By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
In 1977 I first clashed with a group of people I call "Academic Pedophile Advocates" at the British Psychological Association's "Conference on Love and Attraction" at Swansea University in Wales. Ostensibly an "academic" conference, the meeting attracted outraged press coverage when the leader of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Tom O'Carroll, announced he had been invited to lecture on positive adult-child sex.
At that conference, an old colleague of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, (author of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male) whispered confidentially to me that Kinsey was a pedophile. While I was shocked at the time, later research confirmed that Kinsey had spawned today's Academic Pedophile Advocates. By 1987 many such academicians came out as pedophiles in their pseudo scholarly, publication, The Journal of Paedophilia while professors in major universities worked covertly to gain unlimited sexual access to their children, and ours.
Radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently exposed such pedophile advocacy in the powerful American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
A Temple University psychology professor, a University of Pennsylvania education teacher and a psychology professor at the University of Michigan claim they investigated 59 "studies" on child sexual abuse of college students. Imagine! Sex with children could be fun said the APA authors, so "willing" child sex abuse should be OK. Dr. Laura concluded that the APA, representing 155,000 members, had "gone soft" on child molesters. "I'm scared this study could be used to normalize pedophilia, to change the legal system ... like it did homosexuality."
True, but the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), noted that "the American Psychiatric Association already set the stage ... [in] the latest diagnostic manual (DSMIV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children." Thus the APA created psychologically normal" paedophiles.
The NARTH article concludes, "If psychology indeed recognizes consensual pedophilia as harmless, then civil law and social norms will be under pressure to follow the lead of social science as indeed they did on the issue of homosexuality."
Farberman, the APA publicist denied that publication in the Psychological Bulletin implies APA endorsement. "We are a scientific organization. ... We try to create a lot of dialogue." But when Dr. Laura worried the APA was signaling an "attempt to normalize pedophilia," the APA spokeswoman found that dialogue "ridiculous," citing a paltry 2.8 journal articles per year for nine years as APA's commitment "to protect children and ... families."
Is the recent APA Academic Pedophile Advocacy article, one of the 26 they printed "to protect ... children and ... families"? Perhaps. Listen: Farberman says "child sexual abuse is harmful." She does not say "child-adult sex" is harmful. The oxymoron, "consensual" adult-child sex has been promoted in psychology and sexology circles since Kinsey. No surprise that this "study" finds the "negative potential" of sexual abuse is "overstated."
These authors claim up to 37 percent of abused boys and 11 percent of abused girls whom they interviewed, reported their abuse as "positive." Pornographers can put money in the bank citing those "data."
The APA is a reprise of Kinsey's fraudulent "study," which took 50 years to begin to expose. Kinsey used child rapists in 1948 who "proved" their victims enjoyed being raped. When children fainted and had convulsions during molestation, Kinsey (a sado-masochist) reported their torture as "pleasure" and "orgasm." He claimed the "hysterical ... emotional reactions of the parents, police officers, and others" to molestation, created child trauma. The APA authors agree. Absent moralism, say the APA authors, children would be untroubled by sexual molestation.
Despite the desire for "dialogue" neither of the APAs ever confessed Kinsey's fraud or the sexual psychopathology of the Kinsey team. Indeed, both APAs train students in Kinsey's "consensual sex" model. Like Kinsey's, this phony "study" will also appear in courtrooms, classrooms and bedrooms. Spitting in the face of massive data to the contrary, APA's Academic Pedophile Advocates claim child sexual abuse is less harmful than physical abuse, neglect and verbal abuse! The goal? "Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic."
Said Schlessinger to her listeners. "I've read this so many times, I'm sick." "Psychology has become a god to the general public. ... If pedophilia is not a mental disorder, what is it?"
Academic Pedophile Advocates are bringing a "pedophile abduction rights" bill to a theater near you. For example, in 1994 Oregon Senate Bill 586 proposed that anyone who "established emotional ties with child may file ... for custody, guardianship, visitation" if they had "a relationship ... within the six months ... through interaction, companionship, interplay and mutuality." Stay tuned. Anyone smell an APA rat?
Dr. Reisman is the president of the Institute for Media Education, Crestwood, Kentucky. Her latest book is "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences".
Original Content HERE
Paedophile Information Exchange
PIE was set up as a special interest group within the
Scottish Minorities Group by founder member Michael Hanson, who became the group's first Chairman.
Since the majority of enquiries were from
England, PIE relocated to
London in 1975 where 23-year old Keith Hose became its new Chairperson.
[1] Hose had connections with the South London group of the
Gay Liberation Front (GLF). GLF thinking questioned the family as the basis of an economic, social and sexual system and certain sections of GLF favoured the abolition of the
age of consent; their youth group had staged a march in support of this demand (however, it should be noted that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at the time, in comparison to 16 for heterosexuals).
Paedophile Action for Liberation had developed as a breakaway group from South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of an article in the
Sunday People, which dedicated its front page and centre-spread to the story. The result was intimidation and loss of employment for some of those who were exposed. It later merged with PIE.
[1]
This exposé on PAL had a chilling effect on PIE members' willingness for activism. In the PIE Chairperson's Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that 'The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible.... If we got bad publicity we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE... was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization's name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.'
A campaign to attract media attention was not effective at that time, but Hose's attendance at the 1975 annual conference of the
Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in Sheffield, where he made a speech on paedophilia, was covered at length in
The Guardian.
In the same year Hose also attended a conference organized by
Mind, the national mental health organization, where it was suggested that PIE should submit evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. PIE submitted a 17-page document in which it 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.
