And as committed in Manchester.
If Peter Tatchell had his way, then a conviction in this case would be practically impossible, since the age of consent would have been lowered to 14. If anything, the victim would be liable for prosecution for sex in a public place, although Tatchell has, shall we say, eccentric views on that one, too. Tatchell would also have rendered legal almost
every act of which any Catholic priest has ever been so much as accused.
Furthermore, in The Guardian on 26th June 1997, Tatchell wrote:
“The positive nature of some child-adult relations 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 9 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.”
In 1981, Michael Foot refused to endorse Tatchell as a candidate for the House of Commons.
“The positive nature of some child-adult relations 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 9 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.”
In 1981, Michael Foot refused to endorse Tatchell as a candidate for the House of Commons.
In
2010, David Cameron offered Tatchell a seat in the House of Lords.
How the world turns.
I've tried, through the conduit of now many banned user accounts, to make the exact same argument underneath various articles hosted on The Guardian website.
ReplyDeleteI think they're on to me now, and may well have some sort of rapid-response policy to deal with my posts. Which, I suppose if true, is something at least.....
Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteWhat an appalling, cheap-shot analysis. You presuppose that rape is not possible once one has reached the age of consent. The Arndale rape is rape because it was forced. I'm no fan of Mr T but this crap does nothing for your side of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your logic David. What is the link between the age of consent and rape? One is not determined by the other.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a load of rubbish. Peter Tatchell does not support adults having sex with children. His articles debating an age of consent of 14 are motivated solely by a desire to reduce the criminalisation of under-16s who have consenting relationships with other young people of similar ages. READ: http://goo.gl/KmhBA
ReplyDeleteLet me preface my comments by saying that I am no fan of Peter Tatchell or his views, many of which I regard as barmy. That includes what he has said about sex between adults and children and about the age of consent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you really ought to get your facts straight. Even if the age of consent were to be lowered to 14 – and I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of that happening – you are completely wrong in saying that a conviction in this case would then be practically impossible. The operative word here is CONSENT. In this particular case the act was plainly anything but consensual. It was in fact, as your own headline correctly indicates, a case of RAPE. Even Peter Tatchell has never proposed that that should be legal.
You are really rattled, aren't you? You know that I am right: there would be practically no chance of a conviction in this case if Tatchell, and many others besides, had their way.
ReplyDeletePalpable nonsense David. Most "not rape but consent" defences rest on the previous sexual behaviour of the victim. In this case there is no history of the boy frequenting any form of location looking for sexual encounters. Changing the AoC to 14 (which I disagree with) would have no impact on this case.
ReplyDeleteEven the CPS largely ignore the current AoC. It is a statutory device that most people understand has little connection to actual consent (mutual or otherwise).
Or are you suggesting that there is some suspicion that the boy involved actually consented?
I don’t think that anyone on here is rattled, just amazed. Two men grabbed a 14-year-old boy in the Arndale centre, physically threatened him, and then frog-marched him into the toilet in Debenhams where he was raped. And you are saying that if the age of consent were 14 – which I’m sure it never will be, but that’s beside the point – an assault like this would, for all practical purposes if not in theory, be legal? You know perfectly well that it wouldn’t be. And just consider the logical and inescapable corollary, viz. that since the actual age of consent is 16, one can safely rape anyone of that age or older, with little or no fear of legal retribution. What you have said would be a positive encouragement to a potential rapist – if he were obtuse enough to take it seriously. “You know that I am right,” you say. I think not.
ReplyDeleteYou have them whipped. Under the Master, you are the master. Praise God for you! Bless you, bless you so very, very much!
ReplyDeleteIt would have been more clear to have said that a prosecution for this crime would potentially be more difficult to achieve if the age of consent was lowered to 14.
ReplyDeleteThe perpetrators might then say that the sex was consensual and plead not guilty.
As for now a case like this is cut and dried and will get a conviction whether it was consensual or forced.
For now, yes. That is my point.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, even having said that, the age of consent for girls is hardly enforced from 13 upwards. What if these men also claimed that they thought he was 16 and that he said yes?
Let’s suppose that two men grabbed a 14-year-old girl and took her off and raped her. (And there are certainly cases of that sort of thing happening.) What if these men also claimed that they thought she was 16 and that she said yes?
ReplyDeleteThen it would be difficult to convict them. And it is.
ReplyDeleteHardly an argument for making matters even worse.