The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Post Reply

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

The reason a lot of homosexuals are doing this is because homosexuals have been shown to rape more often than homosexuals do given their relative population.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/th ... ign=buffer

OpinionMon Oct 14, 2013 - 12:53 pm EST
The homosexual Left’s new crusade: Normalizing adult-child sex
Matt Barber

October 11, 2013 (WND) - So much for the left’s “consenting adults” rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described “progressive” friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting” – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.
Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.

Ever hear of Kaitlyn Hunt? Over the past year or so this poor, misunderstood lesbian woman’s “anti-gay persecution” has become a cause célèbre among “gay rights” activists and other left-wing purveyors of perversion.

Despite mass rallies and online petitions signed by hundreds-of-thousands of the uber-”tolerant,” the clearly “homophobic” Florida criminal justice system has, nonetheless, convicted Ms. Hunt of multiple felonies for sexually assaulting – repeatedly – a 14-year-old girl.

Puritans.

Oh, sure, her minor victim allegedly “consented” to what the “Free Kate” crowd has portrayed as a harmless tryst – but, of course, by law children below the age of consent cannot consent to sex with adults. Period.

Still, the “progressive” establishment evidently felt that, for whatever reason, this was their hill to die on – this was the case that might help them realize the historical “gay rights” goal of rolling-back most, if not all, age of consent laws – statutes designed to protect children from adult sexual predators like, well, Kate.

Veteran journalist Robert Stacy McCain has covered the Hunt case extensively. In a recent piece for the American Spectator headlined “Kaitlyn Hunt is guilty and, yes, there is a movement to ‘normalize pedophilia,’” McCain writes: “Kaitlyn Hunt is a criminal. We can state that as a Neutral Objective Fact, now that the 19-year-old former cheerleader has pleaded ‘no contest’ to multiple felonies related to her sexual affair with a minor. What remains is the question of what her plea in a Florida courtroom Thursday means for what Rush Limbaugh has called the movement to ‘normalize pedophilia.”‘

Here’s the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and, despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, the “pedophile rights” movement is inexorably linked to the so-called “gay rights” movement.

Two years ago I – along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman – attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Here are some highlights from the conference:

Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”“
Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adults love one another.
The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.

You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today’s sexual “progressivism.” It doesn’t. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama’s first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to “parenting tips” that referenced children as “sexual beings” and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.

This of no surprise when you consider that one of Jennings’ ideological heroes was Harry Hay, the “founding father” of homosexual activism. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he has said glowingly.

Was Harry Hay fringe? No, not among “gay” activists. He’s an icon. Again, he was just honest. In 1983, while addressing the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAM/BLA, Hay said the following:

“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

If he were alive today, Harry Hay would likely have led the movement to “free Kate.”

And by “free Kate,” he would have meant – and they actually mean – “free us.”

And by “free us,” of course, what they really mean is “free children.”

Reprinted with permission from WND
Last edited by Werd on Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -trio.html

How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? Even Left demands answers from senior Labour trio over links to child sex group

[*]Pressure mounts on Harriet Harman, her MP husband and Patricia Hewitt
[*]Trio held key roles in group that backed Paedophile Information Exchange
[*]Columnists in Observer, Guardian and Mirror urge all three to speak out
[*]They were leading officials in group that granted 'affiliate' status to PIE
[*]Predatory paedophiles in PIE wanted the age of consent to be cut to four[/b]

By Guy Adams and Tim Shipman

PUBLISHED: 23:19 GMT, 23 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:50 GMT, 23 February 2014

Pressure is mounting on three Labour grandees to explain their links with a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children.

MPs, commentators and even Labour-supporting newspapers lined up yesterday to attack the silence of the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her MP husband and former minister Patricia Hewitt.

The chorus of condemnation follows the Mail’s devastating series of reports into how the trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

ImageImage
Labour's deputy leader: Harriet Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the National Council for Civil Liberties's legal officer in 1978 until 1982

ImageImage
Will he respond to the Mail's questions? Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Jack Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970 to 1979

Although the BBC has ignored the story, those calling for the trio to explain themselves include Left-wing commentators who would normally be expected to back them.

Carole Malone in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. She said: ‘How can they ever again be taken seriously on ANY issue if they stay silent?’

In the Observer newspaper, a columnist said the Labour trio ‘cannot stay silent on this child sex claim’, adding it would be ‘a grave mistake for them to stay silent or curtly dismissive, perhaps hoping that the claims will magically disappear’.

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade wrote last week: ‘I’m with the Mail on this one . . . I think Harman, Dromey and Hewitt do need to address this matter seriously.’

Image
'People of different ages being nice to each other': The autumn 1982 edition of Rights, the in-house magazine of the NCCL. Self-confessed paedophile Mike Morten's letter was published on page 9 (pictured centre)

Image
Document: This is the cover page of the NCCL's submission to Parliament on the 1976 Sexual Offences Act held at the LSE library, which suggests that the age of consent be lowered to 14

Image
Damning: On page six of the document it is argued that 'a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent' and the age of sexual consent cut to ten 'if the child understood the nature of the act'

Kevin Maguire, the Daily Mirror’s associate editor and cheerleader for a Labour government, tweeted: ‘Agree with @GreensladeR on NCCL-PIE. If I were Harman, Dromey or Hewitt, I’d want to set the record straight.’

The Mail has revealed how, before they became MPs, the three were leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) which granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.

The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.

The NCCL itself lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten – if the child ‘understood the nature of the act’ – and called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a ‘Lolita’s charter’.

ImageImage
Questions being asked: Former minister Patricia Hewitt was the NCCL general secretary from 1974 to 1983

Image
Annual report for 1975: Patricia Hewitt published this document in April 1976, which included a 'gay rights' section on page ten defending the Paedophile Information Exchange and its members

Image
Defence: Ms Hewitt had described the Paedophile Action for Liberation group, which changed its name to PIE that year, as 'a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children'

Last night Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ‘When left-wing commentators such as Roy Greenslade and Carole Malone demand answers from these three senior Labour politicians, you know that this is not so much a political issue between Right and Left, but one about right and wrong.’

Fellow Tory MP Philip Davies added: ‘They should certainly provide an explanation and clarification as to whether they still hold these views or not.

‘They’re among the first to jump down anyone else’s throats if anyone challenges their politically-correct shibboleths.’

Police are investigating PIE as part of Operation Fernbridge, launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

A source with knowledge of the inquiry says there is evidence PIE members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

Image
AGM minutes: This page reveals how the PIE was represented at an NCCL AGM at the University of Lancaster. Below the list of organisations present is Jack Dromey's name, after he was re-elected to the executive committee of the NCCL in 1977

ImageImage
Columnists: Carole Malone (left) in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. And Rod Liddle (right), writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story

The Mail has repeatedly asked the Labour trio to answer vital questions about their time at the NCCL.

Miss Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, was its general secretary from 1974-83. She described PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.

Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Mr Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970-79.

His wife Miss Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the NCCL’s legal officer in 1978 until 1982.

None of the three has commented on the Mail’s revelations, except for Miss Harman whose spokesman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

In the newspapers, commentators from Left and Right condemned the trio for failing to explain their actions.

Observer columnist Barbara Ellen wrote: ‘The fact remains that some very disturbing things went down, including the legitimising of a group that wasn’t even bothering to hide the word “paedophile” in its name.

‘Who would want their own good name indelibly attached to something like this, especially without sufficient reply? A calm, thorough, intelligent response is required.’

Miss Malone wrote: ‘There’s never been a time when it’s been OK for adults to have sex with children… If any opposition politician was implicated in such a scandal, Harman and Hewitt would be on their moral high horses demanding explanations.

‘But they and Dromey have point-blank refused to explain their links with this wicked group. That silence has made them look weak and cowardly.’

And Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story.

He wrote: ‘So far, only a handful of newspapers have reported the fact that three very senior Labour party figures had rather close links with the group back in the good ol’ Seventies.

‘Can you imagine how the media – and especially the BBC – would react if three current senior Conservative MPs were revealed to have had links to a paedophile group?’

Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘BBC News is an impartial, independent news organisation and decides its editorial priorities based on merit alone and without external help.

‘The story in question is not new and instead we have followed several big breaking news stories this weekend.’
... AND THE VITAL QUESTIONS THEY STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER

The Mail has posed a series of vital questions to Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey. They include:

To Harman, Hewitt and Dromey:

During your time with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), it gave significant support to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Do you regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of this vile organisation you helped legitimise?

To Hewitt and Dromey:

The NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status to PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?

PIE submitted a report to MPs claiming that ‘girls as young as four months can achieve orgasm’, and that four-year-old children can ‘communicate verbally their consent to sex’. Given these utterly repellent views, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?

The NCCL made a written submission to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission, arguing: ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.’ On what basis, scientific or otherwise, did you make this extraordinary claim?

The submission also called for the crime of incest be abolished, arguing that the suggestion that genetic damage may result from children born of incestuous unions ‘is in direct contradiction to the practices of successful animal breeders’. Do you still take this view?

To Harman:

The NCCL’s affiliation with PIE, its support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent, and its demand for the legalisation of incest were all widely reported throughout the 1970s. Why, given these morally offensive views, did you then take a job as legal adviser to the NCCL?

Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 19119.html

Pedophile Alliance: An Uncomfortable Past for Gay Rights
By Ann-Katrin Müller

Image
A page addressing the "national pedophilia question" in gay activist magazine "Rosa Flieder" in 1981.

In the 1980s, gay rights groups in Germany formed an alliance with pedophiles who advocated the legalization of sex with minors. It's a dark period few care to talk about now.



In July 1981, the gay interest magazine "Rosa Flieder" published an interview with Olaf Stüben. Stüben was one of the most infamous pedophiles in Germany at the time. As a writer for the leftist newspaper Die Tageszeitung, he openly advocated for people to accept pedophilia as healthy and moral.

In the magazine interview, Stüben is asked why it should be acceptable for adults to have sex with children and youths. He talks of quickies with young boys, and declares it backwards to maintain the taboo around inappropriately touching children. "Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism," Stüben says.

The interview in "Rosa Flieder" was not a one-off lapse. On the contrary -- in the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine "Don" presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of pedophilic men. The headline read, "We're not child rapists!"

In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which the Green Party in the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by pedophiles. The party came under such intense pressure that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.

Yet it's now clear that the gay movement in Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called "Gay Lawyers." Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience.

A Beneficial Alliance

Nowadays it seems puzzling why gays would get themselves mixed up with people whose sexual obsessions were downright illegal. The tolerance for pedophiles was fueled by several different sources. For one, many gays at the time knew all too well what it was like to be discriminated against by the state. Consensual sex between adult men was officially a criminal act up until the end of the 1960s. Only in 1969 did lawmakers in West Germany dismantle the infamous "Paragraph 175" of the German Criminal Code. At the same time, the sexual revolution was breaking out, and many men finally had the courage to come out of the closet.

Thus many gays didn't want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.



Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.

For the pedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.

The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet "Justly gay. Legal advice for gays," there is a one-and-a-half page "argumentation aid." It's an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.

Backlash Begins

The reader is spoken to informally: "If your sexual behavior is not contestable, but this behavior is limited to French kissing and mutual masturbation, your defense attorney can request that an expert witness take the stand." This could serve to negate the claim that such behavior is harmful to the sexual development of a child, the pamphlet continues. But only on one condition: "Suitable expert witnesses must be contacted in due time."

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the gay movement in Germany began to distance itself from pedophiles. At the Green Party convention of the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia in March 1985, the party approved a document that called for the legalization of "non-violent sexuality" between adults and children. The incident caused such an uproar that the Greens missed out on the chance to enter the state legislature.

The gay rights movement also began to notice how much damage the alliance with pedophiles was causing. Suddenly gays had to fight back against the cliche of the "homosexual child molester." Their actual goals, like the creation of an effective AIDS policy and the end of societal discrimination, were relegated to the background.

The women's movement was also partly responsible for raising awareness among leftists of the harm caused by pedophilia. Prominent feminist Alice Schwarzer was active in fighting child abuse when pedophilia was still considered an acceptable form of human sexuality in some circles.

While the now-defunct leftist alternative magazine "Pflasterstrand," then edited by current Green politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit, justified sex with children, Schwarzer caused a sensation with an interview in her magazine "Emma." She spoke with sexual educator Günter Amendt, who was considered especially progressive at the time. Still, he criticized that pedophiles always exploited their position of power over children. There could be no discussion of love on an equal standing, he said.

Past Advocates Tight-Lipped on Issue

Of course, Schwarzer says today, pedophilia is not an issue among gays. There are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones, she says. "But the gay rights movement needed to distance itself more clearly. And a problematization of pederasty, sex between men and young boys, has not yet occurred."

But there are hardly any gay activists who are willing to talk about the dark days of the past. Volker Beck, who represents Cologne in the German parliament, has made it clear that he has already said all he is going to say about the subject. Beck was for a long time the spokesman for the Greens' Federal Working Group for Gay Politics.

In the 1980s, he wrote a contribution for a book called "The Pedosexual Complex" in which he advocated for the decriminalization of sex with minors. He later claimed that the passages were later edited into his text. He can't prove if that is true or not.

The LSVD is also tight-lipped when it comes to clarifying its involvement with pedophilia. In the 1990s, they wrote clear explanations, says Günter Dworek from the board of directors. The paper from 1997 is essentially unapologetic. It says it is abuse "if adults satisfy their sexual needs at the cost of children." However, there is no word on the former alliance of gays and pedophiles in that text.
Last edited by Werd on Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26376896
27 February 2014 Last updated at 18:27 ET

Patricia Hewitt 'sorry' for stance on paedophile group

Image
Patricia Hewitt was general secretary of the NCCL in the 1970s

Former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has apologised for having "got it wrong" in the row over a pro-paedophile group.

She said she took responsibility for mistakes made by the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s when she was its general secretary.

The NCCL was "naive" over its links with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Ms Hewitt said.

But she had never condoned the "vile crimes" of paedophiles, she added.

It is the first time Ms Hewitt, who said she had been away for the past 12 days, has publicly spoken since the latest controversy broke.

She said more should have been done to protect the integrity of the NCCL from the activities of PIE, which was allowed to join the organisation as an affiliate member in 1975.

In a statement, Ms Hewitt explained she had only been able to study allegations made by the Daily Mail upon her return to the UK and said: "Any suggestion that I supported or condoned the vile crimes of child abusers is completely untrue."

The newspaper has questioned Ms Hewitt, along with deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman and Ms Harman's husband and fellow Labour MP Jack Dromey, over their actions while officials at the NCCL in the 1970s and 1980s.
'Repeated condemnations'

Ms Hewitt said: "NCCL in the 1970s, along with many others, was naive and wrong to accept PIE's claim to be a 'campaigning and counselling organisation' that 'does not promote unlawful acts'.

"As general secretary then, I take responsibility for the mistakes we made. I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so.

Image
The NCCL later changed its name to Liberty

"I should have urged the executive committee to take stronger measures to protect NCCL's integrity from the activities of PIE members and sympathisers and I deeply regret not having done so."

Ms Hewitt said that in particular, PIE member Tom O'Carroll - who was convicted of child pornography offences in 2006 - should not have been allowed to join the NCCL's gay rights sub-committee.

A proposal by the NCCL to lower the age of consent was not made by her but was the policy of the organisation and its executive committee, she added.

Ms Hewitt, who was general secretary of NCCL from 1974 to 1983, said: "I do not support reducing the age of consent or legalising incest."

Ms Harman has accused the Daily Mail of "smear and innuendo".

While she said she "regrets" that the NCCL had links to PIE, she has insisted that she has nothing to apologise for.

Mr Dromey has insisted that he made "repeated public condemnations" of the pro-paedophile group.

Speaking on BBC One's Question Time, Conservative defence minister Anna Soubry said: "I think Harriet has handled [the story] very badly. If she had just come out and apologised, it would have gone away."

She added: "I don't think she has done herself any favours. Neither has Jack Dromey."

But, for Labour, shadow education minister Rushanara Ali said: "Harriet has spent a lifetime campaigning for women and children. The idea that she would campaign for paedophiles is wrong and ludicrous."

She also said: "There's an argument that the Daily Mail has got an agenda against certain senior figures in the Labour Party."

And Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader, Elfyn Llwyd, said it was wrong to criticise Ms Harman, who had joined the NCCL in 1978, more than two years after the affiliation with PIE was agreed, and had been a "junior lawyer".

"Asking her to apologise is like asking me to apologise for the First World War," he said.
And another article.
More dirty secrets from the liberal closet that they want kept closed.

