Three and half years ago, I wrote an article titled 'Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a mustache?' where I suggested that one of the objectives of the LGBT/feminist movement was not really freedom or equality but the normalization of pedophilia.

The article provoked a lot of debate among Sott readers, after all, the jury was still out, the alleged feminist/LGBT and pedophile collusion was just an assumption. I still had my doubts though, and in July 2017 I wrote another article 'Post-nihilism, a template for where we are heading' that included the following:

Pedophilia is, of course, part of the agenda. And it has been so for a long time. Think about it: the tangible differences between a man and a woman are greater than the tangible differences between a 14 year old and an 18 year old.

If they manage to brainwash the masses to the point that they believe the male/female duality is just a social construct, imagine how easy it will be to blur the line between a 18 year old and a 14 year old and,subsequently to enact a law that reduces the age of sexual majority, i.e. legalize pedophilia.

And this abomination will be promoted in the name of equality (everybody has the right to express their sexuality, even towards children), love (which is stronger than anything, including artificial age barriers), and freedom (sexual freedom).

Admittedly these assertions were also mere possibilities, because despite circumstantial evidence, there is no smoking gun proving that the LGBT/feminist lobby is consciously promoting a pro-pedophilia agenda. Recent events in France, however, may have taken one more step towards making that a reality.

The French law about rape of minors

In French law, the 'age of consent' - the age under which it is illegal to have sexual relations with a child - is 15. Sexual acts involving an adult and a child below 15 are considered at the very least 'atteinte sexuelle', which is akin to corruption of a minor in English-speaking countries, and leads to a maximum sentence of five years and €75,000 fine.

In judging such cases, the law considers four criteria: violence, constraint, threat and surprise. If one or more of those four criteria is present, then it is presumed that the child cannot have consented, and a heavier penalty is applied. In addition, if there is penetration, then the act is considered rape, and leads to 15 years in prison. If none of those four criteria are present, then the question of consent arises.

Common sense and psychology, particularly in the case of a child, show that not explicitly denying consent i.e. saying 'no', does not mean giving consent, i.e. saying 'yes'. Fear, naivety and ignorance are all factors that can lead to a situation were no violence, constraint, threat or surprise are necessary for the offending adult to effectively coerce a child into sex.

While a child may not say 'no' outwardly, it may be screaming 'no' inwardly.Submission or apathy do not equate to consent.

Most children under 15 don't know what sexuality is, certainly not adult sexuality. More importantly, children are oblivious to the long term and often destructive consequences of such behaviors.

Constraint, particularly moral constraint is also a reality in most sexual exchanges between a children and an adult, in particular when the age gap is wide.

Historical Precedent

For decades, French courts judged that children were not required to prove they didn't consent for the adult to be prosecuted for rape (in the case of penetration). The courts considered that because of their young age, children by definition did not give their consent and, as a result, the penetrative sexual act was considered rape, as explained by the Vice President of Paris court:

Évelyne Sire-Marin, vice-president of Paris court, specifies: It is a constant practice of the court that I presided, which is specialized in the offenses involving a minor: the absence of consent of the minor who has been sexually assaulted (assault or rape) under the age of 15 is almost always presumed, unless the girl (or young man) is considered to be fully informed in the matter (for example, she has already had many sexual intercourse, she has repeatedly and explicitly expressed her consent). But at age 11, consent is dismissed from the outset, regardless of the attitude of the alleged victim.

In recent weeks however, the outcome of two court cases threaten to overturn the French legal tradition of at what age a child's consent is presumed and therefore what does and does not constitute rape of a minor.

On September 27th, a French court in a Paris suburb acquitted a 22-year-old man of the rape of an 11-year-old girl. The case goes as follows: In 2009, the man met the girl while she was playing in front of a building with her cousin. He engaged in a conversation with her, she followed him to a park where they had penetrative sex. The girl got pregnant. The family sued for rape. To the question: 'is the accused guilty of rape?', a majority of the six jury members replied 'not guilty', effectively declaring that the child consented.

Only two weeks before this case, a second and very similar case occurred. Sereinte, a 28-year old male had penetrative sex with11-year old Sarah. On November 11th,the Pontoise court (Paris suburb) considered that the victim gave consent and, as a result, the court announced that it will try Sereinte not for rape but for a misdemeanor ('atteinte sexuelle').
These two court cases, and the precedents they set, totally contradict decades of consistent precedents on what constitutes the rape of a minor. Notice also that these two anomalous precedents were set not only within two weeks of each other, but also occurred in the same limited Paris region.

Is such a temporal and geographical concentration purely coincidental? One can't help but notice that these court cases took place in Paris, the verycenter of liberal ideology in France, and wonder if such shocking decisions would have been made in more traditionalist/conservative areas of the country.

New Draft Law

Amid public shock at the idea that an 11-year-old child could be deemed able to consent to sexual intercourse with an adult, the French government, represented by minister of Justice, Nicole Belloubet and minister of Women Rights, Marlene Schiappa, announced a new draft law that aims to 'solve the problem' by setting an age of consent at 13 years old.

Note, this does not mean that the age under which it is illegal to have sexual relations with a child in France has been dropped from 15 to 13, but rather that if the sexually abused child is at least 13 years old, then the courts may presume that consent was given.

The minister of justice has been pretty clear about this point and publicly stated:

"13 years would be an age that seems to me to correspond to what the High Commission for Equality between Women and Men advocated and which other foreign countries have advocated"

While the French government and mainstream media laud this development as evidence of great societal progress, they only focus on the two latest abnormal precedents and forget that there was already an implicit age of consent - 15 years old - that was almost always enforced by courts for decades. So what is depicted as great progress in laws protecting the child is, in practice, a major regression where the age at which a child can be presumed to have consented to sex with an adult has been dropped from 15 to 13. The result being that adults accused of sexual abuse of a minor (between 13 and 15 years old) will likely be given lighter sentences.

To make the decision more palatable to the public, the proposed bill has been presented as an attempt to deal with the 'problem' caused by the two court decisions mentioned above, i.e. it is being spun as a virtuous legal move to 'save our children'. Yet the bill is based on a 46-page report written by the 'High Council for equality between men and women' that was made public on October 5th 2017 and one of its main recommendations was already voiced one year ago in October 2016.:

"The High Council for Equality between Women and Men once again called for, as it had already done in a notice published in October 2016, that a threshold be set by law, for example the age of 13 years, and that below this age, it can not be assumed that the minor has consented to the sexual act."

Knowing that about 40 individuals from various institutions were involved in the elaboration of this report and that one of its main recommendations (setting the age of presumption of consent at 13) was voiced as early as October 2016, it is very unlikely that the report was written as a result of the above mentioned court decisions.

On the contrary, the timing suggests that the report was planned first and that the recent shocking case precedents were use cynically used to hystericize the public opinion and force it to accept the unacceptable: dropping the age at which a child can consent to sex with an adult from 15 to 13.

In other words, unprecedented pro-pedophilia court decisions were made in order to trigger an anti-pedophilia reaction among the people and make them embrace a seemingly anti-pedophile law which is actually a pro-pedophile law. This is a textbook example of 'pyromaniac fireman'.

Age of consent in the past and in the world

The only country in the world where the age at which it is illegal to have sex with a child is lower than 13 is Angola where the threshold is set at 12. Only three countries set this threshold at 13 years old: Niger, Comoro, Burkina Faso. Those four countries are culturally very different from the Western world.

The above clearly shows that 13 year is very low according to modern international standards. It is even lower relative to modern Western standards where the age of consent is generally set between 15 and 18.

The important point here is that, unlike France, most other Western nations make no distinction between the legal age for sexual relations and the concept of consent. In Ireland for example, the legal age below which it is a crime to have sex with a child is 17, if an adult engages in sexual relations with a child below 17 then it is presumed that no consent can be given by the child.

