There are some unpleasant things in this life.
One of them is getting ‘tweeted’ by the prominent British homosexual activist, Peter Tatchell, at 2am in the morning. Just like this morning.
Somehow, Peter got drawn into my recent post about the Sydney Leather Pride Association’s web page and the ‘educational’ information it provided on how to signal a desire to have sex with boys. These guys marched at the Mardi Gras. So did school kids. And yes, this is the same Mardi Gras that Peter Tatchell was given the ‘honour’ of leading in 2011.
So, Peter sent me a message from the other side of the world to explain that he didn’t support paedophilia even though he has campaigned to lower the age of consent in England to the age of 14, defended a book that promoted paedophilia in 1997, wrote an entire chapter for a book published in the early 1980s by the former Vice President of the Paedophile Information Exchange and has claimed that sexual relationships between adults and children aren’t always bad.
In fact, Peter reckons that he’s always opposed the idea of adults having sex with kids.
— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) March 11, 2014
I can only reply this way: Peter, if you are really opposed to the idea of adults having sex with kids, then you are doing it wrong.
Let’s go through all the ways that Peter is doing it wrong.
It starts with his misguided view that sex is a human right.
It is not. Human rights belong to all people. Like the right to life. And as Peter should well know, children have no ‘right’ to sex. On the contrary, there is an obligation for the parents and guardians of children to protect their innocence.
Sex is the right of a married couple.
So, Peter, that counts you out. All the gay sex that you have and that you promote is illegal and immoral. You have no right to it at all. And as there is such a thing as justice, one day you will pay for the ill-gotten rights that you have stolen for yourself and then abused so perversely.
In the meantime, there is always confession.
Furthermore, Peter’s claim that schoolchildren should be taught fellatio and cunnilingus, as a ‘safe’ option, is both disgusting and unhealthy. And his absurd claim that the new ‘morality’ means that all sexualities are equally valid is nothing but a rejection of morality altogether.
It is also a lie.
The heterosexual relationship is not the same as that of a sodomite such as Peter. Peter Tatchell and his buddies cannot create life. But an unmarried 15 year old boy and girl can do that. That is why heterosexuality is so powerful. It is a power that comes with great responsibility. Hence the necessity for commitment throughout life, in order to raise and nourish new life. Marriage is the institution that ensures the tremendous power found only in heterosexual relationships is ordered and directed for a greater good of the individuals involved and society in general.
But that is not the only way Peter is wrong on this point. He claims that as long there is mutual consent, then anything goes. It’s a philosophy that is comfortable including children.
And we know this, because in 1997 Peter wrote that:
“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.”
Just so you know, this wasn’t written in the deep, dark recesses of a publication with a name like ‘BLAZE’. According to a New South Wales Royal Commission into child sexual abuse running at the same time that Peter put pen to paper, this term was found to mean ‘Boy Lovers and Zucchini Eaters’.
Now Blaze is the name of South Australia’s premiere homosexual publication. Don’t you think it’s weird that elements of homosexual culture have this strange, continual yet coincidental link with paedophilic literature and culture?
But I digress, back to Peter…
Peter’s letter was not sent to Blaze, but was posted to The Guardian – one of the largest newspapers in England. And it was duly published.
Peter wrote this letter to defend the ‘courageous’ free speech of a group of ‘intellectuals’ who “challenge the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive”. They are Peter’s exact words.
And a decade before writing a letter in defence of a book that challenged assumptions that paedophilia was wrong, Peter actually contributed a whole chapter to a pro-paedophile book, called The Betrayal of Youth. It was Chapter 9: Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent.
Tsk, tsk. Not a good look is it.
And Peter, the staunch anti-Catholic, shared the pages of this book with a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, Fr Michael Ingram, who wrote Chapter 7 of the book, was found guilty a few years later of doing exactly what he wrote about: children and sex.
So Peter might not like the Catholic Church but he’s more than happy to write books with ‘Catholics’ who ignore the Church’s teaching on morality and who write pro-paedophile material.
In his defence, Peter claims that he has an excuse. It’s not a lame one, like he didn’t realise what the book was about. Even that would stretch all credibility. Nor does he claim that it is wrong to write books promoting paedophilia. As we know from above, Peter is on the record as saying that challenging these assumptions about paedophilia is courageous.
No, Peter just states this:
“I had no idea that (Warren Middleton, the Editor) was involved in paedophilia advocacy when I was asked to write my essay.”
And then he says this:
“My chapter in the book did not endorse child sex. It merely questioned whether 16 was the appropriate legal age of consent. Different people mature at different ages. There are many countries that have diverse ages of consent, some higher and some lower than 16. I did not advocate the abolition of the age of consent or specify at what age sex should become lawful.
I was not aware of who the other authors were or what they wrote until the book was published. I would not have agreed to be in the book if I had known. I should not be blamed for what others wrote. It is wrong to tar me with their opinions. There is nothing in my contribution that even remotely condones child sex abuse.”
For those not aware, Warren Middleton went to jail for possessing indecent images sometime after this book was published. Before putting it together, Warren was the Vice President of the Paedophile Information Exchange – the same organisation that is now causing all sorts of embarrassment for senior officials in the UK Labor Party who gave it support and funding in the 1970s. And Peter knew Warren from the time they were comrades in the Gay Liberation Front about a decade before this book was published.
So I find it hard to accept Peter’s excuses. But maybe they are true. And if that’s the case, then Peter must surely face up to this stone, cold fact: he might not be a paedophile, but his campaigning to lower the age of consent sure made him a lot of paedophile friends.
They loved him so much, that they even hoodwinked him into writing a chapter in a book that they used to support their cause.
And that is why if Peter was really serious about opposing paedophilia, then he would face up to the fact that he’s been doing it wrong his entire adult life.