Pedophilia And Child Abduction Have Company
Wave-ophilia?
An elderly Nova Scotia couple were accused of child attempted child abduction for...incredibly...waving at a kid on a bike. From the Chronicle Herald:
Patsy McCara said it all began when they went to buy groceries and spotted a little boy on a bike outside a Sobeys store.She said her husband waved at the child as they drove past.
"We parked and both got out of our truck. My husband went into the tobacco shop and I went into Sobeys and picked up several articles," she said in an interview.
When she returned to their truck, an RCMP cruiser was parked immediately behind the vehicle and her husband was seated inside.
A stunned Patsy said she was told to sit in the truck and wait. A few minutes later, she said, four other RCMP cars had surrounded the vehicle.
"It was embarrassing," she said.
"We were right in front of Sobeys and people were coming and going, looking at us like we'd done something really drastic. And all he'd done was wave at a child."
They were taken by RCMP to the Pictou detachment, locked in separate interrogation rooms and questioned extensively.
RCMP Sgt. Phil Oliver said the investigation stemmed from a complaint of an attempted abduction.
And waving is one of the top 10 signs a kidnapping has taken place?
via ifeminists
I hope there's more to the story than this. Because if waving to a child is all it took to bring on the investigators with accusations of child abduction, it's beyond the pale.
I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but I'm pretty sure talking or waving to a child is not a crime in the U.S.
Patrick at December 1, 2009 11:31 PM
This couple should sue the childs mother for filing a false repot and false improsnment.
Did any of these cops bother to interview the kid or did they just accept that someone had tried to snatch the child as its parents had claimed.
Its tories like this that lead to stories like the one out of england where a truck driver refused to help some 5yr old girl andering down the highway only for her to wind up dead, drown in a pond a few hours later
lujlp at December 2, 2009 12:46 AM
I agree with lujlp. The only point I'd make is that this happened in Nova Scotia, not the U.S. I don't know what the laws of Canada are.
The story you told about the five year old is a shocker. But it is any wonder that adults, especially men, are afraid to have anything to do with a child that isn't theirs? Even if the child is in distress.
Patrick at December 2, 2009 12:58 AM
Wish I could find the article, but I dont remember where I saw the first link
lujlp at December 2, 2009 2:59 AM
lujlp, any chance you mean this one?
Patrick at December 2, 2009 3:52 AM
Yep
lujlp at December 2, 2009 4:03 AM
Wow.
Jen at December 2, 2009 4:10 AM
Cant say I blame the guy, given how easily the daycare wokers lied to the parents faces about a missing "dog" I can see them just as easily claiming Peachy was kidnapping the kid rather than returning her
lujlp at December 2, 2009 4:18 AM
Cases like this illustrate just what a sick society we have become, even the most mundane and innocent exchanges of life are now criminalized.
Because pedophilia is such an emotive moral panic issue, the authorities know they can be extra high-handed in riding roughshod over citizens' rights. There is an old saying something to the effect of 'keep the populace in a constant state of fear and anxiety, and they will be anxious to be led to safety and accept whatever draconian measures deemed necessary'. Case in point: a friend of mine was involved in a domestic violence incident with his bipolar nutcase girlfriend. He called the police. When the police came his girlfriend said 'do you know he has child porn on his computer'. With that the police seized his computer. No search warrant. No evidence. Just the false claim of a vindictive girlfriend. The police search found nothing on his computer, but the weeks he had without a computer seriously impacted his livelihood.
When I was a small child of pre-school age, all the children in the street used to visit everyone's houses to play much of the time. People didn't live in fear that everyone was a child molester. And I don't recall anyone being reported to the police for waving. I'm not even that old, but I still notice how much things have changed.
Nick S at December 2, 2009 4:20 AM
Some time ago I was working in a supermarket and one of my jobs was to take customers' groceries out to their car.
One day there was a woman with her grandson riding in the trolley. She was struggling to get him out, and so I instinctively reached in to help lift him up. I suddenly recoiled in shock, thinking 'holy crap. You can't touch other people's children. Think of the trouble you could land in!'.
Nick S at December 2, 2009 4:34 AM
THINK of the CHILLLLLLDRENNNNN!!!!
This is especially terrible for autistic kids, because they thrive best on physical contact. When stressed and withdrawing or starting to act out, a simple hand on the shoulder or hug does wonders for them. I imagine no male teacher would dare to do such a thing these days.
Melissa G at December 2, 2009 5:23 AM
*LOL* My "think of the children" was supposed to have sarcasm tags around it, but the comment software parsed them out!
Melissa G at December 2, 2009 5:24 AM
luj, related to that: Matt Patterson has an ironically-humorous article on PJ here, stating "the gender war is over; men won". His point is that gender feminism is in the process of relieving men of all their adult responsibilities. Hence your truck driver story -- it simply wasn't his job.
Cousin Dave at December 2, 2009 6:31 AM
I am an amateur woodworker. I travel to medieval-style events and teach free classes on how to use hand tools. Minors are no longer allowed to attend my classes unless there is a parent present. I like kids, and I think it's really important to teach young people traditional skills, but as a middle-aged male, I simply cannot take the risk of being alone with someone else's child when a simply accusation without evidence can ruin a man's life. I've got too much to lose.
Bill McNutt at December 2, 2009 6:39 AM
"I like kids, and I think it's really important to teach young people traditional skills, but as a middle-aged male, I simply cannot take the risk of being alone with someone else's child when a simply accusation without evidence can ruin a man's life. I've got too much to lose."
I hear ya.
While driving down a residential road, I once noticed a two year old boy standing on a corner. No adults nearby. I slowed, expecting to see a mom, dad or sibling in the immediate area. Nope.
I stopped and got out of my car, to look around for someone watching this kid.
As the kid was now wandering into the road, I chucked every contemporary American adult male's perfectly rational fear at having any involvement with other people's kids.
I picked the kid up, and carried him into a nearby church, which was ending its service. I informed the first middle-aged *woman* (I picked a woman for a reason) I saw what I had just witnessed and asked her if she knew whose kid this was. With her help, I eventually found the parents in the church's congregation, as I hoped when I went there.
I found picking that child up in the middle of the street more terrifying to me than various street fights I had won and lost as a young man.
If I had judged the situation wrong, and there was a nearby family member who saw me pick that kid up, what do you think would have happened to me?
The above story gives some clue as to what I may have faced. The fact that I was even so concerned about removing a unaccompanied child from the roadway tells me either I am irrational in my concern for myself or the society is in its concerns about strangers, but here we are. Everybody so scared that strangers may someday simply keep driving without stopping to help that kid.
Now *that* should be really scary to everyone involved.
Spartee at December 2, 2009 7:33 AM
Sorry Spartee but after the guy in Illinos became a sex offender for life for pulling a girl out of the street after she stepped infront of his car I wont be helping.
I'll call the cops but I wont be getting out of my car
lujlp at December 2, 2009 9:04 AM
I don't undersand the reference to the little dog Peachy?
NicoleK at December 2, 2009 9:15 AM
I don't undersand the reference to the little dog Peachy?
NicoleK at December 2, 2009 9:15 AM
"I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but I'm pretty sure talking or waving to a child is not a crime in the U.S."
I live in Canada, and no, waving isn't against the law. However, it may as well be, it's a shame this downward spiral isn't stopping any time soon. I wonder how many more victims there will be in the future due to this hysteria.
Amax at December 2, 2009 9:36 AM
NicloeK Peachey was the gut who drove past the kid and let her drown.
My point was given how easily the daycare worked lied to the parents of the missing girl about a missing "dog" I could just as easily see them claiming the guy was trying to kidnap the girl rather than return her.
My point was his fears were justified, even though he didnt know about the lying nature of the girls daycare workers
lujlp at December 2, 2009 10:15 AM
Sick sick sick. That was my first reaction to the way the elderly couple were treated. I say 'hi' and wave to kids all the time. Hell I do that to anyone I happen to see, especially if I'm in a good mood. It doesn't cost anything, and by my being an ass, I can get a smile or a giggle out of anybody. That's why I do it.
Today is #2's birthday, she's 14. I have a houseful of kids right now, all downstairs sitting around the piano playing and singing (#1 is providing the music.). Not even 15 minutes ago, I was just done with washing some dishes and almost started crying, thinking about how lucky I am that my kids are here, and so are their friends, and I know they're all safe and having a good time. And then I came up here to log on for a minute or 2, and saw this. How sad for the guy in lujy's story, and for that Canadian couple. I will hug each of these kids just a little bit longer when they leave after dinner tonight, and then hug both of mine even tighter until they beg me to let them go.
Egads. What is this world coming to?
Flynne at December 2, 2009 10:27 AM
Flynne,
I'd think long and hard before giving any of those kids, other than your own, a hug. That is the point to this whole story. All it will take is one of those kids to go home and say to thier parents, "she touched me", and your world is in the toilet. Nothing other than that childs word will be necessary to convict you.
This is what has happened with the constant fear mongering that the rape/DV/child abduction/etc. industries have fomented.
And yes, it is sad and disgusting.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 2, 2009 11:24 AM
E. Steven Berkimer, not to worry, I know all of the kids (and their parents), some of them since they were in kindergarten (I also used to babysit one of the vice-principles at the high school). If they were some random kids I didn't know, I wouldn't presume to hug them, at all. As it is, I've been hugging most of them since they were 5 years old.
But I agree with you that it's truly sad and disgusting that a simple hug or wave can be taken so far out of context.
Flynne at December 2, 2009 12:08 PM
This story gives me the creeps!
A few months ago, my husband and I were leaving the grocery store. We have no children and strange children of any age scare my husband.
As we were leaving, a kid about eight or nine was standing in the foyer. He followed us out, too close for our comfort. We hurried to the car. He waited at the backseat passenger door, expecting to get in the car with us.
I made a point to look the kid in the face, hoping he'd realize that we were not his parents. He didn't look like a challenged kid, but stared at us like he was certain we were his parents.
My husband was careful to unlock only my door and I hopped in. We drove off quickly and left town. We were certain the woman in the vehicle parked behind us was going to turn us in for abandoning that kid. I still think she did, remembering her face as we drove off with that kid standing there.
Thinking back, he could have been autistic or something, but my husband nor I had any idea what the ethical thing to do was. And we both knew we were safer driving away.
Cat at December 2, 2009 12:13 PM
Thinking back, he could have been autistic or something, but my husband nor I had any idea what the ethical thing to do was. And we both knew we were safer driving away.
I don't know if this is the perfect solution or not. I would have walked back into the store and gone to the customer service desk and notified them that there was a small child who was unaccompanied and appears to have developmental problems. Most stores have a procedure for lost/found kids and they probably could have taken over.
-Julie
JulieW at December 2, 2009 12:56 PM
JulieW - since the default mode in America is now "you shall be prosecuted for helping a child", I think Cat was very justified in not getting involved. Just look the other way and go about your business.
Crusader at December 2, 2009 1:26 PM
Flynne,
It's good to see there are still people who don't subscribe to the hysteria that every person is a molester. If people would just use thier common sense more.
Sadly, the people who will pay the most are the kids like the one in Cat's story. That kid WILL at some point, be taken by someone who IS a pedo, because others are unwilling to get involved because of the chance of being accused.
I think, in part, that the problem also stems with the fact that most of the people who scream about tougher laws dwell in an urban environment where there is less of a sense of community, and people getting to know thier neighbors.
I can remember being dragged home by the ear when I was about 6, by a neighbor, because I said fuck. And my parents thanked him, then my mouth and a bar of soap had a date. Not enjoyable. But I never said that word out loud like that again. Lesson learned.
Try getting away with that now, and you WILL go to jail. Can't hurt mommy's little precious.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 2, 2009 1:51 PM
I think Cat was very justified in not getting involved. Just look the other way and go about your business.
I wasn't saying that Cat's method was bad or unjustified, but she appeared to be requesting alternatives, so I submitted. I don't blame her for making the choice she made.
My first line should have read, "I don't know if my solution is the perfect solution, but here it is:" It wasn't meant to be critical of Cat's decision.
-Julie
JulieW at December 2, 2009 2:14 PM
This reminds me of an incident that happened about 16 years ago. I was having car trouble, so I started driving down a residential street. A little girl who looked to be about 3 years old was wandering around naked. I looked around for an open door or an adult. I tried asked her where she lived, but I coulnd't understand her. She seemed confused.
I didn't have a cell phone. I just felt that I couldn't put her in my car. I was afraid I would be accused of kidnapping. I went to the nearest house. The man there said that he would call the neighbor to come get her and took her inside. I waited for the neighbor to come and get her. The man told me that she was picked up through the back door. I listened carefully, but didn't hear anything.
I left praying that nothing sinister had happened. I watched news reports about a missing girl, but never heard about anything amiss. If I had taken her, I could have been accused of kidnapping, but what if I deposited her into the wrong hands? Thank God for cell phones now.
Jen at December 2, 2009 2:21 PM
Heh.
I don't have to do anything. You're doing it to yourselves, even claiming great virtue in the process of criminalizing contact with your own children.
It won't be long before the burnings start again.
Satan at December 2, 2009 2:53 PM
And the thing is, a child is much more likely to be molested by a relative or trusted friend than by a total stranger in a parking lot.
Steve Daniels at December 2, 2009 3:30 PM
Try telling that to parent who "know"
luljp at December 2, 2009 5:20 PM
Wow, Jen, I could see why you would feel worried. Of course, if you picked the house randomly, the chances that you just happened to pick a child molester's house would be pretty small. You would have to be one unlucky person.
KarenW at December 2, 2009 7:24 PM
Sorry Spartee but after the guy in Illinos became a sex offender for life for pulling a girl out of the street after she stepped infront of his car I wont be helping.
I'll call the cops but I wont be getting out of my car
Posted by: lujlp at December 2, 2009 9:04 AM
------------
Ah yes, my favorite case of sex offender laws gone wild. Fitzroy Barnaby is his name. Poor bastard from Illinois. He basically grabbed her and yelled at her and it became, "unlawful restraint of a minor" because the poor widdle princess was scared... after she'd almost gotten hit by not paying attention.
Links for those who've not heard his horror story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html
http://overlawyered.com/2005/07/he-grabbed-girls-arm-now-hes-a-sex-offender/
Sio at December 2, 2009 8:31 PM
Sio: Ah yes, my favorite case of sex offender laws gone wild. Fitzroy Barnaby is his name. Poor bastard from Illinois. He basically grabbed her and yelled at her and it became, "unlawful restraint of a minor" because the poor widdle princess was scared... after she'd almost gotten hit by not paying attention.
And what's even worse is that even if I thought he was doing something wrong, I wouldn't intervene. All the little darling has to do is say, "Well, he helped me, but he scared me, too." And I'm a sex offender for life as well.
How about we just save time and label all males sex offenders at birth? The minute a male child is born, they clean him up then do a baby mug shot, have him reporte in every six months and have his picture taken, address, etc. It will save so much time later.
Patrick at December 2, 2009 11:06 PM
By the way, Sio, I just read your second link. What kind of stupid law is "unlawful restraint of a minor"? Is it suddenly lawful to restrain legal adults?
Patrick at December 2, 2009 11:10 PM
IMO, its the same as unlawful restraint of an adult just specified (and prolly considered more heinous) as towards a minor.
The worst part was the appeals ruling which gets mentioned in that second link I think. The judge felt constrained by the law(statute) but IIRC, the reason he (barnaby) stayed on the offender list was that the judge had no proof his action wasn't that of a child predator. You see, restraint was defined as a precursor action of a molestor. Many if not most molestors restrained their prey so anyone who grabs a kid is viewed as a potential perv. Basically the law governing this was written far far too broadly all in the interests of protecting the children, as usual.
Sio at December 3, 2009 2:24 AM
I thought I was just being overly paranoid when these offender lists were being put into place. Even then, they reminded me of the lists in Nazi Germany. Sure there were Jews on those lists, but there were also anyone they felt was a threat.
It always starts with a list. And putting a label of child molester label on all those people, no matter what the actual crime was, just serves to enrage people.
I see more and more evidence of leaking into something sinister. It's not the Jews this time. Or blacks. Of the Native Americans. Or even women. I'm frightened for the white men.
Cat at December 3, 2009 5:38 AM
It's not just white men.
It's everyone who doesn't toe the line and get on board with the ruling class.
"Sexual Offender" is the new "Enemy of the State"
brian at December 3, 2009 5:54 AM
Sure there were Jews on those lists, but there were also anyone they felt was a threat.
I had an uncle that was in a concentration camp in Poland as a toddler. He was a polish Catholic. When it comes to genocide, the 'hated group' are just an excuse to start killing whomever gets in your way.
-Julie
JulieW at December 3, 2009 9:44 AM
In a posting on another blog recently I listed who the disfavored groups in America are today. These are the groups against whom it is not only legal, but also socially acceptable, to discriminate against. The top three on the list are fathers, white men, and Southerners. In certain parts of the country (California particularly), Asians (meaning Far East) are also on that list. In the education system, pre-teen boys are on the list. And among the left-wing intelligentsia, Jews have reappeared on the list in the last 7-8 years.
Cousin Dave at December 3, 2009 12:24 PM
Pardon my French, but who the fuck put the left-wing intelligentsia in charge of anything?
Crusader at December 3, 2009 3:11 PM
Do you vote for Democrats? If so, then you did.
brian at December 3, 2009 3:53 PM
In fact, both talking to kids and looking at them are felonies in the US. A couple years ago, a mother in California saw a man talk to her kids, the second time at a book reading. She called the cops and they arrested him on $100,000 bond for public presence of a child. They were in plain sight of the mother who clearly is totally insane.
And, one New England state passed a law within the last year making it a felony to LOOK at a child in a public place.
I do not wish to live any longer in a country that treats men that way. It is no coincidence that I am writing this from Mexico. Here, when I walk downtown, little girls run out for their forehead kiss while their mothers beam happily at the old North American who thinks their kids are wonderful.
irlandes at December 12, 2009 7:13 PM
Leave a comment