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.
Dear
Sir
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?
Yours
etc
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?
