• Next month Aston Villa will be hosting Maccabi Tel Aviv in the Europa League. At MEMRI TV British Islamic scholar from Birmingham Asrar Rashid warns Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, in a lecture delivered in Amsterdam, that when Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv comes to Birmingham to play Aston Villa on November 6, “we will not show them mercy”.

    Remember the Amsterdam riots against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans last year? Sounds like our Islamic scholar here is encouraging Birmingham’s considerable Muslim population to provide a repeat.

    Not to worry. I’m quite sure the police will be having a word with this Asrar Rashid on the subject of stirring up racial hatred….

  • Oh dear.

    The former BBC journalist Mishal Husain has questioned whether Shamima Begum would have been treated differently by the media if she were not Muslim.

    Husain voiced concerns about the portrayal of Muslims as she delivered the 2025 Romanes Lecture at the University of Oxford in a speech titled “Empire, Identity and the Search for Reason”.

    The former Today programme presenter, 52, criticised the BBC and Sky for a lack of duty of care surrounding Begum, who lost her UK citizenship after travelling to Syria in 2015 to support the Islamic State terrorist group.

    If she were not Muslim none of this would have happened. If she were not Muslim she wouldn’t have flown to Syria to join ISIS – a vicious death cult inspired by Islamic teaching to behead infidels, take sex slaves, and destroy anything and everything not connected to Islam. It’s possible to have some sympathy for Begum – she was only 15 years old – but being a Muslim is absolutely central to her story.

    And the horrors experienced by Yazidi women at the hands of ISIS dwarf anything that Begum went through.

  • Thread from Dennis Noel Kavanagh:

    2/ The answer to that was “the wrong bodies to be heterosexuals”, because the 2012 Tavistock patient survey told us the 80% of boys and 90% of girls were same sex attracted. They had the “wrong bodies” to be straight. Stonewall pushed this. They aided and abetted this.

    3/ The gay rights movement is a naive and new thing left with incompetents post marriage and decimated by our AIDS losses. But it anointed liars like Ruth Hunt who told frightened parents 50% of children denied puberty blockers commit suicide. This was an evil lie.

    4/ The party is over, the porn filled irrelevant pride march is now a hated thing and the legions lost to miasmas of chemsex or gender can hear the end of the music. There is no Pride now. For there is nothing to be proud of.

    5/ We have a gay community in schism. We have organisations once trusted and loved more than most despised. We have a listless and directionless bunch of otherwise unemployable nonentities in mainstream gay rights clinging to the driftwood hoping to be silent and survive.

    6/ It’s time for the gay rights movement to embrace the sacrament of confession and do some public apologia for it has wrought. Confused children who were just different now are now life long medical patients. You have achieved this Stonewall. It is quite the thing:

    7/ You made 2015-2025 the most dangerous time to grow up gay. Because you made it a time when being gay was the diagnostic criterion for chemical castration and wrong body theology. I return to where I started. You never asked, “wrong body for what?”

    8/ The answer was plain as a pikestaff. It was the wrong body for being straight. Well done. You inverted gay rights and you created schism and you cancelled and went after the lesbians and gays who saw this contemporaneously.

  • The BBC’s Lucy Williamson has a history with this kind of reporting. Back in December 2023, as I noted at the time, she reported on the violence and abuse that Palestinians supposedly suffer at the hands of the wicked Israelis in their jails. A poor lad, eighteen-year-old Mohammed Nazzal, was interviewed and photographed surrounded by his loving family, with his hands bandaged up after the bones were broken by a vicious beating from the Israeli prison guards. Unfortunately for this story the Israeli Prison Service had a video of Nazzal being released from jail with hands unbandaged, looking fine. Never mind, Lucy is persuaded. How could this lovely family, in their humble but welcoming home “down a winding alley in the village of Qabatiya near Jenin, in the north of the occupied West Bank”, possibly be lying to her?

    These BBC reporters have no idea of the hatred, instilled from birth, that these people have for Israel and Jews, and the culture of taqqiya, the doctrine that allows dissimulation and secrecy to protect one’s religious beliefs. In contemporary usage this appears, unsurprisingly, to have mutated into the idea that Muslims have a religious duty to deceive non-Muslims if it “furthers the cause” of Islam. And it works – not least because the BBC, along with virtually all western media, are determined to downplay or ignore entirely the all-important Islamic element in the conflict.

  • Even BBC Verify can, reluctantly, get it right sometimes:

    BBC Verify has authenticated graphic videos that show a public execution carried out by Hamas gunmen in Gaza last night.

    The videos show several men with guns line up eight people whose arms are tied behind their backs. They are in a public square surrounded by a large crowd. While BBC Verify cannot confirm the identity of the masked gunmen, some appear to be wearing the green headbands associated with Hamas.

    Moments later, the gunmen open fire killing all eight. Shouts of Allahu Akbar – God is greatest in Arabic – can be heard from the crowd as the gunmen stand over the bodies.

    We’re choosing not to share the footage because it is too distressing to show.

    Using signs we could see in the videos and comparing the street layout with public mapping we confirmed the video was filmed on a major road in Gaza City.

    Hamas said in a statement, without providing evidence, that the detainees were “criminals and collaborators with Israel”.

  • Toby Young, head of the Free Speech Union, thinks that Steven Pinker’s idea of “common knowledge” – as outlined in his new book – explains cancel culture and academic pile-ons against heretics. Thus:

    As Pinker says: “People will expose themselves to the risk of reprisal by a despotic regime only if they know that others are exposing themselves to that risk at the same time.” A good example of this self-censorship was provided by Václav Havel, the great Czech dissident. In a communist society, he said, it’s easy to imagine a greengrocer displaying a sign in his shop window saying “Workers of the World Unite”, even though his faith in Marxism has long since lapsed….

    The suppression of what Pinker calls “common knowledge” — knowing that a particular point of view is widely shared, as well as knowing that those who hold it know it’s shared — is also how ideological dogmas are enforced in universities. Those dogmas may only be adhered to by a tiny minority, but so long as anyone challenging them is dealt a swift punishment, the extent of the dissent isn’t “common knowledge”.

    Take the example of a group of professors at the University of Auckland, who were targeted by their colleagues four years ago. These professors wrote a letter to the New Zealand Listener that took issue with a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Māori mythology as they do to science in the classroom. That is, that the Māori understanding that all living things originated with Rangi and Papa, the sky mother and sky god, should be presented as just as valid as the theories of Newton, Darwin and Einstein, which the group labelled “Western science”. The authors of the letter were careful to say that indigenous knowledge was “critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices” — just not treated as on a par with physics, chemistry and biology.

    In a rational world, this point of view would be incontestable. Surely, the argument about whether to teach schoolchildren scientific or religious explanations for the origins of the universe and the ascent of man was settled a hundred years ago? But the moment it was published all hell broke loose. The views of the authors were denounced by the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Association of Scientists and the Tertiary Education Union — as well as their own vice-chancellor.

    Needless to say, two of the authors’ colleagues issued an “open letter” condemning them for causing “untold harm and hurt” and 2,000 academics added their names to it.

    As Pinker says, “If scientific beliefs are just a particular culture’s mythology, how come we can cure smallpox and get to the Moon, and traditional cultures can’t?” And you can bet your bottom dollar that if any of the signatories of that “open letter” had a heart attack, their first call would not be to a Māori healer. Yet the fact that, deep down, they probably all thought scientific knowledge was superior to Māori mythology was not “common knowledge”. On the contrary, they harboured this belief like a guilty secret and felt obliged to advertise their fealty to what they took to be the prevailing orthodoxy for fear of being singled out as heretics if they didn’t.

    This, Pinker says, is why academics are so quick to participate in mobbings against their colleagues. They’re terrified of being cancelled themselves, particularly if they’re only precariously employed, which many of them are. In private, most professors would scoff at the woke nonsense they feel obliged to pay lip service to. But because their scepticism isn’t “common knowledge”, these orthodoxies are energetically enforced by people who’ve long since stopped believing in them.

    But this is confused. Yes, the common knowledge issue has some relevance – and no doubt plays a part in totalitarian societies where people assume that they’re alone in dissenting from the general ideology. But here, as Young (and Pinker) admit, the academics do what they do because they’re “terrified of being cancelled themselves”. That’s not the common knowledge issue: that’s cowardice. They join the herd not because they think they’re alone, but because they’re intimidated. They don’t speak up, not because they assume that everyone else actually believes this nonsense – Maori tradition as equal to science, gender ideology – but because they assume that all the other bastards will report them and get them in trouble.

    And, given the state of academia now, they’re probably right. It’s precisely by signaling their commitment to an ideology they know to be nonsense that they demonstrate their loyalty to the cause.

  • Sonia Sodha reflects on the Brighton violence:

    Those of us attending Europe’s largest feminist conference at the weekend in Brighton had more than logistics to contend with. A rabble of angry men greeted us at the venue by screaming “shame on you!” and brandishing placards telling us to get out of their city. The previous night a violent group, “Trans Bash Back”, smashed multiple windows and graffitied the venue, then went on social media to declare “paint washes off, blood never does”.

    A veiled threat – and not very veiled. These men are vile. The silence from most politicians – Wes Streeting was a noble exception – was deafening. Sian Barry’s victim-blaming – the meeting was a provocation – was a disgrace…..a female MP condemning a meeting of women as it offended a few deranged men.

    I took away three reflections. The first is just how widespread the rollback of women’s rights is. There are the most distressingly obvious cases where religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iran have dismantled women’s basic freedoms. But there are plenty of others: in Argentina, the US and Hungary, authoritarians are eroding women’s access to safe abortion. Ireland and Germany have legislated to allow men to self-identify into women’s spaces in the name of progress. Australia’s (female) sex discrimination commissioner appears unable to define something as basic as what makes someone male or female. In an increasingly polarised world, women are being squeezed by misogynistic forces from both right and left.

    Second, technology has made it much harder to fight female exploitation. Gone are the days when lobbying newspaper editors to drop Page 3 could be chalked up as a hard-won success. Today corporations make billions out of hosting criminally violent yet ubiquitous porn. The forces that oppress women have become more distant and shadowy.

    And finally, I don’t think feminism has yet fully confronted the implications that ageing societies have for women’s rights. Unless taxes on those of working age rise in the next few decades, societies will be unable to afford healthcare and social care for older citizens, and it will of course be women who end up shouldering the burden as the state recedes, to the detriment of their health, employment and general wellbeing.

    Back to the movement that sees nothing wrong with men screaming at female rape survivors; that thinks lining up bottles of male urine outside a public building is effective protest; that believes male demands for validation should be elevated in a way that trashes women’s legal protections. It’s both extraordinary and embarrassing that so many so-called progressive grown-ups have been duped into thinking this childish and parochial campaign is some sort of brave liberation struggle rather than an insistence we concede any notion of the rights and responsibilities we owe each other. But they have, and it’s consequently no less of a threat to women than the old-school misogyny of the right. So it is that feminists are forced to hold the line across multiple fronts.

  • How can you defend a movement that executes its own people, by shooting them in the street, without trial, for merely disagreeing or being labeled “collaborators”? How can you call that “resistance” while those very scenes mirror the barbarism you’d condemn anywhere else in the world?

    You claim to stand for liberal values, for human rights, for justice. But your empathy collapses when the victims are Palestinians murdered by other Palestinians, when it doesn’t fit the neat narrative of oppressor and oppressed.

    What does that say about your values, really? If you can overlook public executions and rule by terror just because the perpetrators shout “liberation,” then maybe your solidarity isn’t rooted in morality but in ideology.

  • Remember the name? Back in August Hamas released a video of him, skeletal, digging what was assumed to be his own grave, with unmistakable Holocaust overtones. It was an act of sadism – and provoked no kind of condemnation from the Free Palestine crowd.

    But now he’s free.

    “From the testimonies of other released hostages, we know that Hamas force feeds them before release, in order to make them look better.

    “This could kill someone as starved as Evyatar, but I’m sure Hamas knew that and didn’t care.

    “If he looks any less thin today or has a smile on his face, don’t be fooled.

    “Hamas never treated him well, and don’t pretend that they did.”