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

Episode Date: May 28, 2018

Peter Tatchell, a leading human rights campaigner over the last 50 years discusses human rights activism, free speech and political reform with the guys at TRIGGERnometry. Find us on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@failinghuman) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kishin. And this is a show for you. If you're bored of people arguing on the internet over subjects they know nothing about, at Trigonometry, we don't pretend to be the experts. We ask the experts. We're here at the world famous Angel Comedy Club and our amazing guest this week is one of the foremost human rights campaigners of the last half century. Peter Tatchel, welcome to Chiginometry. Back to join you. Thank you very much for coming on. Well, let's start by asking fundamentally the question that we always want to know about is how did you come to be the person that you are today?

And I heard you speaking about the fact that one of the things that started your human rights journey was finding out about a man who was going to be hanged in Australia. And he was hanged, in fact, despite the fact that the evidence wasn't particularly solid in that case. And you said that it kind of triggered in you a suspicion of authority. And I think that's a feeling that lots of people share, for our generation. probably the Iraq war is a good example of something that triggered this lack of faith in figures of authority. But not everybody then goes on to have the life that you've led, which is being assaulted over 300 times, a citizen's, two attempts to arrest on Robert Mugabe, confronting Mike Tyson, of all people using homophobic slurs. Not many people go on to risk their lives for what they believe.

What was it about your history, your childhood, perhaps, that made you. you into someone who was willing to stand up for what you believed in the way that you had? I don't think there's any one major event or influence, 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. It inspired me to, first of all, understand about the horrendous racial segregation and racist persecution and violence that African-American suffered, but also gave me an inkling an idea about how to do human rights campaigning. So in the last half a century that I've been doing this, my model is non-violent direct action,

inspired by people like Martin Luther King, but also Mahandras Gandhi and others. I think their methods of peaceful direct action and where appropriate civil disobedience against unjust laws is the model by which all successful movements for social change have won through. What I'm curious about, there will have been other people who would have been watching Martin Lutheran marching and seeing those movements who would not have had the courage or, whatever it is that's driven you to risk your life and limb, essentially, for what you believe in.

What do you think it was that made you prepared to do that, to be willing to risk your life, essentially, for that? Well, you're right. I mean, my school friends also saw the same images, but didn't act. I guess I've just got quite a strong sense of right and wrong, perhaps an overdeveloped conscience. I don't like to see other people suffering. You know, I love freedom, equality, justice. I love other people.

I put myself in their shoes. If it was me who was being persecuted or unjustly treated, I would want someone to help me. So when I see others suffering, I think, well, if I'd want others to help me in that situation, then surely I have some responsibility to do something to try and help them. And were you always like that? Were you like that as a kid if you saw something,

some injustice happening as a 10-year-old? Would you try to step in or defend people who can... Yeah, yeah. And I don't know exactly where it came from. I suppose it's partly from my very strict, quite fundamentalist Christian upbringing. My parents instilled me in a very strong sense of, you know, follow your own conscience.

Don't just go along with a mob. Think for yourself. Stand up for what is right. even if it's unpopular and, you know, from a religious point of view, be a good Samaritan. You know,

don't walk by the other side of the street when someone is suffering. So I guess that was part of the fact that impelled me to take up these human rights causes. I mean, there must be a part of you, Peter, though. When you see and you get involved in these struggles, isn't there a part of your brain going,

I mean, we could have had it easier if we just, like other people did, walk on by? Is there a part of you that's like that? Or do you just not entertain that sense of doubt? Well, I guess when I see an injustice, I'm aware that I'm not the only person that's concerned. I mean, there are other organisations and individuals who also take up causes. Back in the day, you know, millions of people worldwide campaigned against apartheid in South Africa and supporting the internal struggle by a black South Africa. And, you know, black cell Africans and their white allies,

they did eventually succeed in overturning that horrendous racist system. So for me, I've also had a very clear understanding that it's collective action that makes change. I've done a few things, you know, in a personal, individual way, but mostly real change comes about through lots of people getting together

and deciding that enough is enough. So that was the model of the chartists. He fought for working class votes in the 19th century. It was the model for the suffragettes who fought for votes women in the 20th century. It was the model for the campaign against the poll tax. Margaret Thatcher's hated unjust, unfair tax on local people. It was through collective effort that change was won. so I've always been part of a movement or in support of a movement

I don't think that personally I've done much myself but maybe I've perhaps been a catalyst or a voice or a platform for ideas and movements that perhaps haven't previously received it what I find fascinating is your desire well desire is probably the wrong word but the way you quite literally put your body on the line like doing a citizen's arrest on Magarby not once but twice. I mean, was that planned?

Did you set out to do that? Or did you see him and just get overtaken by a sense of injustice at this man and what he was doing to Zimbabwe? What happened was that Zimbabwean human rights defenders asked me to try and do something to highlight his human rights abuses. At that time, in the late 1990s, there was very little media reportage about what was happening inside Zimbabwe, the arrests and detention without trial, the mass use of torture, the burning of houses and crops,

a really quite gross tyrannical regime, which the world was pretty much ignoring. So the thinking behind the attempt to citizens' arrests was firstly to act on that request to support the heroic Zimbabian people who far more than me were taking, much, much greater risks to their lives and liberty. But through that process, helping to shine a spotlight on the gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the Mugabe regime. 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.

succeed, those protests did help highlight the immense human rights abuses. You know, through particularly the image of me being beaten unconscious by his bodyguards in Brussels in front of the world's media in broad daylight. I mean, most people concluded if he's prepared to have his minders beat up a peaceful protester in the heart of a European capital city in broad daylight in front of the world's media, just imagine what he's doing to his own people when no one is watching. So in that sense, it was very effective. Of course, I never wanted to or intended to get beaten unconscious.

And I'm living with the consequences with some brain damage ever since. But by comparison to the suffering of human rights defenders in Zimbabwe, I've got off quite lightly. You know, I know activists in Zimbabwe who've been, detained for months, even years, without charge, who've been tortured and raped in prison, and some who've sadly been killed by the Central Intelligence Organization, the Zimbabwean and secret police. So putting it in that context and perspective, I've made some sacrifices and taken some risks, but nothing, nothing by comparison to the risks taken by, and the

devastating suffering endured by literally thousands of human rights defenders inside Zimbabwe itself. Did Magarbe recognise you the second time when you tried to do a citizen's arrest on him? I think so, but I'm not sure. Oh, this guy again. Because he must have had a look in his eye like, oh, not him. Well, see, I ambushed him in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel in Brussels. but my ploy was I just walked into the middle of his entourage

but I was smiling and held up my hand to shake his and of course that led the security staff to lower their guard because they thought I was a well-wisher and I think initially 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 So it's nice So it was like a kind of like ethical candid camera Almost You could put it that way Well it was obviously As you say very effective

Another example of where This kind of attempt was effective Actually I find very interesting Hearing you talk about Confronting Mike Tyson Where you ambushed him And actually the way You told it

Essentially you were able to reason With Mike Tyson And get him to say to camera That he is not homophobic Can you tell us a little bit about that story? That I find out fascinating. 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. You know, I thought, well, he was, you know, on record was making all these homophobic slurs against Lennox Lewis and previous against other boxes. I thought someone needs to change this. And there was also misogyny as well. the allegations or the conviction for rape, for which he served prison time, and, you know, his misogynistic slurs.

So I wanted to do something. And again, it was inspired by people in the United States and some progressive liberal boxing fans who said this is just this kind of behavior is not what sport is supposed to be about. And they felt particularly bad because Lennox Lewis was getting this non-stop tirade from Tyson. So anyway, I went to the United States to Memphis. I linked up with some local LGBT activists

and we made a calculated guess about where he would be training. We knew where he was staying. Well, we knew the area where he was staying. We didn't know exactly where he was staying. And we knew that they'd have to go to regular training. So we worked out what was the nearest gym and lay in weight. And our guests worked out to be on spot on. And he turned up and he got out of his SUV with all his bodyguards.

Then I walked over to him and held a placard. I'm nervous just listening to this story. Well, I can tell you, I was very nervous. You don't want to get a lightweight like me. He doesn't want to get a blow from Mike Tyson. No. No. So, you know, I walked over to him as he got out of his van

and said, why are you making these homophobic slurs against Lankfulus? And he turned around with an angry face and he lifted his fist. Oh, sweet. And I thought, oh, no. But then he saw the TV cameras. and he just relaxed for a minute. And then went to this rant, you know, I'm not homophobic, I'm not homophobic.

And I said, well, but you are saying things that are homophobic. And he said, well, I don't really mean them. I don't really mean them. I was just trying to wind up, Lennox Lewis. I said, well, you wouldn't find it acceptable for another boxer to wind you up using racism. Why do you think it's acceptable to use homophobia as a windup? so he got even more defensive

but eventually they came a point well I said to him look if you're not homophobic will you make a statement to the cameras saying that you're against anti-gay discrimination

and sure enough he did and I can't think of any other boxer or world champion boxer has done that but certainly not at that time anyway so yeah that was a win He was Mike Tyson putting on record that he opposed discrimination against gay people.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. And one of the things I find fascinating about that story is you were actually able to reason with him. In other words, you were able to talk to somebody who you wouldn't necessarily expect to be receptive to that kind of communication. And you were able to convince him that what he was doing was wrong and to admit it on camera and to stop doing it. What do you make of the modern social justice movement and how it seems. to be evolving where you've talked many times about the fact that you think freedom of speech is one of the most important human rights. And now it seems like it's kind of falling down the

pecking order. The people are being no platformed. You yourself have, you haven't been quite no platformed, I think, but there was a lady who refused to speak on the same panel as you because you signed a letter essentially saying freedom of speech is important, no platform is bad. It seems like freedom of speech is falling down the pecking order. What do you make of that? Look, I spend a lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world, so let me tell you about something that's actually right. Sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being,

rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing, and most people have no idea what's actually in it. Avocardo green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning. The craftsmanship is real. These are mass produced objects.

Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest. I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's been on the same mattress for eight years and called it fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you, if you're going to invest in anything for your your home, your bed is the one that pays you back every single night. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocadogreenmatress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado greenmatress.com slash trigger. Avicardo

green mattress.com slash trigger. I think it's certainly true that Some people nowadays take the stance, well, if people are bigots or offensive, they don't have a right to speak. You know, they should be barred from speaking. They should be shunned. My view is they should be challenged. Their ideas should be countered. There should be protest against them. But I don't think no platforming is a way to make progress because that doesn't make the idea go away. It doesn't convince the person's supporters that a rethink is necessary.

Whereas if you engage in a dialogue, which sometimes may be quite unpleasant, but if you engage in a dialogue, then there's a chance that you can present counter evidence to show why these particular ideas are bigger than wrong. So that's my approach. I think engagement is key. And it's not just about seeking to persuade the bigot. because that may amount at work. What's important about these public engagements

is that you engage with the wider public who watch that program or attend that event. So you're really doing two things. You're challenging the bigoted person, but you're also challenging those ideas and speaking to a much wider and perhaps a more important audience. Do you find it quite worrisome nowadays

that the term free speech is, being associated with the far right, people like Tommy Robinson or, you know, Katie Hopkins as well. And, you know, when they support free speech, people go, you see, this is why free speech advocates are wrong. Do you find that quite worrying almost? I certainly do as somebody whose parents have come from, well, my mother is from Venezuela,

where free speech is essentially disappearing. Yeah. I think it is a dangerous trend when, people on the right are at least being perceived as supporting free speech. But of course they don't in reality because they don't support free speech for the victims they're targeting. They want to shout them down, bullying them, intimidate them and so on. So what's equally sad and tragic is the way in which many on the left

seem to now think, as you say, that free speech is an expendable bourgeois concept that when it comes to ideas that the left opposes, just ban them. Well, that's got echoes of Stalinism. I'm from Russia, I think I've mentioned, yeah. I know what you're talking about, yeah. And, you know, Rosa Luxembourg, a communist, a German communist in the early 20th century, she strongly disagreed with Lenin. She said that the right to internal debate

within the Bolshevik Party and within the wider society is absolutely paramount. That there has to be an opportunity for bad ideas to be ventilated, exposed and challenged. And that was very much an argument against the sort of democratic centralist party line

that Lenin and other leading Bolsheviks were advocating. And they were saying that we will decide, and you all must support this. That dissent was tantamount to betrayal. And Roosevelt was saying, no, dissent is a vital component of an engaged, evolving political movement. And that if a movement isn't open to criticism and to alternative points of view, it stultifies and can often go badly wrong, as of course happened in the Stalin era in particular. So you would say that for instance Tommy Robinson, you do not agree

so, you think that somebody like Tommy Robinson should be allowed to speak. You think it's, I'll put this question in a more concise way, do you think it was wrong for someone like Twitter to ban Tommy Robinson and to remove his account or would you say that ultimately he has a right and he should be allowed to say what he thinks

even if you disagree with it or I disagree with it? Well, of course I strongly disagree with Tommy Robinson and the movements he's involved and associated with. But my understanding was that he was banned from Twitter for simply making criticisms of Islam. They are criticisms that I wouldn't make or not make in that way,

but I do think it's valid that all ideas, including religious ideas, should be open to criticism. When it crosses the line to abuse and insults, when it engages in threats, menaces or harassment, and certainly if it involves any element of encouraging violence, then that is obviously clearly wrong, a step too far, and that should not be tolerated, because it's not about free speech.

That's a violation of free speech, because when you had 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. They fear the consequences. 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

of violence into one category. 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. Yeah, I think insults are okay. But again, it depends on what kind of insult. So when it comes to free speech, I've got three red lines. The first is I don't think someone should be able to make false damaging allegations against another person, for example, to falsely accuse them of being a pedophile or a tax fraudster.

equally I don't think it's right that a person should be able to engage in threats, menaces or harassment and finally I think another red line is incitements or encouragements to violence and murder you know those are criminal offences and quite rightly are not part of what constitutes free speech so outside of those three red lines I think people have a right to speak but equally people have a right to protest against that point of view I think it's really important there is no free pass given to people who promote hatred and bigotry

of course I mean that's absolutely fascinating Peter one question that I wanted to ask you I mean do you think with the right of people like Trump who are openly espousing racist views or racist points of view. I mean, Brexit, which I'm not saying that everyone who voted Brexit is racist. Of course, that's absolutely wrong. But nevertheless, there were certain undercurrents to the Brexit campaign. Do you think we are regressing somewhat with our tolerance in this country

and our levels of tolerance? 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? Well, I think social media is great in there it does give a platform a voice to millions of people otherwise would not have it. So that's a really positive element.

But of course, a lot of the interchanges on social media are quite toxic and actually very bad for people's mental health and, you know, are not free speech. They are speech that's hateful, you know, often making fabricated allegations.

So that to me is damaging and undermining social media. But where I strongly disagree is with people who say, that's offensive, you can't say that. I mean, some of the most important ideas in human history have caused great offence in their time. I think of Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx. they all had ideas that many people found deeply offensive. And if this rule that you can't cause offense applied,

then those great people would have been shut up. And I didn't think that's the right way to go. I think that would create a cultural stasis where new radical dissenting ideas could be shut down on the basis that some people found them offensive. And this is there a part of it? I'm just curious. because, you know, you've dedicated your life to fighting for these causes.

Is there a part of you that gets, I mean, you seem like a very reasonable and gentle and kind man? But is there a part of you that gets really pissed off when these people are refusing to speak on a panel with you, calling you transphobic, calling you racist, when you've been standing up for the rights of ethnic minorities and LGBT people your whole life? Is there a part of you that goes, how dare you? I guess there is. but you know it is par for the course sadly you know you just have to

take the brick back and carry on obviously you know you try to counter them I try to count them but you know there is a tendency now among sections of both the right

and the left among some people to try and discredit other people by smearing them as racist or a neocon. You know, they think that's a way to damage you. Rather than engage with the arguments of the ideas, rather than look at the evidence, the tactic is to smear and slur. And that's very damaging for democracy, because if that's how democratic debate descends,

then people cannot make decisions or come to conclusions based on facts. It's this mismash of fact, fiction, smear, and fabricating a lie. And even the conversation you had with Mike Tyson would not have been possible if it had just been about labels. You actually had a conversation where it was productive. Whereas if you just called each other names, that would not have happened. Exactly. Yeah, yeah.

And it's a really good example of where he said something offensive, but rather than run away and cry or rather than, you know, denounce him, I went and engaged with him and got him to make a positive pro-LGB statement. And what do you make of this whole collectivism where people are now trying to change the world, as you've tried to change the world, but they're doing it one Facebook post at a time, rather than one campaign at a time or actually doing something? What do you make of that? Well, I think social media activism, online petitions, they have a valid role, but they're usually only effective if you get 100,000 plus signatures or even several million.

I think a lot of people do seem to think that clicking the mouse is, I've done my bit. And thank you for clicking the mouse and some of those mouse clicks do have an impact. but really an effective campaign is much bigger and broader than that. It's got to involve much more interaction, much more engagement. And that means a combination of protest, writing letters, lobbies, a whole host of different things. Well, writing letters is a very British solution to the problem. Yes, it is. It is an incredibly British solution to the problem. Because if someone gets a letter, you know, they are more likely to take it seriously than if they get an email.

Does it matter about handwriting? It does. A handwritten letter will probably get even better response. 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 can go. If you take nothing from this podcast or this show, please remember, if you want to protest against something, calligraphy is a way forward. But even that, yeah, that's not enough.

You know, people can write letters, but, you know, really, effective campaigns like the campaign against the poll tax in 1990. It won because, yeah, people did sign petitions and write letters, but the real impetus for Margaret Thatcher dropping that policy was that millions of people either refused to pay the poll tax or delayed payment so the system became unworkable. So using that financial leverage proved to be a very, very effective way. because Thatcher ultimately realized,

even though she said this was a flagship policy, there was no negotiation, she wasn't for turning. When it came down to it, so many people made the poll tax unworkable that she had to recant and abandon it. I mean, one of the stories that blew me away, Peter, from reading about your career, and I was actually talking to a gay Australian comic yesterday,

and I was telling him stories about how you used to, at the very start of your career in the 70s, You used to go into Australian bars where they were, you know, they were openly homophobic and engaging sittings. No, that was in London. Oh, sorry, it was in London. Stop smearing our Australian.

Sorry, apologies. But not, just in bars in London, which were open and engaged in sittings. That, to me, absolutely blows my mind. I mean, did you ever, I mean, you must have encountered some incredible people during those moments. And were you genuinely fearing for your life at certain points?

