(Ed) Paedophiles infiltrating legitimate organisations

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

“I’m not homophobic, but…” never ends not-homophobic.




Your talking about something that happened in the 90s. How was the gay community just asking for the moral panic before that? Was it what they were wearing? Maybe if they just didn’t choose that lifestyle?

NAMBLA and various pedophile apologists infested the gay rights efforts in teh late 70s. They were finally REMOVED in the 90s.

Public acceptance of homosexuality turned around pretty quickly once the pedophiles were removed from the efforts.

Split from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=363509

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

NAMBLA and various pedophile apologists infested the gay rights efforts in teh late 70s. They were finally REMOVED in the 90s.



Public acceptance of homosexuality turned around pretty quickly once the pedophiles were removed from the efforts.

What a load of revisionist history.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

What a load of revisionist history.

This is absolutely NOT a revision of US history.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There have been a not-insignificant number of drag-storytime performers who have subsequently been arrested for either sex offenses against children or for possession of child pornography.

Not all of them, sure. But enough to be more than a one-off "oopsie!".

As Randal Monroe would draw:

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Nitpick: never got a straight answer. "It totes encourages inclusivity and creativity" is the most vacuous non-answer imaginable. If you claim otherwise, let's hear the evidence. Specific to men in dresses reading stories, mind you.

I mean, an LGBTQ+ Tea Party Meet and Greet, I would totally get. Gives a chance to ask about the different lifestyles in a friendly, cooperative setting. Totally get that.

Men in dresses contracted to reading children stories just seems...I dunno...strangely specific. Kind of like a hiring requirement for trans ski instructors. Just....not clicking as a thing.

It's funny that you claim to never have gotten a straight answer then paraphrase a straight answer. 'It literally doesn't matter' is also a straight answer, even if you don't like the answer.

Let's hear your evidence why it matters? All you've had is 'I just have a feeling'.

Each time you just ignore all the reasoning presented to reset to your claim having weight. It doesn't. Try to give it some.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Darat

What a load of revisionist history.

It's moral panic built on moral panics. I can't wait to see how a false history of the D&D panic makes its way in.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is absolutely NOT a revision of US history.

Of course it is I'm surprised you thought you could get away with that kind of hogwash here.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is absolutely NOT a revision of US history.

Then show us the history. Show us your historical source for claiming that pedophiles were openly welcomed into the gay rights movement for some two decades.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Lol, seriously? You seem to think that all of this is just a-okay, no big deal. Child porn is just fine, sexually explicity performances in front of kids is great.

Please point to a single post in which anyone says they're fine with child porn or sexually explicit performances for minors.

You're just trying to hide your homophobia beneath a pile of straw.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Please point to a single post in which anyone says they're fine with child porn or sexually explicit performances for minors.

You're just trying to hide your homophobia beneath a pile of straw.

Here's how the conversation is going to go.

"You're okay with children being introduced to sexual content, which is the same thing as pedophilia."
"Okay first off all that's not even close to true, but even if it was what sexual content are we introducing children too?
"Drag Queens."
"Drag Queens are sexual content?"
*Mock shocked face pretending to be just flabbergasted that you would disagree.*

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Then show us the history. Show us your historical source for claiming that pedophiles were openly welcomed into the gay rights movement for some two decades.

Holy cow, do some research.

Gay Groups Try to Put Distance Between Themselves and Pedophile Group February 13, 1994

Quote:

Hans Hjerpekjon, secretary-general of the Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission. Hjerpekjon said many in ILGA would like to see NAMBLA expelled but the group cannot take up a resolution to oust a member until its next meeting, in July in New York.

″Under our constitution, there will have to be an 80 percent vote in favor of expelling the group,″ he said in an interview from Norway. ″And of course, that can be hard to obtain on any issue, but our intention certainly is to expell them and I am hopeful we will reach that goal.″

Hjerpekjon said ILGA has been concerned about its association with NAMBLA since the late 1980s and has urged the group to resign. In 1990, at the behest of member organizations from Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand, ILGA adopted a resolution denouncing pedophilia, he said.

NAMBLA was a member of IGLA for over 15 years before they finally actually got expelled.

Lesbians vs. Pedophiles: A Recent History Apr 9, 2021
Covers a history of pedophile involvement in gay rights activism from the 70s forward, including the 2020 demand:

Quote:

End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents' sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents' sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms

Elsewhere, it defines adolescents as being children between the ages of 10 and 18. BTW, IGLA couched this as a demand during the WOMEN'S RIGHTS CAUCUS ISSUES FEMINIST DECLARATION MARKING 25TH ANNIVERSARY... and this demand was strongly objected to by females and feminists.

Keeping Secrets: NAMBLA, the Idealization of Children, and the Contradictions of Gay Politics Originally published in The Stranger on March 20, 1997
This one is just too long to take any quotes from, there's simply too much in there.

Harry Hay: Pride and Pedophilia
Yeah, yeah, it's substack. But the timelines are accurate, as are the association between Hay and NAMBLA, and NAMBLA's long-standing associate with ILGA.

And just so I'm not ignoring our across-the-pond siblings...
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? Published 27 February 2014
This one is BBC News. Make of that what you will, but you can't throw it out as some sort of super-right-wing US shenanigans.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Please point to a single post in which anyone says they're fine with child porn or sexually explicit performances for minors.

You're just trying to hide your homophobia beneath a pile of straw.

How the hell is my dislike of drag performers engaged with children in any shape "homophobia"? Are all homosexuals drag performers? I'm really not following the connection here.

I am opposed to 1) Males who are performing a caricature of females for "entertainment" in general, as this is tantamount to blackface performance, in my view and 2) Adults who make their livings performing *adult entertainment* with *adult themes* that are often *sexualized* being showcased for children in the name of "diversity and acceptance".

Bring a 100% totally out and proud gay clown to read stories to kids, I will be happy for that. Bring a lesbian tightrope walker in spangles, I'm all for it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

…snip…
And just so I'm not ignoring our across-the-pond siblings...
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? Published 27 February 2014
This one is BBC News. Make of that what you will, but you can't throw it out as some sort of super-right-wing US shenanigans.

Did you even bother to look at the dates?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Holy cow, do some research.

Gay Groups Try to Put Distance Between Themselves and Pedophile Group February 13, 1994


NAMBLA was a member of IGLA for over 15 years before they finally actually got expelled.

Lesbians vs. Pedophiles: A Recent History Apr 9, 2021
Covers a history of pedophile involvement in gay rights activism from the 70s forward, including the 2020 demand:

Elsewhere, it defines adolescents as being children between the ages of 10 and 18. BTW, IGLA couched this as a demand during the WOMEN'S RIGHTS CAUCUS ISSUES FEMINIST DECLARATION MARKING 25TH ANNIVERSARY... and this demand was strongly objected to by females and feminists.

Keeping Secrets: NAMBLA, the Idealization of Children, and the Contradictions of Gay Politics Originally published in The Stranger on March 20, 1997
This one is just too long to take any quotes from, there's simply too much in there.

Harry Hay: Pride and Pedophilia
Yeah, yeah, it's substack. But the timelines are accurate, as are the association between Hay and NAMBLA, and NAMBLA's long-standing associate with ILGA.

And just so I'm not ignoring our across-the-pond siblings...
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? Published 27 February 2014
This one is BBC News. Make of that what you will, but you can't throw it out as some sort of super-right-wing US shenanigans.

Your own quote: "Hans Hjerpekjon, secretary-general of the Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission."

Notice the highlighted part. There were no rules for admission. It's not like they were voted in by ILGA. I agree with plague311 that "All of your links appear to be showing LGBTQ+ organizations doing everything they can to expel those groups, not include them further."

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to quote anyone here "siding with the drag queen" from the article you posted (‘Drag Race’ Star Sharon Needles Terrorized a 15-Year-Old Superfan. And They Weren’t Alone.')

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Did you even bother to look at the dates?

The dates were the entire ******* point Darat. Pedophile movements latched themselves to the gay rights movement early on, and STAYED part of that movement for decades before they were finally evicted.

The major reason the pedo groups actually got fully evicted from the gay rights organizations is that ILGA lost its consultative status with UN specifically BECAUSE NAMBLA was a member of IGLA and had been for a long time.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Your own quote: "Hans Hjerpekjon, secretary-general of the Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission."

Notice the highlighted part. There were no rules for admission. It's not like they were voted in by ILGA. I agree with plague311 that "All of your links appear to be showing LGBTQ+ organizations doing everything they can to expel those groups, not include them further."

Yes, I get that they joined when there were no rules.

But they remained for 15 years.

Apparently ILGA didn't really see a need to remove the overtly pro-pedo organization until UN pulled their consultant status.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, I get that they joined when there were no rules.

But they remained for 15 years.

Apparently ILGA didn't really see a need to remove the overtly pro-pedo organization until UN pulled their consultant status.

That doesn't mean they approved of NAMBLA or wanted them in the organization. This is from a Feb. 1994 article:

Quote:

Hans Hjerpekjon, secretary-general of the Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission. Hjerpekjon said many in ILGA would like to see NAMBLA expelled but the group cannot take up a resolution to oust a member until its next meeting, in July in New York.

″Under our constitution, there will have to be an 80 percent vote in favor of expelling the group,″ he said in an interview from Norway. ″And of course, that can be hard to obtain on any issue, but our intention certainly is to expell them and I am hopeful we will reach that goal.″

Hjerpekjon said ILGA has been concerned about its association with NAMBLA since the late 1980s and has urged the group to resign. In 1990, at the behest of member organizations from Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand, ILGA adopted a resolution denouncing pedophilia, he said.

″I guess the groups, especially the Norwegian group who had been working to get this resolution passed, thought it would be self-evident that NAMBLA and people who thought likewise would resign,″ Hjerpekjon said.

But they did not.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That doesn't mean they approved of NAMBLA or wanted them in the organization. This is from a Feb. 1994 article:

Still pointing out that an organization that was explicitly framed around gay and lesbian rights couldn't manage to evict an overtly pro-pedophilia group from its roster for fifteen years.

They didn't manage to get rid of them UNTIL IGLA lost it's status with UN.

I'm left wondering exactly how much they really wanted to evict NAMBLA, if they couldn't pull it off for fifteen years.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Still pointing out that an organization that was explicitly framed around gay and lesbian rights couldn't manage to evict an overtly pro-pedophilia group from its roster for fifteen years.

They didn't manage to get rid of them UNTIL IGLA lost it's status with UN.

I'm left wondering exactly how much they really wanted to evict NAMBLA, if they couldn't pull it off for fifteen years.

ILGA consists of over 350 organizations. They'd have to set up a resolution, then get 80% of members of those organizations to vote to expel them. As Hjerpekjon said,"that can be hard to obtain on any issue. Getting 80% of any large group to vote for something isn't easy, especially when some may abhor their beliefs but perhaps they thought it was better to work on getting them to just resign.

Maybe your point isn't that they couldn't manage do that, but that they didn't want to do that?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The dates were the entire ******* point Darat. Pedophile movements latched themselves to the gay rights movement early on, and STAYED part of that movement for decades before they were finally evicted.



The major reason the pedo groups actually got fully evicted from the gay rights organizations is that ILGA lost its consultative status with UN specifically BECAUSE NAMBLA was a member of IGLA and had been for a long time.

So you didn't notice the date for the part I quoted.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

ILGA consists of over 350 organizations. They'd have to set up a resolution, then get 80% of members of those organizations to vote to expel them. As Hjerpekjon said,"that can be hard to obtain on any issue. Getting 80% of any large group to vote for something isn't easy, especially when some may abhor their beliefs but perhaps they thought it was better to work on getting them to just resign.

Maybe your point isn't that they couldn't manage do that, but that they didn't want to do that?

Wow, who knew it could be so incredibly difficult to get 80% of the member organizations to object to PRO-PEDOPHILE groups being part of ILGA.

Step back and think about that for a minute. What does that mean? I figure it means either:
a) ILGA never even tried to take it to a vote and was happy to just let NAMBLA ride along as a member organization or
b) MORE THAN 20% OF THE ORGS THAT WERE PART OF IGLA WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A VOCALLY PRO-PEDOPHILIA GROUP BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM

"Oh, it's hard to get 80% of people to agree on anything!" is a cop-out excuse. If a large organization cant get support to remove a PEDOPHILE GROUP from its roster, there's something wrong there.

[JoeMorgue]

The discussion is Drag Queens.

Why are you screeching about pedophiles and gays?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The discussion is Drag Queens.

Why are you screeching about pedophiles and gays?

Desperate attempt to smear.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

So you didn't notice the date for the part I quoted.

You mean the date that I intentionally put in there? The date that I added for emphasis? That date?

Yeah - the whole point is the date. That's what kicked this thing off to begin with.

Here, let me remind you:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

NAMBLA and various pedophile apologists infested the gay rights efforts in teh late 70s. They were finally REMOVED in the 90s.

Originally Posted by Darat

What a load of revisionist history.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is absolutely NOT a revision of US history.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Then show us the history. Show us your historical source for claiming that pedophiles were openly welcomed into the gay rights movement for some two decades.

So I showed that pro-pedophile groups had been part of the gay rights movement for two decades in the US, before finally getting tossed out in the nineties.

I'd say that your claim of it being "revisionist history" is baloney. And your insinuation regarding the dates is... well... misdirection at best.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And yet IGLA has had IN consultative status for more than a decade, and IGLA-Europe for even longer.

Have no been paying attention? They had consultative status for a couple of decades. Then they *lost* that status *because* they continued to allow pro-pedophilia groups to be members of their organization.

They only regained consultative status after having finally removed the pro0pedo groups.

Although... they do continue to put forth manifestos and mission statements that include abolition of age of consent laws, and that seek to grant sexual agency to children. Why that is something that is being paired with an organization that is supposed to be focused on equality irrespective of sexual orientation, I have no idea.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You mean the date that I intentionally put in there? The date that I added for emphasis? That date?

Yeah - the whole point is the date. That's what kicked this thing off to begin with.

Here, let me remind you:





So I showed that pro-pedophile groups had been part of the gay rights movement for two decades in the US, before finally getting tossed out in the nineties.

I'd say that your claim of it being "revisionist history" is baloney. And your insinuation regarding the dates is... well... misdirection at best.

Go back to my post and see the part I asked you about. You have still not noticed the dates.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I eagerly await your explanation as to why drag queens are a minority in any rational sense of the term.

Go hid in your room from all the imaginary pedophiles and rapists.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Go back to my post and see the part I asked you about. You have still not noticed the dates.

Why don't you just say whatever the **** you mean, instead of this stupid game playing? What about the dates do you think I'm not noticing? Use your words, Darat.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Why don't you just say whatever the **** you mean, instead of this stupid game playing? What about the dates do you think I'm not noticing? Use your words, Darat.

Or you could try reading the part of your post that I asked about.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or you could try reading the part of your post that I asked about.

The part where you didn't ask about anything specific, just made a vague insinuation? This part?

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And just so I'm not ignoring our across-the-pond siblings...
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? Published 27 February 2014
This one is BBC News. Make of that what you will, but you can't throw it out as some sort of super-right-wing US shenanigans.

Did you even bother to look at the dates?

What the **** is your point, Darat?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, I'm smearing pedophiles. I don't think there's anything desperate about doing so. Pedophiles are evil ******* predators that have no place in a decent society.

More pathetic bollocks.
You are attempting, badly, to associate drag artists with child sex abusers. Of course you're failing because your "points" are overblown, hysterical, nonsense that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You clearly lack either the ability or willingness to engaged in rational, reasoned, debate.

Plonk.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

More pathetic bollocks.
You are attempting, badly, to associate drag artists with child sex abusers.

No, I have noted that given the relative scarcity of drag performers reading to children, the fact that several of them have behaved in inappropriate ways with those children, or have been found to be in possession of child pornography, or have been convicted of sexual offenses against children suggests that predators see this as a fertile ground.

It's your call: Is there a higher propensity for drag queens to be pedos? Or is there a loophole that makes it easy for pedos to exploit drag for their own ends?

Either way, there remains a safeguarding issue that seems to be localized to the topic of drag queen story hour and similar such drag-themed events that seek to include children.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Holy cow, do some research.

Perhaps you should read these before you link;

Quote:

Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements

As I said, they tried to infest the gay movement, we kicked them out. Some idiot radicals gave them time for a short while but the radicals aren't the gay movement. My first boyfriend was an original GLF member and he told me all about this

If you had done any research yourself you would have found that PIE was trying to infest everything it could. Pedos in general were infesting everything they could. They were having a lot more success with other organisations than with the gay movement.

I remember a television program in the 1970's run by a major commercial and hosted by a top rating right wing shock jock trying to normalise the idea of adult men having sex with children.

The gay movement were ahead of the curve on this one.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Not at all, only the ones who insist on telling me that I should not be offended, or who call me hysterical for being offended.



Yeah, I don't think I'm buying this. Take a step back and think on it a second. You (a male) are telling me (a female) that I (a female) shouldn't take offense at being called hysterical (a term historically used to discount the appropriate anger of females) because it's "not used that way now".

I'm just not sold on a male dictating that females should let go of centuries of dismissal and sexism, because males have decided that it's no longer a sexist phrase. Even though it's literally being used in this context to dismiss the anger of a female.

I imagine that a fair number of gay and lesbian people might similarly be unconvinced by straight people telling them that they shouldn't get upset when people call something "gay" as a way of saying it sucks, because "gay" isn't used as an insult the same way it used to be, so you know, calling an annoying neighbor "gay" as a way of dismissing them is just fine.

No. I'm telling you that most people don't even know the etymology of the word or that it ever had anything to do with sex. To most people, "hysterical" has two and only two meanings: Extremely funny and overly emotional.

Hell, Def Leppard had an album named "Hysteria." If you look hysteria up on google you get:

Quote:

noun: hysteria; plural noun: hysterias

1.
exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement.
"mass hysteria erupts as the people crowd in to view the race"
2.
an old-fashioned term for a disorder characterized by neurological symptoms often accompanied by exaggeratedly or inappropriately emotional behavior, originally attributed to disease or injury of the nervous system and later thought to be functional or psychological in origin.

https://www.google.com/search?client...#dobs=hysteria

You are attributing motivations for the use of a word based on historical connotations that one doesn't even see referenced in a definition search.

It's like accusing children of being racist when they do eeny meenie miney moe. They don't know the origins (or original words) until someone tells them. And they'll still use it because it doesn't mean that in their usage.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

No, I have noted that given the relative scarcity of drag performers reading to children, the fact that several of them have behaved in inappropriate ways with those children, or have been found to be in possession of child pornography, or have been convicted of sexual offenses against children suggests that predators see this as a fertile ground.

It's your call: Is there a higher propensity for drag queens to be pedos? Or is there a loophole that makes it easy for pedos to exploit drag for their own ends?

Either way, there remains a safeguarding issue that seems to be localized to the topic of drag queen story hour and similar such drag-themed events that seek to include children.

Again, I have not found evidence of any of this with the exception of one person in Houston who had a history as a sex offender.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Robin

Perhaps you should read these before you link;


As I said, they tried to infest the gay movement, we kicked them out. Some idiot radicals gave them time for a short while but the radicals aren't the gay movement. My first boyfriend was an original GLF member and he told me all about this

If you had done any research yourself you would have found that PIE was trying to infest everything it could. Pedos in general were infesting everything they could. They were having a lot more success with other organisations than with the gay movement.

I remember a television program in the 1970's run by a major commercial and hosted by a top rating right wing shock jock trying to normalise the idea of adult men having sex with children.

The gay movement were ahead of the curve on this one.

It still took over 15 years in the US and 10 years in the UK for the pedophile groups to be removed from the gay rights efforts.

Look, I'm not saying that all gays are pedos, nothing even close to that! I am, however, saying that the organizations fighting for gay rights (now trans rights) are not all that uncomfortable sharing a bed with pedo groups.

Gay people as a whole might very well have been appalled at pedos infesting their movement... but the organizations themselves clearly weren't listening to the people they were supposed to represent.

And I will reiterate that public support for gay rights rose quite quickly *after* the pedo groups were removed.

You know, females get a lot of crap for being opposed to self-id legislation, and for being opposed to the presence of fully intact males in spaces where females are naked or vulnerable. And you know what gets used against us? The fact that many right wing groups have the same objection. WE feminists get tarnished as being "right wing apologists", or "in bed with the right wing" all the time. But those right wing whackos who share our view on this single topic are NOT members of our various feminist organizations.

