Now that "gay rights" groups like Peter Tatchell's "Stonewall" are part of the establishment, and now that their agenda is driving the agenda for sex education in state schools across the UK, parents have a duty to familiarise themselves with what these people actually believe.
In Peter Tatchell's case, that includes believing that 9-year-olds having sex with adults can be "normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike", and that it is "courageous" to challenge the "assumption" that such actions are abusive. Read his own words in their full context here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given
a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is
saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and
partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.
Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I
hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.
Peter Tatchell writes:
The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.
Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the
Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their
crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.
Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by
professors, anthropologists, psychologists, a Dutch senator and a
former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It questioned ages of consent
and whether all sex between children and adults is necessarily
harmful.
I do not condone adults having sex with children. My Guardian letter
about this book was in defence of free speech and open debate about
the issue, in opposition to those who said that the book and the
debate it generated should not happen and should be closed down. I was
against calls for censorship. Even if Dares to Speak is entirely
wrong, in a free society its authors have a right to be published and
heard.
My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my
friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but
who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint
but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the
mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for
their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we
should respect that (while also recognising that many people are
harmed by early sexual experiences).
Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:
Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html
See this Guardian article, published in September last year:
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html
Hi,
For future ref - normally anonymous comments many times longer than the original post have no chance of getting through moderation. But in this case I thought I'd let it through so we can see what excuses are being made for Tatchell.
- Criticising me for being "out of context" makes me wonder if you are just cut-and-paste commenting? I gave a link to the whole letter from beginning to end so everyone can read not just the immediate context, but the whole thing.
- Right, so you say Tatchell was actually just defending the important right of having people in public forums arguing that sex with 9 year olds is OK, and was not actually saying that sex with 9 year olds is OK.... sorry, is that meant to make us all feel better? No specific offence intended, but are you bonkers?
- But in any case, as I've provided the link to the whole letter, everyone can judge for themselves whether Tatchell is spinning like mad to persuade us that he didn't really say what anyone who knows how to parse the English language can see he jolly well did... it doesn't need me to argue it.
If he'd said "wow - what was I thinking - that was sick and disgusting" that would be one thing... but turning round and calling *us* sick and disgusting for pointing out what he quite clearly did say, is something else.
It seems very clear to me that Tatchell is advocating lowering of the age of consent, and that he agrees that not all sex between adults and children is harmful to the child. He is not just supporting free speech as the original poster claims.
Sex between adults and children in some Australian aboriginal communities is known to be common, often with devastating results due to spread of infectious diseases. When combined with alcohol abuse, it is a recipe for disaster.
What many so-called experts, professors, anthropologists, psychologists, etc seem to lack is an understanding of the human condition, and the wisdom behind many laws, both civil and God given.
There is a propensity for people to act at the margins, flaunting the edge of the law, civil and moral, and as this behaviour becomes accepted in a society, the boundaries get pushed even further out. We have seen this, for example, in movies where not so long ago kissing was barred but now we are subjected to full nudity sexual intercourse in every imaginable position, with the excuse that this is normal human behaviour so why should it not be shown. One can think of many similar examples of the lowering of moral standards brought about by tacit acceptance of behaviour at the margins becoming the norm.
Where does Tatchell and his supporters think that lowering of the age of consent will end? At 14, 12, 10, 8? If 14 is ok, why not 13 for those more enlightended the argument goes. We could do with a lot fewer experts and more common sense.
Post a Comment