Comments on: An Interview with Peter Tatchell

By: Katie Patel

Katie Patel — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:47:34 +0000

Susan Boyle may not be a very good looking woman but she has an angelic voice. :

By: 2009: Blogging Year in Review « Though Cowards Flinch

2009: Blogging Year in Review « Though Cowards Flinch — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:12:42 +0000

[...] Third Estate features pretty high on my list. I don’t usually bother with the high profile interviews – though if that’s your thing, there’s plenty of great stuff, but the material [...]

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:23:05 +0000

DavidR, it’s not a stereotype about Green attitudes – I’m objecting to specific policies. When I’m inferring attitudes it’s on the basis that those policies are strongly suggestive of the wider trend of environmental thinking that roots itself in gut reactions, nature fetishisation and hysteria rather than the clear, evidence-based thinking that is our only hope of getting through the crisis humanity has created for itself without a lot more people dying.

My main problem is not that the Greens aren’t sufficiently Left for me. It’s that they’re not sufficiently green!

Check out this article – http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/04/21/what-the-hell-happened-to-the-environmental-movement/ – it’s about America but applies equally well to a lot of the environmentalism in this country.

“You don’t have to be anti-science to ask how you safely deal with nuclear waste.”
Actually I reckon the scientific question to ask would be “How can you least unsafely deal with nuclear waste?” followed by “Is that risk worse than the risks incurred by alternative *feasible* strategies?”. Safety as a factor in our decision-making is worthless unless it’s considered in relative terms. Nuclear waste is not 100% safe, no. But nothing really is. A proper appreciation of risk and probability is lacking in this society’s decision-making processes.

By: DavidR

DavidR — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:28:08 +0000

You don’t have to be anti-science to ask how you safely deal with nuclear waste. I think there’s a stereotype about the Greens’ attitudes which unfortunately is repeated here. Yet, most of the Greens I know have a positive attitude to science coupled with a serious attitude to sustainability, which those of us who come from the traditional Left cottoned on to many years too late.

I’ve voted Green in pretty much every election in the last 15 years – and will be voting for them, not just as a protest vote, on Thursday. I was a member from 1997-2002 – though unfortunately my local branch meetings were very, very dull. But am thinking of rejoining and working beyond the local level, especially as there is now a functioning Green Left faction with people like Tatchell and Derek Wall that I respect.

I’ve no great desire to get involved with Respect while the ultra-slippery Galloway still calls the shots and investors in the public school system for her daughter like Yvonne Ridley, are still prominent within it – not to mention contiunuing to play with fire in terms of alliances with fundamentalists. Though I’m glad that Respect saw the sense of not contesting the Greens in the North West.

Other left wing groups are likely to fare pretty badly this week – but let’s hope that out of this situation, with New Labour losing even more of its credibility and the Greens set to gain, that socialists and greens are going to start building a real Red-Green alternative for the years to come.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:35:44 +0000

That’s true (and I’d probably vote Green for local elections and even give it some consideration for Parliament), but problems like this come to the fore for these European elections, because I’m not sure how much power MEPs really have to advance many left social policies, and the civil liberties-type stuff will be just as ably performed by the likes of the Lib Dems – but things like GM hysteria, energy policy and animal testing *are* ruled on by the European Parliament. For instance *this* is exactly the kind of thing I *don’t* want Green MEPs voting on – http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/policy_issues/european_regulation/uk_bioscience_sector_declaration

I also feel intensely uncomfortable with the idea of lending my support to a party which has such a strong anti-science vibe as a general principle.

By: Salman Shaheen

Salman Shaheen — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:07:29 +0000

I agree with you on all counts Ben. I’m in favour of the responsible use of nuclear power, alongside renewable energy, as one possible solution to climate change. I’m against the automatic fetishisation of the natural and have no scientific objections to GM – were it not controlled by Monsanto et al I believe it could be a great benefit to humanity, particularly in the third world where GM can be used to increase crop yields and nutritional value. And whilst I’m against all cosmetic testing on animals, I do recognise that it may, at present, be an unfortunate neccesity to employ animal testing to develop vital treatments. All that said, I’m still backing the Green Party, precisely because they are much more than just an environmentalist party, and their raft of social policies are every bit as vital.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:51:28 +0000

I’d love to be able to vote Green, but there are some basic problems I can’t get past. They need a good injection of science. Their environmental policies represent the part of the environmental movement that seems to have divorced itself from the science that is the only rational basis it can have – so for instance while its priorities on climate change are great, its proposed solutions are powerfully influenced by things like a hysterical fear of nuclear power. Similar attitudes to GM – they can’t appreciate that just because the applications to which Monsanto et al have turned it are dodgy, that doesn’t mean that GM crops and animals don’t have great potential to improve lives and even protect the environment.

And take a look at their animal welfare policies. They don’t seem to understand that prohibition of animal experimentation would be the virtual end of progress in many fields of medical and veterinary science, resulting in untold suffering for both humans and animals.