Friday, 21 June 2013

Peter Tatchell and the Age of Sexual Consent

Comrade Tatchell

Peter Tatchell, the UK's most prominent homosexual activist, has done more than advocating the abolition of the age of consent, he has broken the age of consent law in Britain:

"As a gay 18-year-old Australian, anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and set up home with a 16-year-old gay lover in Shepherd’s Bush. The pair despised the law and so defied it."

The homosexual age of consent in England then was 21, not 16. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. The trend is clear.

When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16, an Outrage - Tatchell's organization - banner was photographed saying "16 is just a start".

Mr Tatchell (or shall we call him comrade Tatchell given his militant Marxist background) criticises the concept of age of consent, as is obvious from this quotation from his own website:

"Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter "Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent" for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways "to make paedophilia acceptable".

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (spelling BOY), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the now-disbanded Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

Stephen Green writes: "The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent, destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children."

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that that the age of sexual consent is "Re-inforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era".

He was not on his own in this crusade, far from it. Many of his comrades, socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same (emphasis mine):
Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’
Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who "related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six".

The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn't sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books. This is The Betrayal of Youth's list of contents and contributors.

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalising and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist of the "Kill the Pope" brigade Richard Dawkins but it's not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is "There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: "The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write."

Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell's protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Our "gay" friend's self-defence begins with:

"Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes."

Bad start, Pete. These are blatant falsities. It wasn't "many" Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies about the Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone; people like Tatchell and his pals/comrades in the mainstream media think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it's true.

But blaming the Church whenever you're in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own, shall we say, deviations from the norm. It's worked so far, our friend thinks, so why shouldn't it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there's more.

Look at his defence of another book:
My 1997 Guardian letter about the book, Dares to Speak, gives the wrong impression. It was edited...

Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.
Leaving aside the irony, probably lost on humourless Tatchell, about his using a "former editor of a Catholic newspaper" as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers, the book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was tactfully removed, this was Wikipedia's entry for the publication (emphasis mine):
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.
After the normalization of homosexuality, we'll have the normalization of paedophilia. Get over it.

Added on 8 December 2013. In fairness to Peter Tatchell, he has politely asked me to add that his real views on age of consent, in particular his four criteria of any change in the age of consent laws, are here:

This doesn’t alter my opinions on this whole subject. It’s up to you to decide if it alters yours.


  1. I agree, we have not hit bottom yet in what Gertrude Himmelfarb termed "the de-moralization of society" (which is the actual title of one of her books). The de-stigmatization of ephebophilia is probably next--after all, have we not been sold that sexual congress between adolescents is to be expected, "Nothing to see here, folks?"--eventually to encompass that of true pedophilia. Here in the U. S., we already have an active group of mental health professionals, mostly hailing from prestigious American universities, who are working quite openly to de-stigmatize pedophilia, the B4U-ACT group; they even have a website. I think the only reason pedophilia has not gotten more traction in the mass culture is that the Cultural Marxists have found it useful to trumpet the--as you emphasize--misnamed "pedophilia scandal" in the Catholic Church to undermine its moral authority (and, by extension, that of other conservative Christian denominations).

    And, really, once pedophilia becomes acceptable, what other taboos can possibly stand? Incest and polygamy (the latter already quite acceptable in many cultures, including those transplanted to Western countries) are positively palatable by comparison. The Gramscian long march through the institutions that have been the source of Western sexual morality is dangerously near completion.

  2. Peter Tatchell has never advocated adults having sex with children. He does not support this. He says adults should NOT have sex with children. He has never advocated the abolition of ages of consent. He has said that if young people of similar ages have sex below the age of 16 they should not be prosecuted, providing they both consent and there is no coercion, manipulation or exploitation. Treating these young people as criminals is wrong. They need counselling, not prosecution
    Read here:

    1. Raks, you have posted verbatim exactly the same comment by James (?) to my previous article:

      This new article of mine is a reply to that former comment, and you can see from it how little value these excuses by Tatchell have in the context of the whole way he's been acting on this issue.

      What is this, a robot posting the same automatic comment all the time?

    2. Thank you for the above article. Peter Tatchell is also an associate of Richard McCance, the two certainly having shared a platform at a meeting during Nottingham Gay Pride in 2010. Richard McCance, when Vice Chairman (pun coincidental) of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality in 1978, addressed a meeting of the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square. He wrote the following glowing report in the '70s Gay newspaper Broadsheet:

      'Linking arms, marching abreast, women and men together, we succeeded in entering the hall, despite flower, fruit and veg., despite being clawed and spat at, kicked and punched by many of the hundred or so who awaited our arrival like starved dogs. Over the next hour about another hundred staggered in, like the battle-scarred reporter from the Daily Telegraph, his face bleeding, raked down by fingernails. Others arrived with torn clothing. Those who tried to enter on their own were led away bleeding from head wounds to a police van. There were only four policemen on duty at this time.

      'As the meeting began, I looked at the growing crowd (now several hundred strong) and recognized from previous demos several prominent National Front thugs and sympathizers - male and female - including Dereck Day, who was featured in the Observer article on the National Front.

      'In the hall we tried to listen attentively to the PIE speakers but the constant strains of "kill them, kill them" from the crowd, who were beating on the door, made this difficult. I was frightened and could not concentrate properly.

      'The meeting ended half an hour earlier than planned in a bid to surprise the mob outside. Those who could run fast were advised to form ranks. The elderly and several disabled had to wait for further instructions. It all felt like abandoning ship into a cruel sea.

      'Many of us were set upon individually by the crowd. A Jewish brother, his glasses stamped on, was kicked and punched. The police, now about thirty in number, reacted lethargically.

      'Survival instincts are strong. I removed my gay badge and masqueraded as a het when challenged by a potential assailant. They seemed surprised that most of us were not old men in faded brown raincoats. We were all sorts - gay, paedophile, straight, press people, academics, coming to listen to what PIE had to say.

      'As I was pummelled and kicked I appealed to a policeman for help, but I was told to "Get the hell out of here". Eventually three of us managed to stop a passing cab and escape.'

      The meeting was stewarded by former members of the Gay Liberation Front, which had folded by 1978. Naturally I don't condone the violence reported. It's significant that the Vice Chair of an organisation as high profile as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality attended a meeting of a pro-paedophilia group, hosted by the radical Leftists of the renowned Conway Hall.

      We can read a good account of the 1970s relationship between homosexual and paedophile campaigners in chapter 12 and other chapters of this book, which is not a pleasant read (it's an insider account of pro-paedophilia campaigning in Britain), but it's a must read for anybody concerned about the powerful legislative influence of sexual 'liberationists':


    3. . . . continued from previous comment:

      Peter Tatchell (who in the Guardian letter which you mentioned appears to be an apologist for sexual activity between adults and children as young as nine) was also on the Gay political scene at that time, as were others still active in campaigning for sexual 'rights' rather than for sexual responsibility. The National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) also sided with the Paedophile Information Exchange in its opposition to the 1978 Protection of Children Bill. It was Mary Whitehouse, so maligned for decades by the BBC and by many liberals, whose 1.6 million signature Petition for Public Decency spurred Parliament to bring in the Protection of Children Bill, which criminalised child pornography in Britain. Britain these days selects its heroes (Tatchell et al.) and its villains (Mary Whitehouse) very oddly.

      How about the new crop of sexual 'rights' campaigners? Are they removed from the promotion of the concept that there can be such a thing as informed sexual consent between adults and children? Chris Ashford, self-proclaimed "Queer theorist" and Reader in Law and Society at Sunderland University, writing about the 'marriage' bill in Pink News earlier this year, stated,

      "There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalisation of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind."

      What does he mean by "the continued criminalisation of consensual acts"? He doesn't specify. He could be referring to sadomasochism, but we should be aware that the "Sexuality and Law" module which he teaches at Sunderland includes the topic "Paedophilia and the Man/Boy Love movement", and he has elsewhere written that he is "open minded" as to whether paedophilia should be accorded equal rights status and has implied that only the danger of a public backlash prevents him from discussing the subject more freely (

      Barney Sanseverina (am on Facebook)

    4. Thank you for the useful information.

    5. Exactly! "The Public Backlash". Tatchell is nothing more than a Pink Nazi. He knows that parents do not want their children interfered with and will fight to the death to protect their innocence and is thus obviously and rightly afraid of being killed. The only worthwhile thing to know about Tatchell, is where he plans to be buried so that civilised people can go and defecate upon his grave.

  3. Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.


  4. Please read: to learn about a paedophile cult operating in central France. Ariela. My email:

  5. Dear Enza,
    Would you be kind enough to amend this article by citing my real views on age of consent etc:
    Please note my four criterion of any change in the age of consent laws.
    Many thanks, Peter

    1. I recognise that I come to this debate late, but I feel a burning desire to comment. I suspect that an email alert will inform interested parties.

      @ Peter Tatchell.

      Well, Peter! You are changing your tune.

      Please clarify, did you not write; "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."

      The argument cited at the above mentioned link, is really just a softened (small step) move to the abolition of the age of consent altogether. You have been arguing for lowering the age for years.

      Now you are suddenly arguing, "Perhaps the ideal solution would be that the age of consent remains at 16 but that sexual behaviour involving young people under 16 should not be criminalised"

      Lowering the AOC would only make it LEGAL for predatory paedos to pursue sex with younger children. Suggesting that it would be of benefit is a contemptuous lie.

      Now suddenly you are advocating NOT lowering, but "decriminilising." i.e. DEFACTO lowering the age of consent, albiet not for adults.

      The status quo serves just fine. Common sense is just required by Law as to the value in pursuing a conviction.

      I for one, think that the agenda you hold is extremely unpalatable to all decent people, and now you are back pedaling.

    2. So you would turn down the opportunity of having sex with a 14 year old boy then, should it become legal? Do not forget that the 97% of us who are not persuaded by your perversions will do ANYTHING to protect our young from you brand of corruption.

  6. I have clicked by mistake on the "delete" instead of the "publish" link in the email notifying me of the comment below (on holiday I'm using my smartphone with its tiny commands). So I'm copying and pasting it here. By Anonymous:

    "Disgusting paedophile tatchell keeps trying to lie and spin on
    this but his own words immortalised in print will haunt him forever."

    1. Nice one Enza - keep up the good work! There is nothing that gets a gay man drooling and licking his lips more, than the prospect of having sex with a child! All of this vileness is being propagated under the banner of "LGBT Equality". Gays need to realise that even if, by some satanic miracle their perversions become legal; there is NOTHING a parent will not do to protect and safeguard their children. Gays do not understand this because they are incapable of having children in a way that bonds them to a parent. Thank God for Putin for making a stand!

  7. Please note that Tatchell claims that his Guardian letter was "edited" but he has also claimed that he is unable to produce an original copy of the letter! Very very suspicious ....

    "Raks" and "James" are either pseudonyms of Peter Tatchell, or employees of his Foundation whose accounts he uses, perhaps without their knowledge, to troll and harass other people. He's a disturbed man.

    1. No he is not disturbed. He is an insidious, vile "thing", who would gladly put children in harms way for his own depraved gratification - "In my opinion".

  8. I have been investigating the predatory paedophile cult in Benevent l'Abbaye for a year now. Commonly known as the Godson Cult this ongoing investigation has meant that I have met and corresponded with victims on the edge of suicide and despair. In order to progress legal action I do need to hear from the victims in Ireland who made contact via the link of this blogspot in November 2013. My email:

  9. I enjoy having sex as much as the next man - with a woman, who is of consensual age; although at my age doing so with a sixteen year old would be bizarre to say the least. The so-called LGBT community (3% of the population) has been trying to con the rest of us into believing that they are simply after equality; to which I have no objection.

    However that is not their TRUE objective. Their true objective is to "homsexualise" The Human Race by (a) Influencing and indoctrinating our children in our schools, before our children have any concept of sexuality, or indeed worked out their own individual sexuality and (b) abolishing the age of consent so that children may be more easily brainwashed through sexual interaction with scheming and manipulative adults.

    The "LGBT Brigade" have had an easy ride for the last 1/2 dozen years and have gotten a lot of what they want. They are in danger of unleashing "The Whirlwind" against themselves should they continue with these perverse demands. Ordinary people will stand for only so much.

    In the main, I can't stand Putin, but his actions and those of The Russian Parliament is exactly what is necessary to protect children from what is potentially child rape.

  10. I am a gay man from Brasil who is now live in Britain, for many years I am also live in San Francisco. For me being gay is not by my decision, I am born this way and I don't think that to love another man is wrong. Most gays is just want to be treat like equals and have respect. But I think is wrong to have sex with very young people like your writing is saying. 14 is too young. If Britain abolish this limit I am afraid that some gays and straight people from America mostly may come to Britain to take advantage of this. I have many nieces and nephews, but not in Britain and I would not like to see them put in danger of this.

    Peace to you

  11. Hi Enza.

    Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to galvanise public support through institutional bodies such as the C of E and the RC Church and various other relevant organisations to lobby The UK/EU Parliaments to make a CRIMINAL OFFENCE of: (a) Advocating and (b) Promoting sexual interaction between Adults and Minors and sexual interaction amongst Minors.

    The Strategy of the likes of Tatchell is very clear. i.e - start softly, by suggesting that sex between minors is decriminalised. Once this debate has entered the public consciousness, it then becomes easier to move to the second stage; that is opening a debate about sex between Adults and Minors. Then before you know it, the latter is being debated in Parliament!!!

    We need to make a stand NOW to prevent this; and the best way forward is for all the relevant bodies and individuals to petition our politicians on the lines I have outlined above.