FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Peter Tatchell on freedom of speech & under age sex

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:33 am    Post subject: Peter Tatchell on freedom of speech & under age sex Reply with quote

Do fascists have a right to free speech?

What limits, if any, should there be to freedom of expression? Peter
Tatchell interviews Luke Tryl, President of the Oxford Union, and
Brendan O'Neill, Editor of Spiked. Weyman Bennett of Unite Against
Fascism agreed to participate but he was unable to attend at the last
minute.

Watch the interview here:
http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=05d4c71ddc2f70ec3093e94e9777c83f

Peter Tatchell writes:

Should fascists have free speech? Or are some people so dangerous –
especially to minority race, sexuality and faith communities – that it
is legitimate to limit their freedom of expression?

Why should fascists be given free speech when they would, if given
half a chance, deny free speech to others?

Critics argue that right-wing extremists like Nick Griffin and David
Irving are either fascists or fascist sympathisers and apologists.
They say these men's ideas and policies are so threatening that they
should be denied public platforms in order to protect vulnerable
communities and in the interests of social cohesion and solidarity.

Black, gay, Jewish and Muslim people are the frequent victims of
fascist and neo-fascist hatred and harassment. They should be spared
the intimidation and fear that is often engendered by fascist ideas
and campaigns. Achieving a caring, compassionate society requires
restrictions on the promotion of hate and discrimination.

It is possible that if there had been no free speech and no platform
for Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1920s – if their meetings
and marches had been stopped – they may not have grown in strength and
influence. The Nazis might not have come to power and the Holocaust
and World War Two may not have happened.

Other people argue that the best way to defeat the far right is by
challenging and debunking their ideas through education and debate.
Fascist ideology doesn't stack up and can be demolished by rational,
informed argument. Suppression won't make their ideas go away. They
will fester underground. Open scrutiny and critique of fascist
policies is the most effective way to erode public support and
sympathy.

The issue has been bought to a head by the Oxford Union's decision to
hold a free speech debate on 26 November 2007, headlined by Nick
Griffin, leader of the neo-Nazi British National Party, and Holocaust
revisionist historian, David Irving.

Nick Griffin is the leader of a far right party that has a history of
promoting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and prejudice against
Muslims – and of using intimidation and violence. Griffin has a
conviction for inciting racial hatred. (1)

David Irving was branded by a British judge in 2006 as 'a racist, an
anti-Semite and an active Holocaust denier.' (2)

Support for free speech does not oblige the Oxford Union or any other
institution to reward these men with a prestigious public platform,
which will give them an air of respectability, raise their public
profile and allow them to espouse their intolerant views.

Under British law, Nick Griffin and David Irving still have the
freedom to espouse their views at any public meeting they wish to
organise, or in any leaflet they wish to print.

Inviting them to the Oxford Union is qualitatively different. It is
helping them propagate their bigotry. No institution is required, in
the name of free speech, to proactively promote the purveyors of
prejudice. Not offering hate-mongers a platform is not the same as
banning them.

The invitations to Griffin and Irving should be withdrawn by the
Oxford Union and alternative non-bigoted speakers invited to discuss
what limitations, if any, should be placed on freedom of expression.

Free speech is an important human rights issue that should not be
cheapened by the sensationalism of parading of pair of right-wing
extremists in the chamber of the Oxford Union.

Sources:

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm

(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm

Peter Tatchell is the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East.


--
Peter Tatchell is the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East
http://www.greenoxford.com/peter and http://www.petertatchell.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Row as Oxford Union votes to hear Irving

Mark Townsend
Sunday November 25, 2007
The Observer

The Oxford Union was accused last night of 'promoting anti-Semitism' after students voted to allow Holocaust revisionist David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address students tomorrow.

Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted by a margin of two to one in favour of permitting the two right-wing figures to speak at a free-speech event, despite demands that they be banned.

The decision provoked an immediate backlash. Former Europe minister Denis MacShane condemned the union for 'promoting anti-Semitism', while the university's Muslim and Jewish societies said that principles of freedom of speech were 'overshadowed in this instance'.

The union's president, Luke Tryl, defended the invitation by arguing that the pair were not being granted a platform to expound their views, but would discuss the limits of free speech.

Tomorrow night's event promises to be one of the most bitter in the 184 years of the union. Police are braced for violent clashes between students and far-right groups. Some students have already received death threats from extremists. A report of racial abuse towards an Asian person campaigning against the appearance of Irving and Griffin has been received by the union.

Even before the results of the vote, the prospect of the two men speaking at the union had forced the withdrawal of high-profile figures from other debates, including the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, and television presenter June Sarpong. MacShane, who also recently pulled out of a meeting at the union in protest, said: 'It's very sad. Anti-Semitism is now a growing world ideology and it's regrettable that the Oxford Union will be promoting it.'

Others have dismissed the invitations to Irving and Griffin as a publicity stunt by Tryl, who organised the vote following the furore over the possible inclusion of the rightwingers.

Recent reports had suggested that the decision to invite the two men by Tryl, chairman of the Halifax branch of Conservative Future, formerly known as the Young Conservatives, had left him increasingly isolated and that the vote would be too close to call. In the event, he won comfortably.

More than 1,000 people have signed a petition on the Downing Street website calling on Gordon Brown to condemn the talk.

Tryl - who describes himself as a 'very liberal, modern person' - has claimed that it is possible to abhor the views of Griffin and Irving while accepting their right to be heard. 'They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head-to-head manner,' said Tryl.

A previous statement by Tryl on the union's website states: 'Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free-speech martyrs, and ... groups like the BNP do well if they look as if they're being censored.'

Stephen Altmann-Richer, co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said: 'I don't think these people should be invited to the Oxford Union. By having them speak, it legitimises their views.'

Irving has served a prison sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial. Griffin has a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David Irving was jailed as a HC denier, when all he was doing was pointing out the 6million figure was an impossibility,AFAIK???

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Schindlers List is on the TV tonight!

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2

Dave Sherlock's:

http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum

http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
GazeboflossUK
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 312
Location: County Durham, North-East

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Newspeak International wrote:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Schindlers List is on the TV tonight!


You know, when I saw that on the TV guide I thought exactly the same. Wink

_________________
www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
spiv
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:08 am    Post subject: Contradictory statements..... Reply with quote

Peter Tatchell states "Under British law, Nick Griffin and David Irving still have the freedom to espouse their views at any public meeting they wish to organise, or in any leaflet they wish to print.

Inviting them to the Oxford Union is qualitatively different. It is helping them propagate their bigotry. No institution is required, in the name of free speech, to proactively promote the purveyors of prejudice. Not offering hate-mongers a platform is not the same as banning them
."

My admiration for him had been steadily climbing recently, but here it has taken a dent. Mr Tatchell supports freedom of speech, but then, in this comment, utterly destroys and contradicts what he supports. In other words, you can have freedom of speech as long as it conforms with Tatchell's viewpoint.

I would argue that freedom of speech is the freedom to argue with those whose viewpoints are in conflict with your own, not simply banning them from speaking. And besides, you don't have to go along and listen to those you disagree with.

In saying this, Tatchell shows his own bigotry. Such a pity from someone who normally, in my opinion, says some very good things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not followed Peter Tatchell views in the past,but going by your post spiv,it would seem he is another 2 faced spin merchant.

Do you have a link to this please?

Remember this from last year:

Quote:
John Bolton’s message was not well received at Oxford University


Quote:
Facing an increasingly hostile group of law students in an Oxford seminar that had somehow gone dreadfully wrong, beads of sweat began to pop out on John Bolton’s furrowed brow. Amidst a rising chorus of taunts, jeers, hisses and outright denunciations, Bolton was swiftly surrounded by his entourage of three American security agents and whisked out the door of the seminar room at Oriel College on Friday, the 9th of June.

Pursued by vocal recriminations from angry and frustrated American students who led the incisive questioning and the equally incisive jeering -- with taunts like, “You should be doing a better job!” Bolton bolted. He turned sharply on his heel and took flight out the door and then fled down the mediaeval passageway and into the relative safety and calm of his bullet-proof diplomatic limousine, Bolton swiftly headed out of Oxford, rudely foregoing the well-established tradition of lingering to talk with interested members of the audience.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2644

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2

Dave Sherlock's:

http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum

http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now he certainly should not have been allowed to speak.

His policies, his colleagues in government and his cabal actually drop bombs on people and kill them.

That global body of governance to which he was an ambassador was also responsible for genocidal sanctions against innocent Iraqi civilians.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Newspeak International wrote:
Not followed Peter Tatchell views in the past,but going by your post spiv,it would seem he is another 2 faced spin merchant.

Do you have a link to this please?



Please read my previous posts on Tatchell.
There have been long and bitter debates about him not least because leading people in the 911 movement apologise for his every word and behaving like groupies post up his every press release.
I disagree with virtually everything Tachell has ever said, written or done.

Read what Ken Livingstone has to say about Tatchell:
“Clearly, Tatchell, whom I strongly defended against homophobia when he was selected as the Labour candidate in Bermondsey 1983, has lost his political bearings and constructed a fantasy world in which the main threat we face, worse than the far right, is Islamic fundamentalist hordes.

It is not surprising that this approach takes him into a de facto alliance with the American neo-cons and Israeli intelligence services who want to present themselves as defending western "civilisation" against more "backward" civilisations in the Middle East and elsewhere.”

In my view Tatchell's words and actions should be taken in context with what Ken Livingstone makes crystal clear that his policies and words put him closer to the BNP than the Green party.

I again ask a question i asked before but nobody replied.
Tatchell is a Green party candidate this time around. How come he writes press releases about everything other than Green issues?


Dont be surprised if this thread gets deleted like the last ones because anti-Tatchell postings are not tolerated on this forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Guardian allow Max Hastings some free speech

Quote:
Students need to know what sort of dangerous people are out there

The Oxford Union was after easy publicity when it invited David Irving and Nick Griffin - but the debate can do no harm

Max Hastings
Monday November 26, 2007
The Guardian

On the Richter scale of notoriety, Harold Davidson, rector of Stiffkey, still rates near the top. Having been defrocked in 1932 for conducting a sex life exotic even by modern Church of England standards, he resorted to increasingly desperate methods to retain the attention to which he had become addicted.

His final gambit, in 1937, was to appear in a cage of lions at an amusement park in Skegness. One of the beasts, named Freddie, took exception. It mauled him before a large audience, which must have gone home feeling that the show had been worth twice the ticket money. The rector died two days later.

I have no idea whether Luke Tryl, the current president of the Oxford Union, has heard of Harold Davidson, but he favours the rector's methods. Tryl's society yesterday achieved priceless column inches in the Sunday papers, under the headline "Row as Oxford Union votes to hear Irving".

The Irving in question is, of course, David, recently liberated from an Austrian prison in which he served a sentence for Holocaust denial. The Oxford Union has invited him, along with the British National party leader Nick Griffin, to address a meeting tonight on free speech. A vote of the entire Oxford Union Society membership endorsed these invitations by two-to-one, at the cost of seeing several other prominent speakers withdraw.

The union, and for that matter all student debating societies, nowadays finds it difficult to generate publicity and lure audiences. In consequence, like TV broadcasters, it resorts to increasingly desperate measures to achieve sensation. The Irving invitation has induced the national media to take notice of tonight's Oxford event, in a fashion unthinkable if instead Harriet Harman or David Davis were the featured attractions.

It is hard to doubt that the union's motive in providing a platform for Irving and Griffin is a cynical one. Yet this still leaves me unconvinced that their appearance is heinous. Griffin leads a political group that possesses significant public support, chiefly for its opposition to mass immigration.

One of the most plausible charges against liberal Britain, and indeed against the government, is that they ignore the view of a host of people, especially in traditionally working-class areas, who are enraged by what is happening, and believe their own interests are being sacrificed to the incomers. Last year's book The New East End, by Geoff Dench, Kate Gavron and Michael Young, coolly but vividly illustrates the phenomenon.

It seems good for Oxford students to be exposed to the views of Griffin and his BNP, rather than spend their educational lives in a warm bath of Guardian decency. Members of the Union Society must be a sorry lot indeed if they are likely to catch the plague of intolerance and racism from a single evening's exposure to Griffin.

David Irving is interesting in a different way. Because I write books about the second world war, I have read almost everything he has published. Back in the 1970s, I applied to him for assistance in making contacts in Germany, and received this in full measure.

When I turned up at the doors of old Nazis, including Hitler's most intimate surviving aides, bearing an introduction from the sage of Duke Street, my welcome was ecstatic. "Ach, Herr Irving! A wonderful man. And what may I do for you, Herr Hastings?"

Their enthusiasm did not persist, I fear, after reading the works of my own which resulted. But I could endure Irving's possessing the most embarrassingly malodorous breath in London, because he provided access to people and material of historical importance.

Like Griffin, he is an unappetising human being. But so much abuse has been heaped on the man that it is often ignored that he is an energetic and original researcher, whose findings are not always perverted. His recent volumes on Churchill - self-published, because no commercial publishers would touch them - contain nuggets.

Hugh Trevor-Roper once described Irving's work Hitler's War as "the nearest thing we shall ever have to the autobiography the Fuhrer never wrote". No serious historian of the second world war can exclude Irving's books from the reading list. There now: I have provided a hostage to fortune. That sentence will no doubt pop up to embarrass me on the back jacket of Irving's next production.

Yet it is true, even if one goes on to add that he is an unashamed apologist for the Third Reich, and that most of his judgments are tortured and mistaken, sometimes grotesquely so. Such a person has usefulness, if only to test one's own ideas from the opposite polarity. Irving seeks to persuade us of some things that are not only wrong but wicked. He has also, however, provided historians with information and perspectives that help to shape our own quite different conclusions, as do some impenitent Stalinists and Maoists.

It may sound paradoxical to say that one of my first acts on becoming editor of the Evening Standard in 1996 was to tell Andrew Wilson, then its literary editor, that I was no longer willing to carry reviews written by Diana Mosley, who remained to the day of her death an admirer of Hitler.

I would have been willing to read, and perhaps publish, copy by Mosley discussing her experience as a fascist, in order that a new generation could consider and, please God, reject her views. But I could not stomach her as a regular contributor and colleague.

Irving, however, no longer seriously expects to be regarded as one of us. He is a spokesperson for the Nazi regime from its grave who almost relishes ostracism. Are we really so frightened of him in such a guise that we should refuse to hear what he says, even if we would not break bread with him?

Muslim extremists say worse and more dangerous things about Jews than Irving ever has. We excuse and even indulge them, because of our guilt about the role of Europe and the US in creating and sustaining the state of Israel. The president of Iran has denied the historical reality of the Holocaust in terms more extravagant than Irving's circumlocutions. He was recently invited to speak at New York's Columbia University, though there he somewhat temporised his views. Given the current relationship between Iran and the US, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance seemed to represent a triumph for democratic values.

Of course free speech is not an absolute. It would seem inappropriate to ask Irving to speak in, say, the Palace of Westminster or to present a historical documentary for the BBC. But universities are educational institutions. Most modern students are exposed not to an excess of extremist propaganda, but a dearth. They read and hear too much conventional woolly liberalism, some of it about modern history. They need to know what sort of extraordinary and sometimes dangerous people are out there.

Student debating societies have always been foolish, self-indulgent and irresponsible. We should cherish their right to remain so. Tonight's Oxford audience has things to learn from listening to Griffin and Irving. We should possess sufficient faith in its intelligence to believe that they will be the right ones.

comment@guardian.co.uk

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trevor Philips thinks otherwise as he too, is granted some free speech by the Guardian.

Quote:
Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, yesterday branded the invitation a disgrace, and anti-fascism campaigners, who fear members of the far right will also come to the city, claimed the safety of students could be at risk.

Phillips told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "As a former president of the National Union of Students, I'm ashamed that this has happened. This is not a question of freedom of speech, this is a juvenile provocation. What I would say to students at Oxford is: You're supposed to be brilliant. Put your brains back in your head.

"People fought and died for freedom of expression and freedom of speech. They didn't fight and die for it so it could be used as a sort of silly parlour game. This is just a piece of silly pranksterism and the issues are too serious to be left to that."

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackbear
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The following ....muslim hate site..has a guest post:

Do fascists have a right to free speech?

This is a guest post by Peter Tatchell

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

112 comments.....

"..You're banding around the word 'fascist' and 'Nazi' like a fifth-form student".....

Plenty of Zionist Nazis post on the above hate site. Why..Peter.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can someone explain this to me please:

Peter Tatchell who is not a fascist wrote:
Why should fascists be given free speech when they would, if given half a chance, deny free speech to others?

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark Gobell wrote:
Now he certainly should not have been allowed to speak.

His policies, his colleagues in government and his cabal actually drop bombs on people and kill them.

That global body of governance to which he was an ambassador was also responsible for genocidal sanctions against innocent Iraqi civilians.


Who are you referring to here, Mark?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The question at stake is whether the Oxford Union has done a service to free speech. They banned an anti-Zionist US Jewish academic, Norman Finkelstein, from speaking in a debate on Palestine last month then, apparently in order to demonstrate their commitment to free speech, invited the leader of a party noted for racism and an historian noted for holocaust denial/revision to speak this month.

A Jew was banned from speaking because they didn't like his pro-Palestinian opinions, while two figures noted for racist and anti-semitic opinions were invited. How does this advance the cause of free speech?

Is everyone obliged to invite reputed racists to speak to them if they are serious about free speech? If so, should we invite these two gentlemen to speak at the next 9/11 Truth Campaign AGM and ban any anti-Zionist Jew from the meeting?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Bolton
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackbear
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Road to World War Three
Rixon Stewart – February 3, 2006


A slightly revised version of this article was first posted nearly two years ago. However in the wake of events in Oxford last night, where protestors dirupted a debate about "free speech" involving Griffin and in view of renewed rioting in areas of Paris mainly populated by immigrants, we though it highly pertinent. Ed.

The acquittal and retrial of British National Party leaders on charges of inciting “racial hatred” was the lead item on BBC TV News broadcasts (1) Thursday night. Followed immediately by a report on the furore (2) in the Muslim community caused by cartoons depicting Mohammad.

On the face of it this might seem perfectly reasonable journalism but the juxtaposition of the two as lead items, when far more important things are going on – such as the war in Iraq or the possibility of an attack on Iran – reveals a darker agenda altogether.

First and foremost it must be pointed out that enmity between various groups is being deliberately fostered, no matter what the authorities say, and much of this is being done under the guise of “press freedom”. It’s a variation on the old theme of divide and rule and the juxtaposition and prominence given to these two stories is a perfect example of just how this is being achieved.

Nobody in the mainstream media will question why such a relatively unimportant item like the BNP story was given such prominence. Nor will they question why it was immediately followed by a story that in contrast seems almost guaranteed to provoke further friction and enmity.

Although that may have been the intention, don’t expect the mainstream media to tell you. Its function in the emerging New World Order is to shape and condition public perception, and in this particular case, to foment antagonism between the Islamic world and the West.

However, Nick Griffin’s acquittal and retrial is only part of a much bigger story that you won’t be hearing from the BBC.

When Nick Griffin was arrested and charged some months back, a contributor to this website, Dave Starbuck who personally knows Griffin, informed me that the trial would be a “show trial” and that Griffin would be acquitted. Sure enough he was: but to ensure that tension between various ethnic groups remains high, Griffin now faces a retrial. The authorities are, in a sense, furthering fuelling the fires of tension and enmity with the retrial.

But as Dave Starbuck informed us, Nick Griffin is in the pay of British Intelligence. Like George Bush (3), he has a known homosexual past that is used as a means to manipulate him: with threats of exposure, or tempt him with offers to gratify his perverted lusts

Either way, like George Bush (4) he’s very much a pawn for the powers that be.

According to Dave, Griffin ousted the former leader of the British National Party by careful manipulation and as soon as he took control of the party he altered policies and procedures to ensure he stayed in control. Anyone who disagreed with him was thrown out of the party while Griffin made a point of promoting cronies to prominence

At the behest of British Intelligence, he took control of the party in an effort to neutralise what may have become a genuine stumbling block to the New World Order. He also made a point of banning Dave’s adverts promoting alternative health remedies and alternative views of history from the party’s publication.

So Nick Griffin is no more than a stooge for the ruling elite and the prominence given to his acquittal and subsequent retrial are ploys to foment further internecine antagonism.

While Griffin’s acquittal was given much coverage, it was followed by another report that when seen in contrast seemed guaranteed to heighten tension still further.

As Griffin’s court appearance was playing out a series of cartoons appeared across Europe that incited anger among Muslims.

That may have been the intention, although don't expect the mainstream media to tell you. Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammad blasphemous but overnight cartoons featuring Muhammad appeared across Europe. Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain (5), Switzerland and Hungary all reprinted caricatures originally published in Denmark, while the BBC announced (6) that it too would broadcast the cartoons of the prophet.

The following day the Independent ran the two stories together on its front page, and asked “What price free speech”? While the Daily Express also ran both stories together on its front page under the headline: “The Price of Free Speech”.

Of course, it’s nothing of the kind. Far from being an expression of “Free Speech” it was an example of modern psychological warfare. A Psy-Ops carried out under the veil of a supposedly “free press” and intended to foment distrust and enmity between the Muslim world and ordinary Westerners.

Moreover, the seeds of this operation were first laid over a century ago. When satanic prophet and one of modern freemasonry’s founders, Albert Pike, first outlined a plan for three world wars (7).

According to Pike, agents of the Illuminati would provoke conflict between Britain and Germany leading to the First World War and the overthrow of Imperial Russia, turning Russia into a “fortress of atheistic communism”.

The Second World War was to be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between fascists and political Zionists, wrote Pike. Leading ultimately to the destruction of Nazism and the establishment of “a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine”.

These events have already occurred exactly as Albert Pike envisioned over a century ago, so perhaps we should take note of his vision of a Third World War.

Pike continued:

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue (by a massive influx of immigrants into Europe) will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…”

Unfortunately, there's worse to come because all this was intended as a prelude the rule of Satan, Pike wrote (Cool. So don't say you haven't been warned and don't think it will end with the next terror atrocity, staged or otherwise.

Unless people start waking up from their media induced apathy and illusions, things could be about to get much, much nastier. Although don't expect the BBC to tell you, they'll probably be too busy with televised celebrations to mark the inauguration of the planets new ruler.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4121

I believe the BNP does not do Zionist conspiracy theories anymore.!
On the acquittal of Griffin.........I am trying to remember the views of Tatchell....anyone help.!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 14342
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter Tatchell. Paedophile apologist? You decide.
http://monsterinthewardrobe.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/peter-tatchell-paed ophile-apologist-you.html
Monday, February 18, 2013
Peter Tatchell is a well known civil liberties and gay rights campaigner.

I have reproduced the text of a letter which Peter Tatchell wrote to the Guardian in 1997, defending the publication of a book called "Dares To Speak", on the subject of paedophilia. I have done this because the full letter is now difficult to find on the Internet. I have come across several Tatchell supporters who were unaware of the letter and it's content and who were shocked by it.

In view of the fact that many Tatchell supporters claim he is against paedophilia and fights against abuse, I think it's important that the full text of the letter is available for interested parties to read.

Is Peter Tatchell against paedophilia, or is he, in fact, a paedophile apologist? I know what I think. I invite you to read and decide for yourself.



Peter Tatchell's letter to the Guardian, dated 26 June 1997, is reproduced in full below

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 14342
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tatchell on sex with children


Under-age sex: Statement of clarification by Peter Tatchell

Adults should not have sex with children. I do not advocate paedophilia
London - 1 October 2012
http://petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/Under-age-sex-Stat ement-of-clarification-by-Peter-Tatchell.htm

As a human rights campaigner, I would never advocate or condone child sex abuse.

My critics have selectively quoted from what I've written and quoted me out of context, to give an entirely false and distorted impression. They ignore much of what I have written, including my proposals to protect young people against sex abuse and my ethical framework for all sexual relations: mutual consent, respect and fulfilment.

An age of consent of 14 or 15 exists in other European countries. I am against criminalising young people under 16 who have consenting, victimless sex with others of similar ages, where no one is harmed. Treating these young people as criminals is wrong. They need counselling, not prosecution.

Below is a lengthy detailed explanation of what I believe and why. You will see that it is very different from what my critics claim.

An example of my actual views was voiced in a speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield in 2010, where I addressed youth welfare and sex education professionals. See the text of my speech here:
http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-cons ent-of-14.htm

This speech was well received as a reasoned, thoughtful contribution to the public debate about the law and sexual expression / protection involving young people. See a copy below.

The campaign by BNP members to portray me as a paedophile, or paedophile advocate, is in revenge for my ambush of their leader Nick Griffin in 2010, where I shamed him over his party’s record of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and hostility to Muslims. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXEiYZPSzk8

The BNP smear campaign includes faked photos of me holding a Paedophile Information Exchange placard. The photo of me is recent but PIE ceased to exist three decades ago.

Guardian letter and Dares to Speak book

My 1997 Guardian letter about the book, Dares to Speak, gives the wrong impression. It was not what I submitted for publication. The published version omitted four key points that I made:

1. I oppose adults having sex with children. 2. I empathise with the victims of child sex abuse. 3. I agree that for the vast majority of children sex with adults is neither wanted nor joyful and 4. I believe an academic discussion of these issues, based on research and evidence, is legitimate and should not be misinterpreted as support for any form of child sex abuse.

The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.

Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.

Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.

I do not condone adults having sex with children. My Guardian letter about this book was in defence of free speech and open debate about the issue, in opposition to those who said that the book and the debate are not worthwhile or legitimate - and that any further discussion should be closed down. I was against the call for censorship. Even if Dares to Speak is entirely wrong, in a free society its authors have a right to be published and heard.

My Guardian letter cited examples of youths in Papuan tribes and some of my friends who, when they were under 16, had sex with adults (over 18s), but who do not feel they were harmed.

I was not endorsing their viewpoint but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the mainstream opinion about inter-generational sex. They have every right for their perspective to be heard.

Now mature adults, they look back on their under-age sexual relations with older people and do not feel that they were harmed. If this is their considered view, we should respect their evaluation (while also recognising that some people are harmed by early sexual experiences).

My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is "impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.

Here's an example of what I wrote in the Irish Independent in 2008:

Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-ag e-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html

“The time has come for a calm, rational debate about the age of consent. It should be premised on four aims. First, protecting young people against sex abuse. Second, empowering them to make wise, responsible sexual choices. Third, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex education. Fourth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV.”

You can see that I made protecting young people against sex abuse my first priority.

I have said similar things in many other articles and interviews.

None of these speeches and articles advocate or excuse child sex abuse.

Age of consent issue

It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But I support 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many young people who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.

More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexual experience (not necessarily full intercourse) by the age of 14, according to National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. They are currently treated as criminals, even if their partners are of similar ages (with a maximum sentence of five years custody for mutually consenting sexual contact, including mere sexual touching, kissing and fondling).

I do not advocate young people having sex at an early age. It is best if they wait. But I don’t agree that consenting 14 years olds should be dragged to court and threatened with prison and listing on the Sex Offenders Register. I certainly do not endorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.

My critics may disagree with me on the age of consent, but I have advocated a clear ethical stance and moral framework, which stresses sex with mutual consent, respect and fulfilment. My arguments and articles are not about abusing young people but protecting them. That's my motive.

Betrayal of Youth book

The critics also cite Warren Middleton's book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in paedophilia advocacy when I was asked to write my essay. The book was published in about 1982 – three decades ago. But some of my critics insinuate that was much more recent. Not true. When I was invited to write a chapter, I was told it was a book about children's rights and asked if I could write about the age of consent. It seemed a reasonable request at the time.

My chapter in the book did not endorse child sex. It merely questioned whether 16 was the appropriate legal age of consent. Different people mature at different ages. There are many countries that have diverse ages of consent, some higher and some lower than 16. I did not advocate the abolition of the age of consent or specify at what age sex should become lawful.

I was not aware of who the other authors were or what they wrote until the book was published. I would not have agreed to be in the book if I had known. I should not be blamed for what others wrote. It is wrong to tar me with their opinions. There is nothing in my contribution that even remotely condones child sex abuse.

Thud interview with Lee

My critics also cite an interview / article I did with 14 year old Lee in the late 1990s for Thud magazine, where he said that he had sex with older people when he was a young person and that he does not feel that he was abused.

This was a journalistic piece designed to let him have his say and, through him, to give a glimpse into what many young people think about the age of consent and its pitfalls. My critics seem to believe that young people's opinions should not be heard if they disagree with
their moral perspectives. I call that censorship.

In the interview with Lee, I nevertheless challenged his view in various ways, including making these points:

“How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?

“Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex.

“Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited.

“Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry?

I hope this clarifies and reassures everyone. Thank you.

Best wishes, Peter Tatchell

An age of consent of 14?

Sexual human rights for the under-16s

Education, not criminalisation, is the best protection

By Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner

Text of Peter Tatchell’s speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield, England, on 23 September 2010, organised the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health:



I want to start by proposing that sexual rights are human rights. The right to love and have a sexual relationship with the person of one’s choice is as much a human right as freedom of religion and the right to protest. Yet not a single international human rights convention recognises sexual rights and freedom of sexual expression.

This failure to extend human rights into the sexual sphere includes a social and legal failure to acknowledge the sexual human rights of the many young people who have consenting, victimless sex prior to reaching the lawful age of consent of 16.

I believe the time has come for a calm, rational debate about the age at which young people should be lawfully entitled to have sex. We need this debate because the current age of consent in Britain, and many other countries, ignores reality.

Contrary to the malicious misrepresentations of many of my critics, the public debate I am urging is not about adults having sex with children. Child sex abuse is wrong. Full stop. I do not, and never have, endorsed the sexual abuse of children by adults. What I am talking about is sexual relations between young people of similar ages.

Whether we like it or not, most British teenagers have their first sexual experience with their peers, at around the age of 14. Indeed, the average age of first sexual contact is now 14, according the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. These first sexual encounters may include intercourse or may be limited to oral sex, mutual masturbation and sexual touching. Sexually-active, under-age young people are branded as criminals and sex offenders by the law, even when they and their partners consent and when neither of them is harmed or complains.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 compounded these problems. For the first time in British law, consenting sexual activity between two young people under the age of consent – say 15 years old – became an explicit criminal offence. Any sexual contact between under-age youngsters, even mere sexual caressing, is now punishable by up to five years detention and placement on the sex offenders register.

Most parents do not want their children to have sex at an early age but if their children do have sex below the legal age of consent most parents equally would not want their child dragged to court, given a criminal conviction and put on the sex offender’s register, alongside child sex abusers - which is what sometimes happens under the present law in the UK and many other countries. This isn’t child protection; it’s a form of abuse.

That’s why we need to rethink the age of consent. Any review of the law should be premised on four aims. First, protecting young people against sex abuse. Second, empowering them to make wise, responsible sexual choices. Third, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex education. Fourth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of infections like HIV and hepatitis B and C.

If we want to protect young people, and I do, the best way to do this is not by threatening them with arrest, but by giving them frank, high quality sex and relationship education from an early age – before they become sexually active and before they develop unwise habits like unsafe sex. This early-years education should aim to empower them with the skills, knowledge and confidence to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report sex abusers. For a nation that professes to be concerned about child sex abuse, it is truly shocking that so few schools educate their pupils about abuse issues. This needs to change.

Compared to the blanket criminalisation of sexually-active under-age youth, this empowerment strategy is a more effective way to protect young people from peer pressure and sex abusers.

Given that most young people now start having sexual relations around the age of 14, an age of consent of 14 might be more realistic and reasonable. If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old's interest?

Another option would be to introduce a tiered age of consent, where under-age sex would cease to be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than, say, two or three years difference in their ages. This tiered age of consent exists in Italy, Switzerland and Israel. It is designed to prevent the criminalisation of younger people of similar ages, while protecting the vulnerable from possible manipulation by those much older.

