Children’s Rights
Saturday, June 2nd
"Whose human rights are more important, those of a
paedophile or of a vulnerable defenceless child?"
END
Interesting that Kate McCann should pose the above
question as I have a similar one she may wish to answer:
Whose human rights are more important those of selfish
parents who thought only of themselves, their own needs and in so doing
abandoned their children, failing in their duty of care to these children, OR those of a vulnerable defenceless child?
More interesting is that Kate McCann is describing
Madeleine as a ‘vulnerable
defenceless child?’
So
in June 2007 she did understand and recognise that the position she
left her three children, was one where her children were left ‘vulnerable’
And
In
June 2007 she did also understand
and recognise that Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were defenceless children!
Well of course she/they did - they are fooling no one with - 'we felt it was safe!'
Yet
Gerry and Kate McCann have since the disappearance of their daughter repeatedly
stated that what they did to their children was ‘within the bounds of responsible parenting.’
It
quite obviously was not!
And
quite obviously they know it!
Why
else did they immediately seek legal advice in this regard asking, if what they
did to their kids was okay? I know, I
know, two doctors having to seek legal advice to ask if how they treat their
children is legal and proper!
What
they were really asking was – ‘can we ‘go down’ for this?' – because they knew it
wasn’t - and for how long?’
For sure they were not seeking advice on how to brush up on their parenting skills.
Always
a bit of doubt attached to this story too, as it did not filter through to the
public untainted – it had a pink tinge – so every chance and reason to believe
it was invented to cover the neglect issue!
It
is another of those statements that just because Clarence Mitchell or the
McCanns made it, does not make it true.
And
these three are peas in a pod!
Quite
probably they sought legal advice that much I would give them, but it is the
response/advice that is in grave doubt – that a lawyer understanding Portuguese Law would
instruct them that they acted within the bounds of responsible parenting?
Reading
the Portuguese Judicial Code – Exposure or Abandonment - I would have to say
that Gerry and Kate McCann – ‘tick all the boxes’ and the fact they left that
door unlocked really doesn’t help matters!
But
if there is any uncertainty in Kate’s mind as to the ‘rights’ of her vulnerable
and defenceless child, and as to the punishment for those who leave their children/and or
other vulnerable defenceless persons in a position where their life is
endangered ….read on!
Portuguese
Judicial Code
Article 138
Exposure or abandonment
1 -
Whom endangers
the life of another person:
a) By exposing her
in a place where the person is subject to
a situation which she
cannot defend herself from on
her own; or
b) By abandoning
her in
a defenseless
state, for motive of age, physical
defect or illness, when the agent had the
duty to guard, watch or assist to the person;
is punished with
a prison term
of 1
to 5years.
2 - If
the fact is practised by
an ascendant ;or
descendant, adoptant or adoptee of the victim, the
agent is punished with a prison term
of 2
to 5 years.
3 - If
the fact results in:
a) Serious
offense to the physical integrity,
the agent is punished with a prison term of 2 to 8 years;
b) Death, the agent is punished with a prison term of 3 to 10 years.
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
28th July 2013