Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids

[Happypie]

Peter Tatchell runs the Peter Tatchell Foundation that is currently seeking charitable status. He is also regularly consulted on LGBT issues.

I include a picture of a letter he wrote to the Guardian in the 90s about sex with children. It is deeply disgusting. A man who has these views about sex with kids should not be allowed to run anything.

The statement on that link is utterly abhorrent. First of all he claims that he is against child abuse and only wants to decriminalize young people and that people who have questioned him regarding his position are members of the far right criticising him.

But despite all his denials he makes it very clear later in the article that he believes many children enjoy being abused and that he believes this is something which should be openly discussed.

After reading his own full statement, I cannot label him anything other than a supporter of and apologist for paedophiles using only his own words.

His tactic of labelling all critics 'Nazis' is a familiar far left tactic which is used in the hope of shutting down debate by making their opponents frightened of the stigmatising stain of the label Nazi.

He also insists that the claims of adults that they enjoyed being abused as children must be believed and taken at face value. He doesn't give a moments thought to the obvious possibility that these claims would be made by adults who wish to justify child abuse.

I also think Peter knows full well from the timeline of both the (very positive) gay rights movement and the (not so positive) TRA movement - the first little and oh so reasonable on the face of it request is never the last.

With the gay rights movement, decriminalization of gay sex led to civil partnerships, marriage and protected status - great. TRAs' first little request that perhaps they could just change their passports has led to a position where the whole of society may be legally obliged to join in with a mass delusion and women's rights are thrown under the bus on demand for any man - not so great.

I think Peter knows full well that demands from paedophiles and their supporters that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 and discussion of children enjoying abuse accepted are not an end point. That is the starting point, not the destination. It is a journey they hope will end with not just decriminalization of paedophilia but a protected status for paedophiles and the criminalization of criticism of paedophiles.

Anybody who thinks that is impossible should consider that 20 years ago the idea of putting male sex offenders in female prisons of criminalizing the statement people with penises are men were ludicrous too.

You're not the only one who learned from the methods of your previous campaigns Peter. Not the only one at all...

What a disgusting letter.

Keep this thread going.

We know what the agenda is and it ain’t happening on my watch or the watch of 99.9% of the people who post on this forum.

Maybe GMTV or the like could invite him on to squirm whilst we eat or cornflakes.

Is that blue sign still erected?

Just a grown man, talking to a 14 year old about his sex life

www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/im-14-im-gay-i-want-a-boyfriend/

Apologies if I’ve missed this in the thread...

Has Peter Tatchell published the original, unedited letter to the Guardian anywhere and/or was a complaint made to the Guardian about the editing of the letter (either in 1997 or since then)?

I’m struggling to believe this tbh. Gobsmacked

All this lowering the age of consent, and children are sexual beings crap, are used by oaedophiles to gain access to children, and to justify their actions, it is sick. Don't think the children will say the same. Just because sex with children are carried out in some tribes, does not make it right. FGM is carried out in some tribes as a right of passage, does not make it right,vthis is why it is being banned.

Has Peter Tatchell published the original, unedited letter to the Guardian anywhere and/or was a complaint made to the Guardian about the editing of the letter (either in 1997 or since then)?

No, he hasn't. And this is despite the fact that he had a follow-up opportunity as he responded after Ros Coward's piece about PIE etc.

spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/peter-tatchell-and-dares-to-speak/

He also insists that the claims of adults that they enjoyed being abused as children must be believed and taken at face value. He doesn't give a moments thought to the obvious possibility that these claims would be made by adults who wish to justify child abuse

Are you quite sure about that?

Isn't it at least possible that there's an aim to enable adults saying exactly this?

If he hasn’t, then a reasonable person could only conclude that he meant what he wrote and there is no ‘unedited’ version.

Any reasonable person (let alone someone in the public eye campaigning around age of consent) claiming a letter was ‘edited’ to appear they supported peadophilia would, at the very least, publish the letter in its entirety and/or complain to the newspaper.

How has this not been picked up by media/anti-child abuse campaigners? Surely it’s already been looked at by the authorities?

Why is he posting on mumsnet about it? It’s frankly abhorrent.

The "well adjusted" Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea
Is not something I feel able to do a link to. It's grim reading indeed.

Boys are removed from their mothers from aged six.
They are sexualised by adult males.
The children and the women have no power, no value.
When the boys are initiated into manhood by the adult warriors of the tribe. ( There are a number of initiations). They continue the cycle of abuse.
(That is the very edited version.)

This is not about loving same sex, balanced relationships between two men. This is not the relationships the gay men in my family and others live.
This is not about two fourteen year old boys finding about their bodies together, in the way adolescents explore their bodies.

Is it ?

That's the tribe Peter Tatchell is talking about in his letter. Sorry. I didn't really make that clear enough.

Totally gobsmacked at this. I had a lot of respect for Peter Tatchell and his work on gay rights.

Why on earth would he tarnish that success by justifying this nonsense? Does he think the wealth of evidence about the experience of abused children doesn’t matter?

Is he even aware of the testimony of child abuse victims to the historical child abuse enquiry in Scotland? 60 year old men whose lives have been destroyed by what happened to them as children and teenagers.

This has come out before in 2010 and it was all forgotten about. hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/09/who-said-not-all-sex-involving-children-is-unwanted-and-abusive-answer-the-popes-biggest-british-cri.html

Why on earth would he tarnish that success by justifying this nonsense?

What's that saying? "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Sunset,that is a shocking read...How does he think that this is ok?And to use this boys (IMO,a really sad and explotited) experience as an example of a good reason to lower age of consent,I can't get my head around it.

Sunset I cant even get myself to read all the way through that it is so bad. Really shocking!

Sunset I couldn’t read that article. I feel truly sickened.

It’s interesting that he hasn’t come back. Utter coward. Keep copying and pasting you twisted man.

I would fight to the death to keep my children safe from the likes of you.

I thought everybody already knew this about peter tatchell. I remember reading about all this years ago. I never could understand how people liked him.

I've also known for a few years citiesofbismuth. It comes out, the furore dies down, you question how we live in a society that allows men to get away with this untarnished whilst women like Bindel are cast into the 7th circle of hell for work aimed at keeping women safe.
It seems it takes several goes at it, several new audiences before there is enough of an appetite to bring a vile man down.

This lesson is worth hanging on to for all the recent horrors of manhood that have been the subject of discussion on these boards the last couple of years.

Not everyone knows about the flasher, the politician, the doctor etc. They're well known to us, but public awareness hasn't reached critical mass.
Those deeds need a new airing every so often.

So how, or where does this hideous letter to the Guardian fit in with the chapter he wrote in the book? ( referenced on the FWR thread)

Is it part and parcel of the same episode or are they both evidence of a longer timeline narrative?

Are you quite sure about that?

Isn't it at least possible that there's an aim to enable adults saying exactly this?

Puzzled, not entirely sure what you mean. If you mean that he is thoughtful that some adults might say it for that reason, I don't think so. Because he follows that comment by saying if someone says they enjoyed being abused nobody has a right to question that.

If you're saying he might be suggesting this was a good idea because he wanted to enable adults who would make false claims of enjoyment to justify abuse - well I couldn't possibly say. It's definitely a possibility though isn't it?

DTSMUMBOJO the fault's mine for putting it badly ... I meant the second one, but was being careful what I said to avoid getting the thread deleted

Considering how litigious these types can be, I'm frankly amazed it's still here at all

[Peter Tatchell talks to 14 year old Lee on Peter’s blog. My words in square brackets , direct quotes in bold]

Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem

[You might think that being sexually abused by men since he was 12 was one of Lee’s problems but you would be wrong. The problem, according to Peter, is the age of consent ]

This is a live issue for Lee because he prefers relationships with older guys. “I don’t get on with people my own age”, says Lee. “They’re too immature. I like men in their 20s or early 30s. They are more experienced and serious. With them, you can get into a closer relationship than with a teenager”........

The age of consent laws don’t make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship. “Some men run a mile when they discover how old I am”, he moans. “They’re worried about getting done by the law”

[How annoying that the law is causing concern to men in their 30s who are sexually abusing children!]

And what do you think about paedophiles in general? [ asks Peter ]

“It depends on what kind of paedophiles”, says Lee. “Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn’t pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it’s fine. If you don’t, it’s not”......

How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: “The really young ones can’t. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing” .........

Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited [writes Peter ]

It’s a concern that Lee acknowledges: “Yeah, that can happen. It’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean that every kid who has sex with a man is being abused” ........

Do you worry about being arrested for under-age sex? “Sometimes. I mostly worry for the older guys that I’m having sex with. They could get life imprisonment and be denounced as a paedophile. They might end up on the sex offenders register. It could ruin their life

The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages

When I put this idea to Lee, he nods with approval: “Some young people mature earlier than others. They should be able to have a relationship with someone a bit older. Society should accept that kids have sexual feelings”

www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/im-14-im-gay-i-want-a-boyfriend/

From the article Sunsetbeach posted:
Even without the Sex Offenders Act, any man who has sex with Lee could face a maximum sentence of 10 years for kissing, touching, sucking or wanking, and life imprisonment for anal sex. The top penalty for the offence of “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 14 year old girl is, in contrast, two years!

What sort of individual (restraining myself here) bemoans they could rape a girl and do less time? With a fucking exclamation mark just for emphasis. Honestly, as if the way girls are treated by the police and the law is aspirational.

I can’t read any more of that. Peter Tatchell you’re a vile bastard piece of shit of a human being, and I’m still restraining myself btw.

I'm thinking about my own early teen son, how vulnerable he looks. IS. I'm thinking about the teen boys I have known working in prostitution, who always had an older "boyfriend" who would buy them stuff and "look after" them. Their warped ideas of what passes for love were based on years of abuse and exploitation. Heartbreaking. Of COURSE adolescents have emerging sexual feelings. It's a normal part of growing up.It's also normal that they snog and fumble with their peers. Kids on the same level of power. Even the difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old is HUGE at that age. Any of us who had older boyfriends at that age will know that.
But in the letter and the revolting interview with the boy PT isn't even really focusing on that. It's all about men getting access to young boys. That's it.
I think it's really clear what his intentions were, and what they have been all along. Normalising and minimising child sexual abuse. He's not even trying to hide that, not really. In plain sight.