Book that tells you where is it legal to have sex with children

Bluebus Okay, I completely stand corrected. I just didn't feel it was appropriate(?) to label everyone using this book as a rapist if that wasn't going to be the case.

Narked It was more of a jokey post because of their name. :) But yet again, I didn't know that. :)

Anonymous have targeted online paedophiles

If the child the paedophile has raped is not below the age of consent (e.g. because there isn't a minimum age of consent), then a rape charge won't be automatic - i.e. it would have to be proved that the child had not consented, not just that intercourse had taken place for charges of rape to be brought successfully. Of course, a rape charge should/would be possible, but it wouldn't be automatic. Thereby making life easier for paedophile rapists.

Actually under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it is illegal for a British national to travel abroad to carry out an act that would be an offence here, so s/he could still be prosecuted. CEOP actively pursue travelling sex offenders abroad and no doubt will be very interested to hear about this book.

Also to address an earlier point, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child regards a human being as a child up until its 18 birthday.

Any bids on the relationship between 'protecting privacy' and 'censorship', then?

Bit of irony there suggesting Anonymous would want to advocate censorship and take away someone's anonymity... :o

It would be very interesting to have a list of the people who bought that book.

Anyone from Anonymous need a project?

I think that under UK law it would be questionable whether he does have a right to publish his book, Smells. I think this might be the reason Amazon have pulled it, not just the goodness of their hearts, altruism and their sense of human dignity.

Eh? You've lost me there, solid.

This isn't about censorship. The guy still has the right to publish his horrible little book but retailers like amazon are under no obligation to let him use their website as a venue to sell it.

LM: Now that sort always shoot themselves in the foot by suddenly coming over all pro-censorship when feminists people stroppy cows like me utilise free speech to take the piss out of them.

Perhaps you should contact Amazon and tell them that, SGB?

... 'liberal' men and sometimes a few women who are taken in by them, in fact, I suppose.

LastMango: That the book offers advice to rapists still isn't a good enough reason to impose censorship. Censorship is never the answer.

Or liberal left wing men who are revoltingly misogynistic in 'supporting' 'free speech'

Yup, the feminist pro-censorship movement has always been very happy to hold hands with the Christian Right. Both groups have very narrow, prescriptive views on other people's behaviour, use underhand tactics and like to paint themselves as beleagured victims while stamping all over other people's rights.

It's a bit like middle-class left-wing men who are revoltingly misogynistic in the name of supporting the working classes...

SGB - it's only you who've even suggested on this thread that anyone would 'all of a sudden' turn into a rapist.
The fact is that this book appeared to have no other purpose than to enable rapists.
And, no, I'm not - as you seem to think I am - advocating censorship of all pornography. But the idea that 'free speech' in itself is by its very nature harmless is as lazy as the idea that all pornography is evil.

Good point by SGB too, if it was known that your right to give or refuse consent was signed away by marriage then if you are against that you shouldn't marry.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

LastMango But then you can't automatically assume that these people actually do want to rape kids. They might not be looking for places with no age of consent, say an age of consent of 13? If this person went to that country and had sex with a 13 year old, with that person's consent then that would not be rape.

Yes, we would consider it wrong because it is below our age of consent but that doesn't automatically mean that a 13 year old would not be able to give consent.

SmellsLike Good point, I understand where you're coming from but technically different from where I am coming from. I do believe consent has to be given.

LastMango: Ah, the classic pro-censorship bullshit argument. People get raped because rapists decide to rape them, not because people who read books all of a sudden turn into rapists.

SGB, as I'm sure you know, Dworkin and MacKinnon joined forces with the Christian right.Those laws were then implemented by the Christian right.
That is why they impacted in the way they did.
Have you seen the ways in which e.g. Paul Little and other abusive shitheads have used liberal anti-censorship arguments to protect themselves. It's incredible how easily taken in by those arguments so many people were and are.

So SGB, if one child was raped because some unimportant little shitbag had got hold of this book, gone off on his hols and managed to rape a child, that would be unimportant, yes?

SLTS: In law, no, they weren't raped. Up until 1990 in the UK, the law was that a woman gave a man consent in perpetuity to fuck her by marrying him. (This is why some of my friends always refused to marry, even when they were living with men they loved and trusted who would never have raped them - they didn't want to sign away their entitlement to refuse sex.)

SGB. What negative effects on freedom, human rights and women's rights do you see happening now that Amazon have bowed to pressure and removed the offending book?

LastMango: the point of protecting one nasty little book is being able to protect other books that other people find offensive. When Dworkin and MacKinnon got their fucking stupid procensorship law onto the books in one state, the first things that got busted were gay, lesbian, feminist and women's health books; the authorities used an allegedly feminist-inspired new law to go after every kind of 'indecent' ie challenging-the-patriarchy or anti-heteronormative material they could find.

Schroedingers, I think the point is that the wannabe rapist doesn't wannabe charged with rape. If the victim of a rape is below the age of consent, then rape charges are (theoretically) automatic, regardless of the victim's 'consent'. If the child the paedophile has raped is not below the age of consent (e.g. because there isn't a minimum age of consent), then a rape charge won't be automatic - i.e. it would have to be proved that the child had not consented, not just that intercourse had taken place for charges of rape to be brought successfully. Of course, a rape charge should/would be possible, but it wouldn't be automatic. Thereby making life easier for paedophile rapists.