How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? Even Left demands answers from senior Labour trio over links to child sex group

Pressure mounts on Harriet Harman, her MP husband and Patricia Hewitt
[*]Trio held key roles in group that backed Paedophile Information Exchange
[*]Columnists in Observer, Guardian and Mirror urge all three to speak out
[*]They were leading officials in group that granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE
[*]Predatory paedophiles in PIE wanted the age of consent to be cut to four

By Guy Adams and Tim Shipman

PUBLISHED: 23:19 GMT, 23 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:50 GMT, 23 February 2014

Pressure is mounting on three Labour grandees to explain their links with a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children.

MPs, commentators and even Labour-supporting newspapers lined up yesterday to attack the silence of the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her MP husband and former minister Patricia Hewitt.

The chorus of condemnation follows the Mail’s devastating series of reports into how the trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

Image

Image

Labour’s deputy leader: Harriet Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the National Council for Civil Liberties’s legal officer in 1978 until 1982

Image

Image

Will he respond to the Mail’s questions? Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Jack Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970 to 1979

Although the BBC has ignored the story, those calling for the trio to explain themselves include Left-wing commentators who would normally be expected to back them.

Carole Malone in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. She said: ‘How can they ever again be taken seriously on ANY issue if they stay silent?’

In the Observer newspaper, a columnist said the Labour trio ‘cannot stay silent on this child sex claim’, adding it would be ‘a grave mistake for them to stay silent or curtly dismissive, perhaps hoping that the claims will magically disappear’.

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade wrote last week: ‘I’m with the Mail on this one . . . I think Harman, Dromey and Hewitt do need to address this matter seriously.’

Image

‘People of different ages being nice to each other’: The autumn 1982 edition of Rights, the in-house magazine of the NCCL. Self-confessed paedophile Mike Morten’s letter was published on page 9 (pictured centre)

Image

Document: This is the cover page of the NCCL’s submission to Parliament on the 1976 Sexual Offences Act held at the LSE library, which suggests that the age of consent be lowered to 14

Image

Damning: On page six of the document it is argued that ‘a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent’ and the age of sexual consent cut to ten ‘if the child understood the nature of the act’

Kevin Maguire, the Daily Mirror’s associate editor and cheerleader for a Labour government, tweeted: ‘Agree with @GreensladeR on NCCL-PIE. If I were Harman, Dromey or Hewitt, I’d want to set the record straight.’

The Mail has revealed how, before they became MPs, the three were leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) which granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.

The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.

The NCCL itself lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten – if the child ‘understood the nature of the act’ – and called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a ‘Lolita’s charter’.

Image

Image

Questions being asked: Former minister Patricia Hewitt was the NCCL general secretary from 1974 to 1983

Image

Annual report for 1975: Patricia Hewitt published this document in April 1976, which included a ‘gay rights’ section on page ten defending the Paedophile Information Exchange and its members

Image

Defence: Ms Hewitt had described the Paedophile Action for Liberation group, which changed its name to PIE that year, as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children’

Last night Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ‘When left-wing commentators such as Roy Greenslade and Carole Malone demand answers from these three senior Labour politicians, you know that this is not so much a political issue between Right and Left, but one about right and wrong.’

Fellow Tory MP Philip Davies added: ‘They should certainly provide an explanation and clarification as to whether they still hold these views or not.

‘They’re among the first to jump down anyone else’s throats if anyone challenges their politically-correct shibboleths.’

Police are investigating PIE as part of Operation Fernbridge, launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

A source with knowledge of the inquiry says there is evidence PIE members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

Image

AGM minutes: This page reveals how the PIE was represented at an NCCL AGM at the University of Lancaster. Below the list of organisations present is Jack Dromey’s name, after he was re-elected to the executive committee of the NCCL in 1977

Image

Image

Columnists: Carole Malone (left) in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. And Rod Liddle (right), writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story

The Mail has repeatedly asked the Labour trio to answer vital questions about their time at the NCCL.

Miss Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, was its general secretary from 1974-83. She described PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.

Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Mr Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970-79.

His wife Miss Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the NCCL’s legal officer in 1978 until 1982.

None of the three has commented on the Mail’s revelations, except for Miss Harman whose spokesman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

In the newspapers, commentators from Left and Right condemned the trio for failing to explain their actions.

Observer columnist Barbara Ellen wrote: ‘The fact remains that some very disturbing things went down, including the legitimising of a group that wasn’t even bothering to hide the word “paedophile” in its name.

‘Who would want their own good name indelibly attached to something like this, especially without sufficient reply? A calm, thorough, intelligent response is required.’

Miss Malone wrote: ‘There’s never been a time when it’s been OK for adults to have sex with children… If any opposition politician was implicated in such a scandal, Harman and Hewitt would be on their moral high horses demanding explanations.

‘But they and Dromey have point-blank refused to explain their links with this wicked group. That silence has made them look weak and cowardly.’

And Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story.

He wrote: ‘So far, only a handful of newspapers have reported the fact that three very senior Labour party figures had rather close links with the group back in the good ol’ Seventies.

‘Can you imagine how the media – and especially the BBC – would react if three current senior Conservative MPs were revealed to have had links to a paedophile group?’

Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘BBC News is an impartial, independent news organisation and decides its editorial priorities based on merit alone and without external help.

‘The story in question is not new and instead we have followed several big breaking news stories this weekend.’
… AND THE VITAL QUESTIONS THEY STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER

The Mail has posed a series of vital questions to Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey. They include:

To Harman, Hewitt and Dromey:

During your time with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), it gave significant support to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Do you regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of this vile organisation you helped legitimise?

To Hewitt and Dromey:

The NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status to PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?

PIE submitted a report to MPs claiming that ‘girls as young as four months can achieve orgasm’, and that four-year-old children can ‘communicate verbally their consent to sex’. Given these utterly repellent views, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?

The NCCL made a written submission to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission, arguing: ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.’ On what basis, scientific or otherwise, did you make this extraordinary claim?

The submission also called for the crime of incest be abolished, arguing that the suggestion that genetic damage may result from children born of incestuous unions ‘is in direct contradiction to the practices of successful animal breeders’. Do you still take this view?

To Harman:

The NCCL’s affiliation with PIE, its support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent, and its demand for the legalisation of incest were all widely reported throughout the 1970s. Why, given these morally offensive views, did you then take a job as legal adviser to the NCCL?
Last edited by Werd on Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

It's not just lefties that carry water for pedophiles. It's right wingers too. How does it feel lefties? To know that you have creeps on your side as well? How about you stop virtue signaling and start actually caring about children?


http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index ... rrell2.htm

(Quoted material from article is in blue; the article’s quotes of Farrell are in blue bold, and liznotes in black.)


Incest would be just another media trend, faddishly seduced and abandoned after repeated use, were it not for two forthcoming studies that promise to turn the prohibition on its head. Both introduce and uphold the notion of positive incest, an especially dissonant oxymoron that will madden therapists and confuse the masses more than the Kinsey reports did twenty-five years ago…
Kinsey collaborator Dr. Paul Gebhard, currently director of the Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, Indiana… is releasing Kinsey’s startling incest material for incorporation in Warren Farrell’s work-in-progress, The Last Taboo: the Three Faces of Incest…
NBC’S “Weekend” visit to the Santa Clara County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Center in San Jose will not help Farrell and Ramey convince anybody that incest is less than a scourge. Host Lloyd Dobyns was so depressed by the content that he told the audience in his introduction that he wasn’t sure he’d watch himself if it weren’t his own program. What followed was a montage of contrite fathers and exploited daughters pouring out unrelievedly sad stories of incest and grief. To interrupt the monotony of the documentary, producer Clare Crawford-Mason frequently cut to Hank Giaretto, director of the treatment center, for background and wisdom on the taboo. Giaretto was positively against incest and linked it to prostitution, drug abuse, and sexual dysfunction in daughter victims. In his experience the normally repressed impluse overpowered law-abiding, middle-class fathers when they were down and out professionally and alienated from their wives. These men looked toward their blossoming daughters first for consolation and then for sex…
Warren Farrell admires Giaretto’s rehabilitative mission among legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category. But he faults “Weekend” for its skewed perspective.
“It was like interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. ‘Weekend’ recorded sexually abused children speaking about their sexual abuse, which is valuable, but the inference is that all incest is abuse. And that’s not true.”



..Although he vowed not to speak out prior to publication (probably in 1979), he consented to a one-time debriefing at a Chinese restaurant near his Riverside Drive apartment overlooking the Hudson River in Manhatten. At thirty-four, he is separated from his wife, who is an IBM executive, and childless…
[according to Farrell] Mother-son incest represents 10 percent of the incidence and is 70 percent positive, 20 percent mixed, and 10 percent negative for the son. For the mother it is mostly positive. Farrell points out that boys don’t seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience. “Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”

The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences
[now there’s objective research for you], Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. [Could we phrase this a little more mildly?] Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse — 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. “Either men see these relationships differently,” comments Farrell, “or I am getting selective reporting from women.” [i.e. men tell the truth, women lie.]

In a typical traumatic case, an authoritarian father, unhappily married in a sexually repressed household [i.e it’s the mother’s fault] and probably unemployed, drunkenly imposes himself on his young daughter. [i.e it’s not a traumatic case if dad is sober and gentle.] Genital petting may have started as early as age eight with first intercourse occurring around twelve [i.e. it’s “genital petting”, not “molestation”]. Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him. [i.e. give him joint custody, he needs more time] If she is unaware of society’s taboo and if the mother does not intervene [it’s the mother’s fault], she has no reason to suspect the enormity of the aberration. But when she grows up and learns of the taboo, she feels cheapened. [i.e. it’s everyone’s but the father’s fault.] If she comes from the lower class, she may turn to prostitution or drugs… The trauma is spread through all classes, Farrell observes, but incest is more likely to be negative in the lower class… [i.e. rules don’t apply to important men.]

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.” [just a wholesome family, not a couple of perverts.]

[Re one of Farrell’s reported “case studies”] … the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter…. His wife’s appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months… the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before [that seducing vixen], he told his daughter he missed sex. Without further prompting, she fellated him…Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. [He “deflowered” her but she had an active sex life.] Several weeks later, the daughter took the initiative again… [note how innocent the man is throughout this entire little scenario.]

Farrell realizes the risks that attend publication of this book. “In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women’s feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter’s lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don’t want to write the book.” [liznote: cf Myth of Male Power: Farrell does not believe that this is the way society is, but rather, that it’s women exploiting men.]

Since neither victim nor benefactor needs Farrell’s confirmation, why does he gamble with bringing on a sexual deluge? “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”
“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”
[He’s a psychologist? No. Farrell”s Ph.D. is in political science]

Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims. “The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? “Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship…”

Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/th ... ign=buffer

The homosexual Left’s new crusade: Normalizing adult-child sex
Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.
Mon Oct 14, 2013 - 12:53 pm EST

Image

By Matt Barber

October 11, 2013 (WND) - So much for the left’s “consenting adults” rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described “progressive” friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting” – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.
Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.

Ever hear of Kaitlyn Hunt? Over the past year or so this poor, misunderstood lesbian woman’s “anti-gay persecution” has become a cause célèbre among “gay rights” activists and other left-wing purveyors of perversion.

