When one argues that a significant proportion of the left are currently working hard to normalise paedophilia, it’s hard to avoid feeling like a paranoid. After all, paedophilia is a crime so egregious that even other criminals punish it ruthlessly. Well, the criminals behind bars do.
The criminals in elected office are another thing entirely.
California Democrat, the far-too-aptly named Scott Wiener, successfully pushed a bill that protected some paedophiles. Wiener’s bill now means that a homosexual adult who sexually abuses a minor not more than 10 years younger than them will not be placed on a sex offender’s register. So, thanks to the Big Wiener, a 20 year-old homo can bugger a 10-year-old boy in California safe in the knowledge that it won’t come back to haunt them.
Wiener claims that his bill was about ending “anti-LGBT discrimination”: in which case, the natural response is, why didn’t he amend the law to make heterosexuals more accountable, too? It’s entirely too telling that California law is only ever moving in the paedos’ favour.
“Hold my Rohypnol-laced Mountain Dew,” says a Minnesota tranny.
A transgender state lawmaker in Minnesota introduced a measure that would remove language from the state’s Human Rights Act that currently declares pedophiles are not included in protections based on “sexual orientation”.
And that’s how they’re going to legalise paedophilia. The media-social push to normalise child molesters as just another “sexual orientation” has been underway for years. Mainstream media have published dozens of “virtuous paedophile” stories, re-framing kiddy-fiddlers as MAPs: “Minor-Attracted Persons”. They even have their own “Pride” flag, and everything. Journalists are told not to refer to “MAPs” as “paedophiles”, because it might “stigmatise” them.
And now, groomer law-makers are getting in on the act.
The “Take Pride Act” (HF 1655) was introduced earlier this year by state Rep Leigh Finke.
Do these guys choose these names, or do they just live up to them?
The bill would amend Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which is described by the state as “one of the strongest civil rights laws in the country”. The current Human Rights Act protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation, defined as “having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness”.
The law also includes this caveat: “‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.” [emphasis added]
Fox News
That caveat is what Finke’s amendment would remove.
In other words, under Minnesota law, paedophilia would be just another “sexual orientation”. With legal protection against “discrimination”.
This is precisely what I’ve repeatedly argued will be the logical outcome of the “Minor Attraction is a sexual orientation” argument.
Having long ago established that it’s wrong to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, what does it mean if paedophilia is a sexual orientation? It means that laws punishing paedophilia are supposedly as wrong as now-repealed laws punishing homosexual relations.
In which case, the only logical course will be to repeal laws against paedophilia.
If you persist in dismissing that as a paranoid conspiracy theory, then you’re just not paying attention.
