Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

  • The Dylan Mulvaney question

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Not knowing the difference between a man and a woman: not a good look for a gynaecologist.

  • Former ambassadors

    A strange letter in the Times this morning from a bunch of superannuated British diplomats, displaying those familiar signs of blinkered incomprehension that never stopped them in their chosen ambassadorial careers – largely and unsurprisingly in the Arab world. 

    Sir, Rightly, the stated aim of British Middle East diplomacy is to help restore the Gaza ceasefire with the release of all hostages and an end to Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war. A political horizon beyond war is needed. France (world, Apr 11) and Saudi Arabia are shaping a June Middle East peace conference for co-existence based on international law and self-determination for both peoples, Palestinian and Israeli. The US attitude is beyond prediction.

    Britain has “form” on Palestine/Israel and should give a lead to increase momentum, working with France and like-minded partners in Europe, the Middle East and the global south — just as Sir Keir Starmer is doing commendably on Ukraine. President Macron speaks publicly of recognising Palestine. British leadership entails recognition of that state alongside Israel, on the land that the International Court of Justice advises is unlawfully occupied by Israel.

    Israel is not using starvation as a weapon of war. That would be Hamas, who seize the food trucks coming in and  co-opt the food for themselves. Nor is there any indication on the side of the Palestinians, anywhere, that they're willing to live in co-existence with a Jewish state. The policy of Hamas is the destruction of Israel in the name of Islam, and the slaughter of the Jews. 

    And if they want a cease fire (Hamas, that is), all they have to do is release the hostages.

    The signatories:

    Sir Vincent Fean, former consul-general, Jerusalem; Sir Edward Clay, former high commissioner to Kenya; Sir Richard Dalton, former ambassador to Iran; Frances Guy, former ambassador to Lebanon; Lord Hannay of Chiswick, former ambassador to the United Nations; Rupert Joy, former EU ambassador to Morocco; Robin Kealy, former ambassador to Tunisia; Robin Lamb, former ambassador to Bahrain; Peter Millett, former ambassador to Libya; Richard Northern, former ambassador to Libya; Sir William Patey, former ambassador to Afghanistan; Sir Harold Walker, former ambassador to Iraq; James Watt, former ambassador to Egypt; Jon Wilks, former ambassador to Qatar

  • GPs told to refuse requests for puberty blockers

    If GPs are still doing this – well, they shouldn't be. Another small step in the right direction.

    Trans activists and unregulated clinics have sought to pressure GPs into illegally prescribing puberty blockers, the NHS has said.

    Health leaders issued new guidance to GPs that orders them to stop prescribing trans drugs to children, after requests for clarification from doctors.

    GPs have been told that they “must refuse” requests to prescribe puberty blockers because it is a criminal offence and “should refuse” cross-sex hormone requests to children unless carefully considered.

    It is understood a number of GPs have felt pressured into prescribing the drugs to children or entering agreements to supply the drugs on behalf of transgender clinics.

    The NHS guidance specifically singles out two unregulated clinics to be avoided – GenderGP and Anne Transgender Healthcare Ltd – both of which have “published statements that oppose the restrictions that have been put in place” by the NHS and the Government.

    Good, but could be better.

    The guidance stops short of telling GPs not to prescribe cross-sex hormones at all. The NHS says they should not be used in children under 16 but has resisted calls for a ban for under 18s.

    Dr Louise Irvine, a GP and co-chairman of Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, said: “GPs can come under considerable pressure from patients to prescribe on the advice of unregistered gender clinics and this advice will give GPs much needed support to refuse in the interests of patient safety.”

    But she said it did “not go far enough” because it was “not mandatory” and some GPs are “operating outside NHS prescribing protocols”. She also said it did not protect adults from the same risks.

  • The damage done in the name of gender ideology

    On the subject of "not our crimes", here's a Telegraph View – Labour must show it understands women’s rights:

    We are only now discovering how much damage has been done in the name of gender ideology. Last month, a review led by Professor Alice Sullivan revealed that official records, ranging from those held by the NHS to the criminal justice system, have been “corrupted” for years, and on a large scale, by the usurpation of biological sex by self-declared gender.

    Statistics on sex offences are being distorted by male offenders identifying as female. Defendants have been allowed to change their identities before trial, potentially affecting the verdict or sentence. Now, at last, the courts have been given notice to deny defendants this wish automatically….

    The legal system retains, however, a systematic bias in favour of self-ID. For example, the Crown Prosecution Service still instructs prosecutors “to address trans victims, witnesses and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name”. It may be a while before courts revert to using objective rather than subjective criteria – a practice they should never have abandoned.

    Fortunately there are courageous individuals in the public arena who are standing up against the tyranny of identity politics. Perhaps surprisingly, some of these intrepid spirits work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Last week, the commission submitted a 310-page revision of its Statutory Code of Practice. If fully implemented, this code would protect the sex-based rights of women and represent a welcome victory for campaigners such as Maya Forstater….

    The new court guidelines and the proposal by the Equality Commission are both important steps towards a more rational approach to sex and gender. Public opinion has never supported the tiny minority of gender extremists who have sought not only to cast doubt on the facts of life, but also to criminalise common sense. Yet this arena of the culture wars is still fiercely contested. Why has the pushback taken so long? And when will the Prime Minister get off the fence?

  • Facing animal torture charges

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Independent report doesn't even bother with a picture so we can see we're being lied to:

    A Detroit woman is facing animal torture charges after she stabbed her dog and posted footage of the wounded animal online, police say. Jordan Love, 29, of Detroit, was charged with the killing and torturing of animals in the second degree as well as abandoning and cruelty to four to ten animals when she was arrested almost 700 miles away from her home Monday afternoon…. 

    …though they do manage a picture of the street corner where this stabbing was alleged to have occurred.

     

  • Dropping the pronouns

    Perhaps we should drop this business of referring to trans male rapists as "she" in court? Someone up there has noticed, finally, that it is a bit strange:

    Judges have been warned against using preferred pronouns for transgender offenders who commit violent or sex crimes.

    Inappropriate use of preferred pronouns in such cases raises the risk of appearing “biased” or having “predetermined” the outcome, the Judicial Office warned in an alert to all judges and magistrates.

    It follows what the Judicial Office described as the “increasingly common” number of cases of violent or sexual offences where recognising a trans offender’s biological sex affects the outcome of the case.

    Campaigners have expressed concern that transgender defendants who are biologically male and have committed sex attacks against women are being referred to as “she” in court.

    It's not only "biased", it's also a massive insult to the women who've been raped. They know it's a man. Hell, everyone knows it's a man. So why this pussy-footing deference to the risible "trans identity" of the offender? 

    Last September, Lexi Secker, a trans rapist who was sentenced to more than six years in a male prison, was referred to as “she” by police, a judge and barristers throughout a trial in Swindon.

    Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns for the charity Sex Matters, said at the time: “This person is a man. Why don’t the police say so? Do they think they have to pretend, because he now says he’s a woman, even though he has committed the ultimate male crime of rape?

    “It is very concerning to see the police pandering to the feelings of trans-identifying males. It does not give confidence that they are policing without fear or favour.”

    It suggests that they, and the court, have more concern for the feelings of the rapist than for the feelings of his victims.

  • Only a full statutory national inquiry will do

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Delivery van, 1906

    Outside Harper Hospital, Detroit:

    image from www.shorpy.com
    [Photo: Shorpy/DPC]

    Cropped from a larger original.

  • Cautionary tales about Iran

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full text:

    1) The forward looking, secular, educated, progressive leftists of Iran allied themselves with the Islamists for the joint goal of bringing down the Shah of Iran. They believed the Islamists were their allies in birthing a new, more democratic Iran, that would finally represent the will of its people against Imperial interests. They did help birth a new Iran and promptly became its victims.

    2) Up until the Islamic Revolution Iran could boast of one of the oldest and relatively prosperous and integrated Jewish community. The Jewish community of Iran could trace itself to the Babylonian Exile and the time of Cyrus the Great, and under the 20th century Shahs enjoyed a period of relative prosperity and integration, with dozens of synagogues in Tehran alone.

    The Islamic Revolution claimed to protect the Jews, even recognizing them as a religion minority in the new constitution, but then proceeded promptly to persecute and execute Jew on suspicion of Zionism (and no Jews, despite JVP's best efforts, will ever be able to evade suspicions of Zionism, because heaven forbid, they just said 'Next Year in Jerusalem' at the Passover Seder), and confiscated many Jewish businesses. As in Iraq, and across the Arab world two decades earlier, the Jews got the message loud and clear and fled the country. A confident flourishing community of 100,000 dwindled to a tenth of that number, living under strict limits.

    3) The Islamic Republic of Iran, like all antisemitic and antizionist powers before it – from the Nazis, to the pan-Arabists, to the Soviets – took upon itself to sponsor Palestinianism (the ideology singularly obsessed with the destruction of the Jewish state). Although given the track record, one would have to wonder why. Seeing that the Nazis, pan-Arabists and Soviets have all ended in the dustbin of history, one could venture an educated bet that the Islamic Republic of Iran will suffer a similar fate.

    And finally, although the evidence is mostly anecdotal, it seems that just as the best way to get people to disavow Socialism was to live under it, it seems that living under Islamic rule is not exactly endearing Islam to the people of Iran.

    Let the talks begin.

  • Pandering to Muslim voters

    Labour's (lack of) response to the grooming scandal has shed a light on their obsession with not alienating the Muslim vote. Lorin Bell-Cross in the JC:

    After Labour’s unexpected losses, and near-losses, at the last general election in several constituencies with large Muslim electorates, often to explicitly pro-Gaza candidates, there has been a suggestion that the party’s actions in government have been, in part, motivated by fear of losing further votes.

    Indeed, one Labour source told the JC: “Labour has, for decades, banked the Muslims as safe. After losing seats to Muslim independents in 2024, they’re now terrified of anything that might further upset the Muslim vote.”

    And it's not just the grooming gangs where Labour MPs would seem to be pandering.

    On Monday, Parliament spent an hour and 17 minutes discussing the detention and removal of two Labour MPs by Israel.

    Labour MPs were lining up ready to condemn Israel’s actions, with one even suggesting – with no evidence – that the decision was racially motivated.

    Prior to the debate, around 70 MPs from all parties posed for a photograph in Westminster Hall to show solidarity to Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang, the two MPs in question.

    But one Labour MP who spoke to the JC was extremely unsympathetic.

    “The reality of the situation is any country will restrict who comes. The UK does the same”, they said, adding: “Put the right and wrongs to one side, they’re [Israel] at war. Of course they’re going to restrict entry”.

    The JC has already revealed how MPs obsessively focus on Israel and the war in Gaza to the detriment of domestic topics and this was on display in the two days before Parliament rose for recess.

    A whopping 39 Labour MPs chose to speak during the debate on Israel’s treatment of their colleagues compared to a mere five who piped up during an Urgent Question on the future of the steelworks in Scunthorpe.

    The discussion on the future of steel also didn’t last as long as the one on the parliamentarians’ treatment by Israel – just 39 minutes.

    Tuesday’s statement on child sexual exploitation, and subsequent discussion on also had less time devoted to it. This one lasted 53 minutes.

    It's a hopeless cause. Muslims in general have no specific loyalty to Labour, and the hard-core Islamists will never be satisfied.