Not with the sit-in, no. But in the early 1970s, it's true that there were some bars, restaurants, pubs, other venues that would not serve gay people. So model on the Blacksill Rights Movement, we decided to organise sit-ins in those venues to demand to be served. And when we were refused, we sat down and refused. to leave and then of course the police were called and we arrested but we didn't have to do this for too long it was just a matter of weeks really when most of these venues eventually gave in

because we told them you know you can have us arrested and carted out once twice three times four times we're still going to come back until you agree to serve gay people and eventually most of those landlords and managers realized that they were onto a loser, that we weren't going to go away, that in fact our repeated sit-ins were actually driving away their traditional customers. So they were losing money,

and of course money talks. And so eventually they gave in and agreed to service. So why did the Iraq war campaign fail? I mentioned this at the beginning that for our generation, it was 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. And the Iraq war has been something that's defined the years since. I mean, everything that's happened has been, what, 15 years now, ISIS, all of the stuff we're still dealing with Syria, Iraq, they're all consequences of that war. And despite the fact that millions of British people and people around the world came out onto the streets. It just went ahead. Why do you think that failed? I think we had in this country an arrogant, smug, self-satisfied and unresponsive government led by Tony Blair. Amen. And most democratic governments do have a sensitivity towards public opinion. 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. The problem was that we didn't have any leverage other than the mass protests which he was able to ignore. In the case of the poll tax campaign, there was the financial leverage of non-payment or delayed payment. We didn't have an equivalent. If we had, we might have got the government to change its stance, but we didn't. 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. Absolutely.

Peter, just going back to the issue of gay rights, you must be very, very proud of everything. You and your supporters and activists have the changes you've made for gay people over the last 30 to 40 years. It's a huge achievement. What do you see as the next struggle for gay rights in order to achieve fairness and equality? Well, there are still some residues of anti-gay prejudice, like the fact that half of all LGBT kids in schools are bullied. A third of all LGBT people in the country have been victims of homophobic, bifobic or transphobic hate crimes, at least once and sometimes three, four or five times over their life. So, you know, the battle is not won.

You know, we've got legal equality in most areas. Public opinion has changed. You know, the level of public homophobia is much less than it was two or three decades ago. But globally, that's where the real battle is, because still we have today 72 countries where homosexuality is totally illegal. punish you up to life imprisonment in some countries and facing the prospect of even the death penalty in 10 Muslim majority countries. That's definitely something to fight for.

What do you make of, you know, I come from Russia, as I said, what do you make of the situation? Because you've been to Russia and you've, in fact, you think you've been assaulted in Russia. What do you make of the situation there? because that's one country that seems to be actually getting worse, doesn't it? Yeah, although homosexuality was decriminalized in the early 1990s under Boris Yeltsin, there was a window period where things seemed to be getting better. Certainly in the Putin era, things have gone very much in reverse. I think Putin and his party have seen homosexuality.

sexuality as a useful political diversion. LGBT people in Russia are sort of portrayed effectively as the enemy within, which of course distracts Russian people from the massive theft of public assets by oligarchs, the huge corruption of Putin and other leading Russian officials, and the widespread human rights abuses in that country. So it's a good diversion, tactic in the same way that or similar to the fact you know that in the 1930s in

Germany Jewish people were used by the Nazis as a as a way of deflecting German public's attention from the crimes the Nazis and their own failing so that that is definitely a backward step and we have seen actually the legislation passed in 2013 which criminalized the so-called propagation of homosexuality which in effect means anything positive or informative about gay issues falls within the criminal law. So people have been convicted under that law for holding up a placard saying homosexuality is normal or just gay rights. Ostensibly it's targeted at protecting minors. Well, why do young people need protection from homosexuality?

Some of them will be gay. They need support and information, not. not the image or the impression that it's something shameful, wrong or whatever. But also, of course, this is very much a product of the alliance between the Putin regime and the Russian Orthodox Church. So essentially in Russia today, Putin supports the Russian Orthodox Church, and in return they support him. And the Russian Orthodox Church plus some of the

Muslim organizations also have rallied very much to demand a crackdown homosexuality, and they were some of the prime movers behind the legislation in 2013. So, yeah, things are going backwards. On top of that, of course, you've got the rise of a social media in Russia, which is being exploited by far-right extremists to target gay people. So far-wide extremists will pose as gay, lure gay men to rendezvous and then beat them up, you know, humiliate them by shaving their head or pouring ink over them, a whole host of humiliations. But, you know, that is going on with, I wouldn't say state sanction, but certainly de facto state sanction.

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. Do you ever find yourself, Peter, I mean, you come across as a wonderfully tolerant man and very, very gentle, for want of a better word. Do you ever find yourself, though, getting frustrated and angered by certain aspects of organized religion which seem to condone humankind? homophobic behavior and even encourage it in certain instances?

