Anti-male legal bias

From Brongersma
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unfortunately, incessant lobbying by US feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists, in the US and on location in Third World countries, has lead to a clear anti-male bias in the laws of many poor nations. It is by now common practice in the courts of law of many developing nations that murdering a 19-year old man in a fit of anger is punished more leniently than, after being aroused, touching the genitals of a 17-year old girl, even if this happens with her consent (or even upon her invitation). Expect 4 to 6 years for the manslaughter of the 19-year old male (and very little public interest), and expect 8 to 15 years for the indecent act involving the 17-year old girl (and front-page coverage in local tabloids for child sexual abuse).

Feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists (including media-savvy Catholic priests) have achieved this distortion in the span of about 10 years through a sophisticated campaign. In well-organized international conferences, which received huge media attention (nothing sells as swiftly as sex), they focused on child prostitution. Typically, they presented a small number of forced prostitution cases involving teenagers, or the selling of 10-year old or 11-year old children to brothel owners, which were widely publicized. These cases were then presented as typical for certain countries. The feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists propagated wildly inflated, totally unproven figures as to how common child prostitution allegedly was in various countries: 600.000 in Thailand, 800.000 in the Philippines, millions in India. Do some simple math. [...] [math]

The figures were blatant propaganda. I am sure a good number of politicians in the countries that were blamed also did the above little math. But would they stand up and tell feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists that they totally exaggerated the problem? In democratic societies, politicians know better than that. Their instinct clearly tells them never to speak out publicly that a moral problem isn't as bad as presented. Instead, politicians always fare better further exaggerating a problem and presenting themselves as the moral crusaders capable of drying up that swamp. So, instead of defending their countries against the defamation and lies that were circulated by Western feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists, they did exactly what was suggested at these conferences: pass new child protection legislation with Draconian punishments (including the death penalty in the Philippines).

Harsh punishment for those who keep 10-year old girls in brothels. Nothing wrong with that. But then, feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists made it clear to the politicians that by UN definition, a child is a person below the age of 18. By UN definition, there is no difference between a girl of 7 and a girl of 17. Furthermore, lobbying by feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists has resulted in a decisive redefinition of terms: "intercourse" or "rape" no longer means the insertion of the penis into the vagina, but the insertion of the penis, a finger, or any object into the vagina or beyond the labia, the anus, or the mouth (in case the penis is what is inserted) of a person. I don't expect anybody to publicly back my opinion, but while I believe it is not decent if an uncle inserts a fever thermometer into the anus of a 10-year old girl (option a), I do believe that it is not as grave an offence as forcing vaginal intercourse with the same girl (option b). In the Philippines, he'll be threatened with execution in either case, and there are men on death row for offences comparative with (option a).

I want to introduce a third scenario: a 12 year old boy who is seen stealing apples is struck by a fruitstand owner with an iron rod over the neck, and thereafter paralyzed from the neck down (option c). People may consider this a sad case, but a Southeast Asian court will most likely pass a sentence of no more than 2 years, probably on probation. I have a teenage son and a teenage daughter in a country to which I refer above. That for a pervert, touching my daughter indecently will mean the same punishment as murdering her, puts my daughter in additional danger. Any rapist should be aware that letting a victim live after abusing her will mean a leaner sentence than strangulating her. And by stating this, I do not mean to encourage anybody to rape my daughter. [...]

source: Article 'Anti-male legal bias' by Serge Kreutz; Version 1.1;; October 2005