- Sep 16, 2012
- 58,974
- 52,661
- 3,605
The actual quote from the primary source, has been offered several times in this thread, it is a matter or perspective. It is odd, that they did not explicitey condemn the sexualization and grooming of children in this document, so as to diffuse the obvious controversy in the world today.I am discussing the actual text of the bill, not some misinformation propaganda site. GFY!!!
While yes, it does not explicity say, in the text of this document, that there will be no punishment for the sexualization of childen, and the punishment thereof, one would have to live in a cave, not to see this controversy. It would have been a simple endeavor to condemn such a thing, and make sure that it is outlawed therein, to make such a thing explicit, so that folks know, that there is no confusion.The children part is made up and now you're officially a troll.
While that OP, certainly could be construed as hyperbole, the fact that there are no safeguards against the sexualization, grooming and predation of non-prepubescent children? The attack on the family in this internationalist piece of bureaucratic legalese, could not be anymore triggering/controversal for national interests world wide. It would have been a very simple thing to include safe guards for small children, IMO, and I have no doubt, they were purposely left out, to create just the sorts of internal friction we see in this thread. Tearing apart old systems and rebuilding them is how power systems work. Ordo ab Chao.Exactly. That’s why the OP is likely fake.
Here is the entire quote;You asked for a quote regarding that issue.