Wowbanger - I think that in Holland that the age difference allowed is at most 4 years and not 1. Children aged 12-16 can legally have sex together (but an 18yo cannot have sex with a 14yo). Apart from that Spain has the lowest age of consent which is 13.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by chikrodah:
The booklets referred to do not seem to be on the BZgA site, so it's difficult to determine the truth behind this. There is an educational tour available which includes videos and a song-book, but again, there is no way of telling whether the items complain about exist or, if they do, whether mistranslation is involved.

LifeSiteNews.com is an anti-abortion, pro-Life site which has fallen foul of the Vatican (amongst others) for its tendency to spin stories out of all recognition in order to make its point. Anybody remember the "Pope Criticizes Harry Potter" fiasco? One of LifeSiteNews' little articles kicked that one off.

In this particular case, it may be that the BZgA produced a publication that reminded parents that children tend to explore their own bodies in a completely innocent way and linked early sex education messages to that fact. We won't know for certain while authors foaming at the mouth in righteous self-opinionated indication spin their misinterpretations for the masses.

LifeSiteNews has hooked into two predominantly British bogeymen, the EU as Evil Superstate and The Nasty Nazi Germans. Judging by the comments on the original article, you half expect Christian anti-abortion groups to head for the German Embassy with pitchforks and torches. :-)

It's on the internet, so it must be true. :-)

It is a fact that your argument sounds measuered and reasonable as do your and Ardvarks responces to matters concerning the constitution, however on the constitutional argument I know you to be wrong. I therefore have to wonder why you feel the need to defend this item? Could it be that any thing the EU does is something you wouls always accept as good no matter how much evidence there is to authenticate it, and no matter how much harm it causes the rest of us.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, Satanic law seems to suit the European Union and our Parliament.
[Rep]

Well said twizzel - yes makes you wonder some people's motives for trying to defend this disgusting filth.

Let's have a reality check here.

What bit of:

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters or
"When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle" do people not get ?!!

But this one takes the biscuit......

"Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds."

I mean come on - ask yourself, how many 1-3 year olds are even able to "develop a sense of pride" in anything, let alone their sexuality.

People's inability to face the inconvenient facts and constantly make excuses for what's staring them in the face is what's costing this country dearly and people should just grow up and stop being so pathetically weak and immoral.





When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle
[Rep]

The point chik was making was that the original material in German is not available on the website and that we have to be careful where there is no source material to support the assertions. The wording does sound extreme, but I have read the same words translated into several languages and there are differences in phraseology and nuance - I was able to skim some translations of the New Testament in French, Italian, German, English and Spanish (I can understand between 40 and 80% of the written word in those languages) when I was in Jerusalem. There can be substantial changes of meaning in translation and, as chik is a native speaker of a German regional dialect, she might be able to clarify what is written.

ychtt, Newspapers spin a lot of things, as you allege elsewhere. Without the real book and only selections from it we have to be careful. You would get Canterbury Tales banned if you only read the naughty bits.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
The point chik was making was that the original material in German is not available on the website and that we have to be careful where there is no source material to support the assertions.

From your reasoned description of chikrodah's comments, I was led to believe he was being objective and impartial without prejudice.

Until I read the rest of what he said of course:

Such comments like:

"LifeSiteNews.com is an anti-abortion, pro-Life site which has fallen foul of the Vatican (amongst others) for its tendency to spin stories out of all recognition in order to make its point. Anybody remember the "Pope Criticizes Harry Potter" fiasco? One of LifeSiteNews' little articles kicked that one off."

"We won't know for certain while authors foaming at the mouth in righteous self-opinionated indication spin their misinterpretations for the masses."

"LifeSiteNews has hooked into two predominantly British bogeymen, the EU as Evil Superstate and The Nasty Nazi Germans. Judging by the comments on the original article, you half expect Christian anti-abortion groups to head for the German Embassy with pitchforks and torches."

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that rather than just make his point about the authenticity of the translation, he's gone off into creating his own "conspiracy theories" for why it isn't true, without offering any supporting evidence.

It just goes to show that people are happy to create their own conspiracy theories to cater for the facts they don't like, but are equally quick to slander the real so called "conspiracy theories" that are actually based on hard facts and scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
ychtt, Newspapers spin a lot of things, as you allege elsewhere.

Indeed, but chikrodah spins a lot of conspiracy theories around too, without any apparent facts that I can see.

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
Without the real book and only selections from it we have to be careful. You would get Canterbury Tales banned if you only read the naughty bits.

Of course I take your valid point Aardvark, but may I suggest we take a leaf out the foundation of the British justice system and assume innocence until proven guilty ?

At least until, there is enough genuine reason to cast doubt on the source ?

Who should I believe for now ?

Someone who obviously has more than a minimal amount of ability to translate or chikrodah based on his currently unfounded assumptions and biased theories ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
The point chik was making was that the original material in German is not available on the website and that we have to be careful where there is no source material to support the assertions. The wording does sound extreme, but I have read the same words translated into several languages and there are differences in phraseology and nuance - I was able to skim some translations of the New Testament in French, Italian, German, English and Spanish (I can understand between 40 and 80% of the written word in those languages) when I was in Jerusalem. There can be substantial changes of meaning in translation and, as chik is a native speaker of a German regional dialect, she might be able to clarify what is written.

ychtt, Newspapers spin a lot of things, as you allege elsewhere. Without the real book and only selections from it we have to be careful. You would get Canterbury Tales banned if you only read the naughty bits.

You are advancing the reasonable argument when anyone with any sense of decency would steer clear of trying to defend this articule. Any one with young daugters who defends this type of thing must be suspect in their own right.
[Rep]

I haven't defended the booklet, twizzel. Like you I haven't read it. I am saying that we can't obtain a copy and only have a spun translation of selected phrases.

I would argue that if the material has been correctly translated then it matters not a jot whether one has daughters or sons it is not something I would want circulated.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Destroy the EU:
...
I have found another article (in German).

"Körper, Liebe, Doktorspiele": Von der Leyen stoppt umstrittene Aufklärungsbroschüre - Politik - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

It'll be great if a native German speaker could translate. Babelfish produced a load of gibberish. .

Translation:

Originally Posted by :
31st July 2007

Von der Leyen bans Controversial Guidance Booklets
by Franziska Badenschier

The Federal Families Ministry has removed the "Body, Love, Playing Doctor" booklets from its repertoire. A complaint had been forwarded from the Cologne Public Prosecutors Office - the plaintiff found the advice ambiguous and questionable.

Hamburg - The guidance booklet title sounds dodgy. For 6 years nobody had been really bothered by "Body, Love, Playing Doctor", published by the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA). One volume dealt with early childhood development from 1 - 3 years old, the second with pre-school development from 4 - 6 years old.

But now, the Cologne Public Prosecutors Office has filed charges against the author, Ina-Maria Philipps and the BzGA - concerning an open invitation to the sexual abuse of children. "Friends gave me the booklet and I read it - and was of the opinion that this just wasn't right", said Ulla Lang, the plaintiff, to SPIEGEL ONLINE. The 64-year old mother of two adult daughters objected to several passages.

[Passages] such as this: It is "only a sign of the healthy development of your child when they take every opportunity to allow themselves pleasure and satisfaction." Or this: When girls - not yet 3 years old - "pick up objects to assist [them]" then one should not "use this as a pretext to hinder masturbation". Or this: "The vagina and particularly the clitoris experience little attention during gentle caressing (neither from father or mother) and this makes it difficult for girls to develop pride in their sexuality".

"Some phrases were ambiguous and capable of being misunderstood"

Straight away, the last passage provoked trouble: for critics it sounds like a covert suggestion that parents should fondle their daughters between their legs. Irene Johns of the Child Protection Agency said that "although the booklet means something quite different, paedophiles could use this as a justification [for their actions]".

The Federal Families Ministry has now reacted: the booklet was deleted from their repertoire of awareness training and has also disappeared from the BZgA website. Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) has labelled specific statements as "borderline", said her spokeswoman today. "Some phrases were unclear and ambiguous".

