Having your building demolished without just cause is horrible and stuff, but it does seem like more of an individual matter... one to seek justice on, but it's not as if they demolished under a 'a pedo owned it and named it after a pedo website' clause.

It would be really cool if it would be possible to circulate tapes of these local CBS/NBC tapes as they would be good source for a website showing the way you were discriminated against and stuff. Honestly, this is much more horrible to hear about than some guys 'look at these girls I saw at a baseball game and took photos of' guy's website getting taken down because he supplied a fake name. Yours is property with nothing illegal about it, and a private controversial play!

Furthermore assaults are serious, and the people who attacked you need to be prosecuted. Unfortunately, while a horrid hate crime (and hate crimes are things the police are supposed to take more seriously, which I can agree they may unofficially not in the case of pedos, even non-criminal ones), many assaults are often non-prosecuted for a lack of data.

These assaults should definately be taken into consideration for being forced to move out of fear of your life, as should in any case.

COMITRY? Honestly, reading that Wikipedia article makes the whole thing sound ridiculous, as to not disrupt out-of-state relations? Dear me. I certainly hope condemning chopping the hands off of thieves in Iran does not disrupt our trade partner comitry! I don't even understand, they said you couldn't sue your attacker for damages because it would cause difficulties for the state? How does that even make sense?

I'm still not sure (other than your demolished condo situation) how MAAs are ever deprived of property though...

As for government agents infiltrating and radicalizing/disrupting pedo agencies, that smacks of paranoia (even if true) and is very hard to prove, how exactly is a letter going to solve something which is obviously covert ops? Why not simply bring these infiltrators to the attention of the public? It would show the government being insidious and show how the orgs are not as radical as they'd seem when honest men alone define their goals and motives.

If such operatives are operating on publicly available government goals and operations then these could be brought to attention and they specifically could be protested. It's also necessary not to confuse it with operatives who do not seek to alter the organizations' movements, but rather to monitor them for CP and molestors (which is understandable considering the nature of the orgs, you'd think them more likely to deal in such thigns).

If you mean 'free association' with and 'free speech' to minors, as in speaking with them in an attempt to discuss sexual topics with and have them help you organize, it is reasonable for the government since they are not recognized as citizens with that right to organize and are protected, if I am gathering that right. Or is the government stopping just adults from organizing to discuss?

Being blockaded to sue people who violate your rights is indeed quite wrong, and an individual manner, as are those of many other people violated. Rather than a generic petition, which does not address these, you need to bring up these specific incidences. If they are being blockaded by specific legislation, that legislation must be addressed.

Your petition is good, but only as an introduction to more of a class movement with specific details, because since I had to ask, these details were not obvious, and it is likely whoever would receive that statement in the OP alone wouldn't have a clue about what you were protesting. These additional details, with everything mentioned, are very important for proceedings I think. To show what's actually wrong.

The refusal of authorities to prosecute, and to lie under oath, is horrible, so are there not transcripts and proof of this perjury and lack of action that could be submitted? Hosted and spread around the net? Conspiracy theorists and government watchdogs LOVE this stuff. They'd eat it up.

I misunderstood the 'does not share rights' thing. I thought it meant something else in addition, but you're saying it was a summation of the previously mentioned grievances, so it makes sense to me now.

This final mention... I am actually quite ignorant when it comes to law, I need to read about what 'standing' actually means (Ally McBeal did nothing!). Is it essentially... you don't get a government-appointed defence if you're an admitted pedo?

Kind of confusing, but more specific terms as it applies would be more informative. There are a lot of cool law forums on the internet, I'm a lurker on one at least, would it be possible to address these with references to free online government legal documents? Maybe this would be like pre-bar prep, lol. It does seem strange to discriminate against someone's legal freedoms on the basis of an admitted attraction. A criminal past I might understand (though even then I think criminals are supposed to retain right to fair trial) but not simply a stated attraction.

It would probably be rooted in pedophilia being classed as a paraphilia and thus an insanity compromising a person. This is horrific, but in general I think simply focusing on the 'pedophile' issue in this case is too limited a scope. What would need to be addressed is paraphiles in general who may also be discriminated against in a similar faction. For example, could someone who engages in a publically avowed foot fetish or masochism face similar lack of standing (even if it would never realistically come up) and could a mock trial be held to demonstrate how such discrimination could be enforced to best illustrate the injustice in a more publically acceptable and thus interpretable sort of message to be sent in cartoonized format?

*goes to look up 'standing' on Wikipedia*