New Minister for Children - Shortest Ministerial career in history or the "new normal"?


It must be circa 10 years ago an elder green member characterised the new wave of younger greens as “facists”, not long after their destruction at the polls they espoused nothing but utter contempt for their conduct and behaviour during a Green party pow-wow.

More recently on the forum, this new green "facist’ tenancy has been checked as militancy in comment by @Magpie

The stakes are getting so much higher, because those militant-eco-facists are now heavily armed with full cabinet positions and departments at the ready.

Below quoted is the full opening post from the political irish thread on the subject:

New Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman at Dublin Pride 2018 with controversial author Peter Tatchell.

‘To challenge “the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive” is courageous.’

Ireland’s new Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman is on the left. Peter Tatchell is in the green shirt beside him.

Tatchell is a prominent gay British LGBT activist who ran for the Labour Party in the 80’s and then joined the British Green party in 2004. He is a patron of Elly Barnes’ Educate and Celebrate institution.

According to their website, Educate and Celebrate is ‘an experienced team of teachers and youth workers who have all made their own schools LGBT+Friendly, giving them the knowledge to deliver throughout the UK, the Channel Islands, Europe and globally.’ Elly Barnes, the founder is a recommend resource for INTO (Teachers Union and Org) and their LGBT education material “Different Families, Same Love” which is aimed at Primary school kids.

In 2011, Tatchell in a now deleted post on his website (archived) claimed that schoolchildren should be taught fellatio and cunnilingus, as a ‘safe’ option.

In 2016, Tatchell was named as winner of the James Joyce Award 2016 and the recipient of an Honorary Fellowship from University College Dublin.

In June, 2018, Tatchell was the name attraction to the Dublin LGBTQ Pride Political Debate 2018, along with Fintan Warfield (SF), Justin McAleese (FF & Mary’s Son), Martin Conway (FG) and Sara Phillips of TENI (Trans Equality Network Ireland). Here they discussed the reformation of Ireland’s sex education laws.

Tatchell has advocated lowering the age of consent to 14.

Perhaps Tatchell’s most controversial statement is the one he made in a letter to the Guardian in 1997. Images of this letter are shared below.

The quality of either image isn’t great but you can clearly see in the first paragraph he agrees with the statement that to challenge “the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive” is courageous.

In the letter he also stated that several of his friends “gay and straight, male and female had sex with adults from the ages of nine to thirteen” and that none feel they were abused — “it gave them great joy”.

Tatchell claims his letter was heavily edited but he never sued. According to The Mail he apologised for the letter and said the book he was referring to was not ‘a paedophile handbook’ but written by psychologists and anthropologists.

In this tweet he suggests he meant not all sex between children and other children is abusive, unwanted & harmful,” but you can clearly see in his original letter he said “sex involving children and adults”.

Peter Tatchell wrote a chapter in the controversial book Betrayal of Youth (1986) . According to a Daily Mail article, ‘The book’s editor was Warren Middleton, a prominent activist with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the notorious lobby group formed in the Seventies to campaign for the ‘rights’ of predatory sex offenders….Also in the book was an essay by PIE activist Roger Moody entitled: How To Make Paedophilia Acceptable, followed by a screed by Beatrice Faust, a radical Australian feminist who worked closely with Germaine Greer. In Tatchell’s chapter he advocated lowering the age of consent. You can read it here.

Here’s a glossary of the book’s contents. It speaks for itself.

further reading:

Peter Tatchell & why the paedophiles love him – Bernard Gaynor

Facebook Twitter 2 There are some unpleasant things in this life. One of them is getting ‘tweeted’ by the prominent British homosexual activist, Peter Tatchell, at 2am in the morning. Just like this morning. Somehow, Peter got drawn into my recent post about the Sydney Leather Pride…

Former Chairman of Paedophile Information Exchange suspended from UK Labour Party

Link to the full thread:

You might have read this stuff on the Icke forums 10/15 years ago, now you only need look out your window.

Out of Shadows

Yikes, that episode isn’t quite what I had in mind. I wonder much he knows about Tatchell, was O’Gorman just virtue signalling with a famous gay author at gay pride, or does he know? Either way the optics are vomit inducing.


