Judicial self-delusion on a global scale


“Britain’s worst paedophile,” we learned earlier this month, “who abused up to 200 Malaysian children and posted videos of his depraved acts online has been given 22 life sentences.”

The Daily Mail version of a news story splashed globally said “Richard Huckle, from Ashford in Kent, admitted an unprecedented number of offences against children aged between six months and 12 years from 2006 to 2014.”

The judge, Peter Rook QC, was quoted: “You had become consumed with paedophilia. Your life revolved around your obsession with your own sexual gratification”.

We heard that as Huckle, aged 30,  was taken down to the cells, a woman sitting in the public gallery yelled: “A thousand deaths is too good for you.”

The Mail’s Richard Spillett reported that Huckle had “masqueraded as a devout Christian, photographer and English teacher to prey on poor children in Kuala Lumpur over nine years.

A stream of pictures and videos of his rapes and assaults on children were shared with paedophiles worldwide through an encrypted website.”

Huckle, it was said,  committed offences in orphanages and care homes in Malaysia and Cambodia, including “rape and assault against up to 200 pre-pubescent children as young as six months old”.

Britain’s worst paedophile? If it were clear he had been violently raping infants I wouldn’t dispute the claim, especially if the guy had also been a sadistic child murderer. But this is surely not a scenario where a large penis has been rammed into a small orifice, and there is mercifully no need for post-mortems. There is no hint in the court reports that any of his acts were violent, coerced or physically injurious.

On the contrary, Richard Huckle appears to have been welcome in the communities of the South East Asian countries where he lived. He didn’t just ““masquerade” as an English teacher: he obviously was an English teacher; there is nothing to suggest he was a less than sincere Christian either.

We will come back later to the unfortunate Mr Huckle, after switching our focus to another recent news story from the same region, the Philippines. The Guardian’s main headline was “How child sexual abuse became a family business in the Philippines”, with a sub-heading “Tens of thousands of children believed to be victims of live-streaming abuse, some of it being carried out by their own parents”. The United Nations is reported as saying that in some areas, entire communities live off the business.

There is the usual hyperbolic bollocks about the scale of the money involved and talk of children being “made to perform around the clock” as though they are sweat shop slaves – places that are really abusive but which go unregulated because global corporations like GAP, Zara and Primark profit from them. Anyway, despite all the spin designed to create a false impression, this was a big story – literally so, as the Guardian’s account ran to well over 2,000 words.

Yet the tabloids ignored it. Why? Because it was complicated. It was nuanced. Unlike the Huckle case, this one could not be made to fit the simple Evil Monster narrative. But it is precisely in the detail and the nuance that the real significance of the story is to be discerned. So let’s look at that.

We are told an undercover agent infiltrated an impoverished village pretending to be a Filipina sex worker earning her living in Japan. It was cover that enabled her to become friendly with the villagers and their children without arousing suspicion. After discovering the kids were doing webcam sessions police raided the village. This was back in 2011. At least one family were caught with their pants down, and that’s more than a metaphor: three girls were naked on a bed while their mother was typing on a keyboard in the same room, where a live webcam feed on the computer screen showed the faces of three white men watching the action.

After the raid, the family was broken up: all six children were taken away from their home and into a “rescue centre”.

And this is where we get to the heart of the real story: the kids did not feel they had been “rescued” at all. Instead, they felt betrayed by the undercover agent they thought was a friend. While the mother was jailed thanks to having been caught red-handed, and still languishes in prison five years later, the children “proved unwilling to incriminate their parents”.

The police were quite candid. They said they thought the children would welcome the operation, only to discover they were very much mistaken. Referring to the oldest child, the undercover agent herself admitted the girl felt betrayed, saying  “I know that she is angry with me”.

At the “rescue” centre, the six children – three boys and three girls –  “appeared oblivious to the fact that they had been exploited”. The three-year-old, it was reported, continued to do “sexualised dancing” in front of other children. A psychologist said that the eldest child, a boy of 16, was in shock after the arrest, but not from the abuse: “He was quite traumatised by the rescue operation.”

The Guardian story continues:

The two younger daughters had no idea that the abuse was anything but normal. “They said it was a business in the neighbourhood. It seemed natural to be involved in this as the other children were doing it,” she said. Police found that it was the children who first heard about live-streaming as a money maker when playing with their friends.

While the children have flourished – on the wall are photos of them, the two eldest beaming while wearing graduation hats and gowns – they are still unable, five years later, to understand the crime…

…The social workers, doctors, police, legal team and psychologists working with the children initially assumed they were trying to protect their parents out of love. But it became apparent there were other reasons for them holding back, especially the eldest.

And in therapy sessions, the eldest boy said their lives had changed for the better since they started the “shows”: the family had more money, they could eat at the local fast food chain Jollibee, and their mother could stop working in a factory.

Slowly, what had happened became apparent. “They saw the neighbours making money. They suggested it to their parents,” the prosecutor said. And at 13, it was Nicole who spoke to the paedophiles online, not her mother.

There were even times when the children did it without their parents present, the prosecutor said.

Bearing in mind this active engagement of the children as free agents, it’s time to get back to Mr Huckle.

Based on the grooming theme, and on the so-called abuse of trust, James Traynor from the National Crime Agency said: “Richard Huckle spent several years integrating himself into the community in which he lived, making himself a trusted figure.”

Now the thing is, you don’t get to be integrated and trusted unless people know and like you, including the children. We are told that Huckle dreamed of marrying one of his victims so they could jointly become foster carers for children. That was never going to happen without the continuing support of the community and of a woman who wanted to marry him. It is not as though he was betraying anyone’s trust as a fraudster does, conning them out of their money and making life worse. He was not making life worse. In the children’s view he was making it better, and who can really argue with them? Well-heeled western do-gooders who have no idea how tough and limiting Third World poverty can be?

Looking at it realistically, it would also be naïve to assume he was deceiving anyone. You cannot betray trust if a community already knows what is going on, as is clearly the case in the Philippines where families are actively involved on a significant scale. Huckle claimed in his own defence that sexual involvement with children was “endemic” in the region. The judge brushed this aside as being no excuse, but he did not deny the fact of the matter; he preferred to turn a blind eye, but that is no reason for us to do so.

The judge was also scornful of a 60-page manual Huckle had written and planned to publish online called Paedophiles and Poverty: Child Love Guide, which is said to have been about how to select deprived victims and avoid detection. The judge described it as a “truly evil document”, saying “It speaks volumes about the scale of your self-delusion, describing your conduct as child love.”

As we have just seen, though, it was the judge, not the defendant, who set his face against the facts. He is the one deluding himself if he thinks that children’s sexual “innocence” is anything more than a self-serving myth concocted by those who seek to control them. He deludes himself, too, if he dismisses Kind people as necessarily unkind and incapable of loving children, especially when the evidence suggests, as in Richard Huckle’s case, that he was well liked by the kids and was well regarded in the communities where he lived and worked for many years.

Not that Heretic TOC is suggesting Huckle should be imitated. Absolutely the opposite. The message from the courts is loud and clear: do as he did and you will be crucified, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the matter. The sentence, after all, was savage. Decades, at least, will pass before this tragically-fated young man has any hope of release.

Nor should we ignore the fact that his “how to” guide was so excoriated by the court. One shudders to think what the judge would make of Heretic TOC’s heresies. There is a big difference, though: it looks possible that the Child Love Guide could well have been interpreted in some quarters as inciting its readers to break the law; and so, once it was published, that could have amounted to grounds for a criminal prosecution in itself. This site, by contrast, much as we wish to see radical changes in our culture and law, emphatically rejects the view that the present laws should be defied. Apologies for finishing on this dreary but necessary note.



Within sterling and the stock market plummeting and voices of alarm coming thick and fast from all around the planet, dawn had scarcely broken on the result of the Brexit referendum before the demos was thrown into doubt.

Suddenly the sovereign people’s distrust of the experts was turned on themselves, as they woke up to the awful possibility that they might have got it wrong. What a shame most of them hadn’t read Heretic TOC, where they would have learned that the people are always wrong!

Proof of the unpreparedness of many to make such a momentous and complicated decision was all too apparent, albeit too late: the most frequent Google search was the alarmingly basic question “What is the EU?” Many tweeted to say they hadn’t thought their vote would be all that important, what with so many other people voting! They had just wanted to tell the politicians they were fed up. It hadn’t occurred to them they might actually win, and now they regretted it!

