Oh well, that\’s all right then

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a student leader in the 1968 unrest in Paris, claimed in a 1975 book that he interacted sexually with children while working at a kindergarten. The remarks came to light again this year when he was awarded a prize by the Theodor Heuss Foundation, which honours West Germany\’s first president.

In the book, The Great Bazaar, he wrote: \”My constant flirtations with the children took on erotic characteristics. It happened to me several times that a few children undid my flies and started to stroke me.\”

Sorry?

He subsequently insisted that he was not a paedophile and had made the remarks solely in order to shock \”bourgeois\” society.

Oh well then, anything\’s just fine if it\’s to epater les bourgeois, isn\’t it?

17 thoughts on “Oh well, that\’s all right then”

  1. No, it’s ok because he’s a celebrated radical lefty, and therefore one of the good guys.

    Obviously kiddy fiddling is still disgusting and wrong if people who aren’t progressives do it.

  2. Yeah like it’s really unfair that the US wants to prosecute Roman Polanski for drugging and anally raping a 14 year old girl – you know he’s an artist and everything…

  3. It’s astonishing how long it has taken Germany to wake up to this particular scandal. The green party has commissioned some academic to research its murky history of promoting paedophilia. I doubt he’s expected to report until after the election.

    Actually I believe Cohn-Bendit’s current position, I think he is a fantasist. That and the lack of any allegations against him from those in his care all that time ago. He’s a nasty little watermelon authoritarian dipshit but I am not convinced he is a child abuser.

  4. There has been a dripfeed of stories about Cohn-Bendit for at least the last three years. Plus at least some of those allegedly involved have flat-out denied being abused.

  5. You really are a dipshit if you can’t even get people to believe your confessions of kiddy-fiddling. It basically means people have a higher opinion of Jim Davidson than they so of you.

    Brings to mind a former neighbour who was charged with attempted rape. I mean, ATTEMPTED rape, you tried and failed to be a sex offender.

  6. It’s amazing how people like Cohn-Bendit and Joschka Fischer have not been cast into the outer darkness. The Left will excuse almost any depravity if it feels its perpetrators have their hearts in the right places (even if their hands and genitalia are in the wrong places.) Cohn-Bendit is a sad case. His father was a hero of the French Resistance (a real one) and the antics of C-B fils caused him a lot of heartburn.

  7. Essentially he’s saying that pretending to be a paedo gained him kudos from other radicals, who saw fiddling kiddies as just one of a myriad of ways of challenging capitalist hegemony

  8. Cohn-Bendit also said, “I admit that what I wrote is unacceptable nowadays“, which raises the question of whether he believes it ever was okay to write apparent autobiography in which one claims to have been guilty of child molestation.

    The article is worth reading for the window it provides into the ludicrousness of the activist left.

  9. which raises the question of whether he believes it ever was okay to write apparent autobiography in which one claims to have been guilty of child molestation.

    Well clearly he did at the time, seeing as he wrote it. And presumably yes he does now think it was then acceptable to write such a thing. And, it was published and did not cause a stir at the time, so he would seem to be right in believing those things.

    I think the point here is everyone has lost track of the paradigmatic shift on sexual matters in the Western World since the 1970s. We really do think qualitatively differently on these matters to how we were then; even the conceptualisation of the child molester- becoming the “paedophile”- has utterly changed.

    Basically, at the time, to the liberal bourgeoisie what he wrote would simply have been considered daring or deliberately shocking, or something like that. Which appears to be, as he says, why he wrote it.

    I remember reading a while ago that a particular book was published around then which featured numerous photos of youngsters sexually engaged with each other, as a sex education textbook which won awards and great admiration. It would of course now be kiddie porn and illegal to own, or look at online, or anything. Sorry, cannot remember the name.

    The western mind was simply entirely different.

  10. Ian

    …so he would seem to be right in believing those things.

    Well, yes. But there is a difference between something having been “acceptable” in the sense if was accepted and “acceptable” in the sense that this was an agreeable state of affairs. In using this term, then, it seems that Mr. Cohn-Bendit neatly avoided expressing regret for his actions.

  11. Of course he avoided expressing regret, presumably because he doesn’t regret them, since it’s a forced apology for writing something stupid four decades ago.

    But there is a difference between something having been “acceptable” in the sense if was accepted and “acceptable” in the sense that this was an agreeable state of affairs.”

    I’m not sure what you mean here. Well, I am, but what you seem to mean doesn’t seem to make any sense, since “this was an agreeable state of affairs.” is not anchored in time. When? Then? Now? For all time?

    I think what you’re saying here is that there was some local, subjective “acceptable” and then some global, objective “agreeable” and, David Hume and all that, I don’t think you’re allowed a global “agreeable” by the laws of nature. All social mores are just opinion, and those opinions change. All you have is whether something is acceptable- or synonymously agreeable- within the particular social context in which it occurs.

  12. I think what you’re saying here…

    You are correct, and I lament the sloppiness of my prose. It was no more acceptable – or, indeed, agreeable – at 12.02 than at 12.56.

  13. What wasn’t acceptable at 12:02 or 12:56? The sloppiness of your prose?

    Are you saying there is a global “acceptable/agreeable”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *