Есть такой замечательный педоактивист - Кирилл Галабурда. Он переводит на русский язык разные важные тексты с английского и немецкого, а один раз даже выступал на одиночном пикете. Он выбирает хорошие тексты для перевода, но есть одна проблема. Тот русский язык, на который Кирилл переводит тексты, очень далёк от литературной нормы и читать его тексты довольно сложно.
Кто-нибудь мог бы взять на себя роль корректора, который будет переписывать тексты Кирилла на нормальном русском языке, основываясь также и на английском оригинале текста. Необходимые навыки: знание английского на начальном уровне, хорошее владение русским языком.
В качестве первого задания можно сделать рерайт этого перевода:
Трудно законодателю решить, обвинить или защитить ребёнка, если речь о половом преступлении.
Верховный суд Юты во вторник озадаченный сомнениями, что 13-летняя огденчанка может являться как преступницей, так и жертвой одного и того же деяния — добровольного секса с 12-летним.
Она таки нарушила закон о запрещении в штате секса с не достигшими 14-ти, но ведь и парня следует объявить аналогично жертво-насильником.
Для судьи Михайла Вилкинса «больше всего похоже на дуэль», где тоже двое виновных и двое пострадавших.
Удивляется главная судья Кристина Дарэм, насколько законами предусмотрены возможности защищать и одновременно преследовать одного и того же человека.
Спорят о неподсудности той, которая в октябре 2003 года забеременела.
Петиции — с июля 2004 года, чтобы насильниками признать обоих.
Девочка подала прошение, будто нарушают её конституционные права: почему 16–17-летние друг с другом не считаются насильниками? Даже для 14–15-летних предусмотрено смягчающее обстоятельство, когда возрастная разница не более четырёх лет, — проступок, а не преступление. Кому же не повезло дождаться 14-ти, согласия на секс не признают.
Когда прошение отклонено, девочка вину признала, хоть и не отказалась от возможности апеллировать.
Апелляционынй суд Юты в декабре — на стороне первого судьи.
Во вторник замютопрокурора Матвей Бэйтс настаивает, что логика в этом есть. Законы писаны, чтобы не было секса, — и, кого наказывать, это неважно.
Девичий адвокат Рандаль Ричардс думает, что закон имел в виду не запрет секса, но защиту детей, которых преследовать противоречит самому закону.
Сравнение с дуэлью не подходит, ибо, в отличие от дуэли, секс не убивает, а при соблюдении правил и не вредит. Как бы ни впечатлял, если взаимножелаемый, то психике безвреден. Естественно, риски присутствуют, ибо сама девочка забеременела, но чем это будет опаснее плаванья либо велосипедной гонки? Вместо законодательного запрета на спорт, лучше детей приучать к осторожности.
Нет, запреты нужны, семилетнему нельзя разрешать уклониться выучить таблицу умножения либо дозволить покупку ружья. Впечатление, что народу право не позволять ребёнку подвергать себя риску долгосрочного вреда: способности ребёнка не такие, как у взрослых, они склонны выбирать опасное — но не более того! Хорошие родители понимают, что ребёнку нужно предоставлять учиться на своих ошибках: чтобы не было плохо, не злоупотреблять сладким; чтоб утром не чувствовать себя разбитыми, не ложиться поздно. Непредоставление ребёнку выбора оправданно только когда может себе сильно повредить. А взаимножелательные сэксперименты здесь явно не при чём. Девочка до пубертата может повредить себя коитусом, однако не в этом случае, когда забеременела и так подтвердила половую зрелость. Запрещать всем «детям» — уравнивать пяти- и 15-летнюю, чему в законах и противодействие, как англичане позволяют 13-летним решать, с кем жить.
Лучшей будет аналогия непредоставления ребёнку права голоса, поскольку не понимают процедуры, только тут страдает общество, а не только ребёнок. Но здесь же и заметна ошибочность возрастных обобщений, поскольку некоторые 14-летние лучше понимают политику, чем некоторые сорокалетние.
Возвращаясь к ютозакону, то нацеленный против секса у детей, по всем понятному соображению: взрослый партнёр у ребёнка солиднее, сильнее, хитрее… Но как это соображение применимо до секса 13-летней с 12-летним? Это необоснованная предвзятость против секса как такового.
