Friday Night Song
It would be welcome if a British newspaper did a similiarly honest analysis of the same situation in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s.
But for now here is an excellent article in Germany’s Spiegel Online International.
Many thanks to RB !
In the 1980s, gay rights groups in Germany formed an alliance with pedophiles who advocated the legalization of sex with minors. It’s a dark period few care to talk about now.
In July 1981, the gay interest magazine “Rosa Flieder” published an interview with Olaf Stüben. Stüben was one of the most infamous paedophiles in Germany at the time. As a writer for the leftist newspaper Die Tageszeitung, he openly advocated for people to accept paedophilia as healthy and moral.
In the magazine interview, Stüben is asked why it should be acceptable for adults to have sex with children and youths. He talks of quickies with young boys, and declares it backwards to maintain the taboo around inappropriately touching children. “Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism,” Stüben says.
The interview in “Rosa Flieder” was not a one-off lapse. On the contrary — in the 1970s and 80s, numerous gay-oriented magazines brazenly promoted sex with children, even running pictures of naked boys. The magazine “Don” presented five sympathetic reports on the experiences of paedophilic men. The headline read, “We’re not child rapists!”
In recent months, many in Germany have been discussing the extent to which thein the 1980s allowed itself to be manipulated by paedophiles. The party came under such that it hired political scientist Franz Walter to look into its own history relating to the issue.
Yet it’s now clear that thein Germany must also come to terms with this chapter of its history. Anyone who searches through archives can find ample evidence of the alliance between gay rights organizations and pedophile activists. If pedophiles got into trouble with the law, they could rely on legal advice from a group called “Gay Lawyers.” Many politicians in the Green Party also made sure that calls for legalizing sex with children had an audience.
A Beneficial Alliance
Nowadays it seems puzzling whywould get themselves mixed up with people whose sexual obsessions were downright . The tolerance for pedophiles was fueled by several different sources. For one, many gays at the time knew all too well what it was like to be discriminated against by the state. Consensual sex between adult men was officially a criminal act up until the end of the . Only in 1969 did lawmakers in West Germany dismantle the infamous “Paragraph 175” of the German Criminal Code. At the same time, the sexual revolution was breaking out, and many men finally had the courage to come out of the closet.
Thus many gays didn’t want to be the ones to judge others for their deviant sexual inclinations. In a climate of general tolerance, the movement lost its moral compass. The gay movement did not distance itself from men who acted on their desire for children; rather, it took them under its wing.
Then there was the remarkable idea that underage boys should not be denied the chance to have sexual experiences with grown men. Even today, the Association of Lesbians and Gays in Germany (LSVD) claims on its website that in the 1980s, the only men who spoke up were those who had enjoyed sex with adults in their youth.
For the paedophiles, the alliance with the gay movement was nothing but beneficial. They had a platform from which they could formulate objectives.
The gay movement helped pedophiles in entirely practical ways. In the pamphlet “Justly gay. Legal advice for gays,” there is a one-and-a-half page “argumentation aid.” It’s an instruction on how men who are charged with child sexual abuse can best escape punishment.
More at Spiegel Online
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Northern Ireland) has released a unredacted copy of the 1985 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Childrens Homes and Hostels by WH Hughes, WJ Patterson and H Whalley  and on wordpress [1a] in response to a Freedom of Information Request  on the Whatdotheyknow website. 
This is also known as the Hughes Report or the Report into Kincora (although there were several). It also includes inquiries into 9 other homes and concentrates on male homosexual abuse. The Inquiry was into Kincora Boys hostel 1960-1980; Valetta Park Hostel, Newtownards; Bawnmore Boys Home; Williamson House; Palmerston Reception and Assessment Centre; Nazareth Lodge Childrens Home; De La Salle Boys Home, Rubane House Kircubbin; Barnardos Sharonmore project; and Manor House Home.
I will try and make it clear in future when I post reports which places are involved and if anyone has…
View original post 125 more words
Rolf Harris charged with 13 counts in total.
Nine counts of indecent assault , Six offences of indecent assault relating to a girl aged between 15 and 16 from 1980 to 1981 and three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl aged 14, in 1986.
Also, four counts of making indecent images of a child from March/July last year
The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised police to charge Rolf Harris with nine counts of indecent assault, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and four counts of making indecent images of a child contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:
“We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service as part of Operation Yewtree in relation to Rolf Harris, who was initially arrested on 29 November 2012 over allegations of sexual offences. A file of evidence was passed to the CPS on 12 August 2013.
“Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Harris to be charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images of a child. The alleged indecent assaults date from 1980 to 1986 and relate to two complainants aged 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending.”
The charges are:
• Six offences of indecent assault relating to a girl aged between 15 and 16 from 1980 to 1981.
• Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl aged 14, in 1986.
“Mr Harris will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 23 September 2013.
“May I remind all concerned that Mr Harris has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”
Following Gojam’s recent posts on “Judge-mental”, I was struck by a link Martin posted. There has been much discussion lately about paedophile judges and paedophile-friendly judges. This is in response to widespread concern about paedophiles being freed or given ludicrous light sentences for offences most of us would consider to be heinous crimes. When we dare protest at this, we are dismissed as “online nutters”. We are told how important it is for judges to be “independent”. They are in possession of all the facts and we should leave sentencing to them! Really?! What about accountability to the public? But paedophile-friendly judges are nothing new. They have been doing this for decades. It is not just the British public who have been expressing concern at the lenient treatment of these evil people.
The link Martin provided was to an article in the Sidney Morning Herald, dated July 1st 1983. Under the headline, “It’s British Justice, but is it just”?, we find the story of Judge David Tudor Price of the Old Bailey. Just a couple of months after presiding over the trial of Carol and Harry Kazir, Judge Price allowed a convicted paedophile to walk free. He had been convicted of 300 (yes 300!) sexual offences against a 7 year old boy! He had 3 previous convictions for sexual offences against children.
So it has always been! Judges on the whole do seem NOT to consider such offences as serious – look at Ovenden, et al!!
On behalf of all us “online nutters” I say this has got to change. The horror and disgust of the overwhelming majority of the British people MUST be heard.
Maybe that great defender of children, Mr Kieth Vaz MP, chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, who said it was everyone’s duty to speak out against the abuse of children – Yes! – would be better concentrating the minds of his committee towards its duty as the law makers. How about some recommendations for MANDATORY prison sentences for those convicted of CSA offences? That is the only way most of us will be convinced that the law does treat these offences as serious and paedophile-friendly judges will no longer be able to abuse their power.
This week at the Old Bailey, Judge David Tudor Price let a man who admitted 300 charges of sexual molestation against a boy of seven go free, saying the prisoner had agreed to have medical treatment. The man, a 34-year-old porter, had been convicted three times previously of sex offences against children, but had never received a sentence.
After the hearing, the boy’s father said: The judge must be cracked. It’s him who wants medical treatment. Or else the British system of justice is up the spout.
It takes all sorts to fill the House of Commons, and while many backbenchers love the business of being a constituency MP, plenty of others toil in the hope they’ll soon be marked out for greater things by the whips, and picked for ministerial office.It seems to me, though, that too many backbenchers overlook the power that they have. In fact, if they’re determined, they can potentially get things done just as easily as many of their ministerial colleagues.Meet Nicola Blackwood, the MP vowing to tighten sex offenders law.The first ever elected female MP in Oxfordshire is launching a campaign to make it easier for the police to keep tabs on child sex offenders, after figures show only five of the 65,000 registered offenders are banned each year on average from travelling abroad. Cathy Newman reports.Photo: Paul Grover
One backbencher who’s realised this is the Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood. She’s a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and as I reported on Monday night’s Channel 4 News, she’s launching a campaign this week to tighten the law on sex offenders. And there’s every chance she may succeed.
The crux of her “Childhood Lost” campaign is to reform the current panoply of orders which ban offenders from travelling abroad or, in this country, having contact with children – for example at school gates or playgrounds. Police and lawyers have been arguing for years that the orders are too difficult to apply. There are nearly 65,000 registered sex offenders in the UK, yet just five a year on average are banned from travelling overseas.
Ms Blackwood told me she’s going to amend the anti-social behaviour bill to make it far easier for the police to keep tabs on offenders. At the moment, the courts can impose one of three orders only if an offender has been convicted of sex offences. The crucial change is that a new “child sexual abuse prevention order” – replacing the existing orders – could be issued if the defendant hasn’t been convicted of anything, providing there is evidence of the danger they pose to children.
The Childhood Lost petition can be found at childhoodlost.co.uk