January 30: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* [[BoyWiki:Current events | Current events]] | * [[BoyWiki:Current events | Current events]] | ||
*1994 - '''"But Dude!, You have SEX with CHILDREN!"''' - Lawrence Stanley was the lawyer in the 1991 child pornography case involving Stephen A. Knox in which the U.S. Justice Department under Janet Reno later attempted to narrow the definition of child pornography to nudity and lascivious poses. He also represented NAMBLA in another case. On this date The Washington Post published a column by Stanley in which he criticized the political motivations of child porn prosecutions and blamed "right-wing religious and anti-pornography activists" for "confusing libidinous thoughts with harmful acts of actual child abuse." He made a vigorous case against the baseless assumption that the desire for children and looking at pictures of children causes any actual harm to them. | *1994 - '''"But Dude!, You have SEX with CHILDREN!"''' - Lawrence Stanley was the lawyer in the 1991 child pornography case involving Stephen A. Knox in which the U.S. Justice Department under Janet Reno later attempted to narrow the definition of child pornography to nudity and lascivious poses. He also represented NAMBLA in another case. On this date The Washington Post published a column by Stanley in which he criticized the political motivations of child porn prosecutions and blamed "right-wing religious and anti-pornography activists" for "confusing libidinous thoughts with harmful acts of actual child abuse." He made a vigorous case against the baseless assumption that the desire for children and looking at pictures of children causes any actual harm to them.<ref name="tdiphjan30">{{cite news |author= Author unknown|title=''This Day In Pedo History: January 30'' |date=2003 |accessdate= 3-10-15}} </ref> | ||
*2002 - ''' | *2002 - ''''Scuse me? Did you say not a character trait?''' - The Court of Criminal Appeals decided a case on this date where a man convicted of sexual assault of a child appealed based on the fact that evidence was heard of other sexual crimes the man had committed previously. Normally such testimony is inadmissible as being prejudicial. The Court wrote, "Strictly speaking, good or bad character concerning 'pedophilia' ... is not a true character trait....To allow the defense to ask whether an accused in a sexual assault case has a reputation for being a pedophile is akin to asking a witness in a murder case if the defendant has a reputation for being a murderer. The status of being a murderer, or in this case a pedophile, is not a 'character trait.' " In their decision to uphold the lower court's decision, the Appeals Court said that allowing the testimony was not unfair prejudice. I guess that makes it fair prejudice?<ref name="tdiphjan30" /> | ||
*2002 - '''"We want to HIDE the truth from kids!!!"''' - The books, Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet and One Dad, Two Dads - Brown Dad, Blue Dad, were the center of a legal controversy that goes back to 1996 when teacher James Chamberlain introduced the books into his Kindergarten class at Latimer Road Elementary School in Surrey, British Columbia. Under pressure from a parent's group, the Surrey Board of Education ordered the books removed. Chamberlain and four other litigants sued the Board and in December 1998 a judge ruled that the Board's actions violated the province's School Act. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal of that decision and granted "intervener" status on this date to a group of conservative Christian organizations the case. these organizations claim that such books promote homosexuality and also open children to being sexually exploited by adults. If you ask me, these organizations have "intervened" enough already. | *2002 - '''How about a morons registry instead?''' - In April of 2001, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously in favor of a motion by an opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, to institute a national sex offender registry. The deadline to have the registry in place was on this date, but no steps were taken to establish the registry in that interval. A registry was a very low legislative priority for the government, and when they eventually announced a proposal, it was for a non-public listing, giving it virtually no consequence at all. Canadian Alliance M.P., Vic Toews wrote a letter to the Canadian Justice Minister, also on this date, to demand that the government "send a very strong signal of 'zero tolerance' to" the abusers of "tens of thousands of innocent children as young as six months old," by "raising the age of sexual consent to at least 16 years." Toews was apparently unaware of the complete lack of logic of that position.<ref name="tdiphjan30" /> | ||
*2002 - '''"We want to HIDE the truth from kids!!!"''' - The books, Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet and One Dad, Two Dads - Brown Dad, Blue Dad, were the center of a legal controversy that goes back to 1996 when teacher James Chamberlain introduced the books into his Kindergarten class at Latimer Road Elementary School in Surrey, British Columbia. Under pressure from a parent's group, the Surrey Board of Education ordered the books removed. Chamberlain and four other litigants sued the Board and in December 1998 a judge ruled that the Board's actions violated the province's School Act. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal of that decision and granted "intervener" status on this date to a group of conservative Christian organizations the case. these organizations claim that such books promote homosexuality and also open children to being sexually exploited by adults. If you ask me, these organizations have "intervened" enough already.<ref name="tdiphjan30" /> | |||
== Births == | == Births == | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
==Deaths== | ==Deaths== | ||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
[[de:30. Januar]] | [[de:30. Januar]] | ||
[[fr:30 janvier]] | [[fr:30 janvier]] | ||
[[Category:January]] | [[Category:January]] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:53, 11 March 2015
| << | January | >> | ||||
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Events
- 1994 - "But Dude!, You have SEX with CHILDREN!" - Lawrence Stanley was the lawyer in the 1991 child pornography case involving Stephen A. Knox in which the U.S. Justice Department under Janet Reno later attempted to narrow the definition of child pornography to nudity and lascivious poses. He also represented NAMBLA in another case. On this date The Washington Post published a column by Stanley in which he criticized the political motivations of child porn prosecutions and blamed "right-wing religious and anti-pornography activists" for "confusing libidinous thoughts with harmful acts of actual child abuse." He made a vigorous case against the baseless assumption that the desire for children and looking at pictures of children causes any actual harm to them.[1]
- 2002 - 'Scuse me? Did you say not a character trait? - The Court of Criminal Appeals decided a case on this date where a man convicted of sexual assault of a child appealed based on the fact that evidence was heard of other sexual crimes the man had committed previously. Normally such testimony is inadmissible as being prejudicial. The Court wrote, "Strictly speaking, good or bad character concerning 'pedophilia' ... is not a true character trait....To allow the defense to ask whether an accused in a sexual assault case has a reputation for being a pedophile is akin to asking a witness in a murder case if the defendant has a reputation for being a murderer. The status of being a murderer, or in this case a pedophile, is not a 'character trait.' " In their decision to uphold the lower court's decision, the Appeals Court said that allowing the testimony was not unfair prejudice. I guess that makes it fair prejudice?[1]
- 2002 - How about a morons registry instead? - In April of 2001, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously in favor of a motion by an opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, to institute a national sex offender registry. The deadline to have the registry in place was on this date, but no steps were taken to establish the registry in that interval. A registry was a very low legislative priority for the government, and when they eventually announced a proposal, it was for a non-public listing, giving it virtually no consequence at all. Canadian Alliance M.P., Vic Toews wrote a letter to the Canadian Justice Minister, also on this date, to demand that the government "send a very strong signal of 'zero tolerance' to" the abusers of "tens of thousands of innocent children as young as six months old," by "raising the age of sexual consent to at least 16 years." Toews was apparently unaware of the complete lack of logic of that position.[1]
- 2002 - "We want to HIDE the truth from kids!!!" - The books, Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet and One Dad, Two Dads - Brown Dad, Blue Dad, were the center of a legal controversy that goes back to 1996 when teacher James Chamberlain introduced the books into his Kindergarten class at Latimer Road Elementary School in Surrey, British Columbia. Under pressure from a parent's group, the Surrey Board of Education ordered the books removed. Chamberlain and four other litigants sued the Board and in December 1998 a judge ruled that the Board's actions violated the province's School Act. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal of that decision and granted "intervener" status on this date to a group of conservative Christian organizations the case. these organizations claim that such books promote homosexuality and also open children to being sexually exploited by adults. If you ask me, these organizations have "intervened" enough already.[1]