Author Ina-Maria Philipps was not available for comment until this evening. Director of the BZgA, Elisabeth Pott, was surprised that misunderstandings had emerged now for the first time in six years [accompanied] by vocal criticism - but: "We take the criticism seriously." A [university] lecturer from the Institute of Sex Education is shocked by the moratorium: "That can't be true", she said. After all, argue the booklets' supporters, there was a crucial objective, when the booklets appeared for the first time in 2001: that the sexual development of infants and small children should no longer be treated as a taboo [subject].

"A complicated, highly sensitive area"

Pott said, the booklets should show where the boundaries are and reveal that the [adult] contact with the children must not on any account be for their own sexual arousal or pleasure. Pott: "Early childhood sexual development is a complicated, highly sensitive area." Therefore, they had developed and evaluated the booklets with extreme diligence. Up to now, there had been only positive feedback; the Swiss Child Protection Agency had actually asked if they could adopt the guidance booklets.

"Moreover, the booklets provide information on how parents can chaperone their children during the discovery of their own bodies and through the experience of their sexuality", said a press release on the awareness booklets at that time [2001]. An evaluation found in favour of the guidance booklets: the Institute for Market Research questioned 60 mothers, 30 fathers and 15 nursery teachers in a survey for the BZgA shortly after publication. The conclusion of the parental interviews was "positive overall, both with regard to the appraisal of the contents and the design. (...) A voluntary criticism of the contents was not expressed." 89 percent of parents had stated that they were sensitive to the boundaries and the private body space of the children. The nursery teachers had - with one exception - judged positively.

The issue has already been discussed in detail on internet fora. Some see a breaking of taboos - the others argue that the quotations have been taken completely out of context. Meanwhile, both volumes are out of print. Altogether, 650,000 copies were distributed in Germany, they went to nurseries, family centres, paediatricians - and probably are there still. Furthermore, countless men have downloaded the guidance from the BZgA website. But due to the criticism, the Federal Families Ministry has also agreed not to continue to distribute the PDFs of the two guidance booklets.

The charges that Ulla Lang had filed and shown to SPIEGEL ONLINE, have not yet been responded to by the BZga. Currently both guidance booklets are being reworked. There will be a new edition, says Pott - perhaps even this Autumn.

Editorial comment: the Cologne "Express" has quoted Irene Johns of the Child Protection Agency as saying: "that paedophiles could use such offical guidance as justification [for their actions]". She emphasises that she has never spoken of the booklets as "official guidance". SPIEGEL ONLINE has corrected the quote in this article.

[Rep]

twizzel,

Originally Posted by :
It is a fact that your argument sounds measuered and reasonable as do your and Ardvarks responces to matters concerning the constitution, however on the constitutional argument I know you to be wrong. I therefore have to wonder why you feel the need to defend this item? Could it be that any thing the EU does is something you wouls always accept as good no matter how much evidence there is to authenticate it, and no matter how much harm it causes the rest of us.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, Satanic law seems to suit the European Union and our Parliament.

Originally Posted by :
You are advancing the reasonable argument when anyone with any sense of decency would steer clear of trying to defend this articule. Any one with young daugters who defends this type of thing must be suspect in their own right.

Well said twizzel, not.

In your obsessive need to return to the forum and attack myself and chik (what has your lack of understanding of the constitutional law of our country got to do with this?) you have deliberately twisted words to imply that people discussing a document, that nobody on this forum has read, and urging caution are supportive or defensive of the document. As you can see from chik's translation of an article concerning the booklet, the reason it is no longer on the website is because those nasty, horrible Germans (who you seem to think are synonymous with the EU) have removed it to be on the safe side following a complaint from a nasty, horrible German. The point is made that there was confusion and misunderstanding, presumably from semi-literates such as yourself, as to the message of the booklet. Note that the noble non-EU Swiss were thinking of using the booklet as well.

Only the terminally thick could suggest that chik's urging of caution concerning discussion of something we haven't read constitutes uncritical support for anything that emanates from the EU. That is a non sequitur too far to suggest anything other than your post is a deliberate and personal attack. You are trying to make the most spurious of links.

Had you really been concerned about the truth of the matter you would, of course, have translated the above document yourself, but, as with everything with you, attention to factual detail is not a strong point. I would have translated the document, but my German skills are rusty and it would have taken me too long. The fact is that you wouldn't have known how to translate the document so, being unable to communicate in or read English properly, you take cheap and irrelevant shots at people who speak or understand several languages. You probably feel very big, but you look very small.
[Rep]

So the translation does seem to be correct then.

