There is an guest post on the "Harry's Place" blog by Gay activist Peter Tatchell entitled "On the Pope’s state visit to Britain". It contains the text of Peter Tatchell’s speech at the Protest the Pope public meeting at the Old Town Hall, Richmond, on 12 August 2010 which begins
Pope Benedict comes to Britain next month. As democrats, we believe he has every right to come here and express his opinions. But we also have a right to protest against his often harsh, extreme views. We have a right to say that he is not welcome.
The Protest the Pope campaign is calling on the British government to disassociate itself from the Pope’s intolerant teachings on issues such as women’s rights, gay equality and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. On these and many other issues, Benedict is out of step with the majority of British people, including most Catholics. ..... and includes the following gem:
While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.
There are 32 responses to date including the following two:
[A] 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
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_16_Lee.htm
[B] 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 to its homepage http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/
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
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IPCE
And another Comment to the Harry's Place article by Peter Tatchell
ReplyDeleteKilbarry1 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):
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_16_Lee.htm
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!