Although I would never vote Green in 100000000 years, I am very sorry to hear this.

A great campaigner.

Damn, really sorry to hear this too. Peter Tatchell is a brilliant campaigner and an idealist. I hope he recovers soon.

What a shame. He’s always been one of my favourite political figures. And it’s unbelievable that he’s never been an MP either.

Very sad news for an already zombified British political landscape.
I wish him prompt recovery.

He is wasted in the Green Party.

I disagree with him on much but wholly respect him as an individual trying to do right by the world.

Sad story, I hadn’t known the beatings had been that bad.

Despite my disagreement with his politics, an admirable guy – has the courage of his convictions and always tries to be fair.

(Of course, if he agreed with me, Lib Con would be celebrating his beatings and posting the videos)

This is sad news indeed. It feels a little distasteful to be the first to bring up the subject of the succession, but…

let’s hope that some real Green stars put themselves forward for the vacancy, and the Oxford Greens select a candidate than will win what is an eminently winnable seat. I think the net should be cast wide for the very best figures in the wider Green movement with the widest popular appeal.

May I humbly suggest George Monbiot?

Bloody hell Laban, you don’t half keep banging on with regards to your own pet peeves, piggy backing grotesquely on the back of unconnected posts.

Goon.

Echoing what others have said, this is very sad news. A great shame he didn’t win in Bermondsey, and whilst I’d have wanted to see him resoundingly beaten by Labour in Oxford East, he’s someone I’ve nonetheless got a lot of respect for. What’s most worthy of respect in my opinion is the way despite the personal abuse he has received time and time again, he has always drawn attention to other people who are suffering oppression and abuse and attempted to amplify their voice.

To add to the above. I’m having a hard time finding a source however, there’s one action I recall (and I can of course be wrong about this, as ever).

A preacher of “Teh gays shouldn’t be allowed to do that” was being prosecuted. Tatchell turned up and said, in evidence, that while what teh preacher was saying was wrong, immoral, a violation of civil rights, it would be a greater violation of said civil rights to charge someone for speaking their mind. Teh freedom means that everyone is allowed to do just that, speak their mind.

I may have this wrong, for which I apologise, but I don’t think I have except in detail.

I admire him for exactly that: civil liberties are civil liberties. No ifs, no buts, no “not if you offend me”.

Very American in a way (as I also consider myself in this sense)…..we hold these truths to be self evident…..n’ the rest of you can entirely fuck off.

An entirely admirable attitude…..

I was thinking sadly that there isn’t any replacement for Peter Tatchell. His patent honesty and dedication to protesting injustice has even won the tabloids round. But he may recover from his head injuries. People do, though it can take quite a long time. In a year or two he may be able to campaign again.

Despite being a political opponent he is someone I can admire; scrupulously honest, courageous and tenacious in the fight for human rights. I’m not sure how Peter would have dealt with the electoral pact with George Galloway’s Respect Party. Leading Respect members made some seriously outrageous comments about him, even threatening violence, secure in the knowledge Peter does not use the libel courts on moral grounds.http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/adamyosef.htm
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/11/out-of-place-fabrications-and-smears.html

It is sad that anyone should become a victim of violence and I’m sorry that Peter Tatchell’s ambitions have suffered as a result.

However it was precisely he willingness to put himself personally in the line of fire as his primary campaigning strategy which marked out why he was incapable of being an effective representative of the public, while equally in reverse Tatchell’s association with partisan politics neutered his ability to appeal to a wider audience.

I find it odd to say the least that he realistically thought voters in Oxford East would be impressed by his ability to speak up for their concerns when he might be lying in a hospital in Moscow or wherever and his disregard for the responsibilities he hoped to assume shows why he was badly qualified to be an MP.

For his own sake, his party’s sake and on behalf of the people he campaigns to help I hope he has finally woken up to this realisation.

I hadn’t known until today that he sustained such serious injuries. It is indeed sad news.

Like others, I disagree with some of his views but I have always admired him for his integrity, his willingness to speak up for even those who would not do the same for him (as Tim W said above), and his courage in leading from the front.

I wish him all the best.

I’m very sad to hear this. Peter was at the excellent Green Fair in Oxford this past Saturday, an annual event which the Oxford Greens put on for the community in the run up to the holidays. I hope he is able to return to campaigning in the future.

I comletely disagree with thomas @ 13: though I would have campaigned against Peter in Oxford East (as a LP member), I think we need MPs who have the courage of their convictions. On none of the occasions when Peter was beaten up was he himself engaged in violent activity or activity of any kind which in any way warranted the violence he received. The logical implication of thomas’s argument is that our MPs should allow their own activism to be dictated by the predelictions towards unjustified violence by others – in other words, that MPs should watch out for likely bullies…and give in to their intimidation.

I didn’t realise Mugabe’s thugs hurt him so badly. I may be a right-wing wingnut, but I wish him well.

The case that Tim Worstall was referring to above was that of the late Harry Hammond. The Tatchell view :

“The conviction of Harry Hammond for displaying a placard criticising homosexuality is a grotesque misuse of the Public Order Act. His placard was offensive to gay people; that is not, however, a legitimate reason to suppress his right to protest and turn him into a criminal. Freedom of speech is so precious that it must be defended, even when we disagree with the sentiments expressed. Other than direct incitements to violence, there is no justification for criminalising words and opinions.

If Mr Hammond appeals, I would gladly testify in favour of his conviction being overturned.”