Politics and Culture
Democrats Block Bill to Bar Transgender Girls From Female Sports Teams.
We've barely heard a whisper from leading Democrats as Trump, in a single week, has destroyed the US position as leader of the free world, and now sets about ruining the economy with his tariffs. But one thing that they will stand up for – the hill they're prepared to die on: the rights of men to compete in women's sport.
Kuwaiti Islamic scholar Othman Al-Khamees said in a February 28, 2025 episode of Insan_Podcast that it is the duty of the Muslims to pray on behalf of the people Gaza. He said: “May Allah annihilate those damned Jews,” and he added that it is not difficult for Allah to annihilate them. Al-Khamees said that although Hamas is a “deviant” political group, it should not be conflated with the people of Palestine and Gaza. He stated that Hamas has flung itself on the lap of Iran, but the people of Gaza have done nothing wrong, and Hamas are still Muslims, “despite their deviations.” Al-Khamees emphasized that now is not the time to oppose or criticize Hamas and that after the war certain groups can be destroyed. He said that he can hate Hamas but still support the group against the Jews.
Interesting. From MEMRI TV:
Egyptian journalist Emad Adeeb stated on Sky News Arabia TV (UAE) on February 26, 2025, that Hamas, with its weapons, is unacceptable and has become a burden on the Palestinian cause. He argued that if Hamas wants Egypt to block Trump’s plan to turn Gaza into a riviera, it must surrender its weapons. Adeeb suggested that, as "absurd" as it may seem, the relocation plan is the only one on the table, and Gaza will proceed with it unless Hamas changes its approach. He further emphasized that Egypt should not be expected to cover the costs of Hamas’ actions, stating that Hamas had “ordered the most expensive” dish for lunch at the Iranians' invitation, and thus, the Iranians should pay the bill.
Nice metaphor. Yes indeed: Iran should pay the bill.
I wonder how widespread this view is in Egypt – and in other Arab countries.
From Franklin D. Roosevelt's Fireside Chat on December 29, 1940:
The American appeasers ignore the warning to be found in the fate of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all of this bloodshed in the world could be saved, that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace and get the best out of it that we can. They call it a "negotiated peace." Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins? For such a dictated peace would be no peace at all. It would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armament race and the most devastating trade wars in all history….
We must be the great arsenal of democracy.
For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.
We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. There will be no "bottlenecks" in our determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination….
I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win this war. I base that belief on the latest and best of information.
We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope — hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future. I have the profound conviction that the American people are now determined to put forth a mightier effort than they have ever yet made to increase our production of all the implements of defense, to meet the threat to our democratic faith.
As President of the United States, I call for that national effort. I call for it in the name of this nation which we love and honor and which we are privileged and proud to serve. I call upon our people with absolute confidence that our common cause will greatly succeed.
In one of Ricky Gervais' Extras episodes, Kate Winslet hopes to win herself an Oscar with her role as a nun sheltering Jews during the Holocaust. Everyone knows the Holocaust is the best bet for Oscar hopefuls. Sure enough, in an irony-free Hollywood, she actually went on to win an Oscar in 2009 for her portrayal of a German woman with a secret Nazi past in The Reader.
Here's Siam Goorwich in the JC with an acerbic look at yesterday's ceremony – No-one loves dead Jews more than Hollywood:
And so to the 97th Academy Awards, where two of the top gongs – best actor and best supporting actor – were won by two men playing Jews in films about the Holocaust, but absolutely no one said the word Jew, and the only mention of the 59 hostages still being held in Gaza by modern-day Nazis was, well, less than ideal.
Yes, last night, the nipped and tucked of Hollywood hit the red carpet for their most auspicious night of back-slapping of the year. It has long been a joke that if you want to win an Oscar you need to appear in a film about the Holocaust, and last night proved the case once again.
First up there was Adrien Brody, who won his second best actor Oscar for playing a Holocaust survivor. His first win, in 2003, was for The Pianist, where he played Władysław Szpilman, a Jewish pianist who survived the Warsaw ghetto. Last night, he scooped his second best actor trophy for his portrayal of visionary Hungarian-Jewish architect László Toth in The Brutalist….
To give Brody his props, he did mention antisemitism in his acceptance speech. The problem was, it was couched within so many generic references to “lingering traumas and… systematic oppression…. othering and racism” that it lacked any real force or meaning. But still, under the circumstances, I'll award him a B+ for effort, because it really could have been so much worse.
Next, to Kieran Culkin, who scooped the best supporting actor award for his role in Jesse Eisenberg's A Real Pain, which follows two American cousins as they retrace their family history in Poland. If Brody's acceptance speech glossed over the Jewish question, Culkin's ignored it altogether. In fact, his speech was mostly a sappy monologue to his wife about his desire to have more kids, which I think everyone in the room could have done without. But once again, it really could have been worse.
