Here's something to ponder...

Read in the news about John Ferguson, a notorious pedophile who has 'the right' to live as an ordinary 'tenant' in a community containing children.

Residents are outraged and have expressed fear for the safety of children.

This man has never been 'cured' of the disease of sexual lust for young children and there is no guantee that he will not reoffend should an opportunity arise or be contived by him.

Should be have the rights and freedom of an ordinary person to live in a community where he has access to the means to satisfy his cravings?

Whose rights ought to be of foremost consideration?

The rights of the children ?

The parents of the children ?

or

one man who cannot be trusted to behave in a decent manner?

Whose Rights?

ThinK 'Duty of Care'

Do we care about one person to provide him with opportunity to harm those unable to defend or protect themselves

or
the rights of vulnerable people to protection from harm?


Article Source:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...d-out-nsw-govt

In a nutshell... even if abit 'wordy'

Should a man who feels he has a 'right' to satisfy his own sexual cravings or 'needs' at the expense of someone he can take advantage of, be allowed priveleges that give him opportuity to do so?

(any simpler version? pls help... )