TRIGGERnometry - Peter Tatchell on Human Rights, Free Speech and Political Reform

00:00:00.000 hello and welcome to trigonometry i'm francis foster i'm constantin kissin and this is a show

00:00:15.520 for you if you're bored of people arguing on the internet over subjects they know nothing about

00:00:20.340 at trigonometry we don't pretend to be the experts we ask the experts we're here the world famous

00:00:27.160 Angel Comedy Club. And our amazing guest this week is one of the foremost human rights

00:00:31.960 campaigners of the last half century, Peter Tatchell. Welcome to Chicanometry. 1.00

00:00:36.720 Glad to join you.

00:00:37.860 Thank you very much for coming on. Well, let's start by asking fundamentally the question

00:00:41.420 that we always want to know about is how did you come to be the person that you are today?

00:00:46.220 And I heard you speaking about the fact that one of the things that started your human

00:00:50.740 rights journey was finding out about a man who was going to be hanged in Australia. And

00:00:56.060 he was hanged in fact despite the fact that the evidence wasn't particularly solid in that case

00:01:00.860 and you said that it kind of triggered in you a suspicion of authority and I think that's a

00:01:06.680 feeling that lots of people share for our generations probably the Iraq war is a good 0.63

00:01:10.380 example of something that triggered this lack of faith in figures of authority but not everybody

00:01:16.060 then goes on to have the the life that you've led which is being assaulted over 300 times

00:01:22.460 two attempts on a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe,

00:01:26.840 confronting Mike Tyson, of all people,

00:01:29.000 for using homophobic slurs.

00:01:31.000 Not many people go on to risk their lives

00:01:33.220 for what they believe.

00:01:34.280 What was it about your history, your childhood perhaps,

00:01:38.000 that made you into someone who was willing to stand up

00:01:40.860 for what you believed in the way that you had?

00:01:42.780 I don't think there's any one major event or influence,

00:01:47.560 But I do know that growing up in the 1960s, watching the nightly television news bulletins about the black civil rights movement in America was a very, very influential factor.

00:02:03.140 um it inspired me to first of all understand about the horrendous uh racial segregation and

00:02:11.820 racist persecution and violence that african-americans suffered but also gave me an

00:02:18.100 inkling an idea about how to do human rights campaigning so in the last half a century that

00:02:25.640 I've been doing this, you know, my model is non-violent direct action, inspired by people

00:02:32.580 like Martin Luther King, but also Mahindra Gandhi and others. I think their methods of

00:02:39.920 peaceful direct action and, where appropriate, civil disobedience against unjust laws is the

00:02:47.560 model by which all successful movements for social change have won through what i'm curious about

00:02:56.840 there will be other there will have been other people who would have been watching martin martin

00:03:00.800 lutherkin marching and and seeing those movements who would not have had the courage or whatever it

00:03:07.240 is that's driven you to risk your life and limb essentially for what you believe in what do you

00:03:12.400 think it was that made you prepared to do that to be willing to risk your life essentially for

00:03:18.120 that well you're right i mean my school friends uh also saw the same images but didn't act um

00:03:26.000 i guess i've just got quite a strong sense of right and wrong um perhaps an overdeveloped

00:03:32.880 conscience um i don't like to see other people suffering you know i love freedom equality

00:03:39.420 justice I love other people I put myself in their shoes if it was me who was being persecuted

00:03:47.540 or unjustly treated I would want someone to help me so when I see others suffering I think well

00:03:54.600 if I'd want others to help me in that situation then surely I have some responsibility to do

00:04:01.040 something to try and help them and were you always like that were you like that as a kid if you saw

00:04:05.120 something some injustice happening as a 10 year old would you try to step in or defend people who

00:04:09.900 can yeah yeah and i don't know exactly where it came from i suppose it's partly from my

00:04:14.440 very strict quite fundamentalist christian upbringing my parents instilled me in a very

00:04:20.300 strong sense of um you know follow your own conscience don't just go along with the mob

00:04:27.680 think for yourself stand up for what is right even if it's unpopular and you know from a religious

00:04:35.400 point of view um be a good samaritan you know don't walk by another side of the street when

00:04:41.000 someone is is suffering so i guess that that that was part of the fact that impelled me to

00:04:46.060 take up these human rights causes i mean there must be a part of you peter though that when you

00:04:51.460 see and you get involved in these struggles and what's isn't there a part of your brain going

00:04:55.840 I mean we could have had it easier if we just like other people did walk on by

00:05:01.640 is there a part of you that's like that or is or do you just not entertain that that sense of doubt

00:05:07.140 well I guess when I see an injustice I'm aware that I'm not the only person that's concerned

00:05:15.640 I mean there are other organizations and individuals who also take up causes

00:05:19.080 back in the day you know millions of people worldwide campaigned against apartheid in South

00:05:25.200 Africa and supporting the internal struggle by black South Africans and their white allies,

00:05:34.320 they did eventually succeed in overturning that horrendous racist system. So for me,

00:05:40.400 I've also had a very clear understanding that it's collective action that makes change.

00:05:47.540 I've done a few things in a personal, individual way, but mostly real change comes about through

00:05:55.160 lots of people getting together and deciding that enough is enough.

00:05:59.620 So that was the model of the Chartists

00:06:03.100 who fought for working class votes in the 19th century.

00:06:07.260 It was the model for the suffragettes who fought for votes women 0.55

00:06:10.360 in the 20th century. It was the model for the campaign against the poll tax.

00:06:15.900 Margaret Thatcher's hated, unjust, unfair

00:06:18.740 tax on local people. It was through

00:06:22.820 collective effort that change was one so i've always been part of a movement or in support of

00:06:31.260 a movement i don't think that personally i've done much myself but maybe i've perhaps been a

00:06:36.980 catalyst or a voice or a platform for ideas and movements that perhaps hadn't previously received

00:06:42.320 it um what i find fascinating is is your is your desire well desire is probably the wrong word but

00:06:50.140 the way you quite literally put your body on the line like doing a citizen's arrest on Mugabe not

00:06:56.340 once but twice I mean was that planned did you set out to do that or did you see him and just

00:07:03.320 get overtaken by a sense of injustice at this man and what he was doing to Zimbabwe

00:07:08.700 what happened was that Zimbabwean human rights defenders asked me to try and do something

00:07:16.180 to highlight his human rights abuses.

00:07:19.660 At that time, in the late 1990s,

00:07:22.180 there was very little media reportage

00:07:24.380 about what was happening inside Zimbabwe.

00:07:26.600 The arrests and detention without trial,

00:07:30.020 the mass use of torture,

00:07:32.100 the burning of houses and crops,

00:07:36.320 a really quite gross, tyrannical regime,

00:07:39.760 which the world was pretty much ignoring.

00:07:42.460 So the thinking behind the attempt at citizens' arrests was firstly to act on that request to support the heroic Zimbabwean people who, far more than me, were taking much, much greater risks to their lives and liberty.

00:07:59.880 But through that process, helping to shine a spotlight on the gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the Mugabe regime.

00:08:09.240 And I think that although I did not succeed in arresting Mugabe, even though I had a perfectly lawful legal case to have him arrested on charges of torture because I had the evidence that he had condoned and acquiesced in the torture of people in Zimbabwe, even though I didn't succeed, those protests did help highlight the immense human rights abuses.

