Peter Tatchell’s Glowing Review of Paedophile’s Book

Screenie:

I see Tatchell has now been designated Terf and added to the shinigami eyes Terf blocker...

I'm sorry for anyone who has ever held this man in esteem... But campaigning in Russia and Zimbabwe? Two of the countries where in the late 80's and 90's sexual abuse of minors by "charity" workers was rife? Taking in account his general inclinations, could anyone possibly be more transparent with what these trips were actually for?
Fucking vile pedo.

When Genevieve Gluck was discussing her investigations with Glinner, she had some interesting speculations as to why there is a concerted effort to disdain and attack the viewpoint of lesbians and feminists. Gluck argues that previous attempts (1970s to 1990s) to normalise various paraphilia and to remove the age of consent by forced teaming these campaigns with gay rights etc. were successfully halted by actions from women, feminists, and particularly lesbians who spoke up about their concerns, especially around safeguarding.

There seems to be a recrudescence of concerted action to normalise these ambitions again. Gluck comments on the strategy of the pre-emptive attack on feminists and lesbian by ostracising them and "slandering them as TERFs from the start"…

https://www.youtube.com/live/mS8ZfFZ-Bc0?feature=share

Quoted from previous discussion:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4554411-top-academic-behind-fetish-site-hosting-child-sexual-abuse-fantasy-push-to-revise-wpath-guidelines?reply=117401401

I fully agree lechiffre. It is something that I have noticed with other things he has written.

I am not sure that anyone would say that Peter Tatchell is a women and girl's rights supporter after they have read through what he is written. It is also like he cannot conceive of what life is like for a girl or a woman. He simply seems to have had the bad luck to never have had to consider our lives at all...

A different human with a different brain might have written :
Although marrying her may have been unlawful.
This doesn't frame her as the abuser but the abused. The roles are instead reversed.

@Helleofabore
Although her marriage may be unlawful, there is no evidence that Sarah was coerced into, or harmed by, the relationship with Musa Komaegae.

This really displays the mindset to me "no evidence" of harmful conduct. Like it necessary to prove harmful conduct when the marriage is illegal to start with. The illegal marriage is harmful conduct right from the start. There is no need to provide extra evidence, that is all the evidence that is necessary. There is a presumption of innocence, and a request for more evidence from Tatchell when we already consider this a crime because it is abuse.

There's a second phrase in there that I again think shows off more than Tatchell intends, "her marriage" not their marriage, or his marriage to her the victim, but "her marriage", like she's the one responsible, she's the perpetrator. Consider the few words afterwards, "her marriage may be unlawful" they way unlawful come just after putting the onus on her really does make me think the author places all the blame squarely on her. She did this illegal thing, she's responsible. When the law is broken and she's the victim, in the words above she stands alone in the dock, he is nothing to do with breaking the law.

I think when I really pay close attention to his words and how they are placed, I get to see what he really thinks inside. I get a strong feeling that Tatchell is not fond of women or girls at all.

I have been searching for it on and off for months. I remember reading it a couple of years ago, and remembered the incident but not the specifics. So, after this latest, I searched anew and persisted until I found the name of the woman (girl at the time) who this happened to and then searched with Tatchell’s name. I either discovered it on a MN thread in general and looked it up once or I found it linked on twitter once. Either way, I knew he had said this.

it was a letter published in the Independent. And it simply reinforces that he has no concept of children’s boundaries despite his many assertions lately that he understands. No. He doesn’t. I reckon he probably has forgotten just how many instances he has supported this theme, as I said, directly or indirectly.

His bad luck is that so many people have receipts. I am constantly amazed to see him on media platforms as a panelist.

Hellofabore I hadn’t seen that letter before - where did you find it?

Isn't it fortunate that Peter Tatchell is a 'National Treasure'? It would be horrible and unfair if he was compared to Rolf Harris, Garry Glitter or Jimmy Saville.

Oh yes pencils, isn’t wonderful that Peter, a male activist for LGBT people also activates so heavily for all children to access porn for education (do you know he tells teenaged females how great an education porn is to learn what sex is all about!!) that adults having sex with children is just an unfortunate theme that keeps being brought up. How much bad luck does he have that there is so many instances of him giving support to that theme directly or indirectly!

Maybe, just perhaps, so much content recently is to bury past statements so down the search results that it fades from view and he can deny it all.

It's nearly always fully adult males who campaign for the reduction of the age of consent, not mothers or children. Wonder why?

Wow, I hadn't seen this one before.

I've done a transcript of Rosanna Lockwood's TalkTV interview with Graham Linehan, Peter Tatchell and Grace Blakely (I don't know where best to post the whole thing).

A close listening made clear that Rosanna Lockwood knew all about Peter Tatchell's 1997 letter to the guardian.

They're busy retweeting him/liking his posts

x.com/lgbtpoliceuk?s=11&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Tatchell is an Old Left dinosaur still continually seeking to expand the civil liberties of men at the expense of women and children.

Scratch the "progressive" surface and you'll find all the regressive fervour of the so-called men's rights movement: anti-feminist, pro-porn, pro-prostitution, glowingly in favour of child brides and child sex. Not to mention the main strategy of the Left patriarchy: demanding that men have the right to colonise and thereby cancel the entire category of women, with women's right to safe space, women's services and any autonomy trampled under the jackboot of misogynist trans ideology.

Yes, and it's particularly likely to be true of gay men, as they are less likely to have children.

I also think the experience of male sexuality has some real differences to the experience of female sexuality though, and that effects how they experience these kind of encounters. Men are much less likely to look back on promiscuous sex in the teen years (with other teens) negativity, whereas I've met lots of women who feel that way.

yes indeed.

Thank you, both! But it's less insight and more simply listening to other women, to be honest. Especially on mumsnet: so many threads from OPs realising that they were preyed on as teens.

Agreed - very wise. And it's why the DfE, schools etc need to gatekeep who gets to share their viewpoints with schools & children.
In recent years, the DfE have completely failed with this, especially in SRE & PSHE, funding & promoting all sorts of unsuitable organisations. It's a consequence of the Tory "bonfire of red tape" approach - supposedly empowering schools but completely failing to evaluate and spot the dodgy groups accessing DfE funding and worse, giving them a free pass to sell political ideas / queer theory to schools & children of all ages.

Very insightful.

A lot of women only realise that they were sexually exploited as young teenagers when their eldest child gets to the age they were themselves, when they were targeted by a predatory adult.

It's quite normal to feel incredibly grown-up when you are 14 years old because it's the most mature you have been in your life so far; sometimes it takes bringing up a 14 year old to make you realise how vulnerable to manipulation a young teen is.

Approximately 80% of women end up having children and women are the default primary carers, so it's standard that the majority of female abused teenagers will grow up to have children. That's rather a lot of women who learn how emotionally young the most sophisticated-seeming teenager really is.

Male life experiences don't necessarily mirror women's, so perhaps a single, childless man like PT wouldn't have the experiences that would force him to reassess his beliefs about the maturity of children and teenagers.

This.
He seems Teflon coated, given what he has said.

And It’s not as if Boris hasn’t been criticised for his extra marital affairs over the years, he lost a shadow cabinet role and a vice chairmanship over one of them.