The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has been accused of bullying a student activist after a dispute over his views on transgender rights. In an open letter signed by 116 activists in more than 10 countries, Tatchell is accused of leaking confidential emails in order to stir up media interest in the case. The letter says that Tatchell has “little credibility as a free-speech defender” because he has “repeatedly assaulted academic freedom” and “retaliates harshly against critics of his actions”.
Tatchell, who has been an activist for various minority rights for nearly half a century, spoke last Monday at a conference on “Re-Radicalizing Queers” at Canterbury Christ Church University. Fran Cowling, one of the LGBT+ officers at the National Union of Students (NUS), declined to speak alongside Tatchell, citing a letter to which he was a co-signatory last year that decried the practice of “no-platforming”, where certain individuals are denied speaking invitations on account of their views.
The leader in this week’s New Statesman defends Tatchell, arguing that “what is at stake here is not free speech … but free debate – the process by which good ideas trump bad ones. Nowhere is this more vital than our universities.” It continues: “To no-platformers, a campus should be a ‘safe space’, where people are not exposed to views that they may find upsetting. This relies on a bizarre elision of physical safety with intellectual isolationism.” It concludes: “The free interchange of ideas must win out, or else many more good people such as Peter Tatchell will find themselves traduced.”
Peter Tatchell has written a rebuttal to the open letter, saying that he is “very happy to face criticism based on fact, but not the torrent of falsehoods in this open letter”.
Sarah Brown, a campaigner for LGBT equality who signed the open letter, commented: “Each generation has a moral panic about the one that follows it. Older activists and journalists are bullying a young person in the press, without a right of reply, over opinions expressed in private, all in the name of ‘free speech’. It seems some folks are short of both moral fibre and a sense of irony – but I’m pretty sure it’s not the young people.”
Extracts from the open letter:
“As human rights activists, writers, and scholars, we strongly condemn the actions of Peter Tatchell in bullying, vilifying, and inciting a media furor against a student who criticized him in a private e-mail. These attacks exemplify a pattern; Tatchell has repeatedly shown intolerance of criticism and disrespect for others’ free expression. They also exemplify a broader problem. A moral panic over inflated claims of ‘noplatforming’ reflects a persistent, deep resistance to diversity in intellectual and public life.”
“In the massive furor Fran Cowling has been smeared, bullied, trolled, and harassed in the national press and on social media. Tatchell has personallyvilified her and encouraged others to do so, writing in the right-wing Telegraph that she posed a threat to ‘enlightenment values.’ Yet Tatchell was never censored. He spoke at the conference; he took his case to the Telegraph and Newsnight; he has not been ‘silenced.’ The logical implication of Tatchell’s position is: That no officers of the NUS be allowed to criticize him, even in private e-mails; and that all its officers be forced to share platforms with him, like it or not. ‘Free speech,’ indeed! Peter Tatchell has little credibility as a free-speech defender.”
“In recent months, a series of celebrities have claimed to be victims of “no platforming” – Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, now Tatchell. Yet none of these have actually had their speech restricted. Greer’s case is instructive. In no sense did anyone else “no-platform” her. She herself theatrically bowed out of a speaking engagement, citing the possibility of peaceful, nondisruptive protests which she was unwilling to confront. The canny move of no-platforming herself helped her seize the public spotlight far better than her original lecture could. All these alleged victims have easy access to media platforms vast in their reach. Greer can go to the Guardian; Tatchell can take his complaints to Newsnight. The risk that their voices will be ignored is nonexistent.”
“We call on Peter Tatchell to desist from his attacks on other activists, and from his attempts to erase legitimate critiques of his work. We have no desire to ‘censor’ or ‘silence’ him. But we also call on universities and other institutions that host him to challenge him on his record of violating academic freedom and endangering others’ rights to criticize and speak. We also urge those institutions to recognize important visions and voices alternative to Tatchell’s. They should be seen and heard. Let those who feel Tatchell is entitled to a lectern extend the same privilege, and respect, to others.”
Extracts from Tatchell’s rebuttal:
“The Open Letter is full of falsehoods and distortions.
“I never said I was no-platformed by the NUS. I said I was NOT no-platformed.
“I never said I was censored or silenced.
“I defended Fran Cowling’s right to not share a platform with me. If she does not want to speak alongside me, that’s her right. I respect her choice. I said this from the outset.
“My sole objection was that Fran had falsely accused me of racism and transphobia and spread these claims to multiple people. When asked to provide the evidence, she refused.
“I have never ‘vilified’ her or ‘encouraged others’ to do so. In fact, I condemned people who harassed or bullied Fran.”
Content from our partners
Related
