As the VSG does not have direct access to the Internet, I was asked to mail= the following text to a list of people. Note that I'm not personally involved w= ith the VSG. However, I will forward any replies regarding this mail to the VSG people, so feel free to send your answer to me.
daniel@tadzio.muc.de
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
REPORT OF THE VSG, MUNICH, APRIL 1995
In an attempt to maintain its consultative status in the United Nations, th= e=20 International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) fulfilled a demand of the = USA=20 and expelled in the summer of 1994 three of its member groups, which it cla= s- sified as pedophile organizations. But that was not sufficient for the USA.= =20 Because the Munich gay organization "Verein fuer sexuelle Gleichberechtigun= g"=20 (VSG), which has a pedophile subgroup, is affiliated with the ILGA, the ILG= A's=20 UN status was suspended in September 1994. In October, the Secretariats' Co= m- mittee of the ILGA suspended the VSG's ILGA membership. The VSG rejects thi= s=20 act as baseless and unconstitutional. The next Annual Conference of the ILG= A=20 will have to deal with this matter.
REVIEW: WHAT HAPPENED?
In the summer of 1993 after prolonged efforts, the International Lesbian an= d=20 Gay Association (ILGA) attained consultative status as a Non-Governmental= =20 Organization in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United=20 Nations. The ILGA expected that this status would allow it to represent the= =20 concerns of gays and lesbians in the UN more effectively.
After only a few weeks, this achievement was endangered: a right-wing anti-= gay newspaper in the USA publicized the fact that the North-American Man-Boy Lo= ve=20 Association (NAMBLA) was a member of the ILGA. As a result, the US mission = to=20 the United Nations demanded in October 1993 that the ILGA dissociate itself= =20 from the NAMBLA; otherwise it would work to rescind the consultative status= of=20 the ILGA.
For several member groups and several officials of the ILGA, the membership= of=20 NAMBLA was also a thorn in the flesh. Therefore the Secretariats' Committee= =20 (SC, the executive committee) of the ILGA endorsed the demand of the USA. D= is- regarding several ILGA resolutions on pedophilia, the SC proclaimed that th= e=20 ILGA "condemns pedophilia", and it called on NAMBLA and two other allegedly= =20 pedophile member groups to resign from the ILGA. (One of these two groups w= as=20 according to its own statement not a pedophile group.) But the three groups= =20 did not comply with this demand.
At the next Annual Conference of the ILGA at the end of June 1994 in New Yo= rk,=20 the Secretariats' Committee made a motion to expel the three groups. This= =20 motion was adopted with the necessary majority of more than 80 % of the del= e- gates' votes. At the same time, the Annual Conference decided, also by a la= rge=20 majority, that "groups or associations whose predominant aim is to support = or=20 promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future development of ILGA". T= he=20 leaders of the ILGA believed that this would be sufficient to comply with t= he=20 demand of the US mission to the UN and that there could be no further obsta=
Things turned out differently. Already in January 1994, the American Senate= ,=20 on the motion of the right-wing senator Jesse Helms, had unanimously decide= d=20 that the USA had to withhold funds of more than 118 million dollars due to = the=20 UN and its sub-organizations unless the President of the USA could certify = to=20 the Congress by 30 September 1994 that no agency of the United Nations "gra= nts=20 any official status, accreditation or recognition to any organization which= =20 promotes, condones or seeks the legalization of pedophilia or which include= s=20 as a subsidiary or member any such organization".
Shortly after the ILGA's Annual Conference, the US mission to the UN receiv= ed an anonymous fax with an English translation of two articles appearing in a= =20 Munich gay guide published in 1993, one about the Munich gay group "Verein= =20 fuer sexuelle Gleichberechtigung" (Society for Sexual Equality, VSG) and th= e=20 other about its pedophile subgroup. The description of the VSG included as= =20 examples of the VSG's political activities "support for the elimination of= =20 Article 175 and the decriminalization of pedosexuality". (Section 175 of th= e=20 German penal code, which was repealed in 1994, discriminated against gays b= y=20 prohibiting homosexual contacts with young males between 14 and 18). Since = the=20 VSG is a member of the ILGA, the US mission inferred from this publication= =20 that the ILGA was not yet free of pedophile groups.
On 16 September 1994, the ECOSOC suspended the ILGA's consultative status o= n the motion of the USA. The ECOSOC's Non-Governmental Organizations Committe= e=20 was charged with reviewing the membership of pedophile groups within the IL= GA=20 according to the Helms amendment. It will then make a recommendation to the= =20 ECOSOC whether the ILGA's consultative status shall be restored or definite= ly=20 cancelled.
Julie Dorf, who is the spokeswoman of the ILGA Action Secretariat, rashly adopted the judgement of the US mission. "Had we known that VSG was a pedo- phile group, we would have expelled them in June", she was quoted by severa= l American gay newspapers in September and October 1994. But later on, she ap= o- logized to the VSG for her "role in this misinformation campaign".
On 27 September 1994, the VSG received a letter from the Administrative Off= ice=20 of the ILGA. The coordinator Jean-Christophe Eeckhout asked on behalf of th= e=20 Secretariats' Committee whether the VSG was a pedophile group and whether i= t=20 promoted or sought recognition or legalization of pedophilia.
The VSG answered this inquiry on 4 October with a three page response. It= =20 stated that the VSG is a gay group, which has a pedophile subgroup, and tha= t=20 neither the VSG nor its pedophile group promotes sexual activity with chil- dren. It also pointed out that, from the VSG's point of view, all consensua= l=20 and responsible sexuality, regardless of the participants' sex and age, oug= ht=20 to be legal and socially acknowledged. But it was clearly stated that this = is=20 not the main goal of the VSG. It was therefore clear that the VSG's members= hip=20 in the ILGA is in no way contradictory to the New York resolution of 30 Jun= e=20 1994. The VSG demanded that its statement be published in the next quarterl= y=20 issue of the ILGA Bulletin, so that all ILGA members had VSG's position in = its=20 own words.
The ILGA Secretariats' Committee (SC) deliberated the issue during its meet= ing=20 on 28 - 31 October 1994 in Brussels. It decided to suspend the VSG's member=
Only on 31 December 1994 did the VSG receive the next ILGA Bulletin, which= =20 contained the minutes of the Sectetariats' Committee meeting at the end of= =20 October. These said: "The SC reviewed the information and correspondence=20 received from the VSG. On the basis of these communications, the SC under- stands the VSG as a group whose predominant aim is to support or promote pe= do- philia and is therefore incompatible with ILGA's aims. ... On the basis of = the=20 1994 World Conference's actions and resolutions on paedophilia, the SC has= =20 decided to suspend the VSG from now until the June 1995 World Conference ha= s=20 dealt with the matter according to ILGA's constitution." The VSG's statemen= t=20 was not published. Simultaneously with this ILGA Bulletin, the London magaz= ine=20 "Gay Times" came out with an article reporting on the VSG's suspension.
In a letter of 16 January 1995 addressed to the ILGA, the VSG protested=20 against the SC's decision and rejected the suspension as invalid because it= =20 was based on a false premise and because it contravened the ILGA's constitu=
The "Verein fuer sexuelle Gleichberechtigung" (Society for Sexual Equality, VSG) in Munich was founded in 1973 and is one of the oldest surviving gay= =20 organizations in Germany. Its main activities have been:
In 1981 the VSG became a member of the International Gay Association (IGA,= =20 today ILGA). In 1984 the VSG was instrumental, together with two other gay= =20 groups in Munich, in founding the Munich AIDS-Help Organization, which was = one=20 of the first of its kind in Germany. In 1986 it became a founding member of= =20 the Bundesverband Homosexualitaet (BVH), which is the national umbrella org= a- nization for German gay groups.
In the course of the eighties, the more liberal environment allowed several= =20 other gay groups and projects to be set up in Munich. As a result some of t= he=20 activities of the VSG, such as the counselling service, have now been trans=
In the past few years, the VSG's principal political themes have been:
Over the last few years, the German Federal Government and the Parliament sought to repeal the German penal code section 175, which prohibited homo- sexual contacts with young males between 14 and 18 years of age and thus di= s- criminated against gays. But simultaneously a new section against "sexual= =20 abuse of young people" between 14 and 16 of either sex was to be establishe= d. This new law would make lesbian and heterosexual contacts under certain con=
As this would not be a step towards greater sexual self-determination, the= =20 VSG, together with many other German gay and lesbian organizations, opposed= =20 this amendment and insisted that section 175 be repealed without any substi= tu- tion. The VSG prepared critical responses to the various drafts of legislat= ion=20 presented by the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Federal Council. These= =20 comments were sent to the representatives of the Federal Parliament and to = the=20 Ministers of Justice of the Federal Republic and of the individual German= =20 states in order to influence the parliamentary discussion in both chambers.= =20 Unfortunately, these efforts had only little success; the replacement secti= on=20 of the law was finally introduced, and it was only slightly better than the= =20 original drafts.
At Dachau the VSG has striven for many years, also on behalf of the other= =20 Munich gay organizations, to place a memorial stone plaque to honour the ho= mo- sexual victims of the concentration camp. However approval was always refus= ed=20 without giving any reasons. Some years ago, the stone found temporary shelt= er=20 on the site of the Protestant chapel within the Dachau Memorial. The very f= act=20 that this is only a provisional arrangement has required the VSG to be repe= at- edly active. In March 1995, shortly before the 50th anniversary of the libe= ra- tion of the camp, permission to erect the plaque in the memorial room of th= e exhibition building was finally given. On 18 June it will be moved to this = new=20 location.
The VSG is also engaged in the "Working Group for the Future of the Concent= ra- tion Camp Memorial". This is a Dachau initiative aiming at improvements of = the=20 memorial site, which has remained more or less unchanged for nearly thirty years. The group suggests extending the purpose of the memorial centre, up = to=20 now mainly a place of commemoration, into a place of learning for young peo=
The VSG made substantial contributions to a draft presented by the Bundesve= r- band Homosexualitaet (BVH) in 1993 for the introduction of the legal recogn= i- tion of personal partnerships.
In addition to these political activities, the VSG organizes, often togethe= r=20 with other gay groups, discussion meetings, theatre performances, walks and= =20 excursions, carnival festivities, etc.
All activities of the VSG are regularly reported in its bimonthly newspaper= =20 "Rosa Info".
Since the end of the seventies there has been within the VSG a self-help an= d=20 emancipation subgroup of pedophile gays. This group gives its members and guests the opportunity to discuss with each other all aspects of their sexu= al=20 orientation. Especially ethical questions concerning sexuality between adul= ts=20 and minors in our society are debated. Thus these pedophiles can support ea= ch=20 other in gaining self-respect and developing their sexual identity in a non=
The pedophile subgroup respects the law in all its activities. It does not= =20 serve as a venue for the exchange or distribution of addresses of minors or= =20 of pornographic magazines, films, or videotapes.
The activities of the pedophile subgroup - to which only three of more than= =20 fifty VSG members belong - are largely independent of those of the VSG. But= =20 the subgroup needs VSG's facilities (meeting rooms, post address etc.) whic= h=20 it could not otherwise access.
THE VSG'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS PEDOPHILIA AND SEXUAL SELF-DETERMINATION
In order to be able to judge whether the VSG may continue as an ILGA member= , the Secretariats' Committee of the ILGA asked the VSG to declare its positi= on=20 on pedophilia. This section summarizes (with some supplementary material) t= he=20 arguments given in the VSG's response. To start with, it was necessary to= =20 distinguish between the various meanings of the term "pedophilia".
Pedophile orientation: The VSG agrees with the ILGA's 1990 resolution whic= h=20 "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to=20 engage in constructive dialogue with them". The VSG thinks that everyone=20 should behave like that.
Pedophile identity: Everybody has the right to develop his / her sexual id= en- tity according to his / her sexual orientation. Coming out and emancipation= =20 are essentially the work of each individual. But active participation in a self-help and emancipation group of like-minded persons considerably facili=
The VSG believes that sexual emancipation is an important condition for sex= ual=20 relationships being non-violent and humane. Therefore support of pedophile= =20 identity is also an effective contribution to the protection of children fr= om=20 sexual coercion and violence.
Consensual and non-consensual sexual activity with children: It is necessa= ry=20 to distinguish between consensual sexuality, which respects the child's gen= u- ine needs and wishes and therefore, despite the imbalance of power, is neve= r=20 sexual abuse, and sexual coercion, which more or less ignores the child's= =20 needs and wishes.
Such a distinction can be made for any sexuality. But normally we assume se= xu- ality to be consensual, unless the contrary is expressly stated. We would f= eel=20 it a violation of our gay dignity if those who advocate the removal of soci= al=20 and legal discrimination against homosexuality among adults continually emp= ha- sized that their support is intended only for recognition of consensual hom= o- sexuality. That should go without saying. This holds, in principle, for ped= o- sexuality, too.
But the prejudice is widely held, despite good scientific evidence to the c= on- trary, that consensual sexuality between adults and children is impossible,= =20 and consequently all sexual activity with children is often supposed to be= =20 sexual abuse. Therefore this clear distinction is necessary here to prevent= =20 misunderstanding.
Sexual self-determination: The VSG's guiding principle is the right to sex= ual=20 self-determination. It comprises both protection from sexual coercion and t= he=20 freedom to choose consensual and responsible sexuality. As gays we are espe=
According to modern child psychology, it is not consensual sexuality which harms a child, but its demonization afterwards by the child's social enviro= n- ment. And it is our society's blanket condemnation even of consensual pedo- sexuality, together with a non-differentiating criminal law, which brings t= he=20 adult partner into moral conflict, exposes him to social contempt, and ofte= n=20 subjects him to unfair confinement. Therefore, the removal of social and le= gal=20 discrimination against consensual pedosexuality would be beneficial for all= =20 concerned.
Advocacy of a humane society: Disapprobation and criminalization of any se= xu- ality with children are deeply rooted in our culture. This impedes social= =20 recognition of consensual pedosexuality. Therefore it would also be politi- cally premature to aim at an immediate abolition of the laws banning such= =20 sexuality. Sexual self-determination for pedophiles, youths and children is= =20 still far from being realized.
But a humane society should allow all consensual and responsible sexuality, regardless of the participants' sex and age. That presupposes deep changes = in=20 the overall attitudes of the population to sexual matters. This is a task f= ar=20 too large for a single gay group or even for the gay movement as a whole. I= t=20 is a long-term task for the whole of society. All of us should work on deve= l- oping social conditions which would foster general acceptance of any kind o= f=20 consensual and responsible sexuality and thus, in the long term, make a leg= al=20 age-limit for consensual sexuality superfluous.
Support or promotion of sexual activity with children: Although the VSG=20 respects all consensual and responsible sexuality, it does not support or p= ro- mote any sexual activity. Advocating social acceptance and legalization of= =20 consensual sexuality with children is not the same as supporting or promoti= ng=20 such sexual activity. Also the VSG's pedophile subgroup flatly refuses any= =20 promotion of actions which violate the existing law.
Non-consensual sexuality with children: The VSG condemns any abuse of huma= n=20 beings, including sexual coercion. In particular, both the VSG and its pedo=
The VSG's attitude towards the German criminal law concerning sexuality=20 between adults and children: Section 176 of the German penal code prohibit= s=20 both consensual and non-consensual sexuality between adults and children un= der=20 the age of 14. Hence a repeal of this law would legalize also non-consensua= l=20 sexuality with children (unless it is simultaneously covered by some other= =20 section of the penal code, e.g. bodily harm). Therefore the VSG does not ad= vo- cate the repeal of section 176.
The pedophile group of the VSG suggests that section 176 be amended to appl= y only to non-consensual sexuality with children. The VSG approves this propo= sal=20 in principle; for it may be a reasonable solution of the problem. But the V= SG=20 has never made any concrete demands in this direction.
This inactive attitude of the VSG towards section 176 is in clear contrast = to its long-standing fight against section 175, which until 1994 prohibited ho= mo- sexual contacts with young males between 14 and 18 years of age and thus di= s- criminated against gays.
The relative importance of pedophilia within the aims of the VSG: Recognit= ion=20 and legalization of consensual pedosexuality is not the main goal of the VS= G,=20 since not even social recognition of homosexuality among adults has been=20 achieved so far. To remove this unbearable condition, which affects the gre= at=20 majority of VSG members, is therefore the VSG's primary aim, and most of it= s=20 political activities are devoted to this.
THE VSG'S COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE ILGA SECRETARIATS' COMMITTEE
The ILGA "fights to keep UN status", the Secretariats' Committee (SC) an- nounced after its meeting on 7 November 1993. The other headline of this pr= ess=20 release suggested the direction this fight was to take: The ILGA "condemns= =20 pedophilia". Instead of keeping to the resolutions of the ILGA, the SC adop= ted=20 the position of the American UN mission and worked for the expulsion of NAM= BLA=20 and two other allegedly pedophile groups from the ILGA. So its fight was no= t=20 directed outwardly against those anti-gay forces who wanted to rescind the= =20 ILGA's UN status, but inwardly, against the ILGA's own members.
The SC referred to a resolution passed by the Annual Conference in 1990 whi= ch=20 deals with the protection of children against sexual exploitation and abuse= .=20 But this resolution does not say a word against consensual relationships=20 between adults and children.
However, the SC disregarded several ILGA resolutions, which had been approv= ed by over 80 % of the delegates:
Under pressure to save the ILGA's UN status, the Annual Conference of 1994 gave its assent to the SC's motion to expel the three "pedophile" groups. I= t=20 further decided that "groups or associations whose predominant aim is to su= p- port or promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future development of= =20 ILGA". In the discussions preceding the vote, some delegates showed a lot o= f=20 prejudices against and even hatred for pedophiles. But the two motions woul= d=20 most probably not have passed with a majority of more than 80 %, if the UN= =20 status had not been at stake. So the ILGA paid a very high price to maintai= n=20 this status (without success, as it turned out later): it relinquished gay= =20 solidarity.
That is why the VSG urged the SC in October 1994 (after the suspension of t= he=20 UN status) that the ILGA should not bow to the blackmail of the USA once=20 again. The ILGA should defend itself and convince the ECOSOC's Non-Governme= n- tal Organizations Committee that the VSG is not an organization whose membe= r- ship in the ILGA could justify revoking the ILGA's consultative status. The= =20 ILGA would probably have had a good starting position in this dispute; for = the=20 ECOSOC had not even given any plausible reason why the ILGA membership of a= =20 gay organization with a pedophile self-help subgroup, whose activities and= =20 objectives don't violate any law, should be incompatible with the ILGA's co= n- sultative status.
However, the SC did not even try to defend the ILGA, but it continued its= =20 fight in the opposite direction.
In the UN Workshop of the European Regional Conference in Helsinki on 28 December 1994, the Secretary General Hans Hjerpekjoen reported on the SC me= et- ing at the end of October in Brussels: "The Secretariats' Committee discuss= ed=20 what the New York resolutions meant in terms of ILGA's policies. They ...= =20 decided that it would be their first task to define ILGA's policy, then the= y=20 would discuss on how to execute this policy, and only as the third part the= y=20 should look at how the ECOSOC would react on ILGA's policy and policy imple=
The SC "defined ILGA's policy", however, quite arbitrarily and with disrega= rd=20 of the New York resolution. According to the Helms and ECOSOC demand, the I= LGA=20 would have to ensure that none of its members "promotes, condones or seeks = the=20 legalization of pedophilia". The only part of this demand the SC is not wil= l- ing to accept is, according to Hans Hjerpekjoen, the word "condone". Apart= =20 from this one word, the SC completely agrees to the Helms demand, although = the=20 New York resolution says nothing about "seeking legalization" and mentions= =20 "promoting pedophilia" only under the condition that it is the predominant = aim of a group.
In a similar way, the SC asked the VSG at the end of September 1994: "Do yo= u promote or seek recognition or legalization of pedophilia?" So it obviously wanted to judge the VSG by Mr. Helms' criteria rather than by the ILGA's ow= n criteria defined by the Annual Conference.
In their letter to the VSG of 23 November 1994 (which the VSG received some two months later), the Secretaries General wrote: "On the basis of the 1994= =20 World Conference's actions and resolutions on paedophilia, the Secretariats= '=20 Committee understands that ILGA groups or associations who advocate paedoph= i- lia (here meaning sexual activity between adults and prepubescent children,= or=20 any other activities which sexually abuse or otherwise exploit children) or= =20 who encourage paedophile relationships are incompatible with ILGA's aims". = In this interpretation they again introduced two new terms (advocate pedophili= a, encourage pedophile relationships) which were not contained in the New York= =20 resolution, and again they totally ignored the criterion "predominant".
From=20the VSG's comprehensive statements, it follows clearly that it is no= t the VSG's predominant aim to support or promote pedophilia. Hence it was obviou= sly=20 not the intention of the New York conference that gay groups like the VSG= =20 should be ousted from the ILGA. But the SC perverted the wording and the me= an- ing of the New York resolution so that it would justify the VSG's suspensio= n.=20 With this perfidious policy, the SC yielded again to the extortionate deman= ds=20 of the American right wing and again betrayed gay solidarity.
The current SC "suspended" the membership of the VSG (an ILGA member for 13 years) for holding onto positions which the ILGA itself held over many year= s. The contrast between the ILGA's long-standing position on pedophilia and th= e SC's new course in the last one and a half years manifests itself quite evi=
When the next Annual Conference (in Rio de Janeiro in June 1995) votes on t= he=20 VSG's further membership in the ILGA, this will also be a decision on the= =20 ILGA's identity and its future political course. Will the ILGA continue its= =20 long-standing course devoted to the basic values of gay and lesbian emancip= a- tion, sexual self-determination, variety of sexual preferences and solidari= ty=20 with sexual minorities inside and outside the gay and lesbian communities? = Or=20 will the ILGA follow its present Secretariats' Committee into a "future dev= el- opment" which will force the ILGA to sacrifice all these ideals for an unce= r- tain UN status and to expel more and more of its members at Jesse Helms'=20 behest?
In 1994, three (allegedly) pedophile groups were expelled; in 1995, the SC wants to expel the VSG. Whose turn will it be in 1996 and in the following= =20 years? The VSG appeals to all ILGA members: Don't allow the ILGA to continu= e=20 dancing to the American right wing's tune!
Pedophiles, who are at present the most persecuted sexual minority, and esp= e- cially gay pedophiles as members of our gay community, need our solidarity. The ILGA's task is not to adopt, but to fight against prejudices and discri= mi- nation concerning sexuality. As a gay and lesbian organization, the ILGA mu= st not behave towards a minority among us as hostilely as the anti-homosexual majority behaves towards ourselves. Otherwise the ILGA will lose its credib= i- lity and its right to exist.
Verein fuer sexuelle Gleichberechtigung (VSG) e.V.,=20 Postfach 152208, D-80052 Muenchen, Germany April 199=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D