Just so it's absolutely clear
I stand by everything I’ve written about Lavery. He’s both dangerous AND comical.
I stand by my ‘grooming’ tweet 100%. I didn’t mean to suggest that Lavery is a paedophile, rather that Lavery is grooming the next generation into accepting the many boundary violations celebrated and implemented by Queer Theory. We are currently seeing these violations play out in prisons (interview with Kate Coleman coming soon), in the LGB community and in women’s spaces everywhere. No wonder Lavery didn’t want parents listening in.
For more on Queer Theory, Derrick Jensen here digs deep into some hugely dodgy statements regarding paedophilia by the movement’s main thought-leaders. Again, no wonder Lavery didn’t want parents listening in.
And finally, Susan Cox reveals the financial reasons Lavery didn’t want parents listening in. Queer Theory is a hilariously useless field of study and if they heard what their kids were learning to get through life, they might wonder if it’s really worth the cost.
Sadly I won’t be able to cover this in the House of Lords because it’s not in the remit, but it’s a major problem at the moment that this silly field of study has trickled down into so many areas of public life where it has been wreaking havoc. I hope Lavery’s letter leads to a lot more curiosity about it, from parents and everyone else.
Good on you! I remember as I was reading the first couple of pages of his statement, thinking that in some ways he's shot himself in the foot. If wanting to create a dialogue with a child that he wouldn't be willing to have in front of their parents isn't grooming, then what is? Not necessarily a paedophile, but certainly a very dangerous individual willing to intentionally influence children behind the backs of their parents.
Also strongly dislike the welding of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in his tirade, of which you have been a staunch supporter of throughout. By the last page, with the accusation of "far-right bigotry" I kind of pictured him straining with rage as all reason is abandoned. The very fact he would make such a broad statement about your overall political position based on your view of this issue, suggests to me that he knows he has to create these cartoony distortions of character to prop up the little credibility he has left.
I knew what you meant Graham, I should think most people paying attention did.Lavery is being disingenuous AND dramatic.Trouble with queer theory is that it’s part of post-modernism and that is at least part of the approach in teaching many mainstream subjects in college. I remember,I’m sure many do,being given introductory material to it and other theories,in my first few months at Kings,London ,English Lit. in 1993.And it’s such a negative,dead-end way of looking at the world, I feel - no meaning can be agreed upon,thus we cannot understand each other,so we may as well give up,in an ironic way.Not very left-wing and hopeful,is it?