Posted By Bernard Gaynor on Monday, March 1, 2021 3:30 pm | 5 comments

“…it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful…”

Peter Tatchell, 1997

You may not know it. Or you may think that it just could not be possible.

But there are actually people out there who think that it’s not such a big deal if children ‘have sex’ with adults. Or even ‘just’ with other kids.

Not a big deal at all.

In fact, these people think it’s such a little deal that it could sometimes actually be a good thing. A healthy thing even.

These people exist. Prominent people. Famous people. ‘Human rights’ people who run political campaigns for ‘progressive’ causes.

These people do exist.

And they have names.

They don’t pretend that they never said what they said. They don’t claim that their computer was hacked or that their drink was spiked. They aren’t sorry or embarrassed.

Instead, they give interviews to homosexual publications about why their views on morality should be part of the education curriculum and ‘taught’ to children at primary schools.

That happens. It’s happening in Sydney right now.

UK-based gay activist, Peter Tatchell, wrote the words quoted at the start of this article in 1997. Then he sent them to the Guardian newspaper which promptly published them.

Tatchell has never apologised. He stands by those words. He says they mean he is against paedophilia.

And since then he’s ‘devoted’ much of his life to childhood ‘sexuality education’.

It’s why Peter Tatchell gave an interview and wrote an op-ed piece late last year for Sydney’s newest homosexual newspaper, the Sydney Sentinel, as a ‘human rights’ ‘campaigner’. He did it because he opposes Mark Latham’s efforts to remove radical gender indoctrination from primary schools.

It’s hardly a surprise that a man who has written that society should recognised that sex involving children is not always unwanted, abusive or harmful is in favour of teaching kids that gender is fluid. And Tatchell wants to fill kids’ heads with much more than that.

By the way, Tatchell’s recent interview with the Sydney Sentinel was not just some filler. It was the interview used to launch this publication. Tatchell’s opinion piece was the very first article the Sydney Sentinel promoted on its new Twitter feed. It was the third article promoted on its Facebook page.

And then what happened? Was there outrage?

No.

Instead, since then the Sydney Sentinel has raised over $2,700 in crowdfunding and 16,000 people have signed a petition promoted in the article and referencing Peter Tatchell’s arguments against Mark Latham’s bill to ban gender indoctrination.

Then Rodney Croome, the guy who founded Australian Marriage Equality, tweeted out the article, describing Peter Tatchell as a ‘global LGBTIQ icon’.

Global LGBTIQ icon Peter Tatchell has weighed in against the Latham / One Nation bill that seeks to erase trans kids from NSW schools, comparing it to Britain’s infamous Clause 28.
Article…https://t.co/RPksOBgCpZ
News report…https://t.co/pp5qE31iF6

— Rodney Croome (@RodneyCroome) September 15, 2020

A guy who writes that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive or harmful should not be an icon for anything. But Tatchell is a global LGBTIQ icon. Just think about that for a second.

Croome would know if Tatchell is a global gay icon because he is pretty much Mr Gay Australia.

Rodney Croome was one of the key faces in the ‘gay marriage’ revolution.

He’s the dude who was the inaugural Tasmanian Humanitarian of the Year. He almost became Australian of the Year in 1994 and was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001 for his ‘contribution to gay and lesbian law reform’. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for being a gay activist. Then, for the same reasons, he was named Tasmanian of the Year in 2015 and that year was (again) a finalist for Australian of the Year.

Maybe next time it will be third time lucky for Croome.

As an aside, in between finding time to receive awards for his ‘human rights’ ‘work’, Croome also has time to stop other people from exercising basic human rights, like speaking. For instance, he encouraged complaints against Julian Porteous, the Archbishop of Hobart, for daring to defend Catholic teaching on marriage.

And Croome was not alone in promoting Tatchell’s article.

A ‘who’s who’ of Rainbow World did too.

Gay authors, Alistair Sutton and Dean Crawford, liked the Sydney Sentinel’s Facebook post linking to its article with Tatchell. So did Ann-Marie Calilhanna, the official photographer of the Sydney Mardi Gras. And so did Katrina Fox who runs a business promoting veganism for lesbians. Other LGBT journalists and activists liked it too. Garry Burns, the serial gay litigant and self-described ‘media whore’, promoted the article on his Facebook page.

Who knows if this lot knows Peter Tatchell’s views or that he has applauded and written articles for notorious paedophiles?

Maybe they don’t. But, then again, maybe they do.

Regardless, they should.

Tatchell does not hide any of this. It is well publicised. And it’s been a recurring theme for almost forty years.

Let’s go through all the ways this lot should be hugely embarrassed and ashamed for even listening to Peter Tatchell, let alone placing him on a glitter-coated pedestal.

