Full Version: Gary Glitter - Child Rapist
There have been many threads decrying the court system’s sentences for child abuse/molestation. I read this story over the weekend, and was thoroughly disgusted as another creepy old man travels to Southeast Asia to more easily indulge his perversion.
Gary Glitter, mostly known for his Rock n Roll (Part 2), a staple song at sporting events, was convicted of having child pornography in England in 1999, but only served a couple of months in jail. Now he has been arrested in Vietnam for molesting two young girls.
First of all, it sickens me that these lowlife scum have care nothing about taking advantage of little girls in poor countries in Southeast Asia (and from what I've read, it isn't the first time-he's banned permanently from Cambodia). Second, giving a paltry $2,000 (while probably seen as a fortune in Vietnam) to the families of the girls he abused is an insulting gesture.
Abhorrent situation all around, but the question I have is about Glitter’s situation in particular. I assume, since every time an artist’s song is played, they collect royalties, that the sporting organizations that use Glitter’s Rock n Roll (Part 2) must be paying him for the use of the song.
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Gary Glitter, mostly known for his Rock n Roll (Part 2), a staple song at sporting events, was convicted of having child pornography in England in 1999, but only served a couple of months in jail. Now he has been arrested in Vietnam for molesting two young girls.
QUOTE
According to the indictment, during his time living in Vung Tau City, Glitter hired a house at No 38 Tran Phu Street and sexually abused several young women there, including Tran Thi Thu D, 12, and Tran Thi Thao N, 13. The singer has already paid each victim US$2,000 in settlements. Vietnam News
First of all, it sickens me that these lowlife scum have care nothing about taking advantage of little girls in poor countries in Southeast Asia (and from what I've read, it isn't the first time-he's banned permanently from Cambodia). Second, giving a paltry $2,000 (while probably seen as a fortune in Vietnam) to the families of the girls he abused is an insulting gesture.
Abhorrent situation all around, but the question I have is about Glitter’s situation in particular. I assume, since every time an artist’s song is played, they collect royalties, that the sporting organizations that use Glitter’s Rock n Roll (Part 2) must be paying him for the use of the song.
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
I can understand why people would not want to associate themselves with a work of art from such a person, for strictly practical reasons (i.e. the money they would lose from offended customers), but I do not believe that this is ethically necessary. One honors the work, not the flawed human being who created it. As a random example, I'll defend the story Fear as a classic of horror fiction, but that doesn't mean that I approve in any way of the human being who wrote it, and who went on to cause great harm to many people -- a certain L. Ron Hubbard. I would certainly defend your right to boycott any company which associated itself with the work of such a person, but I would not join such a boycott.
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Yes. While it may sound possible to seperate the music from the criminal, the fact is that famous perverts like Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson use their money from their music to lure young children into the bedroom by buying the families off. Worse yet, when these perverts get caught, they buy the justice system off. The best way to help prevent famous perverts from committing their despicable deeds is for the public to pull the plug and not buy their records.
Yes. While it may sound possible to seperate the music from the criminal, the fact is that famous perverts like Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson use their money from their music to lure young children into the bedroom by buying the families off. Worse yet, when these perverts get caught, they buy the justice system off. The best way to help prevent famous perverts from committing their despicable deeds is for the public to pull the plug and not buy their records.
First off, while not wishing to defend Paul Gadd (Garry Glitter's real name, and one without the scatological rhymeing slang connections that prevent me from typing his stage name, or the type of of local authority road vehicles designed to spread rock salt onto roads in icy conditions, with a straight face 
) in any way whatsoever, the Vietnamese culture of justice sees payments, such as those made in this case, as necessary reparations and an admission of guilt.
In effect, they are the Vietnamese equivalent of plea bargaining - in return for being charged with a lesser sentence (one which doesn't have the death penalty attached, more's the pity), Gadd pleads guilty and pays some form of compensation to the famiies of his victims, rather than informing on someone else (which would have much the same effect - lesser charges - in the US justice system). It's also worth mentioning that, despite the fact that Gadd could easily afford 100 times as much, the £1000 he's paying is roughly a year's earnings for each of the two families involved.
It's not so much that Gadd gets a lesser sentence if he pays off the family, more that he ONLY gets a lesser sentence if he pays off the family.
That said, personally I think that if the result of this is that Western paedophiles can buy themselves out of trouble with the equivalent of roughly a month's average take-home pay for every child sexual assault they commit, then the Vietnamese culture of justice needs a rocket up it.
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Well, yes and no. No, they shouldn't stop using a piece of music because thirty years or more after it was recorded the originators (be they the recording artists, writers, producers, or anyone else) were convicted of child rape, or anything else (though so far, Gadd has only actually been convicted of the relatively minor possession of child porn; the court case hasn't finished over the assaults he's been charged with and, effectively, admitted).
Should we, for example, stop all use of any Phil Spector records if he's found guilty of the murder he's suspected of? Murder is still, after all, still considered the worst crime of all - even worse than child rape.
However, if you'd asked if there should be a review of the Performers' Rights rules to stop convicted felons benefitting from the royalties of their work while serving their sentences - well, THEN, I'd be right alongside you.
Perhaps the monies could be put into escrow if their are any criminal appeals, so they can still get their money if they are wrongly convicted, but if the appeals fail, or they do not appeal (perhaps by pleading guilty, like Gadd), maybe all the royalties should go to charities that support the victims of their type of crime for the duration of their sentence?
If I were heading the PRS, I'd be suggesting something like this as a voluntary code before some Neanderthal-browed tabloid editor stirs this into a "Music Industry Supports Kiddie Fiddlers" campaign and prods governments into a quick PR win.
) in any way whatsoever, the Vietnamese culture of justice sees payments, such as those made in this case, as necessary reparations and an admission of guilt. In effect, they are the Vietnamese equivalent of plea bargaining - in return for being charged with a lesser sentence (one which doesn't have the death penalty attached, more's the pity), Gadd pleads guilty and pays some form of compensation to the famiies of his victims, rather than informing on someone else (which would have much the same effect - lesser charges - in the US justice system). It's also worth mentioning that, despite the fact that Gadd could easily afford 100 times as much, the £1000 he's paying is roughly a year's earnings for each of the two families involved.
It's not so much that Gadd gets a lesser sentence if he pays off the family, more that he ONLY gets a lesser sentence if he pays off the family.
That said, personally I think that if the result of this is that Western paedophiles can buy themselves out of trouble with the equivalent of roughly a month's average take-home pay for every child sexual assault they commit, then the Vietnamese culture of justice needs a rocket up it.
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Well, yes and no. No, they shouldn't stop using a piece of music because thirty years or more after it was recorded the originators (be they the recording artists, writers, producers, or anyone else) were convicted of child rape, or anything else (though so far, Gadd has only actually been convicted of the relatively minor possession of child porn; the court case hasn't finished over the assaults he's been charged with and, effectively, admitted).
Should we, for example, stop all use of any Phil Spector records if he's found guilty of the murder he's suspected of? Murder is still, after all, still considered the worst crime of all - even worse than child rape.
However, if you'd asked if there should be a review of the Performers' Rights rules to stop convicted felons benefitting from the royalties of their work while serving their sentences - well, THEN, I'd be right alongside you.
Perhaps the monies could be put into escrow if their are any criminal appeals, so they can still get their money if they are wrongly convicted, but if the appeals fail, or they do not appeal (perhaps by pleading guilty, like Gadd), maybe all the royalties should go to charities that support the victims of their type of crime for the duration of their sentence?
If I were heading the PRS, I'd be suggesting something like this as a voluntary code before some Neanderthal-browed tabloid editor stirs this into a "Music Industry Supports Kiddie Fiddlers" campaign and prods governments into a quick PR win.
QUOTE(Julian)
However, if you'd asked if there should be a review of the Performers' Rights rules to stop convicted felons benefitting from the royalties of their work while serving their sentences - well, THEN, I'd be right alongside you.
Julian, this would have been a far better question. I should have consulted with you before posting the topic.
As Victoria Silverwolf so eloquently pointed out:
QUOTE
One honors the work, not the flawed human being who created it.
She's right. What galls me (aside from the fact that he was only moderately talented to begin with) is that the money he earns from his work allows him the wherewithal to afford to travel where it is easier to find young prey for his deviant sexual appetites. I would venture to say if he didn't receive royalties from his past work, he'd be just another creepy, sad old pervert down on his uppers living in a dive, unable to travel to other countries to victimize their children. As it should be (IMHO).
May I suggest another question:
Gary G. is presumably a "citizen" and/or "subject" of some dominion, so why is not that authority taking the appropriate CRIMINAL action?
And if they don't have a law on the books, they need to have the same. The authority could start with entry of the necessary and appropriate findings, and in our case, include something about the negative and substantial effect on interstate commerce, our obligations pursuant to our promise to adhere to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the same has been evidenced by our signatory execution [as it were] of that Convention, and so on and so forth.
Or better yet, we amend the US Constitution to give Congress extra/increased/super power[s] in this regard. More specifically, we put something in about how in circumstances, instances, or matters involving citizens of the US, Congress has the power to criminalize the sexual abuse of minor children wherever such abuse occurs. If that widens the net such that those with dual citizenship who don't live here in the US are subject to the same, well, too bad, US citizenship comes with a price [we have both rights and responsiblities (the two sides of that singular coin)]. Such persons can otherwise live with that reality or renounce their US citizenship.
We also add something in about how Congress has the power to criminalize the act, any act, of any person, which aids, abets, facilitates, supports, etc., the commission of the offense of sexual abuse of a minor child, so long as such act occurs within the jurisdiction of the US [i.e., you're a subject of the Queen, will be visiting in the US for six months, but then will be traveling to Thailand to molest little girls and/or boys, and while here for six months you mail a letter via the US Postal Service that aids, abets, etc., the sexual abuse of the minor child[ren] in Thailand]. We also add in the companion provision which focuses less on where the act occurred and more the instrumentality or means, i.e., if one uses any instrumentality of the US, or of any state, territorial, etc., government, to aid, abet, facilitate, support, the commission of the offense of sexual abuse of a minor child, one can be prosecuted in the US, and so too with respect to the use of any instrumentality of any artificial person owing its legal existence to the law of any state, territory, or other locality subject to and/or within the jurisdiction of the US [so if you're working for a US company [a Delaware incorp.] in Mongolia and you use its' telephones to arrange a molest, you can be prosecuted by the US attorney general in federal court, and without regard to any other matter].
And we also add in some other necessary provisions, to wit, the courts of the federal, state, territorial, etc., governments shall give full faith and credit to any criminal conviction for sexual abuse of a minor child by an alien/foreign tribunal, with the only exception being where the convicted person shows, upon clear and convincing evidence, that such conviction did not comport with notions of due process of law [i.e., was the conviction the result of a fundamentally fair process]. And Congress shall have the further power to classify the sexual abuse of a minor child as a "racketeering activity" and a "pattern of racketeering activity", regardless of the frequency or number of such acts of sexual abuse [see 18 USC 1961]. And Congress shall have the further power to classify any person, whether acting singly or in concert, as an "enterprise" subject to operation of the federal Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act [again, see 18 USC 1961]. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1964© to provide victim's of child sexual abuse with a private right of action for injury to person against any person liable and/or responsible for such abuse, so long as such person was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor child in any federal, state, territorial, etc., court, or when any court of the US would otherwise be required to give full faith and credit to a judgment of conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1964(d) so that such is consistent with the noted provision requiring that full faith and credit be given to alien/foreign jugments of conviction for sexual abuse of a minor child, and that such estoppel can be raised by the victim of sexual abuse.
And Congress shall have the further power to pass legislation creating a fund for the rehabilitation and/or treatment of minor child who were sexually abused and to that end shall have authority to pass further legislation forfeiting the income, royalty, and/or wages of any person convicted of sexually abusing a minor child. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1963 so that the same is consistent with any such legislation as described immediately above.
And the Executive shall have the power, in her or his sole discretion, to take whatever measures are deemed advisable or necessary to apprehend for further prosecution in the appropriate federal court any person who has been indicted and/or charged, for and/or with, the sexual abuse of a minor child. Such power shall include the power to disregard the obligations of the US as undertaken by signatory execution of any convention, treaty, or the like, and shall also include, upon notice to Congress, the power to call into action the armed forces of the US. The Executive shall further have the power to assess, as against the treasury of the US, the sum of one-half of one percent of all tax revunue received during and/or for the immediately preceding tax year, with such assessment to be for the purpose of the provision of those measures deemed advisable or necessary to apprehend for further prosecution in the appropriate federal court any person who has been indicted and/or charged, for and/or with, the sexual abuse of a minor child.
