Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    by Rumbold
    26th December, 2009 at 10:38 am    

    The Daily Mail asks if Peter Tatchell is the bravest man in Britain. The article comes after Mr. Tatchell was forced to step down as a Green candidate because of continuing brain injuries caused by Robert Mugabe’s thugs when he tried to arrest the dictator some year earlier (and not helped by vicious beatings at the hands of neo-Nazis in Russia).

    He’s certainly a great loss to parliament, and the Mail’s question shows what a great campaigner for human rights he has become (twenty years ago Peter Tatchell was mainly known for ‘outing’ secret homosexuals). I’d vote for him, whatever party he stood for. Despite his ill health, surely few would object if a government gave him a peerage. This would mean that Mr. Tatchell wouldn’t have to be in parliament all the time, but being a Lord would give him extra weight when he campaigned. At the moment, Mr. Tatchell says that he would not accept a peerage, because it is “political patronage”, but surely if the offer was made by the three main parties, and he sat as a cross-bencher, it would be okay.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Current affairs

    23 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      Blog post:: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    2. dan hancox

      ft daily mail headline 'is tatchell the bravest man in britain?'!! RT: @pickledpolitics: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    3. sianberry

      Great idea, even if he wouldn't accept - RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    4. Leon Green

      RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    5. Philip Hunt

      RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    6. Terese

      This? No I would not!

    7. Andrew Roche

      Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    8. David Skelton

      RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Give Peter Tatchell a peerage

    1. Raincoat Optimism — on 26th December, 2009 at 3:11 am  

      Perfect idea

    2. Philip Hunt — on 26th December, 2009 at 8:19 am  

      I wouldn't necessarily vote for him, it would depend on the platform he's standing on and who the other candidates were. But he's clearly principled and deserves a peerage.

    3. sajn — on 26th December, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

      Wonderful contrast between the article and comments from their readers.

    4. scriberpunk — on 26th December, 2009 at 4:08 pm  

      Robert: Good God. Mine enemies friends are my enemies.Try thinking for yourself instead of knee jerk reactions.

    5. damon — on 26th December, 2009 at 10:46 pm  

      Peter Tatchell is a good guy. He certainly doesn't pull his (journalistic) punches.

      ''Malolm X was bisexual. Get over it ''
      I mised that article back in october. Wow. No wonder some people don't care for him.…

      Was Malcom X a hero, or a divisive figure in race politics is one of the questions that comes up in the comments section.
      A really important question IMO, and perhaps more important than any same sex encounters he might have had.
      He was living in the seamy underworld of drugs and prostitution in his younger years.
      Is having some same sex trists in this time worthy of comment?
      Lots of people have done things that they don't necessairly want to be given official recignition as ''homosexual'' or ''bisexuall'' (haven't we?)
      Maybe this is where Peter Tatchell gets on the wrong side of people.
      But I agree with his point of view at the same time.

    6. Pobeda — on 26th December, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

      So far as I know, St. Peter the Outer only outed secret homosexuals who were publicly and hypocritically anti-gay. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      Brain damage or not, St. Peter still writes utter drivel from time to time.

      Not so long ago he was writing about the “American invaders” fighting against the Vietnamese “National Liberation Struggle” like an adolescent Glaswegian Trottie.

      The facts follow:
      The men of the Hanoi politburo were determined to destroy the independence of the Republic of Vietnam [an independence which they had, at Geneva, promised faithfully to respect] and were willing to sacrifice the hives, and the health, of countless Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians to achieve a united corrupt Vietnam which imports stolen cars and exports prostitutes.

    7. MiriamBinder — on 26th December, 2009 at 11:40 pm  

      For my part I find him a tad confrontational. I personally couldn't care less what an individuals' sexual preferences are - except for when I consider jumping into bed when it might actually be handy to know whether or not we are interested in the same sort of things.

      Militancy in all its forms is rather abhorrent really.

    8. Rumbold — on 27th December, 2009 at 1:47 am  

      Well, you don't have to agree with everything he does to admire him tremendously.

    9. MaidMarian — on 27th December, 2009 at 9:44 am  

      One can only wonder what the Mail would think of PT's support for Hicham Yezza.…

      A long time ago Tatchell started to like the sound of his own voice far too much .. No Rumbold - one does not have to admire him. Respect, possibly but not admiration. There are also many people I respect to whom I would not give a peerage.

    10. raymondterrific — on 27th December, 2009 at 9:56 am  

      I admire him

      but a peerage?

      I expect everyone still alive who actually fought the Nazis should have one too.

    11. Fojee_Punjabi — on 27th December, 2009 at 9:59 pm  

      The man’s fearlessness in the face of aggression is enough for him to be eligible in my eyes.

      Though I don’t agree with some of his views he remains one of the bravest men I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and his work to end homophobia has been ground-breaking.

    12. Craig — on 27th December, 2009 at 10:27 pm  

      I’ve spoken to Peter about a knighthood and he is “not” interested, however a peerage I hadn’t thought of that!

      He mite just go for that as the gay community have had problems with the Lords for years.

    13. damon — on 28th December, 2009 at 7:52 am  

      Pobeda, this from you sounded like rot to me.
      ”Not so long ago he was writing about the “American invaders” fighting against the Vietnamese “National Liberation Struggle” like an adolescent Glaswegian Trottie.”

      His country had the draft and was conscripting young men to go and fight in Vietnam with the Americans.

      What business was it of Australia to how Vietnamese people figured out how to reconstruct their country after decades of occupation war and division? The US and Australia had no right to interfere there.

      Unless of course you think that ”the Gooks” were a lesser people and needed to be controlled by larger world powers.

      If Vietnamese people wanted to become communists then that was their right.

      See what General Andrew Goodpaster says in this YouTube viedo after 2 minutes.

      He said that ”…even if free elections were held (in 1956) they probably would have been dominated by the communists and the communists would gain control”.

      Peter Tatchell was absolutely right to be a part of the anti-war movement in Australia.

    14. Steve — on 28th December, 2009 at 10:36 pm  


      Make him a dame. Goes with the pantomime he has been enacting for years.

    15. MiriamBinder — on 28th December, 2009 at 10:44 pm  

      @ Steve - I am so tempted to agree with you. Oh what the H … I will!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.