EU Directive on Child Abuse Passed

The European Union parliament has ratified the latest Brussels directive on ‘child exploitation’, the second such directive in five years.  In the midst of possibly the most serious European crisis since the end of the war, European feminists find the time to create yet more legislation hoping to stop perverts chatting to 17 year old ‘children’ on high-definition webcams.  And this, really, is the impetus behind the growing power of ‘one world’ political unionism in the form of the EU, the United Nations, and other multi-national organisations.  Forget trying to stop war or famine, ‘global warming’, or the collapse of the world economy. The price of a woman’s vagina and the attempts of the international sexual trade union to artificially maintain it in the face of an ever more supply sodden sexual market – this is the most powerful motivating force in politics these days.

So to explain what this new directive is, and why it is an anti-feminist and men’s rights issue, here are some questions and answers :

Why do we need yet another EU directive on saving the kiddies from paedos?

Because, don’t you know, according to ‘EU research’, 20% of European children will be raped, killed, sexually tortured, or talk with an adult in a chat room before they are 18.   Furthermore, child porn is a $15 billion global industry that simply has to be stopped.  This must be true because the United Nation’s ‘Special Rappateur on Child Abuse’ – Najat M’jid Maalla – plucked it out of her own stinking, aging ass.  Of course, any real commercial child porn site would be closed down by the FBI within days, but if we deliberately lie and manipulate language, and we include the entire profits of Facebook and YouTube (16 year old girls uploading videos of themselves dancing sexily) in our figures, it might almost be a $15 billion industry, hence this directive is entirely justified.

There certainly is an instinctive, primal awareness amongst feminists, femiservatives, and I imagine virtually every middle-aged woman in Europe, that the technology enabling men to anonymously access young nubile flesh is improving at an ever increasing rate.  In discussions in the lead up to this directive, a frequent concern mentioned was the need to criminalise men who talk to 16 and 17 year old girls on webcam.  Feminists are fully aware of the immanent meshing between services like Skype, high-definition ‘smart’ tvs, and the forth-coming roll out of super fast broadband networks for both the home and mobile phones. Another ‘game changer’ about to explode is geo-location dating services.  All these things promise to further sexually marginalise the older, unattractive woman.

What are the requirements of the new EU Directive?

The EU directive requires all member states of the European Union to introduce minimum prison terms for a wide range of sexual offences against children, pretending of course that ‘children’ include nubile 16 and 17 year olds, as well as Japanese manga cartoon characters.  Given the undemocratic, Soviet Union like bureaucracy of the EU, it’s almost impossible to find a detailed report of the directive online.  But from several EU press releases, which are then uncritically re-printed in numerous mainstream media outlets under banners such as ‘EU cracks down on paedos’ etc, it is possible to ascertain the following key points :

  • Possession of child porn will be punished with a minimum 1 year prison sentence.
  • The definition of child porn will include any cartoon or virtual image of a person appearing to be under 18 and which is in a sexual context.
  • Possession of child porn will include the mere viewing of it.  (In other words, if one picture of a sexy manga girl in a bikini passes through your browser – internet cache – recycle bin, the courts will have no choice but to impose a minimum 1 year prison term if you are arrested and charged.  Likewise, if you are surfing an American porn tube site, and a thumbnail of a ‘barely legal 18 year old’ college girl video passes through your browser, you will face 1 year in prison without even having to have clicked on the thumbnail and watched the video).
  • There will be minimum prison sentences for both online and offline grooming (communicating with a ‘child’ with the alleged aim of having sex with her later).
  • Member states will have to consider blocking child porn sites.  Interestingly this is deemed the ‘most controversial’ measure.  Presumably, because member states, especially the police forces of member states, understand that the attraction of these ridiculously broad definitions of child porn and its possession are that they virtually criminalise the entire male population of Europe.  It gives the European state the power to smash into the homes of over 300 million men at the stroke of a magistrate’s pen.  But of course, if all child porn sites are successfully blocked, then it would defeat the whole point of these insane laws (from the point of view of the police).
  • Anyone who ‘co-erces’ a child into a sexual act will face an American style minimum 10 years in prison.  Before any father’s rights campaigners curse me for questioning an ‘obviously good thing’, let’s pause and reflect for a moment.  A 17 year old girl will simply have to claim that a man unwantedly’ patted her bum’ and the man will face a minimum 10 years in prison if convicted.  This directive completely takes the power of discretion away from a judge.  Note also that, due to the shameless manipulation of language by these feminist creatures, even willing, consensual sex with young people will be punishable by 10 years imprisonment minimum.  An immature 17 or 18 year old German boy, will face at least 10 years in prison for simply kissing or petting his 13 year old girlfriend (‘child rape’ under recently introduced German femi-nazi laws).

What will be the social effects of this directive and why is it a men’s rights issue?

As stated above, it will criminilise almost every man in Europe who surfs for (general) porn – in other words, nearly every man in Europe.  Tell me that you enjoy porn, and that you have never seen a single ‘sexual’ image of a person, real or cartoon, who might look under 18, and I’ll tell you that you are a fucking lier. Even if the suggestion to ‘block all child porn sites’ is successful, you can barely even surf a site like YouTube or Reddit without coming across such images, and the reason for this is that the USA has very different laws on what constitutes child porn to Europe and most of the rest of the world.

At the behest of the feminist state, under laws made by feminists, over 300 million European men will thus be liable to have their homes invaded, be dragged out of their beds, and then hauled away to face a minimum of 1 year in prison.  If you don’t think that’s a men’s rights issue, then there simply is no men’s rights movement worthy of the name.

Secondly, it will increase the already strong trend for ‘age apartheid’ throughout Europe – the mutual distrust, hate, and fear between generations – between children, adolescents, and adults (particularly, of course, men).  Of particular concern are the directive’s measures against ‘grooming’, something which originally meant 40 year old paedophiles posing online as 11 year old kids in order to meet up and rape very young children, but which feminsts have come to twist to mean any adult trying to ‘seduce’ (i.e. win the selection of) a 16 or 17 year old ‘child’.

The EU directive makes clear that governments must introduce new offences and minimum penalties for ‘off-line’ grooming as well as online.  The obvious effect of this will be that adults will be futher discouraged from any interraction with young people under the age of 18, or even in approaching any adults who look as though they could be under 18.  We have seen the results of this in the UK already, where children are growing up into ferral animals who see adult men as strange alien beings, and probable paedophiles, instead of role models, and as a consequence suffered arguably the world’s first major ‘childrens riots’ in history only this summer.

Who are the middle-aged women behind this directive? (warning – graphic images below)

The directive seems to have been pushed for by a handful of feminists and femiservatives in the European parliament, with the aid of various feminist pretend ‘child protection’ groups such as the NSPCC.

anna zaborskaAnna Zaborska, 63 years old, Slovak member of European Parliament.  Wanted the directive to include a Google ‘early warning’ system monitoring search engine traffic for signs of rastapedic impulses.  For example, a Google search for ‘sexy teen pics’ would automatically result in you being flagged, and your entire browsing history checked by the authorities.  Anna is a pro-life femiservative, and has campaigned for improved living conditions for women in Eastern Europe.

Roberta AngelilliRoberta Angelilli, 46 years old, Italian member of the European Parliament, and another femiservative.  Roberta has sat on the European Parliament’s committee for women’s rights and gender equality and has been one of the key proponents of this directive.

cecilia malmstromCecilia Malmstrom
, 43 year old Swedish politician, currently serving as the European Commissionar for Home Affairs.  Although a member of the Swedish ‘liberal’ party, Cecilia is also one of those ardently trying to force Google to monitor every EU citizen’s browsing habits.

See also :


This article has been posted by a reader in a number of anime forums, resulting in a large spike in traffic over the last 24 hours. It seems many of the people in those forums do not think that this directive is relevant, claiming either that virtual child pornography laws do not cover anime or that, even if sexy anime is technically made illegal, the police won’t be dragging people away simply for looking at pics of cartoon girls.

