Can't find the whole interview (it's not viewable here in Australia on YouTube at the moment) but 7 minutes was about as much Duggar bullshit that I could take anyway.
Firstly, as I've mentioned in a previous post, Australia doesn't have a statute of limitations on child abuse as the state in the US does where the Duggars live. Of only 3 years. That almost criminal in itself. But my point is that simple geography means that the Duggars get off being charged for hiding a child molestation crime of 4 of their daughters by Josh. If it had happened in Australia the Duggar parents would be so charged. FFS Josh was 15 when he molested the 5 year old sister. The parents took 16 months before informing secular authorities of Josh's behaviour.
Secondly, one of the biggest bullshit assertions of the parents is that "no child" wants the stuff that happened when they were a minor to be dragged out when they're adults later in life, talking about the molested girls. WTF? How about people who've been molested by Catholic priests then, who now in Australia's Royal Commission into child abuse are fronting up to the commission in their adult-hood to tell exactly what happened to them when they were minors at the hands of priests in their childhood? I call total bullshit on the Duggars there.
Thirdly, "God has forgiven him" isn't fuckin good enough. Too convenient. Like I said, whether some god had forgiven Josh or not is beside the point. Society obviously hasn't. Again, if the Duggars lived here they'd now be before the courts dealing with serious charges involving sexual assault on children, whatever their religious views are about it. In the past Josh's father has said that paedophiles should be killed, but now with his son it's "god has forgiven him"......
Fourth, the assertion that Josh didn't commit paedophilia. To take it to the extreme, Josh was 15 when he molested his 5 year old sister. Here in NSW, Australia, you are adult enough to legally have sex when you're 16 (gay or straight). Seems a bit pedantic to use one year of age to differentiate paedophilic crime. To me it seems like they're using definitions and limitations in the law to not consider Josh guilty of paedophilia.
I could go on but that's enough I think. These have been the first people to accuse the LGBT of being paedophiles, most notably as voiced in the interview transgender people using the same bathroom as girls. Now their own son is (IMO) guilty of paedophilia. What is their answer to that? God has forgiven him and a pedantic reading of the law says he's not actually a paedophile.
One thing they likely haven't learned yet about paedophiles, that paedophiles are very good at lying and covering up their behaviour. Has Josh continued his behaviour into adulthood? If so "God has forgiven him" certainly won't carry any sway at all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment