These are just a few incomplete thoughts from the general election that occurred in December. I’m trying to get out of the habit of leaving stuff in draft on this blog and that means sometimes the posts will be rough around the edges. But anyway, for the last couple of years I’ve watched as various politicians from Labour, the Green Party and the Lib Dem parties have helped to fuel the misogyny within the gender debate. From the Green Party’s ‘non-men’ comment when describing women, to the Labour Party appointing a 19 year old boy as women’s officer and everything in between. There has been a level of ridiculous I never expected to see from professionals who are supposed to act as representatives for the general public.Continue reading “Abusive Cycle of Politics and Voting.”
When it comes to social groups with a message to spread it is easy to spot those who are only out for themselves. For one, you’re likely to know exactly what they look like because there’s a shit ton of pictures of them and they’re usually quick to accept any offer of a photo op irrespective of who it’s with. Two; they will have little to no history of activity in activism or leanings toward improving social consciousness in whatever area it is they’ve wandered into. And three; It’s usually the result of an apparently radical shift in thinking which mostly occurs during a life crisis. This can be anything from job loss to divorce, kids getting older, or a partner cheating. Could be anything, but it’s always something which affects the person’s status or psyche in some way. The younger ones may have a different agenda but they’re not necessarily innocent or naive with their intentions.Continue reading “Is the Cult of Personality Compatible with Activism?”
Demands of self id now
I wish you hadn’t put your blog on private. I was enjoying reading that. And not just the recent stuff…I’d gone all the way back to the beginning. But anyway. . .Continue reading “Lisa M”
Nope. Not a typo fer twerking. Tweaking.
Recent disappointments have led to an inevitable reexamination of focus and what role I actually want to play in the trans debate. I may, or may not, talk about the specifics of those disappointments in coming weeks but right now, my consideration has to be given to how much of my focus is given to supporting Trans-identified Males.Continue reading “Tweaking”
Purity politics are rapidly becoming the go-to words to shutdown debate and complaint. More recently I’ve seen it pulled into conversation when someone, usually of a lower social standing, makes a complaint about someone standing alongside a known ‘right-wing’ organisation. I know this isn’t limited to women in feminism because I’ve seen it used elsewhere online but it is always used when a person’s political values are being challenged because of a questionable alliance. It’s certainly easier to throw in a catchy label rather than take the time to justify the reasoning behind giving support to a group which have a shit-load of views you wouldn’t ordinarily be seen to spout yourself. What concerns me is the apparent lack of good faith in doing so.Continue reading “Purity Politics & the wheels on the bus. . .”
Silence can be violent. I’m not sure what that means for those who are fond of meditating or those who preach of silence being golden, or even if it means anything at all. The silence I refer to here is that which takes place after a fight, or instead of an argument – the stuff that occurs on an interpersonal level.Continue reading “Silence as an act of aggression”
I love the term psychological gargoylism which was probably coined by M.Scott Peck. It’s the only reason I’m writing any of this at all. I actually just wanted to put the term out there, the rest of this post may well be no more than window dressing.
But for now, it’s about those kids…..Continue reading “Psychological Gargoylism – A keeper of a phrase?”
An argument has kicked off on Twitter within the last few days, although I know things have been brewing for weeks between two of the main players and I’ll explain why as I go. My own reason for wading in with my not-so-large size five’s is simple enough; I’m sick of fucking wankers maintaining a good social standing.
Who is Peter Tatchell and What’s He Done?
Peter Tatchell is a prominent campaigner on the LGBT scene, and he’s known in the human rights arena. I’ve seen his name come up on two previous occasions within the last month. The first time: He was mentioned in an online group I like; the comment was something akin to ‘even Peter Tatchell agreed with the judgement‘. The case was the highly publicised gay wedding cake fiasco which saw Christian bakers hauled through the courts for refusing to ice a cake with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage‘. The recent appeal at the Supreme Court saw previous decisions overturned on the basis that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe‘.
Julie Bindel Enters the Arena
The second time takes a little more explaining. Julie Bindel, a writer, radical feminist, and co-founder of Justice for Women was no-platformed at an event, the Truth to Power Cafe, established by Jeremy Goldstein, which celebrates free speech. Index on Censorship, a UK based international campaigning publishing organisation for freedom of expression, gave open support to Julie and withdrew their support from the event in protest. In the meantime (oct 27th), this happened:
Tatchell was asked to clarify or confirm he didn’t know of Bindel’s no-platforming and then asked to condone the incident and follow through with a show of support by declining the invitation. He didn’t do either of those things. Although, in the end he didn’t get to speak. The event host cancelled because of the controversy citing ‘due to the changing nature of this event, we feel we can no longer guarantee it as a safe space, particularly for our young artists‘. At the time of writing, social media for Truth to Power Cafe was still not active. I’ll assume they took some heavy hits from the backlash that ensued after Julie, quite rightly, called them out on their hypocrisy.
Fast forward to the 8th of November and we have arrived at:
Posted at the link we find this:
The trigger for a reaction from Julie Bindel was this tweet by Peter Tatchell:
Bindel reacted because she knows Tatchell understood full well that white feminists such as herself have been speaking out against all of those issues; often facing accusations of racism when they do. Julie Bindel knew he was having a dig at people like her for voicing valid concerns regarding the trans debate in this country.
The Apologist Mentality & The Backdoor Acceptance of Abuse – Structural Defects
It needs to be made clear there’s no evidence that Peter Tatchell is a paedophile; other than his blatant campaigning to lower or remove the age of consent, there’s no suggestion he has committed any offences against children. Back in 2000, he campaigned to get the age of consent for homosexual sex lowered to 16 to bring it in line with the heterosexual age of consent; I can fully understand and support that action. However, it was only two years after that he joined/made an attempt to further lower the age of consent to fourteen – I find that slightly disturbing. That he has repeatedly made references to knowing adults, who as 9-13 year olds enjoyed sexual contact with adults, adds a further layer of mistrust in his ability to think critically and also his ability to pass healthy judgement. He’s certainly not the kind of person who should be considered safe around children because he seems unaware of safeguarding risks.
I’ve got to be honest here; I do think people can be stupid and ignorant enough to support ideas which are clearly abusive yet not be abusive in that same regard themselves. That being said, I’d rather not see those people in positions of trust due to a high likelihood of them turning a blind eye to said abusive behaviours. The bottom line for me is, I simply wouldn’t trust them to do the right thing if they’re mentally fixed on supporting a specific position. The likes of Peter Tatchell are commonplace and it’d be rare to find a human who hasn’t made the mistake of justifying the shitty actions of a friend, but where do we draw the line?
People who have got away with sexual abuse and rape off the back of their reputation in other areas are being exposed far too late in their game. I’m thinking of rapists such as Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, and Jimmy Saville. We’ve been saturated with examples of men who commit widespread abuse whilst retaining and enjoying the benefits of their high social status. We have a small number of abusers and many times more people who are prepared to justify abusive acts despite not being outwardly shitty themselves. How many people knew about Weinstein, Saville, Polanski? For fucks sake, Hollywood was STILL praising Polanski even after he was convicted for anally raping a 13-year-old girl. If we’re serious about tackling child rape and sexual abuse this has to stop. One way it can be stopped is by removing the support network and that DOES mean the likes of Peter Tatchell and others of his ilk. The apologists and excusers need to be publicly criticised when it is known they’ve stayed silent; or worse, when they have publicly endorsed an abusive person. Why shouldn’t they be ostracised for being complicit?
Peter Tatchell should never have been allowed to retain his social position once his views were known. The fact he uses his public role as a champion of human rights to downplay his apologist stance towards paedophilia is a clear sign of system failure. The Peter Tatchell Foundation reeks of a personal agenda to secure himself as a champion. I mean come on, how fucking arrogant do you need to be to set up a foundation in your own name – doesn’t someone else usually do that after you’re dead? The man is out for glory and clearly wants his name to be remembered as something which represents something. In his case, champion of LGBT rights and whatever else he claims to be a defender or champion of. The likes of Peter Tatchell, who can hide behind a position of trust and esteem whilst undermining efforts to protect vulnerable humans are a blight, on society and should never be considered an asset.
The Guardian, The Green Party and the Labour Party have all openly endorsed Peter Tatchell despite knowing his standpoint on the age of consent, that he wrote a chapter in a book written and published by paedophiles, and that he wrote a glowing obit for a known paedophile. This post isn’t saying anything about Tatchell that hasn’t already been said for years; the question for me, and my reason for writing is – how are we ever going to arrive at a point where we have zero tolerance for the sexual abuse of minors if people like him are allowed to continue building their reputations whilst simultaneously undermining the moral and ethical foundations on which we are basing the protections we have in place?
Resources & further reading:
Peter Tatchell wrote the obituary for Ian Dunn, a founding member of PIE (paedophile information exchange) – it’s here. Not even a slight hint towards the fact he was a known paedophile… (1998)
An article on an interview he had with a child. At best, highly inappropriate – at worst, reeks of something far more fucking sinister.
An article Peter Tatchell wrote for the Guardian in support of lowering the age of consent. (2009)
Another Peter Tatchell article setting out his ideas for sex education for children. Once again he hones in on the 8-9 age range as an early starting point. (2016)
Bindel wrote about the wider problem of child abuse and mentioned Tatchell’s attitude in this article back in 2001.
The Sambia Tribe Tatchell mentions as being a possible ‘role model’ for western attitudes towards child sexuality. Notice the lack of detail regarding ‘healthy adult relationships’ between men and their wives.