And, lastly, to answer your question, one would think that the NFL would consider your request. I mean, if the NBA is now going to have a dress code in order to preserve, resurrect, whatever, its public image, then "banning" the work of a child molester isn't such a stretch.
Edited again to add:
For RICO, please see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...10_I_20_96.html
More importantly, for the rebuttal to the claim that possession of child porn is "minor", "trivial" or what have you, courtesy of our friends at the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm
Gary G. is presumably a "citizen" and/or "subject" of some dominion, so why is not that authority taking the appropriate CRIMINAL action?
And if they don't have a law on the books, they need to have the same. The authority could start with entry of the necessary and appropriate findings, and in our case, include something about the negative and substantial effect on interstate commerce, our obligations pursuant to our promise to adhere to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the same has been evidenced by our signatory execution [as it were] of that Convention, and so on and so forth.
Or better yet, we amend the US Constitution to give Congress extra/increased/super power[s] in this regard. More specifically, we put something in about how in circumstances, instances, or matters involving citizens of the US, Congress has the power to criminalize the sexual abuse of minor children wherever such abuse occurs. If that widens the net such that those with dual citizenship who don't live here in the US are subject to the same, well, too bad, US citizenship comes with a price [we have both rights and responsiblities (the two sides of that singular coin)]. Such persons can otherwise live with that reality or renounce their US citizenship.
We also add something in about how Congress has the power to criminalize the act, any act, of any person, which aids, abets, facilitates, supports, etc., the commission of the offense of sexual abuse of a minor child, so long as such act occurs within the jurisdiction of the US [i.e., you're a subject of the Queen, will be visiting in the US for six months, but then will be traveling to Thailand to molest little girls and/or boys, and while here for six months you mail a letter via the US Postal Service that aids, abets, etc., the sexual abuse of the minor child[ren] in Thailand]. We also add in the companion provision which focuses less on where the act occurred and more the instrumentality or means, i.e., if one uses any instrumentality of the US, or of any state, territorial, etc., government, to aid, abet, facilitate, support, the commission of the offense of sexual abuse of a minor child, one can be prosecuted in the US, and so too with respect to the use of any instrumentality of any artificial person owing its legal existence to the law of any state, territory, or other locality subject to and/or within the jurisdiction of the US [so if you're working for a US company [a Delaware incorp.] in Mongolia and you use its' telephones to arrange a molest, you can be prosecuted by the US attorney general in federal court, and without regard to any other matter].
And we also add in some other necessary provisions, to wit, the courts of the federal, state, territorial, etc., governments shall give full faith and credit to any criminal conviction for sexual abuse of a minor child by an alien/foreign tribunal, with the only exception being where the convicted person shows, upon clear and convincing evidence, that such conviction did not comport with notions of due process of law [i.e., was the conviction the result of a fundamentally fair process]. And Congress shall have the further power to classify the sexual abuse of a minor child as a "racketeering activity" and a "pattern of racketeering activity", regardless of the frequency or number of such acts of sexual abuse [see 18 USC 1961]. And Congress shall have the further power to classify any person, whether acting singly or in concert, as an "enterprise" subject to operation of the federal Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act [again, see 18 USC 1961]. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1964© to provide victim's of child sexual abuse with a private right of action for injury to person against any person liable and/or responsible for such abuse, so long as such person was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor child in any federal, state, territorial, etc., court, or when any court of the US would otherwise be required to give full faith and credit to a judgment of conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1964(d) so that such is consistent with the noted provision requiring that full faith and credit be given to alien/foreign jugments of conviction for sexual abuse of a minor child, and that such estoppel can be raised by the victim of sexual abuse.
And Congress shall have the further power to pass legislation creating a fund for the rehabilitation and/or treatment of minor child who were sexually abused and to that end shall have authority to pass further legislation forfeiting the income, royalty, and/or wages of any person convicted of sexually abusing a minor child. And Congress shall have the further power to amend 18 USC 1963 so that the same is consistent with any such legislation as described immediately above.
