Mia Freedman “unreservedly apologises” for comments on The Project

2014-10-17_1116MamaMia founder Mia Freedman has apologised for comments made on The Project which have come under fire for comparing same-sex attracted people to paedophiles.

During a discussion about rehabilitation and a national paedophile register she said, “We accept that gay people can’t change who they love and who they’re sexually attracted to, so why do we think that people who are sexually attracted to children can be rehabilitated?

“Name and shame them. I want to know where they are.”

But on social media many were disappointed by the context.

On her website Freedman wrote a lengthy response, which noted:

Let me be absolutely clear: I unreservedly apologise to anyone I have upset, confused or outraged and to anyone who thought I would ever ever ever stand with bigotry or homophobia.

I know the facts: there is no link between homosexuality and offending against children. And after the hundreds of hours of live TV and radio I have done, I should have known better; it’s dangerous to try and make a complex point about such an important topic in 10 seconds.

You run a huge risk of your words being twisted, taken out of context and fed to the enemies of your cause. Last night I forgot that and I’m incredibly distressed that the result has been more pain and suffering for the gay community.

She also agreed, “Many people have angrily pointed out that I could have used heterosexuality as a comparison instead of homosexuality. So why didn’t I? I could have – and in hindsight I really, really wish I had.”

Freedman’s point about trying to discuss considered topics in a live, snappy news format is a valid point, and it certainly requires some skill to do this without resulting in answers that risk becoming out of context.

TEN declined to comment further.


  1. I’ve voiced my empathy for Ms. Freedman’s unfortunate articulation elsewhere here but there is one point in these comments I’d like to offer another view on : Chemical castration is not an effective treatment.

    A former friend (who is ‘former’ because I abhor of what he later did and because I had no idea he had an interest in children) had been chemically castrated. A consequence was he was not able to have a physical sexual reaction to stimulus, but it did not take away the desires. In fact, it increased frustration, depression and lead to indirect contact abuse with several children. He is now in jail for a long time for what he did several years after being chemically castrated. The abuse he inflicted wasn’t as horrific as what one might imagine had he the ability for a physical reaction, but was still absolutely damaging and abhorrent. Thus I strongly do not advocate…

  2. I’ve always found Mia Freedman not to be the brightest light in the room, but what did she actually say.
    “Name them and shame them, I want to know where they are.”
    She was only commenting on the subject matter in question, namely paedophiles, not gay folk. Why she bothered to offer an apology, I’ll never know. There was nothing to apologise for, other than what the politically correct boffins and their warped imaginations read between the lines.
    For God’s sake grow up you lot.

  3. It is well known that Mia Freedman is a strong advocate for the LGBTI community. I understand her analogy, that we can’t control who we are sexually attracted to & agree with her that it would have been better to use heterosexuality as the example given the amount of homophobes who believe homosexuals = pedophiles. I also agree with her that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, chemical castration is not a 100% effective & that’s not a chance we should take as a society. Most pedophiles are repeat offenders & all steps need to be taken to keep them away from children. Child sexual abuse is a heinous crime & the victims suffer for the rest of their lives.

  4. Oh come on, isn’t the mock outrage over every little thing getting tiresome? Whilst I don’t have a lot of time for Freedman as a social commentator (I don’t think she is particularly bright) the point she was trying to make was valid, the analogy was just poorly articulated. She was not saying that homosexuality and paedophilia were one and the same and anyone who took it that way clearly has problems with comprehension. She was just trying to say that it is virtually impossible to re-orient who we are sexually attracted to.

  5. Aside from making her point terribly, it isn’t even a good point.

    Individual de-radicalisation and disengagement programmes are prescribed for militant jihadists, for example; and every so often, someone trots out Chemical castration as a ‘treatment’ for sex offenders. So, rehabilitation (or at least, behaviour change) is a very real option.

    If Mia wants a child offenders register, then I want a homophobic offenders register – and her name can be entered first.

  6. I watched this and whilst it was clumsily articulated, she does have a valid, non-controversial point. I think she’s being hung out to dry for clumsiness. She sure as heck was not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, more making a valid and true point of the nature of attraction.

  7. jezza the first original one

    Lets not lose sight of the point she was trying to make….that pedos may not be curable,as attraction to kids is their sexual orientation.

    It could have been phrased a lot better, but given her track record and the lack of malice in the comment….the whole outrage etc.. is garbage. Now if a certain Mr Bernadi made similar comments…well that would be a different story……

  8. The Trolls deliberately chose to misinterpret what Freedman said because so they could fake outrage about something.

    As far as mobs with flaming torches go, a storm in a teacup.

  9. She makes a fair point, might of not been right to compare gay people to paedophile but you have to understand the point she’s trying to make which is valid. Its not worth getting upset about something as trivial as that.

  10. I was more shocked by her view on the subject (wanting to know where they live) rather than the linking that gay people were paedophiles. I thought Mia would have a different view to Steve price and Hinch.

    I am not normally a huge fan of Mia….but geeez….get off her back.

    The point she made was totally justified.

  11. daveinprogress

    I think she’s one of the good ones; everybody makes mistakes. I catch myself saying ‘silly queen’ about someone, and I should know better as a gay man; but it happens. We all have default narrative statements that can and are changed over time; doesn’t matter who we are.

  12. Aren’t we tired yet of getting outraged over the most trivial things on Twitter? Agreed, it was a poor analogy to make but I just don’t think it’s worth getting ‘outraged’ over when it was clearly not said with any malice or intent to offend.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.