Without Prejudice

Attack Dogs of an Authoritarian State: Peter Tatchell Replies

by Peter Tatchell

The debate so far:

This article totally misrepresents the Peter Tatchell Foundation, which even a simple research would reveal.

We defend free speech for people we disagree with but incitements to violence are a criminal offence. I have many times defended Christians wrongfully arrested for merely saying that homosexuality is wrong. We opposed the denial of banking services to Nigel Farage.

We are are not seeking to criminalise Chick-fil-A or stop them expressing their opinions. They have funded campaigns to deny LGBT+ people equal human rights ie they funded lobbying in favour of anti-LGBT+ discrimination to deny LGBT+ people jobs, services, education etc. LGBTs and other consumers have every right to boycott them and seek prevent their expansion in the UK. We offered them a compromise and they ignored it. Chick-fil-A did not have the courtesy to reply to our letter or meet us. We have not intimidated, harassed or abused anyone, as you imply.

Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Related posts:

The Peter Tatchell Foundation: Attack Dogs of an Authoritarian State Reply to Peter Tatchell The War on Gab: British Government Escalates Attack on Free Speech Platform The Graham Linehan Arrest and the Regime’s War on Dissent A Small Victory in a Losing War: The UK Government Retreats on Encryption Deutsche Welle’s Fear of Free Speech: A State Broadcaster’s Panic Over Tommy Robinson

Powered by YARPP.

4 comments


  1. If Peter Tatchell has any reason to believe that Chick-Fil-A has given money to groups which incite violence, I would like to see the evidence. According to the secular humanist web site Rationalwiki, the main reason why homosexuals are making a fuss about it is that it has given money to groups which are against homosexual marriage.

    Reply

Leave a Reply