An online women’s publication called “The Establishment” last year published an article attacking the editing of Anne Frank’s diary by her father, Otto Frank, for publication in the 1940s after the death of the author and several members of their family in the Nazi concentration camps. The article by one Stephanie Watson (of whom they give no biographical details) was written more than a year ago (November 2016) but the magazine has been re-publicising it on Twitter and has attracted a lot of quite justifiable criticism that it is offensive and in effect anti-Semitic. The final published work combined material from two versions Anne Frank wrote, one of them a personal diary and one of them a novelised version of the same that was intended for publication; the bits that were edited out consisted of unflattering remarks about her parents and comments on sexuality, menstruation and her own vulva. Watson considers the removal of this material ‘sexist’ and an invasion of Anne Frank’s privacy and says she turned off the audiobook version of the diary, read by Helena Bonham-Carter, before she had even heard the whole of the preface!
Yesterday Theo Bertram, a former advisor to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, posted a tweet thread (starts here, ends here) on his work as part of Labour’s research team during the 2005 general election (the one that featured Tory slogans such as “how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?” and “it’s not racist to support limits on immigration” with the strap line “are you thinking what we’re thinking?”. Labour won a Parliamentary majority albeit with a share of the vote of just 35.2% — far less than some parties have lost elections with (for example, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party gained 40% of the vote in this past election but still lost). The Tories under Michael Howard appealed to their Daily Mail-reading base, as they had in 2001 but with even more nastiness, and still lost, their anti-immigration stance being exposed when it was revealed that Michael Howard’s dad was an illegal immigrant from Romania, saved from deportation (and likely later death in the Nazi concentration camps) by the intervention of a Labour MP.
So, today a man detonated a bomb in New York, at the Port Authority bus terminal. The man, a 27-year-old from Bangladesh who lives in Brooklyn and was a cab driver before his licence expired, was injured when the “low-tech” device exploded in an underpass and has been arrested. The city mayor said he acted alone but fomer NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton alleged that he ‘supposedly’ operated in the name of ISIS; the New York Post are reporting that he told investigators that he acted out of ‘revenge’ for US actions in his home country: “they’ve been bombing in my country and I wanted to do damage here”. The same report says that it is unclear whether he detonated the device at that particular time and place intentionally or whether it went off accidentally.
Last weekend I had a brief exchange with three women on Twitter, two Muslim and one Jewish, after one of the two Muslims retweeted a conversation about Jews versus Blacks and why the first group does not “act oppressed” the way Black people supposedly do. I responded that Jews had long since lost any right to be called an oppressed or marginalised group in many western countries and certainly the UK and to a large extent the USA as well. In response to this and my post from a couple of weeks back about Julie Burchill’s racist diatribe (in which she said Judaism attracted high-quality converts while Islam only attracts the ‘dregs’ of society), I’ve had people accuse me of anti-Semitism or “bad faith” for making such generalisations as that Jews are no longer a persecuted minority and that they are generally wealthy. It ties in with the repeated accusations of anti-Semitism against people connected to Jeremy Corbyn, the current leader of Britain’s Labour Party, often for things that appear to have had no racial component at all (some of the other accusations of racism in the Labour Party, for example against Jess Phillips for abusive but not racist language against Dianne Abbot, are in my opinion equally spurious).
I’ve long been suspicious of the motives and loyalty of “Tell MAMA”, the project set up to monitor and report on hate crimes against Muslims. It’s not that it’s a bad thing for there to be an office to which Muslims can report incidents of hostility; of course it’s not. It’s just that, unlike the Community Security Trust, say, which performs a similar role for Jews and Jewish institutions such as synagogues and schools in the UK, Tell MAMA also tells on Muslims to the media, persistently and publicly berating us for displaying intolerance towards other groups (particularly groups that appear Muslim but are rejected, such as the Qadianis (or Ahmadis, as they call themselves). Tell MAMA does not consistently put the blame for hate and racism where it belongs — with the perpetrators and the media that feeds exaggerated stories about terrorism and anti-integrationism to the public — but blames the Muslim community both in its own social media feeds and in its media interviews. This has to change.
I’ve had an ‘Islamophobia’ category on this blog for as long as I can remember (my first post in it was about Oriana Fallaci in September 2006). Much of my work in writing it has been to attack Islamophobia, to counter Islamophobic narratives and policies. But the term has had its critics over the years, some of them Muslims and some not. One of the most common criticisms is that it’s terminologically inaccurate as it doesn’t really refer to a fear as such but to hostility. Another is that opposition to Islam is usually a cover for hostility to non-whites or “others”, and it is sufficient to call it racism. I’m not convinced by either argument.
In the past week the ‘issue’ of primary school age Muslim girls wearing hijab to school has been on the front pages of some newspapers as the chief inspector of schools announced that her inspectors would be asking young girls they saw in headscarves why they were wearing it, supposedly in case girls were being ‘sexualised’ by wearing a garment believed to be intended to hide potentially sexually arousing things from men. The claim that this is the intention or the effect of hijab has been floating around on Twitter for some time but has gone mainstream in the last few months, perhaps because the country’s white busybodies need some other excuse to interfere in the way minorities raise their children since the wheels fell off the FGM bandwagon (, ) a couple of months back. A common claim is that hijab is “not even mandatory until puberty” in Islam, but there is more to why women and girls wear the hijab than this. (More: Abdul-Azim Ahmed, The Muslimah Diaries, Amanda Morris on FB, MCB with 100 Muslim women’s views, Aisha Gani @ Buzzfeed.)
The Sunday Times reported today (gleefully as you might expect) that Alexandra Spelman, the head of Ofsted, the British schools inspectorate, had announced a plan for her inspectors to ask primary school-age girls who wear hijab to school about who or what had prompted them to wear it in the light of “concern that girls as young as four are being forced to wear the Muslim headscarf” (paywalled, but the story is also on the Guardian website). Earlier today on Radio 4, I heard a discussion about this in which a woman (who had a posh accent and who I would guess was white) was pontificating about how the hijab supposedly sexualises young girls, and there was no Muslim voice in the discussion to point out that this was not actually why a young girl would wear hijab - some Muslim friends of mine mention protection from headlice as a reason, something the media never consider (see earlier entry); it was strictly “about us, without us” as is usual with these arrogant crusading do-gooders. It reminded me of a study I had been alerted to by other friends on Twitter last week, published from Durham university (in England) in late 2000, which revealed that children of all social classes who are educated at home do better than those of similar socio-economic backgrounds who have attended state schools.
The researcher, Paula Rothermel, a lecturer in learning in early childhood at the university, conducted the study through face-to-face interviews with 100 randomly chosen home-educating families across the country and “found that 65 per cent of home-educated children scored more than 75 per cent in a general mathematics and literacy test, compared to a national figure of only 5.1 per cent”. The average score in the test was 81%, compared to 45% for school-educated children. She also found that home-educated working-class children did better than home-educated middle-class children (i.e. those with parents in professional careers), a finding she put down to the latter being more relaxed and “less likely to push their children”.
A few years ago you may have noticed lots of people adding “Pleb” to their name on their social media accounts. This followed the Tory chief whip being accused of calling a police officer a “f**king pleb” when the officer refused to allow him to take his bicycle through the gates of Downing Street (the scandal became known as Plebgate, and unusually for such scandals, it actually involved a gate). Today, in response to viciously bigoted article by Julie Burchill in the Spectator, I saw Muslims suggest among other things that we form an “ultimate dreg street fighting team to take down an army of racists”. Burchill’s article claimed that while Judaism attracts the supposed cream of western society as converts (she names Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and herself), Islam only attracts the ‘dregs’, among them “dozy broads who gravitate to it for kinky reasons after watching one too many Turkish Delight ads” like Vanessa Redgrave and Lauren Booth (right), “half-witted types who learn to build a bomb online”, “imam-huggers of the left” with “suppressed feelings of resentment towards the march of feminism”, and Prince Charles. This is, as you can see, an extraordinarily broad selection of people.
Molly Burke, a blind YouTube vlogger, posted a video of her speech last month at the London (Ontario) Music Hall as part of an evening on “Belonging” organised by the Walrus, a Canadian magazine and educational foundation. Molly told us about her condition (retinitis pigmentosa), the experience she had of people trying to ‘fix’ her condition which, in fact, was incurable and degenerative; she lost most of her sight at age 14. She argues that society should work on fixing itself so that a disabled person can live an independent life, rather than on fixing ‘disability’ itself. Here’s the video:
Last week a woman in the UK went on trial for murder after pouring sulphuric acid on a partner (Mark van Dongen, right) who had broken up with her. The unusual thing about this murder trial is that the woman wasn’t directly involved in the victim’s death; the man killed himself at a euthanasia clinic in Belgium after doctors agreed with him that the pain he experienced as a result of the acid injuries was ‘unbearable’. Earlier this year also, a man was convicted of manslaughter after a woman he had been harassing after she rejected his advances killed herself. These are the first incidents I am aware of in which someone is tried for killing someone who killed themselves as a result of suffering they inflicted, and I am wondering if this reflects a change in the law, or prosecutors testing out a new theory on juries. The Bristol Post has a detailed report on the proceedings on Wednesday.
Just now I saw a video of a YouTube personality who now works for the BBC, Lucy Edwards, talk about how her new flat in London that she shares with her boyfriend and guide dog is also shared with a family of mice which have left droppings under their cabinets. She tells us she has developed a fear of insects and animals (other than her guide dog, of course) since losing her sight four years ago, but as a vegan she does not like the idea of killing them, so she has hired someone to lay “humane” traps and then release them somewhere other than her house. I have heard this kind of talk from people on social media on more than a few occasions, and it’s wrong-headed, and not as humane as they think. These are not pets, but pests. Vermin.
This piece appeared in today’s Daily Mail and has been widely derided by both Muslims and feminists on Twitter, and for the most part rightly so. It peddles the old cliché that ‘feminists’ who demand that men cease propositioning or touching up their female colleagues at work, or people who interview them or otherwise do business with them, are “Victorian prudes” whose demands will lead to women having to cover up every inch of flesh by wearing something like the Muslim woman’s niqaab (as a Twitter pal has noted, at least he didn’t call it a burka). This is a spurious argument.
It’s long been a cliché that Prince William represents a “new generation” of British royalty who are unencumbered by the prejudices and stifling customs of their grandparents in particular — the ones who got Prince Charles to marry a woman he did not love because Camilla Parker-Bowles, whom he did love, was unacceptable, for example. Prince Phillip has always been notorious for bluntly expressing racist and otherwise offensive attitudes in public and this sort of behaviour has always been indulged as him being the delightfully oddball character that he is (or as him being really not up to all this royal business, despite having chosen to marry a royal) rather than being an unpleasant, bigoted old man. Recently I heard of similar behaviour by Princess Margaret, the queen’s sister, which was similarly indulged. Prince Phillip’s pet cause was wildlife; he is a co-founder and “president emeritus” of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and has in the past held forth about the dangers of human overpopulation; in a foreword to a 1987 book he wrote that, were he to be reincarnated, “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus”.
Currently on the BBC there’s a serial about the Gunpowder Plot, in which a group of Catholics in 17th-century England tried to kill the Protestant king by blowing up Parliament. It failed and the plotters who were caught were shot or hanged, drawn and quartered, and the early November bonfire and firework nights (which can be quite a spectacle, the one in Lewes, East Sussex being particularly elaborate) are a lasting legacy of that. The plot came at a time when Catholics were being persecuted in England, where it was a crime (punishable by hefty fines) to not attend the Protestant church and where priests worked at risk of arrest and execution, and often had to hide in tiny “priest holes” in people’s houses. Catholics did not have the right to vote until the 19th century, and the law enabling this was very widely opposed, attracting the biggest petition effort in British history.
The above article is in today’s Guardian and claims that anti-Catholic prejudice is still prevalent, but rather than Protestants being the main source of it, it is coming mainly from secularists:
If there is any prejudice left against them in the UK, any suspicion of popery, it comes from those who are avowedly secular. It was apparent in the protests during Pope Benedict XVI’s state visit in 2010. Hideous caricatures of the pope appeared on the streets, of the German pope carrying a swastika, rather than a crucifix. Catholicism seems fair game.
(This was because Joseph Ratzinger actually was a Hitler Youth as a young man.)
Antipathy to Catholic schools is evident too, an echo of the “Rome on the rates” loathing when they first appeared in the 19th century. But this is not merely a small secular protest: governments of various stripes have sought to forcibly limit the number of places these schools offer to Catholics. Catholic schools do educate non-Catholics, but headteachers, supported by parents and priests, want to decide for themselves, rather than have the policy thrust upon them.
Last week a man who had been studying for a social work degree at Sheffield University lost his appeal against the university’s decision to expel him for remarks he made on Facebook in a discussion about homosexuality. Felix Ngole, a Christian of Cameroonian origin, and his supporters claim that he stated the belief as found in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin; the entire wording of his comments is not given in the reports, but the Guardian quotes him as saying “the Bible and God identify homosexuality as a sin” and “same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words”, which are certainly not abusive or threatening or even, as the university claimed, ‘derogatory’. Ngole is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, which has said that the ruling “will have a chilling effect on Christian students up and down the country who will now understand that their personal social media posts may be investigated for political correctness”.
Yesterday someone I’d never heard of, but apparently gets TV show appearances in the US, posted a tweet containing a ridiculously irrelevant observation about the current situation in Catalonia, the province of Spain whose political leaders are trying to break away from Spain, which is resisting:
This is probably a good time to mention that the last time Spain had a civil war a world war started shortly after.
I posted in response that the last time Spain had a civil war, it involved fascists who were already in power in Italy and Germany, and the war was about how the whole of Spain was governed, not the secession of one province. She replied:
Are you mansplaining the Spanish civil war to a political science graduate or was this tweet solely for your personal benefit?
Last Sunday there was a Nick Cohen article in the Observer about Russian influence and how, for example, Russian “dark money” is suspected of funding the Leave campaign now that it appears Arron Banks isn’t as rich as we had been led to believe:
The FBI is investigating how Russia hacked the Clinton campaign and used Facebook and Twitter to spread fake news. Ukrainians are preparing for the next stage of resistance to Russian forces. European foreign ministries and intelligence services have finally understood that Russia’s imperial strategy is to weaken the EU and Nato in every country except, it seems, this sceptred isle.
Russia knows its best tactic is to use migrant crises to stoke nativist fears. “German government threw their country under feet of migrants like a rug, now try wipe their crimes under carpet,” tweeted the Russian embassy in London in 2016 as the Kremlin began a successful campaign to promote the interests of the chauvinists in Alternative for Germany. A bank close to Vladimir Putin loaned $10m to Marine le Pen’s anti-EU Front National. He encouraged the anti-immigrant Freedom party in Austria, the Lega Nord in Italy and Jobbik in Hungary.
Cohen also gets in a dig at Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell for having appeared on RT (Russia Today), the Kremlin-backed English-language TV channel, as well as their “satirically named ‘justice’ spokesman”, Richard Burgon, who “has never denounced the injustice Putin brings to Russia and the wider world during the nine occasions RT has had him on air”.
So, Heathrow expansion is in the news again, with another round of consultations being by the government this week and a report, the Airports National Policy Statement, being released which, according to the Daily Telegraph, “takes into account updated noise analysis and a new air quality plan as well as policy changes since the independent Airports Commission backed the Heathrow project in 2016”. The report also claims that “updated international evidence on vehicle emission forecasts was published at the end of September last year and this had to be considered in terms of the expansion’s potential compliance with emissions legislation” and that a north-western runway scheme could be carried out without “impacting the UK’s compliance of air quality limits”. The north-western runway would require the demolition of three villages, namely Longford, Harmondsworth and Sipson, and cause massive noise impacts on other neighbourhoods under the flight path, particularly to the east, such as Harlington and Cranford.
Recently I’ve noticed a trend among Muslims in the online community of associating Muslims and Islam with ‘brown-ness’ and in opposition to ‘whiteness’ as well as the uncritical parroting of dogmas which are in vogue in the US anti-racist or social justice community. I’ve also seen an increase in projects designed to highlight a particular racially-based group within the Muslim community, many of which strike me as unnecessary or divisive and which appeal to a sense of victimhood out of proportion to the situation. One of the major appeals of Islam going right back to the days of Malcolm X in the 1960s was that it broke down racial barriers and that nobody was superior to anyone else purely on the grounds of race or tribe, yet now there are people busy putting such barriers up in the name of activism or for cultural or artistic projects. Worst, we have people saying things which plainly put them outside of Islam while Muslims eagerly share and applaud their stance.