Hypocritical pope basher and militant gay rights leader, Peter Tatchell, has sensationally come out claiming that - based on his say-so - paedophilia is now acceptable, normal and okay.
Obviously, since Tatchell is a militant homosexual who spends his life ramming it down peoples throats (often literally); he is lionised by the likes of Channel 4, BBC, Labour and numerous other lefties. If you're aligned with any of these middle class condom-waving lefties then when it comes to gay issues (and there always seem to be a lot of them); his word is sacrosanct and we plebians must not argue with him. Believe you me; their case to fully exonerate Gary Glitter begins right here...
Apparantly, according to Peter Tatchells EXACT words in defending a book called "Boy Love" and as reported by the Daily Mail, he claimed that the book - which argues the case for its own title - was not shocking, but "courageous". Incredibly, he went on to state that "It is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful." Oh really Peter? Children? Those of an age not able to fully defend themselves physically, mentally, legally or emotionally? Yeah right...
He argued on behalf of the book by providing "examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal". Note how he cleverly changes the actual true term of paedophilia to a more well spun and positive phrase; "inter-generational sex". Expect to see an edict from Channel 4 and elsewhere that we must now use that sinister euphamism for anyone who molests kids. "I wasn't molesting that child your honour, I was just enjoying some inter-generational sex". "Oh in that case, not guilty sir, keep up the good work." Come back Gary Glitter, all is forgiven...
Tatchell went on to provide a tenuous example of a New Guinea tribe where apparantly "all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood" and they all grow up to be "happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers". Sure they do Peter. Sounds like the only initiation they are getting into manhood is an older blokes manhood initiaing it's way into their rectum.
His final say on the matter was even more incredulous: "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." In one brief statement he has thus claimed that:
(1) There is a positive nature to some child-adult sexual relationships (note how he turns it round from adult-child sexual relationships to make it seem like the child is in control). I think most of us would agree that there is absolutely nothing positive for the child about being buggered by someone old enough to be their grandfather (or actually by their grandfather). On organised marches to demand that the legal of age for anal sex between males was reduced to 16; I have to point out that we didn't see many 16 year olds on the march demanding to be sodomized did we? It was mostly 40+ males with balding heads, rainbow rucksacks and beer guts.
(2) He makes sure in this part of the statement to describe sexual liasons between adults and children as relationships. The word relationship defacto (and purposely) infers consent and mutually beneficial interaction. When you abuse a child Peter - and I'm not saying you do - you are not having a relationship with them. That's quite sinister because it helps underpin the mentality of many paedophiles who feel like they have relationships with those children they abuse. They don't have relationships, it's a very one sided affair between a cunning adult predator and an as yet unrounded and immature child. Emphasis on child.
(3) He goes on to claim that friends of his felt (as kids - aged 9 - 13 years) that they were not abused, that they made a conscious decision and received great joy. Imediately, that statement excuses the behaviour of the adult having sex with the children. Secondly, it argues that children are able to make 'conscious decisions' about having sex with adults. They can't - they're still children you idiot, especially at the age of 9. Finally, he claims they received great joy. Maybe he would like to give the adults involved a medal too for their sexual prowess?
This is a man who was recently given his own platform on TV to bash the Pope and the Catholic Church on their record of paedophilia. He's spent the last couple of weeks whipping the gay contingent up into a freny of hatred against the church for their record on child abuse yet he dovetails this with blatant support for child abuse with his statements. While I agree that the Catholic Church are an absolute disgrace in this department, based on Tatchell's direct quotes, that's like having Ian Brady host a show decrying how wrong child murder is. And he's just had a plaque unveiled in his locale highlighting his sterling work. I'm sure paedo's across the borough will be making the pilgrimage there post haste to create a shrine to him.
Peter Hitchens, commenting on this in his blog said "As the condom-wavers and value-free sex-educators advance into our primary schools, and the pornography seeps like slurry from millions of teenage bedroom computers, it seems clear to me that shock, by itself, is no defence against this endless, sordid dismantling of moral barriers till there is nothing left at all". I couldn't agree more Mr Hithcens.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this is - and I applaud Hitchens in his bravery for condemning Tatchells statements - is that if most of us tried to raise our concerns about these opinions in public, we would be very rapidly shot down, protested against and labelled as homophobes.
I'm sorry but there is a huge gulf between championing the rights of homosexuals and championing the rights of those who engage in what Tatchell likes to wholesomely describe as inter-generational sex aka child abuse. The likes of him, Stonewall and other gay pressure groups would be much better served by either entirely disassociating themselves from such arguments or by accepting that in not doing so; they have to stomach the fact that this is largely the reason why many of the people they label as homophobes believe that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. The link between the two is of course unrproved but extremists like Tatchell themselves add fuel to the fire by seemingly condoning, at least in specific circumstances. Let's be clear; legally, morally and logically - sex of any description between adults and children is utterly wrong. Until those waving rainbow flags recognise that, the sooner you will take a giant leap forward in your campaign for equality.
Unfortunately, Tatchell is exactly the type of ardent and outspoken supporter of those who not only demand that gay males can adopt children (so maybe they too can enjoy the positive benefits of 'inter-generational' sex Peter?) but who insist that all children in primary school from the age of 5 are inflicted with rhetoric (ahem, education) about homosexuality. I'm sorry but I don't want my child - herself in Primary School and aged 6 - to even be taught about hetrosexuality because she is just too young and she just doesn't need to know yet. How would a kid who believes in Santa Claus, fairies and the humanity of man benefit from learning about anal sex between men? In Tatcherworld, he would like us to all beleive that in just a couple of years time, she and her classmates will all be ready to enjoy positive consensual inter-generational sexual relationships with adults and in doing so receive great joy. To me, this is grooming by legislation. Yet this is the guy who is consistently given the platform by the government and leftie media to argue these types of points. The tragedy is that most people are just too afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled as homophobic.
It's a cross between the emperor's new clothes and Nazi germany. The gay mafia seem to want to twist and subvert public opinion by the threat of labelling people homophobic for not towing their line - which, riding roughshod over free speech - actually gets people sacked and ostricised for daring to even question whether gay-friendly terms like "inter-generational sex" are actually just pseudo speak for paedophilia. This whole kowtowing malarky to militant pressure groups - it's just a lie by the Liberal elite and the sensible majority have to endure it.
Maybe the sensible majority should thus agree a truce with this gay mafia - if they stop speaking lies then maybe we'll agree to stop speaking the truth...