Well done for finding this chikrodah.

I hope you will regret your earlier unfounded conspiracy theory comments regarding the authenticity of the source, but you've redeemed yourself for posting this up so well done.

So in summary what are we to conclude ?

When the follow up article said:
"Straight away, the last passage provoked trouble: for critics it sounds like a covert suggestion that parents should fondle their daughters between their legs."

Was the last passage this statement ?

""Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

Now I believe one of two things may be true:

Either

1) The "that the sexual development of infants and small children should no longer be treated as a taboo" and "as stated by the author Ina-Maria Phillips and ""Early childhood sexual development is a complicated, highly sensitive area." and there is some reason why early sexual development is important that we who are not experts are unaware of.

or

2) That the purpose of the advice was clearly trying to encourage inappropriate sexual interference with infants as per the policy of the German Federal Health Education Center.

Now rather than spout off about the wickedness of the EU, New World Order etc (as I have done earlier in the thread), I would like to point to one important piece of information in the advice which makes me fairly sure(in my opnion) it is the latter explanation.

Here it is........

The initial report stated:

"Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age."

But then it went on to say:

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

Now ask yourself:

If it is aimed at parents, then why does the above passage state "Fathers" and not "parents" ?
Why not mothers ?
Surely that is a much safer alternative if there is risk of abuse ?
Think about it......

In fact, I've just found something even more damning that I missed the first time and I'm suprised and shocked no-one picked up on....

"The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him" !!

This is clearly encouraging incestual paedophilia(again subsequently denied) and sexual interference between father and daughter and clearly refutes the subsequent claim that:

"Pott said, the booklets should show where the boundaries are (:-)) and reveal that the [adult] contact with the children must not on any account be for their own sexual arousal or pleasure."

Clearly the word "arousal" is in direct contradiction and the boundaries are quite clear. In fact they are quite explicit and disturbing, are they not ?

So There you have it - the subsequent statement was spin, manipulation of the intitial evil intention of the policy, lies, lies and more lies. :-)

Case closed - no doubt in my eyes.

There should be an independent investigation leading to prosecutions !

[Note: I wonder what UKIP's opinion on this case is ?]

Unless you are still in unbeleivable denial about the extent of this disgusting policy, consider the fact that it was put out by the Federal Families Ministry for the explicit reason to encourage such behaviour.

Come on people - I already knew these people running these federal institutions were serving an evil agenda even before I saw this thread.
I posted a Washington Post article that admits that inapropriate sexual acts are committed at the Whitehouse.

Please try to get it through your heads that this sick, evil and wicked system is out to hurt ordianry people and destroy our lives.

You probably cannot understand that such an evil agenda exists or is even possible but it is - just look at what's going on all around you today.

How can we even entertain the idea that 1-3 year olds may need "sexual expression" ? :-)
How brainwashed have we become by the lies of the mainstream that we trust so eagerly and feel the need to impulsively make excuses for ?

I'll cut to the chase ok ?

Sick politicians and evil federal governments who are involved in the occult(yes !:-)) are waging war against the human spirit and have committed masses of crimes against humanity including:
1) the use of lab created AIDS and cancer ridden vaccinations(never give your kids these),
2) biological weapons against their own military and populations
and
3)terrorist acts against you the population in the name of freedom.
4) world wars and economical collapses.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg...

Question your trust of the mainstream media and politicans, research into my claims and stop expecting the government to be your saviour when they want to suck off you and kill you. All the main political parties are batting for the same evil system. They couldn't care less about you but beleive it or not, the so called "conspiracy theorists" and truth movement do care and we're soon all gonna be in it together, whether you beleive it or not....

[Please note: that doesn't mean the majority of people in govt aren't good people well meaning but they are proabbly unaware they are serving an evil elite agenda]

Stop being in denial and do your research - visit infowars.com(listen to Alex Jones) and prisonplanet.com now

If only for your kids sake, just examine the facts before they try to shut the internet down.....

Please ?
[Rep]