Cancún: Former Canadian Consulate found murdered with message, "This happened [sic] when you rape children." ( pizzagate )

submitted by forget-me-not

The former honorary consul of Canada, Daniel Lavoie, was found lifeless inside his apartment, on Pecarí Street, in Supermanzana 20 , his body has traces of violence and was wrapped in a sheet, as well as a message written in a notebook that says: "This happened when you rape children.”

Preliminarily it was indicated that the body of the former consul of Canada, 62 years old, was found by one of his friends who came to see him at noon this Sunday, because he did not have communication with him and when he arrived he did not answer his calls, which is why he opened the apartment with a copy of the key.

The body was rolled up on a sheet, with pillows on top and the feet were tied with the ropes of a hammock. Elements of the Municipal Police cordoned off the entrance of the domicile, for the initiation of investigations by the Ministerial Police and experts of the State Attorney General's Office.

The friend of the now deceased identified the body with the name Daniel Lavoie, of Canadian nationality, who was 33 years of living in Cancun and served as honorary consul of his country in Cancun, until eight years ago and was dedicated to give private lessons in French.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2019/08/cancun-former-canadian-consulate-found.html?m=1

Odd: According to this source, Daniel had a boyfriend...

https://torontosun.com/news/world/canadian-murdered-in-cancun-not-a-child-rapist-pals

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebecer-slain-mexico-1.5259669

eucalyptus_spearmint

No matter how I may feel about pedophiles, I cannot support vigilante justice. I am disturbed that some here do. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty under the law and has the right to a trial. Before today none of you even knew who this man was and you've read a blurb on the internet so you're celebrating his murder? Think about what that means, people. Think hard. Do not let your anger and prejudice make you blind and stupid.

Ardithla

I’m with you. It’s the whole essence of the Q movement, the rule of law.

DBentonSmith

It has taken millennia to establish even a weak semblance of the Rule of Law. To abandon Law in favor of vigilantism has lots of bad consequences, many of which are too grisly to imagine. Even though self defense is not vigilantism (under the law) a corrupted system never sees it that way. It will always choose to protect its own power and authority.

Regardless of that, when serious crimes are enabled and protected by a corrupted system, people will, simply, defend themselves, whether the system declares that self defense legal or not. That's just the reality of it.

The consequences of the conflict between those two realities really is too grisly to imagine.

Hassan-I-Sabbah

What makes the Rule of Law so great? I mean, sure, if Justice were truly blind it would be wonderful, but it's only blind to the rich and powerful. It's easy to set up a decent person. It's easy for a scumbag to escape justice.

We can do better than the "Rule of Law."

notdivided

I think the key here is its the abandoning of the rule of law that causes people to seek vigilantism. The vigilante is not who abandons the law when there was no rule of law that is even working to abandon. I don't support vigilantism but I think it's an important distinction. If your highest value is justice unfortunately there may be a case for vigilantism in the world as we know it.

YogSoggoth

Mexican police, specially in Cancun where Jesus Alberto Capella Ibarra rules, do not execute Criminal pederastas, they provide them for tips and extort them For all they are worth,

it is like Kompromat in Cancun works too, and if they run out of money, tough shit.. Leaning towards this comment.

carmencita

Hello friend. This is what happens when you let Ambassadors Consulates and other headed of state run amok and unchecked. They are allowed to party at free will and no one yells.

I am not for murder but if there was a slew of these then I venture to say things would slow down. Death Penalty for Child Rape. I’m sorry but that’s how I feel. This story just sickens me.

Punishment deserved.

werone9975

  1. Don't apologize.
  2. Serving justice is NOT murder.
  3. Pedos CANNOT be rehabilitated. It's either life in prison, no parole (and who wants to pay for that shit), or death. Don't believe the liars that say they can be rehabbed - nothing works short of total isolation from children or death.

carmencita

Thank you. You are so correct.

Truthseeker3000

33 in the article again. Has something to do with the higher ups.

septimasexta

This is obviously a SHILL POST. Mexico is no protector of trafficked children! They HAPPILY let the hordes of UNACCOMPANIED MINORS pass through to cross U.S. borders under OBAMA. Many of those children DISAPPEARED.

forget-me-not

I have pointed that out.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3405205/20383467

The point is that this possibly implicates a Canadian official.

septimasexta

YOU ARE A SHILL. this is obviously an attack on VOAT/PIZZAGATE to flood it with violent posts. WE NEVER GET 555 VIEWS.

PLEASE TAKE THIS POST DOWN!

septimasexta

Why should we believe the message? Could easily be a FF to make us look bad. He also could have been murdered for a bad drug deal.

eldorann

I approve this message.

HRCisDONE

Good

markrod420

Assuming he really was a pedophile. This absolitely made my morning. Thanks!

Deflo56

Someone said they won’t be able to be seen in public.

It’s about time.

Marku1

Sweet death pedo fag

Crackrocknigga

The cartel has more morality than our own president. They find and chop up pedos, his ONE JOB was simply to protect Epstein

QanadaHere

You must be retarded to think that. Cartels sell kids to migrating adults. they murder kids. Rape them. you are so naive.

think-

Not really. In fact, those who traffick drugs are often inoolved in trafficking children.

Crackrocknigga

Different cartel have different morals

think-

Speaking from experience? /s

forget-me-not

Ah, no they don't. First, there are a lot of different types of cartels. Amd on the same website, you will find tons of stories where they brutally murdered young and innocent children. They haven't spared children from 14 to 4 to 1.

eyeswideopennow

I actually know a kid who is grown now in his 40’s who was abused and photographed as a child by a guy who was the American consulate on Cozumel. He gave them money and clothes. This was told to me by the now grown up boy, his life is a mess. The guy who did this is dead now, heart attack, but I often wonder about the pictures he said were taken. He told me several of his friends did this for money as well. Probably around the age 12

LeeDoverwood

This is the thing with fags, they seem to like to target boys. NAMBLA

zerozen77

i think there will be a second notebook for his faggot friend.

Premeditated123

We should take care of these sick fucks since the government won’t do anything about it for obvious reasons.

petevoat

If ever the people in Canadian cities rise up a quarter of those in the cities would probably be hanging from lamp posts

sirRantsalot

Looks like he raped the wrong guys kid. Well, if law enforcement wasn't going to stop him someone had to.

Clairvoyance

yup

ninjajunkie

What if our side has its own "assests".

Would you be opposed?

At this point, personally, I would support drawing and quartering if it would purge the foreign-communist influence from my nation.

NinaSparrow

Well well well.. looks like someone got revenge on their rapist.

Wynterwhisper

Well jeepers creepers. I wonder if maybe this is going to trend.. especially since the Epstein case is thrown out.

Talc

vigilante justice is the only real justice.

YogSoggoth

Not so. This guy could have been perfectly innocent of everything, (not likely), but Just in case, like the word JUSTICE, we have to make sure. If we don't, then we become fake news.

Call_Of_Goat

Wouldn't you rather them face Justice? ..... Probation

eldorann

That's my line!

I was banned on Plebbit for expressing writing that.

dundundunnnnn

Gay and a child rapist

Shocking

CornyGoatWeed

I fuck my wife all the time and it's never occurred to me to fuck with a little girl; I don't even like having to wipe near my cat's vagina because once she looked confused and betrayed and scandalized.

Clairvoyance

Epstein wasn't gay but was a child rapist let's no be ignorant 2day.

PrepareForWar

Let's not be ignorant? Tell that to the dudes putting it in each other's asses.

Clairvoyance

nope sorry its to much fun especially when its really big and the guy knows what hes doing. ;)

The_Real_Wahrheit

I think sodomites are actually the ignorant ones. Just call me clairvoyant!

