Why are organisations still platforming Tatchell?

[TrainedByDinosaurs]

Looking at events for Worcester College Oxford and very disappointed to see this
https://www.worc.ox.ac.uk/news-events/events/peter-tatchell-in-conversation

Why are organisations so prepared to overlook and excuse his views on sex with underage boys? They are even platforming him as role model 🤮

Very good question.
Anyone else would have been cancelled after such comments about children and sex with adults. But old Teflon Pete carries on being 'celebrated".

Just as institutions feted Jimmy Savile, Huw Edwards, Rolf Harris.

Too many people ignore his views, because he aligns with TWAW, which is a get out of jail free card for troublesome things like paedophilia and fetishes.

I have no idea either.

There's his odious views of young boys and also his promulgation of trans ideology, about which he understands next to nothing.

He did a lot in the fight for rights by LGB people, but why he isn't challenged on some of the revoting views he has is mind boggling, perhaps those who interview him are very poor at it.

Baffling. They should be asked to account for themselves.

I can only assume these organisations support his way of thinking.

Isn’t he supported still by Stonewall? Maybe people think that being rolled out to defend stonewall etc means they can either not do a skerrick of their own due diligence or they think they can overlook his views.

I mean, he wrote this letter too about Sarah Cook’s underage marriage back in 1996!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-why-destroy-young-love-1326015.html

”Sir: Your thoughtful, compassionate editorial ("Sad tale of a modern- day Juliet", 25 January) on the hounding of the 13-year-old child bride, Sarah Cook, was a much-needed corrective to the hysterical, heartless reaction of the Turkish and British authorities. Although her marriage may be unlawful, there is no evidence that Sarah was coerced into, or harmed by, the relationship with Musa Komaegae. Indeed, she appears to have been very happy - until the heavy-handed intervention of officialdom.”

”Why the authorities should want to (or be allowed to) break up the love between these two teenagers is beyond my comprehension. Isn't there enough emotional unhappiness in the world without adding needlessly to it? Moreover, in an era when youth promiscuity is widely condemned, one would expect society to welcome Sarah's and Musa's love and fidelity, rather than seek to destroy it.”

“The authorities claim that they have Sarah's welfare at heart. However, it's hard to envisage that her welfare is best served by forcing her to undergo the humiliation of a so-called "virginity test" and by charging- the man she loves with rape, despite the evidently consensual nature of their relationship.”

“Astonishingly, even though Sarah has talked of suicide if she is kept apart from Musa, officials seem prepared to risk the possibility of such a tragedy. Yes, there is real harm being done to this young girl, but it's not being done by her boyfriend.”

Yours faithfully,

Peter Tatchell
London, SE1

This is in response to :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/mother-of-bride-13-faces-turkish-police-1325484.html

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12284074.turkish-waiter-remarries/

The mirror did a follow up in 2000

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+the+child+bride+grew+up...%3B+SHE+WAS+A+NAIVE+TOURIST+OF+13+AND+HE...-a068111728

It is a horrific story. Yet Tatchell had yet another letter published about children and sex that pleaded that this 13 year old was never coerced and it was true love and how terrible it was that there was this investigation. Notice Tatchell has reduced the man’s age which was known to be 18, to ‘they are both teenagers’….

I wonder if he even remembers this.

Here’s a writeup of a few more of his views. I mean he doesn’t bother hiding his views it’s right out in the open

https://sarahsurviving.substack.com/p/peter-tatchell-and-his-big-bold-unapologetic?r=12w4dz&%3Butm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Bloody hell. I missed that one. I have seen his stuff about the young boys but not that one. Oh he is vile. In plain sight. As a PP said , I can only presume these organisations agree with his views on such matters for them to continue to champion him.

I think that letter is from 1983 - judging from the other letter referring to Cecil Parkinson.
It's hard to pick, but the line that stands out to me is
'While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia..'
which wistfully implies that it would be nice if it was possible to condone paedophilia.

1983 is a long time ago, and people can change, and can condemn their previous statements as misguided and offensive.

Has Tatchell ever repudiated the opinions expressed in that letter?
His soft focus take on the 13-year-old 'bride' in 1996 suggests he hadn't by then.

The talk on the 19th might be a good opportunity for someone to ask Tatchell about his current take on his 1983 and 1996 statements

So reminiscent of all those pro-PIE letters to the Guardian way back when. And the liberal left, and the Labour Party in particular, seem to have learnt nothing from that experience.

I have no idea and he gets pulled out to wax lyrical about poor trans people and never, ever, not once have I seen any 'interviewer' question him on why he is so keen to get men into spaces where they have no right to be.

I wish he was asked to explain how such a renowned campaigner for lesbian and gay rights meekly let the trans movement appropriate and co-opt the movement he so staunchly supported [and in fairness he did stand up for L&G rights when it was actually dangerous to do so].

From that Worcester college website:

"Peter’s key political inspirations are Mahatma Gandhi, Sylvia Pankhurst, Martin Luther King..."

Wtf? Sylvia Pankhurst? That's just offensive, given his stance on women only spaces.

Yes that enraged me when I read it

Appropriating oppression of other groups to attempt to garner respectability.

Sadly Worcester college seems to have fallen for it.

Omg according to the mirror article the 'child bride' was 12 and the waiter 18 when they met! 12!!! I mean, 13 is barely any better but that's just vile.

She had his child at 14 😪

It was a horrific story. That poor poor girl. And the mother was fully complicit if I remember.