GerrardWinstanley
28th November 2012, 14:33
Sorry, I needed to get this off my chest.
A story emerged (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/27/32256/) on the Internet yesterday that Saint Peter, for the second time (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/aizura231009.html), sued a small publisher (this time Routledge, Taylor and Francis) for printing material critical of him. The first publisher to be sued by Tatchell was the ironically named, Raw Nerve Books, which accused Tatchell of Islamophobia. Anybody who knows anything about English libel laws knows that they are among the most censorious in the world. The litigent in a defamation case is not required to produce any proof that they were libelled or slandered and that it is the defence that must prove they were telling the truth (impossible most of the time). Some accused the written apology issued by Raw Nerve of having been dictated to by Tatchell. (http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2009/9/7/from-the-life-of-st-peter.html)
Yesterday, he announced his legal victory against yet another publisher. It concerned an article from three years ago (that I'm sure few people even read) by Human Rights Watch's Scott Long. Islamophobia reared its ugly head again. In it, Tatchell was criticised for his "bullying tone" against muslims and for writing about a violent sexual assault on a teenage girl in which he blamed the victim. I don't know why we are not allowed to read this, but I'm sure Tatchell will be pleased he has one less critic to worry about.
Now I don't know what it is he wrote about that sexual assault or about whom he was writing. But Tatchell has a long history of working alongside Islamophobes such as Maryam Namazie and neocon Zionist Douglas Murray's pressure group, the Henry Jackson Society and of attacking the muslim communityfor perceived epidemic in domestic violence and "honour killings". This is typical Orientalist language that forgets the fact that two women are murdered by their partners every week in the UK. But I just found it very funny, as follower of his on Twitter that he also happens to be an enthusiastic partisan of #teambreezy and tells Chris Brown's detractors that he is genuinely sorry for what he did and "everybody deserves a second chance". I'm not joking. (https://twitter.com/petertatchell/status/204348649973620737) This is a man who would be bewildered at the suggestion he was anything other than a model feminist.
Another dimension to Tatchell's hypocrisy is that he also fancies himself a defender of free speech. He defended the case of Adrian Smith, the homophobic employee of Trafford Housing Trust to fight against his demotion and provided him legal assistance, which won Tatchell much praise from the rightwing establishment and even the Christian Right. Here is what he said when Adrian won his case.
"In a democratic society, Adrian has a right to express his point of view, even if it is misguided and wrong.
"Freedom of speech should only be limited or penalised in serious circumstances, such as when a person incites violence against others. Mr Smith's words did not cross this threshold.That's right. These the words of the litigious narcissist Peter Tatchell who will not even respect the right of human rights campaigners and academics to criticise him and blemish his spotless image in the media.
I'm really sorry if this post looks like a character assassination. I understand Tatchell's popularity. He was part of the original Gay Liberation Front and put himself in a lot of danger to speak up for gay rights back in the 70's, 80's and 90's (which was an awful time for the gay community) but in my opinion, for the past 15 or so years, he has degenerated into just another hypocritical liberal and actually something of a bully.
A story emerged (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/27/32256/) on the Internet yesterday that Saint Peter, for the second time (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/aizura231009.html), sued a small publisher (this time Routledge, Taylor and Francis) for printing material critical of him. The first publisher to be sued by Tatchell was the ironically named, Raw Nerve Books, which accused Tatchell of Islamophobia. Anybody who knows anything about English libel laws knows that they are among the most censorious in the world. The litigent in a defamation case is not required to produce any proof that they were libelled or slandered and that it is the defence that must prove they were telling the truth (impossible most of the time). Some accused the written apology issued by Raw Nerve of having been dictated to by Tatchell. (http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2009/9/7/from-the-life-of-st-peter.html)
Yesterday, he announced his legal victory against yet another publisher. It concerned an article from three years ago (that I'm sure few people even read) by Human Rights Watch's Scott Long. Islamophobia reared its ugly head again. In it, Tatchell was criticised for his "bullying tone" against muslims and for writing about a violent sexual assault on a teenage girl in which he blamed the victim. I don't know why we are not allowed to read this, but I'm sure Tatchell will be pleased he has one less critic to worry about.
Now I don't know what it is he wrote about that sexual assault or about whom he was writing. But Tatchell has a long history of working alongside Islamophobes such as Maryam Namazie and neocon Zionist Douglas Murray's pressure group, the Henry Jackson Society and of attacking the muslim communityfor perceived epidemic in domestic violence and "honour killings". This is typical Orientalist language that forgets the fact that two women are murdered by their partners every week in the UK. But I just found it very funny, as follower of his on Twitter that he also happens to be an enthusiastic partisan of #teambreezy and tells Chris Brown's detractors that he is genuinely sorry for what he did and "everybody deserves a second chance". I'm not joking. (https://twitter.com/petertatchell/status/204348649973620737) This is a man who would be bewildered at the suggestion he was anything other than a model feminist.
Another dimension to Tatchell's hypocrisy is that he also fancies himself a defender of free speech. He defended the case of Adrian Smith, the homophobic employee of Trafford Housing Trust to fight against his demotion and provided him legal assistance, which won Tatchell much praise from the rightwing establishment and even the Christian Right. Here is what he said when Adrian won his case.
"In a democratic society, Adrian has a right to express his point of view, even if it is misguided and wrong.
"Freedom of speech should only be limited or penalised in serious circumstances, such as when a person incites violence against others. Mr Smith's words did not cross this threshold.That's right. These the words of the litigious narcissist Peter Tatchell who will not even respect the right of human rights campaigners and academics to criticise him and blemish his spotless image in the media.
I'm really sorry if this post looks like a character assassination. I understand Tatchell's popularity. He was part of the original Gay Liberation Front and put himself in a lot of danger to speak up for gay rights back in the 70's, 80's and 90's (which was an awful time for the gay community) but in my opinion, for the past 15 or so years, he has degenerated into just another hypocritical liberal and actually something of a bully.