Wednesday, February 13, 2013

One Billion Rising. But not you please, Peter Tatchell.

I'm really looking forward to the taking part in the "One Billion Rising" event tomorrow, 14th February. It's going to be the biggest demonstration in history, where people across the world will be dancing in a show of solidarity with girls and women who have suffered violence and injustice. We're dancing to say "enough is enough". It's going to be ace! I have been practicing the dance steps, I'm bringing my friends, we're geared up. 

Searching for "One Billion Rising" on Twitter, I found some unexpected support from one Peter Tatchell, who tweeted "One Billion Rising! Oppose rape & violence against women ". It made my flesh crawl. Keep reading, you'll see why.

For those of you who are not familiar with Mr Tatchell, he introduces himself thus on Twitter: For human rights, democracy, global justice and LGBTI Freedom. He's a well known campaigner and activist. He's got more than 30,000 followers on Twitter. Some might remember him from when he tried to do make a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe and got beaten up by security guards. To many people, he's a hero. So far, he sounds like a pretty good egg, wouldn't you say?

Thing is, Peter Tatchell has expressed opinions in the past that he's quite keen for us to forget. In his eagerness to protect "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties", he appears to have forgotten about the rights of children not to suffer sexual abuse. Perhaps those rights came into conflict with the rights of adults who enjoy having sex with children. Oops.

Below is an extract from the Daily Mail, 13 September 2010 written by Peter Hitchens. When you've read it, you might forgive me for, or even join me in, saying this: Peter Tatchell, tomorrow, when I dance to express my support for girls and women who have suffered violence and abuse, I don't want you there. I just don't.

Finally, just so that there's no confusion. Peter Tatchell is not condoning paedophilia. He just thinks it's OK for adults to have sex with children as young as 9 years old and that this can bring the children "great joy". Incidentally, Mr Tatchell is also campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14, so as to not "criminalize children". How thoughtful. 


For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper. In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored. 

When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech. 

He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’

Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’. He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.

He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.

And he concluded: ‘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.’

To read the Daily Mail article in full, please follow the link below

The following article sets out Tatchell's argument in favour of lowering the age of consent to 14, and also includes his original 1997 letter to the Guardian in full (it's the only source of the original letter I've found remaining online):

PS: Before you head over to Wikipedia to read the glowing profile of Peter Tatchell's life and works, note that the profile also states: 

Still keen for more info? Here's a link to an article published by....
(you guessed it) The Guardian in honour of Peter Tatchell's 60th 
birthday last year. The article concludes 

"Happy birthday, comrade. If the British are slightly more tolerant than we once were, it is in part because we had the good fortune to have you live among us".


  1. Wow, only came across your blog tonight from twitter. So much to learn with so few people to be trusted. I am starting to see so many fringe bloggers speaking the truth and it is just all i can do to spread the word. Thank you.

  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 his 2010 sexual health conference speech here:

    You have referred to a Guardian letter that Peter wrote in 1997. Since then, Peter has responded time and again to these baseless insinuations of supporting paedophilia.

    His Guardian letter said it is "impossible" to condone paedophilia. This means he does not condone it.

    In a subsequent article clarifying his stance, Peter wrote:

    “My Guardian letter cited examples of youths in Papuan tribes and some of my friends who, when they were under 16, had sex with adults (over 18s), but who do not feel they were harmed.

    “I was not endorsing their viewpoint but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the mainstream opinion about inter-generational sex. They have every right for their perspective to be heard.
    “Now mature adults, they look back on their under-age sexual relations with older people and do not feel that they were harmed. If this is their considered view, we should respect their evaluation (while also recognising that some people are harmed by early sexual experiences).”


    In a recent article (21 January 2013) by Peter Tatchell for Pink News, he clearly states:

    “One option would be to keep the age of consent at 16, but decriminalise sex involving youths aged 14-16, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages.
    “This would, for example, end the criminalisation of two 15 year olds, while continuing to prohibit sex between 15-year-olds and 50-year-olds.
    “Even then, I would favour a reduction to 14 only if it was backed up with assertiveness training and earlier, better quality sex and relationship education in schools, to help young people make wise, responsible sexual decisions, including the choice to not have sex.”


    Your blog post includes accusations that are untrue and defamatory. I hope that in the light of the information I have provided, you will accept that this is unfair and will either modify or remove it.

    To insinuate that Peter supports child sex abuse is very wrong and unjust. He fully sympathises with the victims of abuse and believes the perpetrators should be prosecuted.


  3. Dear James,

    Thank you for your response, which I have read with interest. However, I strongly disagree with your interpretation, for reasons I have already made clear. I will post Mr Tatchell's letter of 1997 in its entirety in a separate post. In that way, nothing is taken out of context and people can make up their own minds about what his intentions may or may not be.

    Regarding the criminalization of children, I am still looking for figures to see how many children under 16 has actually been prosecuted for having consensual sex. Until anyone can show me, in figures, that this represents an actual and not conveniently imagined problem, I continue to believe that the reasons for even contemplating lowering the AoC has nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with the convenience of adults who want to abuse children and not be prosecuted.

    Let's remind ourselves that the world of pedophiles and their supporters, knowing or unknowing, is awash with people who hide behind good intentions. It has a name. It's called grooming.

    Kind regards
    Mrs Marguerita

  4. Mr Tatchell must be trying to rehabilitate his image through proxies, on here and on Wikipedia. He has espoused extremely dangerous and pathologically distorted views of adult-child sexual activity.


  5. Elle, I agree. His Wikipedia entry reads like something worthy of Mother Theresa. I think a link to his letter should be added to his Wikipedia page. It speaks for itself, I think.