UPDATE, Tamsila Tauqir confirms that she did receive a legal threat from Peter Tatchell that if the authors of Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ republished it elsewhere, he would sue for libel.
In the earlier version of this article I stated as fact that Peter Tatchell used threats of libel action. I still believe this is the only likely explanation for the subsequent statement by Scott Long and Human rights watch, but I suppose it is possible that other forms of pressure were brought to bear on them instead. Whatever pressure was used, it is clear that an attempt has been made to delegitimise Scott Long’s substantive political criticism of Peter Tatchell..
I was saddened to see that today the admirable Scott Long of Human Rights Watch been forced to issue an apology for his provocative but well-researched article in the journal Contempory Politics, which criticises Peter Tatchell’s approach, particularly relating to Peter’s misunderstandings about Iranian society, and the dangers of polarising identities of Muslim and LGBT as necessarily being opposed, and mutually exclusive.
Scott Long’s article is a very substantive contribution to the debate about how LGBT and Muslim communities can interact. Here, for example is one useful point from the article:
‘the incessant insistence that Muslim communities accede to the political agendas of LGBT identities actually forecloses politics altogether. It fences off the arena of shared interests and temporary junctures that a “redistributive” politics, attentive to specific gains rather than discursive generalities, might open. Absolute demands replace dialogues. And the demands neglect disparities of power.
‘Lesbians and gays in Britain have accumulated cultural capital and political influence. They confront—increasingly explicitly—British Muslim communities that, since 9/11 and 7/7, feel steadily more besieged, not only by daily prejudice but by anti-immigrant hysteria and a security state (Pierce, 2008). If white gay men in Britain should remember anything from the last forty years of their history, it is the fear of arrest or harassment because they look or dress differently. This should be the basis of a qualified common ground, in which LGBT activists can actually cooperate with embattled Muslims against police misconduct and policies of repression. After all, a dress code that can be used against a women in niqab can target a drag queen next. Failing to recognize such potential understanding is not only a lapse of imagination, it is a collapse of politics—a failure to be political, to think beyond identity into possibility. And curiously, the LGBT isolationism of groups like Outrage! could profit a great deal from advocates in the Middle East—in Egypt, say, where secularists, including the very few ‘gay’ activists, have cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood on the shared ground of opposing the state’s control over the body, and a regime of torture.”
To take another example of the significant nature of Scott Long’s contribution to debate, based upon his extensive experience as LGBT affairs director for Human Rights Watch, he questions the established narrative of how gays are supposedly routinely executed in Iran. The way some of these campaigns have been conducted has more to do with the positioning of gay rights advocacy in the West, than actually helping the victims of oppression in Iran.
In particular he discusses the case of Makwan Moloudzadeh, convicted in 2007 for the rape of three boys seven years earlier. Makwan’s defence was that he had never done it. All three of his accusers had retracted their accusations, and the case had all the hallmarks of a small-town vendetta.
Makwan himself was not gay, and his brother who fled the country was categorical that neither he nor Makwan had ever had, nor sought, consensual sex with another man. Amnesty International were careful to describe the case as being of a child offender accused of rape, and facing the death penalty – which is of course outrage enough, and grounds for an international solidarity campaign in Makwan’ defence.
Sadly, some gay rights advocacy groups, could not resist the temptation to attribute a “gay identity” to Makwan, for example a US Gay News website’s headline “Death penalty immanent for Gay youth in Iran”, and the irresponsible Italian organisation, Gruppo Everyone organised a campaign of roses sent to Iranian officials, and letters, and e-mails to President Ahmadinijad saying that Makwan was a young homosexual who “was only ‘guilty’ of loving a peer when he was 13 years old, and having sexual intercourse with him”.
This was in defiance of makwan’s own legal defence, and the testimony of the original accusers that the incident had never taken place. Gay rights groups in the West were playing politics with Makwan’s life, endangering him, when there had otherwise been a reasonable chance that his appeals may have succeeded.
As Scott Long argues, “There is no way to tell how many e-mails (and roses) reached Iranian authorities proclaiming that Makwan had sex with another boy. Iran has the death penalty for homosexual conduct, consensual or non-consensual. But eager to weave a story about Makwan’s “gayness” Gruppo Everyone and others forgot truth and consequences and serenely sure of their own rightness they informed the Iranian authorities that Makwan was innocent of one capital crime, but guilty of another. Claims that there had been a consensual sex act also put his original accusers in danger.
In contrast, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International stuck to the facts, that there was no evidence of any sexual act. There was no evidence that Makwan was gay.
Gruppo Everyone, and some British activists were not so careful; and with no evidence at all to support their claim, they argued that the Iranian authorities routinely frame gay men for raping boys – perhaps to square the known facts of Makwan’s case with their own retelling of it.
This is not an isolated case, and Scott Long’s article is worth reading for a discussion of the politics of gay rights advocacy groups in the West, who transpose Westernised politics of identity onto other societies, without due regard for the political consequences and human cost.
Despite the fact that Scott Long was making a substantial contribution to an important political debate, he, and Human Rights Watch, have chosen to make a statement of apology and retraction, I presume in response to a libel threat from Peter Tatchell, although perhaps other forms of pressure were used. This of course may be the wisest course for them to avoid risky litigation or embarrasment, whatever the merits of Scott Long’s arguments.
The danger of course is the retraction and apology means that this very useful article, which Peter Tatchell describes as “highly libellous and defamatory” will not be read, and its significant political content will be dismissed. Surely it would have been far better for Peter Tatchell to write a reasoned response to the political criticisms.
The Press Release from Peter Tatchell claims that HRW “says sorry for a series of untrue and personal attacks on Mr Tatchell, made by the head of HRW’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programme, Scott Long. ”
Peter Tatchell goes on to say:
“I defend the right of people to criticise me. But Mr Long’s attacks went beyond criticism. He made false allegations, which misrepresented my human rights campaigns. It is these untrue claims that are the focus of my objections.
“Mr Long’s falsehoods and personal attacks were many and varied. They included a highly libellous and defamatory essay written by him, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of the journal Contemporary Politics, published by Routledge, which is part of the Taylor and Francis publishing group.”
Yet Peter Tatchell’s claim that he welcomes criticism is belied by the groundhog day experience of each substantive work of political criticism of him being followed by retractions and apologies. I assume because they have been subject to threats of libel actions. We have been here before. For example with the article Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ - by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem.
I made a substantive analysis of that article here, where I concede that the authors made a number of incautious statements attributing motives and actions to Peter Tatchell without sufficient nuance. Nevertheless their substantial political critique was a sound one. Unfortunately their publishers issued a statement of retraction, as HRW have just done with Scott Long.
Peter Tatchell’s supporters then used these retractions to close down debate raised by the original articles, thus seeking to delegitimise any political critique of Tatchell’s campaigning and beliefs. For examples here and here.
Peter Tatchell’s supporters often frame any attempts to discuss the limitations of Peter’s politics as “smearing”.
So we have a political problem of threats of legal action or other pressure being made against serious academics and human rights campaigners when they write substantive critiques of Peter Tatchell and his politics. Then when they or their publishers issue retractions, perhaps to avoid risky litigation, the wording of which may have been agreed with or even drafted by Peter Tatchell or his lawyers, then Peter issues a press release effectively rubbishing the entire substantive critique of him as being malicious and full of personal attacks and falsehoods.
This avoids any need for him to engage with the serious political criticisms that are being made.
This is an inappropriate attempt to close down legitimate academic and political debate.
Ginkyo on said:
Gay people are the optional add-ons for the Left. We’re wheeled out to show how radical and right-on “socialists” are when it’s convenient, and then told to put up and shut up when we say things the contradict the Left’s latest turn.
The far left had nothing to do with the advances for LGBT rights in this country and they will have nothing to do with the struggle for sexual liberation worldwide. Certainly not when you write aplogogetics for states with the death penalty.
Shame on you.
Derek Wall on said:
Another embarrassing attack from Andy on Peter Tatchell, I am ashamed to have ever worked with you Andy and this is the last time I will be on socialist unity…..you do immense damage to the left.
Andy Newman on said:
#1
You are aware that Scott Long is?
i) gay
ii) head of HRW’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programme
this is particularly amusing from you?
“Gay people are told to put up and shut up “
Yet my article is about how a gay man, Scott Long, is being effectively silenced by use of the libel laws for saying inconventient things.
So you don’t mind gay people being told to put up and shut up if it suits your own agenda.
Are you really so fucking stupid that you can’t see your own hypocisy when you criticise me for defending Scott Long’s right to be heard
A friend of mine who used to be in the Gay Liberation front told me an amusing variation of the “The far left had nothing to do with the advances for LGBT rights in this country ” argument.
He was being berated that The far left had nothing to do with the advances for LGBT rights in the UNISON trade union, when he was able to respond that he had both written and moved the original motion that first committed NALGO to gay rights advocacy.
Andy Newman on said:
#2
Grow up Derek.
there are substantive political differences between peter tatchell and Scott Long that deserve to be discussed.
consistenty whenever Peter Tatchells politics are discused you have been among the worst at seeking to raise the temperature with claims of “smearing” and accsuing people of acting in bad faith, rather than dealing with the substantive politics.
Why don’t you read Scott Long’s article here and see whether you think he makes good points? Why don’t you and Peter tatchell argue against Scott Long’s politics, instead of saying it is outrageous.
Scott Long is a substantial figure with an impressive record of human rights advoccay over LGBT issues, it is simply wrong to seek to silnce him with a libel threat, and to delegitimise his intelligent and well researched criticisms of Peter Tatchlel’s politics and activity.
But hey, why do we need political debate when you can have Derek Wall’s moralism instead.
Anonymous on said:
“The far left had nothing to do with the advances for LGBT rights in this country and they will have nothing to do with the struggle for sexual liberation worldwide.”
Utter nonsense! How do you think progress happened?
Peter Tatchell’s actions here do not suprise me, regretable though they are.
Ginkyo on said:
Oh but Andy the whole point of what I was saying is that you get involved in this stupid personal attack on Peter Tatchell by Scott Long simply because it suits the current turn of the Left’s agenda.
This site, and others like it, have hosted apologetics for states like Iran for some time, ever since the Left’s lash-up with the most reactionary parts of the muslim community in StW.
A few years ago, I would think you would have automatically sided with Tatchell, a principled, left-wing campaigner against a professional NGO leader like Long.
The actual arguments over LGBT oppression are completely secondary to you. Long agrees with your current agenda so you support him automatically, against Tatchell, against universal human rights.
Scott Long and HRW climbs down and apologises for getting it wrong and you bemoan them. That’s what’s “fucking stupid” as you eloquently put it.
Andy Newman on said:
What is particularly amusing about Derek Wall’s histrionics is that he has exactly proven my case that any criticism of Peter Tatchell meets immediate attanmpts at delegitimsatuion by his supporters.
For questioning Peter’s use of libel to deter criticism, I am accused of making an “embarrassing attack ” and told that I do “immense damage to the left.”
Quite apart from the ridiculous idea that I have the power or infeunce to do immense damage to the left, is it “an embarrassing attack” to question how Peter Tatchel has used libel laws to deflect serious and substantive criticism from acaddemics and activists?
there is an odd dynamic at work here where Peter tatchel s somehow elevated to some sort of rock-star hero status, and his actions and politics cannot be criticised without tat criticism being regardded as outrageous, full or falsehoods, smears or embarrassing attacks.
Andy Newman on said:
#6
“A few years ago, I would think you would have automatically sided with Tatchell, a principled, left-wing campaigner against a professional NGO leader like Long.”
No I wouldn’t have done. I am hardly someone who simply follows the herd, or the left’s “latest turn”; and I think that Scott Long’s critique is substantive.
“The actual arguments over LGBT oppression are completely secondary to you. Long agrees with your current agenda so you support him automatically, against Tatchell, against universal human rights.”
bollocks. I support Scott long here becase I dont think his artice was libelous, and because he is making a serious contribution to debate, and should not have been threatened with a libel action.
Why do you think that am motiated by some machievelian double-think, isn’t it more likely that I argue what actualy believe?
Brett on said:
Peter didn’t react to mere “criticism”. He is in fact one of the most criticised people in UK politics. He has been vilified for over 30 years. If he threatened libel at every turn, he’d be a millionaire by now! What he rejected were outright distortions and fabrications, which the publisher, after doing retrospective due diligence, found to be just that. There never was any threat of libel. The suggestion that there was is just another defamation.
John Meredith on said:
“there are substantive political differences between peter tatchell and Scott Long that deserve to be discussed.”
Shameful, Andy, really repulsive stuff this.
Tatchell has been repeatedly defamed by Long. This has been pointed out to you over and again and now even Long has admitted it. This, despite the fact, as you well know, that there was no libel threat and that Tatchell went on record to say that he would not sue under any circumstances. And yet you still defend the lies and defamation of a notable defender of gay and human rights simply because … well … why? The only reason I can imagine is that certain of your reactionary friends and colleagues require you to.
John Meredith on said:
“For questioning Peter’s use of libel to deter criticism,”
Andy, just to sort this out once and for all, can you produce any evidence whatsoever that there was any threat or action by Tatchell to use the libel laws against anyone?
E.C. of the B. on said:
Newman states “Surely it would have been far better for Peter Tatchell to write a reasoned response to the political criticisms, rather than resorting to lawyers.”
Which firm of lawyers would that be, then?
Sunny Hundal on said:
Incredibly, incredibly badly misjudged attack. Derek is completely right – theses sorts of smears is bringing Socialist Unity down to the level of Harry’s Place. We don’t need this kind of name-calling and sectarianism on the left and I’m sorry to see that you keep indulging in it Andy.
Mark T on said:
“PETER TATCHELL USES LIBEL LAWS”
Wrong with the first five words, and it was downhil from there.
Waiting on said:
Here we have an article which not only repeats many of Long’s scurrilous attacks on Tatchell – it also lies about Tatchell deploying lawyers to fight those who defame him.
Let’s give Andy the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that he genuinely believes that Peter conducts political arguments by litigation.
Well, now you know this is not true, will you take this article down and replace it with an apology?
David Hillman on said:
Well I certainly agree with Andy here and the outrage by Derek Wall at any criticism of Tatchell is ridiculous if genuine. It’s nothing to do with defending Iran and it’s dishonest to link it to Andy’s political evolution regarding Labour is dishonest. I fir one want an open debaye without fear or favour.
The way Tamsila was treated by Tachell was disgusting, and she has done more solid work in multifaith, with Muslim women, and gays and lesbians than any of the commentators here.
Many of my friends and colleages admire Peter greatly, and he won my respect when standing against the weak-kneed hypocrite Simon Hughes years ago. But he and we must not put him above all criticism. I saw the limits of his ethics when he organised what was widely billed as a counter demonstration at a demonstation for Palestine some years ago. We’d done the work – he tried to kidnap the demo for his own personal agenda. And yes there are people in the Palestinian police working to end honour killings who have told me, though I do not agree with all their arguments, that Tatchell’s tactics do not help. I want to hear the arguments and make up my own mind.
Ginkyo on said:
#16:
More slander, it was not a counter-demo – look at the report here:
http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/london-al-quds-march-islamists-slander-and-threaten-peter-tatchell/
“he tried to kidnap the demo for his own personal agenda” – in other words, put up, shut up and stop trying to bring in embarrassing references to gay rights. Our new friends don’t want to hear it.
David Hillman on said:
It was not a pro Iranian march. It is an annual event do press for Palestinian rights. And it is usually not reported. But Tatchell’s little group was.
And now you are accusing me of slander are you? Well sue – I won’t apologise!
Waiting on said:
Where is Newman’s apology for this untruthful piece?
BenSix on said:
That’s like saying the Sun‘s “…Ate My Hamster” front page made a not entirely careful statement attributing an act to Freddie Starr without commensurate refinement.
AC on said:
Well Andy, how disgraceful of you to start a political debate on an anti-establishment left wing site, it has no place here. Shame on you for not following societies’ current views that Muslims are all evil and anyone who doesn’t say it is a homophobic women hating bigot.
What will you do next, argue for a socialist society where people’s sexuality is no one’s business but their own, and not a political football to be kicked around? What were you thinking…
Mark T on said:
Shame on you for not following societies’ current views that Muslims are all evil
Yes, that’s precisely what Peter Tatchell thinks.
Waiting on said:
Keep the defamation going! After all, Peter Tatchell doesn’t sue, so you can get away with any lie.
wait no more on said:
#23
The lies are all Tatchell’s, as Scott Long states in his article on the damage that he and his fellow crusader humanitarians do when they wade in and attempt to impress their moral asbolutes around the world, regardless of whose lives they put at risk in the process.
Richard Farnos on said:
Thank you Andy for bring Scott Long’s interesting article to my attention. I am however somewhat perplexed by Tatchells claimes of “false allegations”, “misrepresention”, ” untrue claims” and “personal attacks” – I can’t find any! Sure it is critical of Peter and Outrage but nothing that could be described as ” highly libellous”.
Now I appreciate that the Peter’s friends may not wish to repeat these mysterious defamations, but could they gives a clue to where they are? Like say the page and paragraph?
Hugh on said:
How many gay men being hung from cranes does one need to see before deciding that Iran deserves unreserved criticism for its oppression of homosexuals
wait no more on said:
#26
And how many reports from NGOs like HRW, no friend of the Iranian govt, refuting the lie that the man in question was hung for being gay, does it take before so-called progressives stop allowing themselves to be used as patsies by the US State Dept and British Foreign Office in their continuing campaign to demonise, undermine and isolate the Iranian govt?
E.C. of the B. on said:
Now I appreciate that the Peter’s friends may not wish to repeat these mysterious defamations, but could they gives a clue to where they are? Like say the page and paragraph?
I’m sure they were pointed out in the letter that lawyers representing Tatchell alledgedly sent to HRW, Farnos.
Perhaps Newman could tell us which firm of lawyers sent that letter, at the least, even if he can’t reproduce it’s contents?
Unless of course this is simply a case of Newman jumping the gun and making himself look ridiculous?
E.C. of the B. on said:
Is “wait no more” honestly claiming that the Iranian regime doesn’t publicly hang men from cranes, for the “crime” of being homosexual?
Or simply that doing so is no sufficient reason to “undermine” the Iranian government?
Just curious, mind.
Darkness at Noon on said:
Wait no more:
“campaign to demonise, undermine and isolate the Iranian govt?”
Do you feel the Iranian government is not worthy of such actions? This is a government that has imprisoned thousands of political opponents, has executed scores of them and in the recent unrest literally murdered several hundred demonstrators and imprisoned hundreds more.
Richard Farnos on said:
E.C. of the B. – put our Andy to oneside for a moment. The accusations of “false allegations”, “misrepresention”, ” untrue claims”, “personal attacks” ” highly libellous” and defamations come from a Peter’s statement – not David Touche or any other fancy law friend Peter may have, or existin Andy’s brain.
So do us a favour a E.C. of the B.(or anyone else for that matter) read the article and tell me where the untruths are? Like I said you don’t have to repeat them just page and paragraph will do.
Andy Newman on said:
I assume that libel proceedings were threatened, other wise the behaviour of HRW and the publishers of the earlier article by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem is inexplicable.
I will speak to HRW as soon as i get a chance, and get their side of the story.
In the meantime I have altered the article.
However are we seriously expected to beleive that the authors of two seperate serious critique;s of Peter tatchell’s politics and actions have both indepenently issued apologies and retractions without any pressure being crought to bear on them.
And in both cases serious and substanial political critciisms have now been framed by ridiculous accusations from tatchell’e supporters of alleged personal vendettas, alleged falsefoods, and claimed defamations.
Utterly, utterly ridiculous.
this is a very serious attampt by peter tatchell;s supporters to delegitimaise other points of view in the LGBT liberation movement.
wait no more on said:
#30
As a citizen of the UK, I’ll leave the Iranian govt to its own people. I’m far more concerned about the actions of my own govt in joining in imperialist wars and occupations responsible for the deaths, maiming, and destituion of millions in the Middle East.
Or is that acceptable in the cause of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in your view?
E.C. of the B. on said:
I assume that libel proceedings were threatened, other wise the behaviour of HRW and the publishers of the earlier article by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem is inexplicable… are we seriously expected to beleive that the authors of two seperate serious critique;s of Peter tatchell’s politics and actions have both indepenently issued apologies and retractions without any pressure being crought to bear on them.
Hardly inexplicable. After all, you’ve changed your own post on this matter without receiving a threat of libel, haven’t you? So what’s so hard to believe about them doing the same?
Ralph Wiggum on said:
Did Peter Tatchell uses libel laws? That’s uncredible!
Ralph Wiggum on said:
Or even: Did Peter Tatchell uses libel laws? That’s unpossible!
Andy Newman on said:
#34
because Scott Long’s work was a substantial and serious critique of Peter tatchells politics and campaigning, and then HRW have effectively hung him out to dry in such a way as to delegitimise his political critique.
Framing it in terms of intemperate and personal criticism, when in fact the article makes serious and sustained political criticism of peter tatchell, no more.
the type of personal retraction and self-criticism from scott Long is reminiscent of the Moscow Trials.
We also have to remember that this is a repeat of the delegitiisation of Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem in a very similar manner.
Just Saying on said:
Peter Tatchell could open the books on how he is extracting confessions of bad mouthing him by publishing the correspondence with authors and publishers.
The facts would speak for themselves, presumably.
Waiting on said:
How about this for an explanation.
In both cases, the publishers and the senior management of HRW looked at the scurrilous accusations levelled at Peter Tatchell, and decided that the fair and decent response was to retract and apologise.
I think you’ll discover that this was the reason.
Andy Newman on said:
What is interesting that an issue under dispute is whether or not Outrage issued a press release on 27th July 2005 saying: “it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”
peter tatchell now says in his press release today that he never said this.
This alleged 2005 press release from Outrage! is quoted by Scott Long, and on varous other places on the net, including wikipedia, so several people claim to have read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni
Yet, the press release in question is not available on peter tatchell’s website
http://www.petertatchell.net/
the citation given by wikipedia is
Peter Tatchell, quoted in “Iran: Stop Killing Gays and Kids”. OutRage! press release, June 26, 2006. Retrieved January 7, 2007.
Andy Newman on said:
wel of course we do know waht the claimed “scurrilous accusations” made against Peter were by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem.
I discuss them here.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4866
they are very minor misjudgements in a substantive piece of analysis.
examples of the “scurilous accusations” are that peter tatchell claims to be an expert on gay oppresion by islam, whereas their real point is that he is sometimes descibed by the media as such, and treated as if he is one.
they also claim he has cooperated with the far right, when all he did was attend a demonstartion alongside the BNP, and other facsists, so the claim of cooperation is to strong.
one of the scurril;ous accusation is that they misquoted peter tatchell, when in fact they had quoted him verbatim and in context, he just didn’t like the perfectly reasonable interpretation they made of his statement, even though it was the natural meaning of the words.
These are minor misjudgement, compared to the serious and substantial body of analysis their article represented.
So i find it incredible that an academic publisher would subsequently issue a retraction without some pressure having been brought to bear.
Mark T on said:
We also have to remember that this is a repeat of the delegitiisation of Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem in a very similar manner.
What ‘delegitimisation’? Those three goons wrote an article which suggested, among other bogus claims, that Tatchell described Muslims as Nazis.
Tatchell asked for – and received – a correction from the publishers.
That is all.
Andy Newman on said:
#42
LIAR. The three authors never made that claim.
Tatchell said that the following specific accusation had been made against him.
But what Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem actually wrote was
So what Peter has done here is to claim he was misquoted, when in fact he was quoted completely accurately, but he doesn’t like the way his writing has been interpreted. Despite the fact that the interpretation is in fact quite reasonable, and the political criticism being made of him is a substantive one.
I don’t know why the publiher apologised, it wuld be unuual without there being some l;egal threat implied. By so apologising they hung Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem out to dry, diminishing their reputation.
And Peter tatchell followed it up with is press release that “academics smear peter tatchell”
When in fact what had hapened was a serious attempt to critique tatchell’s politics, which he objected to.
Darkness at Noon on said:
Wait no more:
“As a citizen of the UK, I’ll leave the Iranian govt to its own people. I’m far more concerned about the actions of my own govt in joining in imperialist wars and occupations responsible for the deaths, maiming, and destituion of millions in the Middle East.”
The Iranian people have a severely restricted say in what goes in their country. They are free to vote for vetted and restricted clerical parties. Oppression and suppression of beliefs are the hallmarks of that government – which btw is also an exporter and facilitator of conflicts outside its borders.
“Or is that acceptable in the cause of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in your view?”
In my views, the wars were illegal and probably futile – even with good intentions. I do not for a moment believe that the conflicts are driven by Imperialist ambitions. I am and was a proponent of containment, rather than opening up a Pandora’s box of reactionary and nihilistic sectarian violence of the kind we see in Iraq. The violence and escalation thereof are a result of this. I see no forces for good there at all.
Andy Newman on said:
incidently, if no threat of libel was used, then perhaps pressure was brought to bear on HRW’s funders
Peter tatchell could clariy what led up to the HRW retraction, then we could all judge for ourselves.
Mark T on said:
Those three authors claimed that Tatchell wrote an article which effectively made a basic equivalence between Muslims and Nazis. It is there in black and white in your own quotation.
Unsurprisingly – when asked by Tatchell for an apology and a retraction – the publishers were more than willing to do so.
E.C. of the B. on said:
Why should Tatchell clarify what led HRW to retract? Surely that is something HRW should explain themselves?
In fact, Long has explained in the HRW statement that he apologizes for “condemnatory and intemperate allegations made in haste” and “inaccurate statements made in my personal capacity”.
So there you have it. Nothing more to see here, move along now.
steelcityred on said:
There are times Andy that you can go to far (you call me a racist before but i did not going running too the law)
Just Saying on said:
#46, Peter Tatchell’s repeated Islamophobic remarks and campaigns are a metter of public record.
steelcityred on said:
And i think Peter need to back off as well,in the end there going to be no winners in this (but pay days for lawyers)
Mark T on said:
That’s an interesting link, Just Saying.
The first of Tatchell’s ‘Islamophobic’ remarks is this one –
“We want dialogue with progressive, liberal muslim organisations who support universal human rights, who support social justice…. If you take a mainstream organisation like the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation of all muslim groups in this country, it has fought a tooth and nail battle, allied with the rightwing Christian Institute, to oppose every measure in favour of gay and lesbian human rights over the last decade.”
I didn’t realise that MCB is an exact synonym for Muslim.
Or perhaps Tatchell is MCBophobic.
Maybe that’s what you meant.
E.C. of the B. on said:
Tatchell and Long have already said that they are both willing to put this behind them and focus on successful campaigning.
If anyone needs to “back off” its Mr Newman, who seems to have jumped into the ring after the final bell and hands have been shaken, solely for sectarian purposes.
But hopefully it will rumble on just a little longer as there is a lot of amusement to be had in Andy’s absurd comparisons to the Moscow Show Trials etc (especially given his adoration for actually existing Stalinism in the GDR and PRC). Popcorn, anyone?
Anonymous on said:
“We want dialogue with progressive, liberal muslim organisations who support universal human rights, who support social justice…. If you take a mainstream organisation like the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation of all muslim groups in this country, it has fought a tooth and nail battle, allied with the rightwing Christian Institute, to oppose every measure in favour of gay and lesbian human rights over the last decade.”
What has MCB done with the Christian Institute?
David Hillman on said:
So now Peter Tatchell is to be Mother Teresa whom only goons criticise? To be universally admired because -
well because Britain has become a much more tolerant and open society in the last ten years (amongst the hypocritical elite), because those he criticises are now often the same as the reactionary establishment critiques for very different reasons (so that his brave stand against Mugabe is admired by those who believe everything went wrong in Africa when Blacks tried to rule themselves), and because he’s achieved celebrity status. But the trajectory from vilified queer extremist to a national treasure is fraught. Beware the fate of Geldorf and Bono.
More seriously those who care about womens rights and gay rights in Islam should above all listen to Muslim women and gays, even if they may not always express everything in the way they’d like or get everything right. For God’s sake do not shut down the debate , and let’s have broad enough shouldiers to put aside personal vanity and admit we are all sometimes wrong. Muslim women have too important a contribution to make to be silenced by big personalities.
ryutin on said:
#37 moscow trials, that’s pushing it a little bit dont cha think
steelcityred on said:
“For God’s sake do not shut down the debate , and let’s have broad enough shouldiers to put aside personal vanity and admit we are all sometimes wrong. Muslim women have too important a contribution to make to be silenced by big personalities.”
A very good point David
David Hillman on said:
Anyway here’s some good news http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2010/06/queers-against-israeli-apartheid-to.html and an antidote to the Hasbara gaywashing of Israel.
anon on said:
Wonder what Marx who say about all this.
Anonymous on said:
“In my views, the wars were illegal and probably futile – even with good intentions.”
Oh, the imperialists always have “good intentions.” That is they always have some laughable, demonstrably false pretexts for the looting & slaughter. The strategic & commercial interests are always a pure coincidence. Oil, gas, pipelines, minerals, & military bases had no more to do with the US decision to occupy Afghanistan & Iraq than ivory, rubber, & slavery did with the Belgians taking over the Congo.
“I do not for a moment believe that the conflicts are driven by Imperialist ambitions”
Then what is your explanation?
“I am and was a proponent of containment”
You mean the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
Anonymous on said:
“well because Britain has become a much more tolerant and open society in the last ten years (amongst the hypocritical elite), because those he criticises are now often the same as the reactionary establishment critiques for very different reasons”
And there we have it and patronage opens its gilded gates.
Bob Pitt on said:
#40 What is interesting is that an issue under dispute is whether or not Outrage issued a press release on 27th July 2005 saying: “it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”. Peter Tatchell now says in his press release today that he never said this.
The Outrage press release can be found here. It’s in fact dated 21 July 2005, which is the date Scott Long gives in his article.
To be strictly accurate, what Tatchell says in his latest press release is: “I never accused the 13 year-old victim of an alleged rape in Iran of ‘wanting the rape’. Nor am I guilty of ‘belittling violent sexual assault, and blaming the victim’.”
What Tatchell and Outrage did do, however, was deny that the 13-year-old boy had in fact been raped, even though they had no evidence to substantiate that claim. At the very least, this showed an astonishing lack of concern for the alleged victim of a violent sexual assault.
(The “Iran: Stop Killing Gays and Kids” press release is a different one, from a year later. See here.)
To be fair to Tatchell, he’s never made legal threats against Islamophobia Watch, despite the harsh things we’ve said about him – unlike Ed Husain, for example – though I’m inclined to put that down to the fact that the Quilliam Foundation is awash with public money and can afford to hire expensive libel lawyers whereas Tatchell lives in relative poverty and can’t.
It would be interesting to hear whether HRW’s decsion to stab Scott Long in the back was indeed the result of a threat of legal action by Tatchell.
patsy on said:
The case of Mahmoud Asqari and Ayaz Marhoni who were executed in Iran for their alleged crime, rape of a 13 year old, is at the heart of these comments.
This should have been stated openly at the start of the thread so that the known information on the case,and the different points of view of the case,could inform the discussion.
Anonymous on said:
The Outrage press release says:
“The allegation of sexual assault may either be a trumped up charge…
Or it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”
May be this, may be that… So what they mean is that they don’t actually know? That they have no basis for assuming that Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni were gay or that this, rather than their alleged crime, is the reason they were executed? Maybe they were hanged for the crime of which they were, rightly or wrongly, accused & found guilty? And perhaps Outrage should refrain from speculating on whether the alleged rape victim was raped or was a “willing participant” until they have some clue what actually happened during the alleged crime & at the trial?
What is certain:
1) Two teenage boys accused of raping another boy were whipped & hanged.
2) Iran is a brutal, murderous regime.
3) The execution of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni should not be exploited as a justification for US/UK/Israel’s (those other brutal, murderous regimes) war-mongering.
Anonymous on said:
60.“Britain has become a much more tolerant and open society in the last ten years”
That’ll be why the government are capping immigration, will it? That’ll be why we have this constant scaremongering & scapegoating about migrant workers, refugees, & Muslims?
howard on said:
Is the provider of this blog,gay bashing.Has he writen any derogotry slurs like pillow biters, shirt lifters front bums.I dont think so.Derek has spat the dummy,to quick to condem in his thin skined libral coating.
I think the provider is attempting to stimulate some debate about what is to be done by us would be socialists,about the increasing capital fortress thats cementing itself,outside our divisive socialist concepts.
Mind you,cant blame him,its always good to stir up those capitalist text book socialists.I like the one that talks about, take what is needed beside your contribution.
jock mctrousers on said:
This post has had 3 times as many comments in half a day as the last one on ‘the cuts’ has had in a week. Shows the priorities of all these latte liberals, like this:
“Incredibly, incredibly badly misjudged attack. Derek is completely right – theses sorts of smears is bringing Socialist Unity down to the level of Harry’s Place. We don’t need this kind of name-calling and sectarianism on the left…” Sunny Hurndal
“incredibly, incredibly…”? Really? I struggle to imagine the social milieu inhabited by the writer of this, where it’s so unthinkable to have reservations about the use of the libel laws. Or is Tatchell being declared a saint? I know he’s not, because I was present at the Palestine Solidarity Rally referred to by a commenter above; as the commenter noted it was the only time the PSC rally has ever had any media attention, and it was negative attention, and it totally misrepresented what happened, and I am convinced that this was Tatchell’s purpose.
” Bringing Socialist Unity down to the level of Harry’s Place…” No, it’s all these commenters who’ve come over here from HP for the occasion that are doing that.
Is he gone then? Derek Wall?
Jonny Mac on said:
2 – good for you Derek. The Green Party must distance itself from this cynical filth. Once more the far left shits on a great height on gay people and shills for the executors of the Iranian state and the extremists at MCB.
The far left hates Tatchell because he is utterly consistent and does not make excuses for prejudice, whatever the bigot’s skin colour and religion.
lone nut on said:
I have asked this question before sans issue, but perhaps Tatchell’s myriad admirers can tell me which Palestinian groups he consulted with before launching his disruption of the PSC rally, allegedly in defence of “Palestinian queers”? Ditto for his disruption of the Al Quds rally. We will doubtless be told that Tatchell supports Palestinian rights – in that case why has he never felt the need to disrupt a pro-Israeli rally in this manner, and why does he tolerate a demented supporter of Israeli state terror like Brent Lock as his trusted lieutenant? Hats off to Andy for again exposing this fraudulent posturer.
lone nut on said:
Brett Lock, obviously – Brent Lock sounds like a very unlikely pleasure spot.
Anonymous on said:
#67
Some people use their sexuality as a litmus test of other people’s politics, regardless of any other issue, cultural background or historical context.
Like Jonny Mac, who continually pollutes this site with anti-Muslim and anti-ethnic minority rhetoric dressed up as progressive politics, they are militant in their desire to make sexuality a public rather than a private matter come what may.
The destruction of entire nations, the denial of national and human rights for entire peoples like the Palestinians, take second place to their own narrow agenda of ensuring that their agenda of militant sexuality takes precedence over every other right, including the right to self determination.
At best they are misguided. At worst they are useful idiots.
Dave on said:
“they are militant in their desire to make sexuality a public rather than a private matter come what may.”
Get back in the closet, eh?
Substitute the word “religion” for “sexualily” and see how Muslims would react.
Queers and Muslims should be out and proud: not forced to conform to some societal ‘norm’.
Queers who attack Muslims for being Muslim are scum – and Muslims who attack queers for being queer are scum. That includes the vicious homophobes of the MCB and the Iranian government.
Andy Newman on said:
#61
Bob, gets to the nub of it here:
“what Tatchell says in his latest press release is: “I never accused the 13 year-old victim of an alleged rape in Iran of ‘wanting the rape’. Nor am I guilty of ‘belittling violent sexual assault, and blaming the victim’.”
But his press in 2005 said “it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”. ”
Bob further says that “The Outrage press release can be found here. It’s in fact dated 21 July 2005, which is the date Scott Long gives in his article.”
But the press release, which was retrevable from Peter tatchell’s own website until at least 2007, is now no longer there. why has it been deleted from Peter tatchell’s website?
Andy Newman on said:
Let us be clear, the only indication that Pater tatchel gives of what he consideres to be – in his own words – “highly libellous and defamatory” in Scott Long’s Contemporary Politics article is the claim that
“I never accused the 13 year-old victim of an alleged rape in Iran of ‘wanting the rape’. Nor am I guilty of ‘belittling violent sexual assault, and blaming the victim’.”
but Scott Long is actualy quoting a press relese from Peter Tatchell where he did say “it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”
So Scott’s interpretation is at least entirely reasonable, and cannt by any stretch be considered “highly libellous and defamatory”
Furthemore, the use of the term “highly libellous and defamatory” by Peter Tatchell in his press release suggests to me that similar language may have been used in correspeondence with HRW.
At very least, it shows that Peter Tatchell views Scott Long’s political criticism of his campaigning through the legal framework of libel (highly libellous and defamatory), rather than as a contribution to a political debate that Tatchell could engage with.
Andy Newman on said:
#70 and #71
Mmm, I think that was unfortunately expressed.
Sexuality can never be only a private matter. Neither can religion, that is the difficulty.
Let us first be clear that the executions by the Iranian state, and the persecution of gays in Iran are completely wrong.
It is more difficult to approach the issue of why some religious people beleive same-gender sexual activity to be sinful. Because they do have a right to believe what they want to believe, and deep historical and cultural reinforcement for that position, and as the example of Uganda recently shows, and “curing gays” in the USA and UK, this is not confined to any one religion.
the content of Scott’s article is a serious examination of how that deilema can be adressed. It cannot be addressd by a mutually exclusive polarisation, where gay rights advocates demand that religious people abandon parts of their faith, becasue that removes all politics and all discourse.
What needs to happen is some negotiation of common grouns based upon shared interests and expereinces, and a dialogue.
unfortunately, as Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem argued, the “war on terror” opened an opportunity for some radical feminists and gay rights advocates to join the priorities of the establishment, by using gender and sexuality issues to demonise countries where a case for western military involvement was being built
Bob on said:
I did some further checking and there are in fact two Outrage Press releases from July 2005 on the Mashhad hangings, one from 21 July and the other from 27 July.
Both of them are still on Tatchell’s website, though they’re filed under “International” (the “Latest articles & news releases” section only goes back to March 2007).
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iran-executes-gay-teenagers.html
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iranexecution.htm
Personally, I think Scott Long did overstep the mark writing that Tatchell accused the alleged victim of “wanting the rape”. That wasn’t Tatchell’s point at all – he was claiming that the sex was probably consensual.
This mistake allowed Tatchell to perform his usual act of working himself up into a lather of self-righteous indignation in order to divert attention from the valid criticisms that Long makes of Outrage’s political methods.
SteveH on said:
Some commenters have said that the far left use gay rights to show how radical and right on they are. Not only is this bollocks but I suspect the truth is the other way around. I think some Gay and lesbian groups attach themsleves to those that promote their rights and when those rights are won drop the left like a stone. This is perfectly natural and I guess is the way with all identity politics.
John Meredith on said:
“n the earlier version of this article I stated as fact that Peter Tatchell used threats of libel action. I still believe this is the only likely explanation for the subsequent statement by Scott Long and Human rights watch”
So, let me get this straight. No-one involved claims that lawyers have been brought into it, Peter Tatchell has denied it explicitly and stated that he will not, on principle, sue, the company that published the article have denied that they were approached by lawyers and issued a statement saying that they withdrew it simply because the lies it contained were brought to their attention. Long has gone on record admitting the falsehoods in the piece and HRW have issued n apology for being associated through Long with distortions and unfair allegations against Tatchell, and yet you STILL think the most likely explanation is that there is a secret legal proceeding taking place? It can’t possibly be, as Long has gone public to admit, that the article was simply defamatory? Have you ever heard of Occam? Google him.
Jonny Mac on said:
74 – ‘unfortunately, as Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem argued, the “war on terror” opened an opportunity for some radical feminists and gay rights advocates to join the priorities of the establishment, by using gender and sexuality issues to demonise countries where a case for western military involvement was being built’
Utter cock. What you’re suggesting, in effect, is (1) that human rights campaigners should turn something like a blind eye to abuses in countries which may be the subject of future military action, because they may be the subject of future military action. Further, you’re suggesting that (2) to highlight those abuses in those circumstances is somehow to ally oneself with those on the side of that military action.
(1) is illogical and unacceptable – no-one has a free pass to commit human rights abuses, full stop.
(2) is cynical, deplorable smearing, done for what I can only assume to be sectarian reasons.
John Meredith on said:
“It cannot be addressd by a mutually exclusive polarisation, where gay rights advocates demand that religious people abandon parts of their faith, becasue that removes all politics and all discourse.”
That is so fatuous. Tatchell does not care what parts of their faith religious people keep or abandon or make any demands at all in that regard. He is simply demanding that they don’t kill people who disagree with them on matters of sexual politics or demand that they be killed in public. That would not, once, have struck anyone who claimed to be on the left as an extreme or ‘polarising’ position
Mark T on said:
“It is more difficult to approach the issue of why some religious people beleive same-gender sexual activity to be sinful. Because they do have a right to believe what they want to believe… What needs to happen is some negotiation of common grouns based upon shared interests and expereinces, and a dialogue.”
What kind of common ground, or indeed ‘dialogue’, do you think there could be between homosexuals, and people who think they should be jailed or put to death?
Moral relativism can only take you so far.
Andy Newman on said:
#75 #
Well I am happy to stand corrected Bob, and if you say the press release is on tatchel’s website still, I am sure you are right. I couldn’t find it throrugh googling.
The expression “wanting the rape” needs some discussion, is that not the same thing as consensual sexual activity?
By saying that “it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant”, that is saying that the alleged sexual act was consensual. In UK law all sex with a 13 year old is rape. So saying that a 13 year old participated in consensual sex is acuratelly expressed as “wanting the rape”
To describe it otherwise than as rape is making a judgement not only about consensuality but also about the ability of a 13 year old to give consent.
Scott has at most used an unfortunate turn of phrase, but it is hardly “highly libelous and defamatory”. What Scott has done is describe the position as its stands in UK law and British social conventions about consensual sex involving a 13 year old.
What is clear is that a substantive political critism of Peter tatchel has been neutralised by moralism, threats, and a frameing narrative that Scott Ling had conduced a campaign of falsehoods.
I described this earlier as being reminiscent of the MOscow Trials, obvioulsy without the tragic consequences, but the volte face and self criticism from Scott now, suggests that pressure was brought to bar to close down an incnventient opinion.
I fiind it sad that people like Sunny Hundal and Derek Wall, for their different reasons, seek to delegitimise criticism of Peter tatchell’s methods of closing down debate.
John Meredith on said:
“This is perfectly natural and I guess is the way with all identity politics.”
The right to express your own sexuality without interference from the state is not ‘identity politics’. It can only seem that way it you are of the mainstream sexual orientation and take that to be in some way ‘natural’ Imagine if all heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage was outlawed on pain of death. Would protest be about’identity’?
Andy Newman on said:
#77
“being associated through Long with distortions and unfair allegations against Tatchell,”
what distortions and unfair alegations?
I have read the article that tatchel says is “HIghly libelous and defamatory”, and still do not know what tatchell is objecting to.
John Meredith on said:
“The expression “wanting the rape” needs some discussion, is that not the same thing as consensual sexual activity?”
Have you had a stroke Andy? You cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex? I mean, honestly?
John Meredith on said:
“hat distortions and unfair alegations?”
They have all been outlined many times on this site. Tatchell referred to many of them in his original letter that led to the withdrawal of the defamatory article. You may not see any, it hardly matters, what does matter is that the publishers, HRW and the author of the remarks himself all do consider them to be defamatory. I can’t see what higher standard of proof you could want.
Andy Newman on said:
#84
In UK law, and by British social convention all sex wth a minor is rape.
There is a word for people who beleive that consensual sex with a 13 year old is not rape – they are paedophiles.
Sonoe Kurimoto on said:
TO REFER TO SCOTT LONG’S SECOND PARAGRAPH:
Obviously, women in niqabs and drag queens must march together against oppression.
Can a public event be arranged – a march from the Iranian Embassy to Trafalgar Square, with refreshments provided at LGBT places of refresment en route?
Andy Newman on said:
#85
“They have all been outlined many times on this site”
Where?
If that is the case, then you should have no trouble in finding them for me?
I honestly still don’t kniow what particular content Peter Tatchell is complainign about.
John Meredith on said:
“What is clear is that a substantive political critism of Peter tatchel has been neutralised by moralism, threats, and a frameing narrative that Scott Ling had conduced a campaign of falsehoods”
Again, and with the realisation that this is probably a dead horse, no substantive political criticism has been stopped. Tatchell will continue to be criticised fairly and unfairly all over, including by Long if he wants to. There have been absolutely no threats from Tatchell whatsoever, the opposite in fact. But Long did, by his own admission, publish a string of falsehoods about Tatchell. If he can’t make his case without lies, it is probably a wak one, wouldn’t you say.
And just to reiterate: it is LONG himself who claims that the points in question were lies and distortions. He has gone public on this at enormous personal costs, I imagine, even though (to reiterate) there was not legal threat brought to bear.
You do realise Andy that the logic of your current position on this is that Long is lying in the statement released by HRW? You think he is lying now but that it is utterly implausible that he lied before? Why?
John Meredith on said:
“If that is the case, then you should have no trouble in finding them for me?”
You will have to learn to use Google all by yourself. Frankly I don’t care if you can’t see any defamation, what matters is that Tatchell, HRW, the publishers of the article and the author of the article all do.
Andy Newman on said:
#89
“publish a string of falsehoods about Tatchell. ”
What falsehoods?
the most likely explanation to me is that Scott Long has been put under pressure to make this recent statement.
You are perfectly proving the case that this is then being used to delegitimise his substantive political critique of OUtrage!
Andy Newman on said:
JOhn Meredith
Would you like to expand on your idea that 13 year olds can consent to sex and it isn’t rape?
How young do you think children can consent to sex? 13, 8, 5?
John Meredith on said:
“In UK law, and by British social convention all sex wth a minor is rape.”
Don’t be absurd. You are making yourself look very silly at best and quite disgusting at worst. If you don’t think there is anything dubious about paraphrasing your political opponent’s comment that ‘the sex was probably consensual’ as ‘the child wanted to be raped’ then you are beyond help.
Andy Newman on said:
#90
“Frankly I don’t care if you can’t see any defamation, what matters is that Tatchell, HRW, the publishers of the article and the author of the article all do.”
And yet this rare consensus was acheived without any threat of legal action.
remarkable. Incredible.
John Meredith on said:
“Would you like to expand on your idea that 13 year olds can consent to sex and it isn’t rape?”
Yes, I know a 12 year old boy who consented to sex with a 13 year old girl, neither of them was raped.
Andy Newman on said:
#93
Let is be clear, JOhn Merdith
When we are dealing with sex wth a 13 year old, then there can be no legal consent, and any sex act is rape.
So there is not difference in saying that the child was “wanting the rape”, and saying that the sex was consensual.
that is beecause, in law and by our scial convention
sexual activity with a 13 year old = rape
wanting something = consenting to it
If the only “highly libellous and derogatory” content on Scott Long’s articele is that Scott Long does not collude wth the minimisation of child sexual abuse, then you are on very thin ice.
John Meredith on said:
“And yet this rare consensus was acheived without any threat of legal action. remarkable. Incredible.”
Not if the defamation was plain and most of the parties were acting in good faith. I imagine Long was pressured by HRW, but HRW clearly recognised the falsehood of what he published. Nothing remarkable at all about a number of people all recognising a plain falsehood when it is brought to their attention.
But Andy, if you can find any evidence at all that lawyers were involved, we would love to hear it. Did Long claim he had a letter from a lawyer? Did anyone? Why are they keeping it secret? Remarkable. Incredible.
John Meredith on said:
“So there is not difference in saying that the child was “wanting the rape”, and saying that the sex was consensual.”
There is a large difference and I am pretty sure that you are the only person who does not see it. Anyone else out there think that paraphrasing Tatchell’s comment that ‘the sex was probably consensual’ as ‘the child wanted to be raped’ was not malicious or intended to mislead?
Mark T on said:
“And yet this rare consensus was acheived without any threat of legal action. Remarkable. Incredible.”
Newspapers also print corrections and retractions on an almost daily basis, without the threat of legal action.
Presumably that is ‘remarkable and incredible’ too?
John Meredith on said:
“f the only “highly libellous and derogatory” content on Scott Long’s articele is that Scott Long does not collude wth the minimisation of child sexual abuse, then you are on very thin ice.”
It makes you wonder why he volunteered to risk public, professional and personal opprobrium and make himself an international object of scorn to apologise, doesn’t it?
Andy Newman on said:
#95
“Yes, I know a 12 year old boy who consented to sex with a 13 year old girl, neither of them was raped.”
Actually, in Brtish law a sex act wth a 12 year old or a 13 year old is rape, whatever age the perpetrator, and whether or not there is consent.
There may be issues of the age of legal responsibility, and there may be public policy considerations which mean that prosecution would not be the apropriate way of dealing with it, but it is still rape, because there cannot be informed consent.
If you think that a 13 year old girl can consent to sex with a 12 year old boy, then do you think she can consent to sex with a 16 year old boy? or a 45 year old man?
Her own capacity for judgment and her inablity to make informed consent are the same however old the sexual partner.
So you are in fact saying that both 12 year olds and 13 year olds are able to give consent to sex without it being rape.
Andy Newman on said:
#97
“Nothing remarkable at all about a number of people all recognising a plain falsehood when it is brought to their attention.”
What “plain falsehood”?
John Meredith on said:
“hat “plain falsehood”?”
The many that Long has gone on public record to apologise for.
John Meredith on said:
“Actually, in Brtish law a sex act wth a 12 year old or a 13 year old is rape, whatever age the perpetrator, and whether or not there is consent.”
Who is the perpetrator? Who is the rapist and who the victim when two fourteen year old boys have consensual sex?
Actually, I am much less interested in this sort of thing than you are Andy, so let’s just keep to the subject in hand. You are making me feel a bit queasy.
Andy Newman on said:
#103
sounds like a witch hunt to me.
Bit you haven’t explained how a 13 year old girl can give cnsent to sex without it being rape.
if she can consent to sex with a 12 year old without it being rae, as you have argued, then can she have sex with a 20 year ls without it being rape?
How has her ability to give infrmed conswent changed by the age of her sexual partner changing?
Are you really arguing that 13 year ls girls and 12 year old boys can consent to sex without it beng rape?
How young do you think children can consent to sex, you have already put forward the idea that 12 years old can conent to sex without it being rape.
8 year olds, 5 year olds?
lone nut on said:
I can imagine what our Decent friends would have to say if somebody suggested that a 13 year old had consented to sex with a Catholic priest.
John Meredith on said:
“sounds like a witch hunt to me.”
An article is published, someone complains that it is defamatory and it is withdrawn with an apology from the author following and that is a witch hunt? Who is the witch? Who are the hunters?
“Bit you haven’t explained how a 13 year old girl can give cnsent to sex without it being rape.”
Well, as I said, I am not much interested in that subject so I shall leave you to your imaginings. There are plenty of seat-sniffers out there who will enjoy arguing the toss with you.
“I can imagine what our Decent friends would have to say if somebody suggested that a 13 year old had consented to sex with a Catholic priest.”
They have 13-year-old priests?
Andy Newman on said:
#104
JOhn
You are the one who has gone into the unpleasant terrotory of arguing that sex with minors is not rape, so either you need to retract your idea that a 12 year old can have sex without it being rape, or stand by it.
If two 14 year olds have sex, then legally neither of them is capable of giving consent, and it is a child protection issue. If an adult colluded or encouraged two 14 year ld to have sex, then that would be a criminal matter.
So saying that a consensual sex act wth a 13 year old is rape, is simply a cautious and legally accurate statement.
It would be accurate and cautious to describe a child who consented to sex as “wanting the rape”, becaue this accurately describs what hapened, wthout giving and colluion to the idea that a 13 year old can give informed consent to sex.
John Meredith on said:
“You are the one who has gone into the unpleasant terrotory of arguing that sex with minors is not rape, ”
Andy, you can construct as many straw bogey men as you like, I am really not interested in this subject. I am sure there are a lot of interesting debates to be had philosophically and political in this area, but not with me. I would advise against getting into it on the internets unless you want to attract the kind of interested amateurs who really do enjoy mulling this over.
But if you want to claim that the paraphrasis in question was not intended to be malicious and misleading then you are barmy. Does ANYONE agree with you, I wonder?
Andy Newman on said:
#107
But JOhn, it is you, and only you, who have advanced the arguments traditional associated with paedophiles.
I am unwavering in my clarity, that no sexual cnsent can meaningfully given by a minor, and any sexual act with a minor is rape.
You on the other hand are argung that there can be extenuating circumstances which means that a minor can give consent, and where sex is not rape. i.e. you have put forward an argument that some sexual actvity wth children is not, in your view, rape.
It is reasonable to press you on this. What circumstances do you think a chld can consent to sex? You think a 12 year old can meaningfully consent to sex, you have already said so.
What I am confused about is how you think a 12 year old can make a judgement about the suitabity f sexual actvity based upon the age of their partner.
You say a 12 year old can give consent to sex with a 13 year old.
But what if the 12 year old met a 19 year old on an internet chat room who claimed to be 13? and the 12 year old was confused and pressured, and then when they found out they were 19 didn’t mind? Could the 12 year old give consent then?
You are the one who has opened the door to this by claiming that 12 and 13 years olds can make informed judgments over sexual consent.
you diid so becasue you wanted to score political points against Scott Long and me. this is because originally you claimed that rape couldn’t be consensual.
John Meredith on said:
“ut JOhn, it is you, and only you, who have advanced the arguments traditional associated with paedophiles.”
As I said Andy, I did not such thing, you know I didn’t, and your attempt to deflect argument by smear a innuendo is a little ironic (to be kind) in a thread attempting to defend Long after he has admitted doing exactly the same thing.
If you want to have a long chat about underage sex, there are loads of people who will have it with you. But I came here to talk about Tatchell. Sorry.
Andy Newman on said:
#109
“But if you want to claim that the paraphrasis in question was not intended to be malicious and misleading then you are barmy. Does ANYONE agree with you, I wonder?”
person A says that a child engaging in a sexual act was a willing participant
person b paraphrases it as saying that the child wanted the rape
sexual activity with a child is rape
being a willing participant is consenting.
they are the same statement, except that the person saying “wanting the rape” is being more cautious about the possibility of a minor giving cnsent to sex.
perhaps person A should be more cautious in future in implying that 13 year old can consent to sex.
Mark T on said:
“You are the one who has opened the door to this by claiming that 12 and 13 years olds can make informed judgments over sexual consent.”
No he has not.
Andy Newman on said:
John at #84 your wrote
” You cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex? “
we were discussing the sexual actvity of a 13 year old, i.e. statutory rape.
what you said simply is the argument put forward by paedophiles, the fact that your defence of Peter Tatchell and your vilification of Scott Long has led you into that territory should give you some cause for refelction.
Mark T on said:
“The expression “wanting the rape” needs some discussion, is that not the same thing as consensual sexual activity?”
Mental.
John Meredith on said:
“they are the same statement, ”
Well, you clearly won’t budge on that Andy, but I think you are on your own. Even the author of the statement disagrees with you and has publicly apologised for the attempted smear.
Andy Newman on said:
#113
At #95 JOhn Meredith said:
“Yes, I know a 12 year old boy who consented to sex with a 13 year old girl, neither of them was raped.”
so he was arguing that 12 and 13 years old can consent to sex without it being rape.
lone nut on said:
“They have 13-year-old priests?”
Actually there was a 12 year old Pope once. But my original sentence was correctly constructed and couldn’t be given the interpretation you have given it. Perhaps you are in the habit of misreading things in haste and flying into a tizzy over them, it is pretty much a prerequisite for a Decent isn’t it?
John Meredith on said:
Andy, give it up, nobody wants to talk about child rape any more.
Mark T on said:
The key word missing there is ‘informed’, something you have added.
John Meredith on said:
“Perhaps you are in the habit of misreading things in haste and flying into a tizzy over them,”
It’s not a habit, exactly, but it has been known. Although I can’t say I am feeling very tizzy-ish today.
Andy Newman on said:
#120
No, the key word is rape.
Sexual acitivity with a 13 year old is correctly described as rape whether the victim wanted it to happen or not.
John Meredith claims that 12 year old and 13 years old can have sex without it being rape, he is wrong in aw, and wrong in morallity.
So it seems that the only substanive issue where Scott Long may have oversteped the mark is that Scott was cautious in descibing sexual activity of a 13 year old as rape, and Peter Tatchell wasn’t so cautious.
Is that is what is “highly libelous and derogatory”?
Mark T on said:
No, Andy. 12 and 13 year olds can consent to have sex with each other. That does not mean they are making an informed judgement, as you suggested John Meredith was claiming.
John Meredith on said:
“So it seems that the only substanive issue where Scott Long may have oversteped the mark is that Scott was cautius in descibing sexual activity of a 13 year old as rape, ”
No, this is just one of the many instances in which he lied or misrepresented Tatchell in an attempt to discredit and smear him. Long has admitted doing this Andy. I am puzzled as to why you imagine he would (as you believe) perjure himself in a statement like that while at the same time working so hard to keep a secret that (as you believe) he has been threatened by Tatchell’s lawyers? At the very least it shows he is a man of little character, doesn’t it? That he would not stand up for his principles, I mean. Do we want people like that in human rights organisations?
John Meredith on said:
“That does not mean they are making an informed judgement, as you suggested John Meredith was claiming.”
Indeed. Of course it has often been debated whether or not ANYONE can give informed consent to sex (whether the term is in fact meaningful). Perhaps ‘informed consent’ is just a legal artifact. How can you have all the relevant information? If it were possible, it is likely there would be fewer sexual regrets.
David Hillman on said:
From Tamsila -
Hi Dave,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention and your great comments. By the way, we (Jin, me and Esra) did recieve a letter from PT threatening legal action if we republished the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article elsewhere, be free to pass on.
Peace,
Tamsila
Andy Newman on said:
#125
Once again John Meredith returns to the paedophile songsheet. when he says
“Of course it has often been debated whether or not ANYONE can give informed consent to sex (whether the term is in fact meaningful). Perhaps ‘informed consent’ is just a legal artifact. How can you have all the relevant information? If it were possible, it is likely there would be fewer sexual regrets.”
You are simply minimising the lack of capacity for judegment which a child has, by comparing it with the mitakes of judgement that an adult can make.
Andy Newman on said:
#126
HAH
!!!
Andy Newman on said:
#123
“12 and 13 year olds can consent to have sex with each other. That does not mean they are making an informed judgement, as you suggested John Meredith was claiming.”
acyually JOhn Meredith claimed that it was not rape.
Mark T on said:
So if a 13 year old boy has consensual (and I use the word advisedly) with a 13 year old girl, they are raping each other?
Bob on said:
On the issue of libel threats, I think what probably happens (in the case of the “Gay Imperialism” publishers and now with HRW) is that Tatchell writes a pompous letter complaining that he has been subjected to “highly libellous and defamatory” accusations.
The recipients of the letter then hand it over to their own lawyer, who advises that at least some of Tatchell’s complaints might stand up in court. They are worried that Tatchell will indeed take legal action against them (although he wouldn’t in reality have the resources to finance an expensive libel case) so they publish an apology to him to get themselves off the hook.
Tatchell then piously claims that he has never actually threatened legal action against anyone. Which I suppose is technically true. He just uses an implicit threat to silence his critics. Which doesn’t strike me as much better, frankly.
Andy Newman on said:
#130
that is the law, there may be issues of legal age of responsibility, and public policy consideratins that criminality is not the best way of dealing with it.
John Meredith on said:
“Thanks for bringing this to my attention and your great comments. By the way, we (Jin, me and Esra) did recieve a letter from PT threatening legal action if we republished the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article elsewhere, be free to pass on.2
Could we see it please? I understand that when last asked to produce it or to say from whom it was issued, there was a stony silence. And the article was republished online, of course.
Andy Newman on said:
#131
Quite so. I have expereinced the same from various people with this blog.
What compounds it is that perter tatchell doesn’y ust silence his critics, he issues press releases to rubbish their reputations.
John Meredith on said:
“Once again John Meredith returns to the paedophile songsheet. when he says”
O god, Andy, that is really sleazy. But what should I expect, right?
I suppose it is fair to paraphrase your ‘criminality is not the best way of dealing with it [child rape between children]‘ as ‘Andy Newman says rapists are not criminals!!!!!!’?
I don’t find it as much fun as you seem to though.
John Meredith on said:
@131
Tatchell is on record saying he will not sue ever, so the recipients of his letter overreacted. I think it is at least as plausible (don’t you) that the publisher read his letter, checked the article, and said ‘christ this is a smear and we are not in that business so let’s withdraw and apologise’. But if any letter of complaint is to be seen (as per your logic) as a tacit threat, there can be no redress when you are defamed, can there? Should we just sit back when lies are spread?
I think it telling that a number of people on here cannot imagine a situation where anyone would make an apology without threat.
As to Tatchell issuing ‘press releases to rubbish [his opponents'] reputations’ it is nonsense. He issued a press release listing a series of lies, distortions and defamations. This is called arguing your case. If his opponents had not (on their own admission) committed the sins they stand accused of, their reputations would be unflawed. Tatchell’s statement about Long is fantasticaally magnanimous and not at all spiteful or vengeful.
Andy Newman on said:
John #135
You have explicitly used a number of arguments that minimise the diablity f children to give consent to sex.
You have done so becasue you have a political aganda in mimimising the question of whether sex with children is rape.
That is becasue it is necessary for you, in order to rubbish Scott Long, that you delegitimise his description of the sex act with a 13 year old as rape.
Clearly, as Scott Long’s exact words were “wanting the rape”, then Scott was discussing that category of rape where consent may have been given, i.e sex with someone who cannot give legal consent; and he was acurately parahrasing Peter tatchell, whio said that the 13 year old may have been a willing participant.
So for you own political motives you have waded into the issue of the law and child sex, and in order to rubbish Scott Long you have had to fal back n a number of arguments traditionally used by paedohiles.
I am not implying that you are peronally sexually interested in children, I am pointing out that the logic of your political position has meant that you time and again have argued the same as they do.
You are understandably uncomfortable when it is pointed out to you.
Jonny Mac on said:
I tell you what Andy.
Instead of semi-regular attacks on human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, how about a few articles examining how Iran abuses human rights, and how hanging gay people from the gallows for the crime of being gay is wrong? That’s a more important subject than the squabbles some of the left have with Tatchell, right? Or is Iran off limits because the US has in the past made bellicose noises about it (and because Galloway coins it in from Press TV)?
Andy Newman on said:
#136
“He issued a press release listing a series of lies, distortions and defamations”
but strangely there is no list of lies, distortions and defamations in his press release.
John Meredith on said:
“You have explicitly used a number of arguments that minimise the diablity f children to give consent to sex.You have done so becasue you have a political aganda in mimimising the question of whether sex with children is rape.”
Don’t be silly. I haven’t been debating that subject at all, I have been discussing Tatchell. Smearing gets to be a habit, doesn’t it?
If I was playing your game I could now demand that you answer whether you still believe that child rapists are not criminals? That is as much as to say it should be compulsory to rape children!!! Is THAT what you STILL believe!!!! WELL??????!!!!!!!
Andy Newman on said:
#138
A deployment of the “don’t look over here, ook over there” defence, cunningly mixed wth the whatabout ruse.
John Meredith on said:
“but strangely there is no list of lies, distortions and defamations in his press release.”
But nonethless Long and his employers and the publishers all agree they were there and have all apologised for making or being associated with them.
David Ellis on said:
#78 `Utter cock. What you’re suggesting, in effect, is (1) that human rights campaigners should turn something like a blind eye to abuses in countries which may be the subject of future military action, because they may be the subject of future military action. Further, you’re suggesting that (2) to highlight those abuses in those circumstances is somehow to ally oneself with those on the side of that military action.’
Comment by Jonny Mac — 1 July, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Unfortunately those highlighting these abuses are often not neutral on the question of Western military intervention. The AWL for instance thinks that imperialism plays a progressive role in the semi-colonial world spreading peace, democracy and gay and women’s rights rather than it being a system designed to systematically pillage these countries and keep them backward. Imperialism’s allies are never more progressive than those it is opposed to and nearly always those it is opposed to are much more progressive (though sometimes it is just a case of thieves falling out). Self-determination is a long forgotten concept for the likes of the AWL who would defend an attack by Israel on Iran. Some think that the slow strangulation of the people of Gaza is justified because some people there are not feminists and some celebrated the recent murderous assault on the flotilla by the IDF. It is funny how the homophobia and sexism and racism of most Israelis doesn’t seem to concern them.
Of course it is right to criticise vile regimes all over the semi-colonial world from Iran to South Africa to Afghanistan and India as all are the result of the failure to carry national democratic revolutions through to the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only form in which they can be properly realised and all these regimes are dependent on imperialism. Stalinist apologists will often take a wholly uncritical attitude to these regimes as they are mainly responsible for them. However, often so-called rights campaigners are nothing more than missionaries useful idiots for Western military intervention especially when they choose a country that is in the news already to gain maximum publicity without considering that it is in the news because the West have chalked it up for some kind of assault. The EDL have a `gay and lesbian’ section apparently but if anyone believes that they will bring peace and enlightenment, gay liberation and female emancipation to our world then they are simply lieing as were those who portrayed George W as some kind of evangelist for world democracy.
Andy Newman on said:
#140
John. you are out of your depth
I have explicitly aid that if two minors have sex then it is rape, but using the criminal law to prosecute them may not be the appropriate response. Furthermore, if they are under the legal age of responsibility then they cannot be prosected, and in fact are not criminals.
There is nothing in mu osition remotelty similar to saying that child rapists are not criminals, and you are just maing your sef look even more of a dick.
You in contrast have arfgued explicitly that a 12 year old boy can consent to sex without it being rape, you have also argued that the whole concept of informed consent is debatable.
You have entered this questionable territory in order to rubbish Scott long’s characterisation of sex with a 13 year old as rape, becasue it suits your political agenda to do so.
All I have done is point out to you the logic of your own arguments, hoping that you might reflect on how you ended up there.
Bob on said:
#136 “Tatchell is on record saying he will not sue ever”
So how do you explain the statement by Tamsila Tauqir in #126 that she and the other authors “did receive a letter from PT threatening legal action if we republished the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article elsewhere”?
John Meredith on said:
“I have explicitly aid that if two minors have sex then it is rape, but using the criminal law to prosecute them may not be the appropriate behaviour. ”
Yes, and that could be paraphrased as ‘Andy Newman says rapists aren’t really criminals’. But only if someone was being dishonest and trying to smear you. You see how it works? Well, we know you do.
“ou have entered this questionable territory in order to rubbish Scott long’s characterisation of sex with a 13 year old as rape, becasue it suits your political agenda to do so.”
Don’t be silly.Each attempt to smear me and others ends up all over your face. I have not the smallest interst in Scott Long’s characterisations of underage sex and I do not share your fascination with the topic. I am only pointing out that his paraphrasis of Peter Tatchell is manifestly dishonest and intended to hurt Tatchell’s reputation. So far you are the only person who claims to think otherwise.
Pete Shield on said:
“Some commenters have said that the far left use gay rights to show how radical and right on they are. Not only is this bollocks but I suspect the truth is the other way around. I think some Gay and lesbian groups attach themsleves to those that promote their rights and when those rights are won drop the left like a stone. This is perfectly natural and I guess is the way with all identity politics.”
Well at least Steve is trying to be honest in his completely arse about tit way.As this discussion shows there is a very uneasy relationship between LGBTs organisations and politics and parts of the Left. As Andy shows his not so hidden homophobia rises to the surface when dealing with queers who don’t behave as he deems appropriate.
Thus has it always been, there are good puffs, good black people, good disabled people, and good women- and there are the others who are 1)Middle class, 2) Hopelessly lost in anti-working class ‘identity’ politics, 3) Student hacks 4) Loony separatists etc
Reminds me of the Lesbian and Gays support the miners episode. I find it wonderfully ironic that the SWP and various other sectettes now uses and re-uses the miner’s strike as an the example of workers in struggle being open to new ideas. In Yorkshire the SWP and Miltant were very opposed to the setting up of LGSM, the Communist Party was a bit warmer because some of our London comrades like my friend Mark Ashton were key organisers but on the whole they weren’t exactly excited about the idea. The Trotskyist comrades argued that the local support the miners groups were the one and only way that class solidarity should be shown, and that Lesbians and Gays would alienate the miners, there been of course absolutely no gay miners- ever, and secondly the basis should be class solidarity and identity should play no role. The same attitude was not shown towards the superb Women support the Miners- why I wonder? Women are not a class they are a gender. Homophobia seems to be the only viable explanation.
Sometimes it seems that for the Left LGBT rights are another point on the manifesto but that’s about it.
That is not to say that all parts of the left are so useless, the most supportative parts of the Left in real terms has been municipal labour authorities and progressive education and health authorities- when they had some room for wriggling on budgets, and not the newspaper selling party builders. The other part of the left that has been helpful have been the individual shop stewards and union reps that have defended victimised LGBT workers, from the management and sometimes from fellow workers.
John Meredith on said:
“So how do you explain the statement by Tamsila Tauqir in #126 that she and the other authors “did receive a letter from PT threatening legal action if we republished the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article elsewhere””
I can’t, that is why I would like to see the letter or know which firm issued it. I understand that the authors are coy about that. I should say that I think it would have been right for Tatchell to make such a threat (I don’t see on what principle you should sit back and allow yourself to be defamed), but he seems to think otherwise.
howard on said:
Far out,you cats can get down to the percieved intent of a language, and its intent in the languages law,yet can!t come to the languages exploytative rule.Shit has the world cup and those flags, shaded you all from the line of this blog,that is socialist unity.
Andy Newman on said:
#147
“As Andy shows his not so hidden homophobia rises to the surface when dealing with queers who don’t behave as he deems appropriate. “
oh bollocks.
I am equally unpleasant to everyone, whatever their sexual orientation.
You will recall that the original artice is in defence of Scott Long, head of HRW’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programme
What we are dealing with here is a political dispute about how we negotiate the complicated social terrain of dealing with sexual identities, sexual inclinations and social and religious attitudes to them.
there is a particular strand of politics among some gay activists that I think is dangerous and wrong, and also counterproductive to LGBT rights. but to say that because I have political disagreements with a particular political position means that I am homophobic is just silly.
Pete Shield on said:
Not it not Andy, you just don’y like stroppy queens, and in particular Peter T.
This fact seems to cause you to start frothing at the mouth and go into a rather unattractive lather.
Calm down, drink a cup of Marmite, sit in a dark room for a while, have a nap, do something positive, paint the kitchen for example.
Pete Shield on said:
“You will recall that the original artice is in defence of Scott Long, head of HRW’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programme”
Exactly good queers vs bad queers.. now get on with the kitchen otherwise it will never get finished..
Jonny Mac on said:
‘but to say that because I have political disagreements with a particular political position means that I am homophobic is just silly.’
I agree. Shame some of the people here can’t see that when it comes to flinging round accusations of racism and islamaphobia.
Andy Newman on said:
I am perfectly happy for people to be stroppy, the question is whether I agree with the politica aganda they are promoting through that stroppyness.
So the “good” and “bad” people argument is no more true than any other political issue where I agree more with some people than others.
Now given that the behaviours and attitudes that I have criticised from Peter tatchell are completely unconnected with his sexuality, then it is hard to see how you can sustain a charge of homophobia.
Pete Shield on said:
‘but to say that because I have political disagreements with a particular political position means that I am homophobic is just silly.’
I would agree if what the previous 150 comments and the original article comprised of was actually a political debate.
But it isn’t it is a spiteful character assassination.
Has Peter sued, we don’t know but that hasn’t stopped an assertion being cast as fact.
Does Peter support sex with under aged boys, no but that hasn’t stopped Andy going off on one.
It may not be homophobia but its something dark and personal, and what it most certainly is not is politics.
Pete Shield on said:
Sorry Andy,
I have a lit of time for all the superb work you have done on Socialist Unity but this is a bit weird to say the least.
John Meredith on said:
“ow given that the behaviours and attitudes that I have criticised from Peter tatchell are completely unconnected with his sexuality, then it is hard to see how you can sustain a charge of homophobia.”
The claims you made are completely detached from reality since you can produce absolutely no evidence for them and the people you are ‘defending’ have just gone on record to say that they are false.
lone nut on said:
“Does Peter support sex with under aged boys, no”
Well Outrage want the age limit to be lowered, don’t they?
John Meredith on said:
“Well Outrage want the age limit to be lowered, don’t they?”
They want it lowered across the board (along with a lot of social workers of various stripes)but they don’t advocate underage sex. They have a problem with the idea that two 15-year-olds mutually masturbating are ‘rapists’ I guess. Wierdos.
Pete Shield on said:
“The law on the age of consent should take into account the fact that over 50 percent of young people have their first sexual experience before they are 16. Consenting sex involving partners under 16 should not be prosecuted, providing they are of similar ages and there is no evidence of pressure, manipulation or exploitation.” Peter Tatchell
Hardly a defence of paedophilia there Lone Nut.
Andy Newman on said:
Pete
I have never said that Peter supports sex with under age boys. I have been responsding to an argument from John Meredith, who says that sex with minors is not always rape.
Now I wouldn’t defend the political level of the ensuing debate, but the original artice above does have politics, both in signposting people to the substantive arguments from Scott Long, and Tauqir et al, and also givng an outline of their political critique that some of the soi-dissant solidarity work with Iranian gays is counter-productive, and has more to do with positioning of LGBT rights advocacy in the West than it has to do with the victims of oppression in Iran.
Now you can disagree with that, but it is a clearly political argument, and one that is part of a serious and sustained crtique of Peter Tatchell’s politics by Long, Tauqir and others.
it is therefore also a political question that these criticisms by Long, Tauqir and others were not responded to politically, but by a campaign of delegitimisation, accusations of smearing, falsehoods and slanders.
Becasue I have objected to the consensus, and defended Scott Long, Tamsila Tauqir and others, there has been a hysterical reaction from some people, see Derek Wall at #2 above, and Sunny Hundal at #13, which frames any subsequent debate in an apolitical way.
Now you may be quite happy with Peter tatchel’s behaviour over this. But the criticisms of his politics will not go away simply because of the bullying response it receives.
Andy Newman on said:
#160
“Consenting sex involving partners under 16 should not be prosecuted, providing they are of similar ages and there is no evidence of pressure, manipulation or exploitation.”
well said Peter.
But the application of the law of consent already does take that into account, for public policy considerations, and a prosecution for mutualy consensual sex would be extremely rare.
there are however child protection issues at stake, and children under the age of 16 are entitled to the protection of adults, so it would be quite wrong to change the law.
John Meredith on said:
“I have been responsding to an argument from John Meredith, who says that sex with minors is not always rape.”
Except that he has made no such argument. Oh well.
Andy Newman on said:
#164
see #84 above.
You argued quite explictly that there is a difference between rape and consensual sex; and therefore consensual sex involving a minor is not rape.
see #95 above
You argued quite exlicitly that a 12 year old could have sex without it being rape.
John Meredith on said:
“Now you can disagree with that, but it is a clearly political argument, and one that is part of a serious and sustained crtique of Peter Tatchell’s politics by Long, Tauqir and others …it is therefore also a political question that these criticisms by Long, Tauqir and others were not responded to politically, but by a campaign of delegitimisation, accusations of smearing, falsehoods and slanders.”
And once again: the argument is silly and trivial, but they are entitled to make it and Tatchell will argue his case as ever. All he has objected to are the smears. Not ‘accusations of smears’ but smears that have been accepted as such by the people who made them. This is not a difficult point to grasp, surely.
John Meredith on said:
“You argued quite explictly that there is a difference between rape and consensual sex.”
You disagree?
“You argued quite exlicitly that a 12 year old could have sex without it being rape.”
Sex with other 12 year olds Andy, you somehow forgot to mention that bit. And I wouldn’t call it an argument so much as a passing comment. Your position on the other hand is that two girls who have consensual sex at fifteen are both rapists and have both been raped. But the law should do nothing about it. Which is the sort of faff that I find it hard to be interested in arguing about.
Pete Shield on said:
I hear what you are saying Andy, and ironically I agree with some of what your are saying about the political debates that are necessary about the best way to show international solidarity on human rights.
The problem is you have chosen a rather stick and grey sea to stick your paddle in.
On one side you have the legitimate political debate.
On the other you have the mud slinging.
The problem with the article is that interweaves the two, and the following arguments seem more about the mud slinging than the politics.
In my mind it is never a good idea to intervene in a cat fight, you just end up getting scratched.
Bob on said:
On the subject of the age of consent, when the campaign was underway to change the law to bring the age limit for gay sex into line with that for heterosexual sex, Tatchell cut across the campaign by demanding that the age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone.
This was in circumstances where reactionary homophobes were resisting any change in the age of homosexual consent on the spurious grounds that it would encourage paedophiles to abuse young boys. Tatchell played right into their hands. I remember a gay acquaintance making that point to me quite forcefully at the time.
When we hear the argument that an attack on Tatchell is an attack on all gay men, it’s worth recalling that large sections of the LGBT community regard Tatchell as a disruptive egotist whose irresponsible actions damage the people whose interests he claims to be defending.
John Meredith on said:
“When we hear the argument that an attack on Tatchell is an attack on all gay men, it’s worth recalling …”
When I eventually do hear someone make that argument, I will try to recall.
Pete Shield on said:
Bob -agreed, not one of his finer moments. I remember that moment well- with a head in hands groan.
Pete Shield on said:
But I also agree with John the ranks are not rising to defend Peter as the embodiment of the entire LGBT community- just against a rather flimsy character assassination.
The man is far from a saint but he ain’t the devil either.
Andy Newman on said:
#171
But Scott Long’s article is not a flimsy character assasination, and nor is the argument from Tamsila Tauqir and others. they present substantive political criticisms.
It is this relatively succesful effort by Peter Tatchell to frame the debate in terms of “smears” and “character assasination” that delegitimises debate, so for example abouve John Meredith simply dismisses Scott Long with “the argument is silly and trivial”
John on said:
#143
Jonny Mac, perhaps you could regale us with your track record of defending the human rights of Muslims in this country.
I’m sure such a track record would add some substance to your neverending and pompous tirade against what you consider to be retrograde cultures and societies across the Muslim world.
Tosser.
John Meredith on said:
“But Scott Long’s article is not a flimsy character assasination, and nor is the argument from Tamsila Tauqir and others. they present substantive political criticisms.”
They may do, unfortunately they lard them with libels and misrepresentations and smears as they themselves (Long at any rate)admit. As their publishers admit too. Oh, and Human Rights Watch. You are asking for a lot of interpretative generosity if you want readers to put to one side the known propensity of an author to lie about the facts of a matter.
Pete Shield on said:
.. and you played right into his hands Andy by confusing the political with the personal, as did the authors by including personal attacks with legitimate political criticism.
I am sure at times Peter can be a hard guy to like, but that doesn’t mean that its open season. The authors criticism would have been much more powerful if they had stuck to the facts. The arguments they make are strong and near airing, but because they couldn’t hold themselves back they have resulted in limiting their audience.
Andy Newman on said:
I think we have been around the block enough times on this, so I will let Pete Shield at #175 have the last word