For an example of worse, you need only look so far as Guy Pearce – who starred alongside Brody in The Brutalist and was up against Culkin for the best supporting actor award. The Australian actor, who has been one of Hollywood's most vocal anti-Israel voices since October 7th, sported a pin in the shape of a white dove emblazoned with the words “Free Palestine”. Commenting on Instagram, Jewish activist Elizabeth Savestsky wrote: “Guy Pearce, nominated for playing a man who assaults a Holocaust survivor, wears a “Free Palestine” pin – because irony is dead.”…
Then we have the winner of the best documentary feature film which, unsurprisingly, went to No Other Land, a film about the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank. Perhaps the most rapturous applause of the night went to the documentary’s co-director, writer and protagonist, Basel Adra, when he called on the world to “stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people”. This was quickly followed by the night’s only mention of the hostages, as one of the film’s two Israeli directors, Yuval Abraham, took to the mic, briefly mentioning “the Israeli hostages brutally taken in the crime of October 7 which must be freed”. That the first speech spoke only of the pain and oppression experienced by one people, while the second spoke of unity, brotherhood and a joint future for both Israelis and Palestinians, was probably just a coincidence, right?
If there was one ultimate winner on the night, it was undoubtedly author Dara Horn. She wasn't nominated for any awards, or even in attendance (as far as I know), but her proclamation – people love dead Jews – once again proved to be more prescient than ever. The fact that our stories are told so frequently and poignantly used to feel like an honour. But now? It feels exploitative at best and perverse at worst.
I never thought I'd find myself advocating for Jewish stories to not be told, but I think we need a moratorium on Holocaust films until we work out how to reconcile depictions of our past with the realities of our present. Of course, as Hollywood is run by Jews, I'm sure this won't be too hard to arrange.
The gender cult in the NHS just refuses to die. From the Telegraph:
The NHS is routinely calling mothers “birthing people” in defiance of Wes Streeting’s anti-woke crackdown.
Dozens of midwifery jobs advertised by the health service use the gender-neutral term instead of “mother”.
Critics said the phrase was “disgusting” and erased women’s role in childbirth to accommodate a “tiny minority” of transgender men who become pregnant…
In February, Mr Streeting called for an end to “misguided” diversity, equality and inclusion practices in the NHS as he urged the health service to focus on patient outcomes instead of “ideological hobby horses”.
The terms “birthing people” and “pregnant people” have become widely used in recent years because transgender men who give birth are said to not like being called “mothers”.
So women must be insulted like this to accommodate the delicate sensibilities of the tiny number who like to pretend they're men – even as they give birth
The Sunday Telegraph has identified dozens of job advertisements for midwifery roles where NHS trusts refer to mothers as “birthing people”.
They include Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, which is recruiting for a midwife to provide “intra partum and postnatal care to birthing people” for between £37k and £44k pa.
Other adverts from Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust say the successful candidate will be required to provide “evidence-based care” for the “birthing people” who use their services.
Elsewhere, an advert from the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust for a labour ward coordinator says the successful candidate would be required to meet “birthing people’s individual needs”.
The revelations prompted the Department of Health to slap down the NHS, saying the language would confuse patients and was a “waste of time”.
“The NHS needs to be laser-focused on the things that matter to patients,” a spokesman said.
“Women should not look forward to childbirth in fear and look back on it with trauma.
“That is the urgent problem in maternity services the NHS ought to be solving.
“Unnecessarily erasing the word ‘mothers’ from NHS documents is a waste of time and confusing for patients.”
At least, encouragingly, the Department of Health is on the right side here.
Helen Joyce, director of advocacy of human rights charity Sex Matters, said the term “birthing people” was “dehumanising”.
“It’s not just ludicrous to see jobs for midwives referring to ‘birthing people’ instead of ‘mothers’: it’s disgusting,” she said.
MIT philosophy professor Alex Byrne on The British Invasion: TERF Island and Trump’s Executive Order on “Biological Truth”:
Who could have dreamt of reading, in an order signed by the President, that “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female”? Governing institutions are not in the habit of affirming widely known scientific truths. Perhaps the last time that happened was in 1992, when the Catholic Church officially acknowledged—more than 350 years after Galileo’s trial—that the Earth orbits the Sun. And yet, those were the words of Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) of January 20, 2025, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The EO defines each sex in terms of the size of “reproductive cells,” and defines a woman as an “adult human female” (with similar definitions for men, girls and boys). But why was it felt necessary to define “male” and “female” at all, let alone in terms of “reproductive cells”? “Male” and “female” are common words in everyday speech. The same goes for “woman” and “man,” which are ubiquitous. And where did the EO’s defining phrase “adult human female” come from?
The answers lie across the Atlantic, in that drizzly sceptered isle, known affectionally to its gender-critical inhabitants as TERF Island. “British feminists,” Susanna Rustin writes in her fine history of British feminism, Sexed, “are at the heart of the movement to resist the philosophy or ideology that says every human being has an inner gender.” Some of these feminists may not wish to admit it, but Trump’s Executive Order owes much to them.
But read it all.
A much-deserved kicking for Stonewall from Baroness Falkner, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission [ECHR]. Stonewall made a formal complaint against the EHRC in 2023, claiming that it was “trans-hostile” and “not fit for purpose”, and criticising its decision to back new legal protections for biological women. Well, they lost.
Now, from the Times:
Stonewall wasted money trying to “discredit” the equalities watchdog over its stance on transgender issues, exacerbating its financial woes, the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine said that the charity’s decision to attempt to have the regulator stripped of its top-level UN status did “nothing” to help those the charity tries to protect and suggested the action had wasted donors’ money.
The Times revealed last week that the LGBT charity was facing staff cuts of up to half of its workforce in part because of Donald Trump’s freeze on US foreign aid.
And in part – in the main – because finally it's become obvious what a disaster their turn to so-called trans rights and support of gender ideology has been – notably for the LGBs that they betrayed.
Jailed for… singing?! The Iranian regime is beyond parody. Every woman has the right to sing, speak, and be free.
Bita Sadeghian faces charges of "violating public morality" and "disseminating inappropriate content online."Summoning a woman for singing is not about… pic.twitter.com/gjSBSdtPP7
— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) March 1, 2025
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Full text:
Jailed for… singing?! The Iranian regime is beyond parody. Every woman has the right to sing, speak, and be free. Bita Sadeghian faces charges of "violating public morality" and "disseminating inappropriate content online."
Summoning a woman for singing is not about “morality”—it’s about oppression. Imagine being so insecure that you fear a woman’s voice. Pathetic.
To the regime in Iran: You can try to silence one voice, but you cannot silence millions. Women in Iran will continue to sing, speak, and fight until they are free.
I stand with Bita Sadeghian. Do you?
More on that BBC Gaza documentary from Rosamund Urwin in today's Sunday Times:
Danny Cohen, the former controller of BBC1, said the corporation has allowed itself to be “manipulated by terrorists”. He called on the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who met the BBC chair Samir Shah on Friday for what government sources say was a “robust” exchange, to ensure that the corporation holds an independent inquiry into both the failings of the documentary and “wider systemic issues of anti-Israel bias” at the corporation, rather than allowing it “to mark its own homework”….
“Given the scale of the BBC’s failings, it feels absolutely appropriate for the culture secretary to ensure this happens,” Cohen said. “The ultimate failing here is by the BBC’s leadership. They should not be allowed to just investigate themselves … the journalistic failings of this programme are part of a wider system failure at the BBC.” Labour sources say Nandy is open to the idea of an independent inquiry, and believes there were “unacceptable” failings.
Cohen argued the problem is broader than just one documentary. “The BBC must ask itself how and why it has allowed Hamas to become a trustworthy source of information for news-gathering and reporting,” he said. “It is a terrorist group committed to genocidal destruction. At no point should the BBC have relied on it as a source. In this context the BBC has allowed itself to be manipulated by terrorists.”
He added that there has been a collapse in confidence in the BBC among the Jewish community in Britain. “Many in the Jewish community believe that the BBC has been gaslighting them for over a year. Clear evidence of anti-Israel bias has been ignored by the BBC’s leadership, who have been more concerned with reputation management than the standards of impartiality and accuracy that are at the core of the BBC’s mission.”…
Reporting on Gaza is notoriously challenging, but a journalist who did so from Gaza for the BBC in the past said: “This is embarrassing. The BBC knows how scrutinised reporting on Gaza is, and knows you are operating in a one-party state in Gaza, and yet it hasn’t done basic checks. The father’s job was on LinkedIn, the translation was misleading — this is journalism 101! It just shows you can’t subcontract BBC journalism. This is a total systems failure by the BBC.”
A current BBC correspondent added: “The serious problem is that we have editors who haven’t got good editorial judgment. Since all the cuts [to the news budget], the problem has become more stark because they’ve lost many of the good editors who knew how to ask questions, be robust and triple-check facts and sourcing. Now we’ve just got mountain climbers — people who want the title not the responsibility, the credit but never the criticism.”…
Inside the BBC, there is a feeling that heads should roll. “The problem is the BBC never sacks managers, however big the disaster,” said the former BBC journalist who reported from Gaza. “Recent days have shown once again that no one can mishandle a crisis quite like the BBC.”
One aspect of this business that never seems to get mentioned is the Islamic practice 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 Beeb, along with virtually all western media, are determined to downplay or ignore entirely the all-important Islamic element in the conflict.
Witness the case of BBC reporter Lucy Williamson's interview back in December 2023 with a teenager released from an Israeli jail, who claimed that he'd been regularly beaten and abused by Israeli guards, with the bones in his hands all smashed up. As I noted at the time, the Israeli prison service made public a film of the lad on his release, with hands – and everything else – absolutely fine. But our nice reporter sat with the family, boy with bandaged hands, and was clearly moved by the deep sincerity of these lovely down-trodden people. The claim was that the cruel Israeli guards not only beat the poor prisoners, but set dogs on them, threatened to rape the women, and tear-gassed inmates inside cells. All breathlessly reported, with only the minor caveat that the Israelis denied all this….and that film.
It happens all the time.
Mick Hartley 