Calls for Minister for Children Roderic O'Gorman to resign..

paw patrol wrote: »

thread is bizarre.
usual suspects falling over themselves to defend and deflect from the minister. Suddenly the abhorrence of pedophilia puts you in league with Gemma. Such mental gymnastics would be funny if the topic wasn't so serious


Somehow I doubt this defence would be so robust if the minister was heterosexual. The lengths people will go to be so right-on :rolleyes:

The most amusing part is the fact that their defense is that guilt by association is wrong. Guilt by association is certainly wrong, but it's an ideological tactic that probably ever person using such a defense, has used against their enemies regularly.

O'Gorman needs to think more carefully about his tweeting going forward. He was gushing about his praise about Tatchell upon meeting him: 'delighted' and 'legendary'.

Presumably he's a fan. I would speculate that anyone who fought for gay rights would admire the work that Tatchell did, in this regard.

However, Tatchell does (did) express controversial views about sexual relations between young people and older people albeit in an old letter to a newspaper:

"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."

This is the conundrum for people, like O'Gorman, who admire the work of Peter Tatchell.

I don't think that most people who want some comment from O'Gorman are homophobes or Gemma O'Doherty supporters. I would think most rational people would take issue with Tatchells 1997 letter. You could argue that Tatchell was just stating a fact and offers no opinion further than that. But I think that argument is weak.

Danno wrote: »

The reality is that some people drink and drive too - should that no longer be a criminal offence either?

The idea of laws are to discourage ordinary folk from doing harmful sh!t. Laws will never stop ignorant folk from doing harmful sh!t, but they give us a tool to remove them from continuing to do said harmful sh!t to society.

It's fascinating to watch the fervent Left campaigns in recent times: Abolish the police, blur the lines on underage sex, #MeToo, etc... etc...

A mad box of contradictions altogether.

So if a 13 year old boy and 13 year old girl have consentual sex the boy should be charged with statutory rape?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Our minister for Children does seem to have some strange tastes.

Really scraping the barrel now. It's a retweet of someone else humorously reenacting an acknowledged artistic masterpiece, not a manifesto.

I don't quite follow this reference in his tweet to @DCYAPress.

@DCYAPress seems to be a parody account, with an upsidedown harp logo.

https://twitter.com/DCYApress/status/1277752337365426176

Still no mainstream media comment on this. Like, he does need to be asked the basic question of whether he agrees with Tatchell's views as they directly impinge on his new brief.

I suspect what he'll be discovering is how some views, that are probably really edgy and cool if you're a DCU law lecturer, melt in three seconds when they have to intersect with reality.

I suspect he'll find this in the immigration space, too.

the biggest favour gemma did roderick is being the one who broke the story. if it had been any half way reputable source he might, MIGHT, have had to make a statement but since it was gemma, that's an end of it.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Still no mainstream media comment on this. Like, he does need to be asked the basic question of whether he agrees with Tatchell's views as they directly impinge on his new brief.

There's no mainstream media comment on it because it's utter tripe; even compared to some of the stuff they tend to publish.

Even if you accept the premise that the views expressed in 1997 "impinge on his new brief"; the fact he appeared in a picture with someone in a completely different context some 20 years after the fact implies absolutely nothing about his views on the subject.

The original premise of the OP was a tenuous, stretch at best. How the hell has this thread got over 200 posts!

Aligning with Tatchell is incredibly poor judgement on the part of O Gorman. Tatchell wrote on a lengthy interview with a 14 year old who had been clearly groomed, in and out of care homes and there were very clear child protection issues. He did nothing to protect this child. Instead, he seeks to normalize children having sex with adults and much older adults at that. His views are well documented, this is not one isolated edited guardian letter... this man pursues this ideology and O Gorman references him as a legend. Having concerns in this regard is not homophobic and going down this route isn't worthy of discussion. Tatchell attempts to normalize paedophilia, has associations with those in the Paedophile Information Exchange. Enough said .. you cant defend the indefensible. This is about the worst possible start O Gorman could have in a new role and whether he remains, this will continue to follow him unless he addresses it. The radio silence from him and the Green Party will only feed any conspiracy theories.

Don’t know the first thing about O’Gorman but I think it’s fair to ask him to make a statement about the issues raised. It’s kind of odd how enthusiastic he is about tatchell.