QUESTIONS THEY WON’T ANSWER
by Guy Adams
22 February 2014
The Mail has posed a series of vital questions that Harriet Harman, Particia Hewitt and Jack Dromey refuse to answer. They include:
To Harman, Hewitt and Dromey:
During your time with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), it gave significant support to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Do you regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of this vile organisation you helped legitimise?
To Hewitt and Dromey:
The NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status to PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?
PIE submitted a report to MPs claiming that ‘girls as young as four months can achieve orgasm’, and that four-year-old children can ‘communicate verbally their consent to sex’.Given these utterly repellent views, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?
The NCCL made a written submission to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission, arguing: ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.’ On what basis, scientific or otherwise, did you make this extraordinary claim?
The submission also called for the crime of incest to be abolished, arguing that the suggestion that genetic damage may result from children born of incestuous unions ‘is in direct contradiction to the practices of successful animal breeders’. Do you still take this view?
To Harriet Harman:
The NCCL’s affiliation with PIE, its support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent, and its demand for the legalisation of incest were all widely reported throughout the Seventies. Why, given these morally offensive views, did you then take a job as legal adviser to the NCCL?