The first legal 'age of consent' was recorded in England in 1275. It was part of the provisions on rape and made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was later interpreted as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

In the same England, the age of consent was raised to 16 in 1885 which is still the age of consent in the UK today. Remember that 1885 is only fifteen years after the death of Charles Dickens who masterfully depicted Victorian England where children were not much more than expendable sex and labor slaves. From those figures are we to conclude that France plans to treat its children today in a worse way than England did at the end of the 19th Century?

Even for the promiscuous French standards, the country of the dreadful Allègre pedophile ring, the country where 'libertinage' is a mark of social distinction and sophistication, the country of Marquis de Sade, the country of self-proclaimed and unpunished pedophile personalities, declaring that a 13-year-old child will be presumed to consent to sex with an adult is shocking.

Background to the draft law

Despite these attempts by the French government and courts to deceptively sneak this legislation in through the back door, many people in France are still asking why the draft law doesn't make the age of consent fully explicit and keep it at 15?

To counteract this very valid argument, the mainstream media and politicians have invoked the dramatic example of a 16 year old in love with 14 year old. This is an obvious straw man argument.

Many countries, including the US, not only take into account the age of the victim but also the age difference between the two individuals. It is known as the 'Romeo and Juliet laws' where the severity of the sentence is proportional to the age difference.

On top of that, the mainstream media parroted the false claim made in the report published by the high council for equality (see image above): that the age of consent below which sexual intercourse is automatically considered rape is 12-year-old in Spain and in the USA.

This is false. In Spain, the age of consent is 16. Below this age, sexual activity between an adult and child is considered rape:

The Age of Consent in Spain is 16 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 15 or younger in Spain are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.

Similarly in the US, sexual intercourse between an adult and a individual below the age of consent is considered as statutory rape while the age of consent in the US is between 16 and 18 depending on each state legislation.

Of course Spain being a close neighbor of France and the USA being considered as the shining beacon of freedom and progress, it would have been a very convenient primer if the age of consent was 12 in those countries but this is, fortunately, not the case (yet).What about children between 13 and 15?

One of the greatest dangers of this draft law is that it may embolden adults who target children between 13 and 15. If children below 13 are presumed to be unable to consent, then it is likely that judges will be tempted to presume that children above 13 are able to consent.

This was described by the French Senate when it examined a law proposed less than a year ago (January 2017) that aimed to drop the age of consent:

In case law, the absence of "consent" [...] can be deduced from the materiality of the facts without it being necessary to prove it explicitly. Therefore, to introduce a notion of presumption of no consent [below 13]would be to consider that there is a presumption of consent for the other victims.[above 13]

(I added square brackets with age)

This seems to have been confirmed by the French Minister of Justice, who is the one who proposed to drop the age of consent and who presented the situation of minors between 13 and 15 thusly:

"The threshold of 15 years (sexual majority) will remain, that is to say that under 15 years, a 'atteinte sexuelle' will be punished in a particularly severe way."

The important point in the above quote is that the minister of Justice used the term 'atteinte sexuelle', a misdemeanor similar to corruption of minor, where the consent of the children is granted.The minister conspicuously did not use the word 'rape', where there is no consent.

She adds that such misdemeanors will be severely punished but in the high council report there is no mention of increasing the severity of the sentences related to this kind of minor offense which usually leads to a few years in prison.

Simple presumption of non-consent VS irrefutable presumption of non-consent

Most countries have set the age under which it is illegal to engage in sexual relations with a child at 15 to 18 while considering that below this age there is a simple presumption of non consent and that age difference is a legal parameter.

What that means is that while the court presumes that the victim did not give consent, the accused can provide evidence that there was consent. France, on the other hand, is taking almost the exact opposite approach by setting in stone a very low age at which a child can be presumed to be able to consent (13) while considering that below this age non-consent is irrefutable, while being legally vague about age difference.