Clairvoyance

Everyone is entitled to their opinions I suppose

Proudarmygal1

Why can’t these perverts stop thinking about sex every minute? I’m so sick of them. If they don’t stop, they won’t like our backlash!

dundundunnnnn

NAMBLA were a massive part of the early "Pride" movement and Stonewall Riots before optics forced them into becoming crypto-fags.

source: Chickenhawk documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrd29-_O3I

According to Man/boy love and the American gay movement Journal of Homosexuality (a peer-reviewed journal) volume 20, issues 1-2, pages 251-274 (1991):

Firstly, it is stated that author David Thorstad was the president of "New York's Gay Activists Alliance" and "a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and of New York's Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights (CLGR)".

New York's Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), successor to the Gay Liberation Front and a prototype activist group founded in December 1969, opposed legal restrictions on sex based on age. [footnote 2]

In 1976 GAA became the first gay group in New York — and probably in the country — to sponsor a public forum on man/boy love.

Held at the Church of the Beloved Disciple on April 4, the forum brought together a "panel of pederasts" to speak on the topic "Of Men and Boys: Pederasty and the Age of Consent."

The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, a cross-Canada group, also favored abolishing the age of consent.

Many activists shared the view that the state had no business regulating sex between consenting partners, whatever their age.

In 1977, the issue of sex between adults and minors moved abruptly to center stage.

Anita Bryant began to articulate the mounting backlash to gay liberation by zeroing in on a perceived weak link: the widespread belief that gay men seduce young boys and turn them into queers.

The name of her organization — Save Our Children— transparently implied this.

Simultaneously, a new hysteria about "kiddie porn" arose, fed by the political right and the feminist movement, with unmistakable suggestions that gay men who loved boys were in reality exploiting and abusing them.

This clever propaganda ploy not only deftly exploited the public's ignorance about homosexuality, but also caught the gay movement off guard: It was unprepared to make an intelligent rebuttal.

Pederasty was a secret not to be told. Yet although man/boy love represented a minority phenomenon within the gay subculture, it was far from unusual.

The gay movement went into a defensive mode. "Oh, no, homosexuals don't do that. Most child molestation is by heterosexual men against little girls."

Boy-lovers began to organize for the first time, in response to two widely publicized incidents in December 1977.

Following the arrest of 24 men in Revere, Massachusetts, for consensual sex with boys (mostly teenagers), the Boston-Boise Committee was formed. Its goal was to educate the media and public about the issues in involved.

A few weeks later, the Body Politic, a Canadian gay liberation newspaper, was raided by the police because it had published an article entitled "Men Loving Boys Loving Men." [footnote 4]

On December 2, 1978, 150 persons attended a conference on "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent" in Boston's Community Church. Initiated by Tom Reeves of the Boston-Boise Committee, several participants were prominent in the gay and progressive movements, which gave the issue a new urgency.

Afterwards, 30 boy-lovers and youth formed their first activist organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Boy-lovers and gay youth were becoming active protagonists. The fact that boy-lovers had come out of their closet within a closet immediately embroiled the gay movement in controversy.

Gay Community News' first 1979 issue published my "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all — not just equal rights for lesbians and gay men/ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children." It criticized the movement for "limiting itself to a turf restricted to consenting adults" and behaving "as though sex had nothing— or little — to do with our struggle."

It urged the movement not to limit its demands "to those thought acceptable to a frightened status quo." [footnote 5]

This "manifesto" set off a debate that lasted several months. Much of the lesbian response was hostile and buttressed with arguments like "lesbians don't do that."

Clairvoyance

Jeffrey Epstein was not a boy lover and neither was Allison Mack and sounds like they did alot of damage to me. It would be as ignorant as me saying only whites are pedos because a predominant amount of the pedo elite and individuals being jailed for these crimes are of Caucasian descent.

dundundunnnnn

are of Caucasian descent.

WRONGO and you know it.

dundundunnnnn

Continued:

Gay Community News' first 1979 issue published my "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all — not just equal rights for lesbians and gay men/ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children." It criticized the movement for "limiting itself to a turf restricted to consenting adults" and behaving "as though sex had nothing— or little — to do with our struggle."