00:08:33.480 you know, through particularly the image of me being beaten unconscious by his bodyguards in

00:08:38.500 Brussels in front of the world's media in broad daylight. I mean, most people concluded if he's

00:08:44.580 prepared to have his minders beat up a peaceful protester in the heart of a European capital city

00:08:51.960 in broad daylight in front of the world's media, just imagine what he's doing to his own people

00:08:57.660 when no one is watching so in that sense it was very effective of course i never wanted to or

00:09:05.160 intended to get beaten unconscious and i'm living with the consequences with some brain damage

00:09:09.920 ever since but by comparison to the suffering of human rights defenders in zimbabwe i've got off

00:09:18.980 quite lightly you know i know activists in zimbabwe who've been detained for months even years

00:09:26.120 without charge, who've been tortured and raped in prison, and some who've sadly been killed

00:09:33.900 by the Central Intelligence Organization, the Zimbabwean secret police. So putting it in that

00:09:41.500 context and perspective, you know, I've made some sacrifices and taken some risks, but nothing,

00:09:47.200 Nothing by comparison to the risks taken by and the devastating suffering endured by literally thousands of human rights defenders inside Zimbabwe itself.

00:10:01.280 Did Mugabe recognize you the second time when you tried to do a citizen's arrest on him?

00:10:08.860 I think so, but I'm not sure.

00:10:11.440 I'm not sure.

00:10:12.160 Oh, this guy again.

00:10:13.060 because he must have had a look in his eye like oh i'm not here well see i ambushed him in the

00:10:21.380 lobby of the hilton hotel in brussels um but but but my ploy was i just walked into the middle of

00:10:27.120 his entourage um but i was smiling and held up my hand to shake his and of course that uh led the

00:10:36.420 security staff to lower their guard because they thought i was a well-wisher and i think initially

00:10:42.080 So did he, because he made half a smile and then he suddenly had this horrified look on his face, which I think was the moment of recognition.

00:10:53.640 So it's nice. It was like a kind of like ethical, candid camera.

00:10:59.160 You could put it that way.

00:11:00.860 Well, it was obviously, as you say, very effective.

00:11:02.680 Another example of where this kind of attempt was effective.

00:11:06.800 Actually, I find very interesting hearing you talk about confronting Mike Tyson, where you ambushed him.

00:11:12.180 And actually, the way that you told it, essentially, you were able to reason with Mike Tyson and get him to say to camera that he is not homophobic.

00:11:22.920 Can you tell us a little bit about that story that I find fascinating?

00:11:25.960 Yeah, this was in Memphis, Tennessee, in the United States, just before his world title fight, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson's world title fight against Lennox Lewis.

00:11:36.800 you know I thought well he was you know on record as making all these homophobic slurs against

00:11:45.800 Lennox Lewis and previous against other boxers I thought someone needs to change this and there's

00:11:51.020 also misogyny as well you know the allegations or the conviction for rape which he served prison

00:11:57.120 time and you know his misogynistic slurs so I wanted to do something and again it was inspired

00:12:06.060 by people in the United States

00:12:08.720 and some progressive liberal boxing fans

00:12:12.300 who said this is just this kind of behavior

00:12:15.820 is not what sport's supposed to be about.

00:12:19.060 And they felt particularly bad

00:12:21.540 because Lennox Lewis was getting this nonstop tirade from Tyson.

00:12:27.260 So anyway, I went to the United States, to Memphis.

00:12:32.020 I linked up with some local LGBT activists

00:12:36.660 and we made a calculated guess about where he would be training.

00:12:43.940 We knew where he was staying.

00:12:46.400 Well, we knew the area where he was staying.

00:12:48.460 We didn't know exactly where he was staying

00:12:49.500 and we knew he'd have to go to regular training sessions.

00:12:52.580 So we worked out what was the nearest gym and lay in wait

00:12:57.640 and our guest worked out to be on spot on and he turned up

00:13:04.940 and he got out of his SUV with all his bodyguards.

00:13:09.980 Then I walked over to him and held a placard.

00:13:15.860 I'm nervous just listening to this story.

00:13:18.640 Well, I can tell you I was very nervous.

00:13:20.820 You don't want to get a lightweight like me.

00:13:23.400 He doesn't want to get a blow from Mike Tyson.

00:13:25.700 No.

00:13:27.640 So, yeah, I walked over to him as he got out of his van

00:13:31.400 and said, why are you making these homophobic slurs

00:13:35.940 against Lance Lewis?

00:13:39.220 And he turned around with an angry face

00:13:41.820 and he lifted his fist.

00:13:43.900 And I thought, oh, no.

00:13:46.700 But then he saw the TV cameras

00:13:48.600 and he just relaxed for a minute

00:13:51.260 and then went this rant, you know,

00:13:54.360 I'm not homophobic, I'm not homophobic.

00:13:56.440 And I said, well, but you are saying things that are homophobic.

00:14:00.080 And he said, well, I said them.

00:14:01.980 I don't really mean them.

00:14:04.820 I was just trying to wind up Lennox Lewis.

00:14:07.320 I said, well, you wouldn't find it acceptable for another boxer

00:14:10.620 to wind you up using racism.

00:14:13.600 Why do you think it's acceptable to use homophobia as a wind-up?

00:14:17.520 So he got even more defensive.

00:14:19.320 But eventually, there came a point where I said to him, look,

00:14:23.380 if you're not homophobic, will you make a statement to the cameras

00:14:29.100 saying that you're against anti-gay discrimination?

00:14:33.300 And sure enough, he did.

00:14:35.840 And I can't think of any other boxer or world champion boxer who's done that,

00:14:40.840 but certainly not at that time anyway.

00:14:44.460 So, yeah, that was a win.

00:14:46.560 It was Mike Tyson putting on record that he opposed discrimination against gay people.

00:14:51.060 That's incredible.

00:14:52.060 absolutely incredible and one of the things i find fascinating about that story is you were

00:14:57.700 actually able to reason with him in other words you were able to talk to somebody who you wouldn't

00:15:02.400 necessarily expect to be receptive to that kind of communication and you were able to convince him

00:15:07.540 that what he was doing was wrong and to admit it on camera and to stop doing it what do you make of

00:15:13.100 the modern social justice movement and how it seems to be evolving where you've talked many

00:15:18.380 times about the fact that you think freedom of speech is one of the most important uh human

00:15:22.700 rights uh and now it seems like it's kind of falling down the pecking order the people are

00:15:27.360 being no platform you yourself have you haven't been quite no platformed i think but there was

00:15:31.560 a lady who refused to speak on the same panel as you because you signed a letter essentially saying 0.99

00:15:36.840 freedom of speech is important no platform is bad it seems like freedom of speech is falling

00:15:41.840 down the pecking order what do you make of that i think it's certainly true that some people

00:15:47.860 nowadays take the stance, well, if people are bigots or offensive, they don't have a right to

00:15:55.260 speak. They should be barred from speaking. They should be shunned. My view is they should be

00:16:01.940 challenged. Their ideas should be countered. There should be protests against them. But I don't think

00:16:08.720 no platforming is a way to make progress because that doesn't make the idea go away. It doesn't

00:16:16.820 convince the person's supporters that a rethink is necessary whereas if you engage in a dialogue

00:16:24.660 which sometimes may be quite you know unpleasant but if you engage in a dialogue then there's a

00:16:30.800 chance that you can present counter evidence to show why these particular ideas are bigger than

00:16:37.180 wrong so that's that's my approach I think engagement is key and it's not just about

00:16:43.720 seeking to persuade the bigot because that may or may not work what's important about these public

00:16:49.560 engagements is that you engage with the wider public who watch that program or attend that event

00:16:56.320 so you're really doing two things you're challenging the bigoted person but you're also

00:17:04.720 challenging those ideas and speaking to a much wider and perhaps more important audience

00:17:09.820 Do you find it quite worrisome nowadays that the term free speech is being associated with the far right?

00:17:17.880 People like Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins as well.

00:17:22.120 And when they support free speech, people go, you see, this is why free speech advocates are wrong.

00:17:30.920 Do you find that quite worrying almost?

00:17:32.840 I certainly do, as somebody whose parents have come from,

00:17:36.160 well, my mother is from Venezuela,

00:17:37.600 where free speech is essentially disappearing.

00:17:41.300 I think it is a dangerous trend when people on the right

00:17:48.620 are at least being perceived as supporting free speech.

00:17:55.620 But, of course, they don't in reality

00:17:57.560 because they don't support free speech

00:18:00.280 for the victims they're targeting.

00:18:02.840 They want to shout them down, bullying them, intimidate them, and so on.

00:18:08.620 So what's equally sad and tragic is the way in which many on the left

00:18:15.080 seem to now think, as you say, that free speech is an expendable bourgeois concept,

00:18:22.060 that when it comes to ideas that the left opposes, just ban them.

00:18:29.400 Well, that's got echoes of Stalinism.

00:18:32.040 I'm from Russia.

00:18:32.840 I know what you're talking about, yeah.

00:18:35.880 And, you know, Rosa Luxemburg, a communist, a German communist in the early 20th century,

00:18:43.860 she strongly disagreed with Lenin.

00:18:45.660 She said that the right to internal debate within the Bolshevik Party

00:18:50.520 and within the wider society is absolutely paramount,

00:18:53.820 that there has to be an opportunity for bad ideas to be ventilated, exposed, and challenged.

00:19:03.820 And that was very much an argument against the sort of democratic centralist party line

00:19:09.480 that Lenin and other leading Bolsheviks were advocating.

00:19:12.700 They were saying that we will decide, and you all must support this.

00:19:16.760 That dissent was tantamount to betrayal.

00:19:21.160 And Roosevelt was saying, no, dissent is a vital component of an engaged, evolving political movement.

00:19:28.560 and that if a movement isn't open to criticism

00:19:31.800 and to alternative points of view,

00:19:34.300 it stultifies and can often go badly wrong,

00:19:38.240 as of course happened in the Stalin era in particular.

00:19:41.340 So you would say that, for instance, Tommy Robinson,

00:19:44.300 you don't agree, so you think that somebody like Tommy Robinson

00:19:46.900 should be allowed to speak?

00:19:48.220 Do you think it's, I'll put this question in a more concise way,

00:19:52.320 do you think it was wrong for someone like Twitter

00:19:54.200 to ban Tommy Robinson and to remove his account

00:19:57.560 or would you say that ultimately he has the right

00:20:00.200 and he should be allowed to say what he thinks,

00:20:03.160 even if you disagree with it or I disagree with it?

00:20:06.400 Well, of course, I strongly disagree with Tommy Robertson

00:20:09.720 and the movements he's involved and associated with.

00:20:13.500 But my understanding was that he was banned from Twitter

00:20:17.600 for simply making criticisms of Islam.

00:20:23.920 They are criticisms that I wouldn't make

00:20:26.820 or not make in that way, but I do think it's valid that all ideas,

00:20:31.680 including religious ideas, should be open to criticism.

00:20:35.580 When it crosses the line to abuse and insults,

00:20:40.440 when it engages in threats, menaces, or harassment,

00:20:45.180 and certainly if it involves any element of encouraging violence,

00:20:48.880 then that is obviously clearly wrong, a step too far,

00:20:52.360 and that should not be tolerated because that's not about free speech.

00:20:56.120 That's a violation of free speech, because when you have that kind of toxic atmosphere, which Tommy Robinson has often been associated with, I'm going to say, you actually close down debate because the targets, you know, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, don't feel able to speak out and engage in the debate because they're intimidated.

00:21:17.600 They fear the consequences.

00:21:19.160 So for you, the line on free speech is essentially, I mean, you kind of put from what I took out of that is you put insults and incitement to violence into one category.

00:21:30.400 Is that where you are? Or would you say you should be allowed to call someone names, but you should definitely not be allowed to incite violence against them in a free society?

00:21:39.300 Yeah, I think insults are OK. But again, it depends on what kind of insult.

00:21:44.520 So when it comes to free speech, I've got three red lines.

00:21:49.580 The first is, I don't think someone should be able to make false damaging allegations against another person.

00:21:56.700 For example, to falsely accuse them of being a pedophile or a tax fraudster.

00:22:03.160 Equally, I don't think it's right that a person should be able to engage in threats, menaces or harassment.

00:22:10.300 And finally, I think another red line is incitements or encouragements to violence and murder.

00:22:19.940 Those are criminal offenses and quite rightly are not part of what constitutes free speech.

00:22:26.640 So outside of those three red lines, I think people have a right to speak,

00:22:34.000 but equally people have a right to protest against that point of view.

00:22:38.260 I think it's really important that there is no free pass

00:22:43.120 given to people who promote hatred and bigotry.

00:22:46.180 Of course.

00:22:47.220 I mean, that's absolutely fascinating.

00:22:49.820 Peter, one question that I wanted to ask you,

00:22:52.560 I mean, do you think with the right of people like Trump

00:22:55.160 who are openly espousing racist views or racist points of view,

00:23:00.340 I mean, Brexit, which I'm not saying that everyone who voted Brexit is racist,

00:23:03.680 of course that's absolutely wrong,

00:23:04.820 But nevertheless, there were certain undercurrents to the Brexit campaign.

00:23:08.680 Do you think we are regressing somewhat with our tolerance in this country and our levels of tolerance?

00:23:16.480 Or do you just think that, you know, with the advent of social media, that more and more people are able to contribute their voice?

00:23:24.020 Well, I think social media is great in that it does give a platformer voice to millions of people who otherwise would not have it.

00:23:31.640 So that's a really positive element.

00:23:33.040 but of course a lot of the interchanges on social media are quite toxic and actually very bad for

00:23:42.800 people's mental health and you know are not free speech they are speech that's hateful 0.84

00:23:50.320 you know often making fabricated allegations so that to me is damaging and undermining

00:24:00.140 social media. But where I strongly disagree is with people who say that's offensive, you can't

00:24:08.540 say that. I mean, some of the most important ideas in human history have caused great offense in

00:24:14.780 their time. Think of Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx. They all had

00:24:22.200 ideas that many people found deeply offensive. And if this rule that you can't cause offense

00:24:29.360 supplied, then those great people would have been shut up. And I don't think that's the right way

00:24:34.800 to go. I think that would create a cultural stasis where new radical dissenting ideas

00:24:44.520 could be shut down on the basis that some people found them offensive.

