Richard Dawkins claims ‘mild paedophilia never did me any harm’ provoking outrage in recent interview

So, it seems the already controversial ‘evolutionary biologist’/highly annoying atheist preacher has now borderline defended paedophilia after stating himself that ‘mild paedophilia never did me any harm’.
Ok then.
So, the context behind it was that at prep school blah blah blah… a teacher pulled him to his knee and put his hands down his shorts, adding that other boys were molested also. Yet, one may think that after falling victim to such an act Dawkins would be in support of recent child sex abuse scandals being made public, but instead claimed that it didn’t do him any harm or ‘long lasting damage.’ Furthermore, Dawkins stated that recent claims involving paedophilia have been overblown and we shouldn’t judge paedophilic claims of yesteryear on today’s standard, he recently stated in an interview for Time Magazine: ‘I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standard of ours.’ He then goes on to use racism as an example i.e. we wouldn’t judge someone for being a racist from 100 years ago on the same level as a racist today.
However, this has confused me greatly. Firstly, surely the whole reason for trying to end racism is because we felt racist laws such as apartheid were wrong and thus should be stopped, same with slave trade before this? Anyways, after further analysing it has become rather confusing about what the actual point he was trying to make was; that we shouldn’t condemn paedophiles such as the deceased Jimmy Saville just because it happened in the sixties?
Dawkins strikes again in doing what he does best in making a rather outrageous statement simply to cause controversy, however I will give him some credit in raising an interesting point concerning recent cases of child sex abuse scandals involving celebrities and the undeservedly high profile some cases attained before even being proven guilty.
For instance, the case of Michael Le Vel (Kevin Webster from Corrie to us), was today acquitted from accused charges of being a paedophile and raping a girl from the age of 3 to 12 years old. Due to the high profile he already had (probs due to his super acting skills, we all know Kev Webster is a living legend) the whole country had found out and formed assumptions about him before he was even found guilty of being a paedo (I don’t know about you but I definitely thought he was a kiddie fiddler, I think it’s his eyebrows they give off a sex offender vibe). Which in turn must’ve been a horribly traumatic experience not only for him but his family too, as they had to deal with the backlash of it being sprawled all over the headlines for two years.
Yet, as a whole Dawkins seemed to have caused little more than offence over his claims sparking anger from charities such as the NSPCC after he exclaimed how child abuse should be defined on varying levels, such as rape and murder cases being incomparable to a ‘mild touching up.’ Does that mean touchin’ up kids is ever going to be seen as only ‘slightly bad’ or ‘a little bit rapey’? I doubt it, Dawkins, I really do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s