“Just as Little Red Riding Hood entered the wood, a wolf met her. Red Riding Hood did not know what a wicked creature he was, and was not at all afraid of him.” From Little Red Riding Hood
Following the rape of two 11-year-old girls by two men, one 30 and the other 29, France’s Assembly voted against a law to create an absolute line protecting children under 15 from rape.
Because this is counter-intuitive for people with a moral compass to think about, to put it another way: the French Assembly, “champions of European Liberalism”, voted against a law to set the legal age of consent at 15 which would have prevented rapists of children from hiring big-money-sly-as-wolves defence lawyers to needle 11-year-old girls on the witness stand and get off on an “it was consensual sex” dismissal.
Meanwhile in most other countries, the age of consent has risen steadily since the 19th century. Yet, France voted against a law in 2018 to provide absolute protection to children in the 21st century when child pornography, pedophilia and child sex slavery is running rampant across the internet, making children more vulnerable than ever before.
Defenders of Liberalism will quickly cry, but the French did vote to add an extra hoop for the sly-as-wolves child rapist defence attorneys to go through. The French did add to the existing law that a Judge (almost always a Liberal Judge) will decide if the child, say a 5 or 6 year-old, was morally coerced or surprised by the man sexually assaulting them. The French refused to accept that it is obvious an innocent child is, of course and always, morally coerced and surprised by rape, having no ability to understand what is happening, and the man has no defence regardless of the skill of their defence attorney. Here is what was added into the new French law:
Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts.
Defenders of this legal relativism also argue, yeah-but, there is also now a longer time for child rape victims to report the allegation; and, France also increased the punishments – should the sly-as-wolves child rapist defence attorneys fail to get past the above hoop:
Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300).
Liberalism can defend this all they want, with it’s “relativism”, “context matters” talk, but the clear fact is that the French had an opportunity, but refused to, stand for the absolute truth that child rape by someone who knows the child is underage is not tolerated in Western democracies. It is indefensible.
Refusing to pass this absolute line on child rape, leaves the judgement of child rapists to the discretion of largely Liberal judges many of whom would be of the dark era in the 1960’s and 1970s for children. This was a dark era in French history, well researched and bravely put forward by The Atlantic, in which there was an active and open push for pedophilia by some Liberal academics and so-called “intellectuals”.
This is the historical context in which France not only refused to set the age limit at 15, but it remains one of very few countries to have no age of consent at all. Other countries in which there is no age of consent at all are Islamic countries. Online Islamism teaches a similar, relativity, contextual argument for consent with regards to children and sex. It depends on Islamic opinion as to whether the child, who could be as young as 6 or 11, the age of the girl which Mahoumed married, is mature enough for sex.
France did, however, pass a law this month protecting women on the streets from “wolf whistles” after a viral video showed a “wolf whistling” man punch an unappreciative woman outside of a French cafe. Perhaps if child rape was on security cameras outside of a French cafe the bank accounts of Liberal French tourism would be equally appalled to enact appropriate laws. Harsh, I know, but these are not times for pleasantries.