Friday, August 03, 2007

Unpopular people have no rights.

I said before that we should judge our justice system by how it treats our most hated individuals, and I stand by that comment.

Judge issues order against self-proclaimed pedophile

Why is he a "self-proclaimed pedophile" and not just a pedophile? Because he has done nothing wrong. He has expressed that he exhibits deviant behavior, but no law has been broken. Opponents are quick to add "THAT WE KNOW OF!" to the end of that last statement, and I'd like to note that those same opponents have not kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and chopped up any hookers THAT WE KNOW OF!

So what orders were issued against this guy for being unpopular and professing to enjoy deviant behavior?

  • McClellan is not allowed within 10 yards of a minor child under the order.
  • He may not harass, threaten, follow or loiter around any minor child.
  • He also may not photograph, videotape or post on the Internet images of a minor child without parental consent.
Do you even know when you're within 30 feet of a minor? I wonder where he lives and whether or not people may pass by his place of residence with their children? Even within 30 feet of where he sleeps? How do you suppose he'll drive next to other cars possibly full of minors? How will he eat in a restaurant? Will he be "following" a minor if he's walking down the street while a minor 200 yards away walks in the same direction? I can almost hear supporters of this order saying; "It's not my problem how he eats or drives to work or where he lives!" That's probably why some of these insane requirements for "the most evil of the evil" have convicted sex offenders ordered to live under bridges. But hey; it's not their problem. I wonder if some of these supporters have some quality that can be vilified... Probably not. They probably are exactly like everyone else, and do nothing that could possibly offend anyone. At least, not those in the majority... currently... History teaches us nothing. (though not for lack of trying) Let me remind you; these requirements are to be imposed on someone who has committed no crime. How long until we start imposing these "safety" restrictions on people who are suspected of being pedophiles? I've posted about the slippery slope before;
You can be forced to live your life as a second class citizen. You can be rejected from living in certain neighborhoods. You can be refused free, private services. You can be tagged like an animal and have your location tracked for life. You can be investigated and raided based on things you put on the internet. You can be investigated and raided based on a picture of you in the newspaper. You can be labeled a terrorist by defending the US constitution. You can be put on a watch list that will allow your 4th amendment rights to be suspended. You can be put on a terrorist watch list on accident. You can be wiretapped without a warrant. You can be jailed out-of-country where rights may be suspended. You can be jailed without due process or ability to defend yourself, do not pass go, do not collect $200. This is not tin-foil hat time. This is now.
I guess now, I can add; You can be forced to live under a bridge. You can be effectively kicked out of a state without being convicted of anything. For this recurring topic I've decided to add a new tag to help people navigate quickly to stories like these. The tag describes this topic at it's very core and is not something people often realize can be attributed to a story of the popular oppression of the unpopular. The tag is hate.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

10 comments:

Michael said...

Wow, thoughtcrime at its finest.

I've got no love for anybody who hurts children, but the guy hasn't hurt anybody.

blogagog said...

Disagree. First, people are unpopular for a reason. Second, collecting $200 for passing go is just another example of socialism that must be stamped out!

Seriously though, I don't get this post at all. The guy says he's a pedophile. There's little reason to doubt him. Why not take proactive precautions?

People like that are rarely cured, yet it's inhumane to kill them. So again, why NOT make his life miserable in the hopes that he can't defile a child?

ExistingThing said...

"Proactive precautions" is not something we can trust our government officials with. Private industries and individuals can act proactively because their decisions are applied on a case by case basis. Legislators pass laws for one person that affect everyone.

I support enforcement of the law, but if it's not a law and you want to do it, make the law the right way. If it's not a law, don't do it. I agree that there is a high rate of recidivism, and if they pass a law that says sex offenders need to be jailed for life, then I'll support it. I just don't want them imposing judgement on someone just because people don't like them. It's a principal thing.

blogagog said...

Ok, as a mostly libertarian type conservative, I agree that we can't give the government such a power. But as a father, I feel like these people should be killed after suffering the most inhumane torture imaginable.

We are talking about a crime FAR beyond such petty things as terrorism, murder, or rape. I too support the law and would love to see it changed to lock these bastards up for life and then some. But until it is, let's let them screw with these f*@#wads however they can.

Reminds me of a poem:

And then they came for the rapers of kids. But I didn't care, because I didn't rape children...

Seriously, that poem was about a different serious issue, but you no doubt get my drift. F%#^ 'em. I'm full of compassion, but none is spared for scumbags who will hit on kids.

ExistingThing said...

Would you support proactively imprisoning me for being a possible pedophile sympathiser?

You made my point in the last comment. There is so much anger and hate against these (evil) people, that the hate bleeds out to other groups like possible pedophiles and pedophile sympathisers. This guy is a possible pedophile. He has claimed that he loves little girls, but nothing has been proven. He has been penalized and effectively told he cannot live in California on heresay, and no one will care because the public is so caught up in its hate.

