Posted on | March 3, 2014 | 14 Comments
Last week, we reported on the controversy about British Labour Party officials’ ties to a group that lobbied on behalf of pedophiles in the 1970s (“The UK Left’s Pro-Pedophile Past“). The controversy has continued, as the dishonest excuses of officials are exposed:
Evidence has emerged that the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange influenced policy-making at the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was run by former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt.
PIE members were lobbying NCCL officials for the age of consent to be reduced and campaigning for “paedophile love”.
Their view that children were not harmed by having sex with adults appears to have been adopted by those at the top of the civil liberties group.
Today we publish extracts from an NCCL report written for the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1976 when Mrs Hewitt was general secretary.
It says: “Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offence. As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14.
“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.
“The Criminal Law Commission should be prepared to accept the evidence from follow-up research on child ‘victims’ which show there is little subsequent effect after a child has been ‘molested’.
“The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.
“The present legal penalties are too high and reinforce the misinformation and prejudice. The duty of the court should be to inquire into all the relevant circumstances with the intention, not of meting out severe punishment, but of determining the best solution in the interests of both child and paedophile.”
When people put words like “victims” and “molested” in scare-quotes, when they complain that “the age of consent is arbitrary” and talk about “misinformation and prejudice” against pedophiles, it is not unfair to say such people are pro-pedophile. Labour Party officials tried to cover up their shocking record:
Explosive documents in Patricia Hewitt’s name arguing for the age of sexual consent to be lowered and that incest should be legalised have forced the former Labour minister into a humbling apology.
The former Health Secretary finally said sorry after more official paperwork laid bare the disturbing links between National Council for Civil Liberties and the vile paedophile group that campaigned to allow sex with children.
Miss Hewitt finally apologised when doubt was cast on her claims she had never ‘condoned’ child abusers from the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
The Labour minister was the sole name on an NCCL press release issued in March 1976 which says ‘NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 with special provisions for situations where the partners are close in age’.
The press release came out as NCCL issued a report on sexual law reforms, The Sun said.
In further remarks, Miss Hewitt added: ‘The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished. In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.’
The minutes of a meeting held at the Mother Red Cap pub in north London in January 1976 showed further close links between senior Labour figures and calls to legalise sex with children.
The meeting was attended by 27 people — including Miss Hewitt and her lawyer husband Nicholas Birtles, Jack Dromey and Sir Henry Hodge, the husband of former Labour minister Margaret Hodge until his death in 2009.
This has led to damaging headlines in the UK:
Senior Labour figures
in new paedophile link
— The Sunday Times
Labour MPs’ child sex link row deepens
It would have been a tenable defense — probably not popular, but tenable as an argument — if these Labour officials had admitted the truth and said, in effect, “Hey, it was the Seventies. We were a bunch of callow 20-something radicals. Ideas about ‘sexual liberation’ were quite fashionable. When pedophiles came along and made claims that lined up with other popular ideas about ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘equality,’ we were sympathetic, and really didn’t think through these arguments very well. Obviously, in retrospect, we can see we were wrong. Also, everybody was doing a lot of drugs at the time.”
Such an explanation would not exculpate them, but at least it would be honest. What they did instead was dishonest, and this raises questions not only about their judgment, but also their integrity. Of course, if they had any integrity, they wouldn’t be in Labour, would they?
- March 1: She Craved the Taste of Boy Flesh
- Feb. 27: Planned Parenthood Video Promotes Bondage and Sadism for Teenagers
- Feb. 25: If Porn Is Not Shameful, Why Doesn’t Miriam Weeks Use Her Real Name?
- Feb. 13: ‘If It Was a Rape, It Was Good Rape’