UPDATE:Even the Guardian’s left wing readers are outraged by sympathy for Paedophilia
The Guardian speaks up for paedophiles, flirts with anti-Semitism and jumps on every crazy Leftist bandwagon in sight. What happened to quality control?
You know how mad conservatives always used to say, Some day well be told to emphathise with paedophiles? Well, weve reached that day. The Guardian has published a piece that calls for more understanding towards those who are attracted to children. Its written in the same thoughtful and abstract tone that one might use when discussing the tragedy of an ingrowing toenail. As printed on the page, the editors pulled out a particularly bizarre quote and set it in bold: We can maybe avoid the hysteria. We should respect and value those paedophiles who choose self-retraint. Yeah, right. Give those guys a medal.
The Guardian has jumped the liberal shark. To be precise, its tried to jump the shark but run out of momentum half way and fallen into the animals gaping jaws. You dont have to share The Guardians politics to regret its editorial decline. This is an important newspaper with a fine history that continues to do a great service by training up young journalists. But in recent years it has replaced comment with trolling, and allowed the trolling to obscure the everyday journalism. It has run pieces lamenting the collapse of communism, publicly accepted that some of its content has flirted with anti-Semitism and published a cartoon about Israel that caused great offence to some Jewish readers. Meanwhile, the online section called Comment is Free (better titled Comment is Cheap) has grown in to a behemoth of random, bizarre identity-politics polemics. The editorial staff would probably insist that they simply give a space for minority opinion, but that opinion is invariably Left-wing and outrageous. Britain might be a colonial power (I guess the sun never sets on the Isle of Man), the Catholic Church is EVIL and homophobic, and I just love this title The Norovirus Deserves Our Respect. Just like those self-retrained paedophiles!
The issue is less the Guardian’s political prejudice than the lack of editorial quality control. This article on paedophilia just plain sick. The problem is that it takes an objective tone when discussing something that isnt an academic question: the potential or literal abuse of children. As a result, the objectivity betrays an openness towards the subject that is disturbing. Writer Jon Henley says, There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm. How can any paedophilic relationships, by definition, be consensual? And just because a victim refuses to define as a victim, does that mean no harm is done? (Some rape victims bravely refuse to define as victims, but theres no dispute that theyve suffered a crime). Paedophiles, we discover, are a mixed bunch: Not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa. Well bully for them but if they access child pornography, which I presume they do, are they not engaging in vicarious molestation? Henley quotes stats that suggest there are more paedophiles than members of Mensa: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure. Moreover, they might not be able to help themselves: Paedophiles may be wired differently.
But the worst section is where Henley quotes a paedophilia advocate as an appropriate source of commentary. Professional weirdo Tom OCarroll tells him, societys outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially irrational and not justified by science. Henley quotes some experts to dispute OCarrolls opinion but then wheels out an academic study that suggests the paedophile advocate might have a point. After all, Henley continuously reminds us, Not all experts are sure. Do any of these dissenting voices have children themselves? If they did, they might discover a degree of certainty about the evils of paedophilia that has hitherto eluded them.
Finally, Henley finishes with a long quote that is utterly surreal: Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; its not something we can eliminate
If we can talk about this rationally acknowledge that, yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but not, they dont have to act on it we can maybe avoid the hysteria. What hysteria? The hysteria that a parent might feel knowing that a man who finds their child sexually desirable is teaching in their school? Such hysteria is perfectly rational. A little like discovering that a man who has the desire to commit arson but not yet acted on it! has just been appointed foreman of a fireworks factory.
Henleys piece is symptomatic of a world view that refuses to accept the existence of outright evil. There are, insist many liberals, shades of good and bad, reasons for why things are done, pills to be distributed and hugs to give. We must understand, but not judge and if we do judge, let it be done with the desire to heal the culprit as well as the victim. At no point in this piece does Henley say that paedophilia is okay. But the strange, eerie absence of a clear editorial line the same refusal to comment on or veto the mad opinions of many other writers in The Guardian gives the feeling that the reader is supposed to remain open-minded on the subject.
But while theres always something to be learned from criminal science, its goal is surely to create a safer society rather than one that finds peaceful and rational ways of tolerating the evil of others. Once weve finished all the cod philosophising, there are really only two things worth saying about paedophilia. Its a perversion and the guilty should be isolated from the rest of us.
RESPONSES IN THE COMMENTS THREAD ARE WORTH READING:
7 minutes ago
The Lisbon Treaty has legalised paedophilia .
Article 21 covers discrimination against sexual orientation .
All previous treaties have included a protocol expressly excluding paedophilia .
This protocol is missing from the Lisbon Treaty . It could not have been an oversight .
This in effect makes the treaty a Paedophile Charter .
Paedophilia has always been acceptable in countries
like Belgium and Germany .
The German Government Childrens’ Department went as far as issuing a pamphlet distributed free of charge condoning sexual activity between parents and children .
“Fathers do not divert enough attention to their daughters sexual organs ( more explicit in pamphlet) . Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a pride in their sex ” .
Harriet harman and her husband Jack Dromey expressed their belief that paedophiles were a disadvantaged minority whose rights must be defended, decades ago.
Harman once worked for an organisation that included under its umbrella the Paedophile Exchange before the Exchange was closed down .
p.s. The organisation Harman worked for is now called LIBERTY
Asked for a link the commenter replied:
This appeared in Speigel, might help.
The link points to a german language article: “Körper, Liebe, Doktorspiele” Von der Leyen stoppt umstrittene Aufklärungsbroschüre
Hamburg – The title of the parent counselor sounds wicked. But for six years, no one has really bothered about it: “Body, Love, Play Doctor,” published by the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA). A band dedicated to early childhood development during the first to third year of life, a second of the pre-development from the fourth to sixth year.
BZgAControversial Parents Guide: Ad for public invitation to sexual abuse of children
Now, however, was filed against author Ina-Maria Philipps and BZgA in Cologne public prosecutor display – due to public demand for child sexual abuse. “I received the brochure from friends and read – and was of the opinion that the so never forget,” said Ulla long SPIEGEL ONLINE that has reimbursed the display. The 64-year-old mother of two adult daughters complained several passages.
About this: It’s “just a sign of the healthy development of your child, if possible, to gain self-pleasure and satisfaction, extensively uses”. Or this: If girls – not even three years old – “objects to help take”, then you should not do that “as an excuse to prevent masturbation.” Or this: “vagina and clitoris especially experienced little attention by gentle touch (neither father nor mother) and thus make it more difficult for the girls to develop pride in his sexuality.”
“Some formulations misleading and ambiguous”
This last passage aroused anger now: For critics, it sounds like a hidden request, parents should contact the daughter between his legs. Irene Johns of child protection agency did not say that, “although the booklet is meant quite different, pedophiles might use them as an excuse.”
The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs has responded: The brochure was deleted from the repertoire of his educational work, and on the website of the BZgA she disappeared. Minister Ursula von der Leyen has (CDU) called certain statements as “borderline,” her spokeswoman said today. “Some formulations are misleading and ambiguous.”
Author Ina-Maria Philipps was not until the evening to reach for comment. BZgA Director Elisabeth Pott was surprised that now pay for the first time in six years misunderstandings and criticism is loud – but: “We take the criticism.” A lecturer at the Institute for sex education to be shocked by the city: “This can not possibly be true,” she says. Finally, advocates argue brochure, we have had an important goal, as the books were first published in 2001: The sexual development of infants and young children should no longer be taboo.
“A difficult, highly sensitive area”
Pott says the brochure should show where boundaries are, and make it clear that the contact with the children should in no way serve their own sexual arousal or gratification. Pot: “Early childhood sexual development is a difficult, highly sensitive area.” Therefore we have developed the brochure carefully and evaluated. So far there has been nothing but positive feedback, the Swiss Child Protection Association have even asked to take the advice.
“The brochures provide information on how parents can support their children in discovering one’s own body and in the experience of sexuality” was, at the time in a press release on the education booklets. An evaluation was the counselor found for good : The Institute for Market Research surveyed on behalf of BZgA shortly after the release of 60 mothers, 30 fathers and 15 teachers. The result of the parent interviews was “very positive, both in terms of the evaluation of the content and the design. (…) A spontaneous critique of the content has not been expressed.” 89 percent of parents had indicated that they had been made aware of the boundaries and the privacy of the children. Even the teachers were – with one exception – spontaneously judged positively.
In Internet forums is discussed for some time about the study. Some see in the study, a taboo – others argue that the quotes were completely torn out of context. Meanwhile, both the volumes are out of print brochure. Throughout Germany, a total of 650,000 books were distributed, she went to kindergarten, family education centers, pediatricians – and there are probably still today. In addition, the counselors were countless times by the BZgA websites downloaded.Because of the criticism but was agreed with the Ministry of the Family, the PDFs of the two counselors not to spread.
The ad, which has long reimbursed Ulla and SPIEGEL ONLINE is not yet reached the BZgA. Currently, both Guides are revised. There will be a new edition, says Pott – maybe even this fall.
Editor’s note: The Cologne “Express” Irene Johns of Child Protection was quoted as saying “that pedophiles might use such official guidance as justification.” She is keen that she had not spoken of the brochure as an “official instructions”. SPIEGEL ONLINE has corrected the citation in the text.
6 minutes ago
“Its a perversion and the guilty should be isolated from the rest of us.”
I’ve not read the article – which sounds grotesque – and am not reacting to it, simply to your blog post. And I guess I’m wondering what you mean by guilty.
From how you write it sounds as if you’re looking forward to the day when some kind of genetic screeing in utero can be done – and that potential paedophiles can be, well, eliminated in some way. Killing potential child abusers when they are children….
Or do you mean simply those who have acted out on their perverted attractions and are therefore guilty of a crime? Sure. How long do we isolate them for? Forever? If needs be, maybe. Curious that this never seems to have happened in the past or in other places. How come? Incest was very widespread, afterall. Call the Midwives about that, indeed.
But what of those who are attracted to children and don’t act on that attraction – are they also to be somehow found out (if they tell someone?) and then isolated? Are they still guilty? If so – of what? A perversion, sure, but how do you quantify that in a criminal way?
And lastly, and especially for you because you are a Catholic (as am I) If they tell a priest in the confessional that they have these perverted desires Tim, should the priest break the seal of the sacrament and denounce them so that they can be isolated? Or if they confess a crime – should the seal still be respected? And does the priest become complicit with that crime if he doesn’t denounce it? Where are you going with this, Tim? Do you even know yourself?
43 minutes ago
I think the Guardian’s writers, and indeed its readership, have difficulty with the boundaries of the socially acceptable, having challenged them so successfully in the past. Whether it be children born out of wedlock, homosexuals, mixed race relationships: all once subject to social stigma until sympathetic liberals campaigned for their acceptance.
While sexuality is uniquely determined by a person’s heredity and life experience, and so is not something that the law and society should seek to effect, the protection of children is. Sympathy toward paedophiles should therefore be in inverse proportion to their satisfaction of it. And since this is exactly the Church’s teaching on homosexuality it is not surprising some Guardian writers get confused.
1 hour ago
The Guardian always censors comments which refer to Harriet Harmanns work with the Paedophile Information Exchange.
They really are a dangerous bunch of social engineering freaks.
1 hour ago
I believe it was Tatchell (the left’s favourite turd burglar), who also wrote (in another Guardian article c1997):
“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.”
He has also called for the lowering of the age of consent to fourteen and for a relaxation of pornography laws.
2 hours ago
Of course, the Grauniad would like us not to condemn paedophiles out of hand, as they may have “something wrong with them” and they may be deserving of our understanding– it may not be their fault they feel as they do, it may be hard-wired into them, and all we can hope for is that they exercise a bit of restraint. The Guardianistas would laugh at that sort of sentiment (after probably an initial fulmination that someone would even seek to make the argument), if it were ever applied to gun owners in the US. But let us consider the preventative measures that can be taken to ensure that paedophiles, however small a number they may be, will be baulked in any of their efforts to commit those acts we find reprehensible; let us not have sports programmes or Scouts, the better to prevent children from coming into contact with adults at all. To prevent a few sickos, let us make sure no adults can come into contact with unrelated children outside of the school environment, and even there, let’s regulate it to Kingdom Come. It will prevent the sort of incidents we hear about Jimmy Savile et al., and it hopefully will satisfy the nonce-catchers like Lord Protector Tom Watson, who, last I checked, was being fitted for a long black coat, black knee-britches and a buckle hat, to look the part better. It just has to be that way, since we know we cannot trust those around children to be responsible in such activity, and it were far better it never take place than to risk more Jimmy Saviles running loose.
(Sadly enough, there might actually be a very few Lefties out there who do not realise I’m doing a Poe’s Law-style taking of the mickey, and might believe that a true word is being said in jest here, as this sorta chimes with their “let the state have control of our children” feelings– those who, while mouthing the appropriate “gotta show some love” shibboleths, still don’t believe in tempting fate.)
2 hours ago
I m not remotely surprised. Once the leftists get gay marriage and conclude that campaign, paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon for them to jump on.
(Edited by author 2 hours ago)
Comment like count Recommended by 26 people
46 minutes ago
“Once the leftists get gay marriage and conclude that campaign,
paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon for them to jump on.”
That’s true. Publicly condemn the marriage of a certain prophet to a child and the Left will have you locked up for it.
Comment like count Recommended by 1 person
2 hours ago
“I m not remotely surprised. Once the leftists get gay marriage and
conclude that campaign, paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon
for them to jump on. ”
I’d love to see a right winger on here call you out for this drivel but they won’t.
So I’ll do it.
Comment like count Recommended by 5 people
2 hours ago
Is it James Bond? I rather think it is you who are being naive – it is well known that people like Patricia Hewitt, whilst at the National Council for Civil Liberties, thought that consensual child sexual activity was OK. Also, there is actual evidence of that attitude in the way lefty social workers have dealt with ‘child grooming’ by Asian gangs.
You don’t seriously thing that homosexual ‘marriage’ is about homosexuals getting married do you? That’s rather naive of you as well. Homosexual marriage is about destroying marriage for hetrosexuals, and in so doing destroying the family and promoting homosexuality as a liftstyle choic. Anyone who think otherwise are just ‘useful idiots’ .
The next step will probably be promoting beastality, and marriage to your horse, dog or hamster. The RSPCA will not mind, they are too busy with their expensive class war on hunting – in fact they will probably support such a move.
(Edited by author 2 hours ago)
Comment like count Recommended by 20 people
2 hours ago
“Homosexual marriage is about destroying marriage for hetrosexuals, and
in so doing destroying the family.
I’ll just get loads of abuse from DT readers if I don’t agree with this.
Enjoy your recommends.
Comment like count Recommended by 2 people
1 hour ago
Well, tell us why this will not be the case? Tell us how adultery and consummation are going to be redefined for homosexual marriage? And if they cannot be redefined then you cannot have such a concept for hetrosexuals – after all we are talking ‘equal’ marriage are we not?
Thus marriage, instead of being an institution on which to found a family and provide for the next generation, becomes nothing but a civil partnership based on the current, self absorbed, sexual preference for the parties involved. And in that case, you can start making the case for all sorts of other sexual ‘partnerships’.
Thus is marriage and the family destroyed as a build block of society – so a few gays can waltz down an aisle in white with a floral boquet and call themselves Mr and Mr Smith. I cannot see why civil partnerships cannot suffice for those who want to commit to someone of the same sex.
Homosexual and hetrosexual partnerships are not the same, they are not for the same purpose, and the whole concept of ‘equality’ is a red herring