PIE was set up to campaign for an acceptance and understanding of paedophilia by producing controversial documents. But its formally defined aims also included giving advice and counsel to paedophiles who wanted it, and providing a means for paedophiles to contact one another.
To this end it held regular meetings in London but also had a 'Contact Page', which was a bulletin in which members placed advertisements, giving their membership number, general location, and brief details of their sexual and other interests. Replies were handled by PIE, as with a box number system, so that correspondents were unidentifiable until they chose to exchange their own details. Since the purpose of this contact page was to enable paedophiles to contact one another, advertisements implying that contact with children was sought and advertisements for erotica were turned down. The Contact Page ultimately resulted in a prosecution for a 'conspiracy to corrupt public morals'.
PIE produced regular magazines that were distributed to members. The original
Newsletter was superseded in 1976 by
Understanding Paedophilia, which was intended to be sold in radical bookshops and be distributed free to PIE members. It was mainly the concern of Warren Middleton, who attempted to make the magazine a serious journal that included extracts from sensitive paedophilic literature and articles from psychologists with the aim of establishing respectability for paedophilia.
[1]
When Middleton ceased active work with PIE, Understanding Paedophilia was replaced by the magazine Magpie, which was more of a compromise between the proselytising of the earlier publication and a forum for members. It contained news, book and film reviews, articles, non-nude photographs of children, humour about paedophilia, letters and other contributions by members.
In 1977 PIE produced another regular publication called
Childhood Rights. When the editor ('David') retired, this content was assimilated into
Magpie.
[1]
In 1976 both PIE and PAL had been asked to help the
Albany Trust to produce a booklet on paedophilia which was to have been published by the Trust. This collaboration was 'uncovered' by
Mary Whitehouse, who alleged that public funds were being used indirectly to subsidize 'paedophile groups'. The Albany Trust was partly supported by government grants. The Trustees decided not to publish the booklet, saying that it wasn't sufficiently 'objective'. A year later a question relating to the incident was brought up in Parliament by Sir
Bernard Braine but, despite a statement by
Home Office Minister
Brynmor John that there was no evidence of public money going to PIE, the issue was drawn out into 1978 in the letters pages of
The Guardian and
The Times.
Affiliation to the NCCL[edit]
By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the
National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage” and that the
Protection of Children Bill would lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions”. Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for
incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with
Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would “increase censorship”.
[3] NCCL had excluded PIE by 1983.
[4]
Legal action against members[edit]
In the summer of 1978, the homes of several PIE committee members were raided by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE's activities; as a result of this inquiry, a substantial report was submitted to the
Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.
In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in Magpie which were calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.
Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies. It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up: Mr "Henderson" had worked for
MI6 and been a
high commissioner in
Canada. Mr "Henderson" was later revealed via Private Eye to be Sir
Peter Hayman. In 1981,
Geoffrey Dickens MP asked the Attorney-General "if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail". The Attorney-General,
Michael Havers replied, "I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' (Sir
Thomas Chalmers Hetherington QC) advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence."
[5] Dickens asked, "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highliy sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?" He also asked the Leader of the House (of Commons) to investigate the security implications of diaries found in the diplomat's London flat which contained accounts of sexual exploits"
[6] There was much debate and condemnation in the World's press of these events.
[7]
Steven Adrian Smith was Chairperson of PIE from 1979 to 1985. He was one of the PIE executive committee members charged in connection with the contact advertisements; he fled to Holland before the trial.
In 1981 the former PIE Chairperson,
Tom O'Carroll, was convicted on the conspiracy charge and sentenced to two years in prison. O'Carroll had been working on
Paedophilia: The Radical Case in the period between the initial police raid and the trial. While the charges did not relate in any way to the publication of the book, the fact that he had written it was listed by the judge as a factor in determining the length of his sentence.
In 1984 The Times reported that two former executive committee members of PIE had been convicted on child pornography charges but acquitted on charges of incitement to commit unlawful sexual acts with children and that the group's leader had fled the country while on bail. It was announced that the group was closing down in the PIE Bulletin as of July 1984.
One-time treasurer of PIE Charles Napier is alleged to have sexually assaulted boys whilst a gym master at Copthorne School.
[8] He became an English Language Trainer at the British Council and was convicted of sexual assault against minors in London in 1995
[9] and investigated as an alleged member of a paedophile network operating in British schools in 1996.
[10] He set up his own school in Turkey and resumed English Language Training with the British Council after serving his sentence.
[11]
Surveys[edit]
In 1978–9, the Paedophile Information Exchange surveyed its members and found that they were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15. In 1978, Glenn Wilson and David Cox approached Mr O’Carroll with a request to study the PIE membership. A meeting was held with the PIE leadership to vet the survey instruments and, after approval, these were distributed to PIE members in the course of their regular mailing. Wilson and Cox went on to use the data in writing their book,
The Child-Lovers – a study of paedophilies in society.
[12]
Relevance today[edit]
| “ | Lightheartedly, I should like to ask the Minister to put himself in the shoes of a well-known paedophile – perhaps we could call him Gary, and imagine a little more hair and some high-heeled shoes to add some character. As a paedophile, Gary believes that it is acceptable to have sex with children. He thinks that the bulk of society is completely out of step. He belongs to a group called the paedophile information exchange, and he and his disgusting friends use the internet to exchange data, ideas, names, photographs and even films related to their paedophile activities. That is all stored electronically, and protected by a sophisticated encryption system. | ” |