In this context, imagine a 18-year-old boy and a 12 year and 11 month old girl. Even if the accused boy provides evidence that the victim repeatedly requested sex, had extensive experience in the domain, provided a fake ID stating she was, say, 15-years old, according the the French draft law, the victim did not consent. The 15-year-old accused will consequently be declared guilty of rape and spend about 15 years behind bars.

As you can see 'age of consent' is not a simple black and white topic. Every case is different and the law should leave enough room for the judges to examine each context and judge accordingly. This context-specific approach allows the court to deal in a more just and flexible way with exceptional cases. Exceptional cases are unfortunately growing in number because of powerful cultural factors.

Culture and justice

While culture fundamentally shapes individual's thoughts and behaviors, the legal system attempts, and often fails, to correct the culturally unacceptable ones.

From this perspective it is very hypocritical for the 'elite' to claim to be protecting our children through laws while they are busy creating a 'liberal' culture that on every front pushes our children towards premature sexuality, including pedophilia:

• on an hormonal level, the increase in endocrine disruptors in the environment, particularly xeno-estrogen, leads to a growing number of kids reaching puberty prematurely. Their bodies look fully formed and they may experience the hormonal pressure of teenagers, but, very often, their minds are still those of a child.
• In terms of education, the new generation is exposed from the earliest age to sexual content. Mandatory classes starting in kindergarten promote sexuality, masturbation, sex toys, homosexuality, freedom tho choose any partner, freedom to do whatever one wants to do with his body. Under the pretext of sexual freedom and love, our kids are brainwashed into embracing whatever sexual practice they think they want, no matter how destructive it will be for them in later life.
• the same education system has dropped foundational classes like logic, language proficiency, analytical skills, basic knowledge, critical thinking, or even just thinking. The education system is grooming a new generation of dumbed-down kids whose ignorance makes them way more vulnerable to the most toxic ideologies including the feminist/LGBT variety.
• the collapse of religion and the ensuing hegemony of relativism have removed any sense of moral consciousness. The hedonist/individualistic/narcissistic motto has defined instant gratification of any impulse (including destructive sexual ones) as the only legitimate goal in replacement of the so 'passé' pursuance of the individual's and society's highest moral good.
• the collapse of the family, and particularly the removal of the father from the household, has destroyed one of the last sources of authority and discipline. As a result, there is nobody left to say 'no' to the crazy ideas projected into our children brains by the deviant media and education system.
• hypersexualization, including the hypersexualization of kids, is all over the media. In movies, magazines, video clips, advertisements a more and more ambiguous image of children is conveyed.

The very fundamental boundary between a child and an adult is systematically blurred and moved to an earlier age through the use of misleading make up and clothing, suggestive lyrics, provocative attitudes.

The hypersexualization of kids normalizes premature sexuality in the mind of the victims (the kids themselves) and the mind of the adult offenders but also in the mind of society as a whole including witnesses to criminal cases, judges, family members, friends, attorneys, all of the people who shape the social and legal context in which children sexual abuses.

• - the widespread availability and use of pornography by younger and younger individuals spreads a very distorted and premature view of sexuality. Young looking actresses posing as schoolgirls or cheerleaders in the total absence of anything resembling love, romance and feelings. Like all that is important for a healthy society, sex is being desacralized and treated like a vulgar commodity, a mere vendible among many others offered to our consumerist mindset.

Now if you combine the seven factors listed above you can easily predict what may well happen next. Some kids will ask for sexual encounters, they will even demand them, including of course with adults. And the authorities who carefully crafted a cultural environment that pushed the kids to make such demands will duly oblige and drop the age of consent again and again in the name of love and freedom.

Inconsistency in children rights

One of the cornerstones of Western legal system is to consider children as unable to make informed decisions. As a result their rights are limited until they reach majority. In most countries, children can not vote, they can't drive a car, they can't own a gun.

Meanwhile, two French courts decided that 11-year-old children were able consent to sex with adults and the authorities are designing a law that aims to implicitly presume consent for children above 13 years old. Along the same line, there is a growing number of cases where minors request and obtain sex change surgery.

What kind of schizophrenic society deems, on the one hand, that children are mature enough to decide about such complex and important topics as engaging in a sexual relations with an adult or going for sex change therapies while, on the other hand, considers them as unable to drive a car, vote, or carry a gun?

If this inconsistency ever becomes a matter of legal debate, given the current cultural drift, the solution will probably be to allow children to vote, drive and carry a gun. Raising the age of consent to harmonize it with the other age thresholds is the least likely outcome in our dystopian global society.

The Macron background

Interestingly, along with the two cases described above, on September 6th, a third case emerged where a 30 year old male teacher who had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old student was prosecuted by the Arras court, again not for rape but for 'atteinte sexuelle' (misdemeanor).

Unlike the two cases described previously, this one didn't get much coverage in the mainstream media although it happened first. One reason for this very limited media attention might be the due to its similarities with the situation of France's self-styled 'Jupiterian' ruler and his wife.

Brigitte Macron is 24 years older than Emmanuel Macron. They met at school in 1993 where Brigitte taught acting classes and Emmanuel was one of her 10th grade students. At the time, Brigitte Macron was 39-years old and Emmanuel Macron was 15-years old.

According to French law, the age of consent is raised from 15 to 18 when there is an authority relationship between the adult and the child (as in a teacher-student relationship).

I don't know what happened between Brigitte Macron and Emmanuel Macron, but if they got to 'know' each other before the boy was 18-year old, even if there was no violence, constraint, surprise or threat, it is illegal and, as such, could lead to a few years in prison for the adult offender.

Despite this, when the mainstream media deals with President Macron and his wife, they seem to completely forget about the law and instead present their relationship as a 'love that is stronger than time' as shown by the snapshot below:
Unlike Macron's case, the 30-year old teacher in the court case mentioned above was jailed, received a gag order and was banned from activity involving minors. He was prosecuted for 'atteinte sexuelle' and his position of authority was considered an aggravating factor in the case. This individual will likely spend about ten years in prison.

This difference in media and legal treatment raise some important questions: Are male and female sexual offenders treated the same? Are poor and rich sexual offenders treated the same?

Feminist fingerprints

The draft law that I have discussed here was introduced by the French minister of justice Nicole Belloubet and the minister of women rights Marlène Schiappa. The latter being a self-proclaimed feminist.

Notice that the report on which the draft law is based doesn't come from an organization related to the protection of children but from the 'high council for equality between women and men'. Notice also that the title of the reportdoes not mention the word 'children' much less their protection. The title is 'A view on a just societal and judicial condemnation of rape and other sexual assaults'.

Of 46 pages, only 3 are dedicated to children and recommends that the age of consent be reduced from 15 to 13. The other 43 pages are about proposing laws that enforce 'gender equality' and fight the 'patriarchy', 'misogyny' and 'sexism'. To give you a flavor of the spirit of the report, the title of the first chapter is 'a society imbued with rape culture'.

Many of the listed measures have a strong focus on the protection of women, the provision of women shelters, compulsory vocational training about sexism, school programs emphasizing a global and positive sexuality, etc. etc.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the two legal precedents in question here were cynically used to introduce an outrageous draft law that exploits the anti-pedophilia public reaction to reduce the age of consent and serve a radical feminist agenda to pass laws that have nothing to do with pedophilia and are not concerned with the protection of children at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

The report also proposes an extension of the statute of limitations from 20 to 30 years for rapes. Remember the hypothetical case of a relation between a 18-year-old and an almost 13-year-old? Because of the irrefutable presumption of non-consent, despite all his evidence, the 18-year-old might end up spending 15 years behind bars. If the situation is not brought to light at the time of its happening, this sword of Damocles will remain over his head for thirty years.