This Buyer’s Remorse, or Regrexit as it was quickly dubbed, even appeared to be shared by politicians leading the Leave campaign. Instead of simply obeying the will of the people and getting on with getting out, the ruling elite on both sides of the great debate are effectively saying hang on a minute (or a few years), let’s not be hasty. Maybe we can fudge things a bit (or a lot) so that we can somehow keep free access to the EU market while also quietly ditching our promise to the people that immigration would be controlled. Plus ça change…



Should we stay or should we go?



“The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That’s one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population – the intelligent ones or the fools?”  – Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People

Do you REMAIN confused, or does the Brexit decision LEAVE no room for doubt?

We British heretics may or may not have it all sorted before referendum day in a week’s time on Thursday 23 June, but should we really care? Why bother even turning up to vote in this rare exercise of true democracy, bearing in mind that it’s not going to liberate children or launch a Kind revolution? Sure, this vote makes a change from the usual sham democracy in which the big issues are decided by professional politicians at the behest of media moguls, corporate lobbying, and noisy, self-promoting, porky-peddling humbugs.

On the other hand, is democracy all that great? After all, a considerable proportion of the populace are ignorant idiots. The demos is swayed by demagogues. The people are always wrong. They have no idea how to evaluate complex evidence and arguments; they care only about their own interests and those of others like them, voting along race, class or other identity lines rather than putting the general good of the whole nation first.

Every thinking person has understood all this, from Plato (channelling Socrates) to modern times. Even the early leaders of that supposedly great democracy the United States of America were no big fans. It was John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, who spoke of democracy’s tendency to degenerate into “the tyranny of the majority”, a criticism later endorsed by Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, and John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty. But I doubt the concept could be more vividly explained than by the economist John T. Wenders, who said in relatively recent times that “Democracy is two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

As for the Kind franchise, we are probably outvoted more like a hundred to one, and the coyotes are not interested in our suffrage; they are just happy to see us suffer.

Nevertheless, the Brexit vote is a genuinely Big Deal. It is going to decide loads and loads of really important stuff, with a potentially major impact not just on the British economy but also the European one and even global prospects for growth in the next few years – just look at the wobbles and panics caused by Brexit’s predecessor Grexit, even though it didn’t actually happen because the Greeks got cold feet.

And economic prosperity is not even the biggest issue. It is also about the importance of national sovereignty (and, yes, democracy) versus claims that peace and security, plus international cooperation on such vital matters as climate change and tax havens are better handled at the European level. Also, while the European Convention on Human Rights is not formally an EU matter, commitment to the fundamental rights in question is distinctly an issue that separates the leavers from the remainers – as does signing up to the  social and economic rights set out in the European Social Charter, which covers employment standards relating to working hours, equal pay, disability, trade union membership and much more.

Take Back Control is the mantra of the Brexiteers. To those in business, especially buccaneering types of the less scrupulous sort, it means cutting out “red tape”, which actually translates into trashing the Social Charter safeguards. But the working public who stand to benefit from regulations – which are vitally important to us all as consumers, too, when it comes to such matters as product reliability and safety – hardly seem to notice the threat of their removal. That’s because Take Back Control is sold to them as being about stopping the foreigners coming in – a message that must sound particularly appealing if you don’t have much in the way of skills or education, and fear being outcompeted in the labour market. With so much concern over immigration, not all of it unwarranted, Brexit looks a very real possibility.

By comparison, Prime Minister David Cameron’s slogan for Remain sounds clunky and unconvincing: Stronger, Safer, Better Off. A sustained blast of Project Fear statistics and expert opinion on the dire consequences of leaving the EU, including the strong advice of President Obama, seem to have cut little ice, and the positive case for continued membership has been muted.

The campaigning on both sides, though, has been outrageous, making the whole shebang look like a talent show for who can tell the most floridly blatant lies. We already have Would I Lie To You? on the BBC but it is all about telling improbable fictions in a cleverly plausible way. The referendum carnival of fools, by contrast, is more Britain’s Got Liars, where the contestants score highly – or hope to – for being even more stridently and stupidly implausible than their opponents.

What seems to have happened is that genuinely intelligent figures on both sides, not least the famously erudite Boris Johnson leading the Brexit charge, have dumbed down their rhetoric to chase the enormous Ignorant vote, in the hope that the Ignorant (especially the Ignorant and Stupid) will believe anything if you shout it loudly, often and preferably in spectacular fashion – a tendency that must surely have reached its high tide, so to speak, in a “naval battle” yesterday on the River Thames in London, when a substantial fleet of Brexiteer vessels was outgunned by a cunning Remain volley of extremely loud soundbites from pop star Bob Geldof. His side had fewer boats, and they were much smaller, but honorary Sir Bob knows a thing or two about blasting out noise with megawatt electronic systems. All in all, quite possibly the best maritime entertainment for us Brits since the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588!

Dazzled by the apparent triumph of showmanship over substance, we might easily conclude that the country has gone to the dogs and we would be better off emigrating. Well, there’s a case for that, and I’ll come to it.

Oddly, though, I have been quite impressed by the overall standard of debate, and I find myself deeply engaged in the arguments rather than alienated. Daft claims have been made on both sides, but they have also been challenged and rebutted in the course of this long campaign, not just by the leaders in head-to-head debate but also in direct engagement with the public in televised question and answer sessions, some of which have allowed the public to pursue their own particular issue with supplementary questions after the initial response. So we have heard from employees  and entrepreneurs with a wide range of skills and trades, from every quarter of the UK.

In my humble opinion – and this time I really do mean humble, not scornfully elitist – their contribution has been brilliant. They have probed the competing lines of argument sceptically and skilfully, bringing to the table all manner of local and expert knowledge. As such, it has been a great advertisement for democracy. Of course, these studio-audience affairs are very stage-managed. Vox pop soundings taken in the nation’s pubs and market squares among random unprepared potential voters tend to revive one’s doubts that the public at large are really up to making such a big decision. But take it they will. For those who like democracy, this has the great merit that for better or worse the electorate will own the choice they have made, and may become more engaged with public affairs in future as a result. Even those of us who continue to worry about the downside of the universal franchise must admit that it is probably here to stay, so it makes sense for us, too, to hope for a more participating and better educated populace.

I have not yet indicated which way I will be voting, and I do not intend to. Some may think it is implied in what I have said above, which is OK by me. But why would my choice be of any interest? While I feel I can claim some expertise on Kind issues, my knowledge of economics, and of what goes on in Brussels and Strasburg, is relatively slim. So your guess is as good as mine, or maybe better.

One could, I suppose, take a specifically Kind point of view, focusing on the future for children in or out of Europe. What sort of attitudes and education would they be exposed to in a Brexiteer-led, “independent” Britain? That sort of thing. We could also bring the future for Kinds into our purview. Would a separate Britain be even less tolerant? Should we worry that even our most basic human rights, to life and freedom, would be under threat?

Again, I think heretics here can speculate on these matters as well as I.

But there is one issue, free movement within the EU, that affects those of us who are on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR). A few words of comment may be in order on this as I have some relevant personal experience and have done a bit of digging too.

The general debate has of course focused on how to limit immigration, a debate influenced enormously by the massive recent influx of refugees and economic migrants crossing the Mediterranean into the EU from the Middle East and North Africa, bringing with it the fear of importing foreign criminals, including jihadis and sex offenders of the type seen in Cologne: men under the impression that white girls are sluts and who treat them accordingly.

If Brexit Britain takes extra measures to pull up the drawbridge against such people – which in itself is a perfectly reasonable objective – it would hardly be surprising if the EU were to reciprocate, clamping down on SOR people.

As I know from what happened to me last year when I went to the Netherlands and France, information is passed about those on SOR to the EU border authorities. I have to notify the police a week in advance of foreign travel and these days when you book a flight you have to give your passport details. So when I arrived at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, it was obvious they knew who I was: I was taken aside and asked a good many questions about my purpose of visit and schedule before they eventually let me in.

Could they have stopped me entering the Netherlands under the present rules? As I understand it, under the Schengen Information System (SIS) rules, to which the UK is a party even though we are not part of the Schengen free travel area, border control officers can only detain (for up to three hours) those thought to pose a high risk and when there might be grounds for an arrest. That is why, under those same security rules, Britain only stopped the very small figure of around a thousand individuals (according to former Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC2’s focus on immigration) coming in from the EU last year. Bear in mind that there were around 20 million visitors from the EU in this period. It seems I was checked under Article 36(2) after an alert put out by the British police for “ViSOR nominals”.

