THE SAME STRUGGLE

In the wake of the Savile paedophile revelations the expected has occurred. Let a traditional Christian point out that back in the 70’s leading Progressives such as Harriet Harman, now Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, were actively campaigning to have the age of consent lowered or abolished and there is a predictable reaction.

Read the ‘comments’ on newspaper sites and blogs and you will find Progressives responding on the lines of, “What about Catholic priests, you Christians were doing it first, Nyah Nyah, Nyah.” It should come as no surprise when Progressives resort to the argumentation of the school playground, this after all is where they are most at home.

Let me speak up for the Roman Catholic Church. Fear not, this dyed in the wool Presbyterian and descendant of Covenanters is not defecting to the rosary rattlers. However, traditional Protestants and traditional Catholics have more in common with each other than we do with Progressive Christians of any stamp. With Progressive Christians the Progressive invariably trumps the Christian. Traditional Protestants and traditional Catholics are allies in the same cultural and ecclesiastical struggle.

Paedophiles exist in every community, including the Christian community. That Roman Catholic priests abused children on a mind boggling scale and that this was covered up by those in authority are undisputed facts. The worshipper in the pew has reacted with horror, disgust and shame. Not only because of the nature of the crime but also because of who committed the crime.

The world holds Christians to a higher standard than it does Progressives. Rightly so, for we expect better of ourselves than we do of Progressives. We expect even more of priests and ministers.

The great difference between paedophile Catholic priests and Progressives pressing for the abolition of the age of consent is that the priests were an aberration, the Progressives are a continuation.

There is no Christian theologian, preacher, teacher or leader who approves of adults having sexual knowledge of children. It is condemned across the board and those who would indulge in this perversion and those who would shelter them are being exposed and punished. Many Catholics think that if compensation for the victims impoverishes the Roman Catholic Church then that is what the institution deserves.

The common aim of Progressive sexual liberationists in the 70’s, and today, is to create a relationship free for all in which any type of sexual activity has the same value as any other. Any form of sexual activity is to be considered a human right, no matter the form it takes. As long that is as it is between “consenting adults.”

What form of “consent” can a twelve year old boy or girl give to the adult who is grooming them or who is in a position of power or influence over them?

In February 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties in evidence presented to the Criminal Law Revision Committee said: “Although it is both logical, and consistent with modern knowledge about child development, to suggest that the age of consent should be abolished, we fear that, given the present state of public attitudes on this topic, it will not be politically possible to abolish the age of consent.”

The only thing preventing the NCCL from pressing for the abolition of an age of consent then was the pragmatic political argument that the public wouldn’t wear their Progressive assault on sexual morality. Given time and the media’s continual sexualisation of children and Progressives will get over the setback caused by Savile and return to their agenda of pushing back the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

When it was introduced by the Victorians the age of consent was seen as an enlightened, humane act, protecting as it did vulnerable children from the sexual abuse of predatory adults. To Progressives it is now seen as an affront, an unhealthy restriction on the right of children to have sex.

Back in 1979 another group who wanted the abolition of the age of consent, the Gay Liberation Front, declared in their manifesto: “We must aim at the abolition of the family.” After all, the family was founded upon the “archaic and irrational teachings” of Christianity.

Protestant or Catholic we are in the same struggle.

WHAT YOU SOW …

The latest scandal to hit Britain concerns Sir Jimmy Savile, DJ, TV personality, indefatigable charity worker, and it now appears prolific paedophile. The controversy centres around why the BBC, Savile’s employer, ditched an expose of the sex offender in favour of a laudatory tribute. Media attention is focused on this aspect of the scandal for obvious reasons; the BBC in order to defend itself, other media outlets in order to point the finger at the BBC.

Sir Jimmy Savile

There are, however, other aspects to be exposed. With the breaking scandal we have a flood of media types who acknowledge awareness that something was going on but who did not raise the matter. This raises two questions: Just how many in positions of power at the BBC, then and today, were aware of Savile’s activities and tolerated them? Also, instead of exposing them to public gaze to what extent does the culture of celebrity serve as a shield for the activities of those in the limelight?

These questions are beginning to be raised, but we are still not asking the fundamental question. To what extent did the cult of sexual permissiveness in the 60’s and 70’s prepare us for the acceptance that any and all types of sexual activity was acceptable?

Today we view paedophilia with horror. Not so in the permissive progressive 70’s. PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) was at the forefront of a campaign to lower and even abolish the age of consent. From 1978, until eventually excluded in 1983, it  was affiliated to, and supported by, the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty.

At the urging of MIND the mental health charity PIE submitted a report to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. Their 17-page report proposed that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after prohibition by a civil court.

When the Albany Trust, which developed into a counselling organisation for homosexual men, lesbians and sexual minorities, asked PIE to take part in production of a booklet on paedophilia to be produced by the Trust they were opposed by morality campaigner, and one of 20th century Britain’s greatest and bravest women, Mary Whitehouse.

Mary Whitehouse

Mrs Whitehouse and her supporters were of course excoriated by the self-anointed progressive elite . ‘Bigot,’ ‘prude,’ ‘prig,’ ‘repressed,’ these were just a few of the more printable terms used by those who today hold up their hands in horror at what they themselves have brought about.

PIE produced a bulletin Contact Page in which members placed advertisements which included details of their sexual preferences. In a survey conducted in 1978-9 PIE found that its members preferred girls aged 8-11 and boys aged 11-15.  Contact Page  eventually resulted in a prosecution for a “conspiracy to corrupt public morals.”

Officially disbanded in 1984 the last of PIE’s members was arrested on child pornography charges in 2006. Its then leader David Joy was warned by the judge that given his beliefs he may never be released from prison.

Patricia Hewitt

PIE proposed banning the concept of child pornography, in this they were supported by the NCCL whose General Secretary for nine years from 1974 was Patricia Hewitt, later a Labour MP and Secretary for Health in the Blair government.

NCCL’s Legal Officer at the time was Harriet Harman. Harman who also became a Labour MP was interim leader of the Labour Party following Gordon Brown’s resignation and is at present Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Harriet Harman

Although she now considers Savile’s activities a “stain” on the BBC Harman was not always so opposed to the sexual exploitation of children. In a parliamentary submission in 1978 Harman argued that “childhood sexual experiences willingly engaged in with an adult result in no identifiable damage.” She also argued that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions.” Today, as well as being Labour’s shadow Secretary for Culture, Harman sits on a Cabinet committee on child welfare.

In the time of Hewitt and Harman, whilst PIE was affiliated with the NCCL, it argued for incest to be decriminalised. It further argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the child had suffered harm or that it could be reasonably inferred that harm might have been caused. In support Harman argued that opposing proposal this would “increase censorship”

If Harman and other progressives have been shocked into recognising their errors let us be grateful. Those proponents of the 60’s and 70’s moral devastation should, however, beware of holding up their hands in horror at what has occurred. The cultural devastation they have caused goes beyond one sexual scandal.

This concerns more than the Savile issue. When sexual activity is considered mainly as a recreational pastime and a ‘right’ no matter what form it takes there are bound to be harmful results. That those at risk are to be found amongst the weakest and most vulnerable appear to have been of little concern to the anointed. More important was that they, their friends, and any fellow ‘boundary pusher’ should be able to express themselves.

Savile did, and was protected. Expressions of horror from the anointed ring hollow today.

A DIFFERENT SOCIETY

As the current revelations concerning the activities of Sir Jimmy Savile serve to remind us the sexual abuse of children is repellent. For those furth of the UK Sir Jimmy Savile is a now dead DJ and entertainer who, it has now been revealed to the general public, had a long history of taking sexual advantage of young girls.

Sir Jimmy Savile

What makes it worse, if that were possible, is that rumours and reports of his behaviour were ignored by the production staff of his employers the BBC, the UK’s state funded broadcaster. One senior BBC presenter at the time said: “I always thought he was a horrible man, quite frankly. We all knew he was up to something – we just didn’t know what.” Even knowing the rumours, the BBC put Savile into programmes where he would of necessity be in contact with young girls.

At the time his fame effectively silenced those around him, not only the girls in their early teens who were his victims but also the responsible adults in the BBC who should have intervened. This reluctance of the BBC management to expose paedophiles in their employ and thus tarnish their brand name is reminiscent of the actions of some amongst the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Recently the BBC gave us wall to wall coverage when a fifteen year old girl went off to France with her schoolteacher. However, when one of its own celebrities is revealed to be a child abuser and probably the cause of at least one teenage suicide then it only spoke up after other broadcasting companies broke the news and forced their hand.

An expose had been planned recently for Newsnight the BBC flagship news and current affairs programme. This was pulled. Peter Rippon the editor of the programme said, “Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity exposé… What was the public interest served by reporting it, given he is dead? The nature of the allegations and the level of proof required. The fact [is] the incidents were 40 years ago.”

Thus the BBC’s high minded reason for attempting to continue the cover up of paedophilia amongst its employees is: “We are makers of intellectually stimulating programmes dealing with affairs of state. We are not smutty muckrakers, we are above that sort of thing.” Although they are clearly not above covering up paedophilia.

As excuses for paedophilia Rippon’s rivals Whoopie Golberg’s defence of Roman Polanski the sexually deviant film director. According to Goldberg what Polanski did to Samantha Geimer was perhaps wrong but was not “rape-rape.” “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

The 43 year old Polanski merely got a thirteen year old girl drunk on champagne, fed her drugs and then whilst she was unconscious sodomised her. Definitely not rape, it must have been “something else.”

Whoopie Goldberg

Goldberg elaborated “We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently.” In this she was right, the anointed idols of our times do constitute a different society and most certainly they do see things differently. Goldberg was not alone in her defence of the child rapist, over 100 Hollywood figures including Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen signed a petition asking for clemency for Polanski.

The rich and famous have always lived with the comfortable illusion that they are above the petty concerns and rules governing the lives of the little people. When they live in the progressive bubbles that are the BBC and Hollywood they can be sure that they stand a good chance that their  indulgence in “something else” will be covered up or excused.

Child abuse in the Roman Catholic church was rightly exposed and condemned. We need the same kind of spotlight to be shone on the entertainment industry. Will we ever have stand up comics making the same jokes about the sexual behaviour of stand up comics that they do about priests?