Monday, 14 July 2014

Want to learn a new language? You are right now


Have a public opinion on an umpire in footy and you'll cop a $20,000 fine. Ask James Hird

Have a lighthearted joke at a sleeping spectator not interested in your coverage and be sued for US$10.67 million. Ask ESPN. 

Make a public statements such as the "majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles", and that "paedophillic interest is normal and natural in human males" and "At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children" and you'll cop....well nothing. Ask Professor Philip Tromovitch.

No, incredibly, I didn't make that up. These were but some of the comments delivered in presentations at a recent conference at the esteemed Cambridge University on 4 and 5 July 2013. The conference centred around the classification of sexuality (paedophillia) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ("DSM") of Mental Disorders, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts. As part of the conference, presentations included "Prevalence of paedophillia" and "Liberating the paedophile; a discursive analysis". 

Unbelievably, this is not the first conference to be held advocating the supposed "natural love" between adults and children. In 2011 in Baltimore a similar conference took place that included academics from around the world as well as panel members from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the Universities of Louisville and Illinois. Similar to the recent Cambridge conference, the aim of the Baltimore conference was to declare to the American Psychiatric Association ("APA") (who publish the DSM) that pedophilia should not be included in the list of abnormal behaviours in the DSM.

It would be easy to simply ignore these conferences and their agendas as being organised and run by irrelevant and radical minorities. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that these conferences had the backing of respected academics from some of the leading universities in the world.

Amongst the academics at the recent conference was former head of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange, Tom O'Carroll, who wrote on his personal blog after the conference:
“Wonderful! It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
So what does it all mean? It means paedophillic groups are attempting to normalise paedophillia in the same way homosexual groups have successfully normalised homosexuality since the 1970s. Big call but stay with me.

One only needs to see the positive reaction to Ian Thorpe's revelation (or confirmation, depending on your earlier view) to see how normal homosexuality has become. However, prior to the 1970s, homosexuality was widely viewed as a disorder and completely socially unacceptable. In 1973, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM. In the 30-40 years that followed, homosexuality went from being classified as a mental disorder and socially unacceptable, to generally, socially applauded.

Today, we have groups of paedophile advocates, backed by respected academics from some of the world's leading universities, pushing to have paedophillia declassified as a disorder from the DSM. Seeing a potential pattern? If paedophillia is declassified as a disorder, where will we be in 30-40 years' time?

Now before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm certainly not insinuating that homosexuality and paedophillia are the same, or that there is a positive correlation between them. What I am saying is that the approach to normalise both sexual preferences seems to be the same. And to me, that's a huge concern.

Simply, the APA must not budge. Paedophillia has never been acceptable and never should be. As G.K Chesterton once said:
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea.”
Underneath the shield of a medical classification is the clear beginning of a push to gradually normalise paedophillia in our society. Under the well flagged banner of "tolerance", these conferences seek a greater tolerance for paedophiles. 

According to an article in The Washington Times on 17 November 2011:
"The fringe activists promise to disrupt future meetings of the APA until they are successful in normalizing pedophilia, a strategy successfully employed in the 1970s to get homosexuality removed from the DSM - not because of new scientific evidence, but because of political pressure by a small group of activists."
Of course, this is not going to happen overnight and the advocates would be well aware they are in for some serious backlash. So how are they attempting to normalise paedophillia?

Through the subtle changing of cultural language and gradual social conditioning. As Child advocate and author Dr. Judith Reisman said:
"The first thing they do is get the public to divest away from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender's emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathise and sympathise. You don't change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning."
Interestingly, former American politician and socialist, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s (American politician and sociologist) provided a similar warning regarding “defining deviancy down” with this paraphrased quote:
"Win the battles over language and you win the culture war."
And then there was NSW District Court Judge Garry Neilson's recent comments seemingly linking homosexuality and the future rise in acceptance of incest and paedophillia. 
“If this was the 50s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
“...a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner...but even that [incest being a crime] falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.
Interestingly, these comments, and others concerning the apparent normalisation of incest, were made during a judicial hearing into an incest and rape case. While I think that Judge Neilson makes some interesting points, I wonder what his motives are for making them in a judicial context?

The language is changing. Just like 30-40 years ago when it was abnormal to be same sex attracted, people today are, as Lady Gaga sings, "born that way" . Maybe in 30-40 years time Lady Gaga can write a sequel song for paedophiles who are also born that way?
“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” - G.K Chesterton.
The slippery slope is getting more slippery and our cultural language is on the move.

All the best,
Dom Meese

* Photo taken by David Cosand

2 comments:

  1. Great blog! I had a similar reaction when reading Judge Nielson's comments.

    Will provide a little context (if it helps). The case before Judge Nielson was one about incest - an older brother having sex with his younger sister (who was 18 at the time). He had pleaded not guilty. But he had previously pleaded guilty to abusing her when she was 10 years old.

    The question before the judge was whether the evidence of the earlier child sexual abuse could be admitted to the current trial.

    He decided that it wasn't - saying that a jury in the present day might not find incest abhorrent, because society had moved on from finding premarital sex and homosexuality as abhorrent.

    So while they are a little (or a lot) left field, they were relevant to the matter at hand. The irony of the outrage is the judge is just showing us what happens when we start chipping away at the traditional idea of family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mon! I agree completely with you if Judge Nielson was simply pointing out where we might be headed and trying to be relevant to the facts of the case. However, it would appear that his comments were calculated and I wonder whether he made them in order to set, or begin to set, a legal precedent that says incest and paedophillia are normal. If this is not what he was trying to do, I completely agree with him, just concerned about the platform with which he chose to air his views.

      Delete