The man who would have been President:

It is a sure bet that only a tiny fraction of his supporters have ever actually read the ‘Magill’ interview of nine years ago in which he recommended to the nation pederasty as practised in Ancient Greece, or ‘The Daily Mail’ interview of only one year ago in which he make similar comments.

How many know that on at least three separate occasions he has expressed his opposition to an age of consent, namely in the ‘Magill’ interview, ‘The Daily Mail’ interview and in the Seanad in 2001?

In the Seanad, when commenting on the 2000 Sex Offenders Bill, he said: “I am against the idea of arbitrary age considerations and in favour of a principle of consent.”

Cf. O Searcaigh, Cathal


Tatchell has been one of the most ardent and genuine supporter of human rights in the UK over the last 40 years. In fairness to him, he “walks the walk” and is not a fair weather campaigner.
Having said that, it does seem increasingly surprising that another middle aged white man is openly discussing sexuality and children. I don’t think he is qualified to get involved in this debate.
Whilst there is an academic argument to be made for lowering the age of consent and acknowledging that teenagers are sexual beings (just like adults) and other Countries manage to have a lower age and it doesn’t seem to cause problems, his far reaching opinions on the impact on children of consent laws etc. seem “hollow”. His perspective is disingenuous and I believe there is an agenda at play here which is not apparent.


From 2013

Investigation launched over German Green party’s support for paedophiles in the 1980s

Paedophile group that called for legalisation of sex with children were given officially recognised position in party

Tony Paterson
Saturday 18 May 2013 13:21

Germany’s Greens, Europe’s most influential environmentalist party, have been obliged to open a detailed investigation into past policy and practice amid revelations that in the 1980s, its members actively supported paedophile groups which campaigned to legalise sex with children.

Evidence published by Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine suggest that in the mid-1980s, the party acted almost as the parliamentary arm of what the magazine describes as “ the paedophile movement.” Paedophiles joined together with other groups which suffered sexual discrimination including gays, lesbians and transsexuals when the Green party was officially founded in 1980. A paedophile group called the “Stadtindianer” or “City Indians” appeared with impunity at Green Party meetings where its members, some of them wearing war paint, called for “the legalisation of all tender sexual relations between adults and children.”

  1. Irish Times :zipper_mouth_face:

Germany’s secret paedophilia experiment

Under the ‘Kentler Experiment’ of the 1970s, Berlin welfare authorities handed over homeless teenagers to known paedophiles

Germany’s paedophile past reared its head again in 2013 when links emerged between founding members of the Green Party and West Germany’s Paedophile Movement, which rode the coat-tails of gay-rights groups and lobbied for the decriminalisation of consensual sex between adults and children.

In 1975 a Green Party leading light, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who was a kindergarten teacher at the time, wrote a book praising “erotic games” between adults and young children. In 1981 Jürgen Trittin, today a senior Green MP and then a young party official in Göttingen, signed off on a party pamphlet seeking the decriminalisation of paedophilia.

The party commissioned a study into the full extent of Green-paedophilia links. Published a week before the 2013 federal election, it cost the party countless votes and prompted a grovelling apology from Trittin. He argued that the paedophile links had to be seen in the context of the sexual revolution of the 1970s, which encouraged a “fiction that there could be sexual relations between adults and children beyond violence or abuse of trust”.


Peter Tatchell describes a method to nullify parents opting out of LGBT indoctrination for their children in schools at the Dublin Pride Annual Debate in June 2018.

"In the UK, the government is still saying that the parents of kids should have the right to withdraw them from relationship and sex education. We’re not going to win that one to stop that.

"But what I’m proposing and what my foundation is proposing is that yes the parental optout should remain but parents should be required to come to the school and take their child out of each individual lesson.

“And of all places, two schools in the north of Ireland trialled this about five or six years ago before they got stopped. But they found the level of parental opt-out dropped to almost zero.”

[audience members laugh]

On stage were Senator Fintan Warfield (SF), Justin McAleese, Martin Conway (FG) and Sara Phillips of TENI (Trans Equality Network Ireland).


"Our need to maintain sexuality differences, boundaries and identities disappears with the demise of straight supremacism and homophobia.

"Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive sexual orientation and identity will begin to fade and so will its mirror opposite heterosexuality as we evolve into a sexually enlightened and accepting post homophobic society.

“The vast majority of people will be open to the possibility of both opposite sex and same sex desires.”