Wrong. Manga has already been made illegal in countries like Sweden and the UK under virtual child porn laws based on almost identical wording as contained in the requirements of this directive. A manga fan in Sweden was recently convicted of possessing child porn on the basis of his manga collection. He was fined a few thousand Euro, but under this directive, he would have to serve a minimum of 1 year in jail. In the UK, people have been given indeterminate sentances (i.e. locked away and not knowing if they will ever be released) for merely possessing drawings of ‘child’ sex.

Government Report : Most Foreign Sex Workers NOT Trafficked

Most foreign prostitutes in London are not trafficked and choose to sell sex because it earns more money than other jobs, a study has found.

The majority of sex workers questioned believe that working conditions were better than in other occupations and gave them more free time.

Other perceived advantages cited in the government-funded study include “the possibility of meeting interesting people”, travelling and the ability to help their families…

…The most contentious finding, which is likely to anger anti-trafficking campaigners, is that few prostitutes working in the capital are forced to sell sex.

Well..what a surprise not!

Now, let’s get to work. How, as a men’s rights movement, do we set about prosecuting and bringing to justice the criminal feminist beasts who profit from lying about the abuse of children and women? The deceitful, ugly old bags who have intentionally created this myth of sex trafficking for their own sexual and financial ends?  I suspect that we would have sufficient legal grounds (though of course little chance of success, at present, in our corrupt gynocratic justice system) for having these psychotic animals charged and caged for anything from attempted rape to crimes against humanity.

Another Super Bowl, Another Sex Trafficking Panic

Another Super Bowl, Another Sex Trafficking Panic

By Mark Kernes
Oct 27th, 2011 05:11 PM

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind.—Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has a problem: What to do about all the forced prostitution that he’s sure will be happening when Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl this winter on February 6.

Of course, Zoeller’s actual problem is that he (and his cadre of advisors and consultants) haven’t yet figured out that most of the women involved in prostitution have affirmatively chosen their profession—and that all those statistics he’s been reading about the number of trafficked women and children in the U.S.—he’s claiming that “[a]s many as 300,000 girls between the ages of 11 and 17 are lured into the United States’ sex industry annually”—are staggeringly inflated.

But no.

“He [Zoeller] said the recent track record of America’s most-watched sporting event suggests that along with it comes an uptick in women, especially those under age 18, who are brought into the United States illegally and forced into prostitution,” wrote Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press.

See, even though the Indianapolis 500, Indiana’s biggest sporting event, draws hundreds of thousands more fans to the city than a Super Bowl, Zoeller’s sure there’ll be more hooking because, “It’s the international focus. It’s a different kind of sporting event.”

Apparently he’s confused about the fact that when pretty much everyone else in the world says “football,” they’re talking about what we call “soccer.” Apples and oranges, don’t’cha know?

But no; Zoeller’s paranoia will be prostitutes’ problem, if he has anything to say about it.

After a September 30 “training session” called by Zoeller for “law enforcement, prosecutors and victim advocates,” he’s urging the state legislature to pass a new law that would criminalize “the organized exploitation of children by people who profit from the sale of sex with minors”—or as we know them, “pimps,” whose activities we suspect are already illegal.

“Our goal is to increase awareness that prostitution isn’t a victimless crime,” Zoeller claimed. “Many of these young women who enter the sex trade are often physically forced, coerced, raped or imprisoned by their traffickers.”

Trouble is, apparently all that force, coercion, rape and imprisonment is really, really well hidden.

“If they [police] know what to look for, what questions to ask, we’re hoping we can identify more victims and serve them,” said Abby Kuzma, director of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Office.

And if they can’t find “victims” to “serve,” they’ll do their best to create them. Just three days after the confab, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police (with a Fox 59 News crew in tow) raided three massage parlors in Marion County, seizing massage tables, computers and arrested two women, neither of whom were minors, and neither of whom appeared to have been “trafficked.”

Not too surprisingly, officials in Dallas, Texas, the site of the most recent Super Bowl, made similar predictions about the impending rampant sex-trafficked child prostitution, yet interestingly, no one appears to have done any follow-up after the 2011 Super Bowl to see how many trafficked child prostitutes were discovered servicing Super Bowl attendees.

Perhaps in Indiana, the news media will be a bit more thorough.

British Government Scraps Indeterminate Sentences

The British Conservative government have agreed to scrap controversial indeterminate sentences introduced by the previous New Labour regime.  Indeterminate sentencing was originally justified in order to protect the public from extremely and obviously dangerous psychopaths, who had not yet committed a crime severe enough to warrant a life term.  This was controversial enough, but inevitably a slippery slope quickly ensued upon their introduction, and men were soon being given the terms – effectively not knowing if they would ever see the outside world again – for simply possessing drawings.

Mr Clarke is proposing to scrap indeterminate sentences, introduced by Labour, which prevent offenders being freed until the parole board has ruled they no longer pose a danger to the public.

Describing them as “failed”, he said he wanted to bring in “more certain sentences”.

“We’ve got 6,000 people languishing in prison, 3,000 of whom have gone beyond the tariff set by the judge, and we haven’t the faintest idea when, if ever, they are going to get out,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘Near murderous’

“It’s a gross injustice, a bit of a stain on our system.”

Unfortunately, the British Conservative/Lib Dem coalition have again proven unable to keep to any promise made to repair the damage of the previous government.  They have decided to replace indeterminate sentences with an equally disturbing pledge that mandatory life sentences will be given to crimes other than murder.

Frances Crooke, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said she was “very worried” about the proposals for mandatory life terms for crimes other than murder.

“We have nearly 12,000 life sentence prisoners – that’s more than Russia, Poland, German and France all added together,” she said.

“We are using the mandatory life sentence and discretionary life sentences like confetti already and it is causing huge problems in the prisons.”

Steven Pinker – ‘We are Less Violent Because of Female Empowerment’

Psychologist Steven Pinker, author of the excellent ‘The Blank Slate’, is currently publicising a new book of his which examines why society has (according to him) become steadily less violent since the middle ages.  One of the most obvious reasons, he believes, is the empowerment of women.

In answer to the question – ‘What do you want readers to take away from your new book?’, he replies :

To be grateful for some of the institutions we take for granted, such as government and the court system. That, as much as we are irritated by lawyers, cops and government, the alternative is worse. The forces of reason, enlightenment, cosmopolitanism, women’s empowerment – we should be grateful for all this and not nostalgic for a time in which everyone’s world was far more constricted.

In an article at Edge magazine last month, discussing his book ‘A History of Violence’, Pinker points to statistics showing a dramatic and steady decline in the figures for both rape and domestic violence since the 1970’s. He assumes it to be the result of the awareness campaigns of second wave feminists, and uses it as a contextual argument for his wider thesis that the growth of minority rights groups results in less violence against vulnerable people in society.

The women’s rights movement has seen an 80 percent reduction in rape since the early ’70s when it was put on the agenda as a feminist issue. There has also been a two-thirds decline in domestic violence, spousal abuse, or wife beating, and a 50 percent decline in husband beating. In the most extreme form of domestic violence, namely uxoricide and matricide, there’s been a decline both in the number of wives that are murdered by their husband’s and the number of husbands that have been murdered by their wives. In fact, the decrease is much more dramatic for husbands. Feminism has been very good to men, who are now much more likely to survive a marriage without getting murdered by their wives.

I haven’t read the book yet, so perhaps there is more detailed argument contained within it for relating feminism and the alleged reduction in violence.  But it does seem that he is guilty of the same astonishing simple-mindedness in confusing correlation and causation, that our old friend Hank Pelisser made earlier this year.

Before giving some counter explanations, it needs to be made clear why intelligent people such as these two are so easily able to jump to such simplistic conclusions regarding feminism’s role in society.  The assumption is that feminism is part of the general progressive train of Enlightenment thinking.  But feminism is quite different to other civil rights campaigns, such as the abolition of slavery, of torture, the promotion of gay rights, anti-vivisectionism etc.  Unlike them, feminism did not arise as a  natural consequence of the decline of Christian thinking and a more objective, rational, and humane way at looking at how society treats all of its citizens.  Feminism arose primarily as a reaction against that Enlightenment way of thinking and its consequences – one of which, of course, was a steady opening up of the free sexual market, which has left the mass of ordinary women sexually disadvantaged in comparison to the young and beautiful.

Admittedly, a reason for feminism’s success is that it has been seen (particularly by educated men) as a natural progression in the ever more enlightened and rational way of social thinking and acceptance of universal humanity.  But in actual fact, feminism is a trojan horse that has been allowed to grow under the banner of secular liberalism, when in truth it has always wanted to destroy it.  Feminism is a vicious and selfish reaction to the forces of modernism and secularism.  Feminism is not the apex of the Enlightenment project but its antithesis and ultimately its destroyer.

I do not have space or time to discuss whether rape has really fallen so dramatically since the 1970’s.  But alternative explanations easily present themselves, assuming of course that the decline is genuine.

It’s hardly surprising that rape has been in free fall just as the free sexual market has steadily widened, and that this decline began most evidently in the very same years when the sexual market had suddenly been opened (with the adoption of the contraceptive pill).  Why would (some) men continue to resort to rape when suddenly they had the prospect of consequence free sex at the end of every visit to the pub or the club?  In fact, these statistics rather contradict the feminist mantra that rape is ‘all about power’, and instead confirm the real world common sense view that sex is about frustrated males getting sex by force when they can’t get it through consent.

The decline in rape has not been brought about by the women’s movement.  It has been brought about by the continual widening of the free sexual market, caused by secularism and technology like the pill,  bringing about the acceptance of promiscuous sex, as well as the increasingly widespread availability and tolerance of pornography.  The women’s movement, in fact, has been a reaction to that new sexual liberalism and accessibility, resulting in ever more desperate and frenzied attempts to restrict male sexuality and preserve the market value of the average vagina.

To finish with, some words about feminism and the decline of violence in general.  Pinker claims that ‘most violence is male’ and takes it as a given that the increase in political power of women will naturally result in a decline in male violence.

One could challenge the very assumption that violence has declined at all in the last few decades.  Whilst accepting that the incidence of murder, street robbery and assualt has declined, violence against the individual at a state level has increased.  For example, feminists giving the state the power to break down the doors of thousands of its citizens (and potentially millions more) in order to arrest them for looking at cartoon pictures in their own home, and to forcibly take them away to be incarcerated for perhaps years or even decades, is arguably an act of brutal state violence, and something that would likely have appalled most Enlightenment thinkers, and yet it is not something that would appear on Pinkers statistics for violent crime.

One could also state that feminism is a luxury that only successful, wealthy, and peaceful societies can afford.  I think Warren Farrell (or maybe Paul Elam) describes feminism as only being possible when men have made the environment safe enough for the women to leave the cave.

Pinker largely glosses over the inconvenient facts of two world wars occurring in the last century.  He seems to claim that they are blips and that, in any case, pound for pound they weren’t actually the most destructive wars in history.  He prefers to focus on the ‘great peace’ between nations, or at least superpowers, that has existed in the 65 odd years since the end of World War II.  This has to be down to the emergence of women into the political arena, he feels.

As I’ve argued here before, war between major powers effectively ended on that February night in Dresden when the British and American airforces burnt alive over 100,000 children, women, and pensioners.  From that point on, any major war would result in the deaths of as many women (or even more women) than men.  This is largely the reason why a shot has barely been fired in anger on the European continent since 1945.  German women were happy to cheer and wave off their brave menfolk to be slaughtered at the Eastern Front – the  ultimate shit test (‘come back a hero or come back dead’ has been the female cry of war for millenia).  But as soon as carpet bombing and nuclear weapons meant that every woman was effectively placed on the front-line, war has suddenly become unthinkable, at least in any society in which women have the vote.

Article on Sex Offenders Register Posted at InMalaFide

One of my older articles has been posted at InMalaFide.

The great Ferdinand Bardemu is going fishing for a month and is inviting guest contributors to fill the gaps while he is away. I know there are at least several of my regular readers who could write an excellent piece. If any reader would like to submit a guest article at InMalaFide then you should read Ferdinand’s submission guidelines first. Although I often make promises I can’t keep when it comes to planned articles, I hope to write something there very soon on why statutory rape laws are most definitely a men’s rights issue.

Libya to adopt Sharia Law – Bring on Eurabia

Libya to be ruled by Islamic law: NTC

Islamic sharia law will prevail in Libya and any existing laws that contradict this will be repealed, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Monday.

“As an Islamic country, we have adopted Sharia as the principal law,” Jalil said at a ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Libya’s transitional government on Sunday declared national liberation.

Jalil cited as an example the law on marriage. Under deposed leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed Thursday in unclear circumstances, polygamy was banned.

“As an example is the law on divorce and marriage … This law is contrary to Sharia and it has been scrapped,” Jalil said.

Contemporary progressive ‘liberal’ humanism is, admittedly, one of the most backward of superstitious faiths ever to be dreamed up by man.  Yet it seems too incredible for words to suppose that the Western elites, who are seemingly intent on replacing every stable and despotic regime in the middle-east, even the relatively secular ones, with ‘democratic’ Islamic governments, actually believe that the arab world can become genuinely liberal and Western in this way.

In fact, in the week that David Cameron refuses to give the British public a referendum on leaving the undemocratic economic disaster that is the European Union, it seems obvious that the ground is being prepared for a pan European-Arabic caliphate.  Countries like Libya and Egypt will be invited to join the EU, as the British foreign secretary of the previous government explicitly stated his wish for.  The Islamification of Europe itself will continue apace and merge with the Muslim world itself.  The free sexual market will be closed.  Women will be protected.  The Enlightenment project will be officially over.  We will no longer have to maintain the pretence of calling its successor ‘liberal humanism’.  We will call it by its true name.  Eurabia.

eurabia flag

BBC Forced to Apologise for Removing ‘Paedophile’ Jonathan King from Top of the Pops

‘Convicted paedophile’ Jonathan King has successfully won an apology from the BBC, after they attempted to airbrush him out of pop history by removing his many 70’s and 80’s appearances from re-runs of British chart show the ‘Top of the Pops’.

Repeats of the show from 1976 are being shown on BBC Four, but King’s appearance in April that year with his number nine hit It Only Takes A Minute was removed.

King, now 66, was jailed in 2001 after being convicted at the Old Bailey of sex offences against boys aged 14 and 15. He was released in 2005 after serving half his seven-year sentence.

Mr Thompson apologised after King complained that he had been left out of a Top of the Pops repeat shown in April this year, in what he described as a “Stalinist” revision of history.

BBC apologises to Jonathan King (Telegraph UK)

The splendid Rod Liddle, one of the few mainstream media journalists who has obvious men’s rights leanings, had this to say about it in The Spectator :

On the BBC issue, as Terence Blacker pointed out in The Independent, if you removed from Top of the Pops all performers who somehow offended liberal sensibilities you’d be left with a very short show.King was convicted via the offices of Max Clifford, of course, almost twenty years after the alleged offences took place. There was no corroborating evidence and King was effectively unable to defend himself. At least one of the men who claimed he had enjoyed consensual sex with King (there was never a suggestion that the sex was anything other than consensual) later admitted he was over the age of consent at the time. King had believed them all to be over sixteen. Anyway, as a consequence, he lost his liberty for a remarkable seven years and has become a sort of pariah — which is a shame, because he is a very clever man and, as I later found out, extremely good company. He has made a film of the case against him called Vile Pervert: The Musical which is a fantastically berserk, bravado performance. You can download it from the computer thing, if you want.

The Daily Mail was not quite so sympathetic, and certainly not it’s readers.  Reading the comment section underneath their article BBC forced to apologise to paedophile Jonathan King makes for rather disturbing reading.

King himself is indignant at being described as a paedophile :

Paedophile? Someone who finds children sexually attractive? Not me – either in fact or in the law. A child is defined as “a person under the age of 14” by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (never repealed)….

…Interesting that the Telegraph have stopped using the word “paedophile”… accuracy in language is an essential in civilisation.

Jonathan King Forum

If that’s the case, King should have the balls to sue the Daily Mail for describing him as a pedophile, not to mention press charges for  publishing clear incitements to murder (the comments wishing that King be executed, ‘permanently erased from the face of the Earth’ etc.).

Or at least, not to let convicted child rapists (Locked Out) on his forum repeatedly accuse other forum members of being paedophiles for suggesting that 14 year old non-children might be able to consent to sex.