Gary Glitter in trouble in Vietnam

[SFG75]

I just find the concept of talking about the torture of a man who has not yet been convicted of a crime to be quite heinous. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and as such I have not been part of the discussion. I take no issue with discussing penalities for pedophiles, who are disturbed individuals who I feel the law does not punish appropriately. However, discussing the penalty of a specific individual who is currently still under investigation with the zeal and bloodthurstiness shown above, is, I feel, not appropriate.

The thread is about people's thoughts on him. Yes, they are harsh...boo-hoo.

 

[Motokid]

The guy also has a history of anti-social behavior too right?

 

[Miss Shelf]

Have you all forgotten Michael Jackson so quickly?

 

[Shade]

The thread is about people's thoughts on him. Yes, they are harsh...boo-hoo.

Sarcasm is not very respectful of your fellow members, SFG. But really, if the 'thoughts' quoted by Kookamoor above really are the limits of what people have to say about the topic, then that saddens me greatly. We can all say we hate paedophiles and that they deserve horrible things. But it should never be the limit of the discussion.

Yes, you may have had a bad childhood. Yes, you may have had had some things happen to you.

By 'some things,' in this context, you mean raped by a paedophile, which is the very act we're talking about as being never excusable because of its lifelong damaging effect on the victim - whose experiences you are now trying to play down by calling them 'some things.'

At the same time, that doesnt' excuse you for your actions in society.

Agreed, which is why anyone who indulges in such crimes must be prosecuted and punished. It doesn't excuse it - but - it might explain it. Now: presuming we are serious about wanting to reduce the amount of paedophile abuse in society, do we do that by (a) deciding to punish each case as it arises in the hope that it will somehow deter any paedophile who has not (yet) abused a child from following their desires which are, as has been pointed out, as ingrained and 'natural' to them as our own sexual desires are to the rest of us? Or do we do it by (b) trying to understand why a paedophile abuses and creating a climate in society where someone who has such desires feels they can seek help to prevent them from abusing children, without fearing that they're going to be lynched for acknowledging their desires?

Do we not have a problem with this kind of stuff today? We have an alphabet soup of disorders, but TRS (taking responsibility syndrome) appears to be non-existant.

This might be a valid point if we were talking about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Attention Deficit Disorder or other syndromes which are the subject of controversy and doubt as to their existence. But there is no doubt that there really are people out there who 'suffer' from sexual attraction to children, and unless you are saying that they don't really have any compulsion but just choose to do it for no real reason, I think they're entitled to help and that it's in all our interests to see that they get it.

As for 'taking responsibility syndrome,' it's not non-existent: as is agreed by everyone, if someone commits a crime like this they must be prosecuted and punished according to the law. They must take responsibility. But to say that as we are doing that, we do not want to find out why they did it, is a shameful position for a mature society.

 

[SFG75]

Sarcasm is not very respectful of your fellow members, SFG.'

Yeah, neither is bringing in a member's religion to banty about back and forth and to discuss along with the topic. My only complain with this board is that the christian-bashing feeling beats high. While that person won't mix it up, others will. If a member points fingers and slams a person's religion and refers to others as a mob-well, that sets the tone until it's either retracted or hashed out.

We can all say we hate paedophiles and that they deserve horrible things. But it should never be the limit of the discussion.

O.k., I agree here, is there something wrong with being outraged? Yes, what went on in Gary Glitter's little damaged head explains things, but what about what those little girls in Vietnam or Cambodia went through? Members were just appalled by what this creep did and were "blowing off steam" so to speak. I don't think that is so bad in and of itself. We'll get over to the therapeutic couch in a minute....let it get there.

By 'some things,' in this context, you mean raped by a paedophile, which is the very act we're talking about as being never excusable because of its lifelong damaging effect on the victim - whose experiences you are now trying to play down by calling them 'some things.'

True, in choosing the wording of it, I was trying to be more succinct and to the point about how overall, humans have free-will and are not slaves to experiences, genetics, or other such deterministic things.

(b) trying to understand why a paedophile abuses and creating a climate in society where someone who has such desires feels they can seek help to prevent them from abusing children, without fearing that they're going to be lynched for acknowledging their desires?

I agree on this-I also know that this segment of the population isn't exactly great statistically in terms of recidivism.

But there is no doubt that there really are people out there who 'suffer' from sexual attraction to children, and unless you are saying that they don't really have any compulsion but just choose to do it for no real reason, I think they're entitled to help and that it's in all our interests to see that they get it.

As for 'taking responsibility syndrome,' it's not non-existent: as is agreed by everyone, if someone commits a crime like this they must be prosecuted and punished according to the law. They must take responsibility. But to say that as we are doing that, we do not want to find out why they did it, is a shameful position for a mature society.

I'm not sure what else there is to understand about them. They do receive therapy and other treatment in prison. Not only that, if they were abused themselves and engage in crime, there is a great chance that they have already been working with the helping professions for years to no avail(i.e.social workers, therapists, case workers, etc.) What we need to understand is that this group does reoffend and that treating this segment of the population is usually dismal in terms of rates of success. With that being said, if I were to have a neighbor move in who is an offender on parole, I don't want to understand him, I want to protect my kids from him knowing that he in all likelihood, will never conquer the sickness that he has. If he reoffends again, I will gladly stand outside the prison holding a frying pan when he sits on "old sparky" where he will be "cured" for life.