I choose pedophiles because it's currently the scarlet letter in our society. If you're marked (justly or unjustly) you're marked for life. Period. There is no recovery. Try getting a job or making friends when a google search of your name brings up that you were accused of being a pedophile. God help you if you settled out of court. The other reason I choose pedophiles is because the laws regarding posession of child pornography are so vague. Currently (AFAIK) the investigating officer needs only say that he/she believes pornography on a suspect's computer could be of minors. I don't know if you've hung around myspace at all, but nowadays there is almost NO way to know whether someone is 18 or 19. In southern California you can have trouble telling between 15 and 20. I even knew a 16 year old who got waved into clubs and bars constantly. She looked like she was in her late 20s.

Consider also, that if a government agency needs to turn public opinion against someone (like a christian group suspected of owing a $200 in taxes), they need only accuse this person of some form of pedophilia. To this day when I talk to people about Waco, 80% of the time I am told that he was a pedophile and deserved whatever happened to him. Never mind there was no proof of this (only one disgruntled ex-member's accusations), and never mind the gross misuse of force by the ATF, AND never mind the CHILDREN who were burned to death.

We need to keep our hate in check before we pass judgement, because it works both ways.

blogagog said...

"Would you support proactively imprisoning me for being a possible pedophile sympathiser?"

Yup, in a heartbeat. But I'd only imprison you if that was the most torturous path available. I'd prefer a scalding or a dropping in hot oil, but I think neither is legal. If you support these scumbags, then you need to be relocated far from Earth. Yes, I'd not think twice before advocating painful death for the scum that would abuse a child or the dramatically more scuzzy person who would apologize for him.

I get what you are trying to say now, but you are wrong. It's not 'the scarlet letter', it's EVIL. That girl had to wear the A because she was weak. This is not about weakness. It's about EVIL. It's evil in a way that dwarfs all things. If 'evil' ever had meaning, this is what they were talking about. Pedophilia is as evil as evil can be.

It's sick. It's disgusting. It's EVIL. I'm actually not in favor of the death penalty. but for pedophiles and their supporters, I'm willing to bend.

Seriously, stop supporting such scumbags. The world will be much better off without them.

ExistingThing said...

The key words were "proactively" and "possible". I'm sure you misunderstood, but if you are in fact advocating imprisonment and torture of people without conviction or evidence, then perhaps YOU need to be relocated from a country based on law and order.

I happen to know of a few places where they publicly stone people to death without evidence or conviction.
It's a bit hot though.

I don't support child molesters. I support procesuting someone to the fullest extent of the law, and NO FUTHER. I already said I'd support imprisoning convicted child molesters for life, but I'll only support it IF IT'S THE LAW. If our government begins to operate outside the law, we can't just ignore it just because we don't like the person treated unfairly.
There is NO gray area here!

I'm not a child molester, but I AM a member of a different group that is the target of unfounded hate. Hackers. Currently, in the eyes of the government, hackers are regarded as terrorists. People hate terrorists ALMOST as much as they hate child molesters.

When someone can send you illicit material, call the FBI with a tip, and have you thrown in jail, there's something wrong. When you can be released from prison (because you are technically "rehabilitated") and be told you have to live under a bridge, and no one thinks that is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, there's something wrong.

If you want to stab child molesters in the face with a rusty knife, FINE.
JUST. MAKE. IT. LEGAL. Then I won't have a problem with it.

blogagog said...

"The key words were "proactively" and "possible"."

Were they? I say no, they weren't/aren't. Don't be coy, existingthing. I'm not and never have 'advocat[ed] imprisonment and torture of people without conviction or evidence.

We were talking about a self-admitted pedophile. A self admitted person who likes to play with kid's private parts.

What the hell more do you need? A judge? Allow me to be so bold as to not star out my profanity. FUCK that. The men who would do such a thing are so horrible that I just want them dead. Painfully dead. And I give about a %3 of a crap what a judge says.

Don't let child molestation become 'just another crime' existingthing. Screw the law. It's horrible. There's no cure. If it happens to you... game over. It's one of the few crimes I'd be comfortable killing over.

I call you on suggesting innocence, ET. We can be fairly certain that the chick with the A on her dress was an adulteress in every instance. History has proven this to be correct. But we aren't talking about adultery here. We're talking about defiling children. That's a whole different world.

To be clear, I would consider in an honor to end the life of such a pedophilic scumbag.

Understand, I'm a peace-loving goofball. Read my sight and you'll KNOW I'm goofy. But pedophiles need to be dead!

Make up your own minds I guess, but for this crime, imo, killing the bast***

blogagog said...

Ooops. That cut off badly. I don't mean to oppose you, ET. I just vehemently disagree with you (there's a difference!)

To be safe, I'll leave this idea alone until there's another discussion of pedophilia on your site.

Stout Republican said...

Wasn't one of the issues with the case the fact he was taking pictures at schools and posting them on pedophile forums if I remember correctly?

From your article:

"McClellan has no criminal record but he has spoken publicly about enjoying watching little girls. On his website — which is down — he had posted photographs he had taken of children and had rated venues for spotting little girls."

That "rated venues" thing I think crosses over into gray area...but we'll see.