Для девичья адвоката логики в этом нет, и закон пожирает сам себя вследствие ложной посылки, будто секс ребёнку вреден всегда. Я рада, что девочке хватило моральной стойкости подать апелляцию. Возможно, чем таких дел больше, тем иррациональные жестокие законы скорее будут отменены.
Верховный суд Юты во вторник озадаченный сомнениями, что 13-летняя огденчанка может являться как преступницей, так и жертвой одного и того же деяния — добровольного секса с 12-летним.
Она таки нарушила закон о запрещении в штате секса с не достигшими 14-ти, но ведь и парня следует объявить аналогично жертво-насильником.
Для судьи Михайла Вилкинса «больше всего похоже на дуэль», где тоже двое виновных и двое пострадавших.
Удивляется главная судья Кристина Дарэм, насколько законами предусмотрены возможности защищать и одновременно преследовать одного и того же человека.
Спорят о неподсудности той, которая в октябре 2003 года забеременела.
Петиции — с июля 2004 года, чтобы насильниками признать обоих.
Девочка подала прошение, будто нарушают её конституционные права: почему 16–17-летние друг с другом не считаются насильниками? Даже для 14–15-летних предусмотрено смягчающее обстоятельство, когда возрастная разница не более четырёх лет, — проступок, а не преступление. Кому же не повезло дождаться 14-ти, согласия на секс не признают.
Когда прошение отклонено, девочка вину признала, хоть и не отказалась от возможности апеллировать.
Апелляционынй суд Юты в декабре — на стороне первого судьи.
Во вторник замютопрокурора Матвей Бэйтс настаивает, что логика в этом есть. Законы писаны, чтобы не было секса, — и, кого наказывать, это неважно.
Девичий адвокат Рандаль Ричардс думает, что закон имел в виду не запрет секса, но защиту детей, которых преследовать противоречит самому закону.
Сравнение с дуэлью не подходит, ибо, в отличие от дуэли, секс не убивает, а при соблюдении правил и не вредит. Как бы ни впечатлял, если взаимножелаемый, то психике безвреден. Естественно, риски присутствуют, ибо сама девочка забеременела, но чем это будет опаснее плаванья либо велосипедной гонки? Вместо законодательного запрета на спорт, лучше детей приучать к осторожности.
Нет, запреты нужны, семилетнему нельзя разрешать уклониться выучить таблицу умножения либо дозволить покупку ружья. Впечатление, что народу право не позволять ребёнку подвергать себя риску долгосрочного вреда: способности ребёнка не такие, как у взрослых, они склонны выбирать опасное — но не более того! Хорошие родители понимают, что ребёнку нужно предоставлять учиться на своих ошибках: чтобы не было плохо, не злоупотреблять сладким; чтоб утром не чувствовать себя разбитыми, не ложиться поздно. Непредоставление ребёнку выбора оправданно только когда может себе сильно повредить. А взаимножелательные сэксперименты здесь явно не при чём. Девочка до пубертата может повредить себя коитусом, однако не в этом случае, когда забеременела и так подтвердила половую зрелость. Запрещать всем «детям» — уравнивать пяти- и 15-летнюю, чему в законах и противодействие, как англичане позволяют 13-летним решать, с кем жить.
Лучшей будет аналогия непредоставления ребёнку права голоса, поскольку не понимают процедуры, только тут страдает общество, а не только ребёнок. Но здесь же и заметна ошибочность возрастных обобщений, поскольку некоторые 14-летние лучше понимают политику, чем некоторые сорокалетние.
Возвращаясь к ютозакону, то нацеленный против секса у детей, по всем понятному соображению: взрослый партнёр у ребёнка солиднее, сильнее, хитрее… Но как это соображение применимо до секса 13-летней с 12-летним? Это необоснованная предвзятость против секса как такового.
Для девичья адвоката логики в этом нет, и закон пожирает сам себя вследствие ложной посылки, будто секс ребёнку вреден всегда. Я рада, что девочке хватило моральной стойкости подать апелляцию. Возможно, чем таких дел больше, тем иррациональные жестокие законы скорее будут отменены.
Teen, both a perpetrator and victim of sex offense, presents legal puzzle
Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boy¬friend.
The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.
"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender.
And Chief Justice Christine Durham wondered if the state Legislature had intended the "peculiar consequence" that a
child would have the simulta¬neous status of a protected person and an alleged perpe¬trator under the law.
The comments came in oral arguments on a motion asking the high court to overturn the finding of delinquency - the legal term in juvenile court for a conviction - against Z.C., who became pregnant after she and her boyfriend engaged in sex in October 2003.
State authorities filed delin-quency petitions in July 2004, alleging that each had commit¬ted sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if com-mitted by an adult.
The girl appealed the petition, saying her constitutional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated.
Her motion noted that for juveniles who are 16 and 17, having sex with others in their own age group does not qualify as a crime. Juveniles who are 14 or 15 and have sex with peers can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor, but the law provides for mitiga¬tion when the age difference is less than four years, making
the offense a misdemeanor.
For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.
A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court.
The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allega¬tion.
At Tuesday's arguments, Mat-thew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued the prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. He said that the statute in question is designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group.
By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among chil¬dren is unacceptable.
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender."
That's a good analogy, except for one thing: Sex, unlike gun¬shots, does not normally kill people. If practiced with reasonable common sense, it doesn't cause injury. It can stir up a whole mess of complicated feelings, but if it's consensual it's unlikely to cause bad psy¬chological damage. Yes, sex is not risk-free: young "Z.C." did get pregnant at the tender age of 13. But activities such as swimming and bike-riding are not risk-free either, and there's no law against children engag¬ing in those. Instead of outlaw¬ing them, we try to teach kids how to go about them safely, which is what we should be doing with sex.
The state does prevent children from doing certain things, and with good reason. 7-year-olds do not have the right to decide not to learn the multiplication table; they are not allowed to buy gin or to live entirely by themselves. Society feels that it has the right to prevent a young child from doing things that may harm him or her in the long term, and in this case it is correct: children's mental capacities are not as developed as adults', and they are liable to make bad decisions, from the dangerous consequences of which they should be kept safe— but, perhaps, only up to a point. Good parents know that sometimes children need to be allowed to learn from their own mistakes— need to discover that if they eat too many sweets they will feel sick later, or that if they stay up late they will feel tired the following day. Curtail¬ing children's freedom to make their own decisions is only justified in areas where the decisions they may make can cause them substantial harm. Consensual sexual experimen¬tation is not one of these areas. A girl who has not yet gone through puberty may be physi¬cally damaged by vaginal penetration, but this clearly does not apply here since if "Z.C." could get pregnant she must have been sexually mature. This brings up the point that "children" is a blan¬ket category. A 5-year-old is a very different being to a 15-year-old, and in some cases the law does recognize this, as when, in the UK, it grants the right to decide whom to live with to children 13 and over but not those under 13.
Perhaps a better analogy for our refusing children the right to have sex is our refusing them the right to vote. Kids are not allowed to vote because their understanding of the political process is not developed enough, and some argue that they should not be allowed to have sex because their understanding of the repercussions is not devel-oped enough. The difference here is that voting will, at least in theory, affect society at large; sex affects nobody except the people involved and, possibly, those, such as friends and family, who are involved with them. Also, as remarked above, it is foolish to make blanket generalizations about a whole sub-group in society. Many argue that there should be no fixed age for voting because some 14-year-olds show a better understand¬ing of politics than some 40-year-olds, and the same could be said about sex. Adults cling to their signs of adulthood, those talismans which mark them off from the underclass of children, and the right to vote and the right to have sex are two such talismans.
By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.
I'm sure we all know the main argument used to justify outlawing adult-child sex: Because the adult has more social power, and usually more physical and mental power, than the child, the adult is likely to force or coerce the child. But how can Mr. Bates apply this argument to sex between a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old? There is little more to his remarks than a feeling that all sexual activity in childhood is somehow bad.
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecut¬ing children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
The law is tying itself in knots— hardly surprising, since it oper-ates on the blatantly false prem-ise that children are always "victimized" in sexual encoun-ters. I am glad that the young girl concerned has had the strength of mind and of charac¬ter to appeal her delinquency petition. Perhaps, as more and more such cases occur, we will see the breakdown of this irra¬tional and cruel set of laws.
Treblevoice is one of the few female paedophiles around on the Net. She has known she was a paedophile since she was a kid herself. She is attracted both to boys and girls, from toddler age through the teens.
Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boy¬friend.
The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.
"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender.