Well, I'd say that organized religion is probably the single greatest global threat to women's rights and LGBT rights. All over the world where LGBT rights and women's equality is under attack, it is motivated primarily by religious establishment. Not necessarily people at the grassroots of the faith, but the religious leaders. So here in Britain we have the Church of England, the official established state church, which opposes equal marriage. It says that gay people are inferior and not entitled to the same right to marry the person they love

as heterosexual men women. That's an official endorsement of legal discrimination by the Church of England and the Archbishop of accountability, Justin Welby. all over the world everywhere from Russia to Uganda Jamaica Iran Saudi Arabia

it is religious motivation that is orchestrating the systemic persecution of LGBT people and why do you think that is I mean you must have some theories of it why do you think that they're so homophobic because I mean I was raised as a Catholic my mother like I said before is Latin American

and Latin American culture I mean he's deeply homophobic I mean like for instance to tell you a story my cousin when I was very young in the early 90s he passed away from an age related illness and he was a gay man and in that time David didn't bless him he didn't

no one could admit that he died of an age related illness he died of throat cancer because nobody wanted to admit that he was gay and died of AIDS why is it do you think that these organizations are homophobic because, to be honest with you, I mean, I'm straight, but it still makes me incredibly angry. I think all the major faiths are deeply patriarchal, you know, very much based upon male power and privilege.

We see that, you know, across the world, most faiths still have male-only clergy. You know, women are not allowed to be imams in Orthodox Islam. It's only recently that Judaism has opened up to women. And apart from the Church of England, the Episcopal Church in America and a few others, most Christian denominations are overwhelmingly led by and ruled by men. 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.

Well, this is what I was going to ask you. It's a bit of a weird question. So please understand that it's meant as a genuine curiosity. Growing up in Russia, Russians generally are very homophobic. And I heard all this stuff about how the reason that people discriminate against gay people is it's not natural. That was the thing that was said. 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? Do you have any idea of any evolutionary theory that explains why that is? And the kind of evolutionary rationale for homosexuality, are you aware of anything like that? No. No. I mean, that is the big conundrum because, of course, Darwinian theory of evolution talks about the survival of the fittest, And, you know, the reproductive capacity is very much about survival. Right.

So why would this set of factors, combination of genes and hormones and social factors, why would it predispose every known human society to have homosexuality? But to me, that's an interesting question. It's not essential to the way we live our lives. I'd love to know the answer too. but what's really important right now is to end the persecution of LGBT plus people worldwide. Of course it is.

And moving on to another topic, I know you're very passionate about electoral reform in this country. Could you just explain to us a little bit about why that is and the problems with our current electoral system? Well, just so everyone knows, I mean, I am best renowned for my work on LGBT rights, but I've always very consistently also campaigned for other human rights. human rights as well. And to me, one very important human right is the right to vote in elections and for that vote to count. Now, in Britain, no governing party has won a majority of the popular vote since 1931. Wow.

Every single UK governing party since 1931 has come to power on a minority of the popular vote, mostly between 35 and 43%, a clear minority. So it means that none of these governments has had a genuine popular mandate. none can say that we speak for the majority. But of course, under our electoral system, repeatedly they have won a majority of seats. So Margaret Thatcher won a landslide in 1983, but it was only based upon 42% of the vote.

Tony Blair won 55% of the seats in 2005, but it was only based on 35% of the vote. that clearly is not democracy that's not what the charters and the suffragettes fought for they fought for our representative parliament and we don't have one millions of people's votes

do not count it all depends on marginal swings in marginal constituencies there's been elections where a change of 15 to 20,000 votes would have changed the election result in terms of seats won and governments formed.

You know, out of millions and millions of votes, it swung on just 15 to 20,000 votes in key marginal. Now, that is not a way to run a democracy. That's not a way to have a government that has and inspires public confidence. And it encourages political parties, actually, not to speak to the majority of the people, but to target very particular constituencies, very particular types of people within those constituencies. Absolutely. If you look at Cornwall, for example, in the southwest of England,

less than half of the voters voted conservative, yet the conservatives won all the political representation for the whole of Cornwall. I mean, how can that be right? You know, that's why we need a system, some system of proportional representation, like they have in Scotland, Northern Ireland, in Wales, and in the London Assembly. There, it's not perfect, but there you do have a more representative governance. So, for example, in London, there's always been two or three Green members of the London Assembly. Now, the Greens never won any seats in the constituencies based on first past the post,

but under the top-up system, they won enough popular votes to get them two seats. And they have had incredibly effective and out of all proportion influence on policy in government. Most of the major innovative policies pursued by successive London mayors, were initiatives that originally came from the Greens. Now, I'm not saying that just because I'm a Green Party supporter, but I'm just saying it's a good example of how when you have a system of proportional representation, you do get a wider spectrum of public opinion represented.

And even if those are just minority seats or minority representations, they can be highly effective and it can actually make a very positive difference to people's lives. Sure. The interesting question there is, the Lib Dems, if you remember at the time of the coalition government, they campaigned on the referendum for some kind of, they couldn't quite get PR, so they went for some kind of PR.