The issue is not whether the under-16s should have sex - I do not advocate early sexual activity - but whether they should be criminalised for consensual behaviour. Young people should be able to enjoy sexual relationships without being penalised by the law, providing sex is consensual and both partners are mature enough to understand the implications of their actions.

True, not all 14 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex, but some are. They should not face criminal sanctions.

In about 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is, for example, 13 in Spain; 14 in Germany, Austria, Portugal, Italy and the Vatican (where it was 12 until very recently); and 15 in France and Poland. There is no evidence that these lower ages result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse.

These countries - many of which are staunchly Catholic - would not have such low age limits if they thought young people were being put at risk. They rightly argue that the laws against rape and indecent assault provide adequate protection against undesired and coercive sex. .

The current of consent of 16 may make abuse more likely by reinforcing the idea that young people under 16 don’t have any sexual rights. It signals that no one below the lawful age is capable of making a rational, moral choice about when to have sex. This sexual disempowerment plays into the hands of adults who want to abuse them. Abusers exploit many young people’s lack of assertion of their sexual human rights, which includes their right to reject undesired sex.

There is a contradiction between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of sexual consent. Although the age of criminal responsibility is ten, the age of sexual responsibility is 16. People under 16 are deemed by the law to be incapable of giving sexual consent. The implication is that the decision to have sex is more serious, complex and difficult than a decision to commit robbery or rape.

The ten year old killers of James Bulger were deemed by the law to know what they were doing and be convicted of murder. But if they’d had consenting sex with each other, the courts would have ruled they were too young to know what they were doing – and therefore being incapable of giving their consent to a sexual act.

Since children can be held responsible for criminal behaviour from the age of ten, it’s surely illogical for the legal system to say that people below 16 are unable to consent to sex.

Guilt and shame about sex also increase the likelihood of molestation by encouraging the furtiveness and secrecy on which abuse thrives. The sex-negative mentality that sees sex as something private that should be kept out of sight plays into the hands of child sex abusers.

One way to protect young people against unwanted sexual advances is by promoting sex-affirmative attitudes that challenge the idea that sex is something sordid that should be kept hidden. Sexually unashamed young people are more likely to report abusers.

Another way is by empowering teenagers to stand up for their sexual rights, including both the right to say yes to sex they want and the right to say no to sex they don’t want. Sexually informed and confident youngsters are much more likely to resist unwanted sexual advances.

However, any lowering of the age of consent needs to go hand-in-hand with candid, compulsory sex education in schools, beginning with age-appropriate teaching from the first year of primary school. Then, from the age of 12, before they become sexually active, pupils should be given explicit advice on how to deal with sex pests, negotiate safer sex and sustain fulfilling relationships based on mutual consent and respect.

Criminalisation is dangerous because it can inhibit young people from seeking safer sex advice and condoms. It makes some youngsters afraid to report sexually abusive relationships. They fear getting into trouble because they have broken the law. Reducing the age of consent to 14 would remedy these problems, at least for those aged 14 and older.

An age of consent higher than the typical age of first sexual experience also discourages some teachers and youth workers from giving upfront sexual information to those under the lawful age of consent. They fear being prosecuted by the police, or sued by disgruntled parents, for aiding and abetting unlawful sexual acts. So they don't provide the necessary facts. Withholding sexual welfare advice is not protection. It is a form of child abuse.

It is true that sex can sometimes be dangerous and harmful to young people, but not always. At puberty, as hormones kick in, youngsters develop sexual feelings. This is perfectly natural and healthy. Many teens innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. It is wrong to criminalise them. Counselling, advice and support is more appropriate and productive.

A minority of youngsters do, of course, end up pregnant or with sexual infections. Good quality sex education from an early age, including the provision of accessible contraception and safer sex advice, can help reduce the incidence of these negative experiences; ensuring that sex is a healthy, happy experience for both partners.

Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, under-age sex is mostly consenting, safe and fun. It does not result in any damage. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of sex per se, but because of emotional abuse within relationships and because of unsafe sex, which can pass on infections and make young girls pregnant when they are not ready for motherhood.

The message we need to give young people is that sex is fundamentally good - not dirty or shameful. It is a natural joy, immensely pleasurable and a profound human bond; resulting in intense shared fulfilment and much human happiness.

Providing it is safe and with mutual respect, consent and fulfilment, under-age sex involving youths of similar ages should not be stigmatised, let alone criminalised.

For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights campaigns: www.petertatchell.net



CDT3GqsW8AA5kKT.jpg
 Description:
Tatchell on sex with children
 Filesize:  134.53 KB
 Viewed:  145 Time(s)

CDT3GqsW8AA5kKT.jpg



_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 708

PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on Peter Tatchell here:
African rights campaigners criticise Peter Tatchell
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17997

and here
Peter Tatchell defamed in US 'War On Terror' book
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17986
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group