It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Harriet Harman's political judgement and ambitions are now in question after she she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.
Imagine being nine or ten years old. You are orphaned and living on the streets of a city in Afghanistan. You are approached by a man you do not know. He will clothe, feed and "protect" you. All you must do is learn to dance.
At first you will practice your routine with another young man. After weeks of training you will make your debut dancing before a crowd of men. Many are former warlords who helped the Karzai Government make its way to power. Others might be powerful businessmen. Before you dance you will be given clothes and make up to make you look feminine.
After the dancing, the men are excited and they bid for your company. If you please a warlord or businessman they will pay highly for your favours. Ultimately you will be traded, violated and abused by a large number of men. This is the world of the Bacha Bereesh, which means "beardless boys". These children are groomed to become sex slaves. It is not a new practice.
In Afghanistan the Warlords often kept young boys as their sexual partners. But in modern Afghanistan the practice has evolved into a lucrative and expanding business. In a country ravaged by war orphaned boys are being openly targeted by paedophiles. Some families are so poor that they are willing to sell their sons into slavery. Official reports now suggest thousands of children are at risk.
Originally posted by CanadianDream420
It still won't be acceptable to the mass public and those who process such filth will be dealt with... without a court of law.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
How about the case of the man who drew a pornographic cartoon of a child?
How about the case of a man who wrote stories with a pedaphilic theme?
How about the multitude of cases where parents take pictures of their naked children because they think its cute, funny or just so heartbreakingly beautiful?
How about artists who paint pictures of naked child angels?
How about the cases of 16 year old boys taking pictures of their 15 year old girlfriends?
How about the cases of teenagers sexting?
Any and all of these cases fit the description of not having harmed a child but people were charged and their lives were destroyed by the charge!
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
here is a perfect example of what I am talking about
www.theherald.com.au...
So what child was harmed by the downloading of pornographic simpsons and pokemon cartoons?
More importantly, what child was protected by society paying to have this man charged and put through the court system?
TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS
Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
These sick people disgust me.
They should all be locked up for life.
Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
This just goes to show you that once again the people at the top are pedophiles.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Harriet Harman's political judgement and ambitions are now in question after she she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.
I remember reading about Cathy O'Brien who was used as a MK-Ultra subject and pedophiles took advantage of her including George Bush's Dad, Ronald Reagan, etc.
There were also stories about Ronald Reagan and his "Bedtime Stories" where he would have homemade child pornography made just for him.