Peter Tatchell has another post on the "Harrys Place" blog regarding the Pope's visit to Britain
"Why Should I Pay for the Pope"
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/09/09/why-should-i-pay-for-the-pope/
These are two of many actions by Pope Benedict that call into question his moral authority. He says women are unfit to be priests, childless couples should be denied fertility treatment, embryonic stem cell research is murder, using condoms to stop the spread of HIV is immoral and gay people are not entitled to equal human rights. Most shockingly, the Pope is accused of colluding with the cover up of child sex abuse by priests. Even today, he has not handed the Vatican’s sex abuse files to the police.
A few commentators (including myself) have pointed out that Peter Tatchell is a strange one to be denouncing the Pope's actions in relation to the paedophilia scandal:
Caged Horse 9 September 2010, 3:53 pm
How many times has PT called for a substantial reduction in the age of consent? Some might say him and Pope Benny are made for each other.
John P. 9 September 2010, 7:41 pm
I do agree with Christopher Hitchens that His Holiness should be served with a subpeonea for his role in the Church’s coverup
What coverup? Had there been such a coverup, then the pedophile problem would have never made the news, would it?
Benedict has only ( indirectly, by the way) been involved with a known pedophile cleric. That cleric was removed from his functions and subjected to a good deal of intense therapy. When that therapy ended, Benedict, thinking the guy was better, signed a letter reinstating him.
Afterwards that cleric recidivated.
How does that constitute a coverup?
I think The Church should approach the friggin’ therapist and ask for its money back.
Ivan 9 September 2010, 11:00 pm
Peter Thatchell, why bother arresting the Pope when in ten years, if fellows like yourself get their way the pedophile priests would be hailed as the avante-garde.
Just saying 9 September 2010, 11:31 pm
The idea that a self-obsessed pervert like Tatchell gives a toss for Holocaust victims any more than he does for the victims of child abuse is hard to believe. He is just an opportunistic hate-monger, a wanna-be Titus Oates. All Catholics should pray for his conversion.
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2010/09/it-is-time-society-acknowledged-truth.html
Kilbarry1 10 September 2010, 4:09 am
@Ivan and Just saying
This is the text of Peter Tatchell’s letter to The Guardian dated 26 June 1997
ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/
Hanoi Paris Hilton 10 September 2010, 4:22 am
I vote for His Holiness to nominate Mr. Tatchell for fast track-beatitude and speedy sainthood. What could go wrong?
Ivan 10 September 2010, 5:38 am
Kilbarry thats my point, Tatchell thinks he is some kind of smarty pants, his agenda is too transparent for words. What’s the betting that he’ll care about the Holocaust, if ever Pope Benedict turns around and says that its OK to have active homosexuals in the clergy. We’ve all seen the Life or Nat Geographic articles where Stone Age numbskulls in Papua New Guinea battle each other to death, ending with the victors parading around with their dicks sheathed in bamboo. Perhaps following on his victory over the Pope, Tatchell could campaign for football hooligans to do the same.
M*o*r*g*y 10 September 2010, 12:59 pm
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.
what is it about theist morons and their fear of Teh Ghey?
Harry's Place actually rejected my reply to M*o*r*g*y but nevertheless, I think they published enough to cast doubts on Mr. Tatchell's credentials on this issue.
Kilbarry1 22:30 on 10 September 2010 – not accepted
@M*o*r*g*y
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.
I think Tatchell did a good job smearing himself in his 1997 letter to The Guardian. The kind of sick sexuality that he promoted/s(?) was popular in the 1960s and 70s but seemed to fade away afterwards. It was rather daring of Tatchell to support it openly in 1997 but I suppose he felt he was some sort of sacred (liberal) cow who could get away with anything. He wasn't far wrong either.
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
ReplyDeleteTatchell'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).
My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.
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
You can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse his
first priority.
he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.
See this Guardian article, published in September last year:
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html
It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But I
support 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many young
people who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.
More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexual
experience (not necessarily full intercourse) at around the age of 14.
I do not advocate them having sex at this early age. It is best if
they wait. But I don’t think that consenting 14 years olds should be
dragged to court and threatened with prison. I certainly do not
endorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
ReplyDeleteTatchell'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.
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
The Western liberal-left has an ignoble history of promoting the legalization of sexual relations with children. This Der Spiegel report reports on how the 1968ers promoted a climate in which pedophilia was considered normal and progressive.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html