But if we come out of the EU, this relatively sparing approach is sure to change. Instead of a few minutes’ worth of questioning (which I also faced when leaving France, on the French side, to return to Britain), there will be the much greater likelihood of new rules coming in, such that one could be turned back to the UK at the EU border. So, it could become a really SOR point. Maybe some of us would be better off emigrating. But where to?

A grim dispatch from the Eastern Front


Believe it or not, things could be even worse, as today’s guest blogger Cyril Eugenovich Galaburda amply demonstrates with reference to the fate of those damned as paedophiles in Russia. Cyril is a physics graduate in his early thirties with advanced knowledge of plasma physics and IT; he has also undertaken postgraduate studies in psychology. From Ukraine, he speaks Russian and English as well as his own native language and has completed a number of ambitious translations into Russian, including the Rind et al. 1998 meta-analysis, Bertrand Russell’s Proposed Roads To Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism and my own Paedophilia: The Radical Case. I am flattered to find my work in such illustrious company! Cyril’s piece here has been somewhat re-written and condensed, with permission, from the author’s original online version in English.



Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind,.. and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations… The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law… whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds…

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (I), 11 December 1946

Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.

Jack Nusan Porter, 1982


What the Nazis did to the Jews is accepted as abhorrent. Not just the ultimate evil, the Holocaust, in which millions perished, but also its prelude: the burning of Jewish scriptures, the trashing of Jewish businesses, the imposed wearing of  the Star of David, the confinement in ghettos, the slave labour camps and all manner of brutal, degrading and humiliating treatment to which the Jews were systematically subjected, are considered crimes against humanity.

Yet similar treatment of paedophiles finds widespread support. Paedophiles are ruthlessly shut out of mainstream public discourse; denied a voice in the media, they are likewise shunned by publishers and kept off speaking platforms. They face discrimination in employment and housing; public proscription lists of child-lovers guarantee they and their homes will be targeted for hostilities; forced out, and kept homeless by oppressive zoning restrictions, they are made to live like vagrants, exposed to the elements and to further violence; they may be imprisoned for decades or for life, facing abuse and attack, often on a daily basis ; they may be subject to regimes of deliberate psychological abuse and chemical castration. Those who have themselves killed no one may even be killed.

In this article you will learn how to die in Russian-speaking countries.


The Final Solution to the Paedophile Question

I read a terrible anonymous story on an internet forum. The author seems to be a physician:

“My child’s godmother’s friend has a daughter. She was four years old. It was an ordinary evening. The woman wanted the girl to go to bed, and bathed her first. When she was washing the girl’s genitals she noticed that the child was reacting in a weird way: rolling her eyes, trying to trap the mother’s hand between the top of her thighs. If the girl had said nothing, nobody would have found out. But when the mother removed her hand the girl demanded imperiously: “I want more!” Responding to her mother’s silent perplexity, the child said: “Ms So-and-So always does it.” She was referring to a 25-year-old on the kindergarten staff. Nobody went to the police. The girl’s father solved the problem by himself, once and for all. In the gangsters’ manner.”

Only a stupid beast can consider pleasure to be a “problem” worthy of taking a woman’s life. Throughout my childhood my mother yelled at me, beat me, threw me on a floor, kicked me, spat at me, outraged me, and trespassed into my private life, and nobody will punish my mother for it. But the kindergarten worker from the story was kind and tender towards that girl. But all mankind thinks what she did deserves bloodshed. Why?


The Superior Race and the Superior Sexual Orientation

Russia idolizes Alexander Kuznetsoff of St. Petersburg, a giant of a man, a champion boxer jailed three times for drugs offences (marihuana and heroin). On New Year’s Eve at the end of 2007 he killed a young man, a 20-year-old Uzbek. All who had known the victim, Bakhtischod Khajrilaeff, spoke of him as a kind and polite person. But the murderer claimed he had sexually assaulted Kuznetsoff’s eight-year-old stepson.

The murderer said he had been looking for his lost stepson for an hour, but the police said it would have taken two or three hours. The murderer says he noticed the child’s pants in his porch but the police did not find any pants. The murderer says that he found his stepson naked on the porch floor, that Khajrilaeff had his trousers lowered, that he had beaten the Uzbek till the police came.  But the police found all of them with their clothes on.