It urged the movement not to limit its demands "to those thought acceptable to a frightened status quo." [footnote 5]

This "manifesto" set off a debate that lasted several months. Much of the lesbian response was hostile and buttressed with arguments like "lesbians don't do that."

But a piece by one lesbian feminist stood out for its sensible treatment of a topic heretofore passed over in silence: woman-girl love. Beth Kelly's "On 'Woman/Girl Love' -Or, Lesbians Do 'Do It'" noted that the ignorant reactions of many lesbians to man/boy love had helped her to understand "what it could mean to know that your most intensely private moments were nothing more than threads in the widely woven fabric of political experience that enfolds us all."

A lifelong lesbian, she acknowledged being involved in cross-generational love "as a girl and as a woman." She described her sexual love for her great-aunt — more than 50 years her senior— when she was between eight and eleven years old. She summarized her journey to self-acceptance: It has always seemed to me that people know when sex is a right thing for them to be doing, when mutually consented to, regardless of who else may or may not share or understand that.

dundundunnnnn

Continued:

THE 1979 MARCH ON WASHINGTON The man/boy love issue again surfaced early in 1979 at a national conference in Philadelphia which called the historic gay march on Washington, DC, set for October 14. On February 25, the conference adopted the Gay Youth Caucus proposal for a demand urging "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws."

At a meeting of the group's newly elected National Coordinating Committee, held as soon as the conference had adjourned, lesbians threatened to split (thereby sabotaging the march) unless a substitute for the Gay Youth Caucus demand was adopted. It was.

The substitute— which was drafted by an adult lesbian and subsequently approved by a majority of the delegates in a mail poll (a favorite technique of the trade-union bureaucracy to prevent rank-and-file organization) — read:

”Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, jobs and social environments." [footnote 7]

The committee explained its action as a desire "to officially adopt this statement to replace and enlarge the concept of the 'Revise the Age of Consent' motion in such a way as we believe to have been the broad meaning and will of the body. ..."

It substituted the concept of "protecting" gay youth, suggesting that they needed to be "protected" from choosing the wrong kind of lovers (i.e., gay men).

It served to confuse rape or coercive sex with consensual sex and love.

It suggested that age-of-consent laws protect young people from unwanted sex, when in reality they do just the opposite -they punish only sex that is consensual, on the grounds that the younger partner is incapable, by virtue of age, of giving consent, even when it is not disputed that consent was given.

I was one of a small minority of delegates who refused to go along with the substitute statement and protested the undemocratic process whereby it was pushed through. T

he substitute was ageist, I argued, since it was written from an adult's point of view. Its notion of "protection" "smacks of Anita Bryant and motherhood."

Moreover, "You don't protect a gay youth by sending his/her older lover to jail and by dragging the young person into Family Court, or worse.

Our goal should be sexual freedom, not continued restrictions on consensual sexual activity." [footnote 8] In March 1979 lesbians in New York's Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights successfully brought a motion labeling the age-of-consent issue "divisive."

Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) issued a news release accusing "so-called Man/Boy Lovers" of attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults by confusing the real needs of Gay youth with a call to repeal all age of consent laws. Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children.

It called the age-of-consent issue "a diversion," and put the coalition on record opposing "the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons" -thereby implying that boy-lovers were guilty of "sexual abuse." It also sounded a note of censorship: we will not passively march alongside pederast banners or signs, nor quietly stand and listen to pederast speeches at any march or rally. Lesbian Feminist Liberation will not support pederasts within the Lesbian and Gay movements nor anywhere else. [footnote 9]

dundundunnnnn

Continued:

LFL's position suggested hostility to males. It did not go far enough, however, for the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), whose delegate to the CLGR proposed that the group adopt a formal position "for the protection of male and female children from sexual abuse by adults." He argued that "adults having sex with children is exploitation and is the antithesis of the fight for lesbian and gay rights." He added, "I am not for giving children the right to consent to sex."

