To be fair to Dr Ranj on that, society does need to have conversations about what you do with paedophiles.
Do you execute them?
Do you jail them for short periods in the hope of rehabilitation and if you do so how do you rehabilitate them?
Do you jail them for life?
Is it an illness? Is it an innate sexual preference like other sexual preferences or it often trauma based?
If it's trauma based is it fair to lock up victims or to look to treat them?
Given that Dr Ranj is a doctor he will come at this from a particular position about how humans may be broken in various ways and medicine is about looking for ways to fix them. That's a fair argument as part of a wider debate.
You CAN NOT say he is being a paedophile apologist nor sympathiser by trying to start a conversation along these lines. Even if you disagree with the point he makes.
I don't know the answer to this and I won't defend or criticise Dr Ranjs comments either way on this. It's a subject that is awkward and no one wants to go near for obvious reasons. But we really should.
My problem here is more that Dr Ranj has gone on record saying he tried to whistleblow.
And what is happening is the classic response to that where the entire character of the whistleblower becomes the subject over and above what they were whistleblowing about. That puts off other whistleblowers.
It's an unhealthy culture.
I am most definitely not a fan of Dr Ranj. He has said some things I really disagree with.
But trying to raise a debate about what to do with paedophiles does not make you a paedophile. And that's what the insinuation here is. And the timing of that insinuation is very obvious in terms of its intentions.
It's not cool.