Nobody saw the murderer looking for his stepson. The child had not been raped; but he had been beaten and bitten. By whom? Two weeks later, when the child was questioned, he said the slaughtered Khajrilaeff had done it. Russians praised the murderer. He was in demand for interviews and autographs. Money was raised to help him.

It is so easy to become a hero: all you need to do is kill someone from an ethnic minority, call him a paedophile and make a child confirm the story. (In Russian law the parents must be present when a child is interrogated.) The craziest thing is that the murderer Kuznetsoff was declared a victim!

“The sole criterion needed for a valid self-defence is proportionality between the means used in order to perpetrate the crime and the means used to defend against it,” the murderer’s lawyer said. But Kuznetsoff had suffered “a deep psychological trauma”. This made him “unable to judge a proportionate response”. This had to be taken into account.

The “traumatized” murderer was sentenced to a term of only two and a half years and was released ahead of time in 2010 after giving a written undertaking not to leave his home. It is suspicious that neither his mistress nor the boy he “saved” were there to welcome Kuznetsoff from imprisonment. Now he is free to kill more Uzbeks by branding them paedophiles.

A journalist put out a smear story against Khajrilaeff, saying he was a pervert who had to flee to another city to escape retribution. The basis for this? As a 14-year-old he had allegedly been seen looking at the genitals of some 11-year-old boys. Hardly a compelling case. But, in any event,  those who had known the murdered man did not believe he had been a paedophile, nor did his relatives. The Khajrilaeffs think he had been murdered in the course of a robbery: his phone, gold chain, camera and video camera, and all his documents were stolen. It is also known that Kuznetsoff had served a three-year prison term in 1994 for robbing a taxi driver. That time he could not blame his victim for paedophilia.

Kuznetsoff is not the only murderer who has tried to justify himself by turning the blame onto a “paedophile”. Another is paratrooper Alexis Buriloff, who killed a man with a few blows to the head. Now the murderer is crying foul because he is faced with a prison sentence under high security, even though it is only a  mere two and a half years – hardly excessive for taking a life! He and his mother are trying to convince everyone that Mr. Buriloff did the deed to protect his little niece from a man who – allegedly – tried to rape and murder her.

The public prosecutor’s representative seems not to believe the murderer’s version: she is appealing against the court’s lenient sentence. But the online reaction of fundamentalists with allegiance to the Russian Orthodox Church goes totally the other way. Here is one such comment:

High security imprisonment!? For sure, the judge has a touch of Jewish blood and gave a sentence aimed at oppressing Russians. Or some relatives bribed her. Actually the paratrooper did not kill, just punched a couple of times. He is not to blame that the weakling did not survive. It is dangerous now to trouble weaklings… Among Jewish scum there are a lot of weaklings. That is how Jewish genes work.

Actually, it is by no means certain the murder victim was Jewish, but Russians respect paratroopers so much that any legal procedure is considered to be a conspiracy against “real Russian men”. Acquitting murderers is demanded for the “protection” of children from Asian perverts. Intolerance towards paedophiles justifies racialist attacks.

The summit of this antisemito-paedophobia was the killing of a foreign pseudo-paedophile in Kharkov. In Russian-speaking countries it is trendy now among neo-Nazis to hunt paedophiles. There are such activists in my city too. They use internet chat to lure a child-lover with the chance to meet a child. A rendezvous is agreed. When the child-lover turns up he will be confronted, filmed and humiliated. Urine will be poured over him; he will be beaten.

In Kharkov a 24-year-old student from Jordan was even killed. Lured by the “paedophile-hunters”, he tried to date a 17-year-old girl. The student cannot be considered a paedophile for this. But living in Ukraine I know that some dislike Arabian immigrants simply for being “lustful”, and for taking “our” girls…

In February, some Kharkov inhabitants saw a bunch of thugs beating the student mercilessly. The witnesses called police but the victim was dead. One of the witnesses tried to stop the murderers but they threatened the passer-by and showed him the victim’s “paedophilic” correspondence.

An 18-year-old called Artemes has confessed. A friend told the press that the Jordanian student had not been the first victim. But he praised his pal:

“Artemes is a good guy! It served that paedophile right! I hope Artemes will be acquitted.”

The victim died from displacement of the diaphragm when Artemes trod on his spine and yanked the student’s hands.


The Third Degree

A couple years ago I was in hospital with a policeman. He bragged about how he had tortured a “paedophile” by leaving him hanging by his hands.

An award-winning musician, accordionist Ingvar Zavadsky,  was accused of having overly friendly relations with boys. He says he had his testicles squashed during an interrogation. It is  considered commonplace for the police to hit peoples’ heads with heavy books, break their fingers with a door, use electrical current or just beat detainees black and blue. These are regarded sincerely as “acts of humanity”, necessary to prevent dangerous criminals from getting away with their crimes.

Sometimes police “humanity” goes too far.

On the 19th of November 2014, in Ekaterinburg, 33-year-old Sergio Yegoroff, suspected of intimacy with an eight-year-old boy, hanged himself in the investigatory jail. According to Sverdlovsk Committee of Inquiry “criminal negligence led to the situation in which the accused committed suicide” but there was “no evidence that the death has features of crime”.

Nevertheless, lawyer Ivan Volkoff, engaged by Yegoroff’s mother, has contrary information:

“In order to arrest him the Criminal Investigation Department workers feigned a traffic accident as a reason to detain Yegoroff. They had had no testimony from the child, but used a blurred video and tortured him, beating statements out of him.”

Yegoroff’s mother says that at the time the crime was supposed to have taken place, her son was at work, as could be corroborated from three security cameras (two in the street, one into his workplace).

“He was found”, the mother says, “scratched, with bruises and his eye beaten out. For sure, he didn’t kill himself…

“As I got to know later, he had been tortured for 24 hours. He had been beaten and threatened with a gun. Their lawyer, Mr. Vinogradoff, phoned me and wanted me to bring him 150,000 roubles because my son had been caught red-handed and would be imprisoned for 20 years.”

The jail administration has said that on the day in question  there were twelve people with Yegoroff in the cage, so it was impossible to hang oneself without being noticed.


The Minotaurs In The Maze

The state’s persecution of child-lovers is no less appalling than that of the amateur thugs. You can go to prison just for kissing a willing child’s backside. Then in prison you will be branded a “sex offender” and everyone will assume you rape kids.

Everyone knows that child-lovers are systematically exploited, beaten and raped by the other prisoners. And that means really raped. You will be held by two men and a third will pull you down. You may have your teeth beaten out to satisfy your oppressors in a French way. From this moment to speak with you is to be persecuted equally with you. You will eat and walk apart from the others. You will be made to clean toilets on pain of death. Nobody will care that you never treated children in the way you are treated by your cellmates.

The journalist and criminologist Alexander Kutschinky writes that child-lovers rarely survive before being transported from an investigatory jail to a penal colony. Then they are packed into prison buses so tightly they die during the journey; these fatalities are explained as “heart attacks”.

Also in Russia a paedophile was butchered by prisoners atrociously: beaten to a pulp and a huge stick thrust into his anus. His relatives (what must they have felt!) saw that his eye had been beaten out.

A news announcer even appeared to condone what had happened, wrapping up his description of the case with these words of crass complicity:

“The way you treat people, that’s how you can expect them to treat you.”

But the murder victim had killed no one, nor had he been violent. He was not getting his  “just deserts”. Paedophile-haters lie and live in their lie. Paedophile-haters kill but do not call themselves killers. That’s how it is in Russia.



T. O’C. adds: Cyril has also written an English-language page about an extraordinary episode seemingly far removed from the brutally violent horrors described above, but which is nevertheless also indicative of what is going on in Russia. This concerns a storm whipped up over forensic criminologist Professor Gennadium Derjagin’s allegedly scandalous views and writings on paedophilia.

Here is an edited taster paragraph:

Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) had to make excuses for the scandal concerned with the publication of a course of lectures, “Criminal Sexology”, by the Head of Subfaculty of Forensic Medicine and Law in Severny State Medical University, Gennadium Derjagin. Bloggers found out that this textbook had propagandized paedophilia as a normal and natural phenomenon and that the book would be studied by future police officers. Out of hand, the MIA gave an assurance that the course had not yet been mounted for the students of Moscow MIA University and that the author no longer worked there, according to ITAR-TASS.

%d bloggers like this: