Peter Tatchell on freedom of speech & under age sex

[xmasdale]

Do fascists have a right to free speech?

What limits, if any, should there be to freedom of expression? Peter
Tatchell interviews Luke Tryl, President of the Oxford Union, and
Brendan O'Neill, Editor of Spiked. Weyman Bennett of Unite Against
Fascism agreed to participate but he was unable to attend at the last
minute.

Watch the interview here:
http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=05d4c71ddc2f70ec3093e94e9777c83f

Peter Tatchell writes:

Should fascists have free speech? Or are some people so dangerous –
especially to minority race, sexuality and faith communities – that it
is legitimate to limit their freedom of expression?

Why should fascists be given free speech when they would, if given
half a chance, deny free speech to others?

Critics argue that right-wing extremists like Nick Griffin and David
Irving are either fascists or fascist sympathisers and apologists.
They say these men's ideas and policies are so threatening that they
should be denied public platforms in order to protect vulnerable
communities and in the interests of social cohesion and solidarity.

Black, gay, Jewish and Muslim people are the frequent victims of
fascist and neo-fascist hatred and harassment. They should be spared
the intimidation and fear that is often engendered by fascist ideas
and campaigns. Achieving a caring, compassionate society requires
restrictions on the promotion of hate and discrimination.

It is possible that if there had been no free speech and no platform
for Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1920s – if their meetings
and marches had been stopped – they may not have grown in strength and
influence. The Nazis might not have come to power and the Holocaust
and World War Two may not have happened.

Other people argue that the best way to defeat the far right is by
challenging and debunking their ideas through education and debate.
Fascist ideology doesn't stack up and can be demolished by rational,
informed argument. Suppression won't make their ideas go away. They
will fester underground. Open scrutiny and critique of fascist
policies is the most effective way to erode public support and
sympathy.

The issue has been bought to a head by the Oxford Union's decision to
hold a free speech debate on 26 November 2007, headlined by Nick
Griffin, leader of the neo-Nazi British National Party, and Holocaust
revisionist historian, David Irving.

Nick Griffin is the leader of a far right party that has a history of
promoting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and prejudice against
Muslims – and of using intimidation and violence. Griffin has a
conviction for inciting racial hatred. (1)

David Irving was branded by a British judge in 2006 as 'a racist, an
anti-Semite and an active Holocaust denier.' (2)

Support for free speech does not oblige the Oxford Union or any other
institution to reward these men with a prestigious public platform,
which will give them an air of respectability, raise their public
profile and allow them to espouse their intolerant views.

Under British law, Nick Griffin and David Irving still have the
freedom to espouse their views at any public meeting they wish to
organise, or in any leaflet they wish to print.

Inviting them to the Oxford Union is qualitatively different. It is
helping them propagate their bigotry. No institution is required, in
the name of free speech, to proactively promote the purveyors of
prejudice. Not offering hate-mongers a platform is not the same as
banning them.

The invitations to Griffin and Irving should be withdrawn by the
Oxford Union and alternative non-bigoted speakers invited to discuss
what limitations, if any, should be placed on freedom of expression.

Free speech is an important human rights issue that should not be
cheapened by the sensationalism of parading of pair of right-wing
extremists in the chamber of the Oxford Union.

Sources:

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm

(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm

Peter Tatchell is the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East.


--
Peter Tatchell is the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East
http://www.greenoxford.com/peter and http://www.petertatchell.net

[Mark Gobell]

[Newspeak International]

David Irving was jailed as a HC denier, when all he was doing was pointing out the 6million figure was an impossibility,AFAIK???

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Schindlers List is on the TV tonight!

[GazeboflossUK]

[spiv]

Peter Tatchell states "Under British law, Nick Griffin and David Irving still have the freedom to espouse their views at any public meeting they wish to organise, or in any leaflet they wish to print.

Inviting them to the Oxford Union is qualitatively different. It is helping them propagate their bigotry. No institution is required, in the name of free speech, to proactively promote the purveyors of prejudice. Not offering hate-mongers a platform is not the same as banning them."

My admiration for him had been steadily climbing recently, but here it has taken a dent. Mr Tatchell supports freedom of speech, but then, in this comment, utterly destroys and contradicts what he supports. In other words, you can have freedom of speech as long as it conforms with Tatchell's viewpoint.

I would argue that freedom of speech is the freedom to argue with those whose viewpoints are in conflict with your own, not simply banning them from speaking. And besides, you don't have to go along and listen to those you disagree with.

In saying this, Tatchell shows his own bigotry. Such a pity from someone who normally, in my opinion, says some very good things.

[Newspeak International]

Not followed Peter Tatchell views in the past,but going by your post spiv,it would seem he is another 2 faced spin merchant.

Do you have a link to this please?

Remember this from last year:

[Mark Gobell]

Now he certainly should not have been allowed to speak.

His policies, his colleagues in government and his cabal actually drop bombs on people and kill them.

That global body of governance to which he was an ambassador was also responsible for genocidal sanctions against innocent Iraqi civilians.

[karlos]

[Mark Gobell]

The Guardian allow Max Hastings some free speech

[Mark Gobell]

Trevor Philips thinks otherwise as he too, is granted some free speech by the Guardian.

[blackbear]

The following ....muslim hate site..has a guest post:

Do fascists have a right to free speech?

This is a guest post by Peter Tatchell

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

112 comments.....

"..You're banding around the word 'fascist' and 'Nazi' like a fifth-form student".....

Plenty of Zionist Nazis post on the above hate site. Why..Peter.?

[Mark Gobell]

Can someone explain this to me please:

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

The question at stake is whether the Oxford Union has done a service to free speech. They banned an anti-Zionist US Jewish academic, Norman Finkelstein, from speaking in a debate on Palestine last month then, apparently in order to demonstrate their commitment to free speech, invited the leader of a party noted for racism and an historian noted for holocaust denial/revision to speak this month.

A Jew was banned from speaking because they didn't like his pro-Palestinian opinions, while two figures noted for racist and anti-semitic opinions were invited. How does this advance the cause of free speech?

Is everyone obliged to invite reputed racists to speak to them if they are serious about free speech? If so, should we invite these two gentlemen to speak at the next 9/11 Truth Campaign AGM and ban any anti-Zionist Jew from the meeting?

[Mark Gobell]

John Bolton

[blackbear]

The Road to World War Three
Rixon Stewart – February 3, 2006


A slightly revised version of this article was first posted nearly two years ago. However in the wake of events in Oxford last night, where protestors dirupted a debate about "free speech" involving Griffin and in view of renewed rioting in areas of Paris mainly populated by immigrants, we though it highly pertinent. Ed.

The acquittal and retrial of British National Party leaders on charges of inciting “racial hatred” was the lead item on BBC TV News broadcasts (1) Thursday night. Followed immediately by a report on the furore (2) in the Muslim community caused by cartoons depicting Mohammad.

On the face of it this might seem perfectly reasonable journalism but the juxtaposition of the two as lead items, when far more important things are going on – such as the war in Iraq or the possibility of an attack on Iran – reveals a darker agenda altogether.

First and foremost it must be pointed out that enmity between various groups is being deliberately fostered, no matter what the authorities say, and much of this is being done under the guise of “press freedom”. It’s a variation on the old theme of divide and rule and the juxtaposition and prominence given to these two stories is a perfect example of just how this is being achieved.

Nobody in the mainstream media will question why such a relatively unimportant item like the BNP story was given such prominence. Nor will they question why it was immediately followed by a story that in contrast seems almost guaranteed to provoke further friction and enmity.

Although that may have been the intention, don’t expect the mainstream media to tell you. Its function in the emerging New World Order is to shape and condition public perception, and in this particular case, to foment antagonism between the Islamic world and the West.

However, Nick Griffin’s acquittal and retrial is only part of a much bigger story that you won’t be hearing from the BBC.

When Nick Griffin was arrested and charged some months back, a contributor to this website, Dave Starbuck who personally knows Griffin, informed me that the trial would be a “show trial” and that Griffin would be acquitted. Sure enough he was: but to ensure that tension between various ethnic groups remains high, Griffin now faces a retrial. The authorities are, in a sense, furthering fuelling the fires of tension and enmity with the retrial.

But as Dave Starbuck informed us, Nick Griffin is in the pay of British Intelligence. Like George Bush (3), he has a known homosexual past that is used as a means to manipulate him: with threats of exposure, or tempt him with offers to gratify his perverted lusts

Either way, like George Bush (4) he’s very much a pawn for the powers that be.

According to Dave, Griffin ousted the former leader of the British National Party by careful manipulation and as soon as he took control of the party he altered policies and procedures to ensure he stayed in control. Anyone who disagreed with him was thrown out of the party while Griffin made a point of promoting cronies to prominence

At the behest of British Intelligence, he took control of the party in an effort to neutralise what may have become a genuine stumbling block to the New World Order. He also made a point of banning Dave’s adverts promoting alternative health remedies and alternative views of history from the party’s publication.

So Nick Griffin is no more than a stooge for the ruling elite and the prominence given to his acquittal and subsequent retrial are ploys to foment further internecine antagonism.

While Griffin’s acquittal was given much coverage, it was followed by another report that when seen in contrast seemed guaranteed to heighten tension still further.

As Griffin’s court appearance was playing out a series of cartoons appeared across Europe that incited anger among Muslims.

That may have been the intention, although don't expect the mainstream media to tell you. Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammad blasphemous but overnight cartoons featuring Muhammad appeared across Europe. Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain (5), Switzerland and Hungary all reprinted caricatures originally published in Denmark, while the BBC announced (6) that it too would broadcast the cartoons of the prophet.

The following day the Independent ran the two stories together on its front page, and asked “What price free speech”? While the Daily Express also ran both stories together on its front page under the headline: “The Price of Free Speech”.

Of course, it’s nothing of the kind. Far from being an expression of “Free Speech” it was an example of modern psychological warfare. A Psy-Ops carried out under the veil of a supposedly “free press” and intended to foment distrust and enmity between the Muslim world and ordinary Westerners.

Moreover, the seeds of this operation were first laid over a century ago. When satanic prophet and one of modern freemasonry’s founders, Albert Pike, first outlined a plan for three world wars (7).

According to Pike, agents of the Illuminati would provoke conflict between Britain and Germany leading to the First World War and the overthrow of Imperial Russia, turning Russia into a “fortress of atheistic communism”.

The Second World War was to be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between fascists and political Zionists, wrote Pike. Leading ultimately to the destruction of Nazism and the establishment of “a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine”.

These events have already occurred exactly as Albert Pike envisioned over a century ago, so perhaps we should take note of his vision of a Third World War.

Pike continued:

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue (by a massive influx of immigrants into Europe) will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…”

Unfortunately, there's worse to come because all this was intended as a prelude the rule of Satan, Pike wrote (. So don't say you haven't been warned and don't think it will end with the next terror atrocity, staged or otherwise.

Unless people start waking up from their media induced apathy and illusions, things could be about to get much, much nastier. Although don't expect the BBC to tell you, they'll probably be too busy with televised celebrations to mark the inauguration of the planets new ruler.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4121

I believe the BNP does not do Zionist conspiracy theories anymore.!
On the acquittal of Griffin.........I am trying to remember the views of Tatchell....anyone help.!

[TonyGosling]

Peter Tatchell. Paedophile apologist? You decide.
http://monsterinthewardrobe.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/peter-tatchell-paed ophile-apologist-you.html
Monday, February 18, 2013
Peter Tatchell is a well known civil liberties and gay rights campaigner.

I have reproduced the text of a letter which Peter Tatchell wrote to the Guardian in 1997, defending the publication of a book called "Dares To Speak", on the subject of paedophilia. I have done this because the full letter is now difficult to find on the Internet. I have come across several Tatchell supporters who were unaware of the letter and it's content and who were shocked by it.

In view of the fact that many Tatchell supporters claim he is against paedophilia and fights against abuse, I think it's important that the full text of the letter is available for interested parties to read.

Is Peter Tatchell against paedophilia, or is he, in fact, a paedophile apologist? I know what I think. I invite you to read and decide for yourself.



Peter Tatchell's letter to the Guardian, dated 26 June 1997, is reproduced in full below

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert 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 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.
Peter Tatchell.

[TonyGosling]

Tatchell on sex with children


Under-age sex: Statement of clarification by Peter Tatchell

Adults should not have sex with children. I do not advocate paedophilia
London - 1 October 2012
http://petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/Under-age-sex-Stat ement-of-clarification-by-Peter-Tatchell.htm

As a human rights campaigner, I would never advocate or condone child sex abuse.

My critics have selectively quoted from what I've written and quoted me out of context, to give an entirely false and distorted impression. They ignore much of what I have written, including my proposals to protect young people against sex abuse and my ethical framework for all sexual relations: mutual consent, respect and fulfilment.

An age of consent of 14 or 15 exists in other European countries. I am against criminalising young people under 16 who have consenting, victimless sex with others of similar ages, where no one is harmed. Treating these young people as criminals is wrong. They need counselling, not prosecution.

Below is a lengthy detailed explanation of what I believe and why. You will see that it is very different from what my critics claim.

An example of my actual views was voiced in a speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield in 2010, where I addressed youth welfare and sex education professionals. See the text of my speech here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-cons ent-of-14.htm

This speech was well received as a reasoned, thoughtful contribution to the public debate about the law and sexual expression / protection involving young people. See a copy below.

The campaign by BNP members to portray me as a paedophile, or paedophile advocate, is in revenge for my ambush of their leader Nick Griffin in 2010, where I shamed him over his party’s record of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and hostility to Muslims. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXEiYZPSzk8

The BNP smear campaign includes faked photos of me holding a Paedophile Information Exchange placard. The photo of me is recent but PIE ceased to exist three decades ago.

Guardian letter and Dares to Speak book

My 1997 Guardian letter about the book, Dares to Speak, gives the wrong impression. It was not what I submitted for publication. The published version omitted four key points that I made:

1. I oppose adults having sex with children. 2. I empathise with the victims of child sex abuse. 3. I agree that for the vast majority of children sex with adults is neither wanted nor joyful and 4. I believe an academic discussion of these issues, based on research and evidence, is legitimate and should not be misinterpreted as support for any form of child sex abuse.

The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.

Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.

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.

I do not condone adults having sex with children. My Guardian letter about this book was in defence of free speech and open debate about the issue, in opposition to those who said that the book and the debate are not worthwhile or legitimate - and that any further discussion should be closed down. I was against the call for censorship. Even if Dares to Speak is entirely wrong, in a free society its authors have a right to be published and heard.

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).

My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is "impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.

Here's an example of what I wrote in the Irish Independent in 2008:

Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-ag e-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html

“The time has come for a calm, rational debate about the age of consent. It should be premised on four aims. First, protecting young people against sex abuse. Second, empowering them to make wise, responsible sexual choices. Third, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex education. Fourth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV.”

You can see that I made protecting young people against sex abuse my first priority.

I have said similar things in many other articles and interviews.

None of these speeches and articles advocate or excuse child sex abuse.

Age of consent issue

It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But I support 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many young people who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.

More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexual experience (not necessarily full intercourse) by the age of 14, according to National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. They are currently treated as criminals, even if their partners are of similar ages (with a maximum sentence of five years custody for mutually consenting sexual contact, including mere sexual touching, kissing and fondling).

I do not advocate young people having sex at an early age. It is best if they wait. But I don’t agree that consenting 14 years olds should be dragged to court and threatened with prison and listing on the Sex Offenders Register. I certainly do not endorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.

My critics may disagree with me on the age of consent, but I have advocated a clear ethical stance and moral framework, which stresses sex with mutual consent, respect and fulfilment. My arguments and articles are not about abusing young people but protecting them. That's my motive.

Betrayal of Youth book

The critics also cite Warren Middleton's book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in paedophilia advocacy when I was asked to write my essay. The book was published in about 1982 – three decades ago. But some of my critics insinuate that was much more recent. Not true. When I was invited to write a chapter, I was told it was a book about children's rights and asked if I could write about the age of consent. It seemed a reasonable request at the time.

My chapter in the book did not endorse child sex. It merely questioned whether 16 was the appropriate legal age of consent. Different people mature at different ages. There are many countries that have diverse ages of consent, some higher and some lower than 16. I did not advocate the abolition of the age of consent or specify at what age sex should become lawful.

I was not aware of who the other authors were or what they wrote until the book was published. I would not have agreed to be in the book if I had known. I should not be blamed for what others wrote. It is wrong to tar me with their opinions. There is nothing in my contribution that even remotely condones child sex abuse.

Thud interview with Lee

My critics also cite an interview / article I did with 14 year old Lee in the late 1990s for Thud magazine, where he said that he had sex with older people when he was a young person and that he does not feel that he was abused.

This was a journalistic piece designed to let him have his say and, through him, to give a glimpse into what many young people think about the age of consent and its pitfalls. My critics seem to believe that young people's opinions should not be heard if they disagree with
their moral perspectives. I call that censorship.

In the interview with Lee, I nevertheless challenged his view in various ways, including making these points:

“How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?

“Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex.

“Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited.

“Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry?

I hope this clarifies and reassures everyone. Thank you.

Best wishes, Peter Tatchell

An age of consent of 14?

Sexual human rights for the under-16s

Education, not criminalisation, is the best protection

By Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner

Text of Peter Tatchell’s speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield, England, on 23 September 2010, organised the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health:



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.

I believe the time has come for a calm, rational debate about the age at which young people should be lawfully entitled to have sex. We need this debate because the current age of consent in Britain, and many other countries, ignores reality.

Contrary to the malicious misrepresentations of many of my critics, the public debate I am urging is not about adults having sex with children. Child sex abuse is wrong. Full stop. I do not, and never have, endorsed the sexual abuse of children by adults. What I am talking about is sexual relations between young people of similar ages.

Whether we like it or not, most British teenagers have their first sexual experience with their peers, at around the age of 14. Indeed, the average age of first sexual contact is now 14, according the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. These first sexual encounters may include intercourse or may be limited to oral sex, mutual masturbation and sexual touching. Sexually-active, under-age young people are branded as criminals and sex offenders by the law, even when they and their partners consent and when neither of them is harmed or complains.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 compounded these problems. For the first time in British law, consenting sexual activity between two young people under the age of consent – say 15 years old – became an explicit criminal offence. Any sexual contact between under-age youngsters, even mere sexual caressing, is now punishable by up to five years detention and placement on the sex offenders register.

Most parents do not want their children to have sex at an early age but if their children do have sex below the legal age of consent most parents equally would not want their child dragged to court, given a criminal conviction and put on the sex offender’s register, alongside child sex abusers - which is what sometimes happens under the present law in the UK and many other countries. This isn’t child protection; it’s a form of abuse.

That’s why we need to rethink the age of consent. Any review of the law should be premised on four aims. First, protecting young people against sex abuse. Second, empowering them to make wise, responsible sexual choices. Third, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex education. Fourth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of infections like HIV and hepatitis B and C.

If we want to protect young people, and I do, the best way to do this is not by threatening them with arrest, but by giving them frank, high quality sex and relationship education from an early age – before they become sexually active and before they develop unwise habits like unsafe sex. This early-years education should aim to empower them with the skills, knowledge and confidence to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report sex abusers. For a nation that professes to be concerned about child sex abuse, it is truly shocking that so few schools educate their pupils about abuse issues. This needs to change.

Compared to the blanket criminalisation of sexually-active under-age youth, this empowerment strategy is a more effective way to protect young people from peer pressure and sex abusers.

Given that most young people now start having sexual relations around the age of 14, an age of consent of 14 might be more realistic and reasonable. If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old's interest?

Another option would be to introduce a tiered age of consent, where under-age sex would cease to be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than, say, two or three years difference in their ages. This tiered age of consent exists in Italy, Switzerland and Israel. It is designed to prevent the criminalisation of younger people of similar ages, while protecting the vulnerable from possible manipulation by those much older.

The issue is not whether the under-16s should have sex - I do not advocate early sexual activity - but whether they should be criminalised for consensual behaviour. Young people should be able to enjoy sexual relationships without being penalised by the law, providing sex is consensual and both partners are mature enough to understand the implications of their actions.

True, not all 14 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex, but some are. They should not face criminal sanctions.

In about 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is, for example, 13 in Spain; 14 in Germany, Austria, Portugal, Italy and the Vatican (where it was 12 until very recently); and 15 in France and Poland. There is no evidence that these lower ages result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse.

These countries - many of which are staunchly Catholic - would not have such low age limits if they thought young people were being put at risk. They rightly argue that the laws against rape and indecent assault provide adequate protection against undesired and coercive sex. .

The current of consent of 16 may make abuse more likely by reinforcing the idea that young people under 16 don’t have any sexual rights. It signals that no one below the lawful age is capable of making a rational, moral choice about when to have sex. This sexual disempowerment plays into the hands of adults who want to abuse them. Abusers exploit many young people’s lack of assertion of their sexual human rights, which includes their right to reject undesired sex.

There is a contradiction between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of sexual consent. Although the age of criminal responsibility is ten, the age of sexual responsibility is 16. People under 16 are deemed by the law to be incapable of giving sexual consent. The implication is that the decision to have sex is more serious, complex and difficult than a decision to commit robbery or rape.

The ten year old killers of James Bulger were deemed by the law to know what they were doing and be convicted of murder. But if they’d had consenting sex with each other, the courts would have ruled they were too young to know what they were doing – and therefore being incapable of giving their consent to a sexual act.

Since children can be held responsible for criminal behaviour from the age of ten, it’s surely illogical for the legal system to say that people below 16 are unable to consent to sex.

Guilt and shame about sex also increase the likelihood of molestation by encouraging the furtiveness and secrecy on which abuse thrives. The sex-negative mentality that sees sex as something private that should be kept out of sight plays into the hands of child sex abusers.

One way to protect young people against unwanted sexual advances is by promoting sex-affirmative attitudes that challenge the idea that sex is something sordid that should be kept hidden. Sexually unashamed young people are more likely to report abusers.

Another way is by empowering teenagers to stand up for their sexual rights, including both the right to say yes to sex they want and the right to say no to sex they don’t want. Sexually informed and confident youngsters are much more likely to resist unwanted sexual advances.

However, any lowering of the age of consent needs to go hand-in-hand with candid, compulsory sex education in schools, beginning with age-appropriate teaching from the first year of primary school. Then, from the age of 12, before they become sexually active, pupils should be given explicit advice on how to deal with sex pests, negotiate safer sex and sustain fulfilling relationships based on mutual consent and respect.

Criminalisation is dangerous because it can inhibit young people from seeking safer sex advice and condoms. It makes some youngsters afraid to report sexually abusive relationships. They fear getting into trouble because they have broken the law. Reducing the age of consent to 14 would remedy these problems, at least for those aged 14 and older.

An age of consent higher than the typical age of first sexual experience also discourages some teachers and youth workers from giving upfront sexual information to those under the lawful age of consent. They fear being prosecuted by the police, or sued by disgruntled parents, for aiding and abetting unlawful sexual acts. So they don't provide the necessary facts. Withholding sexual welfare advice is not protection. It is a form of child abuse.

It is true that sex can sometimes be dangerous and harmful to young people, but not always. At puberty, as hormones kick in, youngsters develop sexual feelings. This is perfectly natural and healthy. Many teens innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. It is wrong to criminalise them. Counselling, advice and support is more appropriate and productive.

A minority of youngsters do, of course, end up pregnant or with sexual infections. Good quality sex education from an early age, including the provision of accessible contraception and safer sex advice, can help reduce the incidence of these negative experiences; ensuring that sex is a healthy, happy experience for both partners.

Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, under-age sex is mostly consenting, safe and fun. It does not result in any damage. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of sex per se, but because of emotional abuse within relationships and because of unsafe sex, which can pass on infections and make young girls pregnant when they are not ready for motherhood.

The message we need to give young people is that sex is fundamentally good - not dirty or shameful. It is a natural joy, immensely pleasurable and a profound human bond; resulting in intense shared fulfilment and much human happiness.

Providing it is safe and with mutual respect, consent and fulfilment, under-age sex involving youths of similar ages should not be stigmatised, let alone criminalised.

For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights campaigns: www.petertatchell.net

[Caz]

More on Peter Tatchell here:
African rights campaigners criticise Peter Tatchell
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17997

and here
Peter Tatchell defamed in US 'War On Terror' book
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17986