Post a response:
|
It depends what you think the obstacle to public acceptance of "the rights of MAPs" is. If you think it is merely a rational utility-calculation about harm, and that disavowal of any interest in sex with children will lead to the broad sunlit uplands of popular acceptance, then such groups deserve our support. There are certainly some who make this argument; people who think that the public aversion to paedophiles can be defeated simply by presenting non-offending paedophiles to the public gaze and repeating the mantra "not all paedophiles are sex offenders." If, however, you think that public hostility to MAPs is far more deep-rooted than this, and that a rational discussion about paedophilia is all but impossible at the present time, then you are likely to think that such groups are naive and simplistic in their thinking, potentially putting their own members in danger. The recent case of Gary Gibson and his encounter with the kindly Dr Phil illustrates the problems that arise from underestimating the depth and virulence of paedo-hatred in popular discourse. It also depends what you mean by 'matters.' I don't personally think that such groups are straightforwardly wrong or evil. I have no personal animus towards the people associated with such organisations (some of the self-publicising 'experts' they have on-board are quite another matter). In fact I wish them luck. But I have no desire to be a part of such a group; partly because I think they are willing to sacrifice too much for the sake of acceptance (including solidarity with people who are convicted sex-offenders), but mainly because I think their pursuit of acceptance is inevitably doomed to fail anyway. |