Wednesday, February 26, 2014
On Tuesday, February 25, in response to an article in the Herald (same date) I sent in the Letter to the Editor copied below.
In 1997, Peter Tatchell wrote, in part, to the editor of another newspaper: “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.” (Guardian, June 26, 1997)
This echoed what Dr Edward Brongersma, a Dutch politician and academic wrote in the The Magpie, the Mag(azine) of the P(aedophile) I(nformation) E(xchange) in the late 1970s: “A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.”
The Paedophile Information Exchange had been affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberty from 1975. That affiliation was not terminated until eight years later when it had become an embarrassment.
In 1976, the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee considering a proposed Protection of Children Bill — proposed over concerns related to child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children — claiming that the Bill would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’. Then echoing their good Dr Brongersma and presaging their good friend — then as now — Tatchell, it stated: “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage. The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’
Harriet Harman, who had been employed as a solicitor by Brent Law Centre since 1974, and therefore must have been fully aware of all that the NCCL was up to, was appointed the NCCL Legal Officer in 1978. Her husband, Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government, sat on its executive 1970-79.
Can either point to anything they did, said or wrote at that time that distanced themselves from these disgusting positions? A letter of resignation for example?
Today (Wednesday, February 26) they found it fitting to find room for letters on: food banks (one); litter (two); Coronation Street (one); phoning BT (one); Giraltar football (one), and; Mauchline and curling (one). I cannot and do not complain about the five published all much longer than mine relating to Scottish politics and flying visits by UK and Scottish cabinets to Aberdeen. But a topic which this morning has seen several other newspapers take up or continue the story, and The Times of London devote an editorial to it, is not deemed worthy of (less expensive) comment by The Herald? Surpassing strange. Bearing in mind that on the last occasion I submitted a Letter to the Editor which they saw fit to publish, they also saw fit to delete a very telling point against the homosexualist lobby — homosexuals fell outwith the ambit of the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942, and thus had no part in the Final Solution and their attendance at Holocaust Memorials was an affront to common decency; they were not marked out for extermination and were sentenced to hard labour and NOT the gas chambers; and, yes, many did die of starvation, untreated illness, other neglect and by murder at the hands of their gaolers, and quite possibly other prisoners but the numbers involved were more likely to be in the hundreds and not the thousands, let alone many thousands (I did not go into it to this length) — I am left to wonder whether The Herald is in hock to that lobby?