00:24:49.760 And is there a part of it, I'm just curious, because you know, you've dedicated your life

00:24:53.100 to fighting for these causes. Is there a part of you that gets, I mean, you seem like a very

00:24:57.420 reasonable and gentle and kind man but is there a part of you that gets really pissed off when

00:25:02.060 these people are refusing to speak on a panel with you calling you transphobic calling you racist when

00:25:06.460 you've been standing up for for the rights of ethnic minorities and lgbt people your whole life

00:25:12.780 is there a part of you that goes how dare you i guess there is

00:25:17.240 but you know it is par for the course sadly you know you just have to take the brick back

00:25:26.560 and carry on.

00:25:29.640 Obviously, you know, you try to counter them.

00:25:32.840 I try to counter them.

00:25:34.640 But, you know, there is a tendency now

00:25:38.740 among sections of both the right and the left,

00:25:42.860 among some people,

00:25:44.680 to try and discredit other people

00:25:49.500 by smearing them as racist or a neocon.

00:25:54.680 And, you know, they think that's the way to damage you

00:25:58.320 rather than engage with the arguments or the ideas

00:26:01.000 rather than look at the evidence.

00:26:04.760 The tactic is to smear and slur.

00:26:08.020 And that's very damaging for democracy

00:26:10.820 because if that's how democratic debate descends,

00:26:16.800 then people cannot make decisions

00:26:20.040 or come to conclusions based on facts.

00:26:23.020 it's this mishmash of fact, fiction, smear, and fabricating a lie.

00:26:30.240 And even the conversation you had with Mike Tyson

00:26:32.180 would not have been possible if it had just been about labels.

00:26:35.600 You actually had a conversation where it was productive,

00:26:38.540 whereas if you just called each other names,

00:26:40.580 that would not have happened.

00:26:41.880 Exactly, yeah, yeah.

00:26:43.120 And it's a really good example of where he said something offensive,

00:26:47.720 but rather than run away and cry or rather than denounce him,

00:26:52.380 I went and engaged with him and got him to make a positive pro-LGBT statement.

00:26:58.420 And what do you make of this whole collectivism where people are now trying to change the world

00:27:02.960 as you've tried to change the world, but they're doing it one Facebook post at a time

00:27:06.520 rather than one campaign at a time or actually doing something?

00:27:10.800 What do you make of that?

00:27:12.660 Well, I think social media activism, online petitions, they have a valid role.

00:27:18.060 but they're usually only effective

00:27:21.160 if you get 100,000 plus signatures

00:27:23.600 or even several million

00:27:24.960 I think a lot of people do seem to think

00:27:29.560 that clicking the mouse is

00:27:31.420 I've done my bit

00:27:32.780 and thank you for clicking the mouse

00:27:35.880 and some of those mouse clicks do have an impact

00:27:38.800 but really an effective campaign

00:27:41.280 is much bigger and broader than that

00:27:42.820 it's got to involve much more interaction

00:27:45.480 much more engagement

00:27:46.360 and that means a combination of protest, writing letters, lobbies,

00:27:51.540 a whole host of different things.

00:27:53.200 Well, writing letters is a very British solution to the problem.

00:27:55.820 Yes, it is.

00:27:56.680 It is an incredibly British solution to the problem. 0.54

00:27:59.320 Because if someone gets a letter,

00:28:03.720 they are more likely to take it seriously than if they get an email.

00:28:08.340 Does it matter about handwriting?

00:28:10.960 It probably does.

00:28:11.740 It does?

00:28:12.400 Yeah, a handwritten letter will probably get an even better response.

00:28:16.360 but you know if all you can do is type or send an email well okay do it there's only so far a man

00:28:24.120 can go if you take nothing from this podcast or this show please remember if you want to protest

00:28:29.680 against something calligraphy is a way forward but even that yeah that's not enough you know

00:28:35.540 people can write letters but you know really effective campaigns like the campaign against

00:28:39.560 the poll tax in 1990 it won because yeah people did sign petitions and write letters but the real

00:28:48.680 impetus for margaret thatcher dropping that policy was that millions of people either refused to pay

00:28:55.800 the poll tax or delayed payment so the system became unworkable so using that financial leverage

00:29:03.940 proved to be a very, very effective way

00:29:07.140 because Thatcher ultimately realised,

00:29:09.520 even though she said this was a flagship policy,

00:29:12.680 there was no negotiation, she wasn't for turning.

00:29:15.720 When it came down to it,

00:29:17.540 so many people made the poll tax unworkable

00:29:21.280 that she had to recant and abandon it.

00:29:25.340 I mean, one of the stories that blew me away, Peter,

00:29:27.920 from reading about your career,

00:29:29.280 and I was actually talking to a gay Australian comic yesterday

00:29:32.280 and I was telling him stories about how you used to,

00:29:34.720 at the very start of your career in the 70s,

00:29:36.640 you used to go into Australian bars

00:29:40.040 where they were openly homophobic and engaged in sit-ins.

00:29:47.120 No, that was in London.

00:29:48.360 Oh, sorry, it was in London.

00:29:50.080 Stop smearing Australia.

00:29:51.700 Sorry, apologies.

00:29:53.280 But no, just in bars in London which were open and engaged in sit-ins,

00:29:56.820 that to me absolutely blows my mind.

00:30:00.020 I mean, did you ever...

00:30:02.780 I mean, you must have encountered some incredible people

00:30:06.580 during those moments.

00:30:07.880 Were you genuinely fearing for your life at certain points?

00:30:11.120 Not with the sit-in, no.

00:30:12.580 But in the early 1970s,

00:30:15.960 it's true that there were some bars, restaurants, pubs,

00:30:21.420 other venues that would not serve gay people.

00:30:25.200 So, model on the Black Civil Rights Movement, 0.62

00:30:27.960 we decided to organise sit-ins in those venues

00:30:32.220 to demand to be served.

00:30:34.340 And when we were refused, we sat down and refused to leave.

00:30:37.880 And then, of course, the police were called and we were arrested.

00:30:40.640 But we didn't have to do this for too long.

00:30:45.120 It was just a matter of weeks, really,

00:30:46.600 when most of these venues eventually gave in

00:30:49.060 because we told them,

00:30:52.000 you can have us arrested and carted out

00:30:55.140 once, twice, three times, four times, 0.99

00:30:57.960 We're still going to come back until you agree to serve gay people. 1.00

00:31:03.320 And eventually, most of those landlords and managers realized that they were on to a loser, 0.98

00:31:09.920 that we weren't going to go away, that in fact our repeated sit-ins were actually driving away their traditional customers.

00:31:18.160 So they were losing money, and of course money talks.

00:31:22.680 And so eventually they gave in and agreed to serve us.

00:31:26.260 So why did the Iraq war campaign fail? I mentioned this at the beginning that for our generation, it was a defining moment. Certainly for me, it was a moment when for the first time I realized, even if millions and millions of people around the world come out onto the streets and protest about something, it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference.

00:31:47.560 And the Iraq war has been something that's defined the years since. 0.58

00:31:52.420 I mean, everything that's happened has been, what, 15 years now?

