Protect is an American organisation, not a British one, so I don't think this Guardian piece's timing has anything to do with that group's anniversary. It's more to do with yesterday's most recent Operation Yewtree arrest of Jim Davidson and the continuing fallout of the Savile case. (The NPSCC is a similar organisation to Protect over here and has been around since 1884: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/.)
Oh, I suspected that the timing itself was a little coincidental. The moral reprehensibility of the "journalism" that the Guardian's practicing here, however, isn't in doubt. It's the same "report all sides" bullshit the NY Times specializes in as a way of avoiding asking actual questions, and it's something that papers that claim to be better than the tabloids should avoid. Any piece that unquestioningly uses the phrase "consensual paedophilic relations" has no place in any newspaper.
The timing was very coincidental regarding Protect. (Hey, I've never heard of Protect and I'm an American, albeit I've lived in the UK during the entirety of its existence. However, I'm very familiar with the NPSCC, Childline etc.) However, it was not at all coincidental regarding Operation Yewtree's latest findings and the general discussions that have been going on here in the UK.
I dont know. It seemed pretty straight forward & objective to me. If you need a newspaper to tell you pedophelia is wrong, youre probably already a lost cause. If you want hysteric chest beating, theres always the Ny Post.
It may be true that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. That does not mean that it's OK to victimize kids.
Just like i think it may be true that rapist is a sexual orientation, and that does not mean rape is OK. (To the degree that victimizing kids and rape are different, because they share a lot of aspects.)
And- just imagine the worst moments of your life, photographed and spread around the Internet so other predators can enjoy and get off on your humiliation. Victimless? hells, no.