Man, I hate dignifying this crap with a response but, sadly, my hand has been forced. Here we go, from over at Free Dominion, Dick Evans once again accuses me of condoning, well, you can read it for yourself:
The salient bit as spewed by NAMBLA Dick:
During the age of consent debate, both Rob and thai-guy asserted that there wasn't a problem with legally allowing 45 year old men to have sex with 14 year old boys.
This is not the first time Dick has made that claim, and with exactly the same ages each time, 45 and 14. But, curiously, he provides no link to where I take that position and, for the life of me, I can't imagine saying such a thing since, well, I don't believe it. (As an aside, given how many times this blog has savaged the Catholic Church for that sort of thing, it would make no logical sense for me to approve of it, would it? But ... onward, as we try to puzzle this out.)
So ... Dick has made this accusation more than once but, even when I've asked, he's never provided a link to back it up. So I went a-Googling and this is what I came up with, which seems to be the basis for his babbling. Read it carefully. Take your time. There's going to be a quiz afterwards.
Done? OK, then, what was your impression of what I was trying to say? Be honest; I can handle honesty. Because the point of that post was to show how the contents of that page of the Government of Canada web site was worded in a sufficiently awkward way as to allow a pedophile to run off a copy, bring it into court, and make at least a feasible argument for that kind of sex. In fact, here's the part I reproduced for emphasis:
The age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years.
Look carefully -- do you see a specific and explicit prohibition against the kind of behaviour Dick is talking about? Technically, no, which was the point of mocking that web page for being incomplete. I mean, for the love of God, I even closed that post by sarcastically pointing out the gaping "loophole":
Your Conservative Party of Canada: Protecting statutory rapists everywhere by giving them a gift-wrapped loophole on an official government web page. Is that cool or what?
Now, it's possible that Dick is referring to something else I wrote. It's hard to say since he has never, ever, ever provided a link that I know of. But if he's referring to the post above, then he's horrifically deluded to think he can make a case that I'm publicly approving of that kind of behaviour when it's obvious I'm doing no such thing. And the fact that he repeated that claim today after my identity went public makes it all the more brainless.
So if Dick has corroboration for his claim from somewhere else, I'd dearly love to see it. But if he's basing his defamation on my obvious contemptuous sarcasm, I'm guessing that he's just made another unfortunate blunder.
And, yes, I have the screenshot.
DEAR CC-ITES: As you peruse the Idiotsphere and run across stuff like the above, please grab links and screenshots. I'm guessing the lawyer is going to want all of that.
8 comments:
Quick question...how long do you expect this current round of fake indignation and barely veiled libel threats to continue? You know, the bit where Richard pretends to be about to sue you, and you pretend he's actually a NAMBLA supporter, and Patrick and you try to imply you've launched libel suits without actually saying so because neither of you will...
Just asking because it's not very interesting.
Balby:
I haven't filed any suits so far, and I was quite prepared to just ignore all this bullshit and get back to work and blogging.
But this constant ratcheting up of the accusations is starting to get annoying. And, really, there comes a time when you can't let it pass anymore.
I think Ti-Guy has it right when he posted this about Richard Evans of Calgary:
You're a vile, NAMBLA-obsessed, pornography-posting degenerate. The only thing your children have been exposed to is criminally irresponsible parenting.
I'd add extremely stupid but that goes without saying...
Just asking because it's not very interesting.
Don't be disingenous, Balbulican. You do find this stuff interesting...you're just hoping for a new development. I think Jay Currie's involvement in this would be along those lines.
Anyway, I think Dickie got all confused at one point when he was accusing everyone of paedophilia when discussing age of consent with anyone who was questioning the incoherence of Conservatives considering 14 year-olds responsible enough to be tried as adults but not responsible enough to have sex, even with people their own age. I seem to remember he'd mischaracterise that as approving of age-inappropriate sexual relationships and accused anyone of not responding to that lunatic proposition of agreeing with it. That's pretty much what Dickie does in every discussion. Puts words in your mouth and asserts agreement if you address it.
The man is real piece of work. Oh, and no surprise Free Dominion has accommodated the libel. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Email Connie and alert to it.
"... is completely true ..."
Does that mean really, really, for real, really true?
Only fuckheads* need to reduntantly emphasize what is supposed to be indisputable.
*You know who. Fuckheads!
you pretend he's actually a NAMBLA supporter
To be fair, CC never said what Richard claims he said, but Richard did direct web traffic to NAMBLA.
Richard once threatened me with a lawsuit for saying he supported NAMBLA, too. Still waiting on that one -- I'm sure it's coming. Yup. Any minute now.
To be perfectly accurate, I think it's arbitrary whether I claim that Dick "supports" NAMBLA or that he "promotes" NAMBLA. Certainly, there is no dispute whatsoever about the latter, given that:
1) Dick knew my web site got a fair amount of traffic,
2) Dick classlessly registered the lookalike domain "canadiancynic.net" to take advantage of the inevitable confusion,
3) Dick redirected that latter link to NAMBLA.
In short, Dick took explicit and deliberate actions to drive unsuspecting readers to NAMBLA's home page and increase their traffic. That is the very definition of "promotion."
I don't understand how people can lack that degree of self-awareness. Outing someone's home address because he called you mean names? Do they realize how that looks? Maybe they do. If so, what does that mean?
Post a Comment