And Chief Justice Christine Durham wondered if the state Legislature had intended the "peculiar consequence" that a
child would have the simulta¬neous status of a protected person and an alleged perpe¬trator under the law.
The comments came in oral arguments on a motion asking the high court to overturn the finding of delinquency - the legal term in juvenile court for a conviction - against Z.C., who became pregnant after she and her boyfriend engaged in sex in October 2003.
State authorities filed delin-quency petitions in July 2004, alleging that each had commit¬ted sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if com-mitted by an adult.
The girl appealed the petition, saying her constitutional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated.
Her motion noted that for juveniles who are 16 and 17, having sex with others in their own age group does not qualify as a crime. Juveniles who are 14 or 15 and have sex with peers can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor, but the law provides for mitiga¬tion when the age difference is less than four years, making
the offense a misdemeanor.
For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.
A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court.
The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allega¬tion.
At Tuesday's arguments, Mat-thew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued the prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. He said that the statute in question is designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group.
By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among chil¬dren is unacceptable.
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender."
That's a good analogy, except for one thing: Sex, unlike gun¬shots, does not normally kill people. If practiced with reasonable common sense, it doesn't cause injury. It can stir up a whole mess of complicated feelings, but if it's consensual it's unlikely to cause bad psy¬chological damage. Yes, sex is not risk-free: young "Z.C." did get pregnant at the tender age of 13. But activities such as swimming and bike-riding are not risk-free either, and there's no law against children engag¬ing in those. Instead of outlaw¬ing them, we try to teach kids how to go about them safely, which is what we should be doing with sex.
The state does prevent children from doing certain things, and with good reason. 7-year-olds do not have the right to decide not to learn the multiplication table; they are not allowed to buy gin or to live entirely by themselves. Society feels that it has the right to prevent a young child from doing things that may harm him or her in the long term, and in this case it is correct: children's mental capacities are not as developed as adults', and they are liable to make bad decisions, from the dangerous consequences of which they should be kept safe— but, perhaps, only up to a point. Good parents know that sometimes children need to be allowed to learn from their own mistakes— need to discover that if they eat too many sweets they will feel sick later, or that if they stay up late they will feel tired the following day. Curtail¬ing children's freedom to make their own decisions is only justified in areas where the decisions they may make can cause them substantial harm. Consensual sexual experimen¬tation is not one of these areas. A girl who has not yet gone through puberty may be physi¬cally damaged by vaginal penetration, but this clearly does not apply here since if "Z.C." could get pregnant she must have been sexually mature. This brings up the point that "children" is a blan¬ket category. A 5-year-old is a very different being to a 15-year-old, and in some cases the law does recognize this, as when, in the UK, it grants the right to decide whom to live with to children 13 and over but not those under 13.
Perhaps a better analogy for our refusing children the right to have sex is our refusing them the right to vote. Kids are not allowed to vote because their understanding of the political process is not developed enough, and some argue that they should not be allowed to have sex because their understanding of the repercussions is not devel-oped enough. The difference here is that voting will, at least in theory, affect society at large; sex affects nobody except the people involved and, possibly, those, such as friends and family, who are involved with them. Also, as remarked above, it is foolish to make blanket generalizations about a whole sub-group in society. Many argue that there should be no fixed age for voting because some 14-year-olds show a better understand¬ing of politics than some 40-year-olds, and the same could be said about sex. Adults cling to their signs of adulthood, those talismans which mark them off from the underclass of children, and the right to vote and the right to have sex are two such talismans.
By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.
I'm sure we all know the main argument used to justify outlawing adult-child sex: Because the adult has more social power, and usually more physical and mental power, than the child, the adult is likely to force or coerce the child. But how can Mr. Bates apply this argument to sex between a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old? There is little more to his remarks than a feeling that all sexual activity in childhood is somehow bad.
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecut¬ing children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
The law is tying itself in knots— hardly surprising, since it oper-ates on the blatantly false prem-ise that children are always "victimized" in sexual encoun-ters. I am glad that the young girl concerned has had the strength of mind and of charac¬ter to appeal her delinquency petition. Perhaps, as more and more such cases occur, we will see the breakdown of this irra¬tional and cruel set of laws.
Treblevoice is one of the few female paedophiles around on the Net. She has known she was a paedophile since she was a kid herself. She is attracted both to boys and girls, from toddler age through the teens.
