Pedophile on

Pedo Credo, a Defense of the Indefensible? Should it Even be Allowed?

Pedophile on
Pedophile on

FREEHOLD, NJ– My pedo credo makes me not guilty of child sexual abuse. My pedo credo is an act of social disobedience and society has just failed to catch up with the coming future of sexual rights. So went the logic of a a New Jersey pedophile who represented himself in a criminal court.  The jury convicted the 28 year old of all counts of child sexual abuse and he now faces up to 60 years in prison at his sentencing scheduled for March, 2017. What was the main defense mounted by Gary

Gary Wolchesky
Gary Wolchesky

Wolchesky while serving as his own lawyer? Basically, that pedophilia is not criminal behavior but rather a lifestyle choice, sexual orientation and psychological condition that has been criminalized by society and resulted in his persecution, diminution of his personhood and loss of his human rights. He regularly defended his views on his YouTube channel GarysArchives.

Should the judge have even permitted that “defense” to have been argued before a court of law? Can a man accused of raping a woman be allowed to argue that the woman was “loose,” “fast,” and giving it up to everybody by bringing in all her former sex partners to corroborate that she’s basically a wild nympho? Of course NOT! None of that  would even be allowed to be given a thought in a courtroom due to rape shield laws. (Just refer to our article HERE to see how much heat Canadian Judge Robin Camp caught when he asked certain questions of a rape complainant whose testimony he perceived as contradictory and/or confusing to him)  May a devout Muslim defendant argue to a jury that his culture and his understanding of Sharia law justifies his beating his wife whenever he believes she disobeys him? Of course NOT! (By the way, that has been tried and failed each time). Then why should a court permit a self-proclaimed, loud and proud pedophile to argue that his pedo credo (neurologically-influenced, sexual orientation) is a legal defense to child sexual abuse charges? It should not. But the court in this case allowed it anyway? Why? Maybe it has something to do with the fallout from the push by academia and the media to “normalize” pedophilia? Or maybe it has something to do with sexual deviancy becoming the new civil rights movement by expanding to the limit the definition of legal marriage as recognized by the law?  Or maybe the trial judge was astute enough to  prevent a reversal on appeal if the defense would have argued that he would have denied a defendant a fundamental right to his own defense? Are pedophiles to join polygamists in using the Supreme Court’s re-definition of marriage in the Obergefell gay marriage decision to overturn society’s criminalization of pedophilia?  It appears the pedo credo movement is underway and, as the New Jersey case cited here shows, it’s coming to a courtroom near you. How should you as a judge decide when a pedo credo defendant interposes the defense of his pedo credo as his main theory of his case? You may need to be informed by what has been working its way into major media and academia for many years.

Did Justice John Roberts foresee the opening of the door for all types of sexual relationships to claim legal recognition under Obergefell when he stated the following in his dissent?:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

If the “man-woman” element was of concern to Justice Roberts, what about the “man-girl” or “man-boy” or “man-pre-op man transitioning into a woman” or “woman-dog” element? Is it such a stretch? Remember, the point of Obergefell was to fundamentally change the core definition of marriage. That is to say, why should marriage be only between one man and one woman. Equality demands that the benefits of marriage be enjoyed by any couple who show a deep, commitment to their own relationship based in love and trust, regardless of whether it is entered into for the creation of children, say those supporting the new definition of marriage. Before one begins to scream bigotry at the suggestion that Justice Roberts’ slippery slope argument has some logic to it, just realize that he is saying that the majority’s reasoning is basically like a template into which you can fit all types of combinations of relationships because the core reasoning of the majority was that marriage is a fundamental, state-protected right emanating from some heretofore undiscovered “constitutional” principles of personal, individual freedom which apply equally to all sexual relationships rooted in love, trust and/or commitment. As Justice Roberts stated:

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

So, if the definition of marriage should be changed because it would disparage a pedophile’s or polygamist’s choices and/or dimish their personhood to deny them this right, doesn’t Obergefell allow a pedophile or someone who wants to marry her dog to argue to a jury that they should be acquitted of whatever law they break that prohibits their behavior?

Now that you’ve stopped laughing, read what is being pushed onto society by so-called “authorities” as merely lifestyle preferences or neurologically-challenged behavior that cannot be controlled because to do so would create stigma, suffering, or diminish a person’s personhood. Then decide whether a prosecutor or other representative of the state should be laughed out of court for arguing to your court that such behavior should still be considered illegal because it is immoral:

  1. The New York Times: “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime”

The author of this op-ed piece is a Rutgers Law School Professor who basically argues for the decriminalization of pedophilia because it is causing suffering to those who experience it. What should become of Megan’s Law statutes per this Law Professor’s reasoning? Megan’s Law statutes exist to prevent clinically diagnosed pedophiles from being around children or their victim. If a a self-described pedophile says he should be allowed to play with children at his local playground would this professor allow her daughter to play with him?

2. B4U-Act  calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.”

Minor-attracted people or MAPs is the new politically-correct term for pedophiles. Should a judge or prosecutor mistakenly utter the word pedophile or child molester in court, could this create an issue for appeal based on bigotry?  It could be an issue for appeal if a judge called a gay man a “faggot”. Why couldn’t a MAP use the same argument?

3. B4U-Act also holds symposiums to assist in changing the DSM’s definition of pedophilia.

While B4U-Act was not successful in completely having the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) re-define pedophilia, there was some progress made in that their input was taken seriously and the term pedophilic disorder was now added to the latest edition of the DSM. The changes that are in the pipeline would surely have to come using small, incremental steps to avoid public outcry.

4. In 1998 The American Psychological Association (APA) issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from  childhood sexual abuse experiences.” And there is also this from a psychiatric researcher: “Long-Range Effects of Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences Positive Review”, Allie C. Kilpatrick.
The assumption that all children are “damaged” by their experiences is challenged by Kilpatrick’s finding that 38% of the adult respondents reported the sexual experiences as children to be “pleasant” while only 25% reported them to be “unpleasant.” Kilpatrick also found that, although the majority of the women stated that the experience was initiated by the partner, for many (23% of the children 0-14 years and 39% of adolescents 15-17 years) the women reported having been the initiator. Another surprising finding was that only 4% of the respondents reported that they would have liked to have had counseling.

5.  The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. § 249 is a hate crime law that includes pedophiles, er, minor attracted persons (MAPs) as people granted its protection under the undefined category of “sexual orientation.” Has the Department of Justice categorized pedophilia as a sexual orientation that should be protected and not criminalized? Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.” (Emphasis added) Notice that the word “philias” was specifically singled-out here? Why? Of all the fetishes and kinky sex activities that exist, the one which is most commonly known that ends in the word “philia” is pedophilia. While necrophilia (sex with corpses) is known, it is pedophilia which is most commonly discussed in courts and other official institutions.  If a man beats up a pedophile who is attempting to seduce his 5 year old daughter while on Federal property (at the Federal Courthouse’s women’s bathroom, for example) could he be charged with a hate crime under this law? It sure seems probable.

6. In July, 2010 Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Health Publications stated: “Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. ” The publication advised the health professions to treat pedophilia as they would a psychological disorder by using psychotherapy, drugs and other preventive methods, such as being very vigilant of one’s children.

7. Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii Professor and distinguished lecturer at the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco (IASHS) put out a publication wherein he stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.” While not condoning the use of real children to produce the pornography, he suggested that the pornography should simulate a child. However, almost all anti-child pornography laws outlaw the use of simulated children in pornography. The IASHS believes sexual rights are human rights (where have we heard the use of human rights in the context of sexual behavior before?) and that society must recognize that every “person” (no distinction between adult or child is made) “… has the right to the pursuit of a satisfying consensual sociosexual life free from political, legal or religious interference… .” And that every person has the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” (emphasis added) They also state that no person should be “disadvantaged because of age” to pursue the acts or activities the organization condones.

8.  Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal addressed Canada’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in Parliament, stating:  If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.” Therefore, this thinking would include pedophiles as a protected class under the above-cited Federal hate crimes law.

9.  You only need to read the following stories to realize that re-defining marriage is one of many steps toward ultimately expanding its definition to include all types of sexual relationships, including zoophilia. The hate crime law cited above would protect any of these “fringe” sexual relationships, or “fetishes” as the congresswoman stated.

Politico: Polygamous marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism

Salon gives a platform to a pedophile provides marriage licenses & ceremonies (from an ordained pet-marriage “minister”)  for zoophiles who marry their pets.

Women’s online magazine hints that sex with animals may not be so bad after all

Zoophile finds encouragement in marriage equality movement and wants alliance

Are you still laughing now? If back in 1988 someone told you that the major media would come down hard and encourage boycotts on anyone who would dare to question whether a grown man could share a gym locker room or department store bathroom with your 5 year old daughter, you would laugh in his face and call him stupid. Are you laughing now? Will you be laughing in 10 or 15 years when the examples of the coming future cited above will begin to be discussed seriously in court opinions, which will be citing expert social scientists and psychologists?