She stated she would not be comfortable
Fran Cowles has written a piece explaining that she did not no-platform Peter Tatchell.
In an email to the event organiser, I personally declined an invitation to attend the ‘Re-Radicalising Queers’ event held at Canterbury Christ Church University on 15 February, where Peter would be giving the keynote address and sitting on the panel. I stated that I would not be comfortable, as I believe that Peter has not always acted in the best interests of trans, Muslim and Black communities, who experience disproportionate levels of discrimination and marginalisation within the LGBT movement and wider society. In addition, I provided the evidence which informed my opinion.
She doesn’t make clear why she felt it necessary to explain at all, rather than just declining or saying she couldn’t. But let’s assume she was right to feel it necessary, and look at what she said. Her explanation for not attending the event was that she believes that Peter has not always acted in the best interests of trans, Muslim and Black communities.
But who does always act in the best interests of anyone? How can we even know what that is? Why is failure to act in the best interests of various groups (they’re not “communities”) a reason to shun someone? Maybe she just thought that would be the most professional-seeming way of wording it, but to me it just exposes the extreme flimsiness and pettiness of her putative reason. I think what she means is that she’s heard that Tatchell isn’t a perfect “ally” to everyone in the universe, coupled with the fact that she thinks it’s the job of the left to shun everyone found to be not perfect.
It’s pathetic, childish stuff, and a very weak excuse for trashing Peter.
She goes on to do more of that.
Peter has arguably used questionable tactics in the past to achieve his aims, and, at times, used his public profile to advocate political positions which are not in the best interests of those he claims to represent. In my case, he has used his platform – which is considerably larger than mine – to denounce me as an LGBT activist purely because I do not wish to engage with him and do not agree with some of his views and tactics.
I don’t think Fran Cowling knows for sure what political positions are in the best interests of the people Peter advocates for (as opposed to claiming to represent, as Cowling snidely puts it). I don’t think her apparent certainty on the subject is a good reason for her to trash people who have risked a lot in advocating for a despised minority.
And that last bit is dishonest, because Peter has said very clearly that he went public because she trashed him to other people, not at all because he she doesn’t wish to engage with her him. She’s a bit of a coward as well as dim.
And then there’s a lot of paint-by-numbers garbage, all to justify demonizing him yet again for signing that letter last year defending freedom of speech. If that’s the left of tomorrow, it’s sad.
Edited to correct absent-minded transposition.
I tried to read the articles Cowles links to as “evidence.” Impossibly prolix.
Just a taste. After 30-odd paragraphs, feministkilljoys seems like they’re getting to the point:
–it goes on like that.
I take it Tatchell writing about Islamist terrorism is evidence of his racism and Islamophobia. Which we’d all know if we’d only wade through interminable earnest prose explaining why such language is problematic.
It sounds like she is saying that we can never ever suggest that some Islamists are terrorists, because that would lead people to equate Islam in general with terror and assume that all Muslims are terrorists. Wow. What a slippery slope she is sliding down!
Does that mean, then, that they can call no feminists TERFs, because then that would lead people to equate the word feminist with TERF, and lead people to assume that all feminists are TERFs? Or so on?
In the end, it seems like we are not allowed to critique Islam at all, because that is racist, even if we are critiquing the religion and not the million + Muslims who are decent hard working people. But we are allowed to hate on ex-Muslims, because they obviously are racist if they left the religion that cannot be criticized.
Yeah, iknklast, I read it the same way.
Dozens and dozens of paragraphs devoted to rationalizing the following: It’s racist to discuss Islamism and terrorism. If you criticize any aspect of a marginalized group–at least, of group du jour–the words used to criticize them become associated with the group as a whole, and that is an insurmountable problem, so shut up, Peter Tatchell, and admit how racist you are.
(I just couldn’t wade through yhe author’s godawful prose, so if anybody reads the thing and finds a rational thought, please share. In your own words, for pity’s sake.)
Jesus christ, even just those two paragraphs are utterly full of high school level padding, with more time spent setting up the forthcoming points than on the points themselves.
As for the content – once you slog through the word count filler – I think I agree with iknklast. racial or cultural criticism is always problematic (the great nothing-word of recent social activism), no exceptions, including criticisms coming from culturally and ethnically Arabic ex-muslims that take pains to delineate between Islam vs. islamism, specific muslim speakers vs. all muslims. The whole thing is an apologetics exercise on behalf of cowardice.
I think it’s fascinating that Fran is so concerned about discrimination against “Black and Muslim communities” in the LGBT movement… but she thinks it’s out of bounds for Peter Tatchell to point out when gay people are discriminated against in Black and Muslim communities, and by “discriminated against” I mean “subjected to death threats and sometimes actual death.”
Lady Mondegreen, I tried to read it, but … oh my, after a short while the endeavor felt like a school exercise done for punishment :) Still, it’s reassuring to hear that it’s not only about my lousy English.
From the link you mentioned:
That is the essence, isn’t it? Alright, so I was waiting and waiting: when, oh when will the author start to *argue*, instead of providing endless repetitions of one and the same claim?
I didn’t find any arguments there, not really. All I was able to do was to notice some passages which *vaguely resemble* arguments. Here is one example:
Yeah, well … so the reasoning would be that Tatchell’s rethoric (e.g. making comparisons between the Muslim Council and the BNP , his use of the word “Islamo-Fascism”, his placard with “Gays and Muslims UNITE!” on one side and “Stop EDL and far-right Islamists” on the other) harms queer Muslims. What is the harm? As I understand, the harm is that for queer Muslims this is equivalent to the following dilemma: either you accept the present dire state of affairs, or you severe the ties with your family/culture/tradition and humbly accept the guidance of the whites. In effect, the queer Muslims are cornered, since both options are horrible.
The validity of the argument is (imo) an empirical question, not to be resolved by any armchair theorizing. Sorry, the sad truth is that I know too little about queer Muslims even to try to predict their reactions. Do they really receive Tatchell-style rethoric in such a way? Anyone here wise (and kind) enough to answer?
Or do you think I read too much in the quoted passage?
Oh, man. Thank you, Lady M, for wading through that and providing us with a sample. How laughable that Cowling confuses that with “evidence.”
Ariel @ 6 –
Some do – the ones who are “political” in the way Fran Cowling and the author of that dreck about Tatchell are. Others of course don’t.
@Ariel
I worry sometimes that my limited education (no college degree) is to blame for my allergy to academese or pseudo-academese or whatever the hell that was–but I really don’t think the problem lies with me! And I respect your intelligence, and Ophelia’s and iknklast’s and Holmes’ and SAWell’s. We can’t ALL be misreading feministkilljoy.
@Ophelia–you’re welcome! I’m sure I’ll feel completely recovered after a quiet day or so alone in my room with the covers pulled over my head.
Lady Mondegreen, I’ve never seen any evidence of a lack of education or intelligence in your comments here, so I very much doubt that accounts for your allergy to that particular ‘style’ of academic writing. Indeed your comments are generally lucid and on point.
Of course I might be biased in that I come from a science and technical writing background. Overly complex, convoluted, dense and recursive bullshit was always discouraged in my experience. Lord Rutherford is reputed to have said that a person with true understanding can explain what they are doing to the cleaning lady. Of course he didn’t work in quantum mechanics, but still…. (I have no idea if the story is true but I agree with the general thrust of it). Anyone who writes rubbish like feministkilljoys vomited forth doesn’t deserve to be a thought leader even if they have a kernel of truth (and if they did it as buried under the compost).
Thanks, Rob.
Lady M, I did an entire academic dissertation on multiculturalism. Believe me, many academics talk bullshit on this subject. I’ve seen articles on legal cases that go through reams of theorizing and then ignore the actual facts of the case or the judicial reasoning in the judgement.
Some of the best books I read were written by people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Amartya Sen’s “Identity & Violence” is good and also very accessible. Sen argues that the perception of Britain as a “federation of communities” is harmful as it entrenches the attitudes that lead to violence. He has first hand experience of that sort of violence. He describes an incident from his childhood in India when a Muslim man was murdered for walking to work through their Hindu neighbourhood (IIRC Sen’s parents took the man to hospital but it was too late).
What Rob said.
Lady M, for whatever it is worth, I’ve always considered you one of those people whose comments are not only well-written, but also interesting and worth reading. A college degree? Meh. Like Myrhinne, I’ve seen too much bullshit in academia.
What they all said.
It’s more the other way around, really. Confusing that kind of pseudo-profound writing with the real thing is a sign of defective education, with or without a college degree.
There of course is such a thing as language that is difficult for non-experts but not put on for effect – technical subjects in philosophy for example. But because there is such a thing, there are also many many people who try to imitate the difficulty without any of the technicality. There are few things I hate more than that.
I should add that I don’t even try to read anything on technical subjects in philosophy. I don’t know the terminology, but even if I did, it would still be too dense and difficult.
Thanks for the praise, you Caesars.
*blush*