00:31:55.900 ISIS, all of the stuff we're still dealing with, Syria, Iraq,

00:31:58.780 they're all consequences of that war.

00:32:00.740 And despite the fact that millions of British people

00:32:02.900 and people around the world came out onto the streets,

00:32:05.360 it just went ahead.

00:32:06.660 Why do you think that failed? 0.94

00:32:08.880 I think we had in this country an arrogant, smug, self-satisfied,

00:32:14.380 an unresponsive government led by Tony Blair.

00:32:17.560 And, you know, most democratic governments do have a sensitivity towards public opinion.

00:32:28.080 And when public opinion is so overwhelmingly against an action, most governments and democracies tend to, you know, withdraw or revise their policy, but not Tony Blair.

00:32:43.560 The problem was that we didn't have any leverage

00:32:47.640 other than the mass protests, which he was able to ignore.

00:32:53.900 In the case of the poll tax campaign,

00:32:56.900 there was the financial leverage of non-payment or delayed payment.

00:33:01.960 We didn't have an equivalent.

00:33:04.180 If we had, we might have got the government to change its stance,

00:33:10.060 but we didn't.

00:33:11.000 So that war went ahead, not only on the basis of a lack of public support, but also, of course, based on a big line.

00:33:23.200 Absolutely.

00:33:25.160 Peter, just going back to the issue of gay rights, you must be very, very proud of everything.

00:33:30.800 You and your supporters and activists, the changes you've made for gay people over the last 30 to 40 years.

00:33:39.780 It's a huge achievement.

00:33:42.040 What do you see as the next struggle for gay rights

00:33:46.040 in order to achieve fairness and equality?

00:33:50.180 Well, there are still some residues of anti-gay prejudice,

00:33:57.040 like the fact that half of all LGBT kids in schools are bullied.

00:34:04.180 A third of all LGBT people in the country

00:34:06.500 have been victims of homophobic, biophobic, or transphobic hate crimes

00:34:11.440 at least once and sometimes three, four, or five times over their life.

00:34:17.280 So the battle is not won.

00:34:21.140 We've got legal equality in most areas.

00:34:25.080 Public opinion has changed.

00:34:26.860 The level of public homophobia is much less than it was two or three decades ago.

00:34:32.820 But globally, that's where the real battle is, because still we have today 72 countries where homosexuality is totally illegal, punishable up to life imprisonment in some countries, and facing the prospect of even the death penalty in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

00:34:57.680 that's definitely something that to fight for what do you um make of uh you know i come from

00:35:06.120 russia as i said uh what do you make of the situation because you've been to russia and

00:35:09.900 you've in fact uh you think you've been assaulted in russia i welcome what do you make of the

00:35:14.660 situation there because that's one country that seems to be actually getting worse doesn't it

00:35:20.160 yeah um although homosexuality was decriminalized in the early 1990s under boris yeltsin

00:35:27.520 there was a window period

00:35:31.240 where things seemed to be getting better

00:35:33.040 certainly in the Putin era

00:35:36.180 things have gone very much in reverse

00:35:38.840 I think Putin and his party

00:35:43.040 have seen homosexuality 1.00

00:35:45.880 as a useful political diversion

00:35:49.620 LGBT people in Russia

00:35:53.280 are portrayed effectively as the enemy within

00:35:56.600 Which, of course, distracts Russian people from the massive theft of public assets by oligarchs, the huge corruption of Putin and other Russian officials, and the widespread human rights abuses in that country.

00:36:12.560 so it's a good diversionary tactic in the same way that or similar to the fact you know that

00:36:18.400 in the 1930s in germany jewish people were used by the nazis as a as a way of deflecting

00:36:24.960 given public's attention from the crimes of the nazis and their own failings so that that is

00:36:31.560 definitely a a backward step and we have seen actually the legislation passed in 2013

00:36:38.140 which criminalized the so-called propagation of homosexuality,

00:36:45.200 which in effect means anything positive or informative about gay issues 0.95

00:36:50.620 falls within the criminal law.

00:36:54.900 So people have been convicted under that law

00:36:58.540 for holding up a placard saying homosexuality is normal 1.00

00:37:02.120 or just gay rights.

00:37:04.180 ostensibly it's targeted at protecting minors

00:37:09.100 well why do young people need protection of homosexuality 1.00

00:37:12.640 some of them will be gay, they need support and information

00:37:15.020 not the image or the impression 0.78

00:37:18.940 that it's something shameful or wrong or whatever

00:37:21.060 but also of course

00:37:23.820 this is very much a product of the alliance

00:37:28.880 between the Putin regime and the Russian Orthodox Church

00:37:33.160 So essentially in Russia today, Putin supports the Russian Orthodox Church,

00:37:38.160 and in return they support him.

00:37:40.860 And the Russian Orthodox Church, plus some of the Muslim organizations also,

00:37:47.520 have rallied very much to demand a crackdown on homosexuality, 0.97

00:37:52.020 and they were some of the prime movers behind the legislation in 2013.

00:37:58.120 So yeah, things are going backwards.

00:37:59.740 And on top of that, of course, you've got the rise of a social media in Russia, 0.78

00:38:05.620 which is being exploited by far-right extremists to target gay people.

00:38:11.700 So far-right extremists will pose as gay, lure gay men to rendezvous, 1.00

00:38:17.240 and then beat them up, humiliate them by shaving their head 0.99

00:38:23.100 or pouring ink over them, a whole host of humiliations. 0.91

00:38:29.740 But, you know, that is going on with, I wouldn't say state sanction, but certainly de facto state sanction.

00:38:39.140 You know, there's no action being taken by the Russian state to close down those direct manipulations of social media to perpetrate criminal acts of violence.

00:38:52.320 Do you ever find yourself Peter, I mean you come across as a wonderfully tolerant man and very very very gentle for want of a better word, do you ever find yourself though getting frustrated and angered by certain aspects of organised religion which seem to condone homophobic behaviour and even encourage it in certain instances?

00:39:11.440 Well, I'd say that organized religion is probably the single greatest global threat to women's rights and LGBT rights. 0.99

00:39:21.320 All over the world where LGBT rights and women's equality is under attack, it is motivated primarily by religious establishment.

00:39:32.380 Not necessarily people at the grassroots of the faith, but the religious leaders.

00:39:38.060 So here in Britain, we have the Church of England,

00:39:40.700 the official established state church,

00:39:43.440 which opposes equal marriage. 0.99

00:39:46.140 It says that gay people are inferior 0.88

00:39:48.820 and not entitled to the same right to marry the person they love 0.98

00:39:52.960 as heterosexual men and women.

00:39:55.800 So that's an official endorsement of legal discrimination

00:39:59.500 by the Church of England

00:40:01.820 and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

00:40:05.200 um all over the world um you know everywhere from russia to uganda jamaica uh iran saudi arabia

00:40:17.640 it is religious motivation that is orchestrating the systemic persecution of lgbt people and why

00:40:26.720 do you think that is i mean you must have some theories of it why do you think that they're so

00:40:31.440 homophobic because i mean i was raised as a catholic my mother like i said before is latin

00:40:35.780 american and latin american culture i mean is deeply homophobic i mean like for instance to

00:40:42.000 tell you a story um my cousin uh when i was very young in the early 90s he passed away from an

00:40:47.700 age-related illness and he was a gay man and in that time david didn't bless him he didn't no one

00:40:54.900 could admit that he died of an age-related illness he died of throat cancer because nobody wanted to

00:41:00.180 admit that he was gay and died of AIDS why why is it do you think that these organizations are

00:41:05.520 homophobic because to be honest with you I mean I'm I'm straight but it still makes me incredibly

00:41:11.300 angry I think all the major faiths are deeply patriarchal you know very much based upon male 1.00

00:41:20.420 power and privilege we see that you know across the world most faiths still have male only clergy

00:41:29.000 You know, women are not allowed to be imams in orthodox Islam.

00:41:35.360 It's only recently that Judaism has opened up to women.

00:41:39.740 And apart from the Church of England, the Episcopal Church in America and a few others,

00:41:46.040 most Christian denominations are overwhelmingly led by and ruled by men.

00:41:53.140 And I think for a lot of men, regardless of faith, a lot of men, not so much in this country now, but a lot of men traditionally, have been very threatened and insecure about their own sexuality and have therefore targeted other gay and bisexual men.

00:42:12.700 Well, this is what I was going to ask you, and it's a bit of a weird question, so please understand that it's meant as a genuine curiosity.

00:42:20.680 Growing up in Russia, Russians generally are very homophobic.

00:42:24.400 And I heard all this stuff about how the reason that people discriminate against gay people is it's not natural.

00:42:30.840 That was the thing that was said.

00:42:32.720 And one of the things that actually, if you look at the facts, homosexuality is as prevalent in animals, in many animals, as it is in humans, right?

00:42:40.800 Do you have any idea of any evolutionary theory that explains why that is and the kind of evolutionary rationale for homosexuality?

00:42:49.460 Are you aware of anything like that?

00:42:51.480 No.

00:42:52.940 I mean, that is the big conundrum because, of course,

00:42:56.860 Darwinian theory of evolution talks about the survival of the fittest

00:43:01.840 and, you know, the reproductive capacity is very much about survival.

00:43:07.720 Right.

00:43:07.940 So why would this set of factors,

00:43:12.640 combination of genes and hormones and social factors,

00:43:15.860 why would it predispose every known human society to have homosexuality? 0.97

00:43:24.220 But to me, that's an interesting question.

00:43:26.960 It's not essential to the way we live our lives.

00:43:29.680 I'd love to know the answer too,

00:43:31.060 but what's really important right now is to end the persecution

00:43:34.760 of LGBT plus people worldwide.

00:43:38.380 Of course it is.

00:43:39.400 And moving on to another topic,

00:43:41.380 I know you're very passionate about electoral reform in this country.

00:43:44.360 Could you just explain to us a little bit about why that is

00:43:48.220 and the problems with our current electoral system?

00:43:51.680 Well, just so everyone knows, I mean, I am best renowned for my work on LGBT rights,

00:43:57.660 but I've always very consistently also campaigned for other human rights as well.

00:44:02.720 And to me, one very important human right is the right to vote in elections

00:44:08.920 and for that vote to count.

00:44:11.020 Now, in Britain, no governing party has won a majority of the popular vote since 1931.

00:44:23.360 Wow.

00:44:24.460 Every single UK governing party since 1931 has come to power on a minority of the popular vote,

00:44:36.000 mostly between 35% and 43%.

00:44:40.780 A clear minority.

00:44:43.200 So it means that none of these governments

00:44:46.620 has had a genuine popular mandate.

00:44:49.860 None can say that we speak for the majority.

00:44:53.320 But of course, under our electoral system,

00:44:56.580 repeatedly they've won a majority of seats.

00:45:00.700 So Margaret Thatcher won a landslide in 1983,

00:45:03.460 but it was only based upon 42% of the vote.

00:45:08.660 Tony Blair won 55% of the seats in 2005

00:45:13.400 but it was only based on 35% of the vote.

00:45:18.600 That clearly is not democracy.

00:45:20.620 That's not what the Chartists and the Suffragettes fought for. 0.98

00:45:24.740 They fought for our representative parliament

00:45:26.620 and we don't have one.

00:45:29.180 Millions of people's votes do not count.

00:45:32.480 You know, it all depends on marginal swings in marginal constituencies.

00:45:40.080 You know, there's been elections where a change of 15,000 to 20,000 votes

00:45:47.000 would have changed the election result in terms of seats won and government's form.

00:45:54.060 You know, out of millions and millions of votes,

00:45:56.400 it's swung on just 15,000 to 20,000 votes in key marginals.

00:46:01.420 Now, that is not a way to run a democracy.

00:46:05.580 That's not a way to have a government that has and inspires public confidence.

00:46:11.560 And it encourages political parties, actually, not to speak to the majority of the people,

00:46:15.680 but to target very particular constituencies, very particular types of people within those constituencies.

00:46:21.540 Absolutely. If you look at Cornwall, for example, in the southwest of England,

00:46:25.160 less than half of the voters voted conservative

00:46:31.620 yet the conservatives won all the political representation

00:46:36.060 for the whole of Cornwall

00:46:37.140 I mean, how can that be right?

00:46:40.300 You know, that's why we need a system

00:46:41.920 some system of proportional representation

00:46:44.700 like they have in Scotland, Northern Ireland

00:46:48.000 in Wales and in the London Assembly

00:46:51.420 there, it's not perfect

00:46:53.860 but there you do have a more representative governance.

00:46:58.480 So, for example, in London,

00:47:00.440 there's always been two or three Green members 0.97

00:47:05.220 of the London Assembly.

00:47:08.300 Now, the Greens never won any seats

00:47:12.140 in the constituencies based on first-past-the-post,

00:47:15.700 but under the top-up system,

00:47:17.920 they won enough popular votes to get them two seats.

00:47:21.100 and they have had incredibly effective

00:47:24.620 and out of all proportion influence on policy in government.

00:47:30.940 You know, most of the major innovative policies

00:47:34.340 pursued by successive London mayors

00:47:37.500 were initiatives that originally came from the Greens.

00:47:40.960 Now, I'm not saying that just because I'm a Green Party supporter,

00:47:43.040 but I'm just saying it's a good example of how

00:47:45.160 when you have a system of proportionate representation,

00:47:47.680 you do get a wider spectrum of public opinion represented

00:47:51.860 and even if those are just minority seats or minority representations

00:47:56.940 they can be highly effective

00:47:59.400 and it can actually make a very positive difference to people's lives.

00:48:03.120 Sure, the interesting question there is

00:48:05.180 the Lib Dems, if you remember at the time of the coalition government

00:48:08.900 they campaigned on the referendum for some kind of

00:48:12.020 they couldn't quite get PR so they went for some kind of PR.

00:48:15.660 The alternative vote.

