If you are a furry who's been put on the sex offender registry over a mistake you regret and don't do anymore, especially if such mistake was not violent and far more less preferred, and wish to be accepted as a person and want to find advice through legal messages, one of the things you should avoid is Askpapabear (http://www.askpapabear.com/).
___________
Some Effects of Some Sexual Record History
There are several family members and friends who has suffered due to prejudice and other insane effects caused toward victims of the sex offender registry and/or other negative things toward many people all because of a long regretted past. Reports of suicides strongly exist, depressions continue to exist from people who has done wrong but regret, and close friends and family has suffered because of these negative unfair consequences forced upon many of those who regret.
Not only this, but the sex offender registry has caused harassment and even the worst crime of all which was unlawful killing.
Some people who are on it may also be furries who are strongly wishing to move on and be happy in life for legal following reasons, and even some of those may be very young. It is horrible, and disgusting, and just as bad as violent child sexual abuse to treat a young person like crap because of a past mistake when the person who is suffering is supposed to get legal help.
It is extremely disgusting to force a person to be alone by never allowing them to make friends and be part of a legal community.
Papabear likely doesn't accept furries who regret and consider them to be less important than those with a "clean" record.
___________
The Disturbing Comments
Papabear's comment:
As a private entity, FC has the right to limit access to its convention, as long as doing so is not based on race, religion, sex, gender, nationality, etc. Banning someone with a criminal record falls in line with, say, an employer not hiring someone because they have such a record. I support FC's decision in this matter."I support FC's decision in this matter."
Reply to such comment:
No offense Papa Bear, but I had a lot of faith in you being open and accepting. If you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy in life because of a record while it's possible a lot of those people changed, then you have completely lost a follower of your blog.Papabear's reply:
I thought you were open and accepting? But if you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy again in life legally, then I can no longer support you.
I believe that the company has a right to remove someone, but you're saying that directly to something that is directly not allowing it rather than "may". That's what I mean.
You are not getting what I'm saying. How can you lose a job you never had? An employer has the right not to hire someone with a felony record. If I were an employer myself, I would not deny someone just on the basis of their past record. A lot of things come into account. Now, in the case of FC's policy, we are discussing violent criminal records, such as murder, rape, and pedophilia. You might not be aware of this, but the criminal justice system does not have a great track record for rehabilitating people. Indeed, people who go to prison are often worse for the experience. Add to this that a number of furcons have had to close because of attendee misbehavior, thus ruining conventions for everyone, and I agree that convention organizers have a right to be picky about who comes to their events. Another example. Here in Palm Springs, there used to be biker rallies allowed. Biker gangs would come here, drink, and often get violent. This happened year after year until the city said, "No more." Is it unforgiving and closed-minded to not let the bikers back to the city to cause pain and mayhem?Replies to such comment:
No offense, "Anon," but you don't get it. Sorry I lost you as a reader. Sounds like you need to keep reading it.
I'm not very upset at you for saying they merely have a right to ban people for such record reason. Heck, I think they have a right to ban people for any reason legally. If they ban furries for wearing a pink fursuit, they have the right. Is it a stupid reason? It could be argued as "yes", but they still have a right. Though of course, people are allowed to legally criticize it.
I'm upset because you merely said "I support FC's decision in this matter.", like you agree with the rule itself being right, as in, the proper answer or "morally right". And that you may even have hinted at supporting the idea that anyone with a past record should never get a job.
And posting the comment here where the article was kinda wondering if this rule should be accepted as in the right answer or not maybe.
To add another reply, let me address your other main point.Papa Bear's Reply to Last Part or Maybe Both
Yes, a lot of bad things happen at furcons, but that doesn't mean we should by default ban every single person from the place just because of a bad record involving sex crimes, and not all sex crimes were violent. And I'm pretty sure I was focusing on that alone, not every single record. Though "pedophile" is merely attraction, I assume you mean child sexual abuse?
I believe in legaly protection of any legal furcon. But it would be far better if they were being more realistic on any person instead of including a ban that automatically includes those that actually changed. It would be better if this was more about certain recent people for example.
If someone, with or without a criminal record of a sexual offense has had a recent history illegal sexual behavior or some very suspicious activity that wasn't alone illegal, I would be more in support banning that person from entering because it's very likely the person is gonna cause trouble.
If someone, with a criminal record of a sexual offense, especially if such offense was small especially if based off at a young age, completed a necessary sentence and has had no history of bad behavior, still dreamed of a carrier, and was denied because of a past mistake, that just isn't good. This paragraph is what I'm more on the topic is. If you were truly supporting a rule that goes that broad to include those that really are not monsters forever, that's where I felt betrayed in terms of trust..
I'm sorry, but you actually expect the furcon admins to spend hours, days, weeks evaluating cases to see whether or not they merit consideration for entrance to a con after having been jailed for a sex offense? That is unrealistic. You apparently have no idea how busy these people are to organize a con. It is more important to protect the integrity of the con and the safety of its NON-criminal attendees than it is to protect the feelings of a couple people who have been found guilty of a serious crime.
Do some people change their ways? Yes, that happens. More often than not, however, sex offenders and people guilty of violent crimes such as assault and murder have serious mental and emotional issues that require the treatment of trained professionals. It is unfair to insist that furcon admins deal with this. They are not social workers, they are not the police, they are not psychiatrists.
If you're so offended by convention rules, the answer is simple: don't go to the convention.
The five main things:
- His "I support FC's decision in this matter." message did not look like as it's to the possibility right to ban, but rather, it was for the rule itself which also exposes this as a "moral good" decision to yet many other furcons, and many other jobs.
- his likely delusion that people with no record are "more important" with consideration that legal effort of those with past mistakes are a "waste" but isn't for those with no bad past. That is extremely disgusting of him to say!
- And not only that, but he has literally reacted against the criticism that a company can have some work to help trust certain people.
- Plus, it's likely clear he treat "criminals", even those that ALREADY payed for their crimes as a different.
- And finally, he acts as if every sex offender has serious mental issues and compared all of them to terrible crimes.
Update 12/26/2018: Due to further comments. It's very clear that my prediction of this person being a closed minded and non-accepting person is true now. Same with maybe some of my other claims. Once again, a negative prediction is correct maybe. There may still be updates without "Update". Update Done
__________
Did PapaBear Violate Trust Involving Privacy?
Update 12/26/2018: Never mind, according to a comment by the same name, the comment partly meant a possible comment on Flayrah.com somewhere. Update Done
__________
GO TO A REAL EXPERT LEGALLY AUTHORIZED
Even Papabear himself said he's just for entertainment and not for the following:
