• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Pedophilia in the News

Status
Not open for further replies.
someguyontheinternet said:
That's rich coming from someone who repeats fox news/right wing fear mongering talking points on a regular basis. Also sounds to me like you didn't read it at all

And because I know you're just going to deny it here are some examples:










Here are a few more that you literally just posted lmao:
Click to expand...


I take fake news to mean that all news comes from somewhere and can be faked but to call fox news fake just because you disagree with it is dumb. It's not all fake it's just got a Republican spin if your a dem watch CNN. I watch Fox because CNN people are over weight and depressing and I don't trust there news they spend almost every day taking about how Trump is scary it's annoying I don't care about your theories I just want the news so I watch Fox. Much prettier and nicer and funny. And true.
 
Idk man fox news' attorneys might disagree with you, they said in court that they produce falsehoods and omit information on purpose because its "what their viewers want"

Not my fault you want to be lied to

www.al.com

Fox News pays $787.5 million for lying about election: ‘Our viewers don’t want the truth’

Fox News has a few good $787.5 million liars who are happy they don't have to testify
www.al.com www.al.com



 
xxsicknessxx said:
I take fake news to mean that all news comes from somewhere and can be faked but to call fox news fake just because you disagree with it is dumb. It's not all fake it's just got a Republican spin if your a dem watch CNN. I watch Fox because CNN people are over weight and depressing and I don't trust there news they spend almost every day taking about how Trump is scary it's annoying I don't care about your theories I just want the news so I watch Fox. Much prettier and nicer and funny. And true.
Click to expand...
It's legitimately not news though. It's "entertainment".
 
alasdairm said:
do you have a link to coverage of this?

we discussed same in the "flordia" pedo thread recently where it appeared that's not exactly what happened.

thanks.

alasdair
Click to expand...

www.canadianlawyermag.com

Mandatory minimum sentences for child luring unconstitutional: Supreme Court of Canada

The decision was split, with one justice in dissent
www.canadianlawyermag.com www.canadianlawyermag.com

They ruled it based on "reasonable forseeable scenarios" where the law would be applied unconstitutionally, and not actual cases that were happening.
 
thanks.

well, if you believe in your country's constitution, sometimes things with which you personally agree will be deemed unconstitutional.

if you (not you personally F) believe that throwing out the protection of the constitution is ok becuase you disagree with something or perhaps find it offensive, i know you know what a slippery slope that is.

i'm personally not in favor of mandatory minimums. i believe that it's the judicial branch - not the legislative branch - who should make sentencing decisions. they are closer to the cases and they need a level of discretion that mandatory minimums do not offer.

i've made peace with the fact that means that sometimes criminals receive sentences which may seem, to me, too lenient.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
Also, unless I totally misunderstand (Which I don't believe is the case.) the workings of a Westminster-style Parliament system, as used in Canada, versus the US 3-branch system, the judiciary is still independent of the rest of the government and its ruling a law unconstitutional is not the same thing as said law being repealed. Just like in the US, it would take the legislature passing a law to repeal a previous one. So this is still a false narrative.
 
alasdairm said:
i'm personally not in favor of mandatory minimums. i believe that it's the judicial branch - not the legislative branch - who should make sentencing decisions. they are closer to the cases and they need a level of discretion that mandatory minimums do not offer.

i've made peace with the fact that means that sometimes criminals receive sentences which may seem, to me, too lenient.

alasdair
Click to expand...
that's how pedo judges get pedo criminals off lightly and back out onto the streets.
mandatory minimums prevents that problem which is rife among western societies and judiciary systems.
 
pedo-co-v0-atypophuewbd1.jpeg
 
So if a 13 year old was fiddling a 3 year old they wouldn't be required to go on the sex offender registry? Or if a 16 year old did the same to a 6 year old?

WTF??? Their names should be put on the registry because we know that those who do this will continue to offend and the offending will escalate if they are getting away with even a first offense.
 
Someone 23 years and 364 days old screwing a 14 year old and not being recorded on the sex offender registry. That is laughable. A 14 year old is still a baby, a 23 year old is an adult and would be very close to full maturity hence would know what they are doing and that it is profoundly wrong. Something is wrong with this world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top