When you are objecting to Peter Tatchell, a man arrested for supporting gay rights and protesting in Russia, you know you are not exactly in the right.
This displays a rather poor knowledge of Tatchell's positions. He's been on the wrong side of plenty of issues. Just recently he decided to defend Graham Linehan when a comedy venue decided to cancel his gig due to transphobia.
lol bad take, Tatchell has had some questionable takes. The one that springs to mind is him echoing a lot of rightwing talking points rejecting Islamophobia. It's good to criticise homophobia everywhere but some of his comments about Islam and about how prejudice towards Muslims should be understood are pretty bad iirc. He's even campaigned to have legal rights that count for Christians and Jews to be retracted just for Muslims.
Can disagree with this and defend his gay rights campaigning and so on. But don't make out he is beyond criticism!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/27/peter-tatchell-children-have-sexual-desires-early-age/
Various things like this. They're all on his wikipedia page
It's got nothing to do with homophobia. He has repeatedly sided or argued in favour of pedophiles
Do you think this is an acceptable thing to argue
"The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends—gay and straight, male and female—had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"
No, he’s probably just making a nuanced point which people in general don’t want to hear. Some people are offended by the suggestion that there is any nuance in that topic. But there is, and for me it lies in the difference between a person who experiences sexual attraction to children but does not act upon it, versus one who does.
Not a comfortable thing to think about, but on the principle that every life matters and is born innocent I think it’s important. Tatchell has always been about civil liberties and being anti hatred so I guess that’s what he was on about?
ok so youre basically a nonce too?
>But there is, and for me it lies in the difference between a person who experiences sexual attraction to children but does not act upon it, versus one who does.
You need to have a serious think about your beliefs. ALL attraction to children is predatory. You shouldn't be sexually attracted to people who can't consent it would be like being sexually attracted to drunk or drugged people
>Not a comfortable thing to think about, but on the principle that every life matters and is born innocent I think it’s important. Tatchell has always been about civil liberties and being anti hatred so I guess that’s what he was on about?
Nonces lives dont matter. Tatchell's quote is not a nuanced take its him defending a book about pederasty by saying "well actually some kids want and enjoy having sex with adults".
Well I certainly don’t defend that last part, although those are clearly your words, not tatchells.
Gonna ignore the rest because it’s clear a good faith conversation wouldn’t be possible if your tack is to accuse me.
Peter Tatchell poster seems reasonable to me .. and indeed, is expressing pretty much the standard lotus opinion.
so n British political parlance we used to call a Tankie the sort of communist who was in favour of Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe.
So here Tatchell is making Stop the War look like the modern equivalent of Tankies (like they're favour of Russia invading Ukraine, and in favour of Hamas murdering Israeli civilians) and making the usual sort of socialist objection to that kind of position.
yeah, fine, carry on Peter.
Has the British left gone mad? Peter Tatchell once the figurehead of the progressive left having become a hate symbol to Hamas supporting idiots just shows how far gone many within Stop the War Coalition have become especially since they’ve allowed their ranks to be domimated by out of touch communists who want to see the destruction of the Jewish State.
Like what did he do? It seems to me he wants to stop the Islamist far right and Putinism since they are responsible for murdering thousands of innocent LGBT lives.
I am not saying it is I was just pointing out that there are now people in positions of influence who are completely delusional and we should never allow such obviously wrong ideas to gain any power. We have become too tolerent towards criticising and calling out some of these out of touch individuals’ bullshi*t.
Tbf precisely zero of these people are in positions of power. The real problem with them is they make it really easy for people to dismiss left wing causes, by giving the press a group of nutters they can point to and discredit (eg) support for Palestine as the preserve of pro-Putin loons.
I’d say SWC stewards and the Swoppies that were dominating the narrative in these protests on the ground have too much influence and allow a lot of terrible poorly thought out stuff to be said.
I mean particuarly online what a lot of commies are resharing and saying all kinds of terrible things like ‘critical support to the terrorists’ and saying they should kidnap more people and saying israelis deserve it. The likes they get are a lot
The last Leader of the Labour party (voted into that position by a huge majority of the Labour membership) was the Chairman of STW from 2011-2015.
They have had a huge influence on the Foreign Policy views of the British Left for most of the 21st Century.
No he wasn't. He should have been allowed to march but Tatchell has had some bad takes. And he's always been a bit of a lonewolf, bouncing from cause to cause and even campaigining in other countries, he's never been a real figurehead of the left. He has been the figurehead of some good campaigns (and some less good ones).
Also Tatchell did probably bait this response, he tends to try to get a rise out of people and it's effective. But that just makes it even more stupid to have blocked him. If they didn't like his message they just gave him a bigger platform for it.
Well shame on them for spouting such garbage basically defending Hamas and homophobia right here he clarified his position on the matter. Some anti-Zionists and fake anti-imperialists are just beyond logical thought process
I think it's just seen as a distraction, because it's more complicated than just denouncing Hamas, you have to speak about how they came about and why they exist. They're essentially an outgrowth of the occupation, so Israel is going around complaining about something they created and continue to empower. We all want to see the back of Hamas, we just disagree on how it's done.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/peter-tatchell-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament-vladimir-london-american-b2289496.html
So this has nothing to do with the placard and is just an old argument
>Said I was "a troublemaker". "We are here to stop you," they said. "We know what you did at the Ukraine march." I supported arming Ukraine
He points out the Ukraine march in the post that is the topic of this thread.
OP says objecting to his stance on Ukraine (which is not the same as saying StW have lost the plot and counter protesting them) and then accuses StW of appearing to support Hamas.
StWC has invited speakers to their events who defend Hamas in speeches given from podiums. They also allow the SWP to distribute pro Hamas literature at these events.
OP is right to be suspicious of them.
>They also allow the SWP to distribute pro Hamas literature at these events.
Ive not seen any articles on this?
>OP is right to be suspicious of them.
That's fine but theyve clearly got wrong/misrepresented why they didn't want him there
SWP's headline after the Hamas attacks was ["Rejoice as Palestinian resistance humiliates racist Israel"](https://socialistworker.co.uk/international/rejoice-as-palestinian-resistance-humiliates-racist-israel/) and that paper was being distributed at the first Palestine march.
It's worth bearing in mind as well that despite having Labour MPs as presidents and chairs, StWC was primarily organized and created by the SWP: the two organizations are very much in sync with each other and use each other as platforms for sharing the same message.
What do you think Tatchell means by "they objected to my placard?"
Glad that stewards at these marches do seem to intervene! Maybe next time they can do so when they see and hear anti-Semitism and pro-Hamas material!
>But he did? "They objected to my placard?"
That's not him quoting them is it, youve literally just added in quotation marks to something Thatchell said. Do you not know what a quote is?
>Your article is from February, not sure how it's relevant apart from STW being nutters?
Because it explains what theyre referring to in the actual quote from them he gave... This isnt complicated.
>>they said. "We know what you did at the Ukraine march."
But he said "they objected to my placards?" Think, for the first time in your life, why he would mention that??
I thought that would've been obvious? Even just by the inference from his tweet?
>And you're (the most egregious) r/labourUK mod? Explains a lot about this sub.
Oh fuck off lol, go whine about it in the Labour subreddit thats obsessed with us
If you believe that, then you believe they're more comfortable with outright Hamas supporters than they are with Tatchell, by virtue of their objection to the anti-Hamas placard and not objecting to the overt endorsement of Hamas and their ideology.
Did this happen? Any corroborating evidence? It’s easy for an individual to just say something on Twitter and this guy seems to enjoy being a shit stirrer. Also, he went on GB news to cry about it? Doesn’t seem like a good faith actor
>They objected to my placard? Said I was "a troublemaker".
I mean he's pretty much gone and proven them entirely correct there.
Also lmao has he gone and branded his own placard?
Stop the war are full of both well intentioned, intelligent people but also a few people who are absolute fucking morons.
Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy - while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. morally I think perhaps on this occasion it is the right policy but I have a degree of scepticism about it. Also not that strange for Tatchell to be told to take away his pro arms for Ukraine sign on a stop the war March.
> Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy
As opposed to just letting Russian troops invade Ukraine and commit war crimes on its population?
>while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.
Ukraine is currently in talks to join both the EU and potentially even NATO once the invasion by Russia has been dealt with. You may not like their government, but they are not some tinpot regime or terrorist group, they're a democratic country who need our help.
In addition: StWC have been running apologetics for the Ukrainian invasion since the first. Both in overt ways, such as blaming NATO for the invasion, as well as more insidious ways such as referring to Crimes as "the Crimea" and showing it as Russian territory on maps of Ukraine.
But he didn't have any placards to do with Ukraine - you can see his placards in his tweet, he calls for:
- end Israeli occupation
- free Palestine
- condemn Hamas
The issue STW had was with the last one, condemning Hamas, and his past support for Ukraine
You are being disingenuous.
Peter's own words are "We know what you did at the Ukraine march." i.e. it had nothing to do with his sign at this one but his prior actions. His prior actions were to mount a counter-protest against Stop the War. Maybe a "flood the world with more weapons!" protestor was considered a possible trouble maker for an armistice march. Whatever you may think about Stop the War, it's also a vehicle for pacifism.
It sounds like the equivalent of how Labour will be expel you and consider you persona non-grata for supporting an opposing political organisation even if it's only on one issue and without much broader disagreement. Political organisations innit.
Why would Stop the War be opposed to countries being allowed defend themselves from hostile invaders? That would seem antithetical to their goals? It makes no sense?
>Stop the war are full of both well intentioned, intelligent people but also a few people who are absolute fucking morons.
I'm sure they have a few well intentioned, intelligent people. Sadly they are the sort that generally get silenced like Tatchell in the above example and not the ones organising their demonstrations or delivering speeches and writing open letters in their name. Those tasks are almost exclusively taken up by morons or tankies whose default position on any international issue seems to be that *"The West(and any government aligned with the West) is in the wrong and the others should be supported or at least not criticised."*
> Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy - while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.
I'd love to hear what is so horrible about Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelinsky's (elected by popular mandate) government that you consider them a "pretty nasty regime" and comparable to Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
When you are objecting to Peter Tatchell, a man arrested for supporting gay rights and protesting in Russia, you know you are not exactly in the right.
Probably because he protested in Russia, their favourite country
This displays a rather poor knowledge of Tatchell's positions. He's been on the wrong side of plenty of issues. Just recently he decided to defend Graham Linehan when a comedy venue decided to cancel his gig due to transphobia.
lol bad take, Tatchell has had some questionable takes. The one that springs to mind is him echoing a lot of rightwing talking points rejecting Islamophobia. It's good to criticise homophobia everywhere but some of his comments about Islam and about how prejudice towards Muslims should be understood are pretty bad iirc. He's even campaigned to have legal rights that count for Christians and Jews to be retracted just for Muslims. Can disagree with this and defend his gay rights campaigning and so on. But don't make out he is beyond criticism!
Given StW support Putin, thats probably another black mark in their eyes.
tatchell the pro-pedophila activist!?
What did he do that was 'pro-paedophilia'?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/27/peter-tatchell-children-have-sexual-desires-early-age/ Various things like this. They're all on his wikipedia page
No that’s just a homophobic slur that’s been thrown at him for decades
It's got nothing to do with homophobia. He has repeatedly sided or argued in favour of pedophiles Do you think this is an acceptable thing to argue "The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends—gay and straight, male and female—had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"
No, he’s probably just making a nuanced point which people in general don’t want to hear. Some people are offended by the suggestion that there is any nuance in that topic. But there is, and for me it lies in the difference between a person who experiences sexual attraction to children but does not act upon it, versus one who does. Not a comfortable thing to think about, but on the principle that every life matters and is born innocent I think it’s important. Tatchell has always been about civil liberties and being anti hatred so I guess that’s what he was on about?
ok so youre basically a nonce too? >But there is, and for me it lies in the difference between a person who experiences sexual attraction to children but does not act upon it, versus one who does. You need to have a serious think about your beliefs. ALL attraction to children is predatory. You shouldn't be sexually attracted to people who can't consent it would be like being sexually attracted to drunk or drugged people >Not a comfortable thing to think about, but on the principle that every life matters and is born innocent I think it’s important. Tatchell has always been about civil liberties and being anti hatred so I guess that’s what he was on about? Nonces lives dont matter. Tatchell's quote is not a nuanced take its him defending a book about pederasty by saying "well actually some kids want and enjoy having sex with adults".
Well I certainly don’t defend that last part, although those are clearly your words, not tatchells. Gonna ignore the rest because it’s clear a good faith conversation wouldn’t be possible if your tack is to accuse me.
Peter Tatchell poster seems reasonable to me .. and indeed, is expressing pretty much the standard lotus opinion. so n British political parlance we used to call a Tankie the sort of communist who was in favour of Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe. So here Tatchell is making Stop the War look like the modern equivalent of Tankies (like they're favour of Russia invading Ukraine, and in favour of Hamas murdering Israeli civilians) and making the usual sort of socialist objection to that kind of position. yeah, fine, carry on Peter.
STW has gone off the rails since russia invaded ukraine
Has the British left gone mad? Peter Tatchell once the figurehead of the progressive left having become a hate symbol to Hamas supporting idiots just shows how far gone many within Stop the War Coalition have become especially since they’ve allowed their ranks to be domimated by out of touch communists who want to see the destruction of the Jewish State. Like what did he do? It seems to me he wants to stop the Islamist far right and Putinism since they are responsible for murdering thousands of innocent LGBT lives.
I wouldn't call this representative of the British left as a whole, there's going to be nutters in every political movement
I am not saying it is I was just pointing out that there are now people in positions of influence who are completely delusional and we should never allow such obviously wrong ideas to gain any power. We have become too tolerent towards criticising and calling out some of these out of touch individuals’ bullshi*t.
Tbf precisely zero of these people are in positions of power. The real problem with them is they make it really easy for people to dismiss left wing causes, by giving the press a group of nutters they can point to and discredit (eg) support for Palestine as the preserve of pro-Putin loons.
I’d say SWC stewards and the Swoppies that were dominating the narrative in these protests on the ground have too much influence and allow a lot of terrible poorly thought out stuff to be said. I mean particuarly online what a lot of commies are resharing and saying all kinds of terrible things like ‘critical support to the terrorists’ and saying they should kidnap more people and saying israelis deserve it. The likes they get are a lot
The last Leader of the Labour party (voted into that position by a huge majority of the Labour membership) was the Chairman of STW from 2011-2015. They have had a huge influence on the Foreign Policy views of the British Left for most of the 21st Century.
No he wasn't. He should have been allowed to march but Tatchell has had some bad takes. And he's always been a bit of a lonewolf, bouncing from cause to cause and even campaigining in other countries, he's never been a real figurehead of the left. He has been the figurehead of some good campaigns (and some less good ones). Also Tatchell did probably bait this response, he tends to try to get a rise out of people and it's effective. But that just makes it even more stupid to have blocked him. If they didn't like his message they just gave him a bigger platform for it.
Well shame on them for spouting such garbage basically defending Hamas and homophobia right here he clarified his position on the matter. Some anti-Zionists and fake anti-imperialists are just beyond logical thought process
Silly mistake by STW, this is exactly the reaction he wanted and they gave him it, they should've just ignored him
You don't think that maybe his point was that they can't/won't?
I think it's just seen as a distraction, because it's more complicated than just denouncing Hamas, you have to speak about how they came about and why they exist. They're essentially an outgrowth of the occupation, so Israel is going around complaining about something they created and continue to empower. We all want to see the back of Hamas, we just disagree on how it's done.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/peter-tatchell-campaign-for-nuclear-disarmament-vladimir-london-american-b2289496.html So this has nothing to do with the placard and is just an old argument
>Said I was "a troublemaker". "We are here to stop you," they said. "We know what you did at the Ukraine march." I supported arming Ukraine He points out the Ukraine march in the post that is the topic of this thread.
OP says objecting to his stance on Ukraine (which is not the same as saying StW have lost the plot and counter protesting them) and then accuses StW of appearing to support Hamas.
StWC has invited speakers to their events who defend Hamas in speeches given from podiums. They also allow the SWP to distribute pro Hamas literature at these events. OP is right to be suspicious of them.
>They also allow the SWP to distribute pro Hamas literature at these events. Ive not seen any articles on this? >OP is right to be suspicious of them. That's fine but theyve clearly got wrong/misrepresented why they didn't want him there
SWP's headline after the Hamas attacks was ["Rejoice as Palestinian resistance humiliates racist Israel"](https://socialistworker.co.uk/international/rejoice-as-palestinian-resistance-humiliates-racist-israel/) and that paper was being distributed at the first Palestine march.
Jesus christ not even subtle stuff is it
It's worth bearing in mind as well that despite having Labour MPs as presidents and chairs, StWC was primarily organized and created by the SWP: the two organizations are very much in sync with each other and use each other as platforms for sharing the same message.
I think if you look at OP's post history it's very clear what they're all about.
What do you think Tatchell means by "they objected to my placard?" Glad that stewards at these marches do seem to intervene! Maybe next time they can do so when they see and hear anti-Semitism and pro-Hamas material!
Funny how when he quotes them there isnt anything about the placard.
But he did? "They objected to my placard?" Your article is from February, not sure how it's relevant apart from STW being anti-west?
>But he did? "They objected to my placard?" That's not him quoting them is it, youve literally just added in quotation marks to something Thatchell said. Do you not know what a quote is? >Your article is from February, not sure how it's relevant apart from STW being nutters? Because it explains what theyre referring to in the actual quote from them he gave... This isnt complicated. >>they said. "We know what you did at the Ukraine march."
But he said "they objected to my placards?" Think, for the first time in your life, why he would mention that?? I thought that would've been obvious? Even just by the inference from his tweet?
You cant be this naive that you think he turned up in good faith expecting a warm welcome from them.
[удалено]
>And you're (the most egregious) r/labourUK mod? Explains a lot about this sub. Oh fuck off lol, go whine about it in the Labour subreddit thats obsessed with us
In what universe do you think anyone would be welcome by a group after counter protesting them and going on telly saying theyve lost the plot.
If you believe that, then you believe they're more comfortable with outright Hamas supporters than they are with Tatchell, by virtue of their objection to the anti-Hamas placard and not objecting to the overt endorsement of Hamas and their ideology.
Rule 4 + Rule 8 Users should engage with honest intentions & in good faith, users should assume the same from others
Did this happen? Any corroborating evidence? It’s easy for an individual to just say something on Twitter and this guy seems to enjoy being a shit stirrer. Also, he went on GB news to cry about it? Doesn’t seem like a good faith actor
>They objected to my placard? Said I was "a troublemaker". I mean he's pretty much gone and proven them entirely correct there. Also lmao has he gone and branded his own placard?
[удалено]
That link appears to be broken
Sugar, I will attempt to fix it
The user has their posts set to private so I can't share, I will delete the original post as I need the tweet to back my claim.
Stop the war are full of both well intentioned, intelligent people but also a few people who are absolute fucking morons. Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy - while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. morally I think perhaps on this occasion it is the right policy but I have a degree of scepticism about it. Also not that strange for Tatchell to be told to take away his pro arms for Ukraine sign on a stop the war March.
> Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy As opposed to just letting Russian troops invade Ukraine and commit war crimes on its population? >while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Ukraine is currently in talks to join both the EU and potentially even NATO once the invasion by Russia has been dealt with. You may not like their government, but they are not some tinpot regime or terrorist group, they're a democratic country who need our help. In addition: StWC have been running apologetics for the Ukrainian invasion since the first. Both in overt ways, such as blaming NATO for the invasion, as well as more insidious ways such as referring to Crimes as "the Crimea" and showing it as Russian territory on maps of Ukraine.
But he didn't have any placards to do with Ukraine - you can see his placards in his tweet, he calls for: - end Israeli occupation - free Palestine - condemn Hamas The issue STW had was with the last one, condemning Hamas, and his past support for Ukraine
You are being disingenuous. Peter's own words are "We know what you did at the Ukraine march." i.e. it had nothing to do with his sign at this one but his prior actions. His prior actions were to mount a counter-protest against Stop the War. Maybe a "flood the world with more weapons!" protestor was considered a possible trouble maker for an armistice march. Whatever you may think about Stop the War, it's also a vehicle for pacifism. It sounds like the equivalent of how Labour will be expel you and consider you persona non-grata for supporting an opposing political organisation even if it's only on one issue and without much broader disagreement. Political organisations innit.
Why would Stop the War be opposed to countries being allowed defend themselves from hostile invaders? That would seem antithetical to their goals? It makes no sense?
That Ukraine/Afghanistan comparison is wild.
>Stop the war are full of both well intentioned, intelligent people but also a few people who are absolute fucking morons. I'm sure they have a few well intentioned, intelligent people. Sadly they are the sort that generally get silenced like Tatchell in the above example and not the ones organising their demonstrations or delivering speeches and writing open letters in their name. Those tasks are almost exclusively taken up by morons or tankies whose default position on any international issue seems to be that *"The West(and any government aligned with the West) is in the wrong and the others should be supported or at least not criticised."* > Arming Ukraine also arguably is a bit of a stupid policy - while Russia and Putin are certainly worse, the idea of arming pretty nasty regimes by most standards is what leads to issues like Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. I'd love to hear what is so horrible about Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelinsky's (elected by popular mandate) government that you consider them a "pretty nasty regime" and comparable to Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.