Academics smear Peter Tatchell
When I first knew Peter in the late 1980s he used to be threatend with physical violence by fascist groups so I am particularly shocked that he has been accused of being someone who “participated with several racist and fascist groups.” Its a lie plain and simple.
New censorship fabrications by supporters of Out Of Place
Peter Tatchell writes:
Despite having secured an apology from Raw Nerve Books over a false and libellous chapter in the book Out Of Place, the lies and smears against me are continuing and escalating. For defending myself against untrue allegations, I am now accused of “censorship.”
Out Of Place contains a chapter - Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ - by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem. It was published by Raw Nerve Books in 2008.
These authors make highly defamatory, libellous and untrue allegations against me. This goes beyond reasonable criticism. It involves outright lies and fabrications. Criticism is fine. Untruths are not.
That is why the publishers made this apology to me:
http://www.rawnervebooks.co.uk/Peter_Tatchell.pdf
Dr Jin Haritaworn is based at the LSE’s Gender Institute; Tamsila Tauqir is from the lesbian Muslim Safra Project and was awarded an MBE last year; Esra Erdem is another acdemic, now in the US but formerly connected with Corpus Christi Oxford.
The authors’ friends and supporters are spreading further smears. They accuse me of “censoring” Out Of Place.
Among the academics making accusations of censorship are Dr Umut Erel, RCUK academic fellow at the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance at the Open University, and Dr Christian Klesse, lecturer in Cultural Studies at the Sociology Department of the Manchester Metropolitan University:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ek241009.html
The real censorship is by my critics. Some of them are posting entirely false allegations, often on closed lists that do not allow me to post my side of the story.
Many of my detractors now claim that I forced the book to be withdrawn from sale and that I pressured the publishers to declare it “Out of Print.” Not so.
I have not suppressed the book, Out of Place, or forced it out of print.
The book was listed as “Out of Print” on the Raw Nerve Books website before I contacted the publishers and challenged the lies and falsehoods written about me.
The book was not withdrawn on my account. It had already ceased to be available before I approached the publishers.
I have no objection to Out Of Place being reprinted, providing it does not include the lies and fabrications about me. I made this clear to Raw Nerve Books in a letter dated 29 July 2009.
I did not use the libel laws. This is another lie.
When I presented the publishers with evidence that refuted the accusations against me in Out of Place, they very honourably agreed to publish an apology.
Academics are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of facts, truth and of evidence-based assertions, with proper footnoting and sourcing for what they write. The authors of the chapter that defames me did not do this. They made claims that are untrue and for which there is no evidence. They provided no footnotes or sources for their outrageous false allegations. They are guilty of poor research, shoddy scholarship and desertion of academic standards.
Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem suggest that I am anti-Muslim. This is pure fiction. I have campaigned against fundamentalist Muslims (in the same way that I have campaigned against fundamentalist Christians), not against Muslim people in general. I have always made this distinction very clear.
The authors explicitly claim or implicitly insinuate the following:
Tatchell has “claimed the role of liberator and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians.” Not true. I have never made such a claim or adopted such a role.
Tatchell is Islamophobic and is “part of the Islamophobia industry.” Not true. I have defended many Muslim victims of injustice and condemned anti-Muslim prejudice. Indeed, in 1998 I drafted a law to protect Muslims (and others) against discrimination, harsssment and hate crimes. It was, sadly, rejected by the government.
Tatchell is racist and has engaged in “racial” politics. Not true. I have a 40-year record of anti-racist and anti-apartheid campaigning.
Tatchell has described “Muslims as Nazis” and made the equation “Muslim=Nazi” and “Muslim=Evil.” Not true. I have never attacked Muslims in general – only fundamentalists who oppose democracy, equality and human rights.
Tatchell has “collaborated with the extreme right” and “participated with several racist and fascist groups.” Not true. I have fought the far-right for four decades and been a victim of violent attacks by neo-Nazis because of my defence of black, Muslim, Jewish and LGBT people.
WHAT DO WE NOT WANT?
GAY IMPERIALISM!
WHEN DO WE NOT WANT IT?
NOW!
Surely Peter Tatchell ought to have been awarded at least an MBE by now.
Whether we applaud him or find him a bit of an embarrassment, he’s utterly dauntless.
What awful harpies these wimmin must be!
Their names are implausibe; Jin, Tamsila, Umut and Esra are names of Peter Simple characters or maybe computer-generated, surely?
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Whilst it seems that an injustice has been done to Tatchell here in the publication of specific untruths, his broader political activity is hardly pristine.
The first time I ever saw him was at a demo for the Palestinians. Thousands were there holding placards saying ‘Free Palestine’, ‘Justice for Palestine’, ‘Respect Palestinian human rights’, ‘End the occupation’, etc. His said: ‘Israel, stop oppressing Palestine. Palestine, stop oppressing gays.’ That is not solidarity, it is taking an opportunity as he has done on many other occasions, to put the boot into progressive causes. He should not be surprised that principled leftists take exception to it.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Umut and Esra are Turkish names, possibly of Arabic origin. The others are plausible enough.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Mikey, how is that “putting the boot into progressive causes”? I’m assuming you agree with him that the rights of LGBT people in Palestine should be protected, and it’s fairly clear even from what you’ve said that Tatchell opposes Israeli oppression of Palestine. It’s certainly debatable whether or not Tatchell’s actions were the most constructive way of promoting either of these two aims, but that’s hardly the same thing as intentionally doing damage to a cause, as you seem to be suggesting.
Comment by Owen — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
#2 Actually, nearly all of Tatchell’s Outrage lot at that demo, except the one that got into the tv news clip funnily enough, were carrying posters which said the reverse: ” Palestinians stop oppressing gays, Israelis stop oppressing Palestinians ” which suggests a different set of priorities. This one occasion is the ONLY time I have seen coverage of a PSC rally on the mainstream tv news; it announced that gay rights supporters had been attacked at a pro-Palestine rally, with its implications of reactionary jihadists. The video-clip, supplied by Tatchell I heard (correct me if I’m wrong) showed a 70 year old Asian man having heated words with the ONE person carrying the ” Israelis stop oppressing Palestinians, Palestinians stop oppressing gays” sign. This struck me as a deeply dishonest ’set-up’ to discredit the Palestine movement.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
So what exactly are you accusing Peter Tatchell of jock?
If you disagree with him or his groups actions do you think it’s fair to smear him as is detailed above?
Comment by Duncan — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
THe problem with Peter Tatchell’s placard on the Palestinian demo is that it implies the placing of conditions on support or solidarity, whether intentional or not.
Campaigns against opression have a value on their own terms.
Would you turn up at a rally in support of lesbian and gay rights with a placard condemning Dutch fascists?
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
yes political disagreement is different from saying that someone who like Peter Tatchell is often threatened by the far right works with fascists.
It’s a lie!
Comment by Derek Wall — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Certainly Tatchell’s intervention on the Palestine demonstration and the ludicrous account he gave of it afterwards seemed intended as a provocation - he had not consulted with any representative Palestinian groups, and with such well known defenders of Palestinian rights as the loathsome Brett Lock of Harry’s Place among his lieutenants, one has to be very suspicious of his motives. I know of no accounts of him wading provocatively into a pro-Zionist demonstration to show his commitment to Palestinian rights.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Peter Tatchell is someone who does not deserve the support of socialist or anti-imperialists. His attacks against George Galloway for his support for the democratic rights of the Palestinians regarding Hamas and his de facto support for US and British intervention in the region by painting Political Islam as regressive, ignoring completely its provenance or role in resisting western imperialism, are the hallmarks of a man thoroughly imbued with the orientalism described by the late Edward Said.
Comment by Anonymous — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Oh dear. It is quite silly (malicious?) to insinuate that have not supported the Palestinian cause but only undermined it.
I was a founding member and supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and a keynote speaker at its founding conference at County Hall in 1982 (along with Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight).
I was one of the first people to propose sanctions, disinvestment and an international boycott against Israel, way back in the early 1970s.
Owen is wrong:
The placards at the 2004 PSC rally said:
“Israel: stop persecuting Palestine. Palestine: stop persecuting queers”. Not the reverse order that he claims.
We did this protest because the PSC, PLO and PA refused to do anything about the arrest, jailing, torture and murder of Palestinian LGBTs.
The left and pro-Palestine movement in the UK and US colluded with this homophobic persecution by their silence and inaction.
Our protest got results. It badly embarassed the PLO and PA. They agreed to talk to OutRage! As a result, the oppression of LGBT Palestinians decreased - no thanks to the PSC or the people who attacked our rightful stance against homophobia at the 2004 demo.
As I said at the time:
“For over 30 years I have supported the Palestinian struggle for national liberation, but I cannot remain silent while the PLO, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are abducting, brutalising and murdering lesbian and gay Palestinians. Freedom for Palestine must be freedom for all Palestinians – straight and gay. Unless we challenge the abuse of queer human rights now, this violent homophobia will become entrenched in a new Palestinian state and Palestinian leaders will be emboldened to abuse the rights of other Palestinian citizens.”
I stand by that statement. I hope this clarifies.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
So I am correct, you did not consult with any representative Palestinian groups before attacking the demonstration? Given your support for Palestinian rights, what do you think of the outpourings of your friend Brett Lock in support of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? And do you intend to provocatively wade into any pro-Zionist demonstrations to show your commitment to Palestinian rights?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Apologies to Owen. It was actually jock mctrousers who was wrong about the placards that we held in 2004.
The OutRage! placards at the 2004 PSC rally said:
“Israel: stop persecuting Palestine. Palestine: stop persecuting queers”.
Not the reverse order that jock claims.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Peter, I certainly don’t support anyone misrepresenting your views, but your cosy relationship with the Islamophobic and anti-left Harry’s Place hate and slander website doesn’t help.
Comment by Calvin — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Tatchell says: ” The placards at the 2004 PSC rally said:
“Israel: stop persecuting Palestine. Palestine: stop persecuting queers”. Not the reverse order that he claims. ——-
Well, I was there and I know what I saw. ALL the Outrage people I saw, as I said above were carrying placards which said ” Palestinians stop persecuting Gays, Israelis stop persecuting Palestinians “. But the video clip that showed on some tv news features, showed a sign that had the message reversed.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I well remember 30 years ago being told that feminism was a distraction from the class struggle and women who banged on about it were agents and allies of the bourgeoisie. Plus ca change.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
The OutRage! position is the only honest one to take.
What is coming out of this is that whatever people think of Mr Tatchell’s politics, he is respected as having honesty, integrity and consistence.
The same can not be said of his detractors.
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
‘But the video clip that showed on some tv news features, showed a sign that had the message reversed.’
How exactly did that work? Did it appear in mirror writing?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
#2 “Thousands were there holding placards saying ‘Free Palestine’, ‘Justice for Palestine’, ‘Respect Palestinian human rights’, ‘End the occupation’, etc. His said: ‘Israel, stop oppressing Palestine. Palestine, stop oppressing gays.’ That is not solidarity, it is taking an opportunity as he has done on many other occasions, to put the boot into progressive causes.”
What utter, weaseley crap.
Peter Tatchell is a genuinely remarkable man. He is both fearless and utterly without hypocrisy or double standards, and one of the very few people in public life today who can properly be described as a hero. Long may he continue to be an irritant to bigots and liars everywhere.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
In reply to lone nut:
Yes, we lobbied Palestinian groups (PLO and PA) for a long time BEFORE the protest. But they ignored our concerns and carried on persecuting Palestinian LGBTs.
Doing this protest was a desperate last resort. And it worked. The persecution decreased.
As I said, those who now attack us were content to allow the continued arrest, jail, torture and murder of Palestinian LGBTs. They never lifted a finger. For the sake of the fight against Zionism, they saw Palestinian queers as expendable. Utterly shameful. And many of them still defend their homophobic stance, even today.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
- 10 -
But Anon, please try to THINK!
Political Islam is vile, disgusting and appalling.
Of course, smarties like US wouldn’t want to live under the rule of Political Islam but those poor brown-skinned people don’t know any better and don’t mind in the least.
MORE HONOUR KILLINGS NOW!
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Peter Tatchell’s crime is evenhandedness and honesty. These are traits that do not sit comfortably with extremists.
Comment by Mick — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
so in peter’s view, identity politics should have parity with the ethnic cleansing and oppression of an entire people?
Comment by Anonymous — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
PS: At the demo in 2004, OutRage! activists also carried placards saying:
“Free Palestine” and “The wall must fall”.
Despite our criticism of homophobic persecution in Palestine, our support for the Palestinian freedom struggle was crystal clear.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
’so in peter’s view, identity politics should have parity with the ethnic cleansing and oppression of an entire people?’
If you are murdered by your family for being gay, I suppose it’s hard to see the qualitative difference.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
It’s pretty disgraceful, but not that surprising to see members of the idiot wing of the left using a thread about smears against Tatchell, to oppose solidarity with GLBT Palestinians.
Comment by matt d — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Anonymous
Killing someone because they are gay is the same as killing someone because they are black/ Palestinian / white / Jewish / Catholic / Protestant /Muslim etc.
Are you saying it is OK for some people to kill homos?
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
“Yes, we lobbied Palestinian groups (PLO and PA) for a long time BEFORE the protest. But they ignored our concerns and carried on persecuting Palestinian LGBTs.”
But you made no attempt to contact groups representing Palestinian LGBTs to ask them whether they thought it was a good idea to disrupt a Palestinian solidarity demonstration, did you? I wonder if you would disrupt a demonstration against anti-Semitism in order to expose the less than enlightened positions on sexuality of leading Orthodox rabbis? Can you confirm whether Brett Lock was involved in your provocation, and whether you regard him as a fellow defender of Palestinian rights?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Lone Nut
Can you give us the address of the LGBT organisation in Gaza?
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
#10 “…his de facto support for US and British intervention in the region by painting Political Islam as regressive, ignoring completely its provenance or role in resisting western imperialism, are the hallmarks of a man thoroughly imbued with the orientalism described by the late Edward Said.”
A parody. Someone please tell me this is a parody of the twattish, Student Grant-esque culturally relativist Left. Please.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
“Can you give us the address of the LGBT organisation in Gaza?”
I see. You don’t know who these people are but you are prepared to disrupt Palestine solidarity demonstrations in alleged support of them? If anything is a parody of orientalism this is.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
As a paid up member of ‘the idiot left’, I’m afraid I’m with Tatchell on this one. There is nothing wrong with supporting Palestinian rights and opposing oppression by Palestinian factions of gays ,or anyone else, at the same time.
Comment by Jota — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
#24 the trouble is that the greatest threat to gay Palestinians is not being killed by their family. It happens that their greatest threat is also that of straight Palestinians - the Israeli occupation of their land and oppression of their people. The IDF don’t care whether you’re gay or straight: get in the way of a settlement or farm clearance and they will shoot you regardless.
Peter fails to notice that he is feted by the media when he does something useful for the powerful in our society - make solidarity with Palestinians conditional on them rather than the (also homophobic, by the way) Israelis, or jump in front of Mugabe for a photo stunt.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
‘I see. You don’t know who these people are but you are prepared to disrupt Palestine solidarity demonstrations in alleged support of them?’
I think you need to flip on your irony alert switch as you have comprehensively missed the point of his request for the address.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Some groups have a tendency to jump in with full support and uncritical support with which ever leadership or government is under attack even if they are reactionary in respect of human rights - In fact socialists should always ensure they always give critical support position in these circumstances - something Peter Tatchell has done.
Comment by Roy — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
#34, you can do that but it is not solidarity. To make the primary intervention in a demonstration for solidarity with the Palestinian people your condemnation of a small number of Palestinians is unhelpful.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
“I think you need to flip on your irony alert switch as you have comprehensively missed the point of his request for the address.”
No, I am fully aware of the point of his request, it is the standard “Israel is the villa in the jungle and the Palestinian are barbarians” point made day in day out on Harry’s Place and other hasbara sites. I repeat my point to you - if you claim to be solidarising with LBGT Palestinians, what groups or individuals are you in contact with and how do you coordinate with them? Do you have any estimates for how many lesbian and gay Gazans have been killed by the IDF over the past ten years, ahd how do you intend to protest about that?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
‘your condemnation of a small number of Palestinians is unhelpful.’
Are you seriously claiming that homophobia is a fringe minority view in Palestine?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
‘Do you have any estimates for how many lesbian and gay Gazans have been killed by the IDF over the past ten years, ahd how do you intend to protest about that?’
That was the point of the other part of the protest placard. Tatchell is prepared to protest about both.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
#37 I am sure that homophobia is as prevalent in Palestine as it is everywhere else.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
“Tatchell is prepared to protest about both”
Yes, but the IDF is not prepared to listen to his protests, unlike, it would seem, the PA and the PLO. So perhaps he needs to do some more work on that front. He could start by disassociating himself from supporters of the Israeli assaults on Lebanon and Gaza, couldn’t he?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
‘#37 I am sure that homophobia is as prevalent in Palestine as it is everywhere else.’
Though in some places it is not illegal and honour killings are prosecuted by the courts.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
“Though in some places it is not illegal and honour killings are prosecuted by the courts.”
In some countries war crimes and mass murder are illegal and are prosecuted by the courts.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
‘In some countries war crimes and mass murder are illegal and are prosecuted by the courts.’
Pitifully few.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
#24
“If you are murdered by your family for being gay,”
Can Apollo give some examples of people being murdered by their familly in palestine for being gay? Or did (s)he make that up?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Amyway
Despite the fact that I disagree with peter on many things, accusing him of being a long term collaborator with the far right is ridiculous and libelous.
Despite the fact that he sometimes picks what are in my opinion the wrong targets, he is a very admirable activist; and I wish him every sucess in the General election in Oxford.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Here you go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3211772.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2826963.stm
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
#46
Thanks
that is a desperate situation for these people, my heart goes out to them.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Indeed. The only friends those people have are gay activists who are willing to campaign on their behalf. Peter is one of those. All power to him.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I think it’s time to clarify something-
The specific duty of progressive people in this country, because of its history and because of its close relations with the USA, is to be in unambiguous 100% solidarity with the Palestinian people against Israeli oppression. By failing to support the Palestinians we are complicit in what our government and its US ally are doing and have done by failing to condemn the assault on Gaza or to do anything to put pressure on the Israelis to stop new settlements etc etc.
The treatment of Lesbians and Gays in the Palestinian territories is no more or less an issue for progressive people in this country than the oppression of Lesbian and Gay people in any country in the world.
So why pick on Palestine on a pro-Palestinian demo in London?
We want sanctions against Israel as a lever against their oppressive actions.
What actions do you propose are taken against the Pelaestinian authorities as a lever to enforce L & G rights?
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Actually your references don’t include any examples of people being murdered for their families for being gay. They do however, refer to the Israeli occupation’s practice of blackmailing gays or those who have been homosexually raped in prison into collaborating with them, a practice I don’t recall Tatchell condemning or even mentioning.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
They include examples of men who have fled Palestine because of attacks and threats of murder by their families. Presumably the dead ones are not available for interview.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
“The only friends those people have are gay activists who are willing to campaign on their behalf.”
Can you provide any evidence that Tatchell and his pals have made any attempt whatsoever to contact “these people” and ask them how they would like people to campaign on their behalf, and whether “these people” would support the disruption of pro-Palestinian demonstrations? You seem contemptuous of the very idea that they should be consulted in this matter.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
“Presumably the dead ones are not available for interview.”
But there would be a record of their death of some kind, wouldn’t there? Surely Tatchell would have the figures, since you obviously are not interested in anything Palestinians might have to say on the matter?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Armchair
The support is not unconditional. I support Palestinian liberation, but I do not support their right to oppress LGBT on the basis that opposing it is Gay Imperialism. If what you are saying is that you can only support Palestine unconditionally or not at all, I go with not at all.
However I prefer Tatchell’s honest approach.
From Pink News
Hamas, the militant and political group in the Palestinian Territories have said that they win the Palestinian Authority Parliamentary election, they would ban men and women dancing together and will strip gay men and women of the few rights they have in the territory that they have at present.
Dr Mahmoud Zahar (pictured), the groups leader in Gaza, in an article on an Arabic website condemned the rights that gays have in Israel and made it clear that he thinks that gays are perverts. “Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?” He asked on the Elaph website.
Similarly, he said that if his group won the parliamentary elections he would seek to turn the secular authority, which has Christian, Atheist and Jewish citizens in addition to Muslims, into an Islamic Republic.
Dr Zahar said that men and women would no longer be able to dance together in public, “A man holds a woman by the hand and dances in front of everyone. Does that serve the national problem? If so, why have corruption and prostitution become pervasive?”
He also stated that Hamas would gradually seek a withdrawal from the peace settlement with Israel. “Israel is not our God. It was defeated, and those who are defeated cannot set conditions.”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-116.html/
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
I have never met Peter Tatchell so I can’t provide any evidence of this and he’s not around at the moment. But you are, so which Palestinian gay organisations have you contacted who have told you how they wish solidaity to be organised? That will clear up 50 per cent of the matter immediately.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Actually the only killings of gays for being gay in the area that I can recall recently were the kids killed at the gay centre in Tel Aviv a couple of months back. Now the killer has been revealed as a militant settler who has been responsible for the killing of many Palestinians. As a settler he has of course received extensive support, protection and weaponry from the Israeli occupation authorities. Perhaps Peter will be taking up this question of state support for homophobic murderers, maybe by disrupting a pro-Israeli rally?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
#54 “If what you are saying is that you can only support Palestine unconditionally or not at all, I go with not at all”.
That’s very honest. It also means that if you live in the UK, the USA or any other pro-Israel western country then you are on the other side, simple as.
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
‘ut there would be a record of their death of some kind, wouldn’t there?’
Hmm. Young man disappears. Family say, he’s gone to Egypt.
Young man found dead, mutilated. Family say, he was murdered by the Israelis/factions.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
You’re getting a bit desperate now, Lone Nut.
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Because the Palestinians have the right to a state unconditionally and not dependent on what pre-conditions you or anybody else puts in the way.
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Still waiting for the info about the Palestinian gay organisations you’ve consulted, lone nut.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Unconditionally supporting Palestinians’ right to a state is not the same thing as unconditionally supporting everything they do in that state.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
It is for several of the reasons posted above and the attacks directed at Peter Tatchell by some on this site that many in Green Left whereas fully supportive of Salma Yaqoob do not feel similarly about George Galloway. We have not forgotten his comments last year at the Stop the War Coalition demonstration about the “the pink section of the khaki war brigade” - a clear reference to those fighting for LGBT rights in Iran and Palestine and clearly directed at Peter Tatchell also. Indeed when attending a Respect meeting last year I was told by some that Peter was a warmonger etc. This does nothing to build trust.
Comment by verde — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
“Young man found dead, mutilated. Family say, he was murdered by the Israelis/factions”
I see. So your evidence exists entirely in your own fertile imagination, fuelled by anti-Palestinian bigotry.
“Still waiting for the info about the Palestinian gay organisations you’ve consulted”
I haven’t consulted any. I have no particular involvement in Palestinian solidarity, let alone solidarity with Palestinian gays. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with the topic of the persecution of Palestinian gays, to the point of collating 7 year old news stories and concocting fantastic accounts of their mass murder. I would imagine, then, that given your concern, you would have made contact with the relevant Palestinian organisations to discuss how best to raise the issue in Britain.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Well, we’re in partly the same position. I’m not gay, not involved in gay activism, I am involved in a bit of Palestinian solidarity, though, unlike you. It is not ‘anti-Palestinian bigotry’ to be concerned about human rights.
I am not ‘obsessed’ with this subject, but I have been a long-time admirer of Tatchell for his principled and consistent stand on human rights, so I have done a bit of reading on the matter. I also know that gay friends who would normally consider themselves anti-Zionist are put off by the terrible treatment of gays in Palestine. Which they read about in the gay press. And that’s a thorny issue for building solidarity.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
There are some good examples here of reading something and then giving it an extra meaning which can then be attacked.
Mikey #2 and Armchair #7 - has it occured to you that he was at the demo to solidarise with Palestinians against Israeli oppression AND solidarise with Palestinian gays against repression within the PA? Why is that so much less likely than some clever hidden agenda to undermine the demo?
What happened to the old lefty statement of ‘unconditional but critical support’?
I actually think pictures of demonstrators chanting ‘we are all Hamas’ or ‘we are all Hezbollah’ are far more damaging and would please no one more than the Israeli government as it makes those demonstrators look insane.
Tatchell then debunks this in #11 but then lone nut in #12 steams in with some guilt by association crap about Harry’s Place. Which (s)he then continues throughout the thread.
Whoever lone nut is, if (s)he is a UAF activist (s)he is in alliance with David Cameron etc. in that campaign. What a scumbag, eh?
Anonymous at #23 then disgustingly defines defending gays in Palestine facing very real repression as ‘identity politics’.
Identity politics is shit, but learn what it is. It isn’t ‘anything to do with gays’ it is something much more specific than that.
Comment by runia — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
#62″Unconditionally supporting Palestinians’ right to a state is not the same thing as unconditionally supporting everything they do in that state”.
I agree, but my point was aimed at RMS who appears to take a different position. “If what you are saying is that you can only support Palestine unconditionally or not at all, I go with not at all”.
I also find the implication that my position implies defence of or support for oppression of Gay people a bit galling if that is what you are saying. Please clarify.
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Certainly some people posting here seem to think they should keep their traps shut about human rights in Palestine because they are insecure enough to believe that it isn’t possible to think two things at once. Glad to hear you aren’t one of them.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
#66 I don’t doubt that he was at the domo to support the Palestinians against Israel “as well”. I am more than happy to take him at his word that he was trying to do both things at once. However by doing so he was, as I said, implicitly putting conditions on support for the Palestinians.
It was not the time or the place.
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
What is the time and place?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Armchair.
This is the bit I struggle with. I would be genuinely grateful if you could help me see through this issue.
The elected government in Gaza is Hamas, whose attitudes to homosexuality are clear. I see no difference between wanting someone executed because they are gay, or executed because they are black.
As Zahar said:”“Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?” ”
I wouldn’t support a political organisation that wanted to kill black people. Why, as a gay man, should I support a political organisation that would have others like me executed.
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
What is an “Islamofascist”, Peter? Didn’t you borrow that term from Christopher Hitchens the liberal apologist for “The War on Terror”? Equating homophobic Muslims with Nazis is not dishonest but criticising you for it is?
Using Islamophobia to pursue your very selective campaign for LGBT rights in the Middle East has resulted in the chickens coming home to roost. How many Outrage! articles and protests have been about Saudi Arabia and Israel, US allies, compared with Palestine and Iran for example?
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
#68 “some people posting here seem to think they should keep their traps shut about human rights in Palestine”
No, it just means that we think a demonstration in solidarity with palestinians being slaughtered might not be the most appropriate forum to register concern about human right in palestine.
Of course it depends upon your objectives. If you were aiming to provoke distress, and reinforce prejudice and misunderstanding then you were doing the best thing.
if you were seeking to encourage solidarity with gay palestinains than what tarchell did would not have achieved that, becasue it was a stupid, counter-prioductive and self-indulgent stunt.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Read this truly chilling statement from Armchair:
“The specific duty of progressive people in this country, because of its history and because of its close relations with the USA, is to be in unambiguous 100% solidarity with the Palestinian people against Israeli oppression. By failing to support the Palestinians we are complicit in what our government and its US ally are doing and have done by failing to condemn the assault on Gaza or to do anything to put pressure on the Israelis to stop new settlements etc etc. The treatment of Lesbians and Gays in the Palestinian territories is no more or less an issue for progressive people in this country than the oppression of Lesbian and Gay people in any country in the world.”
This is the authentic voice of totalitarianism. All conscience, reason, humanity and moral restraint must be cast aside in pursuit of the strategic objective. Any doubters must be demonised as ‘liberals’ or (as in Peter’s case) collaborators with fascism.
Being gay is not a choice: it is a fact. Those who hate and harm people because they are gay are no different to those who hate and harm people because they are black. To overlook or excuse the killing and persecution of gays for tactical reasons is to turn a blind eye to murder.
I can understand why a reactionary or a businessman might betray his essence as a human being but why would a socialist do such a thing?
Comment by Stevo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
So what is the time and place, Andy/Armchair?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
There is some elegant sophistry being employed by some of the posters above such as RMS and Stevo. They are attempted to spin the debate so that we are talking about whether or not Hamas are homophobic, or whether a socialist should support the deaths of gay people.
This is all merely a distraction. My original comment #2 gave an example of Peter Tatchell’s contribution to the Palestine solidarity movement, which all too often has been made up of ’stupid, counter-productive and self-indulgent stunt,’ as Andy rightly says.
The struggle against apartheid would not have been successful had it rested on its supporters backing 100% the ANC’s programme for government. Anybody who says now that we must condemn the current elected leaders of the Palestinian people for what they would do if they had a state, when they are nowhere near a state at present, can only be setting out to delude and confuse the solidarity movement.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
“Certainly some people posting here seem to think they should keep their traps shut about human rights in Palestine because they are insecure enough to believe that it isn’t possible to think two things at once. Glad to hear you aren’t one of them.”
And your strategy appears to be a one sided attack on the Palestinians for homophobia at a demo about their oppression by Israel. Who do you think cultivated Hamas at the expense of the secular PLO?
http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me090126.htm
Apollo, you claim to be a friend of Palestinian LGBT’s yet not once have you mentioned Israels complicity in their oppression. It’s one sided representations like this that Peter Tatchell is being criticised for.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
“I am not ‘obsessed’ with this subject, but I have been a long-time admirer of Tatchell for his principled and consistent stand on human rights, so I have done a bit of reading on the matter”
What was this reading? Did it involve anything written by Palestinians on the matter?
“some guilt by association crap about Harry’s Place.”
Tatchell writes for Harry’s Place. His chief lieutenant, Brett Lock, is one of its main bloggers. This is not “guilt by association”, it is active involvement with one of the vilest anti-Palestinian sites on the blogosphere.
“What is the time and place?”
Let me pose the question again - would Tatchell consider it appropriate to disrupt a Holocaust Memorial ceremony in order to protest against repressive Orthodox Jewish views on sexuality? Why could they not have peacefully leafleted the PSC demonstration instead of trying to disrupt an event called to protest against Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian, and which would obviously involve many people with conservative views on sexual issues?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
apollo #24 - Of course it isn’t all right if people are killed for being gay. Unfortunately, homophobia is present in every society to varying degrees. However, the problem for me with Peter’s placard is that he draws a moral equivalence between a settler colonial state, supported, funded and backed by the West, whose people enjoy a Western-style quality of life, and a people who are hanging onto their land, history and lives by a thread.
In attempting to expect a people under occupation, who are being systematically starved and immiserated, not to mention murdered, to adopt and live under enlightenment values as are extant in modern, wealthy and ‘normal’ societies, is to demonstrate paternalism rather than solidarity.
