An ugly pedophilia chapter of Germany’s environmentalist Green Party refused to be forgotten – and will now be dealt with through a hotline for “victims of sexual violence“.
The German Greens have scrambled to keep an embarrassing reality under the carpet of history, away from the public’s view. That notorious chapter is their once strident advocacy for the legalization of pedophilia, see background here.
On Wednesday Germany’s leftist Berlin-based TAZ published an article reporting the German Green Party has, after months of stalling, finally set up an official “telephone hotline for the victims of sexual violence.” The TAZ calls the move “surprising”.
Hat-tip DirkH
What was the extent of pedophile involvement in the Green Party? Spiegel wrote in-depth here (my emphasis):
No political group in Germany promoted the interests of men with pedophile tendencies as staunchly as the environmental party. For a period of time in the mid-1980s, it practically served as the parliamentary arm of the pedophile movement.” […]
When the Green Party was founded in 1980, pedophiles were part of the movement from the start […] were joined by the so-called ‘Urban Indians,’ who advocated the ‘legalization of all affectionate sexual relations between adults and children’.”
These “Urban Indians”, Spiegel wrote, “were often a visible part of Green Party gatherings.”
That dark past obviously has become an unbearable thorn for the Greens in the present. The TAZ writes that for years the top honchos of the environmentalist-pacifist party refused to take the step of setting up a contact-center for victims, preferring to downplaying the whole messy . But, to her credit, current party chief Simone Peter has decided to set up the hotline at Green Party headquarters, following the recommendation of the Green Party working group “AG Rehabilitation” which, according to the TAZ, has been since last December pursing the subject of pedophile involvement within the Greens.
Wikipedia presents a comprehensive overview (in German) of the Green Party’s debate on the topic and provides quotes from prominent Green Party leaders, such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit who in 1982 said on a French Antenne 2 (today, France 2) talkshow “Apostrophes“ on 23 April 1982:
You know, the sexuality of a kid is something absolutely fantastic. […] You know when a little girl of five years starts to undress herself, it’s just great because it is a game, a fantastically erotic game.”
Though some have attempted to downplay the issue as a past, fringe one within the Green Party, Cohn-Bendit himself insisted that the pedophilia rights were “mainstream” in the Green Party.
Keep in mind that for years leading Green figures such as Cohn-Bendit were welcome darlings of the European media. These are people who, as Spiegel wrote, “tolerated people whose agenda had nothing to do with progress and emancipation, but solely with the exploitation of their position of power and trust in relation to minors”
Perhaps Wikipedia editor and UK Green Party member William Connelly could put the German Wikipedia content up in English. Of course who could blame him for deleting it altogether? In the meantime, the ugly history is well-portrayed by Spiegel here.
Whether a hotline (open only 2 hours a week) will be enough to undo the damage caused by the Green Party’s earlier staunch encouragement of the exploitation of small children by fantasy-obsessed men remains highly doubtful.
They are really a sick bunch, these Greenie wackos.
I did not realise the little dickie connelly was British! I wondered what institution funded his lifestyle. What a knobhead!
Carl Amery
“We in the Green Movement aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”
http://www.aim.org/wls/author/carl-amery/
Call me a cynic, but I have to ask: is this decision by the Green Party a genuine change of heart, or an attempt to head off possible legal action against them?
In the United States many lawyers are far-left fanatics. Many of them would not touch a case like this out of political solidarity with the Greens, but some probably would. I don’t know how the German legal system works in cases of organizations that sanction abuse.
A huge difference is that there are no big penalties or compensations for anything. Even if a bigger fine (that would be in the 10,000 EURs, to give you an idea of what big means here) is instated it goes to the state’s coffers, not to the victim.
Green party has nothing to fear from any lawsuit. They are a pro EU and pro NATO bloc party and are protected in any case.
At most some individual will get a slap on the wrist for something he did in the 80ies. At most.
For anything except tax evasion that is. Fine for tax evasion is 3 times the evaded tax plus jail. The state knows where the bread is buttered.
It figures.
There are parallels here – with the British Labour party:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harriet-harman-stayed-silent-over-paedophiles-to-avoid-rocking-the-boat-too-much-claims-former-leader-of-pie-after-daily-mail-allegations-9154313.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html
And further demands for inquiry – concerning all sorts of sexual abuse of minors, by people in power.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2681949/Call-public-inquiry-historic-child-abuse-Forget-expenses-scandal-If-MPs-harboured-paedophiles-damage-British-democracy-fatal-says-MP-SIMON-DANCZUK.html
The great Dr William Connolley will likely duck this issue. He loves his kids, and I am sure that he will do nothing to harm any child, nor condone those who do,
However, he recently has taken to trolling the internet, providing daily confirmations that the false claims the authority of “climate science”. If he had been “turned” by the sinister forces of Big Oil, he could not do a better job.
For instance, I have just posted about he once boasted trying to change the online definitions of the word “skeptic” – a definition that he then held up to be the true. He linked to it a few hours ago from Roy Spencer’s blog
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/08/23/william-connolleys-correction-of-the-dictionary/