kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Haven't agreed with everything he's said or done, but an awesome campaigner nonetheless...
Peter Tatchell...
- Thread starter cantsin
- Start date
Combustible
Well-Known Member
He has explicitly stated that he wants information on the Pope and would out him if he has had gay relationships. Not that I particularly disagree with him.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Mr Tatchell's valid points about unequal treatment of underage homosexuals and heterosexuals are moot since the law on sexual offences was overhauled in 2003. His point about criminal responsibility is valid, and I think full criminal responsibility should only kick in at 18.
Sixteen is the right age of consent, but under 16s shouldn't be criminalised, as the law is supposed to protect them, not punish them. (Although lying about your age should be an offence, if it isn't already.) Beyond that, Mr Tatchell takes a 1960s line about "sexual experimentation" I have no time for (what useful data do these "experiments" propose to reveal?), but on his chosen terms, he puts over a good argument.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I thought that article started poorly but improved later. The argument that it should be lowered because a third had experienced such encounters at a younger age is flawed. If it was reduced to 14 on that basis it is plausible that some would argue to drop it to 12 because a third of the new grouping were likewise affected.
I liked the idea of basing punishment on age differential, there are far too many young people penalised for sex with those under the present age limit, but only just younger than themselves.
I believe that law in the UK (perhaps less so in Scotland) has become far too rigid. It is far too much about the law as an absolute, rather than a guide to justice.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
tbh, he was the wrong candidate for that byelection; we needed an alley cat who could & would get down and dirty in the gutter with O'Grady and Hughes.
Cos they sure did, but he didn't, look what happened.
Excellent, gutsy campaigner since then tho
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
Are you ex-Militant, Streathamite?
Seem to remember the Millies were pushing for one of their guys, a local bricklayer (name escapes me) to get the PPC, arguing that a gay Australian social worker wasn't the best candidate to get elected in Bermondsey. Some would say they were proved right but the defeat had far more to do with the treachery of the rightwingers.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I sure am, but wasn't a milllie at that point. They were also no help in that by-election, but couldn't agree more re; the right. I have utter contempt for Mellish & O'Grady
dennisr
the acceptable face
John Byrne - he still lives in Southwark and is still a brickie. And no - that was not the Militant's arguement - it would have been about politics (its what you used to discuss in the LP).
I don't even know if he was an alternative candidate - he did stand in the next election - after Hughes by-election victory but could not overturn the Hughes majority. Hughes campaign used a homophobic campaign to their advantage.
I still think highly of Peter (some examples of why have already been pointed out on this thread) and the Militants supported his election campaign during the by-election - but we would differ on the way forward for socialists then and now. I respect the fact he has remained true to the soft-left views he held then - probably further to the left now - unlike many of the london left from the time. You could argue that what Peter represented then means that sexuality is not the divisive issue it was then, now
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
Ooh, bitchy. That's all first hand from a good ex-RSL/Socialist Appeal friend in the Bermondsey constituency, dennis. He was involved in the hustings, selection etc but no doubt you know better.
If I remember correctly Byrne did extremely well in the 87 election, with a large swing against the national trend.
dennisr
the acceptable face
- I probably don't but I based my point on the many Southwark militants I know (mainly SP members...) who were there at the time. I live in Southwark now but was not involved locally then. The alternative arguments would have been about the politics - although I'm guessing some individuals would have been a bit more crude. Yep, not enough though given the national swing against labour at the time - would have been a fourth 'workers mp on a worker wage'. I cam up to london for a couple of weeks to campaign - first experience of meeting old time mosleyites on some of those estates - weird place southwark
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
OK, it may be more accurate to say that The Militant itself put forward the arguments you describe around politics but I'm quite certain that several people involved on the ground did use more crude arguments in favour of Byrne over Tatchell. Anyway, it's a long time ago now, and as above the blame for Hughes' win really lies with Mellish and O'Grady (and Hughes' dirty campaign).
And, as you say, Southwark is a strange place. As anyone who's been in the away end at Millwall knows.
And, as you say, Southwark is a strange place. As anyone who's been in the away end at Millwall knows.
You mean John BRYAN.
dennisr
the acceptable face
JHE
.
Yeah, and no thanks to the anti-gay Millies of the time! I entirely accept that the SP has a sane attitude to homosexuality now, but I haven't forgotten the nasty bonkers anti-gay twaddle from Millies I came across in the early eighties.
I don't agree with it, but it's hardly a two exclaimation mark job. The trouble with Tatchell's position is that it lacks nuance, and he fails to recognise the very real disparity of power and understanding that exists between, say, a 20 year old and a 14 year old.
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
^^ This, the man must have problem walking with balls that big.. Trying to citizen arrest Mugabe when he was surronded by his heavies, Peter yer loon..
dennisr
the acceptable face
Then your memory is very faulty. Unless you can show any evidence of 'anti-gay' twaddle? Or the role played by Militants in Peter's election?
The position was not right - but was corrected by the membership. It certainly was not homophobic though. It saw gay rights as of secondary importance which was wrong.
JHE
.
I'm not talking about Southwark. I had no experience of Southwark in that period and, though I knew of the election from the national media, I had no involvement in it.
I am talking about Millies in that period - and my memory is not at all faulty.
At the time, I lived not in London but in the West Country. I had friends in the LPYS and, since I was in those days a keen seller of Social Worker (
), I knew and often had discussions with Millie paper-sellers.
I have no respect for Millies/SPers who now try to deny the anti-gay views (and worse) of Millies in those days.
I am talking about Millies in that period - and my memory is not at all faulty.
At the time, I lived not in London but in the West Country. I had friends in the LPYS and, since I was in those days a keen seller of Social Worker (
), I knew and often had discussions with Millie paper-sellers.I have no respect for Millies/SPers who now try to deny the anti-gay views (and worse) of Millies in those days.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Then the feeling is mutual.
So you were a swappie - that explains quite a lot
I was a member - 'supporter' - from 1982-3 (i think). My full time rep was (and still is...) gay. One of the first public meetings we organised (LPYS) on our estate (Leigh Park - Pompey) was on gay rights - he was the speaker. So I hope you can both understand why I think you may have 'memory' problems
JHE
.
That would have been utterly unimaginable in Bristol at the time. I do not mean that the Millies there showed no sign of having discussed the question. On the contrary, they showed every sign of having been briefed against the 'petit bourgeois' 'ultra left' 'not part of the Labour Movement' view. They would have no truck with gay liberation. The people whose views they objected to obviously included the Social Workers and other sects (of which more in a moment), but also many ordinary Labour Party left-wingers and 'non-aligned' socialists.
The line the Millies I argued with took was a weird pseudo-Marxist load of bonkers twaddle. Homosexuality was not a working class phenomenon. It was something found among the petit bourgeois and would disappear under socialism.
These are the ideas that more recently have been propounded by the Tanky sect run by Royston Bull.
The worst that I knew of went beyond spouting pseudo-Marxist anti-gay rubbish. One young man I knew in the LPYS had two bad points, from the point of view of the Millies, who, as you know, dominated the LPYS in those days: (1) he was a member (or, like you, a "supporter") of what was then called Socialist Organiser (now the AWL) and (2) he was gay. At a West Country LPYS camp, he came in for a bit of stick (figuratively) for these two failings and he went to bed rather earlier than many other people. He was woken by a group of drunken Millies standing around his bed pissing on him! No, that's not figurative or in any way an exaggeration. They pissed on him.
So I hope you can both understand why I think you may have 'memory' problems
I don't know what you really believe, but I do know this much: Trots, given half a chance, protest against Stalinist airbrushing. Good. I'm against attempts to airbrush the Millies anti-gay nonsense.
The events I've described were more than a quarter of a century ago, and I do not bear grudges against people just for having been young foolish and Trot all that time ago, but I insist on telling it as it was.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
This is both an exaggeration and misrepresentation, IMO & IME and ibid your latter posts. There were certainly minority elements within millies, who were both sexually conservative and downright idiotic on such issues, and the line 'gay pride is a diversion from the REAL class issues' was heard far too often, from othwerwise intelligent people, but there were just as many millies who I worked with who were 100% sound and enlightened on sexual politics.
you're more on-target with the sectariism thing, tbh.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
I was briefly in LPYS in early eighties and new a few Millies in Brighton, many had eccentric views and illusions about the Labour Party, but never came across any homophobia in their ranks. But like other posters have said on here this may vary from area to area, but I doubt it.
If any Trot sect were it would have been WRP at the time.
If any Trot sect were it would have been WRP at the time.
Rod Sleeves
New Member
We had Tatchell speak at an ID card debate against Burnham. Thought he was very good and knowledgble. Wouldn't say he was single issue, although most activsts have an issue that is closer to their heart don't they? Lot's of people who are 'single issue' have just chosen to specialise their skills like a laser to get something done.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Which I did. This was the early eighties. I don't have a problem with saying where we were wrong - the picture you paint - the idea the Militant was actively homophobic - is also wrong
It was the first time I had ever considered LGBT rights - i was 16 (maybe still 15) and had never really encountered such questions. And it was the Militants that raised this - linking the question to the issues I did immediately relate to.
Got in contact with that then full-timer, by chance, after 20 odd years only a couple of months ago - he's a book author now, previously local radio dj, living in paris.
Mmm, having spoken to a fair few gay socialists who were active at the time, your experience was far from typical.
dennisr
the acceptable face
The smaller groupings in the LPYS had this (and anti-black sections position) as their raison-d-etre - their stick to beat us with. Its all they had, and just about all they ever raised at the LPYS conferences - so painted a very distorted picture. I am sure you would find this colours their re-collections even now. As I am sure you will find a few of the idiots around us reflecting wider societies prejudices - also reflecting the wide base of support we had than the rest of the left. How else were such ideas to be countered - through class politics or through tokenism?
Ideas have to be fought for and were within our own organisation. LGBT members of that organisation played the key role in changing older prejudices. The origin of the 'petty-bourg deviation' idea went along with the old leadership of the party - with Ted Grant specifically. It was a product of its time and the generation of the folk spouting such rubbish - It was never 'acceptable' to the entire organisation. But - I will repeat - the Militant was never actively homophobic. The Militant/SP LGBT Pamphlets are among our biggest sellers. We have a very active LGBT section. We have a solid history of probably 20 years now raising gay rights in a manner no-one here would find less than examplary. Usually the biggest left group visible at pride events - including both LGBT and non-LGBT members.
Similar threads
