Friday, August 20, 2010

Peter Tatchell, the Pope and Paedophilia

Peter Tatchell, who co-founded the gay action group "Outrage", is protesting the forthcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Britain. Among other things he accuses the Pope of shielding clergy guily of child abuse from prosecution. Tatchell had a guest post on "Harry's Place" on 13 August and a very lively discussion followed that high-lighted Peter Tatchell's own views on adults and adolescents who have sex with VERY under-age children.

On the Pope’s state visit to Britain
Guest Post, August 13th 2010, 5:33 pm
Guest post from Peter Tatchell of the Protest the Pope Campaign

Text of Peter Tatchell’s speech at the Protest the Pope public meeting at the Old Town Hall, Richmond, on 12 August 2010:
................ In 1992, When he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he authored a Vatican document that condemned homosexuality as an “objective disorder” and a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.” Rejecting the concept of gay human rights, the document asserted that there is no “right” to laws protecting homosexual people against discrimination, suggesting that the civil liberties of lesbians and gay men can be “legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct.”

The Pope has attacked same-sex marriages as “evil” and vilified supporters of gay equality as “gravely immoral.” He has also denounced homosexual equality as a “deviant trend” and condemned same-sex love as being “without any social value.” He even threatened to excommunicate Catholic legislators who voted for gay rights laws.

While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.


A Bit Dark 14 August 2010, 1:31 am

“While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.”
Peter Tatchell, 2010.

“Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee’s partner is ‘a paedophile’ and Lee is’ a victim of child abuse’. That’s not, however, the way Lee sees it:
“I want to have a boyfriend. It’s my choice. No one’s abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?”.

I am sitting in the kitchen of a friend’s house talking with Lee. Wearing a white T-shirt and combat trousers, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. He comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and mature beyond his years. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.”

Peter Tatchell, 1997

Kilbarry1 14 August 2010, 10:39 am
@ A Bit Dark
Re Peter Tatchell
The 1997 article you quote by Tatchell is on the IPCE website. According it its homepage

Welcome to the Homepage of the Ipce Web Site
"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.

Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications." [among which is Peter Tatchell's article].

According to “The Free Dictionary” the definition of the acronym is

IPCE International Pedophile and Child Emancipation
Well there are other possible meanings but in the current context it is unlikely to stand for:
IPCE Independent Parametric Cost Estimate
IPCE Interprofessional Cancer Education etc

Kilbarry1 14 August 2010, 11:50 am
A month or two ago a poster on HP quoted Tatchell’s proposal that the age of consent be reduced to 14. Someone else claimed that Tatchell only means this to apply to adolescents having sex with each other. It is abundently clear that this is NOT what Tatchell means (or meant in his 1997 article):

I point out to Lee that an age of consent of 14 would not have been much help to him, since he was having sex from the age of eight. Even with consent at 14, most of his past sexual relationships would have remained illegal.

“Young people under 14 should be allowed to have sex with someone up to a year or so older”, he suggests. “That way they’ve got freedom, and are protected against exploitation by older men”.

Even with a permitted one year age differential, Lee’s affair [at age 10] with Andrew, who was three years older, would not have been legal. Something a bit more flexible is required.

The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.

To emphasise that “Lee” was not exceptional Tatchell pointed out that:
Lee is just one of a growing number of lesbians and gays who are coming out at an ever earlier age … twelve, thirteen and fourteen is not uncommon nowadays. Research published by Project Sigma in 1993 shows that

9 percent of gay men had their first homosexual experience by the age of 10,
19 percent by the age of 12, and
35 per cent by the age of 14.

For Peter Tatchell this is not something to be deplored. In fact the law should be changed to facilitate it! ........................................

John P. 14 August 2010 2:37 pm
Official gaydom always maintains that pedophile priests are pedopbiles because they are repressed homosexuals. The cause of that repression, and the resulting pedophilia is placed, thus, squarely at the feet of The Church.

I used to buy into that.

In my home parish a priest is on trial for abusing 13 and 14 year-old boys ( arrested last year). During the preliminary hearings it was revealed that this priest had also been involved in a long running relationship with another adult male. This guy was not abusing kids because Church teachings had “repressed” his sexuality. He was keenly aware of his orientation and far from feeling repressed, he appears to have acted on every lustful impulse he ever felt.

His taste for teenage boys, thus, was not the perverse result of repressive Church teachings. Rather it was part and parcel and a clear and unambiguous ‘celebration’ of his homosexuality.

It is estimated that up to 30% of priests are queer, with the other 70% being hetero.
Surely, if Church teachings prepressed sexuality, then both groups would be equally repressed and given, thus, to abusing minors on a roughly proportional scale.

A reasonable assumption, non?

However, the number of cases in which hetero priests abuse underage girls is far, FAR below their 70% portion of the priesthood. In fact, almost ALL of the abuse cases involve homosexual priests.

Who ever thought that the sexual repression resulting from Church teaching could be so selective?

Interesting coments from Kilbarry1 and A Bit Dark.

No comments:

Post a Comment