His motion was overwhelmingly defeated and a substitute passed expressing "opposition to the sexual abuse of children by homosexual or heterosexual people." The SWP thereupon withdrew from the coalition and from the gay movement, and went on to lobby women's groups not to participate in the October march on Washington, in part because the organizers were allegedly "soft" on child exploitation.

The controversy continued to simmer. On April 1, 1980, following a heated debate, the CLGR decided to call for my removal as a kevnote speaker at a gay rights rally on the steps of the state capitol in Albany. Although the effort failed, it did result in most lesbian groups boycotting the demonstration.

A half dozen of the most active groups in the coalition resigned. Later that month, a few lesbians attempted, in vain, to persuade NAMBLA to leave a march in New York City protesting a mobilization the same day by the Christian right wing in Washington, DC. Mark Moffet, a 15-year-old speaker from Gay Youth of New York at the rally in Sheridan Square that ended the march, defended the right of boy-lovers to participate in the movement.

He was booed by a claque from NOW -the only time I have seen presumably straight supporters boo a gay speaker at a gay rally.Two months later, a group calling itself the "Lesbian Caucus- Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" tried to split the annual New York City Gay Pride March on June 29. It distributed a leaflet calling on women to split from the march on the false grounds that the organizing committee "has been dominated by the Revolutionary Socialist League, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association [sic] and their supporters."

At the entrance to Central Park, they tried to divert people away from the official rally to a separate event. No address or phone contact appeared on the leaflet.

A special issue of Semiotext(e) on "Loving Boys," an important contribution to the growing debate, and now an underground classic, was distributed at the march. [12]... In 1984 the debate on man/boy love shifted to the West Coast. In San Francisco, efforts to remove NAMBLA from the annual Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Parade failed, as they had in New York.

NAMBLA's October 1984 convention in San Francisco's Pride Center included a public panel discussion on "Man/Boy Love and Sexual Liberation" with Mattachine Society founder Harry Hay; Jim Kepner, curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles; Morris Kight, long-time gay rights and social activist from Los Angeles; Jes Harrison, a 16-year-old gay youth; and me.

The participation of Hay, Kepner, and Kight was welcome support from activists whose credentials went back to the beginnings of the U.S. gay movement.... As part of the internal debate within the gay community, the following is a statement from the Chicago Stonewall Committee, as published in the 26 March 1983 Gay Community News [emphasis in original text]: ...Who belongs in the gay movement, and who decides? We think s/m lesbians and NAMBLA do belong.

The gay movement is based on expanding people's options, in bed and out, not on setting some new sexual “party line.” Not too long ago, the whole gay issue was too kinky to be taken seriously as a progressive social movement.

In the particular cases mentioned above, NAMBLA and the s/m women were only seeking places to talk about their sexual preferences.

We certainly support their right to act on them as well, See also the 1992 The Responsive Community, which says: The annual Gay Pride March in New York, on the other hand, allows NAMBLA to participate because the march does not exclude any organization seeking to celebrate gay liberation by marching Also, according to the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (1990): During the early eighties at the New York Gay Pride marches, gay anarchists, S/M groups, gay atheists, NAMBLA, Fag Rag and others all marched together with banners.

A 1993 article in Ten Percent says: Since its formation, NAMBLA, like other fringe groups, has lived on the edge of the lesbian and gay community, occasionally finding a sympathetic ear in gay publications, sometimes listed in gay directories, and wafting in and out of gay pride parades (NAMBLA has been allowed to march under its own banner in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and last year's March on Washington).

In summary, NAMBLA did march in some, but not all, gay pride parades in 1979 and the 80s. Initially, they were somewhat welcomed by the male gay leadership, however opposition arose from women. As a counter-example, NAMBLA was excluded from a 1986 Los Angles gay parade, and Harry Hay, one of the early leaders of the US gay rights movement, wore a "NAMBLA WALKS WITH ME" sign in protest of their exclusion.

MrBateman

looking forward to more of this.