In Glitter's case, look at what he did. He left Britain and fled to Vietnam, thinking he could engage in this vice and get away with it. A sick person doesn't plan their crime with such premeditation as he did. He made conscious choices to apply for citizenship, as well as to disappear. Had he made a conscious decision to see a therapist, then maybe I'd be more reserved in my remarks.

 

[Shade]

Yes, what went on in Gary Glitter's little damaged head explains things, but what about what those little girls in Vietnam or Cambodia went through? Members were just appalled by what this creep did

We've come full circle: this is where I came in, pointing out that he hasn't been convicted of doing anything to these girls and that it's wrong to stand in judgement without the facts.

And in the Far East context, novella has pointed out that many of these girls are pimped by their families. Let's have some outrage directed at them as well, for creating the market that encourages - allegedly - perverts like Glitter to go there to sate their desires.

As for the religious point, I don't want to go into it to avoid this thread from being closed, but there is no justification for the suggestion that my comment above was 'bandying about' someone's religion or 'christian-bashing' - as I understand it, Christianity advocates, among other things, forgiveness, tolerance and turning the other cheek. My only complaint was about one Christian member's comments which seemed to me entirely opposed to that ideal.

 

[SFG75]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

No, it wasn't you who started the religion thing. But it was brought up and that was totally unfair to another member on this board who posted earlier. I'm not a fundie by any means, but I'm confident in my agnosticism that I don't need to feel good bout it by slamming the beliefs of other members. As stated earlier, the tone was set, and it wasn't by the "mob"

 

[Stewart]

My only complain with this board is that the christian-bashing feeling beats high.

I haven't seen any Christian bashing. All I've seen is one person commenting on the brutality being sought by one who is open about their religion which, to all intents and purposes, promotes forgiveness.

is there something wrong with being outraged?

Why are you outraged? Do you know the girls he stands accused of sexual relations with? How does it possibly affect you? Try and answer that without using if...

Members were just appalled by what this creep did

Let's not forget that, as far as we are concerned, he has not done anything. He stands accused and the judge in the trial (for there is no jury) will decide, based on evidence and testimonials, whether he has done what the media is telling us he stands accused of.

if I were to have a neighbor move in who is an offender on parole, I don't want to understand him, I want to protect my kids from him knowing that he in all likelihood, will never conquer the sickness that he has.

You are, of course, making the assumption that he (or she) will actually be attracted to your children.

In Glitter's case, look at what he did. He left Britain and fled to Vietnam, thinking he could engage in this vice and get away with it.

Says you. He left Britain for Cambodia to get on with his life after the trials in 1999. The press found him in Cambodia, hounded him, and he moved on to seclusion in Vietnam. Now, once again, the media has found him.

 

[SFG75]

What was said towards that member was very unfair. As for the rest, no one here is saying a trial should be skipped. It can naturally be presumed that everyone wants this guy to have his day in court and that if he's guilty......

 

[Kookamoor]

I just want to clarify something. SFG's comment below was directed at Shade, and to someone who hasn't read the entire thread it may imply that it was I who "started the religion thing".

No, it wasn't you who started the religion thing. But it was brought up and that was totally unfair to another member on this board who posted earlier. I'm not a fundie by any means, but I'm confident in my agnosticism that I don't need to feel good bout it by slamming the beliefs of other members. As stated earlier, the tone was set, and it wasn't by the "mob"

Please note that at no point in time did I bring up any member's religious beliefs - go back and read the thread. I have only made 3 posts prior to this: #11, #40 and #57. I simply pointed out that there was a bit of a mob-mentality here with members jumping on the assumption-of-guilt bandwagon and offering fairly grotesque consequences for a man who has not yet been convicted.

I am disgusted by the notion of pedophilia, however I also understand that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that we need a greater understanding of the causes of this disorder/crime/perversion/illness. I hoped that it was this latter concept that this thread might focus on.

 

[novella]

What can be said, vis a vis pedophiles, about Garcia Marquez's new Memoirs of My Melancholy Whores, in which the ancient male protagonist takes up with a 14 year old girl in a romanticized narrative that views her as fair game?

Do we treat this as 'fantasy' literature and entirely excusable and within artistic bounds? Or are we tacitly condoning pedophilic fantasies, despite the reality that they are tied to?

 

[SFG75]

What can be said, vis a vis pedophiles, about Garcia Marquez's new Memoirs of My Melancholy Whores, in which the ancient male protagonist takes up with a 14 year old girl in a romanticized narrative that views her as fair game?

Do we treat this as 'fantasy' literature and entirely excusable and within artistic bounds? Or are we tacitly condoning pedophilic fantasies, despite the reality that they are tied to?

Perhaps we do so with Lolita?

 

[Ms.]

I would not ban Lolita (I have not read the other) because it's intent was never to glorify paedophilic actions. I don't believe that writers should be held responsible for misuse of their works. I'm all for banning books that attempt to incite hatred causing bodily harm etc but otherwise stay away!

 

[novella]

Perhaps we do so with Lolita?

SFG, that's the predictable rejoinder. Can't you take your idea (whatever it might be) a little further? Don't you have an opinion? Your opinion of Gary Glitter seems quite firm.

I would not ban Lolita (I have not read the other) because it's intent was never to glorify paedophilic actions. I don't believe that writers should be held responsible for misuse of their works. I'm all for banning books that attempt to incite hatred causing bodily harm etc but otherwise stay away!

Ms, no one's talking about banning books here (except you, now). I'm not talking about how the book would or wouldn't be used or misused. I'm talking about judging a book based on its content, that's all. In assessing this work, do you take into account the actions and thoughts of the pedophilic protagonist? Or do you accept those actions and judge the book by some other standard?

 

[Shade]

I tend toward Oscar Wilde: "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are either well written, or badly written. That is all."

If a book has any content which, in real life, would be illegal or unacceptable, then I think it's limiting to say that it must be suffused with the message 'this is a bad thing.' Martin Amis's Time's Arrow was criticised on publication (by the British magazine Private Eye among others) for being 'expolitative' of the Holocaust and more or less accusing Amis of making money from the graves of Jews. This was both ugly and a lie. The book in fact made the point, by telling the story of the life of a Nazi war criminal backwards, that the only way the events at Auschwitz could make any sense would be if they were reversed: creating a people, not destroying them. Yet because the book did not have a He-Man-style moral tacked on at the end, it was deemed immoral. Some things, I think, can be understood as read.

The same goes for Humbert in Lolita. The entire story is from his point of view but that doesn't mean that the reader is unable to detach himself from the character or stand outside (indeed a first person narrative is perhaps the best way to make it easy for the reader to do so). Where Nabokov excels, in my view, is in making Humbert rather sympathetic at the end of the book - but only then, when his 'love' for Lolita has finally become legitimate.

 

[novella]

The same goes for Humbert in Lolita. The entire story is from his point of view but that doesn't mean that the reader is unable to detach himself from the character or stand outside (indeed a first person narrative is perhaps the best way to make it easy for the reader to do so). Where Nabokov excels, in my view, is in making Humbert rather sympathetic at the end of the book - but only then, when his 'love' for Lolita has finally become legitimate.

Well, Shade, I'm not surprised that your views re books with pedophilic protagonists are in harmony with your views re pedophiles in general, i.e., that the understanding of the human actions is key to the judgment of human actions, and that books can be an insight into this (if I am reading you correctly).

If you contend, though, that there is no black-and-white moral judgment that should be attached to actions in fiction, the where do you draw the line between 'child pornography' and literature in which erotic sex with children is the focal point of a narrative? If, for example, no actual child was harmed in the production of some visual child pornography (it was all simulated video manipulation), is that criminal? Or does the level of 'art' dictate how one should judge something?

I'd like to hear the views of the others on this thread who advocate deballing and gangraping Glitter.

 

[Stewart]

If, for example, no actual child was harmed in the production of some visual child pornography (it was all simulated video manipulation), is that criminal?

For reference to a visual source: the Brasseye 2001 Paedophile Special was one of the funniest things I've seen on the subject and it also successfully lampooned the mob mentality causing, of course, unfounded outrage.

 

[Shade]

I would probably say that entirely created images of child sex acts are criminal, on the basis that even though no child has been harmed in the making of them, they feed a desire and a 'market' which could lead to real children being abused, either by the person viewing the images or to satisfy his appetite.

As for literature where the entire focus is erotic sex with children, then that by definition is pornography (designed solely or primarily to excite sexual interest) and not literature in the 'literature as art' sense. Isn't it? Although that of course comes down to the author's intent. I suppose at the end one would have to say, though it feels a bit of a cop-out, that each case must be judged on its merits. I'm certainly not aware of any written matter involving erotic sexual acts with children which is widely perceived as art, so for the time being will have to presume that the two are mutually exclusive. Which is convenient.

 

[Shade]

Informative piece here on Glitter's rise and fall. He cuts a somewhat pathetic figure throughout.

 

[novella]

It's funny how certain aspects of pedophilia prompt absolute outrage while others are accepted as normal.

For instance, there's a whole style among girls in Japan who call themselves Rori-girls and model themselves after Lolita. The idea is to appear to be underage, naive and revealingly sexy.

There's also a style among girls in America called Lolita goth, along the same principles.

And the sexualization of very young girls' clothing, which is everywhere.

In Nepal, many girls are married at age 13. This is their cultural norm. Is it pedophilia? What if it was sex arranged by the child's family, but the child was a boy?

Up until Commie rule in the 1950s, the traditional age of marriage for girls in Vietnam was 13, polygamy was legal, concubines were normal. The commies wanted to limit the number of kids per family, so they raised the age of marriage to 18, but have trouble enforcing it.

So, by VN standards, the girls who were with Glitter were well within traditional age of sexual activity and childbearing.