?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Bestiality = paedophilia: from "e-Tags for Vic paedophiles" article
Default
gemsling
Ah, politicians - gotta love 'em. The Australian IT has a story about proposed laws to electronically tag dangerous sex offenders (specifically for child sex offences): http://australianit.news.com.au/wireless/story/0,8256,4-12345329,00.html.

Now, while I'm wary of schemes that segregate rather than encourage recovery and integration, I think this plan has merit; particularly if it is only used for serial offenders who have shown that they are not committed to recovery. However, the Opposition leader (probably because it's his job to complain) asks why it's not broader:

Opposition Leader Robert Doyle said the legislation was flawed because it was limited to paedophiles. They did not apply to rapists released back into the community, nor to other serious criminals including murderers, arsonists, fraudsters and drug traffickers, Mr Doyle said. How can you have a serious sex offender bill and you exclude rape as a serious sexual offence? Mr Doyke [sic] said.

I guess he's got a point, and he furthers it by adding:

If the government says this is just about offences against children then why, for instance, have they included bestiality as one of the serious sex offences?

Now for the funny bit:

A spokesman for Mr Holding said bestiality had been included as an eligible offence under the legislation because such offenders were considered to be potential paedophiles.

What?! Anyone could be a "potential" paedophile, but I don't see why animal lovers would be more prone. So, the fact that I get a constant erection while walking through the zoo means I'll soon be on the lookout for kids (not the lamb kind) to rape? Hmm...

Okay, so I don't actually have a thing for animals, and I certainly wouldn't fuck one... But I'm pretty sure that bestiality and paedophilia are quite different. Rather than desparately clutching at straws for a response and implying that paedophiles are likely to have sex with animals because they can't get children, wouldn't it be easier to go for a more honest answer like, "sex offences against children and animals are considered offensive/concerning, so both are covered in the planned legislation"?