Facility in Alabama, voluntarily took sex offender treatment sources, and was released on April 1, 2003. About Derek Logue
We cannot really know if this story is true, because by our language distorting laws, a child kisser gets called a “child rapist”. This is how our language has been redefined (see other articles about Child porn wich hunt and Teenage Sexuality witch hunt in this blog)
In 2003 I began posting at www.sexcriminals.com under the screen name “fallenone.” From my time as a regular poster there and at www.sohopeful.org, I found my calling as an advocate for the rights of sex offenders who have paid their debts to society and seek to rebuild their lives. About Derek Logue
Murderers, burglers, arsonists, extortionists, mob killers, child kidnappers, child mutilators, child killers, everyone gets a chance after they served their term. Interestingly, society is much more afraid of a child kisser then of a child murderer.
As a former sex offender, Derek Logue humbly questions the life sentence of the sex offender law, the fact that they are singled out forever. He does not even dare question the obvious:
Why would one have to spend 3 years in jail for kissing a 11 year old, if she participated willingly. Maybe her father should have watched the child more closely and slapped Mr. Logan. Looks more appropriate to me, That is what would have happened 50 years ago, before the underage witch hunt began. When age of consent was 12 years old, but that referred to sexual activity, not to kisses. (human-stupidity.com)
If these sex offender laws applied to predators that drag little children into the forest and mutilate and kill them, they probably would make sense. But even then, why are these people singled out? An arsonist who sets a school ablaze with a few child victims, he does not need to register after he gets out of jail! Nor will his neighbors and schools be notified of his presence.
Meet Derek Logue, legal rights activist, book author and former sex offender. Derek speaks out about the sex offender registry, Adam Walsh Act and Ohio’s sex offender residency restrictions.
Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.
Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.
Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.
Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”
Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.
And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.
‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals
It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo. Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily. This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.
Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored. Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.
But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.
Isn’t it strange? For traditional feminists who want female equality, freedom and self determination, it looks amazing
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females (because Muslims successfully keep women away from the eyes of the feminist’s spouses)
feminists successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession. that often pays lots more money then other work. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking fat aging woman who later will take away half their property and demand half their income.
I got convinced that the antifeminists hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for these apparent contradictions.
Feminists conspire to increase their sexual value by eliminating female sexual of competition
What feminists strive for
(increasing their own sexual market value by reducing competition)
Feminists even repress women,
to foster their reproductive goal of reducing sexual options for their own men
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females
because Muslim’s repression of women successfully keep women away from the eyes and hands of the feminist’s spouses
feminists don’t promote women’s right to free choice, rather they successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession
Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking women who later will take away half their property and demand half their income for life.
Prostitutes are non-Union picket line violators, they give away their work cheaply
decrease age of consent to eliminate competition by very young attractive women
(age of consent used to be 12, is now 18 everywhere and there seem to be plans to increase it to 21 worldwide)
prohibit erotic art, photography, pornography
Under the guise of protecting porn models (who did not ask to be protected and do not want to go back to menial jobs) feminists want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, getting distracted, spending time and money.
prohibit sex dolls, sex robots, but not vibrators
Pedophile witch hunters & feminists are NOT concerned about children’s well being
Congratulations to the antifeminist blog, they are the only ones that give a sensible explanation for this: feminists want to cut of competition to their sexual monopoly so men will continue paying high prices for sex (marriage with life long support and half of all property on divorce).
I quote the antifeminist blog, I could not say this any better.
Why do I think you are obsessed with criminilizing everything and only those things that harm your particular, selfish reproductive and sexual needs? Because that is all you seem to be interested in. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Naahh, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even 10 year old girls appearing on reality tv shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults and clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to your reproductive interests so you have probably never given it two seconds thought. A 17 year old who likes to screw older men? You don’t want your man running off with or even looking at a hot 17 year old, so therefore 17 year old girls can’t give meaingful consent and older men should be criminilized.[…]
.Depictions of violent child & adolescent beatings and killings are shown on prime time TV. Tasteful nude photos of adolescents are VERY illegal, a crime, a terrible felony.
Unconscious stupidity and taboos analyzed
Why different standards for clicking and linking to various illegal material
Would someone be sent to 5-45 years of jail for CLICKING drug or prostitution LINKS?
click here for illegal prostitutes (over 18)
click here to buy hemp seed legal in Holland
click here to buy cocaine
click here to get info where to buy cocaine & crack
But clicking on “Click here for illegal child sex” is a crime.
What problem is there in possession of pictures of lawful events, or linking to them
filming and photographing FACTS that happen anyway
teenagers filming themselves naked
teenagers filming themselves having the sex they have anyway and they can legally have because of similar age
toddlers filmed naked by their parents
Nobody gets harmed, nothing illegal happens. Why are there enormous penalties for possessing depictions of legal non-violent events?
Posessing depictions of real sexual abuse like sex play with a toddler carries much worse then REAL physical abuse
Even possession of REAL child pornography of the worst kind, while in bad taste, does not warrant higher penalties then allowing REAL child torture. A mother got 6 months in jail for allowing and watching her boyfriend torture her 3 year old child regularly with burning, drowning, locking into the freezer …. The penalty for the real perpetrator and torturer (5-8 years?) is way less then the 20 years expected for possession of a DVD with 23 year old Little Lupe Porn
Normally the criminal gets punished, not the person having depictions of the crime.
Proof: see two videos and some pictures below, of maiming, lynching, mistreating real people. Nothing about the pictures is illegal, they were transmitted by prime time Television.
Why are depictions of sexual activities so much worse then depictions of killing children and violence against children?
(1) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, but if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, or sex trafficking of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html
Now it would be totally illegal if I had a link: Nanny fondles baby’s private parts
nanny fondling 16 year old caught on film
I would be jailed, instantly, and anyone clicking on it would.
very graphic, I suggest you do NOT watch. If customs catches you with the video, maybe you need to prove that the victim is over 18 years old?
Whipping of a minor by the Taliban. Do we need to prove she is over 18? Otherwise the entire might of interpol will hunt us down for having a copy in our computer’s cache or trash? No, if it is violence towards adolescents, it is ok. But nudity or sex, that is a heinous crime.
One can show, store, possess, distribute a video killing a child (16 year olds nowadays are called children).
If he were naked, masturbating, or making love to his girl friend, then this would warrant 5-45 years of jail.
but a movie of him clubbed to death, that is perfectly, see below
Atrocities towards minors can be shown legally (warning: graphic violence)
Verbal description of atrocities shown in pictures
Cell phone footage showing a group of teens viciously kicking and striking a 16-year-old honors student with splintered railroad ties has ramped up pressure on Chicago officials to address chronic violence that has led to dozens of deaths of city teens each year. The graphic video of the afternoon melee emerged on local news stations over the weekend, showing the fatal beating of Derrion Albert, a sophomore honor roll student at Christian Fenger Academy High School. His death was the latest addition to a rising toll: More than 30 students were killed last school year, and the city could exceed that number this year.[…] Albert was knocked unconscious when Carson struck him in the head with a board and a second person punched him in the face. Albert regained consciousness and was trying to get up when he was attacked a second time by five people, struck in the head with a board by Riley and stomped in the head by Shannon, Simonton said.