Maybe it will lead them to ‘reassess’ their opposition to law reform that will prevent kindergartens teaching four year olds that it is perfectly normal for a boy to grow into a woman complete with a lesbian wedding and a non de-sexed cat (because it would be cruel to subject animals to the ‘medical’ treatment dished out every day in gender clinics on confused teenagers).

But I doubt it.

In 1986, Peter Tatchell wrote an essay titled ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ for The Betrayal of Youth: Radical perspective on childhood sexuality, intergenerational sex and the social oppression of children and young people.

The front page of Peter Tatchell’s essay in ‘The Betrayal of Youth’

Tatchell’s essay included these lines:

It seems quite reasonable, therefore, that we should question the present social and legal definitions of the age of majority. What purpose does it serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?

…

Certainly, in the realm of ages of consent, we need to ask whether the law has any legitimate role to play in criminalising consenting, victimless activity. As for protecting the young: the main protection they need, as do adults, is legal protection against forced, involuntary sexual acts which is afforded by laws covering rape and sexual assault; plus protection against self-destroying feelings of guilt and anxiety which are so often stirred up by sexual encounters outside the ages of consent precisely because they are illicit and regarded as shameful. It is usually this social shame, more than the sexual act itself, which harms young people.

Reading those words, it would be clear to the average man on the street that Tatchell thinks the idea of an age of consent is itself outdated and that the main laws needed to protect children from abuse are those targeting non-consensual sex: laws against rape and assault. He questions whether there should be any laws at all if there is ‘consent’.

It is also crystal clear, if you take Tatchell’s words at face value, that he argues that laws criminalising sex with ‘the young’ usually cause more harm than the actual sex itself.

That’s what Peter Tatchell’s words say. That’s obvious to anyone who can read and use a dictionary. The average man on the street would probably think somewhat dimly of Tatchell as a result.

Fortunately for Peter Tatchell The Betrayal of Youth (or B.O.Y.) was not written for the average man on the street. Instead, it was written for paedophiles.

And while he defends every single letter that he wrote for this essay, he claims that his words mean different things to what they actually mean.

This is what Tatchell claims his words above actually mean:

I was alluding to the now rejected Victorian view that children should be seen and not heard; and that children have no rights and are the mere property of adults. This attitude plays into the hands of child sex abusers, who rely on children’s deference, compliance and submission to get away with their vile deeds. Arguing in favour of young people as young citizens with rights and responsibilities, I suggested that any fixed age of majority is arbitrary for things like voting, drinking, marriage, buying cigarettes, joining the army or consenting to sex. A person one day below a fixed legal age is deemed incapable or unfit to decide, whereas a person one day older is not. This is not logical. Nor does it take into account that different people mature at different ages.

My chapter in the book did not mention or endorse adults having sex with children. It merely questioned whether 16 was the appropriate legal age of consent.

Uh huh. I think we get it now.

What Peter meant was that, although he does not endorse adults having sex with children, the idea of an age of consent is illogical, actually helps child abusers and kids would be safer altogether if it was scrapped entirely.

As arguments go, it’s the kind of argument that would only make sense to a paedophile.

So it is not actually surprising that a real life paedophile asked Peter Tatchell to write this essay for The Betrayal of Youth.

Warren Middleton put The Betrayal of Youth together. Then he dedicated it to children, thanking them for ‘inspiring’ him.

The cover of ‘The Betrayal of Youth’ including an excerpt from Peter Tatchell’s essay.

The contents of ‘The Betrayal of Youth’.

Middleton was the Vice Chair of the UK’s infamous Paedophile Information Exchange and was the main force behind its journal, Understanding Paedophilia. He was jailed in 2011 for child pornography offences. Since his release, he’s hob-knobbed with British Labour politicians.

For some strange reason, and I just can’t think why, when Warren Middleton decided to publish a book promoting paedophilia he banked on asking – and getting – something useful from Peter Tatchell.

So Middleton knocked and he received. Peter Tatchell delivered for him in spades.

Tatchell now claims that when he agreed to write an essay questioning the age of consent that he had no idea that Middleton was a paedophile or that his essay would be lumped alongside others titled ‘Incest’, ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ and ‘Child Prostitution’.

Indeed, immediately following Tatchell’s essay is another titled ‘Ends and Means: How to make paedophilia acceptable…?’.

Yes. You read that right.

I could joke that the article is probably pretty short with a single line: ‘Get Peter Tatchell on the job’.

But the article could be just that and it wouldn’t be a joke at all. It would be deadly serious.

However, and this is rather scary given Peter Tatchell’s only popped up in the Australian gay press to promote radical gender indoctrination in New South Wales primary schools, the article claims that paedophilia will not be accepted until sex is ‘degendered’, children’s ‘liberation groups’ are formed and kids are able to freely express their own sexual needs and views.

In a nutshell, that’s exactly what gender indoctrination in primary schools seeks to achieve. And here we have Peter Tatchell on the job, defending the concept.

So, for argument’s sake, if Peter Tatchell did suddenly decide that making paedophilia acceptable was to become his life’s work and read that article as some kind of handy ‘how to’ guide, it’s hard to see why he would change a single thing that he already does.

Most people who find themselves in this position would cease involvement in public life. Not Tatchell.

He just says that he thought the request to write an article criticising the age of consent was, well, ‘reasonable’.

And so he wrote it.

Tatchell now wants us to believe that it was all an unfortunate mistake that when his work was published it was by a paedophile.

I guess that’s a mistake any of us could make – *rolls eyes* – and so it was only natural that Peter says he was furious when he found out.

So furious that he decided to do nothing about it at all.

Tatchell also claims that he receives so many requests to write books and essays each year – 500 for the past 40 years – that he just did not have time to really look into what he was being asked to do.

It was all just one big coincidence that he somehow plucked that single anonymous request from the pile and innocently did the bidding of a paedophile.

People who don’t believe in coincidences would probably furrow their brows at that but it seems that Peter Tatchell and coincidences are just something that the world has to accept.

Because it happened again.

In 1998, Ian Dunn died. He happened to be one of the founders of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

But when Dunn carked it in 1998 not everyone said good riddance. Not Peter. Not at all.

Peter Tatchell, totally by coincidence again, was driven to pick up a biro and pen an obituary for this man. It was published in The Independent and began with these words:

IAN DUNN was a pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality – in Scotland and internationally – for 30 years.

A screenshot of Peter Tatchell’s obituary for paedophile Ian Dunn.

Dunn was a pioneer for gay rights. Peter Tatchell says so. And given he is also a pioneer for gay rights, Tatchell would know.

Dunn was also a paedophile.

Some would not be surprised to learn that a pioneer for gay rights was a paedophile. But Tatchell says he was.

Tatchell now claims that he never knew that Dunn was a paedophile (of course) and that he never saw any of the media coverage about Dunn’s involvement with the Paedophile Information Exchange (of course) and that he was oblivious to the fact that Dunn had fundraised extensively within the gay community to challenge this damaging press coverage (again, of course).

In fact, Tatchell claims that he also rarely met Dunn and didn’t really know him at all. Which makes you rather wonder why Tatchell decided to write an obituary for Dunn in the first place. Maybe it’s because Tatchell’s just a nice guy.

A year earlier, in 1997, Tatchell was also in the press, this time defending the publication of a book by Gay Men’s Press called Dares to Speak.

The cover of ‘Dares to Speak’ (with the image of a naked boy blocked out) which Peter Tatchell defended in 1997.

The book was compiled by Joseph Geraci who also edited the European paedophile magazine Paidika.

A review of Dares to Speak in the Guardian newspaper on 22 June 1997 heavily criticised this book. It stated that while the book purported to be ‘balanced’ research on paedophilia it instead emphasised ‘positive accounts of inter-generational and childhood sexuality issues’.

Importantly, the review contained this quote:

Spokesmen from the Gay Men’s Press were equally elusive, issuing just a written defence of the book: “GMP has always seen boy-love as a legitimate strand in the gay rainbow. There are boys who love men just as there are men who love boys.”

I suppose that gives a flavour of the book from its homosexual publishers.

The review ended by stating bluntly that Dares to Speak defends sexual exploitation.

Most would agree. It does.

Four days later, Peter Tatchell came out swinging. On 26 June 1997, he wrote a letter specifically in response to the Guardian’s book review. It was also published by the Guardian.

In it, Tatchell called Dares to Speak ‘courageous’. You can probably assume that Peter also thinks that he’s courageous for courageously defending a book that courageously defended paedophilia, especially as the last thing in the world Tatchell wants to do is defend paedophilia.

Good for him.

Tatchell’s letter included this quote:

“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. 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.”

Those words have meanings. Most people will accept that they mean one thing.

Peter Tatchell wants us to believe that they mean another thing – this:

Some adults say that when they were children they had sex with adults and that the sex was not unwanted, abusive or harmful. They say that, not me. I merely repeated their view. I accept that this is their sincerely held view as mature, responsible, ethical adults. But I do not agree with them. Their view is not my view. I disagree with it, which is why my letter said that paedophilia is “impossible” to condone. This means I do not condone it. I condemn it. Children cannot give valid consent to sex. It is abuse and is rightly illegal.

Tatchell, by the way, did not say paedophilia was ‘impossible’ condone in his letter. He said it ‘may be impossible to condone’. And then he had a big but. He argued, forcefully, that it was time for society to acknowledge that sex involving children – that would be paedophilia – was not always unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Just pointing that out. It needs to be pointed out.

Regardless, I’m glad pretty much every single other person in the world who condemns paedophilia does it differently to Peter Tatchell. Otherwise, there’d be prime time reality TV shows about it by now.

Tatchell also claims that he had no idea that Dares to Speak promoted paedophilia or that it was edited by a man who also published a magazine promoting paedophilia even though both those facts were in the book review that he was responding to.

I guess it is possible that Tatchell did not actually read the Guardian’s book review about Dares to Speak that made him so angry that he just had to respond. After all, Tatchell also says that he did not read Dares to Speak either even though he went on to defend it.

True. That mostly sounds like baloney. But it is entirely possible that Peter Tatchell simply has no idea about anything that he says at all.

So we’ll put his defence of Dares to Speak down to just another unfortunate coincidence, just like his article for the paedophile journal and his obituary for a paedophile as well.

Tatchell’s just one of those unfortunate dudes who really and truly wants to protect children but keeps finding himself unwittingly helping the cause of paedophiles.

In fact, given all the circumstances, that’s probably the nicest thing that you can say about the man. But it’s hardly an endorsement.

Yet here he is, back in the Australian gay press, demanding that politicians listen to his words of wisdom on the education of children. And Rainbow Australia thinks it is wonderful.

And why wouldn’t they? It’s perfectly logical for this lot to support the illogical. There is nothing about LGBT activism that makes any sense whatsoever.

For instance, Tatchell claims that the real reason he wrote his letter to the Guardian was because it was a ‘free speech’ thing.

Huh?

Free speech?

LGBT activists demand laws banning any criticism of homosexual behaviour but they’ve got such a zeal for free speech that they’ll man the barricades to defend it when radical sexual revolutionaries want to publish books promoting paedophilia.

That’s kind of weird. And hypocritical.

In another example of this lunacy, this photo shows Tatchell marching along at the Sydney Mardi Gras in 2011 campaigning against vilification by vilifying Pope Benedict XVI. That makes sense in the same way that writing an article for a paedophile journal demonstrates that you’re against paedophilia.

Peter Tatchell was one of eight ‘heroes’ celebrated at the 2011 Sydney Mardi Gras. He used the opportunity to vilify Pope Benedict XVI.

Apparently, according to Tatchell, the best way to prove that you are against vilification is by marching down Oxford Street with a placard depicting the pope wearing lipstick and Nazi earrings and sporting a girl’s name.

I guess we can all see queerly now. It’s a world where ‘human rights’ campaigners get to vilify anyone they want while claiming that they oppose bullying altogether.

Lest you think that all of this occurred a long time ago and that Peter has changed, think again.

In 2002 he wrote an article stating:

If education is about dispelling ignorance and imparting knowledge, then sex education has an obligation to give all the facts and tell the whole truth about every kind of sex and relationship. This includes sexual practices that some people may find distasteful, such as anal intercourse and sadomasochism, and harmful behaviour like unprotected sex and child abuse. Nothing must be off limits…

When it comes to sex education for kids, Tatchell reckons that nothing must be off limits. Nothing. So, yeah, he’s the kind of guy normal parents think about when they warn their children not to talk to strangers.

Tatchell’s written umpteen similar articles since.

In 2008 Tatchell was in the Irish media, writing:

An age of consent of 14 might be more reasonable. If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old’s interest?

Some human rights activists spend their lives fighting slavery. Others go to Africa and fix blind people’s eyes or teach adults how to read or build water pipes.

Not Peter Tatchell. Attacking the age of consent has been his battle and he’s dedicated decades to that war. All for the benefit of the children, of course.

And early last year Tatchell wrote that sex education should be compulsory, should start at an early age and that by the age of 16 children should even be taught about ‘rimming’ and ‘bondage’.

If you don’t know what ‘rimming’ is, you should keep it that way. Your life cannot be improved by finding out. Don’t look it up unless you want to vomit.

Tatchell went on to write:

We don’t let parents take their kids out of science or history classes, so why should a parental opt out be permitted for RSE? Removing pupils from such lessons jeopardises their emotional, sexual and physical health.

Parents who want to withdraw their children should be required to come to each lesson and physically remove their child and then bring them back in good time for the next lesson. This way the parental opt out option is retained but the actual opt out rate is likely to be reduced.

And this is the guy Gay Australia has brought out for its campaign to keep its gender indoctrination programs in New South Wales schools.

Tatchell’s views are outrageous.

So outrageous that even the UK’s Safe Schools Alliance publicly criticised him, stating that they were alarmed and appalled by his ideas.

https://www.facebook.com/safeschoolsallianceuk/posts/2276719339308973

If an organisation that thinks studying masturbation at school is ok but that Tatchell is dangerous because he wants to go further, then he probably is.

But, as I said, here he is in the Australian gay press, supporting the gay lobby as a ‘global icon’ to defend radical gender lessons for five year olds.

And that says a lot more about Australia’s LGBT activists than it does about Peter Tatchell…