From Peter Tatchell’s address to the L&H and LGBTQ+ Society upon receipt of the James Joyce Award, 21 September 2016.


Given Tatchell’s long and very pubic support for the sexual abuse and rape of vulnerable teenage boys, which is what the Twink scene actually is and always has been, and the fact that the new minister is not a complete idiot and knows full-well what Tatchells views are on the subject its pretty much a given that the new minister for children is totally cool with older gay men preying on and sexual abusing vulnerable teenage boys.

Gay politicians and public figures have gone to great lengths to try to sanitize the Twink scene but it has always been about older men sexually abusing very vulnerable teenage children. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s the scene was totally in the open in the Castro. There was a large population of runaway kids in the City back then and before the Great Dying in the late 1980’s/ early '90’s you would see these abused kids around the Castro. In the company of much older men. Once these kids stopped looking like children and were dumped back on the streets by the abusers you’d see them trying to turn tricks on Polk St. The life expectancy for those kids on Polk St was 6 to 9 months. It was nt just Harvey Milk who raped and abused runaway boys. It was at least 10% of the scene back then.

Since then the whole scene has become more circumspect. At least in the Castro. The runaway population has moved mostly to the East Bay and the Twink prostitution scene has gone online. The lie put about is that Twinks are very young looking legal age young men but I see little difference in the age of the younger kids you see in the company of older men in the Castro in San Francisco. The Twink scene has always been a scene for sexual predators and back then the predatory older gay men made no attempt to hide what was going on. All very blatant and very public. And given that predators are almost always sociopaths or psychopaths its not surprising that so many high profile gay political types were part of the Twink scene.

Gay politicians and their ilk totally depend on the vast majority of the general public having no real idea about what actually happens in the big city gay scenes. And just how nasty , unpleasant and predatory most of it actually is. Those people who dont make a big deal about their sexual orientation tend to be fine. But I have yet to meet anyone who made a big deal about their sexual orientation especially in a political context who was not a completely nasty fucker one way or another.

Politicians who just happen to be gay, no big deal. Gay politicians who try to make political capital of their orientation, all lying scumbags one way or another. Harvey Milk was not the worst of the type by a long shot.

So Ireland has now replaced as its Minister for Children a very creepy gay woman with a completely dubious and murky past with a gay man who associates with people who very publicly try to justify the sexual abuse and rape of vulnerable teenage boys.

Makes you nostalgic for the good old days of a Bertie Aherns government.


Its really depressing and disturbing that ;

A ; This is occurring and has been allowed to be vocalized and acted upon, even rewarded.
B ; There is not a snowballs chance that it will be discussed, looked at, publicized or questioned by MSN and relayed unto the masses. Anyone that tries to will find themselves very quickly in Burning Man territory.

Fckin awful place sometimes.


Why does it have to hit MSM anymore? It does not.

That is not how any of the dismantling and social engineering agendas started.

They occur subtly and carefully and insidiously across all media including the net. The seeds are sown over very long periods of time.

Share with family and friends, work colleagues and strangers, whatever takes your fancy.

That’s how it works.

But also CALL your local TD to talk or leave a clear message, then call or email all the rest and express your views as is your right.

Otherwise a Republic descends into a Tyranny of “…meh”.


Just a reminder that under the agenda agreed for the formation of the new government under the new proposed “hate speech” laws all the discussions here, and especially my posting, would qualify as “hate speech” and would be open to criminal, not civil, prosecution. In the same way that saying that maybe the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants who are illiterate peasants with a religion very prone to terrorism may not be a good idea will be a criminal offense anyone pointing out the very high correlation between one particular section of the gay male population and the sexual abuse of young vulnerable teens will also be committing the criminal offense of “hate speech”.

You have no constitutional right to free speech in Ireland. What ever rights you might have are purely Common Law rights. And you most certainly dont have freedom of speech under EU law. Which being Civil Law places very strict limits (in interpretation) over what the state will allow you to say without legal sanction. The only Civil law country with any real tradition of free speech is France. And only then because the population has a long tradition of overthrowing governments (came close again last year) so the government apparatus tends to be wary of how it deals with unwanted opinions. No other reason.



Bunreacht na hÉireann

ARTICLE 40.6.1
1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.


Peter Tatchell is defending himself on the Twitter machine. Not a lot of sympathy coming his was.


That’s a bit of a Cope. Hate Speech law is coming. It will be dressed up as stopping speech that could cause “disorder”


We’ll see how long this government lasts first. I assume the finest muck-rakers of the Irish editions of the British rags are busy as we speak putting together a proper hatchet job on O’Gorman-it’s just too juicy a story to ignore. It’s entered the mainstream online now, and the radio silence both from the TD himself and the legacy media is deafening. When the older rural voters of the two main parties get wind of this there’ll be some serious blowback for their TDs and leaders.


I wonder. The landscape has changed since the sickening travesty that was the Marriage Equality Referendum. Gay Privilege is a real thing - ask jmc. The other liberals would let prominent Gay politicians bed a squad load of Twinks.


You obviously missed the first 50 years of actual attempts at free speech in the country under that constitution. Not that it has been that much better for the last 30. Many many cases of free speech being suppressed in Ireland by government and courts and especially libel laws. Obviously too young to remember when there was active Censorship of books, films newspapers and magazines for many decades. You should look at exactly who and what got banned. That all happened under the “constitutional protection” of free speech under the 1937 constitution.

Active censorship still exists in Ireland. Its just been a lot more low key for the last 20 years.

Ireland has absolutely no substantive history of free speech actually been defended in case law. There is no legal tradition and there is certainly no cultural tradition. Ireland has a very long history of actively suppressing “unacceptable” opinions.

The new "hate speech " laws will follow the German pattern. Where the media stopped all coverage of unsanctioned opinions on any negative impact of subjects covered by the hate speech laws. Any “unacceptable” online opinions on social media in Germany these days on these subjects will get you a home call from the police. Thats one of the reasons why AfD are doing so well in Germany. You know things are bad when the only people defending free speech are right wing loonies.


Interesting (any links?) and as Peter bats online, he ain’t elected to the Dail in Ireland, eh, but he is a member of the Green Party in the UK after all, so this is not just a problem for the Minister but Ministers and thus the entire Green Party, like, right now.


I suspect you dont know just what a travesty the whole “gay marriage” thing really is. For those gay couples who are in a long term and committed relationship, and I’ve know quite a few, Domestic Partnership laws were more than adequate to cover all eventualities. So I was a big supporter of Domestic Partnership laws because I saw cases where it would have made a big difference in certain difficult usually tragic situations. But the whole push for “Gay Marriage” thing was very differ subject. I was completely against it from the very beginning because I was familiar with the various Gay Lib books from the 60’s onwards so I knew what the politics was. Its only purpose was to destabilize and destroy the normal marriage as the bedrock of modern western society. It was overtly political and very deliberate destructive nihilism. The push for “Gay Marriage” came from a very vocal minority who, based on my own personal observations over the years, tended to be the group with the highest prevalence of serious personality disorders and mental illness. Quite simply they tend to be very aggressive nutcases who are deeply unhappy with their own life for whatever reasons and want to destroy normal life for the rest of society. They are they people driving the movement but they always roll out the most media friendly people as their public face. To make it all look innocuous. Which it most certainty is not.

When normal people (98%+) of the population think about marriage it is with the intent of making a commitment of fidelity and with the hope of raising a family. With what I have seen in SF among the other 2% the few who do get “married” its almost always a political statement. There is no intention of fidelity, in fact it seems to make no difference. At least for gay males. As for raising a family you do see the occasional “trophy kid” paraded as a status symbol (pure Ab Fab) but any kids are usually those from a previous “straight” life. In the context of Gay Lib radical politics “Gay Marriage”: was never seen as their attempt to create a building block of civil society but purely as a way of destroying the validity of the institution.

So yes, I never was a supported of “Gay Marriage” because I knew exactly what the political motivation was. They want to destroy normal civil society. Go read their books, they say so in black and white and have done so for the last 50 years.


There were a bunch of replies in here last night, can only see one or two now.


I think the shame is the big issue and the intrinsic neurotic nature of so many gays. They think that having access to the institution of marriage & annual pride months and parades will fix their shame.

But it cannot. Their shame is due to the seedy, furtive, sinful nature of their lives. No amount of public displays of affection or handholding can ever fix it.

As E Michael Jones says of them
“Nobody hates you because you’re gay.
You’re gay because you hate yourself”