From: "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 06:03:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: More proposals for European censorship
Message-ID: <199609231442.HAA20480@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Asgaard writes:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, E. Allen Smith forwarded:
> 
> >> STRASBOURG, France (Sep 19, 1996 11:24 a.m. EDT) - The European
> >> Parliament pressed the European Union on Thursday to act to curb child
> >> sex and trafficking rings, saying the fight against sexual abuse of
> >> children must be an "absolute priority."

> It's probably no coincidence that the recently busted, utter horrible
> child-molesting ring, with obvious protection from various persons
> in the establishment, was centered in Belgium - that's where the EU
> bureaucrat nomenklatura play their power games and go to bordellos.

> Asgaard

What exactly are you suggesting when you say 'it's probably no
coincidence?" I can't quite figure it out.

[While I've not been following the case in detail, it involves a ring
of criminals in Belgium who kidnapped children to use them in 
child pornography. At least two little girls were starved to death
when they're usefullness was over.]

Are you suggesting that someone specifically set up a ring of 
child pornographers/murders in Belgium, then let it get caught, in
an attempt to influence the EU parliment?

Or are you suggesting that this particular gang of sub-humans was
exposed at this time in an attempt to influence policy, implying that
the Belgian LEAs knew about, but did not stop the ring until they
needed a publicity coup?

I find such notions utterly beyond rationality.

Do you expect we're going to see a statement from some Belgian
police investigator to the effect of "Yes, I  knew they were raping and
killing children, but was told to do nothing, and I obeyed."? 

There is a tendency of many on this list to demonize those we 
disagree with. If a person or group takes the 'wrong' stance on 
cryptography, key "escrow", etc, many list members will act as 
if that person or group were capable of any atrocity, and is acting out
of the very worst of motives and hidden agendas.

Such an attitude is common, but not desirable in the modern world.
It served some purpose when war involved the literal massacre of 
one's opponents - it's easier to commit genocide against the tribe
over the ridge if you demonize them into not-quite-humans, but in
the modern world this is not a rational option.

While it's possible to  regard many policies of governments,
ill-informed, self-serving, populist, and wrong, to act as if there is no
significant differences between real democracies and the worst 
authoritarian dictatorships is absurd. 

Peter Trei (not representing my employer)
trei@process.com

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; 
it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him 
without hate -- and quickly. " - Heinlein

Reccomended for US readers: "Parliment of Whores" by PJ O'Rourke