Harry's Place

Peter Tatchell is one of the bravest most principled people I have ever known and this says everything about his detractors and nothing about him.

Even when you disagree with Peter, you know that the disagreement is an honet one, and that he won’t muck you around, or play political games with you.

Basically, a Left on which Peter is done over is a Left which is seriously screwed up.

Thatchell’s a legend. The acid bitchiness with which with the hard left attack their opponents never ceases to amaze. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Like I’ve said before, anyone who has the audacity to attempt a citizens’ arrest on a person like Mugabe is a complete fucking hero.

Peter, you’ve got our support.

colluding with the war on terror

What does this even mean? And why is it a bad thing?

I’ve seen Peter work with Balochi and Ahwazi Arab rights activists in opposition to the Iranian regime and he is definitely not a prejudiced man. Provided people have no problem with his sexuality, he has no problem with them. Often, these activists from socially conservative Muslim cultures who have had little direct contact with openly gay people have changed their opinions on sexuality and have examined their prejudices. They recognise and value the fact that he is a highly principled, dedicated and honest person and that this matters more in the scheme of things than sexuality. These detractors obviously don’t know Peter or are pushing an agenda. Like the overwhelming majority of people, I’ve never heard of these academics and I doubt they will have a long-standing impact on the world outside their cloisters.

The most galling part of this is when you compare Peter Tatchell’s courage with the cowardice of his enemies. But it is no surprise to find that his principles and open-mindedness are anathema to so many people on the left.

Superb comment, Dan.

colluding with the war on terror

What does this even mean? And why is it a bad thing?

It’s code for let’s oppose everything that Bush did or supported. So bombing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban was wrong. Simpleton pricks.

This is a disgrace. Though I admire Tatchell’s principled refusal to use the libel laws, in such a grievous case of orchestrated misrepresentation and defamation, he might consider making an exception. There is no shame in using the law of the land to defend a reputation against these sort of cynical lies.

Thatchell is supported by many on the left whatever this filth says. We backed him when it was right-wingers trying to smear him. Having stood up for a man of courage when we were young, older we will be not abandon him.

As Peter knows.

The least I can say is that I am full of rage at these scum.

a PhD student in the History of Consciousness program at the University of California in Santa Cruz

Giggle.

Totally agree with everything said about Peter. What is not said is the abuse he gets from the black press, now reduced to the Voice, and how La Harman’s favourites Operation Black Vote are involved with the editor of their blog Lester Holloway who used to edit New Nation writing homophobic articles. How do the guilt tripped white Liberals justify the money the pour into this bunch of racial crooks?

So: Tatchell versus a bunch of loser academics. My money is on Tatchell. The man’s a national treasure and an unstoppable fighter; I’ll vote for the first party that gives him a knighthood (though he’d probably turn it down).

Yet again, I told you so.

I don’t in any way support libelling people–but I do think there is a significant flaw in Peter Tatchell’s line of defence. He says he is not “against Muslim people”, but is against “fundamentalist Islam”. This is to some extent self-contradictory and misleading.

Muslims are not an ethnic group. There is no “reform Islam”, similar to Reform Judaism, which rejects the divine origin of the Koran, and no “protestant Islam” similar to Protestant Christianity. Islam is based on the belief in divinely given commandments (via Mohammed). So any Muslim is bound by those commandments.

Tatchell is therefore by implication referring to all believing/practising Muslims. not some little subgroup who can be labelled “fundamentalist” Muslims. Referring to “not being against Muslim people” could imply that he’s not against them as human beings, but bitterly opposes and execrates their belief system and religious practice per se.

His citing the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign working with him is hardly a defence against being labelled “anti-Muslim” since the PSC is allied to and directed by the PLO/Fatah, a nominally “secular democratic” grouping, albeit one that these days runs an Islamist sideline in the form of the terrorist “Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

The “Muslim people” he supports may well be people who have rejected Islam, but then they’re ex-Muslims, or apostates, as I believe Islam would regard them.

It’s the equivalent of anti-zionists claiming they’re not anti-semitic because they have Jews in their group who they’re proud to work with.

The only Muslims it seems Tatchell approves of are those who regard male homosexual practice acceptable, which my understanding is is forbidden in Islamic law. So it’s the equivalent of saying (as I believe he does) he execrates and actively campaigns against those Muslims and Jews who follow the commonly accepted laws of their religion.

I certainly don’t think Peter Tatchell is a racist. But he is intensely anti-religious and condemns the mainstream orthodox laws and practice of three of the great religions of the world out of hand. Since the identity of observant believers isn’t separable from their identity as human beings, I believe that it’s correct to regard him as an Islamophobe–he’s driven by hatred of the mainstream beliefs and teachings of Islam, and the only Muslims he approves of are those who are accepting of his view of what’s acceptable in Islam.

It’s the direct equivalent of taking the line that Judaism is an evil hateful religion and its rabbis and scholars are also promoters of hate and evil, but he’s OK with secular and non-observant Jews and some of them are people he’s worked with and helped.

If Peter Tatchell is an Islamophobe, then the whole concept of “Islamophobia” is a load of old shite. As I always suspected.

Judy

Certainly, were the Temple rebuilt and biblical law enforced, Judaism would be an evil force, which I would actively campaign against.

However, Judaism has not been this sort of ideology for quite some time now.

It’s the direct equivalent of taking the line that Judaism is an evil hateful religion

It is.

and its rabbis and scholars are also promoters of hate and evil,

They are.

Judy: You’re making a mountain out of a molehill with this. Peter criticises those peddling homophobic hate, whether they are the Christian establishment, fundamentalist Muslims or Jamaican rappers. I don’t see why these people’s religious or cultural prejudices and often violent hatred should be tolerated in a liberal, plural society. He believes that people who are being persecuted, oppressed or discriminated against should work together to create a tolerate, fair society, regardless of who they are or what they believe. I don’t think Peter is some saint since most believe seem to share these values; what he does is act on them and devote his life to these struggles. Perhaps this leads to jealousy. But I’ve yet to see any proof that Peter has ever advanced hatred of Muslims or Islam, Zimbabweans, Jews, Jamaicans, Russians, Iranians, Christians, Pakistanis, etc. If these groups take offence, perhaps they should examine whether they are the ones with the problem.

Aren Aizura’s blog is friggin hilarious. Tosser certainly. Wanker forever. Choice excerpt:

Some of the things I would like to keep here:

Thoughts I’m grappling with as part of a huge project on the relationships between geographical travel and gender identity.
Writing to figure out what ‘politics’ means — which could be anything! — although much of the time, I suspect, I’ll be preoccupied with resonances and frictions between the ‘political’ and the ‘personal’.
Words that pass through with a sense of their own weight, the implications and complications of bearing them into the world, words that can wait to fall on the beat whenever it comes, words that broker a deal between spontaneity and deliberation.

HAHAHAHA!

In defending the collective rights of Judaists, for instance, what is frequently ignored or denied is the right of individual Judaists to dissent from the views of the Judaist elite – the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Indeed, the orthodoxy of the Judaist majority is sometimes wielded to silence the unorthodox Judaist minority. During the battle over the anti-gay law, Section 28, the homophobic Judaist leadership used its dominant status to disparage and sideline liberal and reform pro-gay-rights Judaists. Likewise, the Board of Deputies tends to use its official authority to demand unquestioning support for Israel; disparaging progressive Judaist criticisms of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and Israel’s often indiscriminate attacks in Arab civilian areas.

This is anti-semitic drivel from Peter Tatchell, published in Democratiya, no less, in terms of its language and its control-by-Jewish-elite thesis who are alleged to wield power “to silence” dissenters.

Clearly a man who doesn’t read either Harry’s Place or the Guardian, or one who chooses to ignore the facts in order to demonize observant Jews and orthodox Jewish religious leadership and organizations. He makes Ken Livingstone look almost reasonable in comparison. “Judaist”, indeed….

Tatchell is also deeply anti-democratic, since he regards it as acceptable to use his fists in physical attacks on those who are found guilty at the court of his personal conscience. I regard him as an extreme narcissist for these reasons. I’m grateful that he doesn’t advocate or use weapons in pursuit of his personal imperatives, but I think political methods which include the use of physical violence are a threat to our society.

As for Morgoth, he’d have been really at home in the Nazi party.

If you think that’s worthless, have a look at the entire output of Christian Klesse!!

http://www.misst.mmu.ac.uk/staff/profile.php?id=39

I will always stand bold and errect for Peter!

Perhaps I have missed something, but I can’t see anything antisemitic in what Peter has written. Perhaps Melanie Phillips could.

Good piece. This sort of academic “everyone is a racist except me” stuff is reprehensible and unfortunately, more and more common and highlights the most serious problem of the far far left: the subservience of all forms of human rights to the alter of cultural relativism . Actually, it’s worse than that. It is the reverse of the white man’s burden view of the world. For these people, “the other” is pure and beautiful and “we” are evil and corrupting. Good luck to Peter and at least he can rest assured that nobody cares about these academics except a few other academics in the field.

since he regards it as acceptable to use his fists in physical attacks on those who are found guilty at the court of his personal conscience

That is untrue, Judy.

Seriously Judy – do you want me to print some of your own articles from your past?

Stuff like this:

“What are the practical and political problems that face teachers and students who fight sexism? Should feminist action groups fight for research funding from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the European Economic Community or reject anything which smacks of incorporation? How useful are theories about the importance of the reproduction of gender divisions to the maintenance of capitalism when it comes to looking at currently proposed EEC education policies on the promotion of equality of opportunity for girls and women?
…
Do contemporary educational ideologies somehow serve the needs of capitalism by vlrtually never mentioning the world of work, what work consists of and what the experience of it is for men and women? ”

Pages and pages and pages of this extreme Left nonsense, you churned out throughout the 70s and 80s, in the Feminist Review, which you edited. I’m looking at one issue with a cartoon illustrating a pregnant Pope, being counseled to have an illegal abortion by God.

Now, suddenly, you’re baal teshuva and anybody who has any criticism to make of any aspect of Judaism or any part of the UK orthodox establishment is your enemy.

And – hilariously – your chief objection to Peter Tatchell is that he has a focus on human rights abuses suffered by gays.

Pottle.

Can you see why I might have some difficulty in taking this seriously?

Dan, perhaps you’d care to show some evidence that the Board of Deputies and the Chief Rabbi:

1. deny the right of individual Jews to “dissent from the views of the elite”

2. silence the “unorthodox Jewish minority”

3.demand unquestioning support for Israel.

The Board of Deputies by the way is the elected representative body of a wide but not complete spectrum of Jewish organizations, not just synagogues. It represents a great many more of the UK’s Jewish people than Peter Tatchell, who I don’t recall having been elected to anything broadly representative of the constituency he claims to represent by anybody (but maybe he was elected by OutRage? But how representative is OutRage of the gay population of the UK?).

Klesse, C. (2007) ‘Gender, Sexuality, and Race in Post/modernisation Theories on the Intimate’, in Alejandro Cervantes-Carson and Nick Rumsfeld (eds.) The Sexual Politics of Desire and Belonging. Interdisciplinary Readings on Sex and Sexaulity, Tijnmuiden: Rodopi: 59-79

LOL.

The comments on this article – http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/aizura231009.html – have attempted to cast aspersions on Peter by associating him with lies spread about me. These people are SWP-style fuckwit leftists and neither Peter not Harry’s Place should give them any credibility by deigning to respond to their lies and smears. They rely on a response to gain publicity for their pointless research in order to compete in the academic competition for research grants.

Hah!

It is obvious to all that Dr Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem are, if not disguised anagrams, escapees from Peter Simple’s ‘Way of the World’ Column.

You don’t fool us!

The references to the LSE Gender Institute and to Muslim Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender wimmin were, as they say, dead give-aways!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peter_Simple’s_characters

See!

I suppose you’ll be telling us about Zoroastriastrian and Pantheist zoophiles like that Leda next. Or that Parsiphae.

As Vicky Pollard would say, “Everyone knows she done it with a bull.”

Judy: Have you actually read Peter’s article on multiculturalism? It is not an antisemitic tract, neither is the paragraph on Jews. He is largely correct that the Board of Deputies was resistant to the dropping of Section 28, despite the more liberal attitudes of non-orthodox Jews. Yes, the Board of Deputies does sometimes sideline liberal and reform Jews. That’s not an antisemitic point. An antisemitic statement would be that all Jews conspire to persecute homosexuals, but he’s not saying that, is he? If it is now antisemitic to criticise the Board of Deputies or the actions of the Netanyahu administration, then I guess thousands of British Jews are antisemites. I find it pointless debating with narrow-minded, paranoid people like Melanie Phillips who throw around accusations of antisemitism to censor debate, so for me the discussion ends here.

David T, how is what you’ve trawled up from Google from twenty to thirty years ago relevant to this particular issue? You’ve anyway totally misinterpeted the article I quote from, which was intended to criticise and satirise the view that capitalism somehow produces ideologies and cultural ideas which magically get women and girls to except inferior roles. It’s actually attacking extreme leftism.

Positions like that actually showed up the hollowness of Feminist Review, which claimed to be a periodical which welcomed all currents of feminist and non feminist thought about women’s issues, but was in fact dominated by the high status CP socialist feminists in the so-called collective. I ultimately resigned from FR, as did all the independently minded collective members once it became clear as to what its real agenda was and what its methods were. I don’t know when the issue you’re referring to was published; it may or may not have been in my time — which was in the first years of the journal. I wouldn’t have supported it, because it represents such very crude and stupid politics around both religion and abortion. As did several articles that FR published during the time I was on the collective (and I was not religious at that time). But then at that time, FR officially recognised that its collective was a diverse group and that not everyone on the collective was assumed to agree with everything it published.

You also misrepresent my chief objection to Peter Tatchell. Which is that he’s an undemocratic narcissist who both churns out unjustifiable and grossly misleading representations of the Jewish and other religious communities, and uses physical violence — plus outing, which I think is an unacceptable invasion of individuals’ human rights– in pursuit of his self-appointed and entirely self-defined right to do so.

This is the second time a comment has appeared quoting exactly the same Google-trawled extracts from something I wrote a couple of decades or more ago. That time it was in the name of a sock puppet. What an odd coincidence that you and the sock puppet should have quoted exactly the same little bits, as if they proved something and unmasked me as ?????

So what? How is it relevant to this issue? You think I’m worried that you might trawl up some more selective quotes from my past writings? Really? So you find it difficult to take what I say seriously? And that’s your basis for doing so rather than your own intensely felt dislike of and animus around orthodox Jewish religious beliefs and practice? Okaaay.

Hmm. These ‘academics’ all seem to have something in common.

What is it….

I reflect on the role of difference, similarity, and change in the production of queer knowledges. My entry point is a queer diasporic one. Queers of colour, I argue, have a particular stake in queering racialised heterosexualities; yet differences within diasporic spaces clearly matter. While ‘Queer’ can open up an alternative methodology of redefining and reframing social differences, the directionality of our queering – ‘up’ rather than ‘down’ – is clearly relevant. I suggest the anti-racist feminist principle of positionality as fruitful for such a queer methodology of change.

Oh yes, that’s it! They specialise in talking utter bollocks.

(That’s from Dr Jin Haritaworn, by the way.)

Good luck Peter.

Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peter_Simple’s_characters

There!

M*o*r*g*o*t*h: If I was to state that Islam is an evil religion and that its Imams and scholars are promoters of hate and evil, as you state about Judaism, what would that make me?

Who elected you to have an opinion, Judy?

He is largely correct that the Board of Deputies was resistant to the dropping of Section 28, despite the more liberal attitudes of non-orthodox Jews. Yes, the Board of Deputies does sometimes sideline liberal and reform Jews. That’s not an antisemitic point

Sorry, but to say that the Board of Deputies opposed a particular policy in no way proves that it either silenced other Jews or demanded that they agree, which is the essence of my statement that Tatchell wrote anti-semitic drivel.

The BoD also includes representatives of the non-orthodox synagogues and organizations. As a representative body of UK Jews as a whole (but not in fact the strictly orthodox Jews), its position would have been voted on, so was no different from any other elected representative assembly. But it’s never been a “democratic centralist” body, and the Jewish community has always been one of the most diverse and publicly-ready-to-disagree religious/ethnic bodies in this country, as ten minutes reading the Jewish Chronicle will confirm.

The BoD did not “sideline” anybody. It lacks the powers to do so. But it does so happen that minority views in the Jewish community end up as minority views. Which are disproportionately represented and celebrated in the Guardian, the Independent, on the BBC and on HP, as elsewhere.

So to state that the BoD and the Chief Rabbi exercise powers of silencing, deny individual rights and demand unquestioning support for Israel is anti-semitic, because that’s fully consistent with one of the central tropes of anti-semitism since the 19th century.

Paranoid? Invoking Melanie Phillips? What sort of arguments/evidence are those statements?

Mark T. deserves a spanked bottom, as Mrs Whitehouse once memorably said of Ken Tynan.

Dr Jin Haritaworn wrote; “Internationalismus oder Imperialismus: Feministische und schwullesbische Stimmen in ‘Krieg gegen Terror’” in Frauensolidaritat No 100 8-9 2007

Doncha wish yer girlfriend was hot like her?

Yawn.

The offending article – ‘Gay Imperialism’ – can be found online.

I’ve read it.

One particular passage is worth quoting, because it speaks volumes about the sheer insanity of the authors.

In an article on his website, Tatchell describes the legitimation of the PTHRF by quoting the praise of not only two liberal Muslims but also his own co-worker:

Peter’s human rights campaigns have gone global. His successes mean he is deluged with requests for help from activists all over the world. To meet these demands, he is working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. Such as huge workload is damaging his health and is unsustainable. We need to raise enough money to get Peter a fully equipped office and full-time staff support. (http://www.peter-tatchell.net/religion/pthrf2006.htm, accessed 1 September 2006)

Linguistically, this quote is interesting in that it represents Southern queers as inundating Tatchell with their demands for help, which Tatchell meets by sacrificing himself to the point of risking his own health. In using terms such as ‘deluge’ and ‘sustainable’, the passage evokes racialised languages of environmental and social disaster in a South whose problems will explode if left to themselves. The quote brings to mind the colonial trope of the white man’s burden, who foregoes his own needs for the sake of saving the poor victims who cannot help themselves.

Yes. That’s right.

The words “unsustainable” and “deluged” are apparently used, not to convey the amount of work Peter has to do, but instead to convey the implicit racism associate with… err… environmental disaster… and how… y’know… brown people can’t help themselves… and err… PETER IS A RACIST!

Judy, it is no more “antisemitic” to say that organised representative bodies like the BoD marginalise minority voices than it is “homophobic” to say that Stonewall does the same. They’re large, organised, well-funded, and have the ear of government. That’s not suggesting any conspiracy, just an observation about how the political world works.

Isn’t Richard Seymour gay or bisexual?

Even when you disagree with Peter, you know that the disagreement is an honet one, and that he won’t muck you around, or play political games with you.

Basically, a Left on which Peter is done over is a Left which is seriously screwed up.

True, however the Left has always been very seriously ’screwed up’. Orwell spotted this decades ago.

The sheer bitchiness of those PhD students and the comments on LT also speaks volumes. They seem to have confused it with being gay.

Brett, Tatchell doesn’t talk about the BoD marginalising minority voices, he declares that they silence dissent, deny the rights of individuals to dissent and demand unquestioning support on Israel. None of these things is true.

But they do exactly correspond with the long-established anti-semitic attribution of all-controlling power over all Jews by its “elite” (though in fact the BoD is an elected body, and if you could see its members, you would laugh at the idea of them being an elite).

There is in fact, as far as I know, no widely held belief that a secret elite group of gays controls all gays, silences gays who dissent and demands total agreement with its policies. Some people think gays control the BBC and some even that they exercise control over the government. Now that is homophobia, but the number of people who believe it is miniscule.

On the other hand, the belief of Jewish control, and all Jews following dictates from their Elders is central to the widespread anti-semitism which is resurgent across the world. To play into it, as Tatchell has done in that article, along with his Judaism-is-an-evil-religion, is anti-semitic and disgraceful.

You keep trying to play down and minimise what he actually wrote. Surely you should respect him enough to take seriously what he says and not water down his words into something wholly innocuous.

I never mentioned conspiracy. Nor did he. He just asserted that the BoD and the Chief Rabbi actually have and exercise fantastic controlling powers which they manifestly do not have.

1. No I did not sock puppet.

2. The article in question doesn’t strike me as satirical of the far Left view. It struck me as an expression of such a thesis, not its criticism.

You were a member of the collective of Feminist Review when it published this cartoon

Looking at it now, I think you’ll agree that it is considerably more offensive to believing Roman Catholics than anything you’ve quoted from Peter Tatchell.

Now, I happen to think that the criticism the cartoon makes is a fair one. The influence of the Church over reproductive rights has been baleful. However, although I think that people should say what they like, I’d shy away of doing it in such an unpleasant way.

My point is that you were part of an enterprise which was guilty of pretty much the same sins for which you now condemn Peter.

M*o*r*g*o*t*h: If I was to state that Islam is an evil religion and that its Imams and scholars are promoters of hate and evil, as you state about Judaism, what would that make me?

It would make you perfectly correct; promoters of Islam most certainly are promolgators of ‘hate and evil’. So feel free to flourish the rather worn ‘Islamophobe’ label, some of us don’t consider that even vaguely a pejorative.

Isn’t Richard Seymour gay or bisexual?

I don’t know – but I’m sure that his sexuality is a largely hypothetical and theoretical construct.

Who the fuck is this Judy person? Tatchell has NEVER to my knowledge used physical violence. As for outing, he as explained his policy repeatedly. He has only ever outed hypocrites, after fair warning, who do one thing in private and bash Gay people in public. That sounds resonable to me.

DavidT, I’ve already said that I think the cartoon you refer to is stupid and politically illiterate, in both its approach to religion and abortion. I thought so then and I think so now (and I don’t recall having any say in it or its appearance in FR.) FR nevertheless also published an absolutely appalling article by Sue Himmelweit and her partner Simon Mohun which advocated that in a socialist society, the state should have the right to forbid abortions if the needs of the state made increasing the population an imperative. That just shows you the disgustingly selective left-totalitarian morality at the heart of FR. It’s one of the reasons I left it.

I was fool enough to believe that FR meant what it declared–that it would be an open debate and publication centre for feminists and non feminists of all persuasions, one based on research and evidence, not crude and selective vilification. I was wrong.

The fact that I was wrong then, and that FR published some crude anti-Papal ad hominem rubbish, whilst at the same time advocating the forbidding of abortions where left totalitarian governments decided it suited their political priorities, does not invalidate the position I take on Tatchell here.

You might have a point if I now attempted to defend those elements in FR, but I don’t and actually never did.

And it’s anyway all irrelevant to Tatchell’s publication of anti-semitic drivel as quoted above, which stands on its own terms.

I’m not sure why people are unwilling to do a libel suit. Frivolous suits are one thing, but a suit based on real libel, will bring the facts to the public eye, and encourage better standards for those that publish.

Stan

And that’s your basis for doing so rather than your own intensely felt dislike of and animus around orthodox Jewish religious beliefs and practice?

You have no idea what I think or feel about “orthodox Jewish religious beliefs and practice”?

For what it is worth: yes, I think that Judaism is not true. I don’t believe in God. I don’t think that God has ever made a covenant with mankind, or with the Jews as a collectivity.

I think that many of the taboos and restrictions that Judaism is constructed around are silly.

However, I also think that Judaism – along with most mature religions – are fantastic creations and expressions of generations of creativity and artistry. I enjoy participating in religious services, in particular Jewish ones. I prefer Orthodox Jewish forms of worship to reformed versions, by an absolutely mile.

I am also similarly fond of the Anglican service, although I have less affinity with Christianity than with Judaism.

My main criticism of Judaism is that not only does it not actively seek converts – it actually makes it near impossible for recruits to join. This non-proselytising is a relatively recent phenomenon, but the religious establishment seems determined to retain it. Then, it vexes about difficulty in keeping its numbers up!

As somebody who would like to see Judaism flourish, I find this somewhat perverse.

“That just shows you the disgustingly selective left-totalitarian morality at the heart of FR. It’s one of the reasons I left it.”

OK, point taken.

That is entirely fair.

David T,

My main criticism of Judaism is that not only does it not actively seek converts

This is one of my favorite parts of Judaism. We do not go out and try to convince people that they should be like us, or that we are better than them.

Stan

Who are these quackademics and why are they worth even a nanosecond of anyone’s attention?

In defending the collective rights of Judaists, for instance, what is frequently ignored or denied is the right of individual Judaists to dissent from the views of the Judaist elite – the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies

Judy, thanks very much for that. I admire a lot of what Thatchell does but for this I’m not so sure I am totally supportive of him.

As somebody who would like to see Judaism flourish, I find this somewhat perverse.

David T, I agree with your model of affinity with Judaism as its one I share as a supporter rather than a player.

However, as for sustaining Judaism I guess we’ll have to pop the blue pill and get busy!

!!

In reply to Flaming Fairy:

Yes, there is nothing wrong and everything right about fighting terrorism. I should have said that I opposed the “injustices perpetrated in the name of the war of terror” (Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture, control orders (house arrest without charge), police surveillance and harassment of antiwar activists etc).

Peter T. is a fine and principled activist whose credentials are impeccable.

However, Tatchel and fellow leftists are nonetheless responsable for setting in motion, starting back in the 60s, the trends and tendancies that have led to creation of these august “academics” now accusing him of racism.

What on earth are people who cannot even express themselves clearly (to judge by their quotes) doing in a PHD programme?

My comment earlier on was confused, I didn’t realise Peter had said that, I’d assumed it had been the hard left coterie. But thankfully Peter has cleared that one up by clarifying the comment anyway…

Tatchell is a man of rare courage and integrity and we should all speak out in his support.

Judy has got is all wrong. There is a small Islam reform movement. There are also liberal, progressive Muslims.

I have supported and tried to give them platforms, only to be denounced and sabotaged by the political allies of the authors of Out of Place.

There are three prestigious Islamic scholars and theologians who have sought to develop an anti-fundamentalist, reformist and progressive Islam. They would not call themselves reformers. They would say that they were merely rescuing Islam from the illiberal misinterpretations and flawed expositions of the Koran and Hadiths by mainstream, orthodox clerics.

These progressive Muslim theologians are:

The late Sheikh Zaki Badawi of the Muslim College in London was a liberal and reformer. I knew him. He developed an Islamic theology that supported women’s rights and gay rights. A very inspiring man.

Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf (former chair of the university imams) did likewise. I organised a speaking engagement for him in 2005, where he intended to lecture on the shape of a modern, liberal interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths. He was forced to pull out after leading orthodox Muslims threatened to get him sacked from his job, stripped of this theological qualifications and barred from preaching.

There is also another prestigious Islamic reformer, Sheikh Mohammed Kazem al-Khaqani, a very prominent Iranian cleric (now exiled in the UK) who seeks to reconcile Islam with democracy, secularism and human rights.

Please read my Guardian CIF article about him here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/04/muslim_cleric_urges_secularism.html

Al-Khaqani is a hugely important voice for Islamic moderation and liberalism. The MCB and MAB refuse to have anything to do with him. I have tried to get them to meet him and to get al-Khaqani on the Islam TV Channel, to no avail.

The point is that Judy is wrong to suggest that there is no theological reevaluation going on in the Muslim community. It is small but happening. We should support it.

To imply that there is little or no difference between fundamentalists and other Muslims is wrong and deeply offensive. The idea that all Muslims are one homogeneous mass is simply untrue and stereotyping.

If Tatchell were to publish something naming these people and declaring them liars, the boot would then be on the other foot. They would have to sue him, and lose, or shut up. It is obvious that Tatchell has the documentary evidence to defend himself in a libel case, if he can lure them into it.

I have mocked and scorned Tatchells forays into the field of structural engineering. But he has every right to defend himself against scurrilous allegations against his personal integrity.

” The valorisation of travel metaphors in transexual and transgender cultural productions and their connection to material transgender mobilities “.

” A third way vegan”

Anyone who can write this brain bending rubbish cannot be a person of good faith, Good faith requires up front honesty not tongue twisting gobbledygook designed to obscure, Nobody without an ulterior motive would write such shite, I support Peter.

Excellent comment, Peter. Thank you.

Would Judy like to provide the evidence for her entirely false claim that I am a violent person who “uses physical violence” and who “uses his fists in physical attacks on those who are found guilty at the court of his personal conscience?”

Judy, what is the evidence for such nonsense claims? You’ve made this claim, so now prove it.

I seem to recall that many people (the NF, BNP, Combat 18, Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamists, Mugabe’s bodyguards, Russian neo-Nazis, Metropolitan Police, Catholic clergy, queer-bashers etc) have used their fists on me but I don’t recall ever retaliating in kind.

Perhaps Judy can explain?

Peter: I would support anyone who used their fists in self-defence and I wish that you would take up self-defence for your own safety. Contrary to what Judy alleges, you haven’t used your fists even when you have been attacked and beaten unconscious.

Contrast Peter’s attitude to be slandered with George Galloway’s.

Also, I grew up with regular reports of Peter’s political activism in the Ham and High. Violence never figured in them once.

Thanks for the clarification, Peter, much appreciated.

Peter Tatchell incorrectly regards as incompatible religious fundamentalism and what he would class as liberal (ie acceptable to him) attitudes towards gays. All believing Muslims (and certainly the late Sheikh Zaki Badawi, who I had the great privilege to work with for four years) do believe that Islam is a divinely revealed religion, and that the Koran’s laws are the direct word of Allah and thus immutable. That’s what fundamentalism means. I know of no branch of Islam that, like Reform Judaism, regards their scripture as the product of purely human authorship.

That does not prevent some of these fundamentalist Muslims interpreting liberally how one ought to act towards Muslims who do not follow the laws or who are apostates. They are still fundamentalists in terms of its meaning of belief in the divine and immutable nature of the commands.

The same is true of orthodox Judaism, of which a core belief is that the Torah is a document of divine origin, and its laws are unalterable. Religious Jews who believe or act in accordance with this, including both the present Chief Rabbi and his predecessor (attacked as a fundamentalist by Tatchell), whilst regarding homosexuality as an unacceptable practice (just as is eating pork, adultery, mixing wool and linen etc) do not advocate punishing or vilifying individuals who do homosexual acts, any more than they advocate punishing or discriminating against Jews who do not eat kosher food or who break the Sabbath.

Such individuals are however disqualified in their eyes from having any right to represent orthodox Jewish organizations or hold posts within such organizations if they publicly advocate the breaking of these or any other Jewish laws.

There are no Jewish anti-gay campaigns comparable with Christian evangelist anti-gay campaigns. There are Jewish campaigns against Jews marrying outside the faith or advocating changes to Jewish practice or status, but by and large they are totally marginal. The Lubavitch movement has been successful because it uncompromisingly advocates and promotes positive Jewish practice (observing the Sabbath, giving charity, observing the required monthly period of sexual abstinence etc.

Alternative forms of lifestyles practised by many Jews, including watching mainstream secular television, practising follow-your-inclinations sexuality (including the practice of homosexual penetrative sexual acts by those who wish to do them) are held to be incompatible with the life that the Almighty is believed to have commanded Jews to lead.

As far as I am aware, all practising Muslims believe the equivalent about the laws of Islam.

It’s just that some have different views on what to do about those who transgress against these rules.

Just for laughs:

It’s ironic that Western liberal imperialists like Tatchell try to assert Western values over the rest of the world when in fact the rest of the world has learnt from the West to embrace homophobia.
Ray | 31 Oct, 23:04 | #

Although I do not always – or necessarily often – agree with Peter Tatchell’s views, I willingly concede I have over the years come to respect the man. His record in opposing fascism in ALL its forms is quite exemplary.

Give me Tatchell over the Islamofascist-lovers like Galloway and Livingstone, and the Israel-hating cabal at Cif anytime.

“Such individuals are however disqualified in their eyes from having any right to represent orthodox Jewish organizations or hold posts within such organizations if they publicly advocate the breaking of these or any other Jewish laws.”

Doesn’t this support the case Peter is making in that article? Because post-holders in these organisations are prevented from publicly stating that homosexuality is OK, they are necessarily resistant to equal rights for gay people and perhaps more so than the people they claim to represent. As such the elitist form of multi-culturalism Peter is criticising has a tendency to be more sensitive to the beliefs of religious establishment that can undermine the commitment to universal human rights. You may disagree with it, but I don’t see how this statement is antisemitic.

The problem with throwing accusations of antisemitism around willy nilly is that you erode the seriousness of actual antisemitism.

I know there’s lots of secular / liberal / progressive Muslims… But this is despite what Muslims understand Islam says about homosexuality isn’t it? The Guardian surveyed 500 Muslims, and 0% said that homosexuality is ever morally acceptable within Islam.

Still, I support any kind of reform movement, however fledgling with Muslim scholars as Peter describes…

Acts of physical and potentially life endangering thuggery proudly committed by Peter Tatchell

four members of OutRage! – including Peter Tatchell – leapt in front of the Prime Minister’s car, holding up placards reading “Consent at 16″, forcing the vehicle to brake and swerve into the path of oncoming traffic. The Prime Minister bent forward and ducked his head, adopting an anti-terrorist/anti-crash posture. OutRage! later boasted: “We got John Major to bend over for gay men”

and

ter Tatchell and three OutRage! activists ambushed his motorcade in central London in late 1999, attempting a citizen’s arrest. Running out into the road, they forced the President’s limousine to halt. Peter Tatchell opened the car door and grabbed Mugabe, declaring that he was under arrest on charges of torture

Mugabe is of course a disgusting, murdering thug of a dictator, but adopting in car-jacking and grabbing him= one of the favoured methods of his own goons, is hardly the way to deal with him.

There are also numerous instances of Tatchell and his mates “storming” various religious and political meetings. “Storming” doesn’t mean just quietly walking in and standing up. It involves the vigilantes forcing their way into the event by pushing others aside and then physically fighting legitimate attempts by the people responsible for the safety of the location to remove them, all of which involve others than themselves in physical danger.

All of which is totalitarian, not libertariann practice, in which the will of one person (the unfailingly self-regarding narcissist Tatchell and his cohorts) is forced through violence and lawbreaking on others who are gathered for a legitimate meeting of their own.

Then of course there’s his equally self-appointed role of the Avenging Angel by his outing stunts carried out in the name of gay liberation. In one case, that turned him into the Angel of Death:

Some of the activities of OutRage! have been highly controversial. In 1994 it unveiled placards naming ten Church of England bishops as gay. Shortly afterwards the group wrote to twenty UK MPs, urging them to reveal their supposed homosexuality. One of those in receipt of such a letter died of a sudden heart attack

And each and every time–it’s his personal will and his setting himself up as judge, jury and executioner, with a self-appointed right to force himself through violence into others’ lives and events.

Just as unjustifiable and despicable as the threats and attacks directed at him and at gay people. Totalitarian methods are not the way to build an open society. On the contrary–they pressure the authorities into putting on more and more security and surveillance.

No, thanks.

“I am also similarly fond of the Anglican service, although I have less affinity with Christianity than with Judaism.” – David T 2.43 p.m.

I am listening to it now. In my traditional the Preface to the Liturgy points out that it follows Jewish practice in being sung throughout.

David T. you are a good man and a patient one.

Mr Peter Tachell has been subject to a vile lie – the apology confirms this. It should not have been published; but in this case it has backfired on those who are responsible. I disagree frequently with Peter but racism is something I have never suspected him of, unless racism has been redefined in the meantime.

On another comment post someone pointed out that Peter has been a victim of the kind of treatment commonly carried on in small ultra left or right factions, riven as they so often are by disputes borne out of preening ambition and morbid suspicion. Correct. That is why they are small, thankfully.

Keep going Peter.

David T

For what it is worth: yes, I think that Judaism is not true. I don’t believe in God. I don’t think that God has ever made a covenant with mankind, or with the Jews as a collectivity.

I think that many of the taboos and restrictions that Judaism is constructed around are silly.

However, I also think that Judaism – along with most mature religions – are fantastic creations and expressions of generations of creativity and artistry. I enjoy participating in religious services, in particular Jewish ones

I must admit I find that baffling, outside of the realm of drama, I find it difficult to see what enjoyment can be had from promulgating a falsehood, and clearly a damaging and divisive one at that.

When I was teenager, back in the early Eighties, Peter Tatchell topped my list of “people who deserved a smack”. Quite an achievement, as it was – still is – a bloody long list. Years later, when I saw him walking through Soho, I had the urge to run over and shake his hand.

I don’t know Peter Tatchell, but having followed his “career” through the years, I have, probably like most people, found some things to admire as well as other things with which I’ve totally disagreed. What cannot be denied, however, is the sincerity of his convictions or his refusal to compromise them, even when they’ve placed him in physical peril. He could, of course, simply enjoy the abuse, but I doubt if even the most fervent masochist would have risked a thumping as readily and as often as Tatchell has done unless he totally believed in his cause(s).

The idea that he could, in any way, be prone to any kind of “-isms” or “-phobias” should be plainly ludicrous to anyone who knows the slightest thing about the man. These accusations against Peter Tatchell show how easily terms that were coined to combat tyranny can be abused by unscrupulous individuals seeking to smear and silence their critics. They are being made deliberately and maliciously, not only in the hope of wounding his reputation, but almost certainly with the knowledge that he would find them personally upsetting.

Don’t let the bastards get you down, Peter. As for your accusers, as David T so eloquently put it: fuck them!

Judy… “practising follow-your-inclinations sexuality” are incompatible with the life of the Almighty. What are you on about??Even the Almighty must have done it once, unless you believe the piffle about immaculate conceptions.

Note that Judy does not answer Peter Tatchell’s polite request for proof of his supposed violence. Slander.

If I saw Peter I would hug him, and Peter if you want those libelous fools given a good slap just ask. I have been a long admirer of yours and very grateful for all the work you have done combating hate towards gay people.

Hi Judy,

I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence for your entirely false claim that I am a violent person who “uses physical violence” and who “uses his fists in physical attacks on those who are found guilty at the court of his personal conscience?”

Judy, what is the evidence for such nonsense claims? You’ve made this claim, please prove it.

I seem to recall that many people (the NF, BNP, Combat 18, Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamists, Mugabe’s bodyguards, Russian neo-Nazis, Metropolitan Police, Catholic clergy, queer-bashers etc) have used their fists on me but I don’t recall ever retaliating in kind.

Perhaps Judy can explain?

I find that Joseph K has neatly summarised my experience of Mr Tatchell over 30+ years.
Starting from a position of ill-informed adolescent prejudice, I have come to admire Peter’s courage and commitment in the face of considerable opposition from both left and right.
I should add that I find Judy’s accusation of physical violence as Peter’s modus operandi nothing short of laughable.

The notion that Peter is an egotistic narcissist is absurd to anyone who knows him. Last year, he turned up to a memorial event I organised for an Arab political activist he barely knew. He gave a very moving speech, having dragged himself out of his sick bed with flu and travelling across half of London, shivering and sweating, to do it. I told him he didn’t need to and that he should get better, but Peter being Peter insisted he would keep to his promise. He didn’t ask for or receive money and he didn’t gain or seek publicity. He did it because he wanted to show his solidarity for the cause the deceased fought for. I don’t recognise anything in what these low-level academics say about him. People like Judy are just ignorant and bitter.

The same is true of orthodox Judaism, of which a core belief is that the Torah is a document of divine origin, and its laws are unalterable.

I’d say that a very high proportion of self-identifying orthodox Jews don’t actually belief that. Instead, they’ll say that what matters is the *practice* of Judaism.

I doubt you believe it, Judy.

I must admit I find that baffling, outside of the realm of drama, I find it difficult to see what enjoyment can be had from promulgating a falsehood, and clearly a damaging and divisive one at that.

The songs are lovely.

ooft! you took a beating there judy! never mind. go and lick your wounds and you can come back talking shite the next time.

Judy: everybody has been having a go at your obviously false statement that PT used “violence,” but nobody it seems is going after your equally false and silly statement that the following PT statement is “anti-semitic”:
Parapharasing here: That the Chief Rabbi in Britain and the British Board of Jewish Representatives:
1. deny the right of individual Jews to “dissent from the views of the elite”
2. silence the “unorthodox Jewish minority”
3.demand unquestioning support for Israel.

These statements may be overstated and overblown, they may even be wrong, but they are hardly anti-semitic. Criticizing Jewish leadership, even when you’re wrong, is not the same as hating Jews, which is what anti-semitic should and, as far as I know, does mean. Where do you get off with these rapid-trigger accusations anyway?

I have made a long and detailed response on the subject of the violent methods that Peter Tatchell has used. It’s been consigned to mderation hell for some hours. Perhaps DavidT could ensure that it is published- it should have appeared hours ago. When it does, I’m expecting some commenters to try and argue that the events and actions I’ve drawn attention to aren’t “really” violence. To anyone who finds that’s the sort of response they’re thinking of, ask yourself what you’d say if the same methods were to be used against a gay group or a meeting of a group of Muslim worshippers by the BNP or EDL.

Judy at 12.56pm. “Tatchell is also deeply anti-democratic, since he regards it as acceptable to use his fists in physical attacks on those who are found guilty at the court of his personal conscience.”

Oh, so what you REALLY meant to say is that that he uses his metaphorical fists? Not his real ones? Dissembler. Fool.

Judy, you wrote that I used “fists” and “physical violence”. If you can’t prove that I have used actual fists and physical violence (which I don’t believe you can) then it would be honourable to withdraw that claim and apologise.

From what I’ve read here and on lots of previous threads, admission of error is not her strong suit. Much better at stern judgmentalism and self-assigned infallibility.

David T

The songs are lovely.

I have no problem in accepting that wholeheartedly; but the theology of the major theistic dogmas…dodgy, distinctly divisive and have been, and arguably still are, the greatest fetter weighing on human progress.

Judy is as mad as a hatter. It is best to ignore her.

Judy: Are you talking about his Easter protest in Canterbury Cathedral in 1998? He was acquitted by the court of all charges, wasn’t he?

As for use of violence, sometimes it is necessary, particularly in terms of self-defence. Gay people are currently living in a climate of increasingly violent homophobia. Gay men are being maimed and killed on the streets, something that seems to go under the radar. I don’t know where it comes from, but it’s time all gay people learnt how to defend themselves. Peter provides ideological self-defence to gay people. He is targeting the preachers of homophobic hate and prejudice who give legitimacy to murderous violence against gay people in society. If it requires besieging a cathedral or mosque or music venue and disrupting people’s worship or fun to change the climate of homophobia, then he should be fully supported. An end to homophobic violence requires society to say fuck off to the likes of Qaradawi, Ratzinger and Sacks when they urge their flock to hate homosexuals. I’m not interested in theological debates, just that homosexuals are given the respect and dignity that everyone else deserves.

I wanted to defend peter Tatchell, but that has laready been sufficiently done.

Screaming Judy’s smart-alec confusion about Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists is enough to disqualify her from serious consideration. In her smear campaign, she carefully excises all the good that Peter has done.

She has put me more on Peter’s side than I was before.

I sometimes feel that Nick with his dogged logic has cut off his imaginative thoughtful head. If you can’t appreciate much of the wisdom and almost unfathomable beauty in religious texts despite being an atheist – completely divorced from prescriptive tenets – your are almost missing life itself. Has he ever heard of the word ‘paradox.’ So I agree entirely with David’s words:

“However, I also think that Judaism – along with most mature religions – are fantastic creations and expressions of generations of creativity and artistry. I enjoy participating in religious services, in particular Jewish ones.”

Jumping in front of Mugabe’s car and “grabbing him” is, I would suggest, a very brave and almost masochistic act, it does certainly NOT involve the use of “fists” and “physical violence”. You should withdraw your disgraceful comment Judy.

Peter Tatchell has dedicated his life to a search for justice and truth, perhaps tripping up here and there ( according to some of you) always in good faith, nevertheless. This is much better than following a straight ideological line.

It’s a physical attack on someone to grab them out of a car, however repugnant they are. It’s a dangerous physical attack to force a car to swerve. Storming meetings and resisting leaving them until forcibly ejected or removed involves physical violence in restraining you caused by your invasion and attempted takeover of other people’s meetings and events. Would you regard it as acceptable and non-violent if the BNP or EDL used these methods?

Oh, so what you REALLY meant to say is that that he uses his metaphorical fists? Not his real ones? Dissembler. Fool.

Yes, I’m sure Peter Tatchell handled Mugabe in a completely gentle, kid-gloved finger and thumbtip sort of way.If you can grab someone out of a car without making your grabbing hand into a powerful fist, perhaps you’ll explain how. I’m sure he didn’t in any way violently resist attempts to stop his “storming” other people’s events and taking them over.

Judy is as mad as a hatter.

The constant resort of the angry hard left when they don’t have rational answers. Abuse and vilify your opponents, and especially always claim they’re insane.

Criticizing Jewish leadership, even when you’re wrong, is not the same as hating Jews, which is what anti-semitic should and, as far as I know, does mean. Where do you get off with these rapid-trigger accusations anyway?

Being anti-semitic is not just about “hating Jews”. The classic anti-semitic get out is to claim that some of your best friends are Jews. These days, it’s to show that “good” Jews are standing alongside you as you call for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Anti-semitic hatred of Jews is based on believing that the Jews are all-powerful and exert malign control through their “elders”, including over their own group. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would hardly have been composed by the Russian Okhrana if anti-semitism was just about “hating Jews”–there was already no shortage of that in Tsarist Russia, and its apparent proof that Jews acted collectively to oppress others (in its variant in the case of Tatchell, gays) under the control of their leaders became a potent tool of twentieth century political anti-semitism, recycled across Nazi Germany and the Arab states and the Soviet Union and its marxist clients including the PLO.

Modern variants of anti-semitism as regularly recycled by the extreme left and the Palestinian and Arab movements are eager to “prove” they aren’t anti-semitic by drawing attention to the “brave”, “good” courageous anti-zionist Jews who resist the evil attempts to suppress them as they so boldly speak out day after day in the columns of the Guardian, the Independent etc.

But it’s hardly surprising to find Tatchell recycling this anti-semitic drivel, since he declares himself to be a founder member of the PSC, which advocates the destruction of the state of Israel, and calls for the boycott of all Israeli goods, services and cultural events. And of course including the boycott of Israeli universities and academics. Which presumably he ardently supports.

“Would you regard it as acceptable and non-violent if the BNP or EDL used these methods?”

Judy, the BNP and EDL advocate the persecution of minority groups and their members have been involved in violence against these minorities. Peter Tatchell opposes the persecution of minority groups and has not been violent. Putting yourself in front of a car is not a violent act. Occupying a particular space is not a violent act. Holding someone’s arm and saying they are under arrest is not a violent act. If they were, then Gandhi was a thug and ahimsa is terrorism.

Peter Tatchell has been accused, among other things, of being Islamaphobic, antisemitic, racist, a Mossad agent, working with MI6/CIA, a neoconservative, a dangerous communist, etc. In fact, he has challenged religious and political establishments. He has challenged the Palestinian Arab establishment as much as the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This pissed people like you off. Good. Having known him over the past three or so years, I don’t think there is a bone of prejudice in his body. Yes, there are some things I disagree with him on, namely his adoption of a Leninist-style critique of imperialism and the points he made about September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre. I believe he is wrong, but I know he is honest and that if the left were more principled like Tatchell it would have relevance to contemporary political debate. And I think that frightens you. So you react with shrill accusations of antisemitism.

I would encourage you to criticise Peter and attempt to change his mind. And having known him I think that if you make a strong enough case, he may be persuaded towards your point of view. Making vitriolic and libellous attacks on him will not persuade him or anyone else. It is a favourite tactic of the extreme left to traduce people, but it hasn’t really done them a lot of good. And I don’t think it’s really won you much sympathy here, Judy.

There once was a blogging chalaria
well-known for her bouts of hysteria
whether kosher or traif
no one was safe
from the kadoches of her verbal maleria

I think it would be amusing if Peter decided to suspend his usual policy of not taking those slandering him to court and *just this once* sued Judy. Go on Peter, they might even remove her PC to help pay her costs and save us from more of this shit.

Not much point though, her specialist would turn up in court and simply point out she obviously hadn’t taken her medication for 24 hours.

Anyone who could seriously speak of “Gay imperialism” is simply a malicious or stupid cunt. where does this gay imperialism exist? Where are the countries where heterosexuals are jailed or even executed for consensual heterosexual acts? Where are the countries where the ‘promotion’ of heterosexuality is banned, and where politicians inveigh against filthy heterosexuals. That parts of the supposed left could be using this filthy lie is a pity but hardly a suprise anymore. when will you people wake up and graps that most of the left has become a species of new far right?

It is a matter of public record that Tatchell has no compunction about distorting the truth and engaging in calumny against Israel, and against Diaspora Jews who speak out for Israel. His writing is notorious for always containing some venomous falsehood concerning Israel and its supporters.

He has asserted: “I am against Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, its divisive Berlin-style wall, its illegal nuclear weapons programme and its often indiscriminate military operations that kill innocent Palestinian civilians….”

Every single one of these accusations is false. The occupation of the West Bank is legal, and recognized to be so by UN Security Council resolution 242. The security fence is not Berlin-style – it keeps anti-Jewish murderers out of Israel – but even so was constructed with great reluctance. Israel’s nuclear programme is perfectly legal, since Israel never signed the NPT and will only ever sign it as a recognized nuclear power. And Israel’s armed forces aim their fire only at military targets – any civilian casualties that occur are always unintended, and are almost always a result of armed enemy combatants deliberately hiding behind civilians.

Tatchell boasts of his support for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. This organization seeks to create an apartheid Arab-only state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem after ethnically cleansing the Jewish residents of those territories. It also demands that Israel’s 1.6 million Arabs be augmented by millions more “returning” Arab refugees. And it denies the relevance of millions of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were persecuted and dispossesed by the Arab governments.

It must be galling for Tatchell to be accused of anti-Islamic prejudice after he has endeavoured to curry Islamic favour by espousing so many anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish positions. But there is a certain poetic justice that this is occurring.

Ben: “Israel’s nuclear programme is perfectly legal, since Israel never signed the NPT and will only ever sign it as a recognized nuclear power.”

Israel has no nuclear programme. That’s an antisemitic lie.

Judy

It’s a physical attack…….

etcetera…A long time on the potty and no poo poo little girl, try harder, there’s a good girl!

two points:
1-If he used his fists to grab the tyrant Mugabe, good on him. I suppose you would also decry the “violence” stauffenberg used when he tried to kill Hitler?
2-I pointed out that Tatchell’s remarks about the Head Rabbi and British Board of Jewish Deputies, while possibly overblown and wrong, weren’t anti-semitic. They aren’t. I then mentioned what I thought anti-semitism was or wasn’t. Although your response — that anti-semitism is more than about hating jews — has some merit, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re making a vile accusation against someone based on statements that only a hyperventilating hypersensitive could consider anti-semitic. For someone who writes like an attack dog, you sure can’t take it.
A third point: It’s clear that Tatchell is well-respected for his honesty, integrity and anti-racism. By claiming the opposite, stooping to calling acts (like manhandling Mugabe) most would applaud him for, you simply sound like a vindictive little bitch who didn’t get her way and can’t stand being wrong even once. Quite pathetic really.

If Peter had killed Mugabe during his tussle with that vile dictator, he would have saved the lives of thousands of Zimbabweans who subsequently died of cholera. Personally, I think Mugabe should be assassinated and anyone who does finish him off should win the Nobel Peace Prize. He has gone from being Zimbabwe’s liberator to being its Hitler. As soon as he dies, Zimbabwe will begin its recovery. The sooner, the better.

Highly amusing the way so many commenters on this thread regard mysogyny as a good approach to support Tatchell…..
For example, Brett:

chalaria
well-known for her bouts of hysteria
whether kosher or traif
no one was safe
from the kadoches of her verbal maleria

Oh good, I was wondering when we were going to get hysteria abuse offered up alongside the endless recycling of insanity which Django extends thus:

Not much point though, her specialist would turn up in court and simply point out she obviously hadn’t taken her medication for 24 hours.

Highly imaginative, and so impressive as a form of opposition.

Now we can turn to patronizing mysogyny compounded with its author’s clearly scatological imagination … an even more refined and convincing form of argument from Nick:

A long time on the potty and no poo poo little girl, try harder, there’s a good girl!

Fine indicators of the minds of the writers, each and every one.

“Highly amusing the way so many commenters on this thread regard mysogyny as a good approach to support Tatchell”

Please point out one example of misogyny in anything I’ve written in response to your comments.

Dan:Please point out one example of misogyny in anything I’ve written in response to your comments.

There’s this one:

Shrill accusations of antisemitism.

“Dan:Please point out one example of misogyny in anything I’ve written in response to your comments.

There’s this one:

Shrill accusations of antisemitism.”

Ridiculous.

How is calling your comments shrill evidence of my misogyny?

Try googling “shrill typical mysogynistic language”. You’ll find a huge number of explanations and examples which show how your selection of this word is evidence of your mysogyny.

OK, Judy, will do. Is there a website or guide I can buy on Amazon on mysogynistic language? I want to know. I wish to reform. Maybe when I’ve got my language correct, I will stop beating my wife to a pulp every night.

“Try googling “shrill typical mysogynistic language”. You’ll find a huge number of explanations and examples which show how your selection of this word is evidence of your mysogyny.”

Judy, I don’t know who you are, or what Feminist Review was/is … but that sentence is just bollocks isn’t it?. Really, “try googling” any old shite and you’ll find “a huge number of explanations and examples” which “show” said ‘any old shite’.

First of all, an insult is not in and of itself mysogyny just because it’s directed at a woman. I and many others here i’m sure are equal opportunity abusers. Often that takes the form of “bastard” for men and “bitch” for women. If that makes my mysoginist, then i’m a mysogynist. Using the term that freely, however, lets real women haters off the hook though.

Second of all, the term “shrill” doesn’t always apply to a woman, unless she’s hypersensitive; yes i’m sure google searches will find all kinds of feminist rags full of other hypersensitive feministas whose main purpose in life is to root out mysogyny in all its forms.

Third, if you’re such a dainty little flower who can’t take it, don’t be so abusive yourself (e.g. tossing around “anti-semitic” freely just to score points in an argument).

look …

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=4ifuSu-3NJrajQf64cmZDQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAsQBSgA&q=secret+jewish+conspiracy+control+world&spell=1

…. must be true then

Vildechaye, you might relish seeing how many of the misogynistic terms of personal abuse you direct at me crop up in this compendium of misogynistic abuse directed at Hillary Clinton.

Type in the phrase “shrill misogyny” and you will find that people accuse male misogynists of being shrill, eg
“I’m not sure what his politics are–his attitudes always seemed more like shrill misogyny and misanthropy than any actual ideology”
“the shrill misogyny of Bhartrhari’s subhasitas”
“The dripping self-pity leaking through the torpid writing almost, but not completely, drowns out the shrill misogyny,and the keening whine of victimization”

The word shrill is used against both men and women who are emotive, who scream exagerrated claims, such as accusing people of antisemitism when they criticise Sacks or Netanyahu. Yes, you are shrill, not because you are female but because you are quick to make wild accusations against your opponents. I don’t care what your gender is, you are shrill – you are a living definition of shrillness.

She calls tatchell antisemitic, she calls me mysogynist, i don’t think i can take it anymore….. yawn.

Judy claims she left Feminist Review due to its “disgustingly selective left-totalitarian morality.”

Let us see. In that same issue of Feminist Review where David T linked to the cartoon (No. 4, 1980) the journal published an article by Nira Yuval-Davis entitled, “The Bearers of the Collective: Women and Religious Legislation in Israel.” This particular article written by “an anti-Zionist Israeli Jewess” contains an attack on “orthodox Halakha” (Jewish religious law) specifically into relationship of the laws surrounding marriage.

Did Judy disassociate herself from the magazine as a result of that article? In the following issue (No. 5, 1980), Judy is credited with assisting Karen Margolis, a former member of the International Marxist Group, with “constructive comments and encouragement” for her article, “The Long and Winding Roads (Reflections on Beyond the Fragments).” This article makes the astounding claim:

women’s childbearing function has often emerged as a blatant tool of state policy.

Margolis continued:

I think that feminist theory has failed to demonstrate a necessary relation between feminism and socialism, though it has been more successful in demonstrating the essential connection between women’s liberation and the overthrow of capitalism.

Despite criticising certain Trotskyist political behaviour with respect to the feminist movement, Margolis argued:

Even after the ‘revolution’, we will travel a separate route, to ensure women’s liberation in a socialist society, in the way that only we ourselves as women can define. The line of sexual divison runs back through history beyond that of class division, and forward into socialism beyond the elimination of class conflict. We’ll still be carrying the banner of women’s liberation into the sunrise of socialism with no illusions that we can sit back and wait for the happy ending.

And what was Margolis most proud of?

Invading Westmister Cathederal! She delights in telling us:

At the appointed hour, we gathered outside the building and marched through its main door. Within minutes we were occupying the pulpit, a banner with the legend ‘Free Abortion on Demand-A Woman’s Right to Choose’ was raised and song sheets miraculously appeared. Feminist journalists had organized press coverage, and the TV and radio dutifully arrived, to witness the priest standing helplessly by with the police, unable to demand a violent eviction from a holy place.

As far as she was concerned this act:

was effective, it was fun, and it was based on the principle of self-organization.

It makes me very sad to see that left-wing politics has become at best a zoo and at worst, as someone else said, another type of far right wing politics, a nasty political steamroller that uses carreerism, deceit and slander to crush the best activists and promote nonentities and careerists.

And we wonder why nobody in their right mind votes for socialists any more! Why the hell should anybody vote for the likes of Judy or Yoshie or Richard Seymour?

The Qaradawi affair (which this seems to be an attempt at revenge for) really opened my eyes about these people. Sadly I feel I cannot be involved in political activity as a result, but I am glad that others, like Peter, are not as easily dissuaded. We really need good activists, but I fear that what’s been happening is a real case of bad money driving out good.

I find it interesting that Judy has declared that someone that uses the word “shrill” is guilty of using “typical mysogynistic [sic] language.”

It reminds me of some of the worrying information contained in Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge’s book, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies (Lexington Books, 2003).

The authors comment on page 121 that feminists denounced the use of the word “seminar” because it “is etymologically related to semen” and, as such, feminist students started attending “ovulars.” For a similar reason, if someone referred to the work of someone else as “seminal” they could be criticised.

Examples are abound. To note just one more: on page 349 Koertge notes that the word “sunrise” was viewed as sexist and that it was more appropriate to refer to the “sun at dawn.”

Gay Imperialism

We’ve got an Empire now? Since when and of what does it consist? Soho, Canal Street, Castro Street and some bits of Connecticut?

Michael Ezra –

Indeed.

As you will see from my comment at 2:10 pm yesterday, the dishonest article about Peter Tatchell which started this whole affair contains the baffling claim that the use of the words ‘unsustainable’ and ‘deluged’ by Peter’s assistant apparently demonstrates the ‘colonial’ attitudes of Tatchell.

I’m afraid that Judy attempting to claim that the use of the word ’shrill’ is evidence of mysogyny is just as bad.

Judy

Women have often been accused of hysteria. Men can be equally hysterical. This doesn’t mean that you can never describe a woman (or nan) as hysterical for fear of being considered a mysogynist.

In earlier times – I hope less now – women were associated with hysteria for sociological reasons. The men went out to the office and had to harden themselves for business and women were left at home with their less restricted emotions. So hysteria, in a positive sense, could be a protest against the hardening of the men.

I remember coming out of the cinema with a friend who protested at the way women are portrayed as hysterics. The woman in this case was Jane Fonda. I said, “Wait a moment, Stop and think of the men in the film who were as flat as pancakes. I prefer the hysterical woman.” She agreed.

Lots more to write on this subject, but I’ll stop at this point.

Judy, I found some good commentary of yours on another thread and apologised for maligning you on this one. I can get hysterical myself!!

I do take the point about the word “hysterical” being potentially gender-laden.

However, all this is a bit reminiscent of the cretinous woman who used her 30 seconds on TV during the Nick Griffin Question Time to berate somebody or other for using the term:

“Afro Caribbean”

rather than

“AFRICAN Caribbean”.

Hmm – calling a woman shrill and hysterical is often just a way of (men in particular) shutting them up. A bit similar to people who accuse gay men of being “drama queens” in order to dismiss their anger.

Judy seems to have done nothing more than disagree with some people her. I happen to disagree with her also, but what was that someone was saying about how vicious the Left is when attacking its own?

FF -

Dan’s comment was that Judy reacts ‘with shrill accusations of antisemitism.’

Judy claimed that this, alone, was evidence of his mysogyny!

I can understand that on occasion the word can be used in a mysogynistic way, but I saw nothing in Dan’s comment to suggest this. I imagine that he was using the word ’shrill’ to convey ’strident’ or ‘unthinking’, and Judy’s gender was far from his mind.

Unless of course the use of the word ’shrill’ is always mysognystic?

“True, however the Left has always been very seriously ’screwed up’. Orwell spotted this decades ago.” – I forget who wrote this or when but it’s somewhere up there.

You must take the trouble to read Orwell.

Technically, in English law at any rate, touching anyone is an assault on the person, hence the long established English expression “I beg your pardon” when bumping into people which makes us so laughed at elsewhere in the world. I have seen Peter Tachell assaulted – a sickening incident in Russia recently is one instance captured on camera. I have never heard of his doing anything violent against the person; he may have thrown himself in front of cars – indeed has done so, but to call his grabbing an arm an act of violence is simply over blown. Judy’s love of rhetoric has caught her out. I hope she can see this and apologise.

The primary accusations of racism, to which now violence and anti-Semitism have been added here, are unwarranted by reference to the facts and those that make them should withdraw. Otherwise the conclusion must be that they are deliberately untruthful and malign.

Mark T asks whether the “the use of the word ’shrill’ is always mysognystic [sic].”

As an example of the use of the word, I direct him to a quote from page 16 of Arthur Ransome’s book, Great Northern? (Macmillan, 1948):

Roger’s voice shrilled out, “Sail HO!”

What fly’s bitten Judy?

Her yells mean nothing.

What’s at stake here is a nasty little campaign by professional writters of gibberish – whose connection with the left in any shape or form is a matter of keyboards and seminars alone.

For what Peter has faced in the past – beating against him be it noted – see the previous efforts to smear him over his brave Moscow protest, in, where else, Bob Pitt’s journal (under his pen-name):

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Mufti.html,

Wow – what a lot of drivel we see from Judy on the one side and the maniac “academics” on the other.

The bizarre need to control others use of language that both demonstrate can only be explained by the kind of control freakery that has debased Left Wing discourse for decades,

As for accusing Tatchell of “violence” for standing up to Mugabe well if there was anyone who deserved to be treated roughly in the world its probably him, as I’m sure Judy if she was being honest would agree. Her arguments here are both dishonest and ridiculous.

I never thought of the word “shrill” as having a sexist connotation, but then I have not done a post-graduate thesis on the “etiology and semiotics of gender-specific adjectives in blogging intercourse narratives”. Until us Neanderthal men reach your lofty academic heights, please forgive us when we slip up in our language when disagreeing with us.

Judy’s denunciation of my choice of words as misogynistic when I am not a misogynist nor was I making a sexist statement is an example of the political correctness that drives people insane. It’s because of people like Judy that people get turned off by politics, particularly when it touches on issues of identity. In fact, it leads to a negative backlash because people find it difficult to police the language they use to ensure it doesn’t offend a particular group. The Afro-Caribbean/African Caribbean nonsense on BBC Question Time could have won Griffin some recruits – I’ve never before come across a black person who objects to such categorisation.

If you shout accusations of “antisemitism” at those who criticise Jewish leadership or “misogynist” at those who use the word “shrill”, then you’ll just turn these words into banal terms of abuse.

“The authors comment on page 121 that feminists denounced the use of the word “seminar” because it “is etymologically related to semen” and, as such, feminist students started attending “ovulars.””

Well, the first person in history, I think, who is recorded as using sexual or genetic metaphors (Dawkins might say memes) for the spread of knowledge is Socrates-Plato.

Except in his case, the metaphors tended to be homosexual: no reference to the incubation, “conception”, or even cross-fertilization of ideas. Partly a casualty of homosexual love between man and boy being regarded as the “highest” form of love (unconsumated it equals “Platonic” love).

zkharya: You may think, so what if seminar is etymologically related to semen? Does it matter?

Well, given that we’ve turned to discussing semiotics…

I didn’t want to comment at the time because it seemed petty. However, I noted that Judy’s complaint against Peter Tatchell was that he is an

“extreme narcissist”

“Narcissism” is a particularly nasty, semi-medicalised term which is used to undermine gay men, in arguments.

“Narcissism” does seem to apply to Judy and friends though. As does “crypto-conservative”.

What Judy really needs is a nice Richard.

Aizura claims to have read Adorno and to like Buffy, but obviously, he did not understand them.

The feminist movement has come out with some very odd ideas and it is no wonder that many males and females hold up the movement up for ridicule.

Stony Brook College Society for Women in Philosophy presented a lecture in its 1979-1980 Series on Feminism by Tee Corinne entitled “Images of Lesbian Sexuality in the Fine Arts.” Corinne may be more famous for The Cunt Coloring Book where the book overview is described as:

Over 3 dozen cunts of every size and description for you to color. Originally used for a sex education class. Crayons not included.

Feminists could argue that all men are potential rapists. At the University of Maryland, the Women’s Coalition for Change posted the names of thousands of male students of the University around campus and they were all provided with a label: “Potential Rapist.” It is not just that all men are potential rapists, it has been argued that all women who have not “survived” a rape are “potential survivors.” Catherine MacKinnon, feminist and legal scholar, put it as follows:

To be about to be raped is to be gender female in the process of going about life as usual.

Andrea Dworkin married John Stoltenberg,a radical feminist activist. On page 16 of his book, Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice (Routledge, 2000) he argued:

it is not at all inaccurate to suggest that the ethics of male sexual identity are essentially rapist.

But how can we ignore Dworkin, who defined “romance” as:

rape embellished with meaningful looks.

Many more examples of this type of rubbish can easily be provided.

“Andrea Dworkin married John Stoltenberg,a radical feminist activist. ” – cor I don’t fancy yours mate, whoops there I go again, misogynist!. Dworkin and her ilk did more harm than good. This all harks back to the eighties when we had all the fuss about words like manhole covers and blacklists. Perhaps Judy wishes we were still there.

Gender critique is important. It’s not about protecting the sensitivities of people like Judy, but ensuring that women and men have the same life chances. This is especially important in rigidly patriarchal societies in the developing world. But all too often, the focus switches to Marxist and radical lesbian feminists for opinions that are eccentric and bizarre for the vast majority. Dworkin may have waged a war against phallic objects and heterosexual love as the embodiment of rape, but she offered little of practical value to women who are really suffering from gender inequality and subjugation. She is a product of an introverted, self-serving academic environment with its codes of language that are not understood by most people. Frequently, such feminists embarrass themselves, eg Paglia storming out of an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby like a petulant child. They are nothing. Their attention-seeking posturing and overweening vanity are rooted in a desire to cause a sensation and controversy, thereby earning them a niche and with it research grants. Yes, money and power is often the root cause of all this nonsense. Like those libelling Peter, they are unimportant.

I apologise to Judy if I have unintentionally used any sexist language. I will try to reform so you can have control.

I thoroughly agree with the outrage about the defamatory misrepresentations of Peter Tatchell and I guess it is no coincidience that this smearing campaign has evolved within those realms of academia which have paved the way for the theoretical nobilitation of cultural relativism.
Still, am I the only one who finds the presenation of everyone doing research in cultural studies and questioning gender dichtomomy as complete nutters (as done in several commentaries) a bit unsavoury?

I am absolutely disgusted with Tee Corinne. No pencils provided with her ‘C**t Colouring Book’; what sort of cheapskate is she?

More Media Nonsense:

I totally agree with all your points. I also find the backtracking to explain and apologize for using this or that word amounts to falling deeper in the politically correct trap. hysterical, shrill, narcissistic, there’s no reason why these words can’t be used…. so-called academics will always rationalize and justify their pet peeves with fancy intellectual (and usually incomprehensible) terminology but none of it changes the fact they just dont like it. boo hoo. if i think somebody’s acting like a petulant dainty little flower I’ll say so. and when i call my 11-year-old daughter a “drama queen,” it’s hardly an insult to gay people. as you brits say, give over.

David T – I’m surprised Judy didn’t call you out on your pejorative use of the word “lunatic”. We should all be aware of its sexist connotations re the genderization of the moon and the historic relevance of the demonisation of female behaviour within the context of male domination of the medical profession.

Judy, please keep up !

I’ve also noted how the current discussion deflects from the dishonesty of Judy’s original rant. Tatchell used his “fists” and promoted “violence.” Turns out his fists were used not to punch (the only real way fists could be understood as being used in physical violence) but to clench a shirt. And whose shirt? That of Mugabe, who thinks nothing of running down his own people with his Mercedes-laden motorcade. Similarly, Tatchell’s remarks about the Chief Rabbi and British Board of Deputies is “anti-semitic” when all they are is critical of the chief rabbi and the board of deputies. Instead, now we’re talking about semiotics and whether it’s ok to call a shrill, hysterical rant a shrill hysterical rant. The tactic surely was learned from those days working on the feminist rag.

RE: everyone doing research in cultural studies and questioning gender dichtomomy as complete nutters (as done in several commentaries) a bit unsavoury?

Cultural studies and its variants — structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-structuralism, discourse theory, contextural analysis, etc etc ad nauseam — are a virus on academe. Just look at some of the “written” work, which is incomprehensible and was so well exposed by the hoaxing engineer who wrote an entire essay about nothing that made it into a “respected” “academic” journal. In addition, it could be — and has been — argued that cultural studies et al are one of the primary causes of the cultural relativism that has so badly infected what used to be the progressive left. So no i don’t find it unsavoury, rather, i find it long overdue and highly necessary. The bonus is that it’s also really funny.

It seems to me the whole of this thread has been derailed. Instead of discussing the people who are mentioned in the article it has ended up as a discussion of the views of Judy. I started to skim read very early in this thread of rants.
I have been photographing demonstrations over the last few years and so often I see Peter Tatchell. Not sitting by a keyboard but being there. I am sure there are things I might disagree with him on but I have immense respect for him. He walks the talk.

MoreInsaneNonsense

” I’m surprised Judy didn’t call you out on your pejorative use of the word “lunatic”. We should all be aware of its sexist connotations re the genderization of the moon…”

In German the moon is masculine and the sun is feminine.

If the normal sexuality of men is considered rape, Oh to be raped! But this usage cheapens the real significance of the word.

The hysterical female feminist sticklers for political correctness are, in a very real sense, Rapists of the mind, as evinced in the stories told above. Mental rape can be as serious as physical rape, but it is not punished. Castration is what they have in mind, but secretly they still want the potential rapist.

It is most unfortunate that many feminists want to become like their enemies, the men who hector over underlings at the office, for example.

In London once I met a woman, for whom I was doing a translation, at her home. When her man showed his head in the doorway he was commanded left right and centre until he hid behind a large pot plant.

In Portugal I lived in a house with, by chance, Germans and there the women ruled with a rod of iron and the men were cringing about the place, afraid of putting a foot wrong. In this particular case – by coincidence – the men were beautiful, sensitive and had expresive poetic depths in their eyes. I was thrown out for rebelling against this Amazonian rule.

I know these are particular examples but the are or once were typical.

Well, I have had my share – one of the regular toughs on HP called me a faggot and a Drama Queen – after absorbing the initial intention of being nasty, I love it. And Gene came to my rescue.

I was filled with unspeakable joy when Colonel Honeyball, the Latin teacher, said, “Felix, you have the mind of a butterfly and a female one at that.”

Yes, naturally Peter Tatchell would be called a Narcissist, though he seems to have put himself out a great deal for other people. He is a myth as he was already around years ago when I lived in London.

I always think of Narcissus as being completely self-forgetful. After all he doesn’t know that he is looking at his own image in the water. His beauty drifts away into eternity…

In German the moon is masculine and the sun is feminine.

Not to mention “girl” being neuter

Tail end of Tatchell

Vernichka, all German diminutives with the -chen ending are neuter.
Maedchen comes from Magd, which in older German meant woman; now it means ‘maid’ which does historically, I suppose, suggest an association between woman and servant. Maedchen is a small woman as in girl.

I find the neuter here quite delicious; it slips out of the male-female gender connotations. It has a soft sound – the ch is a very soft guttural – and throws a soothing light on many a German poem. Language can transform in-built prejudice inside out and make the ‘error’ come out on top as a virtue.

As regular readers of this site will have noticed, billaricaydickey (aka Terry Fitzpatrick) is obsessed with me. I have several times before had to put on record outright denials at his outrageous lies, accusing me of all sorts of things. And once again I wish to state for the record that I have to set the record straight. I have not written homophobic articles for New Nation, The Voice or anywhere else. Plain and simple.

Each one of billaricaydickey’s allegations against me on this site are libellous, however rather than take any action I have simply put in writing a rebuttal. But this really is getting too much, because it is an ongoing pattern, with one obsessed person continuing to make unfounded and damaging allegations. Quite simply it cannot go on like this on this site.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? People of colour have a problem with Peter Tatchell, and white people think he is fine and not racist. Um… wtf?

PS. Sorry, I also forgot to mention that I am appalled that people are accusing Dr Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem of having made up their names or some shit like that. Apparently people are offended that they are not called Jim, Tamsin and Ernest (ie. they are offended that these people are not white and do not have white people names).

Tatchell right now is a very confused individual. Still, I respect him for his stands in the past.

George Galloway has put out a call to support Peter Tatchell at the General Election, good news http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/11/respect-conference-in-birmingham-today.html