In defense of the pedophile

From Brongersma
Jump to: navigation, search

Paramjit Singh was stopped at the Canadian border en route to his wife, Shinderpal, and their two children, who live in Ontario. Singh was arrested when border officials found a nude image of his son on his cell phone. Singh was sent back to California, where he resided, charged with smuggling child pornography. After receiving a call from Canadian Border Services explaining the situation Singh's wife tried to explain the photos were harmless. "I took some of those photos myself. It's just part of our culture and there's nothing unusual about it." (Leung) Shinderpal Singh's Municipal Politician, Colleen Beaumier, asked the Canadian visa office to review the case. The Singh family was later informed, via email, that criminal charges were not being pursued. However, the email went on to say that, "the images of the prepubescent infant by definition is child pornography under the Criminal Code". But they did not believe that the pictures were meant for "sexual gratification". Singh was lucky. Throughout the eighties and nineties over zealous photo clerks were turning in parents for taking nude snapshots. [...]

Shortly after news of Singh's story was published, I found myself having a heated discussion with several schoolmates. [...] A female classmate was baffled by my position. She couldn't understand why anyone would want to take a nude picture of their child, let a lone carry it with them, unless it was for sexually perverted reasons. [...]

While Singh was waiting to be cleared of child pornography charges, twenty-year old Stephen A. Marshall committed suicide after killing two people he found from a U.S. sex offenders list.

One of the victims was a man named William Elliott. He was listed in the registry for having sex with a 15-year old at the age of 20. The girl was less than a month away from the age of consent - it was surprisingly difficult to find that little but significant detail. Based on superficial observations (and a web search) many of the articles written about these killings didn't bother to provide any details about the two men who died. Perhaps some journalists felt that by stating the nature of these "sex crimes" it would be seen as a defense for the pedophile. The incident created a lot of talk on Internet discussion forums. Most of the messages were jubilant and praised the killer as some kind of hero - performing the executions the courts failed to dispense by default. On one discussion board a person wrote about how he didn't shed any tears for the men killed by Marshall. His only concern was the possibility of mistaken identity - killing the wrong person. Law enforcement officials have echoed these sentiments. LAPD officer, Lloyd Martin, once said that pedophilia is "worse than homicide." [...]

There is a fatal assumption that all sex offenders are predators. This assumption was fatal for William Elliot, the man who was murdered; the man who would still be alive if the girl he had sex with was a few weeks older - or lived in another state. Was he a kind man? Was he gentle? Did he love the girl he went to prison for, and ultimately died for? Perhaps the bigger question is: why doesn't anyone want to know?

source: Article 'In defense of the pedophile' by Haasim Mahanim; www.thecanadiangeek.ca/archives/in-defense-of-the-pedophile/; The Canadian Geek; 16 June 2006