Harry's Place

Wonderful news and a well deserved award

I often disagree with Peter as well: but he is usually pointing in largely the right direction on most of the issues that matters. He’s a guy of genuine conviction, and the closest we have to a secular saint.

He also took HUGE stick and vilification by the most vicious and obnoxious of the extreme Left over Qaradawi, which orchestrated a nasty whispering campaign against him. As a result, Peter was essentially persona non grata on much of the Left for some time.

It is therefore doubly nice to see Peter recognised in this way. It shows that the smear campaign against him has failed.

Huge congratulations to Peter!
Well Done and Keep up your sterling work!

Oh, and as a case in point, here is Peter recommending that we vote Green:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jun/02/lib-dems-steal-green-votes

Excellent

I have mixed feelings unfortunately. He is so often badly wrong on Israel and on Islam/Islamism IMO. And as David says, keenly supporting the Greens and their nonsense on say promoting homeopathy (and bizarrely some odd views on sexuality from within that party) just make me shudder. I am sure he is sincere though.

Reads more like he’s saying the libs’ll do anything to get elected and shouldn’t be trusted to me David. Anyway it’s a euro election day and voting green never makes more sence than in a euro election.

Yep, congratulations to Peter. Sometimes it’s just obvious that certain people are, whether we agree with them or not, thoroughly decent.

Yep, he seems like a decent bloke.

To appreciate his work, it is not necessary to agree with him all of the time. I don’t. On occasion I even emphatically disagree with him. But because he is never driven by agendas, and never puts ideology ahead of people, it is obvious – even to many of his detractors – that he is motivated only by a sincere desire to make the world a better place for everybody.

Very well put. I too find much to disagree with, but he is definitely to be admired, for these reasons.

I am so glad for Pete. I salute someone with real courage and indefatigability.

Most important: for the causes, human rights have no exceptions!

We knew were right Peter and that’s why we kept supporting you.

I co-wrote a report with Peter many years ago and, I agree, he is one of the nicest and most sincere people I have ever worked with.

He has many wrong opinions (like Barad has mentioned) BUT his honesty, principles and intentions are second to none.

There are not many people in the public sphere (well, next to none really) of whom you can say that if there were more of them, the world and its people would be a better place. But Peter is definitely one of them. Despite his occasional swerves and deviations, he is one of the good guys.

So congratulations to a well-deserved winner, and (by-and-large) keep up the good work, Peter.

(I’m waiting eagerly for the heads of Conor Foley, Gene and Toad of Toad Hall to explode after reading that last comment BTW)

Reading this (well done Peter!) it’s quite a shock to recall that it’s only 27 years since he first came to prominence at the Bermondsey by-election among a degree of vile homophobia that’s hardly imaginable these days. I quite often disagree with him too, but I don’t forget that the fact that my son can now identify himself quite openly as gay without it being a problem for himself or anyone else is down as much to Peter as to anyone. Keep going Peter – we need you.

I have strong disagreements with Mr Tatchell. However, please view (or not, if you are squeamish) the vile assault upon him made in Moscow. I saw it on a HP link last year and it is sickening. Tatchell can be wrong headed about some things but he is a brave and consistent figure in a landscape otherwise replete with parlour Bolsheviks and mere opportunists.

Congratulations.

Yes well deserved for Peter Thatchell a man motivated by the determination to do right and to fight for the rights of those denied the most basic ones.

Morgoth

It doesn’t surprise me. You are a highly moral and principled man. You are not a pacifist so unlike Peter you would not seek to non-violently resist murderous regimes, you are more inclined to bomb them.

In a way though the problems I see with both peter and your view of the world occur when you zoom out from the personal and interpersonal (communal ) level of morality and political action to the Macro level.

Peter’s flaw is to reflexively see all Baluchi’s (or Muslims or Tibetans or whatever) as the good guys as the poor victims, whereas there are some very nasty Baluchi sunni headbangers who are more talibanesque than anything else.

When he opposes Iran’s treatment of ethnic Baluchi’s and supports their self determination, he doesn’t seem to see that he is supporting another Islamic radical regime in the making.

You on the other hand tend to collectivise the oppressors as a religious or national group, and want to target them.

I am not saying that I have the easy answer to the dilemma of how to argue for the universal principles we value when the people we seek to support may just use that aid to privilige themselves at the expense of others who are gighting for social status in a pre-enlightenment world of competing groups.

I am not as inclined to reach for the red button as you but I am more inclined to a cynicism and reflexive libertarianism in relation to any group or institution claiming to represent the (religious,economic or political) wishes and needs of others.

Peter Thatchells sometimes infuriating cynicism in response to any odd outfit that appears on his doorstep claiming to be oppressed is also a mark of his genuine sincerity.

And I am glad Peter is feeling a little less hounded and a bit more recognised as a consequence of this award.

I doubt his bitter muse of incredulous denunciation is going to be able to retire just yet, but I wish him well.

He’s a brave bloke. I usually disagree with his politics but his clear and (frankly) clarion love of freedom, equality and liberty makes him a solid human being. That he’s prepared to take physical risks tweaking Putin et al is a testament to his bravery.

So fair play and congratulations, from a vaguely conservative voter!

You on the other hand tend to collectivise the oppressors as a religious or national group, and want to target them.

Only as a consequence of the ideas that they hold. Ideas must be defeated. I’ve always made it clear (I hope) that even the most looney theist can be rescued and brought back into the ways of technological modernity and scientific enlightenment. But to do that, the ideas that infest him/her must be defeated and removed.

What Brownie and Morgoth said.

I often disagree with Peter Tatchell, even on some of the causes that he is most closely associated with;but none the less it is clear that he is, broadly speaking, a force for good; and in any case a man of integrity, motivated by justice and principle.

There are not many people in the public sphere (well, next to none really) of whom you can say that if there were more of them, the world and its people would be a better place. But Peter is definitely one of them. Despite his occasional swerves and deviations, he is one of the good guys.

I completely agree with Morgoth.

Well done to Mr Tatchell.

> Anyway it’s a euro election day and voting green never makes more sence than in a euro election.

I would imagine he’d like people to vote Green in the general election as well, what with him being a candidate and all…

I blush. Thanks for the kind, generous comments. Although receiving plaudits is not my motivation or goal, it makes a pleasant change from some of the hate and bile I often get thrown my way.

I see myself (metaphorically) as one of many small streams of consciousness and activism. Together, with millions of other small streams we make a mighty river (people power) that can transform the political landscape – hopefully for the better.

Mettaculture wrote:

“Peter’s flaw is to reflexively see all Baluchi’s (or Muslims or Tibetans or whatever) as the good guys as the poor victims, whereas there are some very nasty Baluchi sunni headbangers who are more talibanesque than anything else.”

Sorry, not true. I have supported the secular, left Baluch and their just struggle for self-determination.

You are however right: there are reactionary, feudal elements in Baluch society too, and the Taliban has gained a foothold in some parts of Baluchistan.

But none of this invalidates or refutes the fundamental injustice that the Baluch people were forcibly incorporated into Pakistan without their consent.

Their right to self-determination is fundamental – but not fundamentalist.

Their right to self-determination is fundamental – but not fundamentalist

Exactly.

To appreciate his work, it is not necessary to agree with him all of the time. I don’t. On occasion I even emphatically disagree with him. But because he is never driven by agendas, and never puts ideology ahead of people, it is obvious – even to many of his detractors – that he is motivated only by a sincere desire to make the world a better place for everybody.

I very much want to add my agreement.

Peter of course you are right. I am not saying that you would uncritcally support a movement that you saw contained reactionary elements.

Its more the law of good intentions and unintended consequences.

it is not so much that I have a problem with the principled principle of self determination as much as its implementation is simply impossible.

The number of ethnicities that want sovereign states (the usual outcome of a desire for self determination) cannot have them, even if there were enough territories to go around, for these reasons;

Historical,

every movement for national liberation that I have studied ( and i would suggest it is a universal though I am open to being proven wrong)has through the political and social necessity of gaining power for secession and new national institution building, must engage with a coalition of nationalist forces against the status quo.

The resultant new nationalism then, is no longer a left or secular form, but always a frail hybrid of;

Political nationalism including secular and democratic forms, but also monarchies or traditional clan based sovereignty (demos),

ethno-cultural nationalism, that is exclusionary by its nature of other ethnicities (ethos) which it increasingly harshly defines itself against.

religious nationalism overlapping with but also undermining secular nationalism and increasing pressure against religious minorities.

The Baluch people are one of those ethnicities that has a degree of contiguity (like the Kurds) across nation state borders, however there are also discontiguous pockets of Baluch people found in the region betwixt and between other ethnic groups.

My general rule is not to support the creation of any new nations in the world they have caused enough trouble.

But there ia a particular problem with Nations in the tribal areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran (and far more widely in Muslim dominant regions) that applies to the Baluch as much as to the Pashtun or Tajik;

That of the organising principle of political power, of sovereingty itself, along clan lines.

A nation almost entirely consisting of tribes and clans within tribes as Afghanistan has always been is inherently unstable.

All institutions of the state will be subsumed whithin and divided between tribe and clan. if any kind of electoral system persists it will be tribally and clan block vote delivery by clan leaders trading political favours in exchange for reward.

Without a strong central state the secular will be dissolved and women will become again exchange items in clan politics.

So paradoxicaly the best hope for the secular progressive left is not sovereign self determination but a strong central state that grants a high degree of autonomy to its tribes but not so much they threaten the state itself.

This is the reason why some people are perplexed by the iranian left that they accuse of persian chauvinism, that while they are bitterly opposed to the islamist state they are also opposed to seperatist tendeancies.

They are often called reactionary chauvinists.

I don’t doubt there is some chauvinism, but there is also a realization of the necessity of a central state where sovereignty lies and equal citizenship can be mandatory, compared to a clan based political system where the subordination of women (and individual rights) is always mandatory.

If we always support all demands for self determination (rather than he civicand political rights that progressives see as coming from that but are not necessarily) we will end up with a lot of at the best, ruritanias, like Montenegro, and at the worst the Taliban.

After all the Taliban are a modernist movement with a territorially ambitious nationalism, the product of being spun with Islamist nationalism , and ancient tribal, clan based political sovereignty.

The position of women and minorities under the Taliban is worse than either under the customry law of the traditional clans, or a neo-traditionalist state like Saudi Arabia, or the Islamist republic of Iran.

It is hard to imagine that you could produce a society that was worse for women than those three, but spinning contemporary islamic political sovereignty ideas with nationalist ones over a tribal base with lots of guns in a conflict fueled region (where continuous conflict , or feud is an authentic expression of traditional clan and tribal political culture) will produce such things.

The alternative to existance whithin a pakistani state appears to be Talibanisation, not a pretty outcome.

At one time I dismissed Peter Tatchell as a Trotkyist nut bound by idiotic ideology.
Then I heard he spent most of his time cam paigning for gay rights.
But my ambivalence turned to admiration when I read about him getting beaten up by Mugabe’s thugs at Brussels airport(he tried to perform a citizen’s arrest).
I’ve followed his career since and admire his sincerity and single minded sense of purpose.He’s pretty fearless and isn’t in it for the money.

Well done, Peter. The Social Republic salutes you!

Cipriano @ 4 June 2009, 1:09 pm

“27 years since he first came to prominence at the Bermondsey by-election ”

He first came to prominance at the World Youth Festival in East Berlin, some years earlier.

Oh, and he wasn’t a trotskyist.

I respect his persistence, but I still think he’s a damn fool.

There are some back-handed compilments here, but it is gratifying to know that even the largely dejected HP left has come to appreciate Mr Tatchell’s consistent struggle for human rights, and queer human rights in particular. A conservative Muslim even told me last year that he appreciated Tatchell’s championing of Somaliland on internet TV.

It is interesting to note that back in the middle 1990’s, Mr Tatchell went through a phase of being reviled by the gay press whilst being championed by various leftist papers. Today, the gay community, regardless of politics, has come to universally respect the work that Tatchell has done in the public sphere as well as the support and campaigning he has conducted on behalf of many LGBT people harassed by heterosexual institutions.

In recent years, thanks to Tatchell’s work and presence, we have seen parts of the left reveal themselves as women and homo-haters, other parts as Jew-haters and yet others as genuinely concerned with universal human rights. When Tatchell wrote about the need for self-governance in Cornwall, the shrill denunciations on the Grauniad’s Comment is Free bear-pit revealed many liberals to be hysterical London-focussed Brits – but others were interested enough to think about things from a new angle.

But it is mostly for his compassion and humility that Tatchell has won this award. It is well-deserved and long overdue.