Prominent Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, in a similar move as Harriett Harman, has called for the abolition of the age of consent. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidlindsey/100011564/peter-tatchells-call-to-lower-the-age-of-consent-to-14-is-disgusting-sex-is-for-adults/ In March 1976, the UK’s political pressure group Liberty, under their alternate name National Council for Civil Liberties, (NCCL) also lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent. “[I]t is both logical and consistent with modern knowledge about child development, to suggest that the age of consent should be abolished…” Coincidently The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) had been invited to affiliate in 1975, just a year earlier. It was Harriett Harman, legal officer for the NCCL at the time, who was complicit in the desire to abolish the age of consent and have incest decriminalised.
According to Peter Tatchell, “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.” He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where “all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood” and allegedly grow up to be “happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers”. Tatchell concluded that “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.”
Peter Tatchell doesn’t condone paedophilia; he just thinks that nine year olds can have consensual sex with adults.
Peter Tatchell’s statement is a hideous reflection of the argument put forward by Harriett Harman for NCCL, “…childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage…Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations. We suggest that the term ‘indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
Tatchell became a member of the Labour Party in 1978 and was elected secretary of the Constituency Labour Party in 1980. He was selected as Labour MP, Bob Mellish’s successor for Bermondsey in 1981 but lost that seat in 1983 to Simon Hughes. In the 1990s Tatchell became heavily involved with LGBT through the direct action group OutRage! This group, which Tatchell founded, has at times been criticised for outing individuals who wanted to keep their homosexuality secret. What this suggests is not a drive towards individual ‘rights’ but deliberate voyeurism on the part of one particular person.
Tatchell completely refutes the notion of biology i.e. that human beings are born heterosexual or homosexual (the gay gene), preferring to base his ideas on Alfred Kinsey a man whose research is based on paedophiles and criminals. http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/ As typical ‘sexual activists’ deem to purport Tatchell assumes “that queer and straight desires are far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow.” The suggestion is obvious. Tatchell and his ilk are promoting sexual preference as a social condition that can change at will. The immediate danger that can be seen with this social analysis of sexuality is the view taken of our children. First there is a fluid or ambiguous notion of sexuality, and then both Tatchell and Harman clearly endorse child/adult sex acts. At the very core of this is the idea of the child as a sexual being. This is ridiculous. Until puberty at the earliest a child only has a rudimentary idea of the difference between a boy and a girl. This most probably extends to boys playing with cars and girls playing with dolls! I want it to stay this way and not have perverted adult artificially ‘sexualising’ children for their own ends.
Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter