"...now private citizens are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. In addition to the constant barrage of insults and threats directed at Mr Uitenbogaard in Hengelo, another member of Martijn was driven from his home in the northern province of Friesland. And a writer who merely supported Martijn’s right to free speech has also had the windows of his house smashed and ‘Paedophile’ painted on his front door in red letters."
Uh, no. Apparently not.
This, despite the fact that the son's original accuser has long since recanted her testimony saying the sexual assault she had originally testified to never occurred.
She was nine when she was coerced into her accusation by her mother, then embroiled in a bitter divorce proceeding and in need of an alibi to keep her from being prosecuted for unlawfully fleeing the state with her daughter.
She was eleven when she recanted.
She's now 21 and one of the two cousins she had originally accused of molestation is still in prison. His mother is dying. They would like to see each other one last time. And the State of Texas remains indifferent to both.
Let's be clear: convicted felons are routinely denied freedom even when evidence comes to light that they were wrongfully convicted.
This happens frequently in the U.S. today and should shock and outrage us to the core.
Yet somehow, this continues. And, with Justices like Antonin Scalia in the Supreme Court, we should not be surprised.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable, said Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
The reporter, in this case, spins the story to evoke outrage from her/his readers that an enraged father could be held responsible for his premeditated and vicious attack on a man he suspected of molesting his daughter.
This has been a recurring trope in America for some time now, possibly starting with the thuggish Ellie Nessler's execution style murder of her sons "molester" within the very courtroom where he was being tried, nearly twenty years ago.
After serving just three years in prison for shooting her victim five times in the head, she returned to her life as a low-level methamphetamine dealer and mother of a nearly grown-up career criminal and soon-to-be murderer in his own right (he stomped a man to death whom he had hired to clean up his family's property).
But according to her supporters, who were, and still are, legion, she should have, instead, received a handsome reward for summarily executing a "child molester".
Largely unacknowledged is the transformation of the American public into an angry, vengeance-seeking mob who have become convinced by their leaders and their journalists that mob-violence and summary execution are perfectly reasonable propositions for securing justice. The media, through outrageously biased "realistic" crime shows, and journalistically bankrupt news magazines and cable news shows, have continuously communicated to the public that real justice is denied them through the courts.
Even the concept of rights have been redefined to include special "victim's rights" and since all virtuous people are now imbued with these emergent rights, they now see the traditional rights of the accused in direct conflict with their own "victim's rights" and demand those of the accused be degraded relative to their own.
And it isn't just the U.S. anymore. It's the U.K., Australia and even The Netherlands.
Marthijn Uittenbogaard, a controversial Dutchman who argued against that country's raising of the age-of-consent laws and who has argued for its abolition, has been continually hounded, harassed, assaulted and had his house vandalized by those who apparently believe that he should not have the right to speak or even to exist, despite his having committed no crime.
This is a very dangerous path which the U.S. has trod and which the rest of world is now following.
The previously "tolerant" Dutch nation is quickly erasing any traces of their legendary open-mindedness. U.S.-style sting operations and unprovoked searches are the new face of Dutch justice.
The group "Vereniging Martijn", is being subjected to escalating levels of legal harassment and vigilante violence.
Yesterday, one of the group's spokespersons, Marthijn Uittenbogaard, had the front window of his house smashed by rocks and ammonia was poured through his mail slot.
Previously, he has been physically assaulted and receives almost daily threats. A motorcycle gang recently held a large protest in front of his house.
So far, the police show little interest in affording him the same protections that it provides to Geert Wilders or, previously, to Ayan Hirsi Ali, despite continuous threats to his life.
Despite not having a residence, and having been barred entrance to homeless shelters because of his sex offender status, the court ruled that he could be held criminally liable for not telling police where he was living.
These laws are working exactly as they are intended to work, to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for registered sex offenders to exist without violating laws to which no one else is subjected. Thus, they exist as both a means of harassment and as a pretext for further incarceration.
The term for such laws is "Status Offenses" i.e. an action that is prohibited only to a certain class of people, such as Jews in Nazi occupied countries in the last century.