#G340* – The Odious PETER TATCHELL & His Attempts To Condone Perversion & Rape!
Following is an article about Tatchell from The Christain Institute:
‘Homosexual rights’ campaigner Peter Tatchell has repeated his call for the age of consent to be lowered to just 14.
His position has been strongly rebuffed in the past, with one commentator saying that sex is for people who can cope with the consequences, “In a word, adults.”
Mr Tatchell’s latest comments echo those made by him last year as well as in a controversial letter he sent to The Guardian in 1997, in which he talked about the “positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships” and even said he knew cases of nine-year-olds for whom sex with adults “gave them great joy”.
Mr Tatchell’s recent remarks feature on an American forum website, Big Think, during a month in which the site published debate articles about “dangerous ideas”.
The ‘homosexual rights’ activist claimed that: “Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, underage sex is mostly consenting, safe, and fun”.
He believes that laws which put the age of consent at 16 are harmful to teenagers. “They signal that a young person is not capable of making a rational, moral choice about when to have sex”, he said.
May I point out they are also too young to drive a car, are considered to young to drink alcohol unsupervised and are not expected to work an personally fund their lives OR ITS MISTAKES! Perhaps the odious Tatchell has not noticed but in Britain we no longer expect them to ascend chimneys brush in hand either – children are to be protected by the parent, the family, society and the state – we do this for them not to keep them health for predation by perverts!
In an online article in 2009, Mr Tatchell wrote: “An age of consent of 14 might be more realistic and reasonable than 16.
“If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest?”
Indeed it is in the public interest, it is in the interest of society and it is in the medical, physical and mental interest of the child – maybe not Tatchell’s predatory associates whose perversion would seem to know no bounds so perhaps they will not be surprised that under such circumastances my chosen censure would similarly know no bounds!
He added: “Some teens, and even young children, innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. In most cases this causes them no harm at all.”
Tathell presents absurdum as justification such mutual exploration is neither perverse no predatory, and although frowned upon is exceedingly unlikely to lead to criminal proceedings.
If two consenting 14 year old indulged in sexual activity together, over stepping the mark, I would consider councelling and education may well be issue enough but let it be fair warning that if Tatchell or one of his friends was caught in the act of sodomising a nine year old which of course he himself tells us may well have consented and be enjoying having his rectum torn by an adult then I might even have been tempted as a younger man to take physical action, but would be only too happy to fulfill the duties of Pierrpoint were he justly tried and sentenced.
But commentator David Lindsay, writing on The Daily Telegraph’s website, slammed these remarks saying “sex is for people who can cope with the consequences, physical and otherwise. In a word, adults”.
In an outspoken letter to The Guardian in 1997 Mr Tatchell went even further, saying several of his friends had had sex with adults when they were aged between nine and 13.
“None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy”, he said.
Mr Tatchell went on to say 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”.
I was happy to campaign to ensure this revolting individuals aberant perversion was decriminalised between consenting adults – may I ask by what obscene aberation of our society do we grant people like this the opportunity to proselatyse their perversion?
Tatchell’s scurrilous letter, dated 26 June 1997, is reproduced in full below:
I find it extraordinary that any responsible platform would be provided for a pervert to be advocating a return to the stoneage practices of the Papuan peoples who it seems have only made one contribution to the modern world besides Krausveld Jacobs Disease ingested by their practice of eating the dead unless one considers the Vuvuzella to be something other than retrograde:
It is clearly not Peter Tatchell’ perversion that I find disgusting it is Peter Tatchell as an hetrosexual I do not condone nor do I encourage sexual relations with any gender firstly without INFORMED consent but most of all at an age when these children can not only understand but also cope with the consequences.
What child is capable of coping with a pregnancy – a perfectly natural outcome of heterosexual sex at virtually any agewith a girl of 9 in Singuan in North East China giving birth to a full term 6lb. baby and births to 11 year olds in Britain are not unheard of though uncommon!
The consequences to a childs body can be catastrophic, to their mental state damaging and to their lives devastating.
Now consider the practices of perverts such as male homosexuals where even commenced as adults can lead to incontinence fairly rapidly.
The campaigning for a 16 year old age of consent for boys in homosexual relationships leaves them wide open to the very predation the odious Tatchell advocates for 9 year olds! That the age of consent being reduced to 16 had further hugely damaging consequences as although sodomy by consent is not a criminal act for women it was for those under 21 even when the age of consent for girls was 16!
Now it is perfectly legal for a 60 year old to predate 16 year olds for sodomy with the consequential damage – more gross and more likely for a young male consenting to such an un-natural act. Yes I know perverts, male particularly will claim that because it happens it is natural – but that has about as much logic to it as because murder occurs it should be legalised.
Pefore every pervert in creation cries out – whilst they were hiding from view in the early 1960s I was actively campaigning to ensure their perversion was de-criminalised and that they should be permitted to conduct it in the privacy of their own homes and with the modesty and decorum with which I would expect heterosexuals to behave.
That there are a sub human cult of these perverts both heterosexual and homosexual who wish to and do predate minors is not a moral issue it is a sanity issue. It is most clearly an issue of mental aberation and such predation has been shown to be incurable and therefore though I would place a heavy penalty on the offence against decency as a first ‘mistake’, I would advocate a death penalty for the recidivist.
If these perverts are unable to control their predatory behaviour, as a second offence would indicate one MUST be minded that it is the duty of the State to protect its law abiding citizens – children particularly.
Being all too well aware of the possibility of Munchausen by Proxy or Follie a Deux as would seem to be a likely situation in the current promotion of Anne Greig & Robert Green’s ‘STORIES’ about Anne’s daughter Hollie of whom there is a great deal of intense heat but seemingly no clear light having been reasonably if not exhaustively investigated several times and having managed to find many provable lies in support of the story but zero admissible valid evidence. The burden of proof must be absolute as with any other execution and the sanction for false witness – as attracted by such cases to feed the penchant of the voyeurs and the vicarious should be as absolute.
There has been little progress from predation and abuse of children since medieval times and thus I have no qualms about countenancing medieval punishments!
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),
for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE
British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.
The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of PeterTatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have givena fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he issaying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective andpartial. You quote too many of his words out of context.Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. Ihope you might engage with what he is actually saying.Peter Tatchell writes:The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike thePope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up theircrimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of myfriends who had sex with adults while they were still children, butwho do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpointbut merely stating that they had a different perspective from themainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right fortheir perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, weshould respect that (while also recognising that many people areharmed by early sexual experiences).My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is"impossible" to condone – meaning that I don't condone it.Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:Irish Independent – 10 March 2008http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.htmlYou can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse hisfirst priority.he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.See this Guardian article, published in September last year:http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.htmlIt is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But Isupport 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many youngpeople who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexualexperience (not necessarily full intercourse) at around the age of 14.I do not advocate them having sex at this early age. It is best ifthey wait. But I don’t think that consenting 14 years olds should bedragged to court and threatened with prison. I certainly do notendorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.My critics also cite an interview / article I did with 14 year old Leein the late 1990s where he said that he had sex with adults when hewas a child and that he does not feel that he was abused.This was a journalistic piece designed to let him have his say and,through him, to give a glimpse into what many young people think aboutthe age of consent and its pitfalls. My critics seem to believe thatyoung people's opinions should not be heard if they disagree withtheir moral perspectives. I call that censorship.In the interview with Lee, I nevertheless challenged his view invarious ways, including making these points:“How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?“Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Mostyoung people are not so sophisticated about sex.“Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship betweena youth and an adult means the younger person can be easilymanipulated and exploited.“Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers willexpose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry?