Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
While I see your point and agree with your perspective, I would like to notice a big difference:

It seems to me that the Greens where trying to have an honest discussion on the subject. A discussion made in public arena. At a time that we all agree it was fluid.

Catholic priests were doing things in the hide, going against their own supposed morality about sex. Doing it against targets at their weakest: not only children, but children with a disrupted family background where the family would not complain.

I particularly dislike DCB (I could go on and rant about his pseudo-cosmopolitan pseudo-green view of the world - but that would be off-topic), furthermore I agree with your view on the subject at hand about children protection. But I would be inclined to give DCB a pass here: He was having (and the "greens") an honest public discussion about the subject, at a time where that discussion was understandable. This is a completely different affair of abusing, in the hidden, of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I do not think your comparison is fair.

by cagatacos on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 12:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course the comparison isn't fair. Nor is his bracketing of the German Green paedophilia advocate with DCB.

In my opinion, independently of the German activist's right to advocate a change of law, he should have been investigated by the police for his "lifestyle", and probably jailed, if the obvious inference turned out to be true. The same applies of course to DCB... except that they would have come up empty-handed.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 12:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series