Peter Tatchell Is Branded Racist And Transphobic.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3446588/Now-Peter-Tatchell-anti-free-speech-zealots-Student-union-officer-refuses-share-platform-veteran-gay-campaigner-saying-racist-transphobic.html

Is there no end to such accusations?

[Ellipsis]

> I believe Mr Tacthell was protesting against Mr Griffin's views, rather than that he was being offered a platform to express them

Are you suggesting that Tatchell was not protesting about Griffin being given a platform per se, but about Griffin holding the very ideas that he was given the platform to speak about? If that was the case it would be even worse! Not against free speech, but against free thought ...

No, he was protesting about the platform. Free speech isn't always OK and, in Tatchell's opinion, this was one of the times when it wasn't. He may have changed his mind now, of course.

[jim360]

"If that was the case it would be even worse! Not against free speech, but against free thought..."

I'm sorry, what? If someone holds an opinion that opinion is going to be subject to challenges, particularly if it's an opinion that risks being offensive, or is based on factual inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and the like. Protesting against such opinions is hardly an oppression of free thought. What a strange thing to say.

Peter Tatchell's articles suggest that he's long been a champion of defending free speech as far as possible. I don't think that his protesting against Nick Griffin contradicts this -- the views of the BNP were at least borderline racism and probably a great deal beyond that, and had to be challenged and contradicted where they were wrong (which was most of the time) -- particularly as the party started to enjoy some electoral success in a four-year period from 2007 or so. Nowadays the BNP is dead, because in the end it was the publicity they gained that allowed the public to see the party for what it really was.

[jno]

picketing a speech - ie putting opposing viewpoints - is different from banning someone from speaking altogether. The former involves free speech; the latter does not.

[Khandro]

"[Peter Tatchell] in 2007 was selected as a prospective parliamentary candidate in the constituency of Oxford East, but in December 2009 announced he was standing down due to brain damage he says was caused by a bus accident as well as damage inflicted by Mugabe's bodyguards ..." Wikipedia.

Why do people give a toss about what he does or says, he is a nobody, with no position, never elected to anything, he's entitled to an opinion, but it carries no more weight than anyone else in the crowd surrounding him.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //Why do people give a toss about what he does or says, he is a nobody, with no position, never elected to anything, he's entitled to an opinion, but it carries no more weight than anyone else in the crowd surrounding him. //

I think Mr Tatchell is to be applauded for the tenacity of his position, often against serious personal risk to safety.

He has garnered a profile by his relentless pursuit of his ideals - and of course the ability to ignore him remains with everyone - under the provision of free speech for which he tirelessly campaigns.

[-Talbot-]

I believe Mr Tacthell was protesting against Mr Griffin's views, rather than that he was being offered a platform to express them - but without recourse to footage of the protest, that is an opinion, rather than a statement.


I think he was protesting about Griffin being given a platform on the BBC.

[Khandro]

andy; //I think Mr Tatchell is to be applauded for the tenacity of his position//

But why single him out when there are thousands of others tenaciously fighting for all sorts of causes, (some even on AB).

[vetuste_ennemi]

"... I don't believe a university is a place where any oaf is free to speak about any subject, I would go to the pub for that.".

Universities have debates, Khandro. Funny definition of debate when those for the proposition speak and those against are mute. But the concept of one hand clapping, while mysterious to me, is well understood by you.

Talking of the Cambridge Union which, according to an earlier post, rejects the "no platform" principle, the same post said that the Student's Union is for it. I couldn't find anything on the CUSU web site which mentions it. Maybe you could comment, Jim.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Students'.

[jim360]

Thanks for the shout-out vetuste, but I'm afraid I can't shed any light on it. I made a point of avoiding student politics at all costs (and, perhaps less fortunately, avoiding social life, but that's another story...) so I have no idea about CUSU's policy. There was one debate I do remember attending, but I can't remember what it was about -- I only remember the over-riding feeling that the response from the College Union was fairly pathetic even before it was meaningless.

This is not to contradict my assertions earlier that many students are fully capable of being sensible and well-informed politically. It's just that I'm not sure that Student Unions are the best place to find such students. I think it's more important to observe politics before becoming directly involved in it, and by definition Student Unions tend to skip that first step.

[woofgang]

jim, you have said something similar to my Dad. He used to say that anyone who wanted to be a Union official should never be allowed to be one!

[Khandro]

In my experience, most student union officials are definitely not politically well informed, being young does not preclude bigotry and a desire to influence rather than debate, most of their attitudes are seemingly arrived at via conspiracy theories from social media.
On last evening's channel 4 news, a student union official who was leading a campaign (one of several) to boycott the buying of Israeli goods and she clearly lacked a proper understanding of the complexities of the issue.