OK - I will come back to this in a second, as you've just stated that pretty much every man in the world prior to the start of the 20th Century is a paedophile and that Finnish law should have a global reach and be able to pursue crimes with effectively no statue of limitations.
And they accuse the US of wanting to be the worlds police.
Finland did not have a legal age of consent until the start of the 20th century, at which point it was 12, later into the 20th century (in line with most of Western Europe) it was set at 16.
As a more extreme example, as late as 1880 the legal age of consent in most American states was 10, with one being as low as 7.
Given all of the above I do have to wonder why Jussi Halla-aho singled out Mohammed, when given his clear concern about this he actually needs to be targeting pretty much the majority male population of the global for the majority of history.
That's not the point. The current law classifies Muhammed as a pedophile, he obviously can't be charged for it any longer. However, according to the modern classification, he was a pedophile though it was accepted back then.
See above, so was the majority male population of the global for the majority of history. So I ask exactly why he singled out one person who is not even Finnish? Surely if the dangerous precedent historical paedophilia sets needs to be address then the male population of Finland prior to the 20th century would be a better focus, after all they make up around 50% of the Finnish population. Or are the less than 1.5% of the Finnish population that form 'other religions' (Islam is too small in Finland to even get separated out) that dangerous.
Haven't run into a poll like that.
Can't say, though most of our politicians would probably prefer us to be ruled by foreigners instead.
Really. So you have hard evidence that Finnish politicians would be quite happy to hand over control to a foreign power?
Then explain why it hasn't happened? Or is this just more regurgitated nonsense that you haven't bothered to either think about or question?
Sorry but even I know enough about Finnish history to know that is utter rubbish. Your patently naive and ignorant comments are quite frankly an insult to the country you live in.
Anyway, the whole point is that some Fundamentalists (does that get a capital F BTW?) are still following the Quran to the letter, and if everything Muhammed did was exemplary, it'd mean pedophilia would still be perfectly accepted in Muslim society.
Can you tell me exactly how many of them exist globally and also in Finland (oh and the UK - I better watch out for them)?
Plenty of Christians believe that the Bible is the exact word of God and infallible, yet it clearly states that certain acts demand animal sacrifices (such as eating prawns or wearing wool and linen at the same time), also that if a women doesn't scream loud enough when being raped she should be stoned to death. I can draw you a pretty big list of 'horror's' from a book that many, many Christian's have total faith is the exact word of God.
However I fairly willing to guess that you don't level the same critique at them and have to wonder why?
You see for me its quite simple, every social, religious and racial group will have its fringe elements who will distort and interpret whatever the hell they want to justify an end they want. They do not however represent the whole of that social/religious/racial group and as such should not (as is being done here) be used as a weapon against them. To do so is quite frankly the poorest level of reasoning you can stoop to, and to blindly accept it without question is both foolish and dangerous.
Your near relations fought a war on two sides to stop this kind of thinking from taking over Finland, yet you seem to be embracing it with open arms.
Ack, my arguments are really getting weak and repetitive. Should call it a day.
Your arguments are weak for a reason, they don't stand up to analysis. Unfortunately the rhetoric of the radical rarely does, and this is perhaps the most frighting thing here, you are using terms that are almost as fringe as the people you are saying we should guard against and you don't seem to be aware of it.
Ok, this is fun. Let me try.
Scaff:
- Do you think that current law is the only reason not to have sex with children?
- If the pedophellia laws were taken off the books, would you have sex with a 9-year-old?
- Can 9-year-olds give consent?
- Could 9-year-olds give consent back then?
- Is the definition of rape sexual activity with lack of consent?
- Is rape a human rights violation?
- Do human rights change over time?
Yea, he was a rapist, as were tons of people back then.
Edit: It was customary for women to be bought and sold too... in the US it was customary for black people to be bought and sold. Slave owners (of both blacks and women) violated the rights of those people and are guilty of a horrific crime. When it occurred or what the law of the land was makes no difference.
Oh I don't disagree with your points at all, and I think you know the answers I would give to them.
The question I am asking is why one specific person is being targeted in this regard and why the same critique is not being applied globally?
I'm questioning the use of the statement not the validity or accuracy of it.
).