The alternative vote, yeah. The alternative vote. Which is not PR, but, yeah. And no one really voted in that referendum, and it didn't go through. And I think there is no appetite in the general public here in Britain for that system, or indeed it seems for PR.

I mean, how do you? No, no, public opinion is now very strongly in favor of reforming the voting system. Uh-huh. I mean, it's probably not at the top of people's agenda, probably the NHS and jobs and education at the top. But if you ask people about, you know, should Britain have a fair voting system, does the voting system need to change, you know, clear majority say yes, yes. So why hasn't it happened, Peter? Because the big two parties have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is, because they benefit from it.

Labor's view is, we'll keep the system the way it is, eventually we'll win a majority. And, you know, we won't have to be bothered. about doing coalitions or alliances with the party. But to me, I'm a very strong and very sincere socialist. I believe in quite radical socialism, but I only want to see it happen if I can persuade a majority of people that it's the right thing to do. I don't want to sneak in socialism as a result

of an unfair, unjust, undemocratic electoral socialism. system. And I'm sad to say that many people in Labor want to exploit the unfairness of the system to they can get a majority and force through their policies, even if they don't have popular support. So we just have this tribal political system and the two tribes are warring and they don't want anyone else to get on that action. So, well, here we are. There's three of us here. You are one of the most prominent and effective campaigners in recent history. How do we fix this? How do we organize a campaign for PR. I'm down. You've got one supporter,

right? How do we do it? Well, I have advocated for many years that the campaigns for voting reform should carry on with the tactics they're currently using, but also do suffragette

and charter style direct action. Peaceful, non-violent direct action to demand a fair voting system. But sadly, those organizations are too timid. They don't want to go down that road. The closest they've come to it is

we did a hunger strike for voting reform earlier this year. But, you know, a hunger strike, well, okay, it's a gesture, it's making a point that's saying that I feel so strongly about this issue that I'm prepared to go without food and endure the discomfort.

But it's not real leverage. You know, I think... Do we need a citizens the rest of Theresa May, is that we're saying? Possibly. But I think we need more than that. We need a mass movement. I need a mess movement that, like the suffragettes and the Charter,

is prepared to be challenging, non-violent, but challenging. It's part of the problem that it's not really a sexy issue. You're not going to throw yourself under a horse carriage over PI. It just doesn't... Well, Emily Davidson did. True, true. So, yeah, but you're right. You know, most people think politics in terms of issues that directly affect them and their lives.

So, you know, 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. That's the point I was going to make. So how do we convince people to get on board with that idea? 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 there's not necessarily a healthy comparison if you're trying to create a good democracy. How do you get ordinary people to get that link that you've just exposed there, which is that if you want to fix a lot of the social issues that we keep talking about and a lot of the practical issues, we need a better representative system. How do you convince ordinary people who have busy lives? They've got kids to bring up and lives to live and work to go to and whatever. To go, ah, without this, we don't have this.

How do you convince ordinary people of that? Well, 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 centre do support social programs and public services but their voice is not being heard in government

because the voting system keeps on delivering governing parties with minority support So when it comes to how we move forward, I think it's a combination of education and persuasion, direct action and protest, online petitions, a whole host of different things. But at the end of the day, what is going to convince people

if they can see and understand that without PR, the things that they want to see happen won't happen. Now, give you an example, if we'd had a system of force representation in Britain in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher would have never been elected. And she would have never won those successive election victories. Because every time she did so, based on a minority of the popular vote, only just over 40%. So for people on the left in central politics who probably,

in most cases, loathe Thatcherism and what it did to this country, you've got to ask yourself, well, if you didn't support PR, that's why you ended up with Thatcher and all the devastating consequences that followed. So if you want to change things and prevent a new Thatcher, you have to support a new voting system. And what I find very frustrating right now is that Labor is so far not supporting a fair voting system. They want to keep things as they are.

They want to benefit from the manipulation of First Past the Post that gave David Cameron and Theresa May a victory, Margaret Thatcher a victory. They want to benefit from the same system, give Jeremy Corbyn a victory. And to me, there is no socialism worth having unless it has majority public support. You see, Peter, I can see why you never made it in politics.

It's because you're far too principle. That's the problem, isn't it? The far too principle. Listen, now, we've got time for a couple of questions. One of the things when we put out the fact that you were coming on, one of our viewers wanted to ask, how do you remain so hopeful? Because you must be hopeful to have lived the life that you've lived. How do you remain hopeful in the face of tragedy and horrors?

And also just the kind of things that we've just been talking about, you know, a political system that ignores the voices of many, many people. How do you maintain a sense of optimism and hope when all of that is happening? Well, I guess I am an unreconstructed 1960s idealist. You know, I grew up in an era of great optimism about what could change and how we could change it. And I've seen so many changes in my lifetime, which, of course, inspires me to keep campaigning. I think about terrible injustices such as the systemic legal persecution of LGBT people in this country

which is now history and I with many thousands of others was part of that process of change I think to myself wow I helped do something that has made life better for vast numbers of LGBT people in Britain I look at the global stage

and I've seen so many dictatorships fall in my lifetime. There were still dictatorships and even new ones, but Franco is history, Pinochet is history, Marcos is history, the Old Servic Union is history. These are momentous changes which have been brought about by millions of people organizing to fight for that change. And so I just feel inspired by the changes that I've been part of.

and feel hopeful that further change can come. And I know that if we put our minds to it, we can change things. Not always and not always immediately, but ultimately no tyranny lasts forever. You know, out of Hitler promised a 1,000-year Reich. It lasted all of 12 years. There are many others in power, perhaps not direct tyrants, but, you know, people perpetrating great injustice.

they won't last forever. They will have their day and be gone. And that just keeps me want to fight on and help bring about that change. We have to end it there. What a way to end at the show. What a wonderfully uplifting, beautiful way to end the show. Thank you very much for coming on, Peter.

We always ask the final question, which is, what is the one issue that you think is incredibly important but people aren't talking about nearly as much as they should be. Do you think it's obviously we've covered PR? Is there something else that is particularly dear to your heart? For me, economic democracy is the elephant in the room. We live in Britain and Western countries in an economic dictatorship

where the rich and powerful have all the votes. It's not one person, one vote in the economy. the directors, the major shareholders, the managers, they have all the votes. And ordinary people are excluded and disenfranchised. So when it comes to the running of both private corporations and public institutions like the National Health Service, they are run on quasi-authoritarian lines, top-down, the people who work on those institutions have little or no power. And that strikes me as being totally out of kilter with our political system. In politics, we expect democracy.

We expect one person, one vote. We expect a rich person to have no more votes than a poor person. But that's not translated into the economy. So my ask is, if we expect political democracy, why not economic democracy too? Why can't we have a system, for example, where private corporations and public institutions would be required by law to have, say, one-third employee and consumer representatives on their management boards with full rights to information and full voting rights, to make it a more co-equal partnership between the people at the top and the grassroots?

And you've got to remember that the people who work, in both private and public institutions at the grassroots, they have a vast wealth of practical knowledge about how those institutions work, how they could be improved, lots of things, but their voices and their contributions not being heard. So it's not only an issue of fairness, it's also an issue of making those workplaces and institutions operate more effectively and efficiently. So, you know, I'd love to see, you know, the grassroots porters, nurses and doctors and the health service have a direct input through an electorate representative or more on the management board of their NHS trust. So they could take to that management board practical ideas

for about proving the service and to have patient representatives as well give their voice to say this is how the hospital needs to change its operating system to make it better for patients and for the delivery of care. Now, the German Works Council model is an example of that. I'd go a bit further, but it's a good example. And I'd say that in Germany, first of all, employees feel they have a stake in the company because they've got representation on the Works Council board.

Secondly, when they have a grievance, they take it to the board and often it gets resolved. They don't have to go on strike. So you're not losing production through strikes. Your productivity is better. The company's operation is more efficient and employees feel better involved and rewarded because so often when those issues are taken to the Works Council, there may be some resistance and some RGB, some argy-bargy, but in the end, often as not, there'll be some compromise and the workers in the end will make a gain. It doesn't happen in Britain. We are too polarised. But it should.

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. Sadly, the left and the trade unions shot it down. They said this is corporatism, this is like nobbling the unions. That's madness. Imagine if trade unionists or employees had direct input to the management board to their companies. They could address their grievances in the boardroom, not on the picket line. They could take their message direct to the people who had the power. They could have a vote and they could perhaps persuade some of the managers

and shareholders to vote with them. So to me, it is so obvious that we need some system of economic democracy. It's good for the economy. It's good for fairness and social justice. There we go. Interesting idea. All right.

Well, Peter, thank you so much for coming on. We really appreciate you spending this time with us. If you enjoyed watching this episode, do follow us on YouTube, subscribe to our channel. Give us a rating on iTunes. if you prefer to listen, follow us at TriggerPod on Instagram and Twitter, and we'll see you in the week's time from now. Thank you very much to tune in.

Thank you. Thank you. This episode is brought to you by Netflix's remarkably bright creatures. What if a Pacific octopus held the key to a mystery that could heal your heart? Well, that's Tova's reality. An elderly widow working at an aquarium. Tova forms an unlikely friendship with their crumudgeonly, Marcellus, whose remarkable intelligence leads her to a life-changing discovery.

Remarkably bright creatures is now playing only on Netflix.