Despite mass rallies and online petitions signed by hundreds-of-thousands of the uber-”tolerant,” the clearly “homophobic” Florida criminal justice system has, nonetheless, convicted Ms. Hunt of multiple felonies for sexually assaulting – repeatedly – a 14-year-old girl.

Puritans.

Oh, sure, her minor victim allegedly “consented” to what the “Free Kate” crowd has portrayed as a harmless tryst – but, of course, by law children below the age of consent cannot consent to sex with adults. Period.

Still, the “progressive” establishment evidently felt that, for whatever reason, this was their hill to die on – this was the case that might help them realize the historical “gay rights” goal of rolling-back most, if not all, age of consent laws – statutes designed to protect children from adult sexual predators like, well, Kate.

Veteran journalist Robert Stacy McCain has covered the Hunt case extensively. In a recent piece for the American Spectator headlined “Kaitlyn Hunt is guilty and, yes, there is a movement to ‘normalize pedophilia,’” McCain writes: “Kaitlyn Hunt is a criminal. We can state that as a Neutral Objective Fact, now that the 19-year-old former cheerleader has pleaded ‘no contest’ to multiple felonies related to her sexual affair with a minor. What remains is the question of what her plea in a Florida courtroom Thursday means for what Rush Limbaugh has called the movement to ‘normalize pedophilia.”‘

Here’s the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and, despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, the “pedophile rights” movement is inexorably linked to the so-called “gay rights” movement.

Two years ago I – along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman – attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Here are some highlights from the conference:

Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”“
Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adults love one another.
The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.

You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today’s sexual “progressivism.” It doesn’t. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama’s first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to “parenting tips” that referenced children as “sexual beings” and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.

This of no surprise when you consider that one of Jennings’ ideological heroes was Harry Hay, the “founding father” of homosexual activism. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he has said glowingly.

Was Harry Hay fringe? No, not among “gay” activists. He’s an icon. Again, he was just honest. In 1983, while addressing the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAM/BLA, Hay said the following:

“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

If he were alive today, Harry Hay would likely have led the movement to “free Kate.”

And by “free Kate,” he would have meant – and they actually mean – “free us.”

And by “free us,” of course, what they really mean is “free children.”

Werd
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The left pushes for pedophile acceptance

Post by Werd »

Hyperlinks NOT reproduced. View the source.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/21/pe ... it-parade/

The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit Parade
We cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia as fringy stuff that will get nowhere. It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength.

By Stella Morabito
February 21, 2019

Activists for normalizing pedophilia are on the move. Public acceptance of adult sex with children is the next domino poised to fall in identity politics. It’s being sustained, among other things, by the rapid sexualization of children in the media and in K-12 education.

We cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia as fringy stuff that will get nowhere. It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength. It’s a very logical outgrowth of the nihilism inherent in the sexual revolution.

If you doubt this, just consider, for example, how unthinkable to many Americans was the recent celebration of infanticide (in the guise of abortion rights) by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Likewise, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam—supposedly a pediatrician—spoke cavalierly about whether to dispose of a living infant who survives abortion.

They and governors of many other states are betting that your shock will simply wear off and we’ll all eventually get with the infanticide program. People do tend to settle into such shifts, believing it won’t affect them. But the selective dehumanization of children has been going on for a long time now. Why should we think it’ll be any different when the time comes for legalizing pedophilia?

As with any propaganda campaign that pushes outrageous changes on an unwary public, it’s all about timing. Academics might refer to timing as the Overton Window or the Availability Cascade. But we should all be able to understand the process of conditioning the public to accept the unacceptable.

First, the groundwork is laid through carefully planned propaganda. There are various types of messaging for various audiences: the medical establishment, the education establishment, legislators, judges, the general public, and so forth. Then the agitation begins with poster people who are “just like you.” And before you know it, it’s all over.

Unveiling pedophilia as “just fine” will likely be an ambush if we aren’t prepared. It promises to be as swift as the “transgender tipping point” campaign that shrewdly coincided with the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015. It will be accompanied by a defiant campaign to paint any resistance as a relic of outdated morality that oppresses the rights of an identity group and the civil rights of any children caught in it.

So, when that inevitable time comes, will we just sit back and cower in confusion? Or will ample voices be able to break through the pressures of political correctness beforehand and shout “Enough!” Be prepared to make that happen, because the pitcher is full and they are mixing the Kool-Aid.
The Sexualization of Children Is Well Underway

We’ve already being desensitized to the sexualization of children and implanting gender confusion in them. Parents from Long Beach, California to Queens, New York are taking their toddlers to drag queen story times at local libraries. Some, like the mother of nine-year-old Lactatia, now actually groom their boys to be drag queens and encourage them to get other children to do the same.

Media outlets spread the idea. For example, “Good Morning America” recently celebrated an 11-year-old drag queen who danced suggestively on the show and does the same at adult night clubs. The studio audience looked groomed to be a picture of Middle America. They cheered his gyrations on cue, and approvingly.

A majority of American parents are already tacitly okay with sex “education” that pushes early sexual activity on their kids, along with developmentally inappropriate teachings about various sexual practices. They’re also getting on board with having the transgender hoax imposed on their kids, with a bunch of cool moms modeling that behavior. Most parents who are disturbed by all this are overwhelmed and keep their concerns to themselves, which only perpetuates the trend.

Our public schools, with the backing of the highly politicized American Academy of Pediatrics, are also now in the business of nudging any young child to get injections of puberty blockers if he or she claims to be transgender. Some states are now threatening to take away custody from any parent who is not on board with that. K-12 classrooms are becoming labs in which kids are being programmed to serve such agendas.

Your children have been defined by the left’s sexual nihilists as totally sexual beings. So what next? The logical answer: from sexual beings to sex objects. We may well see even more legalized exploitation of children unimaginable to many Americans today. Let’s face it: Pedophilia has been waiting in the wings, and is itching to come out. So let’s not be blindsided when it hits full force.
Designating Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation

There are two main avenues to legalizing adult sexual relations with pre-pubescent children: 1) to designate it as a sexual orientation; and 2) to lower—or abolish—the age of consent for sexual activity. Both efforts are on track by pedophilia advocates, especially in academia and in the mass media. Take a look at this TED Talk released last year, in which the speaker chides us: “Let’s be mature about pedophilia.”

The speaker, Madeleine Van Der Bruggen, makes the case that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation that can be neither chosen nor changed. She appeals us to “stop with the hate!” (sound familiar?). She argues that everybody probably knows someone with a pedophilic interest. And, really, they’re just like you. Most don’t talk about it because it’s illegal. Imagine, she asks, if you’re told you could never act on your passion? She implores us to imagine “how lonely” that must be.

Yet another TED talk from another young female pushed the same argument. But that talk was taken down by TED, at the request of the speaker. You can still access it here.

The academic literature is also getting much bolder by publishing increasing numbers of articles in support of both avenues: designation as sexual orientation and re-considering age of consent. Perhaps most shocking to people of conscience is the December 2018 article by convicted British child molester Tom O’Carroll that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Sexuality and Culture. More on that later.

In arguments to push social acceptance of adult sex with prepubescent children you will find nearly an exact parallel to all of the arguments for all manner of “progressive” causes, including, of course, LGBT preferences.

There has also been a rash of publishing in popular magazines. The idea of the “virtuous pedophile” was unveiled in Todd Nickerson’s Salon article “I’m a Pedophile, but not a Monster.” Salon actually removed the article, although it’s still archived on the internet. Nickerson says he would never act on his urge and never has. He also has a website called “Virtuous Pedophile,” ostensibly for helping celibate pedophiles resist their urges.

You can find an extensive bibliography of such articles in popular media if you don’t mind visiting the “virtuous pedophile” website. Typical titles include a 2016 New York Magazine article, “What’s it like to be a celibate pedophile?” or a 2016 Vice article entitled “Realizing You’re a Pedophile Can Make you Want to Kill Yourself.” Then there’s the “born that way” defense, as discussed in this BBC news item entitled “Are Paedophiles’ Brains Wired Differently?”
Born This Way Shouldn’t Seal the Deal

I don’t question the need for people to get the help they need to avoid engaging in destructive behaviors. We should all have mercy for those who struggle, especially people who feel utterly rejected and demonized by society, particularly if they want to regulate any wild urges that would hurt others, especially kids.

The sad irony is that when people feel so marginalized and dehumanized, especially if they are unnecessarily barraged with humiliations, when they finally get what they want they tend to take revenge. They cannot distinguish between kind people of goodwill who have legitimate critiques of their demands and the bullies who embittered them in the past.

So be prepared: simply having an opposite opinion will get you marked as an enemy, even if you always treated every human being with compassion and dignity. If you cave to political correctness, you are allowing your goodwill to be weaponized against all you stand for.

So here we are. The argument in all of the above is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that is not chosen. So if we accept it as such, wouldn’t any therapist who didn’t affirm the orientation be accused of “conversion therapy?” Would pedophiles even be permitted to get help?

Finally, whether or not you want to believe the warnings of former child actor Corey Feldman, there can be no doubt that Hollywood has a good share of pedophiles. “An Open Secret” is a 2015 documentary about it by Amy Berg. We should not be surprised in the future when Hollywood gives pedophilia a final Caitlyn Jenner-styled juggernaut to push it all over the top. Again, it’s all about the timing.
APA Will Ultimately Decide How to Classify Pedophilia

Just as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) re-classified gender identity disorder to gender identity dysphoria, it also tinkered with classifying pedophilia in its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V.) As the psycho-bible of mental disorders, the DSM has always been the go-to source for making the sexual revolution the law of the land. Its reclassifications of homosexuality and transgenderism are really just the beginning.

There is no reason other than timing to think it won’t do the same for pedophilia. Currently, the DSM makes a distinction between pedophilia as a paraphilia (a desire not acted upon) versus “pedophilic disorder” (actual child molestation.) But the lines in society sure feel like they’re blurring.

In 2013 the APA “erroneously” referred to pedophilia as a sexual orientation on page 698 of the first printing of the DSM-V. After a public outcry, the APA said it would correct the error in subsequent printings, changing the term “sexual orientation” to “sexual interest.” Their public relations folks also added for good measure that the APA still considers acts of pedophilic disorder to be criminal.

Okay. But ask yourself this: With all of the meticulous attention the APA applies to every controversial aspect of the DSM, and the bated breath the news media holds for any new edition, how exactly does a reference to pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” end up in there by accident?

Sadly, the error smells more like a trial balloon. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have long been politicized to promote every outgrowth of the sexual revolution. Groupthink is deeply embedded in both organizations.

Bottom line here: if you track the promotion of pedophilia in academia and the media, all that remains is for the medical establishment to officially proclaim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Then anti-discrimination laws kick in to protect it in its entirety, and children are at the mercy of some judge’s interpretation of “penumbras” to determine what constitutes harm.
The Farce of a Child’s ‘Right to Choose’

The other turning point in legalizing pedophilia would come with repeated claims in public discourse that prepubescent kids can enjoy and consent to sexual relationships with adults. Furthermore, denying children this avenue of expression with adults, the argument goes, violates their civil rights.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell recently is that December 2018 article mentioned above, written by convicted child molester Tom O’Carroll in the peer reviewed journal Sexuality and Culture. The title of the article is “Childhood ‘Innocence’ is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex.” At the outset, he puts the word “innocence” in scare quotes. If you don’t want too much of a soak in that sewer, you can look over a good review of O’Carroll’s demented reasoning in Justin Lee’s article written in Arc, “The Pedophile Apologist,” or see Rod Dreher’s commentary.

In his article, O’Carroll masquerades as a philosopher. He takes on Kant and Aristotle. Like a Chihuahua barking furiously at the ocean, O’Carroll also attempts to bash the impeccable scholarship of Sir Roger Scruton.

O’Carroll’s goal is to make the case that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation that should have all the protections of anti-discrimination laws for other sexualities. He tries to appeal to the same litany of arguments that subjects children to early sexualization and to the transgender curriculum: that kids can decide for themselves how to express themselves and shouldn’t be denied a choice in how they identify—no matter how young they are.

He lets loose a panoply of arguments strongly suggesting we should lower or abolish the age of consent: that children shouldn’t be denied any form of sexual expression; that allowing them the full range of sexual expression actually promotes their flourishing and development; and that stigmatizing pedophilia is in the same class as stigmatizing people on the basis of their race, sex, religion, or, naturally, their sexual orientation, which he argues pedophilia is. To object to any of the above is, in a word, “hate.” (Sound familiar?)

So get used to it: the goal is to frame pedophilia as a human right, redirecting your attention away from the adult and reframing it as a child’s right to sexual expression. If the child claims to consent, who are you to get in his or her way? Hence, every child becomes fair game for child molesters, especially if the child can be persuaded and influenced to say he or she consented.

Worse is that there are recent studies by Bruce Rind published in the academic journal The Archives of Sexual Behavior, claiming there is no long-term harm to adult sex with children. (As O’Carroll also claims, the positive effects on children is a growing field of inquiry.) You can read about it in a 2017 Public Discourse article by Mark Regnerus. Otherwise, the silence is deafening.

The issue of consent has been made murky, especially when trying to clarify cases of he-said-she-said in accusations of sexual harassment or assault. But if you accept the claim that children can consent to sex with adults, then it seems we must now take their word for it, and never question if that “consent” was coerced.

In addition, our society seems increasingly ignorant about the causes and effects of undue influence caused by a disparity in power between two actors in a relationship. Any substantive discussion of this element in human dynamics is fading fast. Yet it ought to be common knowledge. Undue influence is a cult-like dynamic to which children are particularly vulnerable.
The ‘Equality Act’ Would Protect Pedophilia

Just about all of today’s so-called “anti-discrimination” laws include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) classifications. Once pedophilia is classified as a sexual orientation, then it’s protected under that umbrella, which covers all areas of life: employment, education, medicine, housing, business, military, even the parish life of churches, family life, and much more.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that a big priority for this Congress is to get the “Equality Act” passed. So the big question is this: If pedophilia is ever classified as a sexual orientation, wouldn’t the Equality Act afford it federal protection? Seems logical. What am I missing here?

If that happens, then any objection to a known pedophile teaching at any level in any school or daycare center would have to be considered illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

There can be no doubt pedophilia will eventually be officially classified as a “sexual orientation” if more people don’t grow some spine. You don’t have to be a master of logic to understand that once that happens, then expressions of disapproval will be deemed illegal discrimination.

So, are you going to be one of the folks in the morning show audience applauding the sexualization of your child? Will you just get used to it? Or will you take a stand? Time is running out.
You Bigoted Pedophobe!

No person of conscience can allow this sinister pedophilia project to gain any more momentum. If we do, it will produce an unexpected avalanche of comings-out with an aggressive campaign complete with poster children (and their parents!) to support it. This is no more a conspiracy theory than to say the same thing about the transgender project in 2014. It’s pure logic, and it’s totally in keeping with our society’s trajectory.

Consider this: If pedophilia is ever normalized, what are the chances that the word “pedophobia” and the term “pedophobe” will be used as slurs against people who disapprove? Against churches that disapprove? Could they be used in the same way the terms “homophobia” and “transphobia” are used as slurs today?

Of course. In this scenario, if you express reservations about sexual activity between pre-pubescent children and adults, you will be publicly shamed and silenced as a “pedophobe” for doing so. A bigot. A hater.

For those just waking up, we’re not in Kansas anymore. We’re on a speeding train through the Twilight Zone. And the hyper-suggestibility of most folks in this age of internet-induced mass delusion will get us there even faster.

We’ve become a nation of complete squishes because all that matters to most people is how they think they’re perceived in social circles. The fear of the smear is in high gear today, generating a pandemic of moral cowardice. It’s infecting state legislators who ought to know better. It’s infecting judges who ought to know better—and teachers, journalists, even parents. Sadly, there are many who really don’t know better and simply try to maintain the social status they think they’re afforded by political correctness.

It’s up to those who do know better—those who have an active conscience—to speak up, and to stare down the smear artists in propaganda journalism, pop culture, and academia who’ve been stoking that cowardice. Too few people publicly take unpopular stances anymore, and when they do they pay a highly inflated price for it only because no one else joins them.

There are too many cowards who apologize for being right, too many who self-censor out of fear of social rejection. That’s exactly the dynamic that will fast-track trends like the normalization of pedophilia.

We have no choice but to stop accommodating political correctness, no matter the price. Its movement in the shadows has all the hallmarks of an impending ambush. People of goodwill must do all they can to stop the momentum of this pedophilia project in its tracks. Otherwise, it will destroy children and childhood together.
Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow Stella on Twitter.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests