Gentle readers:
Let’s get down to the actual business of examining one of the many anti-gay claims in Mr. Clowes’ article.
The article makes the following statement:
“NAMBLA is by no means on the fringe of the "gay rights" movement. For years, it was a member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993.”
Some context: NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association, and is a notorious proponent of pedophilia. The ILGA is the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is member organization belonging to the United Nations. Mr. Clowes is clearly insinuating that pedophile rights are a central part of the larger gay rights movement.
While Mr. Clowes’ statement is “accurate” as far is it goes, it leaves out some extremely relevant facts in order to create a misleading impression, namely: “ILGA does not advocate – and never has advocated - paedophilia in any way or form. ILGA has issued statements condemning all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation (regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the perpetrator or the victim). ILGA has issued statements calling for the strengthening of the rights of children and young people, in support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and condemning all forms of abuse (including sexual abuse), coercion, and exploitation of children and young people. The ILGA conference (the highest decision making authority) has passed a resolution categorically rejecting any attempt to promote or legalize paedophilia. In 1990, the ILGA World Conference in Stockholm adopted a resolution on the protection of children that stated categorically that “Every child has the right to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, including prostitution and involvement in pornography”. This wording of the resolution is directly in line with article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other paedophile groups at its World Conference in New York. These groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership. At no time, however, did ILGA support or endorse their positions, and these groups were expelled precisely because their aims were incompatible with those of ILGA.” Here is a reference to ILGA’s above statement: http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/861 Already we begin to see that Mr. Clowes’ article may well be an example of grey propaganda. Cheers…Martin
While Mr. Clowes’ statement is “accurate” as far is it goes, it leaves out some extremely relevant facts in order to create a misleading impression, namely: “ILGA does not advocate – and never has advocated - paedophilia in any way or form. ILGA has issued statements condemning all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation (regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the perpetrator or the victim). ILGA has issued statements calling for the strengthening of the rights of children and young people, in support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and condemning all forms of abuse (including sexual abuse), coercion, and exploitation of children and young people. The ILGA conference (the highest decision making authority) has passed a resolution categorically rejecting any attempt to promote or legalize paedophilia. In 1990, the ILGA World Conference in Stockholm adopted a resolution on the protection of children that stated categorically that “Every child has the right to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, including prostitution and involvement in pornography”. This wording of the resolution is directly in line with article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other paedophile groups at its World Conference in New York. These groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership. At no time, however, did ILGA support or endorse their positions, and these groups were expelled precisely because their aims were incompatible with those of ILGA.” Here is a reference to ILGA’s above statement: http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/861 Already we begin to see that Mr. Clowes’ article may well be an example of grey propaganda. Cheers…Martin
Comments
Post a Comment