Again, no firm evidence of the organised and concerted repression of gay people under Hamas has ever been produced. However, there are reams of evidence in support of the fact that the Palestinians are suffering organised and concerted oppression.
Comment by Anonymous — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Mikey and Ray: if black people were being lynched in Palestine for their ethnicity and if Hamas made virulently racist pronouncements, would you react in the same way?
Replacing one form of repression with another is not liberation - and homophobia is not a minor cultural deformity to be discouraged after liberation: it is just as bad as racism as must be confronted whenever and wherever it is found.
Comment by Stevo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
“This is the authentic voice of totalitarianism. All conscience, reason, humanity and moral restraint must be cast aside in pursuit of the strategic objective. Any doubters must be demonised as ‘liberals’ or (as in Peter’s case) collaborators with fascism.”
And assuming that every LGBT should support Outrage!’s stunts isn’t totalitarian is it? I’m gay and I think the stunt that Outrage! pulled at the Palestinian demo did nothing to help Palestinian LGBT’s. But I suppose that makes me totalitarian for disagreeing with Outrage! - the international voice of LGBT’s presumably.
That’s why indigenous LGBT activists have signed a petition calling for Outrage! to consult them before launching stunts in their countries because on some occasions this has placed local activists at risk and damaged local initiatives to develop LGBT rights.
The real criticism about Outrage! is that it imposes a white, middle class Western gay male agenda upon indigenous activists who do not think it reflects their views.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
‘Apollo, you claim to be a friend of Palestinian LGBT’s yet not once have you mentioned Israels complicity in their oppression. ‘
Really? I posted two BBC links which go into it in detail.
‘What was this reading? Did it involve anything written by Palestinians on the matter?’
It’s stuff from the gay press passed on by gay friends, which has beeen doing detauled news reporting for several years.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
“if black people were being lynched in Palestine for their ethnicity and if Hamas made virulently racist pronouncements”
But no evidence has been produced of anybody being lynched for being gay in Palestine, have they, apart from in Apollo’s imagination? While in Israel 2 people were recently shot dead simply for being gay, while a key component of the Israeli government, Shas, has leaders who would outdo anyone from Hamas in their homophobic virulence. But that doesn’t concern you at all, does it?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
I live in Los Angeles. It is a good bet that the vast majority of LGBT people here are supporters of Zionism. When I go to a rally against Proposition 8 (referendum outlawing same-sex marriage) I would never, under any circumstances, consider taking a sign saying “No to Prop 8! Gays, stop supporting Zionism”. This seems like a triviality to me - LGBT people deserve equal rights, whether or not they support justice for Palestinians. Yet according to Tatchell and his friends on this thread, I’m wrong. I should use the opportunity of a march for LGBT rights to slag LGBT people off for their support of Zionism. To me, that’s just incredible.
Let’s be clear here: the actions of Outrage! at that demo were clearly conditioning support for Palestinian liberation on a change in politics by Palestinian organizations - in fact, Pete says as much when he writes: Our protest got results. It badly embarassed the PLO and PA. They agreed to talk to OutRage! As a result, the oppression of LGBT Palestinians decreased.
Comment by christian h. — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
ray:
“is that it imposes a white, middle class Western gay male agenda upon indigenous activists who do not think it reflects their views.”
You mean like not killing us queers?
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
“It’s stuff from the gay press passed on by gay friends, which has beeen doing detauled news reporting for several years”
ie you haven’t read anything by Palestinians on the matter or made any attempt to find out what they think about it.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
“Mikey and Ray: if black people were being lynched in Palestine for their ethnicity and if Hamas made virulently racist pronouncements, would you react in the same way?”
As a gay man and a 30 year long campaigner for LGBT rights I find your generalisation completely disingenuous. The fact is we are talking about LGBT’s in an area oppressed by Israel who cultivated Hamas for their own racist agenda. How does that fit into defending Palestinian LGBTs? Address the cause and not the symptoms and then I’ll take your protestations seriously.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
‘e you haven’t read anything by Palestinians on the matter or made any attempt to find out what they think about it.’
and as you’ve already conceded, neither have you.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Oh, and by the way, what about the Palestinians who fled to Israel, interviewed in the BBC link. Do their views count or are they the wrong sort of Palestinians?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
“You mean like not killing us queers?”
Do you mind not using that offensive term. As a gay man I find it oppressive.
Do you mean that the views of indigenous LGBT’s about fighting homophobia are superseded by white Western middle class gay men because they know best? Is that your point?
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
“In the Arab mindset, a person who has committed a moral offense is often assumed to be guilty of others, and it radiates out to the family and community,” said Bassam Eid, director of Palestinian Human Rights Watch.
“As homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature, it is not hard to link it to collaboration—a crime against nation,” Eid added, lamenting what he called a “total lack” of support networks for gays in the West Bank and Gaza.
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/palestine/psnews003.htm
so what is the time and where is the place to support Palestinian gays?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
“…or are they the wrong sort of Palestinians?”
Obviously, because that oasis of gay rights in a so-called sea of Muslim fascists, i.e. Israel, doesn’t want them. So much for acceptance and tolerance, eh? Again I ask when will you address the problem of Palestinian oppression and not the symptoms?
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Isn’t the main problem that Israel oppresses all Palestinians whether they are gay or straight?
Comment by Bells — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Ray
“Do you mind not using that offensive term. As a gay man I find it oppressive.”
As another gay man, I don’t. So no, I will not stop using that term.
“Do you mean that the views of indigenous LGBT’s about fighting homophobia are superseded by white Western middle class gay men because they know best? Is that your point?”
No, but when gay Palestinians have to seek sanctuary in Israel, something is very, very wrong in Palestine.
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
“neither have you”
Yes, but I don’t claim to be involved in Palestinian solidarity work as you do, nor to have been following “detailed reports” on the matter for several years. Were I such a person, I would try and find out the views of Palestinian lesbian and gay groups (which do actually exist, despite the sneers of your pal RMS) as well as of other Palestinian progressives. The fact that you have not made the slightest effort to do so makes me suspect that you are a phoney.
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
“Were I such a person, I would try and find out the views of Palestinian lesbian and gay groups (which do actually exist, despite the sneers of your pal RMS) ”
Where are they , Lone Nut?
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
The problem of Palestinian national oppression is Zionism. The problem of gay Palestinians oppression is Palestinian homophobia. If you are gay you have the bad luck to be dealt both cards. But some of you here don’t think it’s the right thing to do to mention that, at any time or in any place.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
“…lamenting what he called a “total lack” of support networks for gays in the West Bank and Gaza.”
Are you talking about the same Gaza that Israel recently bombed back to the stone age? I suppose they were contributing to fighting homophobia by killing everyone in Gaza.
I wonder how hard it would be to find choice homophobic quotes from Zionists and religious zealots in Israel? Let’s recall the stoning of the Pride marches recently. It’s astounding that every LGBT in the world isn’t moving to that bastion of LGBT rights in the Middle East. Perhaps the right wing and homophobic Netanyahu will set up some kind of LGBT right of return deal in return for helping to oppress the Palestinians.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
For those that criticise Peter Tatchell for ‘hijacking’ a Pro-Palestine demo. Does no one remember the ‘No Trident Replacement’ demo of CND’s in February 2007 when we had people from the platform mention everything from Iraq to the national liberation struggle in Palestine?
Would lone nut say that the CND rally was hijacked by others who diverted from the message of the struggle on that day- unconditional opposition to nuclear proliferation anywhere?
We’re meant to be democrats. How can anyone accuse Peter Tatchell of being anything but progressive? Yes, I’ve disliked his approach at times (as many have), but he gets things done, he promotes progressive politics at every opportunity he gets, and he has done more for anti-imperialism than lone nut ever could by living up to their own pseudonym- I’m really thinking it’s not an ironic name.
Comment by Luke Walter — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
‘Are you talking about the same Gaza that Israel recently bombed back to the stone age?’
Bassam Eid wasn’t. That interview took place in 2003. I doubt if things have got any better. Gays in Gaza have to put up with being bombed back to the stone age by Israel and persecuted by Hamas. And some people here seem to think there is no time or place when this can be raised as an act of solidarity.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
“The problem of Palestinian national oppression is Zionism. The problem of gay Palestinians oppression is Palestinian homophobia. If you are gay you have the bad luck to be dealt both cards. But some of you here don’t think it’s the right thing to do to mention that, at any time or in any place.”
The problem is your adoption of a two stageist theory of oppression. Because you won’t accept that homophobia has been cultivated in Palestine by the Zionists you let them off the hook and offer no solution for LGBT oppression in Palestine. Hamas would not have developed support and continued to hold relevance without the Israeli oppression of Palestine.
A hall mark of democracy is to have self-determination as a nation. South Africa is an excellent example of this. LGBT rights went hand in hand with the end of apartheid. While Palestine continues to be oppressed by the racists in Israel, LGBT’s in Palestine will continue to experience oppression.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Here is how genuinely anti-imperialist gay activists approach this question
“Recently, the queer and mainstream press have reported on three Palestinian gay men who say that they were severely abused and humiliated by Palestinian police. One of the young men reportedly escaped the police, only to be threatened by his own family. They have been living underground in Israel for the last several years, and now Israel is deporting them back to Palestine, where they fear being killed as suspected collaborators.
As queer activists, we condemn the persecution of LGBT people anywhere in the world. This includes Palestine, where many LGBT people experience special oppression living in conservative religious communities, within an oppressed nation.
LAGAI, one of the groups involved in QUIT!, has been actively working for two decades to support queers in north, central and south America, Africa, and Asia. When we first formed, QUIT! took an active role in organizing to support the Egyptian gay men who were arrested in a raid on a gay bar in 2001. We have at times had to struggle for inclusion in the Palestinian solidarity movement, because there were some individuals and groups here who objected to our presence.
We strongly believe that any struggle for liberation has to include queer liberation, because queers are part of all oppressed groups.
However, the story about the three Palestinian men is being used by pro-Israeli gay organizations to suggest that the military occupation of Palestine is justified by anti-gay oppression within Palestinian society. We are outraged by this cynical response to the stories.
Palestine is by no means unique in being a place where gay people are threatened, abused or tortured by the police. It happens in every western society, including in San Francisco. Palestinian queers are also not alone in being in danger in the small conservative towns and villages where their families live, or in being threatened with violence from their own families.
What is unique is that Palestinian queers are prevented from leaving those repressive small towns and from meeting and organizing with other queers by the ever-tightening restrictions on their movement imposed by the Israeli occupation forces. When Israeli soldiers stop young men at checkpoint after checkpoint, telling them no, they cannot travel outside of their villages, they do not ask them if they’re gay and need to leave because they fear violence from their families. Israeli police routinely threaten to “out” queer Palestinians if they do not provide information.
The presence of Israeli occupation forces in Palestine does nothing to help and much to hurt LGBT Palestinians. (”Statement of QUIT! Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism on the Persecution of Gay Men by the Palestine National Authority)
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Neither I nor anyone else here is arguing against Palestinian self-determination nor the cultivation of Hamas by Zionism. That’s a straw man.
But gay Palestinians are being oppressed right now, and as yet no-one here has been able to identify the time or the place for soldarity other than relying on the putative good will of Hamas in a future state.
As I said in my opening post this is a rerun of the card women were dealt with when told to postpone their demands because it would all be sorted out after the revolution. They didn’t buy it then and gays are not buying it now.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Rather than rebut my argument, Steve et al have continued to post to the effect that Hamas is homophobic so the Palestine solidarity movement must challenge them, and now also wish to present myself, Ray, lone nut and others as soft on homophobia.
The movement for solidarity with Palestine requires solidarity with Palestinians. Some of them, for that matter many of them will have opinions about things that I don’t like.
But if i see a person on the street getting their head kicked in, I do not stop to ask them a series of questions about their beliefs before acting to stop the assault.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
If the person getting their head kicked in is a gay Palestinian being assualted by a straight Palestinian, what do you do?
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
“As I said in my opening post this is a rerun of the card women were dealt with when told to postpone their demands because it would all be sorted out after the revolution. They didn’t buy it then and gays are not buying it now.”
But it is not. To add to the other wilful distortions and obfuscations you are creating, you are now attempting to paint us as ultra left and workerist!
Those of us working to end both imperialism and homophobia will not be dissuaded from doing so by buying into and helping to promote pro-imperialist arguments that help to weaken the movement. Ask yourself why Peter Tatchell gets far more publicity attacking Black people and their governments around the world than he does when he correctly campaigns for civil liberties and workers’ struggles in Britain? He is being used, that’s why.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
#106 if that is the best you can do I think we can all see that you are losing your argument.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Then finally, for the last time, name a time and place when it is appropriate to raise the question of gay rights in Palestine.
because the answer I’m hearing from you loud and clear is never. As such you are entirely irrelevant to the struggle for gay and lesbian rights.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
“name a time and place when it is appropriate to raise the question of gay rights in Palestine.”
I can give you a time - when you have consulted with gay Palestinians and progressive Palestinian organisations about the most appropriate means of doing so. That should be elementary, shouldn’t it?
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
apollo - doesn’t it even occur to you that until the palestinians achieve their freedom and no longer live under occupation, siege, no longer are murdered, starved, ehtnically cleansed, then they as a people and a society will never be able to emerge and develop.
after all, the concept of gay rights is a relatively recent phenomenon in the West and we’ve never lived under occupation or seen our families, children, brothers, etc., murdered and degraded on a daily basis for daring to have been born on land coveted by western supported and backed settlers.
where is your sense of proportion on this issue? seems to me that it isn’t Palestinian human rights, gay or otherwise, that concern you but rather the opportunity to attack the Palestine solidarity movement.
Comment by Anonymous — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
in my view it helps gay Palestinians not one iota to do anything that makes building soidarity with the Palestinian people more difficult. As you are clearly demonstrating, the issue of homophobia in Palestine is being systematically built up as an attempt to weaken the movement, to associate the Palestinians with bigotry etc. The powers that be jump with glee all over you and your supporters because to them you are being deliciously, complicitly useful to them.
As I said before, I disagree with many Palestinians about many things. I also disagree with many people in my family about many things, including their homophobia. I raise it with them all the time and sincerely hope that one day they will change. But if they being verbally or physically attacked, I would not make their homophobia a negotiating point. I would help them, and accept that with time things will progress.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
So lying about Peter Tatchell is just fine then.
Comment by Derek Wall — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Hi Derek, to whom are you referring? Lying about Peter Tatchell is clearly not fine.
Comment by Mikey — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
because the answer I’m hearing from you loud and clear is never.
Nope, Ray’s argued, correctly, that in order to understand the homophobia that exists in Palestine, you need to look at its root. And to recognise that the homopohobia will not go away until the occupation ends. And don’t forget that Tatchell’s launched similar attacks against Hezbollah, a party with an (unofficial) LGBT section - and the place in Lebanon people are least likely to suffer homophobia.
Despite the fact that I disagree with peter on many things, accusing him of being a long term collaborator with the far right is ridiculous and libelous.
I wouldn’t go that far, but he marched with the BNP in 2006 after Jylands-Posten (and the AWL rag) published the racist cartoons, which is pretty unforgiveable, and he has a history of islamophobia.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
No, I do not buy the idea that Palestinian gays have to wait, be gagged and silent. Nor do I accept the really quite repellent notion that the sole reason for raising the question of their oppression is to attack the Palestinian solidarity movement, as if gay men and women are ghosts who only exist to play their role in a tug of war between Palestinians and Zionists. That is troubling, because it denies that Palestinian gays are either human or have agency.
The liberation of Palestine is not happening, now, next year nor in the medium term future. I wish it were otherwise but things are truly terrible there. It’s quire correct to say that it doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight when the bombs are falling, but it is equally true to say fear and terror are the lot of gay Palestinians because they are gay. And they are supposed to stay silent and we are supposed to stay silent. Tatchell’s intervention was clumsy and ill-thought out but as yet, you have offered no alternative.
Sense of proportion? Is anyone suggesting that Palestinian self-determination be subsumed into gay rights? No. What is being asked is whether any solidarity at all is possible. You seem to be saying, no it is not.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
‘Nope, Ray’s argued, correctly, that in order to understand the homophobia that exists in Palestine, you need to look at its root.’
Sure, I don’t disagree with that. But looking at the root cause doesn’t actually prevent anyone from being beaten up now. And unless a gay liberation movement takes hold in Palestine now, as a women’s movement took hold in South Africa under apartheid, it’s not going to be magicked away by the end of the occupation.
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
“And to recognise that the homopohobia will not go away until the occupation ends.”
I’m pretty sure there will be homophobia if the occupation ends, can you make this a bit more clear?
Comment by Bells — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
I see the end of colonialism has not eradicated homophobia in Uganda
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4846#comment-162171
(and no, I’m not arguing that colonialism shouldn’t have ended.)
Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
“Tatchell’s intervention was clumsy and ill-thought out”
Yet previously your claim was that anybody who objected to Tatchell’s intervention for those reasons was opposed to ever raising the issue of the rights of Palestinian gays at any time and in any manner.
“unless a gay liberation movement takes hold in Palestine now”
You are not building a gay liberation movement in Palestine, you are posturing in Britain and you have no interest in making any kind of contact with Palestinians who might have any interest in this issue
Comment by lone nut — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
#75- Stevo, get over yourself you sad t**t.
Comment by Armchair — 3 November, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
I read neither the original article nor followed the debate. But I don’t quite understand whether the allegation is that someone acually lied about Peter’s views or put an interpretation of his views which Peter would not accept. The difference matters. If someone actually told a lie fair enough. If though, someone, objected to Peters politics (as some are doing above) then its pretty disturbing. Its just that in what little I have read the substance of what Peter objected to was not made clear. I have in mind something like the claim that intervening on a Palestinian demo in the way that Peter did was effectively Islamophobic. Peter would no doubt strenuously deny this but that is just a disagreement. I say this because when use of the term Islamofascism came up Peter responded by suggesting that he only used the term about political Islamists. There would be many who think this term is itself extremely dubious. Again thats a matter of opinion. Its not about libel or slander.
Comment by johng — 3 November, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
“As another gay man, I don’t. So no, I will not stop using that term.”
So you think using the language of the homophobes to describe ourselves is progressive, that figures. How will using terms of abuse help Palestinian LGBT’s when trying to undermine homophobia in Palestine? Calling ourselves “queer” is not what we fought for at Stonewall. It’s a pity that identity politics embraces such reactionary terms of abuse. But that’s not the main issue of debate here.
The notion that fighting for LGBT rights is separate from the struggle for equal rights for all in Palestine is mistaken. The struggle of the Palestinians is articulated by Hamas who were voted in. Like it or not, if we are truly committed to ending the Israeli occupation then solidarity with the Palestinians involves solidarity with Hamas to undermine Israel. That’s exactly what lone nut demonstrated by posting the statement from QUIT! Which means tackling homophobia from within the national liberation struggle - not parachuting into a demo held in the UK as Outrage! did and using the language of the imperialists and Zionists to describe political Islamists.
“I see the end of colonialism has not eradicated homophobia in Uganda”
Nor has the occupation of Gaza by Israel. It’s only made matters worse for LGBT’s. Which is the point that’s being made about exposing the reasons for why homophobia has grown in Palestine and how, by fighting against Israeli occupation, we can undermine it. Unity with the Palestinians is not a diversion from LGBT liberation it is the vehicle for it.
Comment by Ray — 3 November, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Ray:
“Like it or not, if we are truly committed to ending the Israeli occupation then solidarity with the Palestinians involves solidarity with Hamas to undermine Israel.”
Why? Why not just solidarity with the Palestinian people? Would you align yourself with the BNP if it suited your agenda?
Comment by Mick — 3 November, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
The BNP are not representing a people living under a brutal military occupation. The comparison is itself odious, and is grist to the mill to those who want to deny democratic rights and national liberation to the Palestinian people. Again, I’m making no judgements about the particular case under discussion, but in a situation where the US and the European Union backed the overturning of a democratic result by the Israeli state, a move which those who have any solidarity at all with the Palestinian cause must oppose, however much they disagree with the politics of Hamas, its just wrong to argue as if the main duty of the left is to support that boycott.
Comment by johng — 3 November, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
According to Pink News on 3 November, the publishers of the book attacking me (Out Of Place), unsuccessfully encouraged the book’s editors and the authors of the libellous article to refute or retract the errors against me. They declined to do so.
This is what Pink News Wrote:
“A statement from Raw Nerve Books said: “One of the articles – ‘Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the war on terror’ by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem – contains inaccuracies. While, like the rest of the book, it addresses important issues, the inaccuracies mean that the debate has been skewed and the issues obscured.
“The publishers apologise for inaccuracies in the article. The book was already out of print when these errors were brought to our attention. Raw Nerve unsuccessfully encouraged the editors of the book (and thereby the authors of the article) to refute or retract the errors.
“Given that factual errors remain in the book, the publishers – with great sadness – have no alternative but to refrain from republishing. The publishers do not wish to participate in silencing or censoring, but do wish to uphold scholarly and honest debate. If the issues of inaccuracy can be resolved, the publishers would be delighted to publish a new edition of the book. ”
“The authors of the chapter and the book’s editors did not respond to calls for comment by the time of publication,” wrote Pink News.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:47 am
The sustained welter of lies against me on this thread is unconscienable. It shows that some people on the left have absolutely no ethics or integrity at all. Their lies harm all of us on the left and undermine the credibility of the whole left. No wonder the left is marginal, with liars like these.
Here is the latest liar - Keith Watermelon’s lie:
“he (Tatchell) marched with the BNP in 2006 after Jylands-Posten (and the AWL rag) published the racist cartoons, which is pretty unforgiveable, and he has a history of islamophobia.”
No, I did not march with the BNP or any fascists anywhere. At the rally to which he refers I denounced the BNP from the stage and defended the Muslim communities.
When you lie and turn the facts on their head you only make a fool of yourself.
I note that most of my critics on this thread and other blogs are too cowardly and gutless to write under their real names. They spread their lies behind the cloak of anonymity. Just like the fascists do. Pathetic.
Keith Watermelon claims I am an Islamophobe. Keith, please produce the evidence for your mud-slinging. Go to my website where all my campaigns and writings are archived and show us the evidence of my Islamophobia.
www.petertatchell.net
And don’t selectively quote certain passages to the exclusion of others which give the full picture (as my critics are prone to do).
And don’t forget to mention all the campaigns where I have supported Muslim victims of injustice: asylum seekers, prisoners, people falsely framed on terrorism charges etc.
I have been prominent in the campaigns to defend many Muslims unjustly accused of terrorism, including Hicham Yezza:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza
and Hyrbyair Marri and Faiz Baluch:
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/pakistan-marri-british-london
I stood bail and provided evidence for Mr Baluch during his terrorism trial, which helped result in his acquittal (and Mr Marri’s).
I have also helped secure asylum for dozens of Muslim refugees and for Muslim victims of miscarriages of justice, such as Mohammed S:
http://www.petertatchell.net/criminalinjustice/judgechallenge.htm
I don’t recall any of my critics lifting a finger to help any of these Muslim victims of injustice.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:11 am
The sustained welter of lies and defamation against me on this thread is unconscienable. It shows that some people on the left have absolutely no ethics or integrity at all. Their lies harm all of us on the left and undermine the credibility of the whole left. No wonder the left is marginal, with liars like these.
Here is the latest liar - Keith Watermelon’s lie:
“he (Tatchell) marched with the BNP in 2006 after Jylands-Posten (and the AWL rag) published the racist cartoons, which is pretty unforgiveable, and he has a history of islamophobia.”
No, I did not march with the BNP or any fascists anywhere. At the rally to which he refers I denounced the BNP from the stage and defended the Muslim communities.
When you lie and turn the facts on their head you only make a fool of yourself.
I note that most of my critics on this thread and other blogs are too cowardly and gutless to write under their real names. They spread their lies behind the cloak of anonymity. Just like the fascists do. Pathetic.
Keith Watermelon claims I am an Islamophobe. Keith, please produce the evidence for your mud-slinging. Go to my website where all my campaigns and writings are archived and show us the evidence of my Islamophobia.
www.petertatchell.net
And don’t selectively quote certain passages to the exclusion of others which give the full picture (as my critics are prone to do).
And don’t forget to mention all the campaigns where I have supported Muslim victims of injustice: asylum seekers, prisoners, people falsely framed on terrorism charges etc.
I have been prominent in the campaigns to defend many Muslims unjustly accused of terrorism, including Hicham Yezza:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza
and Hyrbyair Marri and Faiz Baluch:
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/pakistan-marri-british-london
I stood bail and provided evidence for Mr Baluch during his terrorism trial, which helped result in his acquittal (and Mr Marri’s).
I have also helped secure asylum for dozens of Muslim refugees and for Muslim victims of miscarriages of justice, such as Mohammed S:
http://www.petertatchell.net/criminalinjustice/judgechallenge.htm
I don’t recall any of my critics lifting a finger to help any of these Muslim victims of injustice.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:28 am
The sustained welter of lies and defamation against me on this thread is unconscienable. It shows that some people on the left have absolutely no ethics or integrity at all. Their lies harm all of us on the left and undermine the credibility of the whole left. No wonder the left is marginal, with liars like these.
Here is the latest lie, by Keith Watermelon:
“he (Tatchell) marched with the BNP in 2006 after Jylands-Posten (and the AWL rag) published the racist cartoons, which is pretty unforgiveable, and he has a history of islamophobia.”
No, I did not march with the BNP or any fascists anywhere. At the rally to which he refers I denounced the BNP from the stage and defended the Muslim communities.
When you lie and turn the facts on their head you only make a fool of yourself.
I note that most of my critics on this thread and other blogs are too cowardly and gutless to write under their real names. They spread their lies behind the cloak of anonymity. Just like the fascists do. Pathetic.
Keith Watermelon claims I am an Islamophobe. Keith, please produce the evidence for your mud-slinging. Go to my website where all my campaigns and writings are archived and show us the evidence of my Islamophobia.
www.petertatchell.net
And don’t selectively quote certain passages to the exclusion of others which give the full picture (as my critics are prone to do).
And don’t forget to mention all the campaigns where I have supported Muslim victims of injustice: asylum seekers, prisoners, people falsely framed on terrorism charges etc.
I have been prominent in the campaigns to defend many Muslims unjustly accused of terrorism, including Hicham Yezza:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza
and Hyrbyair Marri and Faiz Baluch:
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/pakistan-marri-british-london
I stood bail and provided evidence for Mr Baluch during his terrorism trial, which helped result in his acquittal (and Mr Marri’s).
I have also helped secure asylum for dozens of Muslim refugees and for Muslim victims of miscarriages of justice, such as Mohammed S:
http://www.petertatchell.net/criminalinjustice/judgechallenge.htm
I don’t recall any of my critics lifting a finger to help any of these Muslim victims of injustice.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:59 am
I think the major point here is that Peter Tatchell DID atttempt to get the PSC, PLO, PA to do something about how LGBT’s were being treated in the West Bank and Gaza. They didn’t.
If they had have got on the phone to Pete and said, ‘Look, can you keep it quiet, we have these Hamas pricks breathing down our necks so we will will act but we don’t want big billboard announcements about it’, then maybe Outrage would have felt listened to. They were not, and as PT makes clear, they talked to Outrage after they attended the demo.
As a long standing supporter of the Palestinians, I don’t think it was an easy decision for PT to make this an issue at a pro-Palestinian demo. Well, that’s how things work. That’s what happens when people believe they are being ignored.
Now, whether it was the right decision is another matter. But, PT indicates it got some results, and he strikes me, pardon the pun, as a pretty straight guy.
Comment by Howard Kirk — 4 November, 2009 @ 3:09 am
-74-
Andy Newman uses the term ’slaughtered’ somewhat too casually. There are even people who use terms like ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and - silliest of all - ‘decimate,’ happily unaware that the term ‘decimate’ means to reduce a number by precisely one-tenth.
The Gaza Strip now has well over twice the population it had at the time of the 1967 war.
The Israelis, horrid though they can be sometimes, are failing to slaughter anywhere near enough Palestinians to keep pace with the population explosion.
Comment by Otto — 4 November, 2009 @ 3:09 am
The discussion here has broadened into more general questions. But back to the original issue -having actually read it, I think the original piece in ‘Out of place’ made some good points - as well as some bad ones! I wont endorse everything the original article said, but I think it deserves a critical read (and a better edit to remove the inaccurate stuff about the sainted Tatchell).
But does indeed raises some important issues of the collaboration of western gay discourses with imperialism. I say this also as a gay man who has also lead struggles for gay rights over 25 years, as well as coincidently being a socialist in the Green Party! (Of course, I am not as famous a gay green lefty as Tatchell, just a footsoldier. I dont get as many death threats, only street homophobic abuse and the rare battering). This has also turned into an issue by the Tatchell fanclub about the defence of Tatchell’s honour, rather than the real issue of how the west can bomb Afghani peasants while appropriating feminist and gay liberationist discourses. To declare another interest, I am also an academic colleague of some of the writers of ‘out of place’ and am outraged at the silencing of these important critical, and already marginalised voices. The ‘out of place’ article deserves to be read. So I will repost it soon!!!
Meanwhile, for some more balance, here is a defence of the original academic paper, by Johanna Rothe posted on the nextgenderation list, that I got a while ago
Barry Kade
:
******
Out of Place, Out of Print
On the censorship of the first queerness/raciality collection in Britain*
by Johanna Rothe
In their article “Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the
‘War on Terror’” (2008), Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem
critique white gay discourses in Germany and Britain that trade in
Islamophobic constructions of a gay-friendly, sexually liberated ‘West’
and a homophobic,sexually oppressive ‘Islam’ as the West’s Other. They
argue that these constructions are validated in the politics of the ‘war
on terror’ and the erosion of migrant citizenship, and that racism is
“the vehicle that transports white gays and feminists into the
mainstream” (p. 72). Their work extends a tradition of antiracist
feminisms that analyse the complicities of feminist and sexual politics
in colonialism, war, and other forms of state violence. Writing
collaboratively as trans of color, queer Muslim, and migrant feminist
scholars and organizers, Haritaworn, Tauqir and Erdem call for a
different kind of sexual politics. This critique and call are now being
suppressed. On September 7 the publisher, Raw Nerve Books, issued a
public apology to Peter Tatchell, a white gay leader in Britain, and his
organization OutRage, who are criticized in “Gay Imperialism.” Raw Nerve
furthermore declared the collection in which the article appeared “out
of print.” The collection *Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in
Queerness/Raciality*, edited by Adi Kuntsman and Esperanza Miyake, has
been censored. On the publisher’s website, where one could formerly
order the book, one is now asked to read the publisher’s statement of
“apology and correction” instead. The “apology and correction” are a
show of force. In an authoritative voice, the statement denounces
that the article contains “untruths,” and it proclaims Tatchell “not
Islamophobic” and not racist. It quotes brief phrases from “Gay
Imperialism” and intersperses them with averments that it is “not” so,
or that Tatchell has “never” done this. “Mr Tatchell has never ‘employed
tactics of intimidation and aggressive divide and rule’, nor has he
‘attempted to discredit those who resist his patronage.’ He does not
’sling mud onto Muslim communities’.”
Some of the phrases of “Gay Imperialism” quoted in the “correction” use
obviously metaphoric language (”sling mud”). Their simple negation -
without examination of the context from which their meaning derives - is
a farce. The “correction” next disparages the power of judgment of the
African LGBTI human rights defenders whose scathing criticism of
Tatchell and OutRage is referenced in “Gay Imperialism.” The judgment of
Dorothy Aken’Ova of INCRESE in Nigeria and others who signed a public
statement of warning against Tatchell and OutRage is deemed not
significant because the signatories allegedly “did not know Mr Tatchell
and OutRage.” The statement of warning, which is signed by twenty
individuals representing over a dozen organizations in ten African
countries is denounced as the result of “untrue gossip spread by one
person who was waging a sectarian political vendetta.” (It is available
online on the pages of the Monthly Review Zine at
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/increse310107.html .)
The apology and correction finally conclude with a long list of
Tatchell’s anti-racist and anti-imperialist credentials. This follows a
common pattern of silencing anti-racist critique by posing to respond to
it while deflecting attention from its substance. As Jay Smooth famously
says, it is difficult to confront politicians and celebrities with their
racism: “It always starts out as a what-they-did conversation, but as
soon as the celebrity and their defenders get on camera they start doing
judo flips and switching it into a what-they-are conversation.” (His
video is called “How To Tell People They Sound Racist” and can be seen
on his hip-hop video blog ill Doctrine.) The celebrities’ defenders, I
would add, also take it upon themselves to define what racism is and to
act as if their definition were the only one. It strikes me as
unprecedented that Raw Nerve Books so wholeheartedly assumes the role of
Tatchell’s defender. I can only speculate about the pressures that moved
this small independent feminist publisher suddenly to claim that role.
What next? Smooth’s analysis would make me predict that after all this
“empty posturing” on the part of Tatchell’s defenders, who perform their
allegiance to the truth that Tatchell is not racist, the show will end
and “we forget that the whole thing ever happened.” This is not an
unrealistic scenario. The “apology and correction” and the decision to
censor the publication are a violent inducement to “forget” that
Tatchell’s rhetoric and politics ever motivated an anti-racist critique.
If you read only the statement of apology and correction, you would not
know that “Gay Imperialism” contains a critique. You are given the
impression that the article is nothing but a series of baseless
allegations, factual errors which “correction” has cleared away. The
correction delegitimizes “Gay Imperialism” (comparably to how it
delegitimizes the criticism by Aken’Ova and others) as something that
cannot be taken seriously.
The censorship of *Out of Place* weighs perhaps even heavier than all
these belittling statements, because it literally prevents many people
from reading the critique and forming their own judgment. The violent
suppression of “Gay Imperialism” and the book in which it appeared also
works as a warning to the authors, editors, and other critics and
potential critics of Tatchell to better keep their mouths shut.
We will not take this warning lightly. Whether we will obey it is a
different question. People with few symbolic and material resources -
women of color and queer and trans people of color, people from the
Global South, often people with precarious jobs - have taken the lead in
criticizing Islamophobia, racism and imperialism in white gay and queer
politics. The censorship of “Gay Imperialism” has made the risks of such
a critique manifest. It remains to be seen whether “we forget that the
whole thing ever happened,” or whether a different “we” is emerging that
gathers its strength as it recollects what it would much more easily forget.
Johanna Rothe
*References:*
“African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public against Participation in
Campaigns Concerning
LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!” (January 31,
2007), Monthly Review Zine.
Available at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/increse310107.html
accessed October 7, 2009).
Haritaworn, Jin, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem (2008) “Gay Imperialism:
Gender and Sexuality
Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’,” in* Out of Place: Interrogating Silences
in Queerness/Raciality*, eds.
Adi Kuntsman and Esperanza Miyake, Raw Nerve Books, York, pp. 71-95.
Raw Nerve Books “Peter Tatchell: Apology and Correction,” August 2009.
Available at
http://www.rawnervebooks.co.uk/Peter_Tatchell.pdf (last accessed October 7,
2009).
Smooth, Jay “How To Tell People They Sound Racist” (video, 2008) on ill
Doctrine (video blog).
Available at http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/ and at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0TigkJiXc&
feature=player_embedded (last accessed October 7, 2009).
Comment by Barry Kade — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:43 am
The ‘violent suppression of Gay Imperialism’?
Did Tatchell go round to the office with club wielding goons?
Comment by Apollo — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:42 am
Been scanning through my copy of “Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ (Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem). Will repost it somewhere on the web soon!
It contains such valuable insights as:
“Racism is, further, the vehicle that transports white gays and feminists
into the political mainstream. The amnesia at the basis of the sudden as-
sertion of a European ‘tradition’ of anti-homophobic and anti-sexist ‘core
values’ is less a reflection of progressive gender relations than of regressive
race relations”.
This is great, and needs to be said loudly, not censored by the white gay rights establishment! The whole theme of the piece - Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ - is really important and needs further discussion. We live in a time when the homophobic and violent football hooligans of the nationalist EDL appropriate the issue of women’s and gay rights as a stick to beat the oppressed Muslim minority in Britain!
The text also contains some awful nonsense as well, like:
“Many white gays and lesbians seemed almost triumphant when
Copeland, after attacking the black area Brixton and the South-Asian Brick
Lane, chose gay Soho as his third target”.
Thats just sick. Triumphant? Erm, no, I remember sitting watching the terrible news of all three attacks with my boyfriend first in shock, fear and tears, and then anger - and a deepened resolve to fight fascism and unite all oppressed groups.
As for Tatchell, he forms a more slippery target than Haritaworn et al can hit with their flawed article. But Tatchell’s approach is still problematic. He shows little awareness of how Islamophobia, racism and imperialism intersect with homophobia and sexism in his crude crusades. For socialists, we must learn how to challenge all forms of oppression simultaneously, without allowing one liberation movement to collaborate with another groups oppression. Tatchell shows no sign of leading the way on this! But dare we criticise ‘Saint Peter’ without offending his sensitivity?
I will write more on this when I get home from the states, where by coincidence I’ve got a ringside seat on the gay marriage debate and the mobilisation of some black churches by homophobes against the civil rights of another minority group!
Comment by Barry Kade — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:10 am
By the way Derek -’academics smear Tatchell’ is an awful title. The whole pice is one sided - we need a more nuanced and careful approach, comrade. I was also really turned off by the Islamophobia on the original Green Left email list I was part of. Our movement needs to think this through more deeply, not just be the Tatchell fan club!
Comment by Barry Kade — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:16 am
It must be great to be a Leninist. All the messy, inconvenient probems that come with trying to change the world can be rationalised and ignored because “don’t you know there’s a war on?”
So Armchair, johng, Ray and all the other little soi disant ‘revolutionaries’ who have decided that Palestinian solidarity is the most effective way of fighting capitalism can tell LGBT people to fuck off to the back of the queue.
And do you know what’s particularly revolting? These same cynica1 Leninsts attempt to cloak themselves in humanitarian garb when they rage ostentatiously about the suffering of the Palestinians.
Tell us the truth: you don’t give a shit about Palestinians or gays, except insofar as they serve your ends.
Queers won’t be silenced - and if that upsets your grand design then tough.
Comment by Jon — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:31 am
well I posted the article to put Peter’s side of the story and I am glad I did.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:57 am
also had this from Peter,
‘According to Pink News on 3 November, the publishers of the book attacking me (Out Of Place), unsuccessfully encouraged the book’ seditors and the authors of the libellous article to refute or retract the errors against me. They declined to do so.
This is what Pink News Wrote: “A statement from Raw Nerve Books said: “One of the articles – ‘Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the war on terror’ by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem – contains inaccuracies. While, like the rest of the book, it addresses important issues, the inaccuracies mean that the debate has been skewed and the issues obscured. ”
The publishers apologise for inaccuracies in the article. The book was already out of print when these errors were brought to our attention. Raw Nerve unsuccessfully encouraged the editors of the book(and thereby the authors of the article) to refute or retract the errors.
“Given that factual errors remain in the book, the publishers – with great sadness – have no alternative but to refrain from republishing. The publishers do not wish to participate in silencing or censoring,but do wish to up hold scholarly and honest debate. If the issues of inaccuracy can be resolved, the publishers would be delighted to publish a new edition of the book. ” “The authors of the chapter and the book’s editors did not respond to calls for comment by the time of publication,” wrote Pink News.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:05 am
The main difference between Peter Tatchell and his critics is that Peter is sincere and honest even when he’s wrong whereas many of his critics (especially the Leninists skewered by Jon above) are cynical and deceitful even when they’re right.
Comment by Socialist — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Criticism is one thing but publishing a book based on lies is very different, I think a thread of criticism of Peter is one thing, unfounded allegations is another.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:32 am
All my speeches, writings and campaigns are on my website:
www.petertatchell.net
If you read the totality of my work, you will see that I am nothing like the way I was misrepresented in the book Out of Place and how I have been presented by some people on this thread.
I opposed the Iraq war, was on last Saturday’s protest against the Afghan war, oppose the anti-terror laws and curtailments of civil liberties etc. I do not support liberal western interventionism. I do not seek to impose western values on non-western nations. All my campaigns re West Papua, Palestine, Jamaica, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Western Sahara and Latvia have been at the request of activists in those countries. It has been in solidarity with their struggles, just like the anti-apartheid movement was in solidarity with black South Africans. What’s wrong with internationalism? Has it now become a dirty word on the left?
If I am your enemy, you must have very few friends.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Derek – tell me one “unfounded allegation” in Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem article?
Comment by Richard — 4 November, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Why are Tatchell’s posts to this thread being blocked? He tels me that he has been trying to reply to various comments since late last night and this morning but
every post is blocked? Can the administrator please explain?
This is one comment that was blocked:
Peter Tatchell writes:
All my speeches, writings and campaigns are on hmy website:
www.petertatchell.net
If you read the totality of my work, you will see that I am nothing like the way I was misrepresented in the book Out of Place and how I have been misrepresented by some people on this thread.
I opposed the Iraq war, oppose an atack on Iran, was on last Saturday’s protest against the Afghan war, oppose the anti-terror laws, Guantanamo Bay and curtailments of civil liberties etc. I do not support liberal western interventionism. I do not seek to impose western values on non-western nations.
All my human righst and social justice campaigns re West Papua, Palestine, Jamaica, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Western Sahara and Latvia have been at the request of activists in those countries.
It has been in solidarity with their struggles, just like the anti-apartheid movement was in solidarity with black South Africans.
What’s wrong with internationalism? Has it now become a dirty word on the left?
If I am your enemy, you must have very few friends.
Comment by Mods42 — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
It does just seem a rehearsal of the arguments within the anti-war movement to be honest. I’m waiting to read the actual article, but if all it does is critique Peter’s politics, then thats very disturbing. People say all kinds of things about each others politics, their implications, their weaknesses etc. When Jon makes his wild allegations about the left not giving a shit about gays or palestinians but simply seeking to use them for their own ends, its doubtful that anyone will try and silence him. Thats just a common argument amongst those hostile to the anti-imperialist left. Sometimes its made by the right. Sometimes its made by liberals. And sometimes its made by those further to the left. I happen to think its offensive and irrational, and not a little hypocritical, but thats an opinion. I can’t prevent people from publishing such things.
Comment by johng — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
“Queers won’t be silenced - and if that upsets your grand design then tough.”
All your hypocritical guff about defending Palestinian LGBT rights can’t gloss over your attempt to silence gay socialists like me.
What is truly sickening is this notion that you and Outrage! speak for LGBT’s in Palestine and any criticism of your tactics is homophobic. It is the same self-serving imperialist nonsense that is used to justify Islamophobia.
The people who wrote this article and thousands of indigenous LGBT’s around the world who are critical of Tatchell aren’t so-called “Leninists”. But you don’t or won’t hear their voices because it doesn’t fit into your privileged, white, middle class gay male discourse. This is not just about homophobia it’s about race and class. You want to censor any criticism and that is the real totalitarianism.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
In some ways, this issue reminds me of the debate between those who criticised the tactics of Martin Luther King and favoured those of Malcolm X during the struggle for black liberation in the US.
While Tatchell is no where near the same league or commands the same support as either black civil rights leader (although some of his devout followers will undoubtedly disagree) the debate about allowing criticism and alternative views within the movement is pertinent.
There is obviously a strong disagreement between Outrage! and indigenous LGBT’s about political intervention to support LGBT rights in their countries.
Instead of trying to censor this debate, Outrage! should be welcoming and engaging in it. If they claim to defend LGBT’s around the world then they should listen to and respect their views.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Just in case anyone is under the impression that Peter Tatchell never engages in criticism of others here’s an except from, “Why has the left gone soft on human rights”, from March 2007.
“A perverse interpretation of multiculturalism has resulted in race and religion ruling the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression. In the name of “unity” against Islamophobia and racism, much of the left tolerates misogyny and homophobia in minority communities. It rejects common standards of rights and responsibilities; demanding that we “make allowances” and show “sensitivity” with regard to the prejudices of ethnic and faith communities. This attitude is patronising, even racist. It judges minority peoples by different standards.”
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t the generalisations made in his paragraph be construed by some of us on the left to be untrue? It’s insulting to be accused of pandering to misogyny and homophobia. Especially when he offers no concrete examples to debate or dispute.
Peter Tatchell’s comment, “The anti-racist struggle has been weakened by the excesses of the “diversity agenda”", could have come straight out of a Tory think tank. He certainly pulls no punches when he blames diversity and the left’s collaboration with this for a rise in homophobia. Again he provides no evidence for these accusations so it’s an opinion.
What I’ve tried to show by quoting this article is that Peter Tatchell regularly engages in criticism against what he considers to be those who do not subscribe to his political agenda. He makes his opinion well known by publicising it in articles and in the internet yet, when HE is criticised in print or on the internet he considers this unfair and demands an apology.
Unfortunately for him, political disagreements can’t be switched on and off depending on whether they are favourable or not. This is something all political activists must learn to accept if we are trying to win others over to our position.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Peter,
Instead of acting like a bully in censoring articles written by Lesbian Muslims why don’t you respond to the article by addressing their concerns and arguments?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
I think it is you Richard doing the bullying, Peter responds to criticism, he has censored nothing but he deserve a right of reply when it comes to lies.
May be Richard you have failed to actually read the post from Peter.
I am shocked by the level of abuse that Peter is getting on this thread, the last time he got this much baseless abuse was during the 1981 Bermondsey by-election.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Derek how is asking a question bullying?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Err since Peter raises the Iraq War, I understand he had a “third way”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/19/iraq.world
Comment by Richard Farnos — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
“I am shocked by the level of abuse that Peter is getting on this thread, the last time he got this much baseless abuse was during the 1981 Bermondsey by-election.”
I think it’s disgusting that you compare the homophobia he received in Bermondsey to the criticism made by Lesbian Muslims and those of us who support their right to critique his political strategy. You are using the lie of the liberal imperialists that any criticism of Tatchell’s political strategy equates to homophobia.
Tatchell has every opportunity to put his views across on his website, in this forum or any forum on the internet where this is being discussed. But he has gone out of his way to censor the views of those who wrote the chapter criticising his politics by preventing them publishing their book.
He trades in opinions not facts when it comes to his attacks on others yet he will not tolerate the opinions of others even when they provide examples to support their argument.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
well i have’nt seen any ‘abuse’ on this thread, though I’ve seen disagreement. Ray by direct quotation from Peter, in which he accuses his opponents of being racists because they have an (imputed) wrong understanding of multi-culturalism was interesting to me, not because I don’t think Peter is entitled to his opinion, but because I had initially wanted to know whether the article about him did anything more then this…
Comment by johng — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
This is one of the most recent interventions by Peter Tatchell which explains why I think his politics stink to high heaven:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel-human-rights
A few choice selections:
“While progressive opinion is justifiably quick to condemn Israel, it is oddly silent when Palestinians are being persecuted by fellow Palestinians. Why the double standards?”
So Peter Tatchell believes that liberals and socialists in Britain should spend as much time attacking Hamas as attacking Israel? Let’s consider this a moment. Israel has been receiving strong support from the British government for decades, including the sale of weapons. Britain’s closest ally, the USA, has provided Israel with unprecedented levels of support, military, economic and diplomatic. No western government has provided one single cent or one single word of encouragement to Hamas. Secondly, the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state is vastly greater than abuses committed by Hamas – the allegations against Hamas referred to by Tatchell involve the deaths of tens of people, the IDF has killed thousands of Palestinians.
Yet Tatchell believes that we should spend as much time attacking Hamas as attacking Israel. What a disgusting, immoral position. The moral imperative for British citizens is to challenge their own government’s complicity in the abuse of Palestinian human rights by the Israeli state.
“Support for Hamas has declined dramatically as people have experienced the consequences of its administration in Gaza. If a genuinely free and fair election were held today, Hamas would not win.”
No mention of the fact that the “consequences” referred to by Tatchell are 99% the result of criminal Israeli policy. The economic blockade of Gaza has strangled the life of its people. The attempt by Hamas and Fatah to reach a national unity agreement and form a coalition government was sabotaged by Israel and the US, trying to organise a coup led by Mohammed Dahlan, which led to the violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah and the split between Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians might well not vote for Hamas in the same numbers as 2006: if so, that would be a victory for Israeli terrorism. Tatchell apparently welcomes the fact that many Palestinians are fearful that, by voting for Hamas again, they could expect another massacre of hundreds of civilians to follow.
“The Gazan people are lions led by Hamas donkeys. These donkeys keep giving Israel an excuse to attack the Palestinian people and to frustrate the urgent task of creating a viable, independent Palestinian state.”
How, Peter? How do they do this? The Hamas leadership (in particular Khaled Meshal and Ismail Haniyeh) have repeatedly said that they will sign a long-term truce on the basis of a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. This is all they can be expected to do. They are absolutely right to reject the “3 conditions” imposed by Israel and its backers – no nationalist movement can be expected to renounce its right to armed resistance while a military occupation remains in place, and no nationalist movement can be expected to recognise a state which keeps its people under oppression and refuses to recognise their right to self-determination. How does Hamas “give Israel an excuse to attack the Palestinian people”? What excuse do they need? Remember, it was Israel that broke the ceasefire last year, not Hamas.
Along the way, he compares Hamas to the Nazis and refers approvingly to an article on the disgusting racist sewer known as Harry’s Place. In an article of 1,300 words, he has a grand total of 60 criticising the Israel state which has oppressed the Palestinians for half a century and had just completed a massacre of over 1,000 people a few weeks before he started typing. The rest is given over exclusively to denouncing Hamas and anyone who does not agree with Tatchell that Hamas is an evil totalitarian terrorist gang that belongs in the same category as the Nazi party (let us be clear – Tatchell is not criticising the Left for giving 100% uncritical support to Hamas, he is criticising the Left for not demonising Hamas, identifying it as a fascist terrorist organisation, spending as much if not more time attacking it as attacking Israel, and repeating many of the false claims made by the Israeli government as if they were sacred gospel).
If this is Tatchell’s idea of “solidarity”, he can take it and jump off a cliff as far as I’m concerned. As someone who is very active in Palestinian solidarity work in Ireland, I would not work with someone like him under any circumstance – I think he is a useful idiot of Zionism.
Comment by Ed W — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
People might not like Peter Tatchell’s politics. But that’s no justification for lying about him. And that’s what these academics do.
If people can’t tell the difference, they’ve obviously been in left politics too long.
Comment by bill j — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
That seems to be what’s in dispute here, Bill. Some people have asked if the academics actually made factual statements that were untrue, or did they interpret actions of Tatchell in a way that he didn’t like. It has been pointed out that Tatchell himself has accused “the Left” of pandering to racism and homophobia, turning a blind eye to oppression, and supporting fascists. Most left-wingers would find these claims to be completely misleading and indeed outrageous, so he is on pretty thin ice here. In future, perhaps, every time Tatchell makes statements of that sort, “the Left” as a collective body should demand a retraction.
Comment by Ed W — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
I must admit that I do have a lot of sympathy for Peter here, and some empathy becasue people constantly lie about my politics too, and I am not in the public eye to the degree that peter is.
I don’t agree with a lot of peter’s politics, and I do find it annoying when he is regarded as an unimpeachable source of fact about, when he sometimes is simply wrong.
Neverthless, he is clearly not a racist, and has not associated with far right groups. What has happened is that some very reasonable criticisms of Peter’s politics have been over-egged a little for polemical effect. The fact that Peter Tatchell himslef occassionaly does the same thing doesn’t make that right.
On the other hand, I do think the Green Party does need to have a self-critical look at why it has such a very limited appeal to BME communities.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Don’t live in the UK, so I’m not familiar with PT or his history, it does strike me from looking at what has been posted is that he like many, who I would call “left-liberal” raise issues in ways that intended or not are used by others to back up the “humanitarian - intervention” justification for imperialism.
for a good website of LGBT folks who are in solidarity with the Palestians check out the below
http://queersagainstapartheid.org/
Comment by passerby — 4 November, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
‘People might not like Peter Tatchell’s politics. But that’s no justification for lying about him. And that’s what these academics do.
If people can’t tell the difference, they’ve obviously been in left politics too long.’ seems to be the point here.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
“I am shocked by the level of abuse that Peter is getting on this thread, the last time he got this much baseless abuse was during the 1981 Bermondsey by-election.”
What an absolutely appalling thing to say.
Can you really not see the irony on this thread of equating criticism of Tatchell’s politics with the foulest homophobia shown against him in that campaign?
Did somebody say “misrepresentation and smears”?
Comment by Mike — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Every time I re-read the ‘out of place’ article by Haritaworn et al, I am struck by the many important points it makes, and questions it raises, like these:
“keep asking difficult questions in the spirit of this volume. How do the new theories reinscribe or challenge the single-issue politics at theroot of this problem, where sexual agency (and theory) remains white andcultural agency heterosexual? How do they contest or reinforce a constructof ‘Eastern culture’ as homophobic (and therefore open to official controland of re-colonisation by the ‘liberated West’)? Does their archive remainwhite, or do they acknowledge its theoretical and political predecessors inqueer Muslims and other queers of colour? As we shall demonstrate, aneffective intervention into the ways in which sexual rights and migrantrights have become constructed as mutually contradictory requires a critical historiography, which questions how white subjects came to claim theright to define and theorise sexual liberation projects in the first place”. in Haritaworn et al, ‘Gay Imperialism’.
This is the discussion we should be having…..
To be honest, the article does not mention Tatchell that much. And its spot on on some wider issues. Furthermore, it was in an obscure academic book. These books never sell more than a few hundred copies, and are read by other academics.
Oh, and remember Tatchell’s attacks on Respect and Galloway as being homophobic? This mud slinging goes both ways! The truth is that Tatchell is not a racist and Galloway is not a homophobe. But both have made mistakes, and found themselves aligned with the oppressors. Our task is to cut through the gordian knot of the intersecting forms of oppression - not to pull it tighter with one sided single issue politics.
Comment by Barry Kade — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Well, let’s recap-
#75 “This is the authentic voice of totalitarianism. All conscience, reason, humanity and moral restraint must be cast aside in pursuit of the strategic objective. Any doubters must be demonised as ‘liberals’ or (as in Peter’s case) collaborators with fascism.
To overlook or excuse the killing and persecution of gays for tactical reasons is to turn a blind eye to murder.
I can understand why a reactionary or a businessman might betray his essence as a human being but why would a socialist do such a thing?”
#135 “So Armchair, johng, Ray and all the other little soi disant ‘revolutionaries’ who have decided that Palestinian solidarity is the most effective way of fighting capitalism can tell LGBT people to fuck off to the back of the queue.
And do you know what’s particularly revolting? These same cynica1 Leninsts attempt to cloak themselves in humanitarian garb when they rage ostentatiously about the suffering of the Palestinians.
Tell us the truth: you don’t give a shit about Palestinians or gays, except insofar as they serve your ends.”
#138 “The main difference between Peter Tatchell and his critics is that Peter is sincere and honest even when he’s wrong whereas many of his critics (especially the Leninists skewered by Jon above) are cynical and deceitful even when they’re right.”
The above comments wre all aimed at me either individually or by lumping me collectively with others whose politics I don’t in fact share.
I made no personal attack on Peter Tatchell, I did not state agreement with the individuals who are the subject of criticism in this article (as I do not pretend to know enough about the subject to comment), all I did was to criticise his intervention into a demonstration and give political reasons for why I think he was wrong.
Btw Peter, I use a pseudonym in all contributions to this blog and for reasons I consider legitimate, not in order to make criticism of public figures like yourself.
Jon#138 - how do you know I’m a “leninist?” Do you in fact know what that means?
Socialist# 138 - Same questions for you. Additionally, what leads you to accuse me of being “deceitful”?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
There are so many lies and fabrications about me on this thread that it is impossible to rebut all of them. These falsifications show that some people on the left have absolutely no ethics or integrity at all. But their lies harm all of us on the left and undermine the credibility of the whole left. No wonder the left is marginal, with liars like these.
Here is one typical lie, by Keith Watermelon:
“he (Tatchell) marched with the BNP in 2006 after Jylands-Posten (and the AWL rag) published the racist cartoons, which is pretty unforgiveable, and he has a history of islamophobia.”
No, I did not march with the BNP or any fascists anywhere. At the rally to which he refers I denounced the BNP from the stage and defended the Muslim communities.
When you lie and turn the facts on their head you only make a fool of yourself.
I note that most of my critics on this thread and other blogs are too cowardly to write under their real names. They spread their lies behind the cloak of anonymity. Just like the fascists often do.
Keith Watermelon claims I am an Islamophobe. Keith, please produce the evidence for your mud-slinging. Go to my website where all my campaigns and writings are archived and show us the evidence of my Islamophobia.
www.petertatchell.net
And don’t selectively quote certain passages to the exclusion of others that give the full, rounded picture (as my critics are prone to do).
And don’t forget to mention all the campaigns where I have supported Muslim victims of injustice: asylum seekers, prisoners, people falsely framed on terrorism charges etc.
I have been prominent in the campaigns to defend many Muslims unjustly accused of terrorism, including Hicham Yezza:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza
and Hyrbyair Marri and Faiz Baluch:
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/pakistan-marri-british-london
I stood bail and provided evidence for Mr Baluch during his terrorism trial, which helped result in his acquittal (and Mr Marri’s).
I have also helped secure asylum for dozens of Muslim refugees and for Muslim victims of miscarriages of justice, such as Mohammed S:
http://www.petertatchell.net/criminalinjustice/judgechallenge.htm
I don’t recall any of my critics lifting a finger to help any of these Muslim victims of injustice.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
I have yet to see where the definative lie is. Some have interpreted PT’s actions and stances as objectively aiding Imperialism and Islamophobia, he disagrees with this interpretation and has demanded a retraction from the authors.
Seems however that the bigger thing right now is to support LGBT rights groups in Africa given the threat of the death penalty in Uganda. Two of the leading groups there have signed a letter stating that Tatchell and OUTrage are not to be trusted. So if Tatchell really wants to fight the law being propsed in Uganda, we will see if he will follow these groups on the grounds lead.
Comment by passerby — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Peter has a record of decades of political struggle, its depressing that he is being attacked with such vigour, there seems to be a difference between criticism and obvious fabrication.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
PT’s last contribution was posted before mine. Why is it now after it?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
#166
Peter’s comments are being blocked by the bloody annoying spam filter, and I am having to manually rescue and approve them, which is creating some anomalies.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Derek, I have a lot of time for what you post normally but your Bermondsey comment about people who have decades of political struggle, including the fight against homophobia, is a disgrace. Smear and fabrication indeed.
Comment by Mike — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
If you read the totality of my work, you will see that I am being misrepresented in the book Out of Place and I am being misrepresented by some people on this thread.
I opposed the Iraq war, oppose an atack on Iran, was on last Saturday’s protest against the Afghan war, oppose the anti-terror laws, oppose Guantanamo Bay and oppose New Labour’s curtailments of civil liberties etc.I do not support liberal western interventionism. I do not seek to impose western values on non-western nations.
All my human righst and social justice campaigns re West Papua, Palestine, Jamaica, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Western Sahara and Latvia have been at the request of activists in those countries.
It has been in solidarity with their struggles, just like the anti-apartheid movement was in solidarity with black South Africans.
What’s wrong with internationalism? Has it now become a dirty word on the left?
If I am your enemy, you must have very few friends.
Fight the real enemy, not other comrades.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Perhaps we could learn some lessons in courteous political debate from Mr Tatchell’s comments after the 7/7/bombings in London? “Today, the pseudo-left reveals its shameless hypocrisy and its wholesale abandonment of humanitarian values… These same right-wing leftists back the so-called ‘resistance’ in Iraq… much of the left doesn’t care. Never mind what the Iraqi people want, it wants the US and UK out of Iraq at any price, including the abandonment of Iraqi socialists, trade unionists, democrats and feminists. If the fake left gets its way, the ex-Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists could easily seize power, leading to Iranian-style clerical fascism and a bloodbath. I used to be proud to call myself a leftist. Now I feel shame.”
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Some people keep asking on this thread: What lies have been written about Tatchell in the book Out of Place?
I am not objecting to criticism. I object to the false and libellous untruths by the authors.
The three authors explicitly claim or implicitly insinuate the following falsehoods:
Tatchell has “claimed the role of liberator and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians.” Not true. I have never made such a claim or adopted such a role.
Tatchell is Islamophobic and is “part of the Islamophobia industry.” Not true. I have defended many Muslim victims of injustice and condemned anti-Muslim prejudice. Indeed, in 1998 I drafted a law to protect Muslims (and others) against discrimination, harsssment and hate crimes. It was, sadly, rejected by the government.
Tatchell is racist and has engaged in “racial” politics. Not true. I have a 40-year record of anti-racist and anti-apartheid campaigning.
Tatchell has described “Muslims as Nazis” and made the equation “Muslim=Nazi” and “Muslim=Evil.” Not true. I have never attacked Muslims in general – only fundamentalists who oppose democracy, equality and human rights.
Tatchell has “collaborated with the extreme right” and “participated with several racist and fascist groups.” Not true. I have fought the far-right for four decades and been a victim of violent physical attacks against me and my home by neo-Nazis because of my defence of black, Muslim, Jewish and LGBT people.
It is utterly shameful for any authors, let alone academics, to abandon honesty, truth and integrity, in order to misrepresent and lie about other people in order to wage petty, sectarian political wars.
We should fight the real oppressors and not pick fights with, and publish false allegations against, other progressive people.
Sectarian attacks undermine my struggle and yours, for human rights, social justice, peace and anti-imperialism.
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 4 November, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Peter Tatchell says “These falsifications show that some people on the left have absolutely no ethics or integrity at all.”
Sadly, some people on the left, particularly those in hoc to the democratic centralism of the SWP, regard ‘ethics’ and ‘integrity’ as bourgeois, liberal, decadent concepts. In public they seek to gain hegemony by utilising the language of morality but in private they are contemptuous of it and regard themselves as part of an an intellectual and organisational elite, operating according to a higher imperative.
Anyone who has spent any time inside the SWP or similar organisations knows this.
Comment by Trevor — 4 November, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
#170- Your point (in relation to the debate(s) on this thread being what?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
What’s my point? It is that Peter is debating in good faith whereas people like you are arguing in bad faith because you are not being honest with the rest of us about your motives, priorities and agendas.
What was that famous quote from Lenin about truth?
Comment by Trevor — 4 November, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
I am quite embarassed by some of the aggressiveness and rudeness of certain keyboard warriors against Peter Tatchell.
A bit of generosity of spirit and civility in dealing with people you disagree with is not too much to ask is it?
As Eric Hoffer said
‘Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.’
Comment by Havelock — 4 November, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
#172- People like me? “arguing in bad faith because you are not being honest with the rest of us about your motives, priorities and agendas”.
I think you should justify what you say in your comment, or retract it.
What are my motive(s), prioritie(s) and agenda(s)?
As for,
“What was that famous quote from Lenin about truth?”,
I don’t know, what was it?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Trevor, when people talk about “keyboard rage”, it’s “people like you” who provoke it.
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
The Lenin quote is
‘A lie told often enough becomes the truth.’
Another reason why Lenin was the worst thing to happen to socialism.
Comment by Havelock — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
‘democratic centralism of the SWP’ again is something we might argue about but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the attack on Peter from a minority of ‘academics’, this thread seems to wander a long way from the article by Peter.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Sorry Havelock, are you also Trevor?
If so, would you mind responding to the rest of what I asked (ie justifying the rather nasty attack on my character? After all,
“A bit of generosity of spirit and civility in dealing with people you disagree with is not too much to ask is it?”, a sentiment I agree with 100%.
If not, I’m not sure how you are able to answer for Trevor.
Also although I am not in the business of defending Lenin, I would also be interested in where the quote comes from as I’ve never come accross it before except in a similar form from one of the Nazi leaders.
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Trevor,
Nothing good faith, in my mind, about going after the autors of an article that challenges some “common sense” notions and disagreess with Tatchells approach. Better thing to have done would be to respond politically to them. Instead Tatchell went after his critics in a way that didn’t adresss any of the key points of their arguments and then attributed staements to the authors that they didn’t make.
Regardless of how one feels about Tatchell (seems to be someone you would have to work with on certain issues, but avoid on others - not unlike many bigger names in any movement)it is pretty clear that he went after people trying to make valid criticism of how some western organisations use their clout in irresponsible ways and in some cases give cover to imperialism - some openly, others unintentional.
What makes it worse is that his defense completely avoids the critique in the texts he claims slandered him. Instead all he offers up is a defense that he is better than other activists and untouchable when it comes to critiques of his actions.
Comment by passerby — 4 November, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Peter this will not do. Sure your commitment and efforts are second to none, however to argue that that somehow absolves you from any criticism simply does not wash.
Peter at the March for Freedom of Expression rally, and elsewhere, you argued for a principled position of almost absolute freedom of speech. That any one can say absolutely anything they like about anything regardless of offence or accuracy. The only area you argued that freedom of speech should be curtailed was with regard to death threats. Thus while the Jylands-Posten cartoons were racist the right to publish them had to be defend. Although this position ignores the fact that the right to publish the cartoon were never under threat and while I disagree with it the underlining position has some honour to it. – So how do you square this with your suppression of the distribution of Out Of Place? Is this not censorship? And a breach of your principles? Or are the rights of racist cartoonists above the concerns of lesbian Muslim activists?
For years and years Peter people have raised with you concerns about your and Outrages almost singular focus on anti-gay discrimination within BME and minority faith communities, and they way you dichotomise the struggles against racism with that of homophobia.
This has included such infantile obscurities as comparing the monies spent on the Rise anti-racist festival and Pride London. Or in the run up to the 2005 general election you, along with Terry Sanderson and Nick Cohen spread the idea that the Muslim Council of Britain and Labour Party were in cahoots’ to prevent the in inclusion of sexuality in the forthcoming Single Equality Act in order to “win Muslim votes”. Even after I had published evidence that showed that the MCB supported a Single Equality Act that included sexual orientation, you continue with this story only change being to drop references the MCB.
Can’t you see that over the years this gives the notion that the rights of black and minority faiths, particular Islam, are some how in opposition to those of LGBT people.
Whether you like it or not Peter, extremist like Bruce Bawer and editors of www.flameout.org use you words and political stunts to give to attack BME groups particularly Muslims. In ‘While Europe Sleeps’ Bruce Bawer calms that you Peter are on of the last people defending Britain from Islamification and www.flameout.org is a vicious racist gay website full of falsehoods and hate. On one page it states: “FlameOUT congratulates OUTRAGE on its efforts on behalf of all Gay Men and Women worldwide in fighting for and protecting our rights at enormous cost and danger to themselves. We recommend a visit to their site.”
Peter you can’t just wash your hands of this and suppress or character assassinate all those who dare criticise you. Whether it was your intention is neither here or there Peter, just get out in the community and listen. Your campaigns have led people to believe that Islam and LGBT rights are inherently incompatible, and Islamophobia is rife within the community.
Comment by Richard Farnos — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
“hi Pete.
The Official Left Supporters of Palestine say thanks and all but go back in the closet, please. Our gays are fine and tell us that they support the official peoples front of islamic liberation and don’t want our glorious united front to be distracted by your imperialist western mincing. We’ll sort out that other stuff later, mkay? Thx.”
I wonder why a gay man is attracting so much vitriol here…?
Comment by Alice in Wonderland — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Alice - I repeat for the umpteenth time my question, which Palestinian organisations or individuals are you and Peter working with in your gallant defence of Palestinian gay rights?
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Just for the record, I sometimes post as ‘Jon’ here, and I’m not Jon at #138 . Need to get a better handle…
Comment by Jon (the other one) — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
#181- No need for reasoned political argument, a bit of snide inuendo, insinuate that the people who disagree with you are homophobic and job done.
You are soooo clever.
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
#183- Received and understood.
Waht’s happened to the other Jon? Intending to respond to me any time soon?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Derek (in what is currently comment 138.) publishes something he attributes to Tatchell. It calls the article Tatchell is upset about “libelous” and concludes by making clear that the publisher will not reprint the book, because the authors and editors refused to withdraw those “libelous” statements. On the other hand, Tatchell also asserts - in the original post - that accusations he uses the libel laws to prevent re-publication of the book are “lies”. This seems extremely disingenuous to me, to say the least. If a person writes to a publisher and asserts that certain statements in a book are, quote, “libelous”, the publisher will be entirely justified in taking this as an implied threat of libel action - in particular if that same person states (as is done in the original post) that he has “no objection to [the book] being reprinted, provided the lies and fabrications about me are not included” (my emphasis).
I should add - since this is apparently a required disclaimer - that I am not at all a fan of the practice of calling people “supporters of imperialism in effect” and similar accusations. It is entirely possible (and appropriate) to criticize Tatchell and Outrage! without that kind of labeling.
Comment by christian h. — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I wonder where I learned my craft?
If we were to be serious:
* mixing up people under oppression with their state-in-waiting leads to taking idiotic positions
* “nat lib now, anti-oppression later” didn’t work in South Africa either. The ANC is has pushed neoliberalism and is resorting to xenophobia to cover economic woes (see Kennedy Road massacre and Abahlali baseMjondolo)
* I think that the large number of people here lining up to correct PT’s political sins speaks to something other than those politics. Doesn’t have to be conscious homophobia, but the collective effect walks like that particular duck
Comment by Alice in Wonderland — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Alice- could you put all that into a recognisable argument?
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Any news on those Palestinian individuals and organisations you are working with, Alice?
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
The quote above post -170, if true does expose some serious questions about Tatchells politics. I’m not interested in attcaking Tacthell as it is clear he has been a serious defender of LGBT rights, and has worked with other re: civil liberties, this to me makes it clear he isn’t on the right. A comparison to Irshad Manji should make that clear. But that doesn’t mean that everything the man does is beneficial or helpful to fighting racism and homophobia.
As is often the case a focus on a single issue without putting into broader perspectives leads one end up helping the right.
It seems pretty clear that several actions by Peter and his group have done that, it also seems that there has been little self reflection about this.
What is disturbing about this thread to me is the title - Lesbians and Gays from oppressed ethnic/national minorities raise concerns and good old western folks shut them down.
A serious activist interested in fostering solidarity between Gays and Lesbians in the west and those fighting for the most basic elemental rights in the, for lack of a better term, global south has to have an appreciation of the role of western NGO’s and even more important an understanding of imperialism.
None of the defenders of Tatchell seem to want to deal with the open letter sent by activists in Africa, instead they seem to want this discussion to be about Tatchells record. (of course those denouncing him as a proto fascist do little to help this debate as well).
Comment by passerby — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
I shouldn’t get drawn in to Alice’s sarcasm, Armchair. I’m gay but apparently I’m a homophobe for supporting Palestinian liberation from Israel and pointing out the Islamophobia of Outrage!
There is no need to write anything about Tatchell. Just by quoting his own words it confirms that he descends into racism and Islamophobia when attacking multiculturalism and the left.
I’m actually shocked by the level of vitriol in his articles about BME’s and Muslims. If this whole issue has done anything it has made me reassess his politics because like many here, I considered his stunts a harmless distraction or, on some occasions, admired his bravado but my opinion has changed and the more of his words I read on the issue of race the more disturbing it becomes.
Consequentially, I think the authors of the book were pretty mild in their criticisms. It’s no excuse to claim, as Tatchell does, that he has supported Muslims when his articles contain some of the most vile racist and Islamophobic comments. I don’t care if someone has been an activist for 50 years that does not excuse these ideas and they have no place on the left. Peter Tatchell claims that he is disappointed with the left. Well the feeling is mutual Peter.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
The fact that Tatchell and his apologists think he is above addressing the criticisms of his views on multiculturalism and Muslims and their desperate attempts to suppress debate by resorting to the baseless jibe of “homophobe” whenever anyone is critical do not help his claim that he didn’t suppress this book by any means necessary.
Comment by Ray — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Loving the swift personal attention and the assumption that I’m part of PT’s organization.
The points I made above are enough for me - there’s no point in arguing with leftists keen on elevating nations above people and insecure orthodoxy over difficult questions.
Still, well derailed.
Some academics make factual errors in an essay, refuse to correct them. Book not to be reprinted (would it have been otherwise? In this economy?). Academics yell “censorship”, book gets more attention than it would otherwise have received. Trebles all round at Oxford and the publishers.
Clearly the important point is Peter Tatchell’s every statement over the last 20 years….
Comment by Alice in Wonderland — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
I love this idea that ordinary people owe the Palestinians anything. TBH I’m sick of hearing about this miserable dump, which can’t seem to stop attacking its neighbour even after countless peace processes and interventions by both liberal and conservative American governments - sixty years of them in fact. They vote in right wing fascists and you still claim that unconditionally supporting not just the country, but the actual right wing fascist party that leads it is crucial for socialists? WHY for DOg’s sake?
What does or should Palestine mean to the working class? I’d think that the tsunami of oncoming wage and benefits cuts, the Tories, the recession and the resurgence of the BNP and of right wing extremists generally would be a bit more important to socialists. Get your priorities right or face yet another decade of utter irrelevance and ridicule.
Comment by operator — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
I repeat the point I made earlier.
Peter tatchell has made his political home in the Green party, and barry Kade above has pointed out the level of islamophobia on the Green left e-list.
When there were protests about Gaza ealier this year in Swindon, the Green party ppc used her speech to criticise Hamas saying they had started the war, and she was to the right of the Tory councillor over the issue.
From my observation the Green Party seems to be almost institutionally insensitive to issue of BME communities. I appreciate that they have an Asian woman councillor, but generally they do not seem to be a party genuinelly committed in practiice to multi-culturalism.
Now that would be Ok if they were showing any sense of self-awareness, or moving to correct this problem. But i see no sign of it.
Doesn’t anyone else think this is a problem?
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Alice let me quote back your introductory remarks: “The Official Left Supporters of Palestine say thanks and all but go back in the closet, please. Our gays are fine and tell us that they support the official peoples front of islamic liberation and don’t want our glorious united front to be distracted by your imperialist western mincing”
I took it from your critique of what you believe to be the Official Left position that you were of course doing solidarity work of your own, which combined support for national liberation with support for Palestinian gay rights. So I asked what you were doing and who you were doing it with. Since you actually aren’t doing anything, can you tell me of anybody who is implementing your line? Or are the Official Left Supporters of Palestine actually the only supporters of Palestine?
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Alice- there’s no point in arguing if you are utterly incapable of it.
In the meantime I notice that neither Jon, Socialist nor Trevor have responded with their justifications for their attacks on me.
Well maybe I’m too insignificant to deserve being presented with evidence by my accusers.
On the other hand all 3 of them may have been away from the computer for a while having a life.
Whichever, I await their responses with baited breath.
Comment by Armchair — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
“Fight the real enemy, not other comrades,” says Peter Tatchell.
It’s good advice. He should heed it
Comment by Huey — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
The Green Party is belatedly dealing with our weakness on BME representation - The election of Maya de Souza as Equality and Diversity Officer last year was a good start, we have a small but growing amount of BME candidates and activists, something that Caroline Lucas, to her credit takes seriously.
I’d agree that the Swindon Green’s speech on Gaza was weak on analysis, but it wasn’t quite as bad as I expected, considering what Andy had said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmyv8U5dD4A&feature=player_embedded
As for the attacks on Peter Tatchell, I wish people would stick to the facts , he has made mistakes (such as his association with the vile Harry’s Place) but his overall record as a human rights campaigner is fantastic.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
I am sure Andy will also be producing evidence of the Islamphobia of green left, perhaps Andy too is an Islamphobe as he has worked with me in the past and I am a member of green left which he suggests is islamophobic (without producing any direct evidence).
You not what they say about ‘association’.
Comment by Derek Wall — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
“he has made mistakes (such as his association with the vile Harry’s Place) but his overall record as a human rights campaigner is fantastic.”
Yes, I am sure that would be Tatchell’s attitude if, say, George Galloway was associated with a vilely homophobic website and Galloway’s chief political associate was among its key bloggers. Instead of demanding condemnations and writing about the “shameful silence of the Left”, Peter would of course be saying, “let it go, after all he’s a good campaigner on other issues”.
Comment by lone nut — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:54 am
Derek should be thanked for publishing Peter’s statement here. Subsequent comments show a virulent and deeply emotional hostility to Peter which is inappropriate and uncomradely. There’s a real discussion to be had about the effectiveness of OutRage!’s tactics (as Richard Farnos notes) but they are tactical choices to be made by OutRage! and discussed in a civil way by progressives.
OutRage! exists because the mainstream left does too far little to make solidarity with LBGT struggles. Their tactics may be upsetting, provocative and sometimes mistaken. They would agree, perhaps: No one is perfect. Sadly, many progressives support movements with demands which are orthagonal and too advanced: but that is not the same as hatred - it’s just mistaken.
The idea that Green Left is a platform for Islamaphobia, is bizarre. They were crucial in getting the Greens to step down against Salma Yaqoob, and they have a long record of support for the Palestinian stuggle. If you have any doubts, come to their seminar on Palestine with Joel Kovel in January!
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 5 November, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Duncan
and #202 Derek
I don’t know myself, ,I merely report what barry Kade said at #135
barry Kade is i understand a member of the Green party and the Green left. and he says above:
” I was also really turned off by the Islamophobia on the original Green Left email list I was part of. “
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
““he has made mistakes (such as his association with the vile Harry’s Place) but his overall record as a human rights campaigner is fantastic.”
“Yes, I am sure that would be Tatchell’s attitude if, say, George Galloway was associated with a vilely homophobic website and Galloway’s chief political associate was among its key bloggers. Instead of demanding condemnations and writing about the “shameful silence of the Left”, Peter would of course be saying, “let it go, after all he’s a good campaigner on other issues”.”
Exactly! I think the key point is this - people on the Left would be much keener to defend Peter Tatchell against misrepresentation if he did not have a long, shameful record of demonising the rest of the Left, accusing us of pandering to racism and homophobia, turning a blind eye to oppression and supporting fascists, and doing so in a manner that is absolutely certain to assist right-wing war-mongers in their attempt to silence criticism of their crimes.
We’ve heard a lot of talk about how long Tatchell has been active on the Left - if so, he should have learnt some basic cop-on by now. The Guardian article that I dealt with in my earlier post is just one example of his disgraceful approach. If he is really not aware that the effect of his actions are to help the pro-imperialist Right, then he is too dim-witted to be trusted with any kind of platform as a credible political figure.
And I would like to hear an answer to a couple of questions that were raised earlier: would Outrage! storm into a protest against anti-Semitism after a series of murderous attacks on British Jews with placards that read “Brits stop bashing Jews, Jews stop bashing gays”? Would they come along to a protest in defence of gay marriage rights in California with placards saying “california must support gay rights, gays must support palestinian rights”?
I would also like to hear a clear answer to the question - did they consult any Palestinian LGBT activists (or indeed any Arab LGBT activists in any ME country) before intervening at that protest? If not, why not? If they did, what were they told?
Comment by Ed W — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Duncan- can I refer you to some of the comments that have been levelled at me and other critics of PT for examples of “uncomradely” language?
Comment by Armchair — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
@ jock mctrousers — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Your memory appears to be faulty
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/291596.jpg
Comment by ftp — 5 November, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
@Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
“Can you give us the address of the LGBT organisation in Gaza?”
No, but I can give you details of a Palestinian group in Israel.
http://www.aswatgroup.org/english/ they’re probably a more reliable source of information than the BBc quoting Israeli sources.
BTW this article on their website raises some points pertinent to the discussion about that intervention at the Pro-Palestinian rally:
http://www.aswatgroup.org/english/activities.php?article=386
@ Comment by apollo — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Those BBC stories reek of disinformation. A story that was planted not by Palestinians, but by an Israeli Rights group.
@ Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
“Hamas, the militant and political group in the Palestinian Territories have said that they win the Palestinian Authority Parliamentary election, they would ban men and women dancing together and will strip gay men and women of the few rights they have in the territory that they have at present.”
Hmmm - only the rally was in May 2004, and Hamas didn’t win the election until January 2006.
Comment by ftp — 5 November, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Sorry to be a bore, but if Jon, Trevor or Socialist reading this, around, I’m still awaiting your response(s).
I hope I haven’t misjudged “people like you.”
Comment by Armchair — 5 November, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Andy, you have the choice to repeat Barry’s comment, or to ask for proof. It’s a serious and surprising allegation so I invite you to take the latter path. It will allow readers to advance their understanding, rather than to did into their a priori assumptions about Green Left.
I do also wonder if Barry might be jumping to conclusions. I’ve participated in a number of Green Left events, including observing a number of internal Green Left events on behalf of Socialist Resistance. I’m a former Green party member, and was also involved in the Green Left back in 1997 - which had little relationship to what we find today. I can’t recall anything approaching Islamophobia in Green Left. Were that the case, Socialist Resistance would not be planning joint dayschools with them, and proposing a joint statement with them for the climate change demonstration next month.
However, in twelve years of following the left of the Green party and Green Left closely I have not met Barry Kade or heard him referred to (except today, or through his commenting on your blog). My feeling is that he is marginal, at best, to Green Left and may not even be a member of it. I think it’s quite unfortunate that you repeat his unreferenced and imprecise claim.
Armchair, I’m sure that Peter is not the only one discussed in an uncivil and uncomradely way. I wasn’t claiming that, and I’m sorry of you’ve been abused by others. However, that abuse does not justify further abuse of others. There’s something useful on this by Trotsky: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/women/life/23_04_04.htm
However, do think that the tone of some comments about Peter is unusually strident and emotional. I do wonder if this is, partly and unconsciously, motivated by the fact that Peter and comrades in OutRage! are gay men who will not sit quietly while a large part of the socialist movement acts as if the fight for lesbian and gay rights is a distraction which should wait until socialist millennium.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Hi Derek, Andy, Peter, everyone. Yes, lets stay comradely. I think there is an important issue at stake here that is not properly recognised. However, before I go ahead, to get a hearing it seems necessary to first say this: Peter Tatchell is a courageous fighter against homophobia, and is also a comrade on the green left who fights for human rights against capitalism, ecocide, racism and imperialism. However, I have significant tactical disagreements with him, and his co-thinkers. Hopefully these can be discussed in a calm and comradely way.
In this comments box above, I have referred to a discussion on the original Green Left open email list, I think it was in 2008 or 2007. This had a long thread under the heading ‘Salma Yaqoob’, which had started with the helpful suggestion that someone should approach Salma and ask whether she might like to join the Green Party, in the aftermath of the Respect split. This was met with a hostile response from two or three persistent posters - over dozens of emails. These emails were from white gay secular humanist comrades. (I also am gay and an atheist, but as you will see, take an opposite view).
The central thrust of these emails were that we should not work with Salma Yaqoob, as she was an ‘Islamicist’ and a homophobe. The accusations became more wild, making accusations of “Islamo-fascism’, and equating all Muslims with reactionary views. There was very little in the way of refutation from others on the list. Peter always restricted himself to only posting his formal press releases about his general human rights work on that Green Left list, rather than taking part in the discussion. I can’t remember Derek responding at the time. Obviously the ‘anti-Salma’ posters had no knowledge of Salma’s actual politics. I pointed out that Salma was not an ‘Islamicist’, but a left-progressive Muslim woman, with progressive views on women’s liberation etc. Fortunately, this has now been understood by the Green Party and the Green Left, and we have a new basis for cooperation between the Greens and Respect in Birmingham. But this was not always the case. The posters against Salma on the Green left list in 2008 were defamatory, ignorant and often abusive.
I was particularly interested in this discussion, being involved in both the fight against homophobia and Islamophobia. This is a central but highly difficult twin task, but none the less essential if we are to unite the working class against the coming capitalist attacks, and build a new left progressive counter-hegemonic alliance of all the different sections of the exploited and oppressed.
At the heart of this ‘debate’ was a view prevalent amongst many gay rights and secular humanist activists. This view may be described as simple enlightenment secular humanism. It takes the standpoint epitomised by Voltaire’s polemics against the eighteenth century religious establishment, but then deploys them against the racially oppressed migrant workers of Europe of Muslim heritage.
Voltaire and his comrades were resisting the most powerful force in European society - the church, which stood as a central bastion of feudal power. The overthrow of this power was a central task of the rising enlightenment bourgeoisie. However, today we have many wannabe petite-Voltaire’s whose central task is not to attack the most powerful, but the most powerless. This is epitomised by the publication of the ‘Prophet-Cartoons’ by the right wing Danish newspaper the Jyllands-Posten. Framed in the enlightenment language of free expression against religious obscurantism, these cartoons were about degrading and denigrating the belief systems of Muslim people, who are racially oppressed in Europe.
And this is the heart of the issue. Since the end of the cold war against ‘communism’, the west has had to invent another enemy. Orwell in 1984, had parodied this continual construction of enemies to keep the population docile and in control, with the seamless shift between enemies and allies, Oceania and Eurasia - or in our time, between ‘communism’ and an essentialised ‘global Islam’. This involves not only a series of imperialist wars and occupations to subjugate countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan - but also an increased oppression of Europe’s already oppressed racial minorities of migrant workers and their descendants, with an additional layer of Islamophobia. Thus ‘Islamophobia’ is now an official of western power, uniting capitalists and workers, in both foreign wars and domestic racism. It is also the most serious contemporary threat to the socialist project of creating a united working class resistance of all races and religions.
Yet this racism is veiled in the language of enlightenment liberalism and secularism. The rightwing thugs of the English Defence League can claim that ‘Islam is not a race’ and that they are not being racist, they are merely standing up for secular humanism. This claim was also made on the Green Left discussion list by my fellow gay rights activists. However, this ignores the dangers of the persecution of religious minorities. Ethno-religious persecution has an ugly history, from the persecution of Jews and Catholics, and other ethnic and religious minorities. With Europes Muslims this is combined with race. In Britain, workers of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry have long been on the bottom rung of our society, at the receiving end of the lowest pay, worst housing and also the worst street violence and racial oppression. Now the new ideology of Islamophobia is added on, in a dangerous and volatile mix.
Gender and sexuality have become frontlines in this new battle. Our previous hard fought battles against sexism and homophobia by the women’s and gay liberation movements are now being appropriated by the establishment and other oppressive forces. Thus the war in Afghanistan is sometimes justified with reference to fighting sexism and homophobia. And the BNP and the EDL in the UK, and Dutch right wingers such as Geert Wilders sometimes try to hijack our struggles against sexism and homophobia to promote their racist and Islamophobic agenda.
Leading figures in the feminist and gay liberation movements need to speak out against this hijacking and appropriation of our struggles by the far right and the warmongers. Yet all too often they collaborate with it, attending ‘freedom of expression’ events, etc.
And just because the right try to appropriate gay liberation and feminism in their Islamophobic crusade, this does not mean that they are not also homophobic and sexist. I’ve just witnessed first hand the rising anti-gay bigotry in the USA, around an orchestrated backlash against gay marriage proposals. The thugs of the EDL might try to use us as cover for their Islamophobic racism, but this all male group of football hooligans are just as capable as going queer bashing as embarking on an Islamophobic pogrom.
It is also just as important to challenge homophobia amongst the Muslim working class. Racially and religiously oppressed minorities will not be able to defend or liberate themselves if they remain in thrall to backward and reactionary prejudices. But this will not be done by aligning ourselves with the racist right wing, and using homophobia as a stick to beat Muslims with. People retreat into their religion as a form of comfort, as a defence against a hostile, racist and exploitative world. As Marx said:
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions”. Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Thus Marx’s atheism was the opposite of Voltairian secularism or bourgeois enlightenment atheism. Marx did not believe religion would disappear in a cloud of scientific logic, but that it has material roots in social relations of alienation and oppression. If religion is a painkiller, then bourgeois atheists ridicule the oppressed for needing painkillers, while Marxist atheists seek to help the oppressed remove the cause of the pain.
And if homophobia amongst Muslims is to be challenged, then we must first unite with Muslims in common struggles against war and racism, and build alliances with progressive Muslims. That this can be done is shown by the recent courageous statements by Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council f Britain who recently spoke up for Muslim support for gay rights, saying:
“At its best, Islamic civilisation was more than willing to learn from other surrounding countries and cultures and adopt the best aspects as its own. Actively working to ensure that people are able to live free of discrimination based on one’s ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is a worthy goal and should be viewed as an Islamic goal”.
I seem to have written a long and hasty post. I will rework this further in my own blog soon. I will also repost the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article from ‘out of place’ or at least sections of it and a full exegesis and commentary.
However, given the tone of this blog thread here, I expect to be quoted out of context and denounced by our influx of petite-voltaires and uncritical inheritors of the bourgoise enlightenment secularism. Enjoy!
Comment by Barry Kade — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
P.S Duncan post 211 - I participate in the Green Party under my real name. But Barry Kade is a consistent online identity I now use in the blogosphere, etc. Most comrades I am active with - including Socialist Resistance comrades know who I am.
Comment by Barry Kade — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Duncan- I haven’t abused anyone, except under extreme provocation to call someone called Stevo a “sad t**t” in response to rather extreme provocation.
THe ironic thing is that the abuse I receieved was on the mistaken grounds that the stupid and lazy individuals involved took it upon themselves to assume that I was a “leninist”. Funny that, I’m not but you are.
Comment by Armchair — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Duncan - no our comments are not motivated by homophobia - how dare you! I and many other comrades posting here are gay. What we object to is the co-option of gay rights struggles by todays dominant Islamophobic agenda to persecute Muslims, and the inability of some leftists to challenge this co-option because of their ‘bourgeois enlightenment secularistm’ (see my analysis post 212 above). I also object to the the loud and self-righteous silencing of already marginalised queer Muslim critiques by those whose main thrust is a conceren to defend their reputation at the expense of exploring the real and difficult issues here.
Comment by Barry Kade — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Duncan, if you read the above you should be aware that it is not a question of others being subjected to the same abuse as the Christ-like Peter, but Peter himself specialising in random, self-righteous, sanctimonious abuse against real and imagined opponents. I assume you support British withdrawal from Iraq, so how do you feel about being described as the “pseudo left”, the “rightist left” and the “fake left” for example? Do you find that comradely?
And if you read the above you will find that the majority of the “strident and emotional” commentators are gay themselves, so you know what you can do with your passive-aggressive intimations that they are motivated by homophobia.
Comment by lone nut — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Lone Nut- spot on.
Comment by Armchair — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
In terms of exploring real and difficult issues here is an article written by an ex-maoist and activist in India who sadly died recently. Its a model of the kind of engagement that is required on the left and which sadly, much of the left in Britain at the moment, seems incapable:
http://www.sacw.net/article1169.html
The dreadful situation being discussed is described here by Arundhati Roy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/30/mining-india-maoists-green-hunt
Comment by johng — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
JOhn
can you explain why that is relevent? genuine question. It sems to be another topic entirely to me, but I respect the fact you see a connection. Could you share it with us?
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
I would like to see a reasoned debate about the complex intersections between homophobia and islamophobia, and the challenges these pose for the left. I think this thread shows how theoretically impoverished we on the left are, which makes us unable to deal with this complexity. Thus all we get is a ‘for’ or ‘against’ gossip column about the merits and demerits of a certain celebrity activist under discussion.
I have attempted to lay the ground for a more nuanced discussion in my post here, at no. 212:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4845#comment-162605
It would be nice if people took the time to read this, and post their responses below in an intelligent and comradely style….
Comment by Barry Kade — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
ghostly traces seem remain forever on the internet…. censorship does not prevail ….
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:8WlOwhhrlhUJ:scholar.google.com/
here is the article in question that no one commenting here seems to have read….”Gay Imperialism:Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem”
read it for yourselves… !!!
for all its flaws, it makes some valuable points…. perhaps it is a bigger issue than the defence of our Peter’s reputation (important though that obviously is) it should uncover our silences, and the complicity of our western gay politics with the new dominant ideology of the western world…
Comment by Barry Kade — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
good idea Barry
I have taken this to the front page, and I direct people there:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4857
this will give a fresh start, and I am closing this thread.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:58 pm