The Pitcairns aren’t a sovereign state, they’re a UK territory. They literally aren’t a country.
The people who identify as Pitcairnese were assimilated forcefully into the UK fold and have been encouraged even by longstanding UN members to give testimony about the motives behind identifying as independent. As is almost always the case, it’s only in a selective outlook where someone can’t say their claims to sovereignty are as valid as that of any accepted territory.
The people who identify as Pitcairnese are the descendents of British alcoholics who kidnapped Tahitian women, and based their entire culture around those two events. They’ve always been British.
And we know thier motives, they don’t want to be prosecuted for the utterly unbelievable level of mass sexual assault against every woman on the island.The three things are not connected in that way. Pitcairn wants to be acknowledged as sovereign because Pitcairn wants to be acknowledged as sovereign. It’s one thing that these accusations (whether true or false; I’ll get to that in a moment, there is a backstory here even amidst how condemnable it is) are levied against a community that is set up to not be able to speak for itself (think about that for a moment; why would the sources and citations be so highly selective here), but it’s a completely more agenda-based matter to say it is why Pitcairn wants sovereignty. It’s the classic “these people are savages and need our presence” type of argument. In other words, notice the themes of British dominance here.
There is no doubt Pitcairn’s history is one of turmoil. The history goes right from the indigenous peoples abandoning the island to the ancestors of the modern population finding it because of notions of freedom they have to alcohol riots to a failed coup several years later to WWII to the rather unspeakable matters (not really so different from your average sovereign nation, also the slaves stayed slaves for a negligible amount of time). At heart, Pitcairn has always seen itself how its neighbors are viewed. Being so disconnected from other places, it has built itself from the ground up and partially modeled itself on these neighbors and partially on English, Kiwi, and sometimes French (because there’s a French territory right next door) concepts, something that we might say has created a social norm dissonance and has set Pitcairn up for what in news writing we call a perfect storm, all while it’s today presided over jointly by English and Kiwi overseers. This is what these accusations are based on, that and one might say mankind’s seeming unlimited capacity to formulate gossip (going back to the point before about sources). Has it happened, and do I deem it condemnable? Yes. Absolutely to both. Without a doubt. But it’s blown out of proportion, with a few signs of this, even aside from the media bias. So suppose you’re accusing a whole dang territory of something like this. If it’s all testimonials, would you not say the least you could do is get a second opinion? Like I’m sure the American government, in its opinionated glory, would have a few things to say for example, supposing they came to the same conclusions.
The British are also lowkey known to have wanted to turn it into another prison island for a while, raising suspicion. During WWII, they drafted Pitcairnese citizens into the war as a slight against its population. This wasn’t some coincidence and isn’t subtle, in fact this tactic is Biblical in its origins. This, in turn, created a kind of human relations disorientation in Pitcairn. Three decades later, France started doing nuclear testing not that far away from Pitcairn, testing that has had enormous infamy as being so unregulated it made a radioactive problem across their domain (what France even needs the bomb for is an equally big mystery), and although Pitcairn was spared by the weather protecting it here, this is what most catapulted Pitcairn into wanting its own voice. Fast forward another few decades or so and the UK, who keep in mind protects its own deviants for some reason, learns how to take possible isolated incidents to make it sound like the authority over a land they call misguided is justified, ignoring the fact Pitcairn could easily just join New Zealand if oversight is deemed good, considering it’s already culturally Kiwi and would be repeating what the Cook Islands did. The argument that they should be British because they hail from Britain, another argument used by the crown in the past to justify its rule over it, is flawed and can be equally applied to several settled territories, such as Greenland belonging to Denmark or England to France. To those whose motive for undermining the sovereignty is alarm over what they have heard, the whole matter wouldn’t be nearly as debated if not for the fact it’s filled to the brim with double standards at the hands of the two most historically notorious foreign powers on Earth.
Leni, shut your fucking mouth, stop arguing, and think about what you’re saying - nearly every woman who had lived on the island reported a culture of sexual assault, including group sexual assault of children as young as 3. Regardless of that though, the Mayor’s defence when accused of CSA was that the age of consent in the Pitcairns had always been 12 years old, and that removed takes place between strangers".
Nobody denied having either nonconsensual sex or sex with children, the defendent’s entire defence was what they did was legal under Pitcairn law.France even needs the bomb for is an equally big mystery
Motherfucker have you not heard of MAD? I can’t believe I tried to be respectful at the start of this exchange.
Why not actually listen to what I’m saying so you don’t put words in my mouth. I said outright, in plain, explicit wording, that any instances that did happen were condemnable. I didn’t deny there have been things in Pitcairn that may have happened like that. But it’s a political fight with disputed sovereignty, so do you really think it’s that much of a stretch to say there are some aspects that are blown out of proportion? So much so that you had to send a report which spun this as CSA apologetics? Is it not on you if saying “this person didn’t do that crime” is considered defending said crime?
Speaking of putting words in peoples’s mouths, in a fair trial, presumption of guilt would not become presumption of innocence simply based on people admitting to a crime. This is the logic behind forced confessions, which operate based on blackmail. This was the logic of the Spanish inquisition and every witch hunt that ever existed. This is why I mentioned the lack of other entities in the reporting, aside from those copying from the British. Maybe there is more to this going on, but I am giving you what I know based on my own sources. Maybe you have your own, although you’ve never shown any. As for what the mayor said, again, I do not endorse this in any way, but consider my last sentence: “the whole matter wouldn’t be nearly as debated if not for the fact it’s filled to the brim with double standards at the hands of the two most historically notorious foreign powers on Earth” (partially in reference to what the mayor was probably reaching for).
Because that’s what this is about. For a fourth time, because you’re going to be you, I will repeat again, what you fear happened in Pitcairn is condemnable. Several people publicly deny at least some of the accusations, in fact it’s well-documented that it’s a well-established conspiracy theory (for a lack of a better word) that the accusations were a power move.
As for MAD, that does not justify what France did or that it supposedly needs its stockpile, at least according to my culture’s perspective. We have never heard of anyone threatening France before.