And the Executive shall have the power, in her or his sole discretion, to take whatever measures are deemed advisable or necessary to apprehend for further prosecution in the appropriate federal court any person who has been indicted and/or charged, for and/or with, the sexual abuse of a minor child. Such power shall include the power to disregard the obligations of the US as undertaken by signatory execution of any convention, treaty, or the like, and shall also include, upon notice to Congress, the power to call into action the armed forces of the US. The Executive shall further have the power to assess, as against the treasury of the US, the sum of one-half of one percent of all tax revunue received during and/or for the immediately preceding tax year, with such assessment to be for the purpose of the provision of those measures deemed advisable or necessary to apprehend for further prosecution in the appropriate federal court any person who has been indicted and/or charged, for and/or with, the sexual abuse of a minor child.
And, lastly, to answer your question, one would think that the NFL would consider your request. I mean, if the NBA is now going to have a dress code in order to preserve, resurrect, whatever, its public image, then "banning" the work of a child molester isn't such a stretch.
Edited again to add:
For RICO, please see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...10_I_20_96.html
More importantly, for the rebuttal to the claim that possession of child porn is "minor", "trivial" or what have you, courtesy of our friends at the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jan 9 2006, 12:20 PM)
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
If a convicted pedophile, built my house do I have to tear it down and rebuild? If he is receiving royalties even while he is in prison, then the money might be used to compensate victims. But it wouldn't make sense to punish the NFL, who have probably already paid for rights to the music.
Strictly hypothetical, if it turns out that Francis Scott Key, was a pedophile, should we change the National Anthem? (I think we should change it anyway, but that wouldn't have any impact on that decision.)
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Jan 9 2006, 11:59 PM)
Yes. While it may sound possible to seperate the music from the criminal, the fact is that famous perverts like Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson use their money from their music to lure young children into the bedroom by buying the families off. Worse yet, when these perverts get caught, they buy the justice system off. The best way to help prevent famous perverts from committing their despicable deeds is for the public to pull the plug and not buy their records.
Do the words "innocent until proven guilty" have any meaning for you?
QUOTE
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
I believe so, by airing it, they are giving a tacit endorsement of the man and the mind's eye of many, trivializes what he's done to children and converted it into humor at the least of it. You could also argue that playing rock music encourages drug use and that kind of thing, though I think this one is more of a "clear" example and more credible using that line of argument. Along similar lines, players who have smacked around their wives and girlfriends should be banned from playing in the league. If the music is bad enough, certainly discpicable acts actually carried out by their own players also qualifies as grounds for kicking 'em out.
QUOTE
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Sure lets do that and let’s do the same foe Michael Jackson who is every bit as sick as this man.
QUOTE(srobert @ Jan 14 2006, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Jan 9 2006, 11:59 PM)
Yes. While it may sound possible to seperate the music from the criminal, the fact is that famous perverts like Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson use their money from their music to lure young children into the bedroom by buying the families off. Worse yet, when these perverts get caught, they buy the justice system off. The best way to help prevent famous perverts from committing their despicable deeds is for the public to pull the plug and not buy their records.
Do the words "innocent until proven guilty" have any meaning for you?
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 17 2006, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE
Should the NFL (and any other sports league that may use it) quit using a convicted pedophile’s music at sporting events? Why or why not?
Sure lets do that and let’s do the same foe Michael Jackson who is every bit as sick as this man.
Spot the difference:
Paul Gadd, aka "Gary Glitter", pleads guilty to child molestation and gives £1,000 each to his two victims' families, in line with local legal traditions, to avoid a court case and a possible death sentence on child rape charges.
Michael Jackson pleads not guilty to child molestation charges (and allegedly gives rather more money to at least one other family before charges are brought), goes through a full criminal trial, and is formally found not guilty.
srobert "innocent until proven guilty" applies to only one of these two examples, and it isn't the one who is the example being used to illustrate the premise of this thread.
Ted The one of these two men to whom "innocent until proven guilty" does apply is Michael Jackson.
Oh, and while I think of it, one-liners are generally deemed to be non-constructive and are against forum rules. Please remember this in your future contributions to this thread, and all others outside the Casual Conversation forum.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.