Richard Dawkins under fire for ‘mild pedophilia’ remarks

CANTERBURY, England — Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies … Continued

CANTERBURY, England — Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.

In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up.”

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the interview was released on the eve of the publication of his autobiography, An Appetite for Wonder, on Thursday.

Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ remarks “a terrible slight” on those who have been abused and suffered the effects for decades.

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt said. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and himself a victim of abuse, told The Times that Dawkins’ comments were worrying and unhelpful, adding: “Abuse in all its forms has always been wrong. Evil is evil and we have to challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs.”

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Religion News Service LLC.

  • sean-the-bean

    Good on Richard Dawkins for this. It demonstrates that the “child protection agencies and experts” who are so exercised by his remarks have no interest in the feelings of children themselves but only in their own moral crusade and in the public vote.

    As a child at boarding school I had very similar experiences to Mr Dawkins and was similarly untraumatized by them. In fact, the paedophiles I met at school were among the few adults who went out of their way to care for me.

    In stark contrast, the physical and emotional abuse I suffered at the hands of authoritarians (whose absolute moral certainty reminds me of nothing so much as those “child protection agencies and experts”) has left lasting scars and has made my life very difficult. My physical abuse was consistently trivialized when I complained of it at the time and pressure groups succeed still in preventing the criminalization of corporal punishment (aka ‘smacking).

    It’s time to cast a skeptical eye over the ‘paedophile panic’, imho.

  • unbound55

    You, sir, are an idiot. Did you actually read what happened to Dawkins when he was a kid? It wasn’t outright rape, but it certainly should never be condoned.

    Actually, it may even explain why Dawkins rationalizes that it is okay to be molesting women…which directly contradicts his statement that it didn’t cause any harm…

  • sean-the-bean

    Your ad hominem attack reconfirms my position. I notice you made nothing of the beatings Dawkins received as a child. How did they affect him, or were they of no consequence compared to a gentle caress?

    In commenting on your bias toward pathologizing sexual behaviour and ignoring violence, I should add that the abuse I suffered was not corproral punishment in the usual sense, but actual physical assault. While I condemn any striking of children, I concur with Dawkins that a few canings did little harm to most victims, including me.

    What is also relevant to my position is the fact that my maltreatment was a direct consequence of my own childhood sexual behaviour, which provoked in my minders the same kind of hyperbolic moral fit that I see echoed in the reactions of “child protection agencies and experts” to Dawkin’s comments.