Balance is all important here. Ensuring justice for victims is a fundamental goal of a fair society, but so is a fair trial. The fact is that rape is a very difficult crime to prove. Evidence is often scarce, debatable and not long lasting. So we must ask the question, how fairly will our society treat rape accusations that occurred between 20 and 30 years ago?

And so we start to see another ironic aspect of this story: Minister of Women Rights, Marlene Schiappa, a self-confessed feminist, who is supposed to defend women, advocates for the reduction of the age of consent. This project obviously endangers children and directly contradicts one of the most fundamental and noble role of women as protectors of children.

Meanwhile, Minister Schiappa is spreading hysteria about a 'rape culture' where, basically, every man is a rapist and even the most benign look, move or word might soon be considered as 'assault' or 'harassment'.

What kind of paradoxical injunction is our society sending to men? It's okay to have sex with kids above 13 years old, but it's not okay to look at a woman?

Why France?

One important question still deserves to be addressed. Why is France planning to drop the age at which a child is able to consent to sexual relations with an adult while it tends to rise in other countries?

For example, Tunisia raised the age of consent to 16 in 2017 and Spainraised it to 16 in 2015.

France is the cradle of the enlightenment and the revolution.Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot or Montesquieu saw the ideological seeds of nihilism.

The revolutionaries implemented this ideology, it killed the clergy and burnt the churches. God was sacrificed on the altar of materialism and individualism. Once god was removed not much was left to justify the existence of moral good and bad.

The next noticeable step in the decadence process was postmodernism. It emerged from France with Sartres and Beauvoir in the 40's and gave birth to the infamous 'French theory' championed by brain-damaged 'philosophers' like Derida, Foucault and Deleuze.

The post modernists embrace 'radical relativism' where truth and good no longer exists. It's all about power and oppression. Those ideas were embodied by the May 1968 sexual revolution. Authority, fathers, teachers were sacrificed on the altar of freedom and equality.

The French theory spread in the US campus during the 70's and directly led to LGBT and feminist activism which are behind the attempt to drop the age of consent.

Each one of the five preeminent Western 'thinkers' of the 20th century mentioned above took official positions defending pedophilia.

In 1971, they signed a manifesto protesting the sentence given to 3 men who abused children as young as 13 years old.

Six years after their first manifesto, in 1977, they signed a second manifesto, which asked French authorities to drop the age of consent to 13 years old. Does that sound familiar?

Conclusion

In this article we have encountered a series of converging facts: the two unprecedented precedents that virtually occurred at the same time in the same area, the existence of the draft law and report that predates the two precedents, the aim to drop the age of consent to 13 which is exactly the age requested by the postmodernists in 1971 and in 1977, the attempt to drop the age of consent in January 2017, the draft law being supported by a feminist Minister of Women Rights, the report emanating from a feminist council, the report being filled with new feminist laws.

All these elements strongly suggest that what we are facing is a concerted effort on the part of the postmodern/LGBT/feminist ideologues to drop the age of consent.

However, the draft law described above is only that, a draft law. It will be enacted, or not, by the French parliament in January 2018. So, while the reduction of the age at which a child is deemed able to consent to 13 is a very distinct possibility, it's not done yet.

Yet even if this law is adopted, it would be excessive to state that France has legalized pedophilia, but it would nonetheless be a step in this direction.

The truth is that 'real' pedophilia is not really about 13 or 14-year-old girls being abused by older men. Real pedophilia, as stated by survivors of pedophile rings, involves female and male abusers and pre-pubescent boys and girls, newborns included.

Obviously real pedophilia is not about love. But, despite popular belief and media spin, it's not about sex either. Rather it's about sadistic torture, sacrifice, destruction, suffering, fear and the lust for ultimate 'power'.

So the legal 'evolution' described above is only one subtle move towards a very 'progressive' and insidious normalization of pedophilia, that mostly occurs at the very fundamental levels of the cultural substratum which defines the way we act and think.

As a consequence, any society that claims to be civilized must first and foremost change its culture and immediately stop any form of sexualization of children particularly through the media and education system.

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.

~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident