Re: Open season for paedos in Australia

There are too many vagaries in this particular case (so typical of the shit stirring media). To begin with it all depends what was meant by "molestation". The interpretation of this word is amazingly diverse. Was the youth raped at gun point, or was he merely seduced by a happy-go- lucky hebephile?? If he was merely seduced then he must have been a complete milk-sopped wimp in the first place to come out crying like a little girl and tale tattling on the poor guy to his father. But if it was rape at knife point then it would be more understandable that he might have become upset. But I bet my bottom dollar that it was more on the seduction side than rape, as the former is hugely more prevalent than the latter. And I am also assuming that the father would have adopted the milksop wimp son because, as they say "like father like son", right?: How could the father if he was an adult wimp be physically powerful enough to inflict so much damage on a "molester"? How was it so mis-matched? Why didn't they guy put up a fight against the father if the father himself was an adult version of his wimp son?

As for the legal side of things. Well as much as my inexorable position is that offspring are private property of the parents, this doesn't give the father the right to beat the shit out of the "molester", because even if it WAS a violation of private property it should still have resulted in legal due process. The father should have been prosecuted for GBH. This case from as far as I can see represents a gross iniquity. Kangaroo court mentality. Then again, most Australians are moronic colonial scum, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that many cases like this occur. These are the the same people, we must remember, who are descendents from convict stock from Britain who were thugs and murderers who used to slaughter the Australian natives without any feeling of guilt or concern.

I'd like to also reiterate what I have said before about non-initiation-of-force sexual advances on parents' offspring. If the parents are actually against their offspring having any sexual contact but they have not conveyed their position to them and so the offspring are therefore unaware and AGREE to sexual advances from an outsider, then this automatically eliminates any blame on the outsider AND the offspring completely. This is because the parents have obvioulsy failed to instruct their children that "there will be no sex, you hear me"? It is a fault purely on the part of the parents, NOT the other party/ies involved. In this case the blame comes right back on the parents themselves for not taking the responsibility to do this or to do it adequately enough. They only have themselves to blame. In cases where the parents have clearly instructed their children not to have sex but the children have ignored the intructions and allowed it to happen anyway, then the onus of blame logically lies on the offspring themselves. The transgression has been committed on their part. In this case the parents only have the right to castigate their own children, but NOT in any way, form or shape on the outsider who all they have been "guilty" of is interacting on the basis of mutual consent. It ONLY becomes the outsider's violation when he or she commits acts by means of initiation of force. That is the only time under logical and fair conditions in which the other party can be blamed.