The Conveniently Selective Memory Of Peter Tatchell

The Conveniently Selective Memory Of Peter Tatchell

Lionised by the Pink Mafia at the Guardian & BBC as the hero of the so-called "gay rights" movement in the UK, Peter Tatchell succeeded at tying moral outrage to political campaigns via PR stunts, As the de facto "respectable" and "proper" face of this cultural phenomenon, he has a rather mercurial nature when remembering things he has done, or why he did them.

As Toby says in The West Wing, "I hate this issue, it's like walking around town with a sick chicken". Truly, one feels the need for a long shower reading through all this. But you have to, in order to know the wolves from the sheep.

After hacking the ECHR to reduce the age of homosexual consent down from 21 to 16 at the turn of the millennium, it was strange to see how few of the nation were celebrating. But more strangely, what the protestors' banners read.

Tatchell, in red shirt
"16 [years old] is just a start".
"Age of consent - just the first step"

Tatchell is a brilliant chameleon and an expert media operator. For "gay rights" to succeed, it needed to switch the public mind from sexual depravity to a sentimentalised "lost love story" half the population - i.e. women - could be taken in by. This isn't about sex; it's about love. This isn't about sexual depravity; it's a sob story about the freedom to be who you really are.

Paedophiles have been trying to remove age of consent laws since the 1970s, because... they criminalize them. And it's always out of "concern" for children. It's exactly the rationale given by so-called "paedophile rights" groups.

Meanwhile, conservatives have long argued homosexual behaviour results as a side-effect of childhood sexual abuse; the abused continue on to abuse. In their (crude) stereotypical terms, pederasts reproduce by sexualising children.

Let's take a look at what Comrade Tatchell seems to remember differently when the cameras switch on. Working backwards as we go towards his days in the communist Gay Liberation Front.

The Wrong Side of History

Before we do that, let's make a small list of what "freedom" hero Comrade Tatchell has been up to in his agitprop quest for "human rights".

  • Advocating for the destruction of the church and ability to insult the Queen (2006)
  • Divisively advocating for Cornwall's self-rule (2008)
  • Suing Raw Nerve Books into bankruptcy, who published something which criticised him (2009)
  • Denouncing the "sexist, homophobic history of marriage" (2014)
  • Supporting Dankula's prosecution for training a pug to make a Nazi salute (2018)
  • Reversing his position on Islam being "fascist" in favour of the Qu'ran being "mildly homophobic" to avoid being "Islamophobic" (ad nauseam)
  • etc etc

Tatchell, in his hubris, has one sole stellar ability, which he picked up from his Christian evangelist parents: expressing middle-class moral outrage in greater amounts than his accusers, DARVO-style.

He presumably picked up the notion you win when you gain and hold the moral high ground through appeals to emotion and social vanity, then posthumously claim it was your "reason and arguments" which decided the battle.

Tatchell's so-called "arguments" are spurious and specious. Sophistry would be a generous and charitable label for them; co-opting liberal values for aberrant sexual behaviour and suggesting they are positive rights needing codification is a perversion (distortion) of the most egregious and obvious kind.

2018: Parents Are An Obstacle To Sex

Tatchell's latest pursuit as a sex "educator" - oh dear God do we really have to explain why this a fetishized porn movie storyline - is his curriculum for kids. The one nobody asked for, nobody voted for, but the kids are getting whether their parents like it or not.

"The activist told the Festival of Education that new compulsory sex and relationships education lessons, which are supposed to come in next year, must happen at least once a month and start from the first year of primary school. Although he said schools should give parents “reassurance that the priority of these lessons is to protect their children”, he insisted parents should not be allowed to opt out of the lessons on behalf of their children – just as they cannot remove their children from maths or history."

"Tatchell said schools should teach pupils about all aspects of sex, including how to do it well and information on preferences and fetishes."

Don’t let parents opt kids out of sex education, warns leading campaigner Peter Tatchell"

Yes, other people's children.

Tatchell has created  a 13-point guide to his ideology. Which nobody asked for. For children, about sex.

Reading this list is simply horrifying; adults wouldn't listen to it.

"It is a fundamental human right to love an adult of either sex, to engage in any mutually consensual, harmless sexual act with them and to share a happy, healthy sex life."

Err, no. It is not.

"Mutual consent, reciprocal respect and shared fulfilment apply universally, regardless of whether people are married or single, monogamous or promiscuous, and whatever their sexuality."

Whatever.... their.... sexuality.

"Sex education should tell the truth about every kind of sex and relationship – including sexual practices that some people find distasteful."


"SRE for 16+ pupils should include advice on how to achieve mutually-fulfilling, high-quality sex."

What? Taxpayer-funded schools?

More, if you can stomach it:

Ad nauseam. You get the point.

If you were a paedophile writing a charter for schools, which could get your fellow paedophiles off the hook but also into them, Tatchell's "guide" would be exactly what it looked and sounded like.

2010: Let kids have sex, to protect them

Tatchell addressed the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield, held by the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health, and showcased the manipulative nature of his "advocacy":

I want to start by proposing that sexual rights are human rights. The right to love and have a sexual relationship with the person of one’s choice is as much a human right as freedom of religion and the right to protest. Yet not a single international human rights convention recognises sexual rights and freedom of sexual expression.

This failure to extend human rights into the sexual sphere includes a social and legal failure to acknowledge the sexual human rights of the many young people who have consenting, victimless sex prior to reaching the lawful age of consent of 16.

"Education, not criminalisation, is the best protection"

It's staggering how deceitful this talk of "rights" is.

Protection against whom, or what, Peter? You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what a perversion this is, or how these groups have abused liberalism.

Older pederasts buggering teenagers is not a form of victimless "sexual expression".

Is this a new position somehow for Tatchell? No. The article even has a disclaimer he's not in "support" of paedophilia:

Note: My articles urging 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.

I do not support adults having sex with children.
I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16.

Notice the language here: I "do not support" is NOT the same as "completely condemn". "Adults having sex with children" is not a consensual act. It is child rape.  Adults do not "have sex" with children. The child is raped.

"Similar ages" now means 10 years in California. Tatchell suggested 3 or 4. Or a 19 year-old and a 14 year-old, theoretically. Because... people 18 and over are adults.

Is there some kind of epidemic or a colossal legal tsunami we need to fix here nobody is aware of, to law which most agree with and works well?

You know, when you have to explain, you're not in good shape. For someone who isn't a pedophile, he certainly sounds like one.

2009: Don't Arrest The Children For Sex

Years later, he was still at it. In 2009, Comrade Tatchell had decided it was time to fight for childrens' rights to have sex without government troops disturbing them.

In the Grauniad, Tatchell won the sympathy of gullible women everywhere, almost breaking into tears with his holier-than-thou article about the kids:

By restricting young people's sexual rights, this limit actually makes abuse more likely. It reinforces the idea that young people under the age of 16 do not have the right to control their own bodies. This sexual disempowerment plays into the hands of adults who want to abuse them.

Huh? Children's sexual "rights"?

As will become obvious, it was part of a repetitive strategy.

  • Stage 1: hold up dodgy social science papers, and hide behind them by pretending you are merely inciting "discussion";

"Law professor John Spencer of Cambridge University has created a huge controversy by suggesting a reduction in the current age of consent of 16."

  • Stage 2: quote dodgy statistics to claim your views are mainstream;

"More than half of all teenagers have their first sexual experience by the age of 14, according to the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles."

  • Stage 3: pretend it is out of "concern" for children;

"I suspect that many parents will oppose any change. They do not want their children to have sex at an early age. I sympathise with their concerns. But if their children do have sex before the age of 16, surely most loving, responsible parents would not want them to be dragged to court, given a criminal conviction and put on the sex offender's register, alongside child sex abusers."

  • Stage 4: layer on more sophistry to belabor the point;

"In 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is 13 in Spain, 15 in France and Poland and 14 in Germany, Portugal and Italy. There is no evidence that these lower ages of consent result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse."

  • Stage 5: end on an rip-roaring middle class moral sideshow.

"Consensual sex should not be stigmatised or criminalised, not for young people, not for adults, not for anyone."

For someone who has no children, and never will, why exactly is someone so interested in children?

2000: Let's sodomise democracy

"Outrage!" managed through the European Court of Human Rights what they could not do through democratic means, as "gay marriage" law was later "created" in the US. The ruling argued the "unequal" age of consent was a violation of "human rights", during 1986 Morris v. The United Kingdom and Sutherland v. the United Kingdom.

Err, if that's the start, where's the middle and the end?

It was codified in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 by forcing it onto the books using the Parliament Act.

Baroness Young, the former Tory minister who has led the Lords campaign against the Bill, said the government's decision was "a constitutional outrage".

"The Commons never had an opportunity to look at the compromises we put up.

"It has never been sent back to MPs. It is a classic example of by-passing parliament," she said.

It was so offensive to British legal minds, it was challenged (unsuccessfully) in R (Jackson) v Attorney General.

The problem here is the same as found in Roe Vs Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.  "Rights" are created as a side-effect, not by legislation. The Law, and its Spirit, are perverted.

Rights can be Positive (permission granted to do something), or Negative (not being subject to legal restriction). Each of these precedents magically "create" positive "rights" out of nothing, by arguing they are things covered by pre-existing negative rights.

Positive rights are broadly a French and German idea. Negative rights are a British (i.e. Anglo) idea.

The democratic process here would have been for democratically-elected representatives to vote on the issue and pass legislation. What happened was activists went around them and generated a legal victory which put a gun to the nation's head - which they then refused to allow democratic representatives to debate or modify. Clever, you might say; perhaps, but so was Chairman Mao.

If you want something legally changed, persuade, then legislate.

Tatchell doesn't seem to have ever wanted any laws governing an age of consent, so it's slightly odd to read him being such a stalwart "protector" of children.

1998: This paedophile was a hero of gay rights

So, if you like paedos and hang out with paedos, and you stick up for paedos, doesn't that, ahem, make you a...

"IAN DUNN was a pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality - in Scotland and internationally - for 30 years... In 1974, he and Derek Ogg convened the International Gay Rights Congress in Edinburgh - the first post-war conference of homosexual emancipation movements from around the world. This congress led to the formation of the International Lesbian & Gay Association (ILGA). Now a global federation of 400 gay rights groups in 60 countries, ILGA has played a pivotal role in getting gay equality.

Err, no. Ian Dunn was a serial paedophile rapist who founded the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and was jailed for producing child pornography.

In 1998 Tatchell wrote an obituary for the Scottish LGBT activist Ian Campbell Dunn in the Independent. In 1969, Dunn had founded the Scottish Minorities Group, one of Britain’s first gay rights groups. He was also involved in the setting up of Gay News, Britain’s first national gay newspaper, in 1972, and the International Lesbian & Gay Association in 1974. He also ran a bookshop called Lavender Menace.

The Pedophile Information Exchange needs a book to explain it, but let's just, for now, assume it was a bad thing. It "demanded the decriminalization of pedophilia, and wanted the age of consent abolished or reduced to four."

In 1984, Dunn sued the Sunday Mail, who claimed he "allows his flat to be used as the main contact address for Britain and the whole of Europe for paedophiles." Bad move. He'd already been caught on tape bragging about raping a 14 year-old boy and his contact address had appeared in the latest edition of "Minor Problems" (the PIE "journal"), sold in his bookstore. He was jailed foe a year as a result.

After police raided his bookstore, he, along with fellow PIE member Peter Bremner were charged with producing and distributing child pornography.

In a rather honest admission which might remind you of the start of this article:

"Dunn had always maintained that he was not a paedophile whenever reporters asked him about his activities, though he was frank about his homosexuality, and ran the Lavender Menace bookshop in Edinburgh. But a tape recording dating from 1986, of Dunn lecturing a group of students, contains the following admission: ‘I think the youngest person I had sex with was fourteen’.

Not a child who was raped. A person he had sex with.

When you advocate for the same things as paedophiles advocate for, what, again, does that make you?

Tatchell was horrified at Dunn's activities when he found out!

1997: This 14 year-old is happy being sodomised

Some things make your stomach churn and stir the acid reflux in the back of your mouth. As will Tatchell's "interview" with "Lee" from 15 August 1997 in Thud magazine, which was republished in full in the newsletter of International Paedophile and Child Emancipation [ICPE]. The title was "I'm 14, I'm gay & I want a boyfriend".

Tatchell had no idea ICPE existed. He was horrified!

The material in the article is enough to make any normal human being vomit.

Lee is 14. He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee's partner is 'a paedophile' and Lee is' a victim of child abuse'. That's not, however, the way Lee sees it.

It reads like a confessional for a pornographic magazine. Something for dirty old men to jerk off to in prison. The end note says: "Peter Tatchell is the author of the gay sex education manual, "Safer Sexy - The Guide To Gay Sex Safely" (Freedom Editions, 1994)."

It had to be pointed out to Tatchell, apparently what he hadn't thought of before: don't you think you should have alerted the police?

We asked Tatchell if he thought it was appropriate to write up an interview in which a young boy reveals that he has been sleeping with adult men since he was 12, and that he was tied up and raped whilst working as a prostitute to fund his drug habit, without once mentioning the phrases “sexual assault”, “rape”, or “child abuse” in your commentary. He told us that “I would class what happened to him as sexual assault, child abuse and rape. But the interview was about him, not me. This interview was a journalistic piece for a magazine and my duty as an occasional professional journalist is to be as objective as possible and not impose my views on the interviewee.”

1997: Dear Guardian, ackshually pederasty can be healthy according to this book written by a serial paedophile rapist

In perhaps the most telling incident - and most infamous - Comrade Tatchell made clear his feelings in print. And it earned him a regular column at the Grauniad, aka Britain's worst newspaper.

Julie Bindell notes in The Post:

In 1997, Tatchell wrote to the Guardian in support of a book, Dares to Speak, a favourable exploration of child sexual abuse, stressing the “positive nature” of some adult male/boy child sexual relationships. When the journalist Ros Coward reviewed Dares to Speak in the Guardian she was unequivocal: “The book refuses to take seriously sexual abuse and its consequences.”

The Sambia boys are, in fact, emotionally, physically and sexually tortured into manhood (they are made to fellate older men and drink their semen).

[Transcribed, for clarity]:

[From Tatchell's letter]

Prof Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The right wing press had a field day. Tatchell was horrified and actually meant something completely different.

Mr Tatchell told The Sun: 'The printed version did not include my point that I oppose adults having sex with children. Empathise with victims of child sex abuse and agree for the vast majority of children, sex with adults is neither wanted nor joyful. 'My letter was in response of an attempt to close down a debate – my argument was that academic discussion of these issues, based on research and evidence is legitimate and should not be misinterpreted for any form of child sex abuse.

"Not all sex involving children is abuse': Gay Rights activist Peter Tatchell is forced to deny 'advocating paedophilia' after 1997 letter about Papua New Guinea tribes emerges"

Everyone misunderstood him. He said child sex was "impossible to condone". It was actually a series of 3 letters to the paper.

Two days after his letter was printed the Guardian received so many letters of complaint that they headlined a substantial portion of their letter page, “Tatchell comes in for abuse.” The next day they printed a letter headlined “That child-sex row won’t go away.” Letters said that Tatchell was “harmful to the cause of gay rights” and “justifying the sexual abuse of children.” One letter discussed Paidika and the articles they had published in detail, and both the Director of Accuracy About Abuse and the CEO of Childline wrote in concerning Tatchell’s letter and Dares to Speak. Neither supported him.

The trouble is, it got so, so much worse. So much worse.

"Dares to Speak" was largely a reprint of articles from a journal called Paidika, run from 1987 - 1995 by an American living in Holland named Joseph Geraci. Paidika was a term used in ancient Greece to refer to the younger partner in a pederastic, sexual relationship with an older man. Geraci wrote "A warmly realistic novel about an American professor who has an affair with a twelve-year-old Dutch boy while visiting Holland.”

Articles published in Paidika include: “On seeing a Beautiful Boy at Play”; “The Life of a Christian Boy Lover”; “The Irresistible Beauty of Boys”; “Two Lesson Plans about Paedophilia”; “Man-Boy Sexual Relationships in a Cross-Cultural Perspective”; & “The World is Bursting with Adults, so I’m always Glad to See a Little Girl.”

All titles which, again, are reminiscent of what paedophile Michel Foucault's last words were before he succumbed to AIDS.

From its [now removed] Wikipedia entry:

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.

"Dares To Speak", the book Tatchell defended, was reprinting articles from a paedophile journal, by paedophiles, for paedophiles.

Could it possibly get worse? Oh, yes.

The author Tatchell praised - Professor Gilbert Herdt - is another sexology weirdo academic celebrated by the "scholars" of the social sciences, specialising in "discourse" around "normalising" paedophilia.

But, as a Twitter thread reveals, it wasn't just Herdt who was a problem. There was a Nobel-winning NIH professor nearby with a rap sheet longer than his Pinnochio nose: Dr. Daniel Carleton Gajdusek.

4./ He mentions Gilbert Herdt, an expert on Papua New Guinea but in 1997 there was another expert on that country who was on the front pages whom Tatchell failed to mention. He'd just been charged with child sex offences:
9./ Gajdusek adopted over 50 pre-teen boys over three decades and flew them from PNG to the US. Everything seemed pukka until two of the boys complained about being sexually molested. He was jailed. It turned out he'd been lurking in full sight.
11./ Tatchell goes on to relate the experiences of friends who had sex as boys "from the age of 9" with much older adults. "None feel they were abused. All feel it was their conscious choice  and brought them great joy". Was this inserted by the hidden hand of an editor? Nope.

A group of men who see no boundaries between adults and children. Where sexual behaviour between them is normal and healthy.

What do we call that, again?

1987: Fellow Communists, child sexual liberation!

In the review for the newsletter of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1987, Tatchell wrote:

“Society would remove a lot of fear, anxiety and depression if, instead of repressing children’s sexuality, it acknowledged the fact that many children have sexual desires at an early age and accordingly educated children, so they are able to make free, informed and responsible decisions about when and with whom they have sex.”
We bet it does, sweetheart!

He assuredly was horrified (!) and appalled (!) to find out he'd written such things.

1986: A whole chapter for a banned paedophilia book

Comrade Tatchell didn't just read paedophile literature, he wrote it. In another collection of pro-paedophilia journal essays he had no idea about, and is appalled to find out exists, his 1986 essay for "Betrayal of Youth (aka B.O.Y) really won't go away.

Chapter 9.

In a review of a 1986 collection of essays compiled by Warren Middleton, former vice-chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Mr Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, said that children should be “educated” so that they can decide when they want to have sex.

Mr Tatchell had even written a chapter for Middleton’s anthology - Radical perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People - but has since attempted to distance himself, claiming that he was “conned” into contributing to “that vile book”.

The Telegraph can now reveal that a year after the book’s publication, Mr Tatchell submitted a review praising the way it “speaks coolly, clearly and radically about a subject which has far too long been shrouded in emotional hysteria and adult chauvinism”.

Understandably, Tatchell had never read the book. Having written some of it.

"On Tuesday night, Mr Tatchell said that he had still not read the book when he submitted the review, which a colleague had drafted, adding: “I apologise unreservedly for putting my name to this review, and for failing to make clear my unconditional opposition to adults having sex with children.”

Tatchell claims he was "tricked" in writing it.: "I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write."

In effect, he ran the "i was hacked" defense, claiming it had been edited.

Middleton, who was Tatchell's comrade from the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), would later be convicted of possession of child pornography after police found over 5,000 images of young boys in his home. The GLF, which was named after the Vietcong, spawned the group Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL).

Tatchell couldn't remember a thing about the most controversial book he'd ever contributed to.

"Tatchell told us that he did not recall who had asked him to contribute to the book, and that as he receives “about 500 requests each year to write for books, magazines, websites, etc” it was “impossible for me to remember the names of all 20,000 people who asked me – especially those from four decades ago.”

Tatchell told us that, years later, when he discovered that Middleton was the editor of the book, he was “horrified and angry.”

As the Telegraph concluded:

In an interview republished on his own website claiming to set the record straight on his views, Mr Tatchell describes Middleton’s book as “pro-paedophilia”, saying: “I had no idea that it had any connection to PIE and that it would even mention paedophilia, let alone justify it.”

“If I had known, I would not have agreed to write anything for that dreadful, nauseating book.”

Apart from the fact he'd left another positive review, found in the British library archives, entitled "Radical thoughts on consent”.

Trebles all round!

1985: Socialist gay rights for children

Socialists, like postmodern French philosophers, have never been a fan of consent laws. Derrida, de Beauvoir, Foucault etc all signed letters against restricting when children were allowed to be sexually active.

The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 - of which it is difficult to get a primary source copy of now - supposedly 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.’

The Relationship Between Truth & Time

The trouble with bullshitting is time is your greatest enemy. The longer it goes on, the more the truth pushes through. Lying and misleading eventually gets you caught as you inadvertently build the case against yourself.

Peter Tatchell has been lionised in the British media; Mostly by an organisation infamous for paedophilia scandals.

The issue when it comes to homosexuality - particularly with men - is those who practice it fetishise and eroticise youthfulness. Literature, art, and film, are filled with depictions of youthful sexuality. Figures like Oscar Wilde and Michel Foucault openly romanticised "boyhood" in a sexual way. History is replete with intellectuals attempting to justify their lusting over children.

Their behaviour was exciting because it was taboo. Is it too much of a stretch to insinuate the taboo itself is part of the exciting appeal? And if so, would not other taboos, such as young teens, be similarly held by those individuals?

Is this really just a male problem? No.

It goes on, and on, and on.

Are they ashamed? No. They fetishize it into adult erotic material.

Tatchell appears to be a sophisticated and well-disguised predator, So well disguised he presents himself as a "guardian" of children and their "rights" to parents. Somehow, he is still the BBC's favourite, when he should be nowhere near the conversation surrounding children.

One thing we know is predators use the disguise of "caring" for children to gain access to them. Oh, and the BBC has a track record of enabling it.

In the US this week, two men were charged with manufacturing child pornography ( With their orphan children they'd adopted. Conveniently doing the rounds, was this image from the art director of Feminist rag Reduxx:


HRC is the most powerful gay lobby group in the US (after GLAAD) or the American equivalent of Stonewall.

Is Tatchell a paedophile? It's impossible to say. There is no hard evidence. He certainly flirts with those extremes and has been said by the Telegraph to have been "dogged" by accusations of apologism for it.

The question is slightly more nuanced: does Tatchell believe children under 16 are capable of enjoying consensual homosexual practices with older men like himself? Does he believe sexual contact between children and adults is always harmful?

If either of these are true, yes, he's a paedophile. Has he ever acted on these beliefs? He has never been charged with an offence, so is innocent until proven guilty. He's guilty on the balance of probabilities, but innocent under beyond all reasonable doubt.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, flutters with other ducks, but is outraged people think it has a beak, likes bread, or swims in ponds - it's a duck.

Set your watch on the criminal charges. If the BBC ever airs them.