Why I Didn't Ask Peter Tatchell About Paedophilia Condoning

This Got Me ATTACKED On Social Media

Whilst it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

These are the torrid words of my recent guest Peter Tatchell in his infamous letter to The Guardian. Tatchell has had a distinguished career as a civil rights campaigner in which he fought for many worthy causes, from gay rights to the Zimbabwean struggle against Mugabe.

Yet, this letter will rightly be a stain on his legacy.

Andrew Gold Faces Off With Peter Tatchell

Tatchell claims that the Guardian poorly edited the letter and that he ‘wholeheartedly condemns’ paedophilia. But it’s hard to see how he intended it as anything other than - at the very least - an interrogation of the laws we have in place protecting children from sexual abuse by adults.

This begs the question: why didn’t I challenge him about it?

Last week, I found myself—not for the first time—caught up in a maelstrom of abuse from X users. These mostly anonymous accounts—from behind their screens—attacked me for platforming Tatchell and not calling him out for his previous comments.

The first accusation has no truck with me. I would platform Hitler.

As to the second, allow me to explain.

It’s a strange (and not very nice) thing to be attacked by a large number of users on social media. Even if it’s just 0.1% of the people who watched the video, that is still more than 100 people who don’t know you screaming at you online. It’s a unique and wretched sensation.

You can tell yourself that these are anonymous trolls, that they’re a vocal minority. But by attrition, it has its way of bringing you down. Regrettably, I replied to one of them angrily. When you’re accused of sidling up to someone who has said things about adults and children, there’s nothing you can say by way of explanation in a short tweet (hence this article).

I often hit “mute”. Having been the target, I can understand why the likes of Andrew Doyle go for “block”. I don’t block because I don’t want to give them the satisfaction. Many wear their Doyle block as a badge of honour as though it were evidence they’d beaten him with logic. In reality, these people are too stupid and angry to be reasoned with, and Doyle knows he’ll live an easier life simply blocking them from his life and forgetting they exist.

One of the aggressors questioned my feelings about paedophilia. This is, as you can imagine, a sore point. After reading countless similar tweets, I lost my rag. Child abuse is a topic about which I care deeply. I risked my safety to learn more about them and shed light on them while investigating the Don’t Offend clinic in Germany for two years.

I exposed an exorcist in Argentina who was abusing his young clients (he has since fled the country). So one is left asking about one’s anonymous adversary: “What would you know of integrity and courage when you can’t even put your real name and photo in your Twitter bio?”

Unfortunately, what I actually wrote was: “F off”.

This provoked even more outrage about what my detractors called perfectly legitimate questions. These are the tactics of “cry-bullies”, who come from nowhere with horrific accusations, only to act shocked when you take the bait.

Being the subject of one of these Twitter storms makes you feel like you’re drowning or putting out fires. Everything you say is taken out of context and used as further evidence of your moral impurity. In terms of evolutionary biology, if 100 people turned on you in such a way in tribal times, you’d be kicked out and would likely die. So it’s hard to shake the bad vibes.

I can’t imagine wanting to do that to someone—wanting to extrapolate the worst possible meaning from somebody’s words to see them ousted from the tribe. These people must be very sad indeed.

And that’s partly why I didn’t ask Tatchell about his awful words.

May I remind you, however, that they don’t look good.

For example, his letter continues:

Several of my friends gay and straight male and female had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 14. None feel they were abused.

Again, it’s hard to read this as anything other than a defence of the notion of consensual sex between kids as young as nine with “adults”. Although Tatchell now categorically denies this was his meaning - and condemns paedophilia in the strongest terms - there is no coming back from this.

Still, I didn’t ask him about it.

Why?

1. I Sent Questions Before

I was pleased when Tatchell agreed to come on Heretics because it’s rare for anyone offering a different opinion to accept. Woke circles criticise me for not platforming anyone on their side. Even when I had a trans person on the show, Katy Jon Went, Katy mostly agreed with me about much of the insanity around the ideology itself.

However, Tatchell asked me for a list of questions before coming on, a common request from interviewees. I knew he wouldn’t agree to come on the show if I had questions about the Guardian letter and his views on paedophilia. Thus, I explained that we would discuss his various achievements in civil rights campaigning and debate civilly about our views on gender ideology.

Yes, I am sure that Paxman or Theroux might have found a way to slip the question in despite not having agreed on it.

Yes, it would have been an easy win for me and made me look good—and him bad.

But that is simply not me. It’s against my ethics.

2. A Good Faith Argument

The interview was my first chance to truly interrogate the trans ideology. I wanted this to be done in good faith, with no points scored for ad hominem or bad faith attacks. Yes, Tatchell used circular reasoning and logical fallacies. But at no point did I feel he willfully misinterpreted my own words to score points. Even when I asked him if I was, in his eyes, a transphobe, he refused to be drawn.

This is decidedly rare in online debates, and many comments on YouTube (much friendlier to me than X) have praised the calm and fair manner of the debate.

To bring up Tatchell’s comments on children would have been a low blow that distracted from the discussion. It would have been a way to try to win a very particular debate by attacking the morals of my interlocutor from his beliefs about a separate topic.

3. The Practical Side

When we watch YouTube videos, we don’t often consider the logistics. I live in a different city, so I travel to London monthly to record eight interviews in two days at the studio I rent. Often, interviewees get lost or delayed and arrive late, meaning we are forced to rush.

I had questions about child abuse ready just in case it felt appropriate. For example, if Tatchell had mentioned the age of consent or if he had stooped to ad hominem attacks. But we would have needed another hour to open such a controversial can of worms.

4. Duty of Care

Ok, this one won’t appease the trolls.

But Tatchell is a man in his 70s with a severe and painful illness (which I won’t specify) who I asked to trek across London in blistering heat to speak about the questions I had put to him in an email.

It is easy to attack someone - and even to call them a paedophile (the worst thing you can be) - as an anonymous social media user. Less so, face-to-face with this person in a small room.

Podcasting independently differs from being a bigwig off the TV. When Theroux or Paxman face down their subjects, it is often the first time they have met. A team of producers sort out the logistics.

As an indie podcaster, however, I have to develop a relationship with the interviewee to get them to come on. Then, I text and call them to assure them about the practicalities and questions. I pick them up outside the studio and chat to make them comfortable. In the recording studio itself, it is just me, the interviewee and my producer.

Such a setup reminds you to remember the human (even one who had previously written terrible things).

5. I Already Knew Exactly What He’d Say

I knew what Tatchell would say because it’s written on his own website. There, he strenuously denies condoning paedophilia, condemns child abuse “without reservation”, states that the “perpetrators should be jailed” and explains “there are no circumstances where it is acceptable for adults to have sex with children”.

I don’t buy it.

I think Tatchell - like many Leftists…

Become a paid member or get a free trial to read the rest of the article.