Peter Tatchell is wrong: gays have the right to be dull and conservative!

July 2, 2014 at 7:54 am (Civil liberties, gay, Human rights, LGBT, middle class, Peter Tatchell, Pink Prosecco)

Beehive Handknits for Men 01

Guest post by Pink Prosecco

Peter Tatchell is an admirable man who has campaigned bravely on LGBT rights and many other issues.  However I cannot agree with the thrust of this post, recently published in Gay London.  To summarise, he regrets the way in which the LGBT community has retreated from ‘radical idealism to cautious conformism’.  He wishes instead that LGBT campaigners questioned the institution of the family and were generally less bourgeois, and complains that more timid types only jumped on the LGBT bandwagon when it was safe to do so.

But this can be turned round I think.  One might conjecture that the handful of LBGT men and women who were prepared to campaign and be visible forty years ago were unusually independent and tough minded.  They were perhaps thus also more inclined to be non-conformist and politically radical in ways that went beyond sexual orientation.

I should note at this point that the ‘pink’ in ‘pink prosecco’ only references my slightly sub-shirazian shade of politics. However personally I don’t see why LGBT people should be expected to be any more or less radical than anyone else.  It’s a sign of progress not regression that people who are dull, or disagreeably right wing, are as happy to identify as LGBT as creative, radical, edgy types. Peter concludes:

“The unwritten social contract at the heart of the recent campaigns for LGBT law reform is that gay people should behave respectably. No more cruising, orgies or bondage. In return, the ‘good gays’ will be rewarded with equal treatment. The ‘bad gays’, who fail to conform to conventional morality will, of course, remain sexual outlaws. Is that what we want? A prescriptive moralism that penalises non-conformists within our own community?”

But why should bondage and a rejection of conventional morality be seen as LGBT specific issues?

Permalink 5 Comments

Tatchell: oppose ALL fascism

June 1, 2013 at 12:59 am (anti-fascism, Harry's Place, Human rights, islamism, Jim D, Peter Tatchell, Racism, solidarity, terror, thuggery, Uncategorized)

This statement from Peter Tatchell  first appeared at Harry’s Place, a site we don’t usually have much in common with. But in this case, it’s impossible to disagree:

The BNP & EDL claim to oppose Islamist extremist bigotry but in reality they generalise and abuse all Muslims. Many of their protests are menacing, even violent.

Islam is not the main problem. Islamist fundamentalism and violent jihad are what we should focus on opposing. It is important to make a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamist extremists. Don’t confuse the two. Unite to isolate the main threats: the Islamist far right and its BNP and EDL equivalents.

I support today’s Unite Against Fascism (UAF) counter-protest against the BNP. But UAF is not consistent. UAF commendably opposes the BNP and EDL but it is silent about Islamist fascists who promote anti-Semitism, homophobia, sexism and sectarian attacks on non-extremist Muslims.

This silence and inaction by the UAF is a shocking betrayal of Muslim people – abandoning them to the Islamist far right.

Islamist fascists want to overthrow democracy, establish a clerical dictatorship, suppress human rights and kill Muslims who don’t conform to their hard-line interpretation of Islam.

It is time the UAF campaigned against the Islamist far right, as well as against the EDL and BNP far right.

Permalink 20 Comments

Tatchell on O’Brien and Catholic hypocrisy on gays

February 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm (Catholicism, gay, homophobia, Human rights, Jim D, Peter Tatchell)

Above: O’Brien coming out?

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has reacted to the resignation of Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic, who has been accused of inappropriate behaviour with male priests.

Earlier on Monday, Cardinal O’Brien apologised to those he had offended for “failures” during his ministry and announced in a statement that he was standing down as leader of the Scottish Catholic Church.

He will not take part in electing a new pope, leaving Britain unrepresented.

In a statement, Peter Tatchell said:

Cardinal O’Brien condemned homosexuality as a grave sin and was a long-time opponent of gay equality.

He supported homophobic discrimination in law, including the current ban on same-sex marriage.

In the light of these allegations, his stance looks hypocritical.

He appears to have preached one thing in public while doing something different in private.

Several other prominent opponents of equal marriage are guilty of double standards and vulnerable to similar exposure. They include anti-gay clergy and politicians.

It is estimated that around 40% of Catholic priests in Britain are gay, which makes the church’s opposition to gay equality so two-faced and absurd.

Nearly half of all Cardinals worldwide are thought to be gay.

Recent revelations in Italy have alleged the existence of a gay mafia within the Vatican, including senior Cardinals and other Vatican officials, and their participation in gay bars, clubs, saunas, chat rooms and escort services.

The Vatican is shamelessly championing homophobia and the denial of legal equality to gay people, while hosting a hotbed of secret, guilt-ridden clerical homosexuality.

Permalink 4 Comments

Freedom of expression IS the right to give offence

October 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm (Civil liberties, democracy, Free Speech, Jim D, law, Peter Tatchell, relativism, religion)

“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”Rosa Luxemburg

An unpleasant-sounding character called Barry Thew wore the t-shirt shown below, in the Manchester area, on the day that two women police officers were murdered there. He has now been given a four month jail sentence for the crime of  giving “insult” under Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act.

Barry Thew wore the anti-police T-shirt in public just hours after the killings of two PCs
This follows hard on the heels of the student jailed for tweeting something vile and racist about Fabrice Muamba, a boy jailed for putting something sick and disgusting on Facebook about April Jones and Madeleine MacCann, and a young man sentenced to community service for posting something on Facebook celebrating the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan.
In none of these cases was it claimed by the prosecution that the offending comments amounted to incitement to violence or any other criminal act other than giving offence and/or insult. The tweet about Muamba was, conceivably, an act of racial discrimination but that was not the prosecution’s case. The boy who posted vile stuff about April Jones and Madeleine McCann was possibly guilty of the crime of harassment (against their parents), but again, that was not the charge; it was brought under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which outlaws “send[ing] by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” (my emphasis -JD).
The religious lobby (spearheaded by the Muslim leadership, happily followed by Christians and all other mainstream religions) has succeeded in establishing the giving of “offence” against religion as a crime. The Blair government, in desperate need of Muslim support following Iraq, brought in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, 2003 which make it an offense to “discriminate” against anyone on grounds on their religion – unless the ‘discriminator’ is itself a religious organisation! This sort of nonsense has been further perpetuated by the rise of identity politics and relativism on the so-called “left.”
Those of us who support free speech and insist that it is a fundamental component of the great progressive heritage of the Enlightenment (of which Marxism is a product) are, these days, constantly having to rebut those who seem to think that free speech doesn’t include the right to give offence or to be stupid and wrong (in which case, what DOES it mean?) or who muddy the waters by suggesting that expressing offensive opinions is the same thing as an act of violence or discrimination. Some of the people who seem unable to comprehend these fairly simple distinctions do seem to be a bit thick, and generally fall into the “liberal”/relativist catagory.
But others are clearly engaged in a superficially coherent, thoroughly reactionary and (usually) religiously-based attack upon freedom of speech, using the fundamentally dishonest ‘argument’ that supporters of free speech are positively in favour of some (imaginary) “duty to be offensive.”
A further argument (usually implied, rather than openly stated) is that freedom of speech is the product of a particular form of liberal politics, very often derided as “bourgeois,” “European”, or “Western”.
Mehdi Hasan, a smooth operator and practiced dissembler, came out with the following (below) reactionary and intellectually bankrupt excercise in obscurantism at a recent debate:

Mehdi Hasan, political director of The Huffington Post UK, called for a crackdown on the culture of Islamophobia and argued freedom of speech was not an “absolute right” during a debate on Thursday.

Speaking opposite Times columnist David Aaronovitch at a HuffPost/Polis debate, on the right to offend, Mr Hasan argued free speech was being “fetishized” and claimed many free-speech campaigners in the west were guilty of “brazen hypocrisy.”

“We have a civic duty not to offend others,” he told the a packed audience at the London School of Economics.

“How can you construct a civilised, cohesive society if we go round encouraging everyone to insult each other willy nilly?

“Yes we do have a right to offend but it’s not the same as having a duty to be offensive. You have a responsibility not to go out of your way to piss people off.

“I have the right to fart in a lift, but I don’t do it because it is offensive.

“Some people want the right to be offensive but then get cross when people are offended.”

[NB:  Peter Tatchell on the Barry Thew case and “the right to be offensive” here]

Permalink 5 Comments

London protest against Bahrain Grand Prix

April 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm (Civil liberties, democracy, Human rights, Middle East, Peter Tatchell, protest, solidarity, sport, thuggery)

From the Peter Tatchell Foundation

Bahrain protesters urge cancellation at Formula One HQ

Date: Saturday 21 April 2012

Time: 12.30 -1.30 pm

Address: Formula One HQ, 6 Princess Gate, London SW7 1QJ

Bahrain exiles and their British supporters will gather outside the London headquarters of Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone tomorrow (Saturday) at 12.30 pm.

They are calling for this Sunday’s Bahrain Grand Prix to be cancelled, citing “the violent suppression of pro-democracy protesters” by the King of Bahrain. They have condemned Bernie Ecclestone’s decision to “put profit before human rights.”

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell will join the protest. He said:

“There should be no sport as usual, while the Bahraini regime is killing and torturing its own citizens. Holding the Grand Prix in Bahrain is collusion with tyranny. It gives the regime respectibility. I urge British drivers Lewis Hamilton and Jensen Button to take a stand against dictatorship by withdrawing from Sunday’s race. It will be a tainted competition, steeped in shame and blood. There is a high risk that democracy protesters will be killed by the Bahraini security forces.”

Founder of the Justice for Bahrain movement, Mohammed Sadiq, added:

“Hosting the Grand Prix is part of the King’s bid to convince the world that the repression is over and the situation in Bahrain has returned to normal. It hasn’t. There are daily human rights abuses perpetrated on peaceful protesters. It is a shocking, callous misjudgement by Bernie Ecclestone to proceed with the race at a time when pro-democracy campaigners are being arrested, beaten, jailed, tortured and killed. Holding the Grand Prix is a slap in the face to the victims of repression. Formula One bosses should be siding with Bahrain’s democrats, not with the dictatorship.”

Mr Tatchell added:

“If the duty to protect civilians applies in Syria, why not in Bahrain?

“Britain should be working with the rest of the international community to impose sanctions on the Bahrain regime.

“Those sanctions should include a halt to arms sales and military cooperation, a travel ban and assets-freeze on top regime officials and a prohibition on the export to Bahrain of luxury items for the rich ruling elite.

“Bahrain’s leaders should be referred to the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council on charges of torture and crimes aginst humanity,” he said.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has condemned the brutal tactics of the Bahraini regime as “shocking and illegal conduct.”

According to a November 2011 report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, 45 pro-democracy campaigners have been killed by the regime, 1,500 arrested, nearly 1,900 have suffered torture and ill-treatment. The arrested and abused include doctors and nurses who treated injured protesters.

Read the report in full here.

Even before the current wave of repression, Bahrain had a poor human rights record; having been previously criticised by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Further information: 

Peter Tatchell – 0207 403 1790

Mohammed Sadiq, Justice for Bahrain – 07766 500 524


Permalink Leave a Comment


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 560 other followers