00:48:16.520 the alternative vote which is not pr but and no one really voted in that referendum and it didn't

00:48:21.420 go through and i think there is no appetite in the general public here in britain for that

00:48:25.780 system or indeed it seems for pr i mean how no no public opinion is now very strongly in favor

00:48:32.500 of reforming the voting system uh-huh i mean it's probably not at the top of people's agenda

00:48:36.540 probably the nhs and jobs and education at the top but if you ask people about you know should

00:48:42.980 Britain have a fair voting system does the voting system need to change you know clear majority say

00:48:47.660 yes yes so why hasn't it happened Peter because the big two parties have a vested interest in

00:48:52.940 keeping the system the way it is because they benefit from it you know Labour's view is we'll

00:48:58.480 keep the system the way it is eventually we'll win a majority and you know we won't have to be

00:49:04.040 bothered about doing doing doing coalitions or alliances with other parties but to me

00:49:10.580 I'm a very strong

00:49:14.920 and very sincere socialist

00:49:18.600 I believe in quite radical socialism

00:49:21.200 but I only want to see it happen

00:49:23.260 if I can persuade a majority of people

00:49:25.700 that it's the right thing to do

00:49:27.500 I don't want to sneak in socialism

00:49:29.900 as a result of an unfair, unjust, undemocratic

00:49:33.700 electoral system

00:49:34.760 and I'm sad to say that many people in Labour

00:49:38.020 want to exploit the unfairness of the system

00:49:40.700 so that they can get a majority

00:49:42.560 and force through their policies

00:49:44.640 even if they don't have popular support.

00:49:47.340 So we just have this tribal political system

00:49:49.940 and the two tribes are warring

00:49:51.740 and they don't want anyone else to get in on their action.

00:49:54.440 So, well, here we are.

00:49:56.140 There's three of us here.

00:49:56.900 You are one of the most prominent and effective campaigners

00:49:59.640 in recent history.

00:50:00.900 How do we fix this?

00:50:01.940 How do we organize a campaign for PR?

00:50:04.040 I'm down.

00:50:06.160 You've got one supporter, right?

00:50:07.900 How do we do it?

00:50:09.300 Well, I have advocated for many years

00:50:12.740 that the campaigns for voting reform

00:50:15.980 should carry on with the tactics they're currently using

00:50:19.780 but also do suffragette and charter-style direct action,

00:50:26.940 peaceful, nonviolent direct action

00:50:29.220 to demand a fair voting system.

00:50:32.420 But sadly, those organisations are too timid.

00:50:35.540 you know they don't want to go down that road

00:50:38.560 the closest they've come to it is

00:50:41.300 we did a hunger strike

00:50:42.860 for voting reform earlier this year

00:50:45.680 but you know a hunger strike

00:50:47.700 well okay it's a gesture

00:50:49.920 it's making a point

00:50:51.180 it's saying that I feel so strongly

00:50:52.820 about this issue that I'm prepared to go without food

00:50:55.540 and endure the discomfort

00:50:56.560 but it's not real leverage

00:50:59.040 you know I think

00:51:01.320 do we need a citizen's arrest

00:51:03.600 of Theresa May is that what you're saying

00:51:04.880 possibly

00:51:05.920 but I think we need more than that

00:51:08.740 we need a mass movement

00:51:10.000 and we need a mass movement

00:51:11.820 that like the suffragettes 1.00

00:51:14.580 and the charters

00:51:15.100 is prepared to

00:51:16.600 be challenging

00:51:18.860 non-violent

00:51:20.100 but challenging

00:51:21.040 it's part of the problem

00:51:22.300 that it's not really a sexy issue

00:51:24.180 you know

00:51:24.520 you're not going to throw yourself

00:51:25.780 under a horse carriage

00:51:26.720 over PI

00:51:27.360 it just doesn't

00:51:28.540 well Emily Davidson did

00:51:29.920 true

00:51:31.480 true

00:51:32.240 so

00:51:34.100 Yeah, but you're right. Most people think politics in terms of issues that directly affect them and their lives. So taxation, Social Security benefits, the NHS, education, transport, the environment. These are the meaty issues that preoccupy people. But we're never going to get those issues right until we fix the voting system.

00:51:58.520 That's the point I was going to make. So how do we convince people to get on board with that idea? Because I've been thinking that PI is a much better system for decades now, really. Ever since I discovered how the parliamentary system in Britain works. I mean, it works, right? It's better than certainly a lot of the countries that we come from, absolutely. But it's not necessarily a healthy comparison if you're trying to create a good democracy.

00:52:21.420 How do you get ordinary people to get that link that you've just exposed there,

00:52:26.420 which is that if you want to fix a lot of the social issues that we keep talking about

00:52:30.660 and a lot of the practical issues, we need a better representative system.

00:52:35.260 How do you convince ordinary people who live busy lives,

00:52:38.400 they've got kids to bring up and lives to live and work to go to and whatever,

00:52:42.360 to go, ah, without this, we don't have this.

00:52:46.120 How do you convince ordinary people of that?

00:52:47.960 But I think just as you put it, you know, we need to explain and argue that unless we have a fair voting system, we're not going to be able to address the issues that you care about because a majority of people in this country are broadly left of center, do support social programs and public services.

00:53:11.480 but their voice is not being heard in government

00:53:16.200 because the voting system keeps on delivering

00:53:19.380 governing parties with minority support.

00:53:23.620 So when it comes to how we move forward,

00:53:29.400 I think it's a combination of education and persuasion,

00:53:32.540 direct action and protest, online petitions,

00:53:35.820 a whole host of different things.

00:53:37.300 But at the end of the day, what is going to convince people is if they can see and understand that without PR, the things that they want to see happen won't happen.

00:53:52.760 Now, I'll give you an example.

00:53:55.020 If we'd had a system of force representation in Britain in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher would have never been elected. 1.00

00:54:03.800 and she would have never won those successive election victories

00:54:08.340 because every time she did so based on a minority of the popular vote,

00:54:14.500 only just over 40%.

00:54:16.040 So for people on the left and centre of politics

00:54:20.320 who probably in most cases loathe Thatcherism

00:54:24.720 and what it did to this country,

00:54:26.820 you've got to ask yourself,

00:54:28.280 well, if you didn't support PR,

00:54:32.540 that's why you ended up with Thatcher

00:54:36.140 and all the devastating consequences that followed.

00:54:39.220 So if you want to change things and prevent a new Thatcher,

00:54:42.860 you have to support a new voting system.

00:54:47.080 And what I find very frustrating right now

00:54:49.080 is that Labour is so far not supporting a fair voting system.

00:54:56.260 They want to keep things as they are.

00:54:57.840 They want to benefit from the manipulation of first-past-the-post

00:55:03.800 that gave David Cameron and Theresa May a victory, Margaret Thatcher a victory.

00:55:10.460 They want to benefit from the same system, give Jeremy Corbyn a victory.

00:55:14.580 And to me, there is no socialism worth having unless it has majority public support.

00:55:22.580 You see, Peter, I can see why you never made it in politics.

00:55:25.060 It's because you're far too principled. That's the problem, isn't it?

00:55:28.280 The party principle.

00:55:29.380 Listen, we've got time for a couple of questions.

00:55:31.100 One of the things when we put out the fact that you were coming on,

00:55:33.980 one of our viewers wanted to ask, how do you remain so hopeful?

00:55:38.940 Because you must be hopeful to have lived the life that you've lived.

00:55:42.320 How do you remain hopeful in the face of tragedy and horrors

00:55:47.660 and also just the kind of things that we've just been talking about,

00:55:50.660 a political system that ignores the voices of many, many people?

00:55:54.160 How do you maintain a sense of optimism and hope when all of that is happening?

00:55:59.740 Well, I guess I'm an unreconstructed 1960s idealist.

00:56:04.520 I grew up in an era of great optimism about what could change and how we could change it.

00:56:10.300 And I've seen so many changes in my lifetime, which of course inspires me to keep campaigning.

00:56:16.700 I think about terrible injustices such as the systemic legal persecution of LGBT people in this country.

00:56:24.160 which is now history and i with many thousands of others was part of that process of change

00:56:30.480 i think to myself wow i helped do something that has made life better for vast numbers

00:56:39.840 of lgbt people in britain um you know i look at the global stage and and i've seen so many

00:56:47.280 dictatorships fall in my lifetime there are still dictatorships and even new ones but you know

00:56:53.120 Franco is history, Pinochet is history, Marcos is history, 0.52

00:56:57.580 the old Soviet Union is history. 0.97

00:57:00.580 These are momentous changes which have been brought about

00:57:04.180 by millions of people organizing to fight for that change.

00:57:08.700 And so I feel inspired by the changes that I've been part of

00:57:13.960 and feel hopeful that further change can come.

00:57:18.720 And I know that if we put our minds to it,

00:57:22.100 we can change things

00:57:24.280 not always

00:57:25.880 or not always immediately

00:57:27.300 but ultimately

00:57:28.660 no tyranny lasts forever

00:57:30.740 Adolf Hitler promised a 1,000 year 0.97

00:57:34.080 Reich

00:57:34.480 it lasted all of 12 years

00:57:37.380 there are many others

00:57:39.620 in power, perhaps not direct tyrants

00:57:41.380 but people perpetrating great injustice

00:57:43.500 they won't last forever

00:57:45.760 they will have their day

00:57:47.860 and be gone

00:57:48.520 and that just keeps me

00:57:50.860 I just want to fight on and help bring about that change.

00:57:56.600 We have to end it there.

00:57:57.700 What a way to end the show.

00:57:59.500 What a wonderfully uplifting, beautiful way to end the show.

00:58:03.760 Thank you very much for coming on, Peter.

00:58:05.520 We always ask the final question, which is,

00:58:08.560 what is the one issue that you think is incredibly important

00:58:11.760 but people aren't talking about nearly as much as they should be?

00:58:15.200 Do you think it's, obviously, we've covered PR.

00:58:17.100 Is there something else that is particularly dear to your heart?

00:58:20.860 For me, economic democracy is the elephant in the room.

00:58:25.740 We live in Britain and Western countries

00:58:29.160 in an economic dictatorship

00:58:31.940 where the rich and powerful have all the votes.

00:58:37.000 It's not one person, one vote in the economy.

00:58:39.860 The directors, the major shareholders, the managers,

00:58:42.120 they have all the votes.

00:58:44.280 And ordinary people are excluded and disenfranchised.

00:58:47.340 so when it comes to the running of both private corporations and public institutions

00:58:53.740 like the national health service they are run on quasi-authoritarian lines top down the people

00:59:01.660 who work in those institutions have little or no power and that strikes me as being totally out of

00:59:07.960 kilter with our political system you know in politics we expect democracy we expect one person

00:59:15.240 one vote. We expect a rich person to have no more votes than a poor person. But that's not

00:59:21.620 translated into the economy. So my ask is, if we expect political democracy, why not

00:59:32.440 economic democracy too? Why can't we have a system, for example, where private corporations

00:59:39.180 and public institutions would be required by law

00:59:43.160 to have, say, one-third employee and consumer representatives

00:59:48.340 on their management boards

00:59:49.680 with full rights to information and full voting rights

00:59:54.580 to make it a more co-equal partnership

00:59:57.140 between the people at the top and the grassroots.

01:00:01.780 And you've got to remember that the people who work in

01:00:05.040 both private and public institutions at the grassroots

01:00:08.320 they have a vast wealth of practical knowledge

01:00:11.160 about how those institutions work

01:00:12.920 how they could be improved

01:00:14.500 lots of things

01:00:16.480 but their voices and their contributions

01:00:18.440 are not being heard

01:00:19.280 so it's not only an issue of fairness

01:00:21.500 it's also an issue of

01:00:23.780 making those

01:00:26.080 workplaces and institutions

01:00:28.280 operate more effectively

01:00:30.160 and efficiently

01:00:30.800 so I'd love to see

01:00:33.280 the grassroots porters

01:00:35.960 nurses and doctors and the health service

01:00:38.140 have a direct input through an electorate representative or more

01:00:41.620 on the management board of their NHS trust.

01:00:45.560 So they could take to that management board

01:00:48.200 practical ideas about improving the service

01:00:51.740 and have patient representatives as well

01:00:54.320 give their voice, say,

01:00:56.720 this is how the hospital needs to change its operating system

01:01:00.880 to make it better for patients and for the delivery of care.

01:01:05.800 Now, the German works model,

01:01:07.060 The German works council model is an example of that.

01:01:10.700 I'd go a bit further, but it's a good example.

01:01:14.260 And I'd say that in Germany, first of all,

01:01:18.540 employees feel they have a stake in the company

01:01:20.340 because they've got representation on the works council board.

01:01:25.080 Secondly, when they have a grievance,

01:01:27.720 they take it to the board and often it gets resolved.

01:01:31.100 They don't have to go on strike.

01:01:32.860 So you're not losing production through strikes.

01:01:37.060 your productivity is better,

01:01:40.760 the company's operation is more efficient,

01:01:43.260 and employees feel better involved and rewarded

01:01:46.880 because so often when those issues are taken to the Works Council,

01:01:51.740 there may be some resistance and some argy-bargy,

01:01:54.340 but in the end, often as not, there'll be some compromise

01:01:57.840 and the workers in the end will make a gain.

01:02:01.520 It doesn't happen in Britain.

01:02:03.220 We are too polarised.

01:02:05.580 But it should.

01:02:06.200 And in the 1970s, under the Labour government of Jim Callaghan, there was a report produced by Lord Bullock, which proposed a very similar system.

01:02:17.560 Sadly, sadly, the left and the trade unions shut it down.

01:02:22.740 They said, this is corporatism.

01:02:24.020 This is like, you know, nobbling the unions.

01:02:27.700 That's madness.

01:02:28.580 Imagine if trade unionists or employees had direct input to the management board to their companies.

01:02:37.580 They could address their grievances in the boardroom, not on the picket line.

01:02:43.580 They could take their message direct to the people who have the power.

01:02:46.580 They could have a vote and they could perhaps persuade some of the managers and shareholders to vote with them.

01:02:52.580 to vote with them. So to me, it is so obvious that we need some system of economic democracy.

01:03:01.900 It's good for the economy. It's good for fairness and social justice.

01:03:07.760 There we go. Interesting idea. All right. Well, Peter, thank you so much for coming on. We really

01:03:13.480 appreciate you spending this time with us. If you enjoyed watching this episode, do follow us on

01:03:18.500 youtube subscribe to our channel give us a rating on itunes if you prefer to listen follow us on

01:03:23.060 at trigger pod on instagram and twitter and we'll see you in a week's time from now thank you very

01:03:27.360 much for tuning in thank you thank you

TRIGGERnometry - May 28, 2018

Peter Tatchell on Human Rights, Free Speech and Political Reform

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript