Barrister Barbara Hewson came under some vicious attacks yesterday for her comments that consideration should be given to lowering the age of sexual consent. In a world where every real or imagined transgression toward any individual on any grounds – race, age, sex, religion – is immediately elevated to the same bogeyman status as that of an indiscriminate cannibal serial chainsaw killer, her words prompted the sort of threats that are themselves now actionable in law.
For the crime of exercising her free speech Miss Hewson was pilloried and dragged through the e-streets in the online version of tarring and feathering that 'Trial by Twitter' has become. Because that’s all she did; she spoke some words, based on her knowledge and experience of the issues, to which she is much closer than most.
Her monstrous utterances? In an online article in Spiked magazine, she wrote, “Touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt, are not remotely comparable to the horrors of the Ealing Vicarage assaults and gang rape, or the Fordingbridge gang rape and murders, both dating from 1986. Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.” She’s a witch! Burn her! But wait. Is the mob about to go and torch a paediatrician all over again?
So, while the idiot Daily Mirror is calling for the voices of experience to be ignored and for the young to decide on an entire nation’s future and Alex Salmond cynically wants the vote to be given to sixteen-year-olds, it appears that lowering the age of responsibility is fine when there’s a political prize to be played for, but it’s hysterical and dangerous nonsense when it’s the opinion of somebody with whom you disagree.
Oh, of course! It’s the socialist incarceration-of-speech agenda all over again. The simple fact is that Lolitas and Humbert Humberts exist and have always existed. Hebephilia is by no means unusual and there are examples throughout history. Indeed as one unhinged caller to Iain Lee’s radio show [audioboo] suggested – bravely, but unhinged, I thought – it might even lie at the roots of some religions. What is different these days is the absolute sense of entitlement to an unfettered life of joy backed up by the claiming culture that exists to brutally extract compensation for the smallest slight, regardless of the disproportionate misery it might cause to those thus pursued.
Me? First and foremost, I am a white, middle-aged bloke, so that automatically means any thoughts I might have either way on this or any associated issue are irrelevant. The socially engineered changes of the last few decades have effectively ruled against the validity of any opinion I might have. So I don’t have one. Don’t assume I have one, don’t assume you know what it is and please address your hate mail towards a target who is more likely to care what you think.
As Douglas Murray recently wrote in the Spectator: “…no difference between men and women can be commented upon without being accused of being ‘sexist’. No difference between transsexuals and non-transsexuals can be referred to without committing ‘transphobia’. No difference between different cultures can be commented upon without being deemed ‘racist’. And no difference between gay people and straight people can be mentioned without being accused of ‘homophobia’. “
And as with sex-crime, so with Europe. For many years debate has been shut down because any dissenting voice has been labelled that of a racist, a fruitcake or a clown. Anybody speaking common sense has been howled down, not for their words – for they are never listened to - but because they have not submitted to the politically acceptable agenda. So it was refreshing last night on BBC’s Question Time to see an audience eager for some responses other than ad hominem insults toward Eurosceptics.
Now that THAT debate is finally out in the open, can somebody direct me to a French, Dutch, German Albanian, hermaphrodite, under-age, nappy-wearing, tall dwarf BDSM brothel? After all, it IS the weekend!
I understand Ms Hewson's point, but to take this to its logical conclusion then in theory, if you removed all laws then there would be no crime.ReplyDelete
I accept by the way this means much less work for lawyers and rather less work for those accountants handling the legal profession's tax affairs after all those fat cheques for defending the indefensible in court, etc. Some of those old men being investigated may write very large cheques for all I know, whether guilty or innocent. I couldn't say.
Surely though there has to be some dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable in society? Further, if one say lowered sexual availability to say 13 then someone would suggest lowering it to 12, and so on, no doubt citing cases where 12 years and 11 months is almost 13.
I always thought the fact that two 15 year olds can bonk but as soon as one of them gets to 16 then they have to wait for the other one to catch up, is faintly ludicrous. But, boundaries have to exist somewhere.
Plus, and this has to be said, lowering the age of consent rather gives a green light (if one was needed) to those practitioners of a certain cult who seem to think any female not dressed in a bag is fair game.
Obviously, many issues here but I have no idea if Ms Hewson is talking bollocks (or young bollocks, in some cases) because I really don't have an opinion. Just sayin'