On the other hand, "MAP" groups are active participants in pro-TQ organizations right now, and there doesn't appear to be very much pressure from actual TQ people to remove those groups. There's even a fair number of self-declared Q people who actively support MAP groups.

My point here is that I do no tin any way believe that most, or even many, gay or lesbian people during the gay rights movements were supportive of pedo goups. But the organizations to which they belonged did not object to those pedo groups being part of them. And that relationship was a significant barrier to public support for gay rights.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Can you at least vaguely grasp why parents might be perfectly fine with Sandra Bullock reading to their children, but NOT with Stormy Daniels doing the same thing?

Wait, why?

I’m a parent. I have absolutely no expectation that Stormy Daniels would randomly start shooting a porn movie in the middle of a kids story hour, because, you know, she’s still a human being with social contextual understanding.

…are you under the impression that porn stars are unable to control themselves based on a moral judgment of them?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It still took over 15 years in the US and 10 years in the UK for the pedophile groups to be removed from the gay rights efforts.

Again nonsense, you totally ignored the part I quoted from your link where it was stated that most gays were horrified by the attempts by pedos to infest the movement. They tried in the UK and never got a toehold except for a couple of irrelevant radicals. Gay activists have no power to prevent a group like PIE from existing, but there was never any encouragement. Here is a typical reaction (not that you'll read it)

Quote:

A campaign to attract media attention was not effective, but Hose's attendance at the 1975 annual conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in Sheffield, at which he made a speech on paedophilia, was covered at length in The Guardian.[16] Peter Hain, then Honorary Vice-President of CHE, condemned PIE: "Some plain speaking is called for: paedophilia is not a condition to be given a nod and a wink as a healthy fringe activity in society – it is a wholly undesirable abnormality requiring sensitive treatment."

This was the real reaction to the PIE infiltration attempt.

Quote:

Look, I'm not saying that all gays are pedos, nothing even close to that! I am, however, saying that the organizations fighting for gay rights (now trans rights) are not all that uncomfortable sharing a bed with pedo groups.

And I'm pointing out that it ain't true.


There are dozens of groups that spring up claiming to represent gays. You found one which carelessly allowed themselves to be infiltrated by pedos.

That you could only find one case shows we were ahead of the curve.

Don't forget the Catholic Church was enthusiastically encouraging priests to rape children at the time, the film industry was producing big budget mainstream films glorifying child rape.

The only time I met a member of PIE was when I was introduced to him by a straight couple who were completely unaffiliated with the gay movement.

Quote:

And I will reiterate that public support for gay rights rose quite quickly *after* the pedo groups were removed.

Again no. Support had been growing since the 1960's at least. The biggest breakthroughs happened in the early '80s.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The part where you didn't ask about anything specific, just made a vague insinuation? This part?





What the **** is your point, Darat?

The dates.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
ILGA consists of over 350 organizations. They'd have to set up a resolution, then get 80% of members of those organizations to vote to expel them. As Hjerpekjon said,"that can be hard to obtain on any issue. Getting 80% of any large group to vote for something isn't easy, especially when some may abhor their beliefs but perhaps they thought it was better to work on getting them to just resign.

Maybe your point isn't that they couldn't manage do that, but that they didn't want to do that?

Wow, who knew it could be so incredibly difficult to get 80% of the member organizations to object to PRO-PEDOPHILE groups being part of ILGA.

Step back and think about that for a minute. What does that mean? I figure it means either:
a) ILGA never even tried to take it to a vote and was happy to just let NAMBLA ride along as a member organization or
b) MORE THAN 20% OF THE ORGS THAT WERE PART OF IGLA WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A VOCALLY PRO-PEDOPHILIA GROUP BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM

"Oh, it's hard to get 80% of people to agree on anything!" is a cop-out excuse. If a large organization cant get support to remove a PEDOPHILE GROUP from its roster, there's something wrong there.

Don't need to 'take a step back to think about it'. You do have a knack for cherry picking the parts you want to see while ignoring the rest. Here, let me help you: "Getting 80% of any large group to vote for something isn't easy, especially when some may abhor their beliefs but perhaps they thought it was better to work on getting them to just resign.