Thanks Peter, we had already figured that one out for ourselves!! lol
O’Brien has what it takes to become a Kent Conservative MP
Worth remembering that gayness is only ‘a grave sin’ if you’re caught at it.
Meanwhile at the conclave to find a new pope:
I reckon Agnes Brown should be the next fecking Pope!!
He forgot to mention — the bigger they are the harder they fall ! The Pope and O’Brien know this now. They once thought themselves infallible, untouchable and protected – but nobody is.
I bet some of those MPs who voted against have gotten lovely little secrets for us to know – the odd affair, trips to M&S parlors, odd off-stag behavior !
I like this notion of personal services which come with a £10 banquet meal, but I’d want to be able to pick who’d be wearing the cotton y-front briefs and matching socks ;)
“this isn’t just any old brothel…”
M&S parlours are so dull. Waitrose parlours are Pippa’s preferred! #bringingupthebodies
Oh balls – I knew that didn’t look quite right. Obviously I meant S&M – or perhaps they have a new name for it ! :D
“HI Kettle, I’m Pot”
I don’t agree with focusing on hypocrisy when the allegations are of abuse.
So, it’s not hypocrisy if there’s abuse involved with your homosexuality. Really?
His hypocrisy should and must be focused on as well as the abuse and harm he has caused to not only his victims but gay people in general. Vilifying, denigrating and dehumanising gay people all his life while living a lie and the hatred spewing from his mouth during the equal marriage debate merits his hypocrisy being exposed. The catholic church is infested with deeply closeted self loathing hypocrites just like him. The pope is another.
“The Pope definitely is another”.
I could tell that within minutes of him appearing on the balcony shortly after his election 8 years ago and his entourage and everything about him has done nothing to make me shift my belief.
Well done Peter for calling it like it is instead of fawning over O’Brien and giving him glowing tributes, like others are doing – Alex Salmond & Murdo Fraser, to name just two.
Peter is the only one brave enough to call it what it is, hypocrisy. The media won’t do it and nor will MPs for fear of upsetting the religious nutters. If this had been a racial issue, they would have been all over it with condemnation and derision. They’re just as hypocritical as O’Brien. Just look how the BBC has handled it, almost sympathetic. Disgusting, vile, contemptible of them.
I just don’t understand why all the sympathy is for O’Brien, as far as the BBC and politicians like the 2 I’ve mentioned are concerned. They’re acting like he’s an upstanding man and his good name has been besmirched at the end of his outstanding career. No mention of the victims, no mention of O’Brien’s nasty homophobia. It’s almost as if they are blaming the victims for all this unpleasantness.
Agreed. Even the Guardian/Observer (which broke the story in the first place) seems oddly reluctant to call this a resignation of convenience by a hypocritical bigot.
O’Brien is worse than a hypocrite, he’s a coward.
He was quite happy to condemn those gay people who had the courage to be open about their sexuality, whilst at the same time he hid in the closet and got his thrills by groping young priests behind closed doors.
What a pathetic excuse for a man he is.
There was an old man called O’Brien, Who didn’t think gay marriage was fine. He was a bit of a beast, When surrounded by young priests, But then he saw nothing wrong in lyin’!
Good riddance to this old pest. He deserves the humiliation coming to him. There are more to come though.
Peter: while I strongly disagree with you on a number of issues, I greatly admire your courage and resolve to stand up for justice.
However, when I read a statement such as you wrote “Nearly half of all Cardinals worldwide are thought to be gay” my ears prick. If it is true, it is a matter of grave concern. But I do expect the evidence to back it up. Where is it please?
Prick up your ears?
If you’re wet behind the ears then the prick’s in the wrong hole…
Well done Peter – I bet all those gay priests who signed the letter to the telegraph opposing gay marriage are sweating now. Only a matter of time before their antics are exposed too. They had better be afraid.
Thanks Peter, you’ve hit the nail on the head. But people are going to ask where on earth you got your 40 % figure from. It needs sourcing – even if it is true!
Although this won’t be fashionable to say, at the moment, amid all the accusations of hypocrisy (which are incredibly well deserved) and ‘we-were-right’ celebrations.
Ultimately, we should be more kind than the Catholic church.
Two things: i) If we want no person to have sexual offences remaining on their ecord in the pre-decriminalisation era, then in good conscience we can’t call for this man to be prosecuted for possible offences in 1980, beofre an equal age of consent.
And ii) Whatever O’Brien’s sexuality – and we don’t know that he’s specifically gay, he might have been so starved of any kind of sexual relationship that he restricted his sexual overtures to people over whom he had control. Either way, gay or straight, the man is a mess.
None of us can excuse his rabidly vicious comments. He has behaved horribly.
However, we have the ability to be better than this man.
Against every bit of hypocrisy and hate this wretched man has exhibited to us, we should now be kind.
He’s a screwed up member of the human race: screwed up by his own religious organisation as anyone else who’s been its victim. He got a frock and a bendy stick – which he, foolishly, thought was a shield against his own nature. He’s still a victim.
I doubt he’ll ever face up to the essential truth about what he is and why he did what he did, so he’s never going to be a survivor.
But we should be kind to him.
Ultimately, we win by being better than him.
Only consensual sex acts are covered by the amnesty. None of these was consensual. (But I agree that the age of the victims shouldn’t be his undoing in this instance).
A vile arrogant man who repeatedly tried to punish others for his own personal conflicts. People who had courage and honesty about their sexuality were made his scapegoats because he could not face up to his personal issues. He knowingly added to the difficulties of many already dealing with their sexuality.
“A vile arrogant man who repeatedly tried to punish others for his own personal conflicts.”
I agree. But enough about Tachell, what about the Cardinal?
Cardinal O’brian neatly illustrates the saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!
The sooner that the catholic church disappears into the oblivion that awaits it, the better for man and women kind.
At the risk of applying mixed metaphors maybe it’s more like “People who live in glass closets…”
Thanks Peter for coming out with the truth.
amazingly I’ve just read a similar article in the Telegraph (of all papers!) along the same lines as yours. If the Telegraph are daring to tell the truth for once then it shows how hard the downfall of Cardinal O’Brien has hit them.
Stick your oar in again Peter, just to make sure nobody misses you.
You are not our official spokesman and most of us don’t give a flying toss what you think.
“…The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of NINE to 13. NONE feel they were ABUSED. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great JOY.
“While 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.” Sir Jimmy Saville
Oops sorry Peter Tatchell wrote that !…has he named the adults who had sex with children …went to the authorities ? Cover-up , secret files ? Hypocrite ?
I have never endorsed adults having sex with children. I do not know any adults who’ve had sex with children.
My position has been consistent for 30 years: I oppose the criminalisation of young people of similar ages (eg two 15 year olds) who have consenting sex They should not be treated as criminals and put on the sex offenders register (as the current 2003 law stipulates).
See a full explanation of my views here: http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-consent-of-14.htm
Don’t mind Ray – we’re having him fixed next ! :D
You may have “never endorsed adults having sex with children” but what about children having sex with adults?
“I have never endorsed adults having sex with children”
Oh really ?
‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships’
Says it all Peter .Hey weren’t you in the Gay Liberation Front which was allied to other homosexual groups like Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)?
At the conference of the powerful Campaign for Homosexual Equality in 1975, a time when it claimed 5,000 members and 100 local groups, Keith Hose of PIE challenged members of the audience who had no “interest in children” to stand. One third remained seated (Sheffield Morning Telegraph, 26 August 1975). The conference refused to agree a lower age limit for membership. At the 1977 conference a Liberal peer said, from the Chair, that the conference expressed its support for objective and rational discussion on paedophilia and child sexuality in general. At the 1978 conference, two representatives of the National Council for Civil Liberties supported a motion proposed by a teacher calling on Gay News to give paedophilia more coverage. They did, and subsequently published “contact” advertisements. Two representatives of the Haringey Lesbian and Gay Unit defended PIE as “a sexual minority whose rights were under attack” (Homosexuality: Power and Politics, Alison & Busby, p116).
Yet one more example of a screwed up person using their position of power to make the lives of others misery in order to put the spot light off themselves.
Peter, now out the tossers who voted against equal marriage on February 5th as well as those clergy who are leading a double life. This time, it’s more than warranted.
Peter, equality would render these people impotent, and strip them of their power. They don’t want that, as then they could not abuse people. Without their power, their prospects in cruising “gay bars, clubs, saunas and chat rooms” would be diminished. This is not about hypocritical gay clergy, but about sexual predators trying to turn attention away from themselves and focussing it on LGBT people. The National Socialist leadership were another group of sexually dysfunctional people who did much the same thing.