• A man is being prosecuted for causing distress to the religion of Islam by burning a copy of the Quran. From the Times:

    Prosecutors have been accused of resurrecting the offence of blasphemy through “the back door” after charging a man for burning a copy of the Quran.

    Hamit Coskun, 50, has denied religiously motivated harassment after setting alight a copy of the Muslim holy text outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge, central London, in February.

    He is due to go on trial at Westminster magistrates’ court next month ­accused of “intent to cause against [the] religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress”, including shouting profanities about the religion.

    So what? Someone shouting in the street, or burning a book, shouldn't be a criminal offence. Obviously. He's clearly being prosecuted for blasphemy.

    However, on Tuesday the head of the National Secular Society wrote to senior prosecutors to call for the charges to be dropped.

    Stephen Evans, the chief executive, said that there were “serious concerns about the nature of the charges” against Coskun.

    Evans said that the society had received an opinion from a KC that described the charges as “plainly defective”, with a “fatal” flaw being that “the religious institution of Islam” was not a “person” under English law.

    In the opinion, Akua Reindorf KC argued that treating a religious institution as a person evoked the notion of blasphemy — a common law offence that was abolished in England and Wales in 2008"….

    A CPS spokesman said: “The law is clear and we will never hesitate to prosecute cases where there is hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.”

    But no hostility was shown, as far as we can tell, to any member of a racial or religious group. He's being prosecuted, as they themselves (the CPS) say, for “intent to cause against [the] religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress”. So they're dissimulating. They're lying. He was protesting the religion, and they're prosecuting him for blasphemy.

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

  • Abhishek Saha has a lengthy piece in Quillette on The Fight for Academic Freedom in the UK. He explores the complex progress of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, from its inception under the Tories and its advance under Claire Coutinho, the minister responsible for the bill’s passage through parliament, to the subsequent – and predictable – efforts by the new Labour education minister Bridget Phillipson to get it dropped. It has nevertheless, despite Phillipson's best efforts, passed into law, though not quite as originally planned. "This was not the full legislation as originally passed, but it was far better than losing it entirely."

    I suggested the other week that gender ideology was in effect the new Lysenkoism, being, like Lysenko's Marxist-Leninist take on genetics in the Stalinist USSR, a nonsense belief which has gained enormous traction for purely ideological reasons. It's been embraced by the liberal media, and – at least in the US – the overwhelming majority of the scientific establishment and the former ruling party, the Democrats.

    Saha also invokes Lysenko:

    In 1930s Russia, Trofim Lysenko asserted that all science is class-oriented in nature. His anti-Mendelian views became the official Communist Party line and classical genetics became known as "fascist science.” Over 3,000 scientists were executed, imprisoned, or exiled. The effect on agriculture and food production was devastating.

    Today, censorship motivated by the mashup of ideologies sometimes referred to as the “identity synthesis” or “critical social justice” (or, colloquially, “wokeism”) is embedded within the policies of scientific journals as well as those of research funders. This politicisation of science undermines merit, restricts academic freedom, and seeks to replace liberal epistemology—rooted in objective truth, rationality, and the scientific method—with a framework that prioritises “multiple narratives” and “alternative ways of knowing.”

    Censorship is antithetical to the scientific method. As J. Robert Oppenheimer once remarked, the scientist “must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.” When papers on one side of a debate are censored or ignored for political reasons, the scientific record is distorted. This, in turn, enables gatekeepers to justify further suppression by presenting the science as settled. In this way, scientific censorship becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

    When academic freedom protections become contingent upon expert opinion on the quality of the contested work or the academic expertise of its author, it places orthodoxy-challenging work at risk. When universities punish researchers for pursuing “problematic” lines of inquiry, we all lose. The censorship and self-censorship of scientists damages public trust in science and harms society. As evolutionary biologist Steve-Stewart Williams put it, “Censoring science blunts our ability to understand the world. … By blunting our ability to understand the world, we also blunt our ability to make the world a better place.”

    The Freedom of Speech Act was designed to protect the contrarians, the heretics, the offensive, the foolish, the Galileos. It was intended to strike a blow against scientific censorship and help to make the world a better place.

    Gender ideology, remember, thrived on the mantra "no debate".

  • Revealed in the NYT – A Pattern of Lavish Spending at a Leading L.G.B.T.Q. Nonprofit.

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

    Full thread:

    2./ The @nytimes revealed today the boss of @glaad spends money Davos-style. She is breathtakingly corrupt. First class air travel takes her to Zurich where a chauffeur drives her to a seven bedroom chalet that costs half a million $ a week to rent.

    3./ The CEO's rental of the Tivoli Lodge was just one luxury excess among many; such as Cape Cod summer holidays, $20K to remodel her home and stays at the 5 star Waldorf Astoria. She lives the life of a larping larry as she crusades to sterilise kids.

    4./ CEO Sarah Kate Ellis rubs shoulders with the corporate virtue-signalling elite. @glaad donors include Netflix, Google, Disney and New York City Council. In 2022 the billionaire ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott donated $10 million. To harm kids?

    5./ These donors may think they are doing good. They aren't. And if they want evidence of that look at the money-grubbing, pig trough slurping behaviour of Ellis and the other fakers and grifters who have parasitised the once noble gay rights movement.

    6./ @glaad lies about puberty blockers and tried to bully the @nytimes when it reported the risks. @emilysteel is to be applauded for exposing the vested interests that explain @glaad 's appalling behaviour. @glaad is just the latest LGBTQ+ lobby group to reveal how corrupt it is.

    7./ @HRC had to fire its CEO David Alphonso after he was accused of helping Governor Andrew Cuomo to slander women he was alleged to have sexually harassed. Cuomo and @HRC deserved each other. They lied constantly. They even rewrote gay history.

    8./ The @trevorproject claims to be fighting suicide when it actively promotes it. Its CEO Amit Paley pushed opioids for the Sacklers before pushing puberty blockers and a "conversion therapy" ban campaign to try to enforce them. Guess who he employed?

    9./ @TrevorProject employed Sam Brinton, an S&M coach, to head up its conversion therapy campaign. He invented a cock and bull story about being bullied by his family. He's just agreed a plea deal for stealing women's luggage from airports. What a ghoul.

    10./ These LGBTQ+ groups are lavishly funded. Like their UK equivalents they are also enemies of free speech and work behind the scenes to influence our politicians and companies. They have to work in the shadows because their agenda is so crazy the public would never buy it.

    11./ The most immoral thing of all about @glaad , Stonewall and the other creepy gender identity lobby groups who infest our institutions is they are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of thousands of kids just so they can live a lifestyle they never earned. Nor deserved.

  • Much Twitter talk on John Oliver's risible defence of men in women's sport on his US show at the weekend. Oliver Brown in the Telegraph takes it apart:

    John Oliver, the British comedian whose viral rants have made him an unlikely standard-bearer for liberal America, broadcast his latest sophomoric skit on transgender athletes late on Sunday night. It was full of his usual fallacies: that biological males depriving women of sporting glory was somehow analogous to taller basketball players competing against shorter ones, or to Michael Phelps dominating swimming despite being “half-dolphin”. And yet the timing could not have been worse. For at the very moment this segment dropped, portraying sport’s trans scandal as somehow a niche issue, a women’s pool final in Wigan was being contested by two trans-identifying males….

    Whether or not you regard pool as a fringe pursuit is immaterial. This is a category issue: sports are organised by sex to reflect the fact that, in physiology, men and women are immutably different, with profound implications for fairness. The travesty of Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith facing off for a female title despite both being born male sends a stark signal: that if you continue to enable this erosion of fairness in the name of inclusion, the last people standing in women’s sport will be men.

    Women at the vanguard have been warning of this moment for years. They were even doing so in Wigan on Sunday, with the Manchester branch of the Women’s Rights Network holding up “Save Women’s Sports” banners to highlight what was about to unfold. And now we see the logical endgame, where Haynes and Smith combine to render the very notion of a women’s competition meaningless.

    For Oliver and his ilk, the questions are simple. How much more of this injustice are you content to sit back and mock? How much longer will you delude yourselves that it is not happening when the ultimate rebuke to that claim is staring you in the face?

    Trans activists pretend that no male advantage in pool exists. Try telling that to Lynne Pinches, who in 2023 forfeited her chance of a national championship by refusing to play Haynes, later turning down a professional contract on the grounds she was at a competitive disadvantage.

    Pinches has spelt out the rationale: that men are taller, able to reach further, and with longer fingers necessary to bridge when the balls are clustered. Her arguments are substantiated by Dave Alciatore, a master instructor and author of The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards, who writes: “Men generally have more strength and faster-twitch muscles that make it easier to execute many shots – especially power shots like the break and power draw – with greater accuracy, control and consistency.”

    Even without these physical disparities, why are women not entitled to say no to men colonising their sport? There is a reason why the transgender lobby is often characterised as a men’s rights movement, and it is because women are cast, time and again, as unconsenting vehicles in the affirmation of male fantasy.

    To anybody still demanding why we cannot all just be kind and inclusive, consider this: the adverse impact of this inclusion drive is endured, without exception, by women. You do not see women trying to make it in men’s cycling, or swimming, or fencing. You do not see women gatecrashing the final of the men’s pool. And that is because basic biology dictates the benefits in sport flow in only one direction, with mediocre males annexing victories and medals once they start masquerading as female.

    To listen to Oliver’s justification of this absurdity was to wonder if he had paid any attention these past five years. His deployment of the “Phelps gambit” – the idea of a man’s sporting advantage over a woman being roughly akin to the one Michael Phelps, the 23-time Olympic champion swimmer, enjoyed over his rivals – was especially risible. As Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist, has highlighted, Phelps’s edge over his nearest pursuer in the 2004 Olympic butterfly final was 0.08 per cent. But what about the gap between his time and that of Petria Thomas, winner of the equivalent women’s event that summer? A mammoth 12.62 per cent.

    And here's a thread from the organisation that Oliver specifically targeted…

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

  • Letter from Saqib Bhatti, Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities.

    Screenshot 2025-04-08 095320

     

  • A letter in the Times today from a number of leading academics:

    Sir, As long-time advocates of academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education, we support the clear and proportionate sanctions imposed by the Office for Students on the University of Sussex (“Universities review trans policies after big fine”, news, Apr 5) . The university’s serious failures to uphold the rights and liberties of its staff are deeply troubling, as are similar incidents elsewhere. Universities must not compel academics to adopt contested positions on matters of public or scholarly debate, nor prevent them from expressing lawful opinions in a personal capacity. Appeals to sensitivity cannot justify the restriction of legitimate academic discourse, and policies aimed at preventing bullying and unlawful harassment must be carefully framed to avoid doing so. We encourage universities with policies similar to Sussex’s to reconsider and withdraw them promptly. Censorship undermines the fundamental mission of higher education.

    Amen to that.

  • The North Koreans know how to do this properly. Tariffs? Bah! For weak people! A total ban is the only way. From the Daily NK:

    North Korea has implemented legal prohibitions against importing American cigarettes, Coca-Cola, and other U.S. products.

    Daily NK recently obtained the full text of the “Customs Law Implementation Regulations” enacted in 2022.

    They were there before Trump.

    Article 3 of these regulations details prohibited imports, notably including “American cigarettes, Coca-Cola, denim fabric and products made from it.” However, the regulations specify an exception: “excluding those carried by foreigners.”…

    Article 3 also prohibits importing: ▲materials that could damage national authority ▲binoculars ▲long-distance recording devices ▲military items ▲printed materials that could negatively impact the country’s political, economic, military, cultural development or social order ▲products made in countries or regions banned from trade.

    And it works! Banning imports encourages local production:

    [R]eports indicate that carbonated beverages labeled “Coca-Cola” are being sold within North Korea, suggesting the country may be importing these products through alternative channels or selling products that appropriate the name.

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

  • Brutalism in Washington, from architectural photographer Ty Cole.

    Largely built in the 1960s and 70s as the federal government expanded, Washington DC has numerous brutalist buildings built by leading architects including Marcel Breuer.

    Cole photographed the most prominent ones as part of the Capital Brutalism exhibition at the National Building Museum in Washington DC, which he co-curated with University of Oklahoma professor Angela Person.

    "I'm a huge fan of both modernist buildings and the architects that built and designed them," said Cole. "Brutalism is essentially sculptural and it photographs beautifully."

    Screenshot 2025-04-07 162720
    Robert C Weaver Federal Building by Marcel Breuer (1968)

    Screenshot 2025-04-07 162743
    Hirshhorn Museum, by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (1974)

    Screenshot 2025-04-07 164257
    Hubert H Humphrey Building by Marcel Breuer (1977)

    Screenshot 2025-04-07 164327
    James V Forrestal Building by Curtis and Davis Architects and Engineers (1969)

    Screenshot 2025-04-07 171113
    DC Metro Stations
    [Photos: Ty Cole]

    The brutalist contingent is only a small part of Washington's architecture, of course. The overwhelmingly dominant style, round the White House and the Capitol and the National Mall, is neo-classical. Very neo-classical. It was meant to echo the Republican virtues of Ancient Greece and Rome, but nowadays it's not hard to see the more bombastic side, with, well, echoes of a more fascist aesthetic.