LEST WE FORGET...

Vital questions for these PINKO/LIBERAL LEFTIE PIE apologists

 

s

The Daily Mail published a major exposé revealing how three senior Labour Party figures gave their support in the 1970s to a vile organisation that tried to legalise sex with children.

At the time, the trio — Harriet Harman (now deputy Labour leader), Patricia Hewitt (who was Health Secretary in the Blair government) and Jack Dromey (now a member of Ed Miliband’s Shadow Cabinet) — held key roles in the human rights campaign group the National Council For Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Harman was legal officer, Hewitt its general secretary and Dromey was on the executive committee.

Enlarge  

At the time Harriet Harman (right) and Jack Dromey (left) held key roles in the human rights campaign group

Now the police have launched an investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the group to which the NCCL offered its backing, after allegations that its members sexually abused under-age children ‘on an industrial scale’. 

Before the Mail published our exposé, we again submitted detailed questions to the Labour grandees and asked them to respond. None replied — although a spokesman for Harman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

Here we pose vital questions which Harman, Hewitt and Dromey need to answer . . .

Patricia Hewitt: General Secretary of the NCCL, later Labour minister under Tony Blair and MP for Leicester West

To Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey

During your time with the NCCL, it gave significant support to PIE’s campaigns and causes. Do you now, in any way, regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of the organisation you helped legitimise?

SINCE launching our investigation into the way you gave succour to a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children, none of you has apologised. Why?

To Patricia Hewitt  and Jack Dromey
Under your leadership, the NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status in 1975 to the PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?

Shortly afterwards, the 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 this utterly repellent line of argument, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?

Under your leadership, the NCCL issued a written submission in 1976 to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission.

It claimed: ‘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 same document argued that it was ‘logical’ but ‘not politically possible’ that the age of consent should be abolished. What, in your view, is so ‘logical’ about abolishing the age of consent?

Your submission also advocated the lowering of the age of consent to 14, or ten ‘provided it is demonstrated that consent was clearly given by the child’.

Harriet Harman who is now deputy Labour leader

Do you still believe this should be the case? And how on earth do you suppose a ten-year-old can ‘clearly give’ consent?
In addition , the submission proposed that ‘the crime of incest 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 extraordinary view?

The section of your 1976 report to MPs advocating legalisation of incest argued that ‘bringing in the law’ when a minor has been abused by an adult ‘could do immense harm to the child’ and that ‘publicity in the local press and the reaction of neighbours’ during a trial is often more damaging to the victim than the actual crime. What evidence did you have to support this highly controversial claim?

To Harriet Harman
The NCCL’s controversial affiliation with the 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 1970s.

Why, given these morally offensive views, did you take a job with the NCCL in 1978?

As the NCCL’s legal officer, you wrote and signed a four-page submission to MPs seeking to water down a proposed ban on child pornography.

Your briefing paper argued that ‘images of naked children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven that the subject had suffered’. Do you still hold these views?

To Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey
Given your positions of influence in the NCCL, were you aware that Harriet Harman sought to water down the 1978 child pornography law, and if you were, why did you not try to prevent it?

Before the Mail published its exposé, detailed questions were submitted to the Labour grandees

To Patricia Hewitt
Your organisation’s in-house magazine, Rights, published a letter in 1982, stating: ‘Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other . . .’

It added that ‘child molesters’ is ‘a loaded and pejorative term.

A totally inaccurate description of us and a put-down in much the same way that “pansy” is a put-down of gays and “n*****” a put-down of blacks.’ Why did you allow this vile letter to be published?

In the NCCL’s annual report for 1975, you told how you’d recently helped a PIE faction called Paedophile Action For Liberation [PAL], which you described as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children’. Is that an appropriate way to describe an organisation whose founders have been jailed for horrific child sex crimes?

'People of different ages being nice to each other': The autumn 1982 edition of Rights, the in-house magazine of the NCCL. Self-confessed paedophile Mike Morten's letter was published on page 9 (pictured centre)

Your 1975 report revealed that NCCL’s legal department made a complaint to the then newspaper industry watchdog, the Press Council, about an article which branded PIE members ‘the vilest men in Britain’. Why did the NCCL seek to help a paedophile group muzzle the Press?

The report added that NCCL lawyers had ‘acted for some of the men when there were police inquiries as a result of the article’. Why did you think that self-confessed paedophiles under investigation by the police were worthy of the NCCL’s legal help?

To Harriet Harman
You claimed the Mail’s story was ‘untrue and ridiculous’. Yet every allegation in this week’s exposé was backed by documentary evidence held in the archives of respected academic institutions. Do you have any evidence in support of your denial?

Extraordinary: The group also set out the argument that the 'crime of incest should be abolished'

To Jack Dromey
Although you have not commented to the Mail since its original investigation, you recently told another newspaper, the Birmingham Mail, that you were an ‘implacable opponent’ of the PIE during your time at the NCCL. Clearly, your opposition did not extend to resigning from the NCCL’s Executive.

So can you explain what form — if any — this ‘implacable’ opposition took?

To Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey
The director of Liberty — the campaigning organisation which was originally the NCCL — has issued a public apology for its links with the PIE.

Shami Chakrabarti said: ‘It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point during the Seventies.’

Ms Chakrabarti was at school when the scandal occurred and had nothing to do with the NCCL. You three, on the other hand, were  running the organisation. 

Given her evident remorse, do you not feel a scintilla of contrition?