tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3524702757941791247.post1738956106155649334..comments2024-02-23T10:16:24.649+00:00Comments on Irish Salem: Once Again - Peter Tatchell, Pope Benedict and PaedophiliaKilbarry1http://www.blogger.com/profile/16315245582069674422noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3524702757941791247.post-36888369956696102292010-12-28T09:33:57.412+00:002010-12-28T09:33:57.412+00:00The Western liberal-left has an ignoble history of...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.<br /><br />http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3524702757941791247.post-15781489683040386802010-09-14T16:42:32.332+01:002010-09-14T16:42:32.332+01:00I can understand that some people are concerned by...I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter<br />Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given<br />a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is<br />saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and<br />partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.<br /><br />Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I<br />hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.<br /><br />Peter Tatchell writes:<br /><br /><br />The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.<br /><br />Irish Independent – 10 March 2008<br /><br />http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html<br /><br />See this Guardian article, published in September last year:<br /><br />http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.htmlUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007222557591767335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3524702757941791247.post-57914789936479808442010-09-14T16:29:26.560+01:002010-09-14T16:29:26.560+01:00I can understand that some people are concerned by...I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter<br />Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given<br />a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is<br />saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and<br />partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.<br /><br />Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I<br />hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.<br /><br />Peter Tatchell writes:<br /><br />The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.<br /><br />Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the<br />Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their<br />crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.<br /><br />Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by<br />professors, anthropologists, psychologists, a Dutch senator and a<br />former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It questioned ages of consent<br />and whether all sex between children and adults is necessarily<br />harmful.<br /><br />I do not condone adults having sex with children. My Guardian letter<br />about this book was in defence of free speech and open debate about<br />the issue, in opposition to those who said that the book and the<br />debate it generated should not happen and should be closed down. I was<br />against calls for censorship. Even if Dares to Speak is entirely<br />wrong, in a free society its authors have a right to be published and<br />heard.<br /><br />My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my<br />friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but<br />who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint<br />but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the<br />mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for<br />their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we<br />should respect that (while also recognising that many people are<br />harmed by early sexual experiences).<br /><br />My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is<br />"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.<br /><br />Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:<br /><br />Irish Independent – 10 March 2008<br /><br />http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html<br /><br /><br />You can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse his<br />first priority.<br /><br />he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.<br /><br />See this Guardian article, published in September last year:<br /><br />http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html<br /><br />It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But I<br />support 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many young<br />people who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.<br />More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexual<br />experience (not necessarily full intercourse) at around the age of 14.<br />I do not advocate them having sex at this early age. It is best if<br />they wait. But I don’t think that consenting 14 years olds should be<br />dragged to court and threatened with prison. I certainly do not<br />endorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007222557591767335noreply@blogger.com