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

    Anne-frank1

    Anne-frank2

    Added: see Cynthia Ozick's New Yorker article fom 1997, Who Owns Anne Frank?

    But the diary in itself, richly crammed though it is with incident and passion, cannot count as Anne Frank’s story. A story may not be said to be a story if the end is missing. And because the end is missing, the story of Anne Frank in the fifty years since “The Diary of a Young Girl” was first published has been bowdlerized, distorted, transmuted, traduced, reduced; it has been infantilized, Americanized, homogenized, sentimentalized; falsified, kitschified, and, in fact, blatantly and arrogantly denied. 

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

  • Janice Turner in the Times, on the resolution of a case that marks another victory in the war against the Stonewall-driven gender nonsense that's become dominant in the Civil Service:

    At a time of fiscal black holes comes news that the civil service spent £116,749.44 (plus tax) on what it could have obtained a year ago for just £1. The settlement this week by the departments for culture, media and sport (DCMS) and science, innovation and technology (DSIT) of a case brought by Eleanor Frances, an engineer who worked for both, is a portal into the intolerance and ideological capture within Whitehall.

    Frances, 39, is not just the latest in a stream of women persecuted for gender-critical beliefs who have sued their employers and won. As a grade 6 civil service manager, she belonged to a supposedly impartial workforce we pay to implement our laws and which, in myriad ways, from the police to the NHS, write the small print of our lives….

    First some background: from about 2011, groups such as Stonewall secretly lobbied government departments to adopt policy stating that “gender identity” always trumps biological sex, and that all trans-identifying males must be accommodated in women’s changing rooms and bathrooms. This is contra both the 2010 Equality Act, which permits single-sex exemptions, and the 1992 health and safety regulations which require employers to provide separate men and women’s toilets (unless they are fully enclosed unisex rooms).

    Meanwhile, A:gender, an LGBT staff network, was permitted by the Cabinet Office to run “inclusion workshops”. A:gender forbade recording of these sessions and after one was illicitly filmed and forwarded to me, I could see why. Among many bizarre claims, the trainer said a brain pickled in a jar “knew” if it was male or female, that sex-based rights don’t exist and that describing a woman as an “adult human female” was equivalent to antisemitism. Such unscientific, legally fallacious nonsense was drummed into thousands of public servants.

    It's the same old story. Frances voiced her concerns, was side-lined, couldn't apply for a more senior job, and was eventually shuffled off to the redeployment pool. So she decided to fight back.

    But first she wrote to Fiona Ryland, the government chief people officer, to say principles mattered more to her than money. If DCMS and DSIT admitted their gender guidance was illegal and offered to revise it, Frances would settle in return for a decent job reference and £1.

    This was declined and the case rumbled on, until this week she received an exceptional payout of almost £117,000 net. Why did Whitehall fold? Because the case had passed from HR — which still operates under Stonewall law, as if the Forstater ruling never happened — to government lawyers who saw they would lose, and that senior civil servants would have to explain at a public tribunal what Frances calls a “politicised climate of fear”. Compelling two permanent secretaries, Susannah Storey and Sarah Munby, to make a joint statement smacks of ministerial frustration: sort this out, don’t do it again.

    Because all of it is madness. Why was each department allowed to make up its own gender policy rather than adhere to one central guide based upon a clear, legal reading of the Equality Act? Why aren’t civil servants promoted on the basis of talent, not an ideological test of whether they can recite the “correct” EDI dictums? Why are some government departments, including the DCMS, still members of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme, shelling out scant public funds to win gold stars for policies that are both illegal and ridiculous, such as erasing the word “mother” from government documents on maternity rights?

    This is not only a Labour problem: Eleanor Frances began her ordeal when the culture secretary was Nadine Dorries. It is about unaccountable institutions with staff who see themselves as activists, not public servants; who believe they know better than the law or the voters who pay their wages. Frances sacrificed a promising civil service career to bring this farrago into the spotlight — and she would have done it for just a quid.

    Institutions like the Civil Service unfortunately attract and promote the sort of people who keep their heads down, don't make trouble, and get ahead by playing the game. As such they're ripe for exploitation by these of-the-moment social movements, like DEI in general and gender woo in particular, that the ambitious can embrace and promote with enthusiasm. Thank god then for the awkward ones. 

  • Jonathan Sacerdoti at the Spectator tackles the obvious point, happily ignored by all mainstream comentators, that celebrations in Gaza after the ceasefire agreement don't quite match the story of a suffering people welcoming peace at last. Why Hamas keeps on celebrating:

    As plans for a ceasefire were announced on Wednesday night, videos of Gazans celebrating with glee made their way onto international news broadcasts. The celebrations were distinctive in style, and looked nothing like those of a people experiencing the end of a genocide. Many an anchor and analyst overlooked the detail, but we would all do well to pay attention to what the revellers were actually showing and telling us.

    This is not the first time Gaza’s civilians have seemed quick to celebrate. No sooner had terrorists massacred and abducted Israelis on 7 October, than hordes of Palestinians lined the streets of Gaza cheering with jubilation as lifeless bodies and desperate abductees were paraded before them to be spat on and beaten. Now, even as the details of the ceasefire agreement are being fine tuned and battle continues in the Strip, Gazans celebrated their ‘victory’ regardless. Hamas terrorists were suddenly visible once more, their faces covered and green headbands worn proudly, their guns held aloft as they mingled with the crowds of civilians.

    Hamas’s premature ceasefire celebrations in Gaza reveal a striking paradox: the imagery of jubilant crowds chanting slogans, firing guns into the air, and singing songs of triumph appears entirely at odds with the devastation and suffering that preceded these scenes. More than a moment of collective relief or hope, these celebrations were defined by their focus on glorifying violence, particularly against Jews, and venerating figures like Mohammed Deif, the mastermind behind Hamas’s terror campaigns. The tone of the celebrations, which dwelled not on peace or rebuilding but on past and future acts of violence, sheds light on the deeper ideological underpinnings that drive Hamas and its supporters.

    The chants of ‘Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud!’ – a reference to the seventh-century Muslim destruction of the Jews who had moved to Khaybar after Mohammed banished them from Madina – are not simply historical allusions but a rallying cry rooted in Islamic ideology. This reference signals a desire to emulate the early conquests of Islam, positioning the destruction of Jews and the reclaiming of land as both a religious imperative and a political objective. For Hamas, this ideological framework transforms the conflict with Israel into far more than a territorial dispute; it becomes an existential struggle, sanctified by religious history and doctrine….

    This ideology is not confined to Hamas but is embedded in broader currents of Islamic thought across parts of the Arab and Muslim world. At its core, it reflects an interpretation of jihad as an unending struggle against perceived enemies of Islam, particularly Jews. The rhetoric of resistance, martyrdom, and conquest shapes not only the political strategies of Hamas but also the cultural psyche of its supporters. For decades, this worldview has been reinforced through education systems, media narratives, and religious discourse that valorise violence as a legitimate and even noble response to perceived grievances….

    The international community often misunderstands or overlooks this aspect of Hamas’s ideology, focusing instead on the material and humanitarian dimensions of the conflict. While these are undeniably important, they cannot fully explain the group’s behaviour or motivations. The focus on killing Jews as an act of religious and ideological fulfilment is not a byproduct of desperation or poverty; it is a central tenet of Hamas’s mission. This ideology fuels their willingness to sacrifice the wellbeing of Gaza’s population in pursuit of their goals, framing suffering as a necessary and even desirable cost in the struggle against Israel.

    These dynamics are reinforced by Hamas’s control over Gaza’s media and public discourse. The organisation carefully curates the narrative, portraying each attack on Israel as a step toward liberation and framing every loss of Palestinian life as a heroic sacrifice. This propaganda machine ensures that the population remains ideologically aligned with Hamas’s goals, even as they bear the brunt of the suffering caused by its actions. The post-conflict celebrations are not spontaneous expressions of relief or victory but orchestrated displays of loyalty to an ideology that prioritises resistance above all else.

    The international community’s reluctance to confront the ideological roots of Hamas allows this dynamic to persist. By framing the conflict solely in terms of territory or humanitarian crises, many overlook the extent to which Hamas is driven by a worldview that glorifies violence and martyrdom. This ideological foundation ensures that no ceasefire, negotiation, or reconstruction effort can fully address the conflict as long as Hamas remains committed to its ultimate goal: the destruction of Israel and the eradication of Jews from the region.

    In these celebrations, Hamas has revealed its true priorities. It is not marking the survival of Gaza’s population, the rebuilding of its society, or the potential for peace. Instead, it is celebrating death – the deaths of Jews, the deaths of its own fighters, and the deaths yet to come. This stark reality underscores the challenge of achieving lasting peace in a conflict where one side views violence not as a regrettable necessity but as a cause for celebration.

    Meanwhile students across the West see Hamas as heroic fighters against settler colonialism, and – joining hands with the jihadists – happily swallow all the antisemitism that comes with the Hamas package. We have a new generation, presuming themselves to be progressive and on the left, with an alarming resemblance to the old fascist and Nazi groups we thought were confined to the history books.

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

    Bittersweet. Batley is now best known for other reasons.

  • Florida to Quebec, with William Henry Jackson.

    image from www.shorpy.com
    Jacksonville, Florida, ca. 1900. "Bank and post office, Forsyth Street."

    image from www.shorpy.com
    Jacksonville, Florida, ca. 1900. "Duval County Courthouse."

    image from www.shorpy.com
    Ca. 1901. "St. James Street, Montreal, Quebec."

    image from www.shorpy.com
    1902. "Characteristic employees' home, National Cash Register, Dayton, O."
    [Photos: Shorpy/William Henry Jackson, Detroit Photographic Company]

  • An Australian paedophile, claiming to be trans, was given a lenient sentence for the continued and persistent sexual abuse of his 5-year-old daughter. 

    From Anna Slatz at Reduxx:

    Harper, 25, was first identified as a suspect in the production of vile child sexual abuse content after an American pedophile he had been communicating with was arrested in September of 2023. A forensic examination of the pedophile’s devices found that Harper had sent him pornographic images and videos of a young girl via Discord. After identifying Harper as the owner of the account the content had originated from, police in the United States notified Australian authorities of their findings.

    On September 15, 2023, police raided Harper’s home in Clayton South, Victoria, and seized his electronic devices. An examination of his cellphone found he had produced 77 files categorized as child abuse material between May and June of 2023. The female child in the materials was identified as Harper’s own 5-year-old daughter….

    From an analysis of the video and photo evidence, police determined that Harper had directly sexually abused the girl on at least 19 separate occasions in the course of just one month. The sexual abuse media was exclusively sent to the American, who Harper viewed as his “Master.” The man would then heap praise upon Harper, telling him how “impressed” and aroused he was by him, and calling him a “good girl.”

    Despite being arrested for the serious crime in September of 2023, Harper was released on bail and was allowed to remain free throughout the duration of the trial.

    The psychiatrist called on to assess the offender referred to him throughout with feminine pronouns, said that he thought Harper wasn't motivated by sexual interest in the child but was only acting to please his American master, and emphasised his/her "low self-esteem, lack of assertiveness, loneliness, submissiveness and desperation to be noticed and cared for".

    Delivering the sentence on August 26, 2024, Judge Nola Karapanagiotidis highlighted Harper’s “gender dysphoria” and experiences with “transphobia” as mitigating factors, and appeared to accept the defense’s argument that he only committed the abuse to be “validated … as a woman and a sexual person.”

    Judge Karapanagiotidis reviewed Harper’s “personal circumstances” prior to announcing the sentence, emphasizing that Harper’s mother had been “homophobic and hateful” during his upbringing, and disapproved of his early attempts to wear women’s clothing. She also noted that his ex-partner, the mother of the victim, had not fully validated his gender identity after he expressed it.

    So the mother was to blame. Of course she was. The poor man was struggling with gender dysphoria and his bitch of a wife wouldn't fully validate his new gender identity. What else could he do but repeatedly sexually abuse their young daughter?

    “Compounding matters, you had only started to transition in around 2021 and your gender identity was not fully accepted by those around you, including [ex-partner]. Your Counsel submits that at the relevant time you were ‘completely lacking connection in [your] life’ and were experiencing ‘pervasive feelings of rejection and lack of self-worth,'” the Judge stated.

    Harper was ultimately sentenced to 4 years and 9 months imprisonment, a steep drop from the maximum 25 year sentence that was available. Prior to delivering the decision, Judge Karapanagiotidis noted that the sentence was lenient, noting: “the sentence that I am about to impose on this charge is lower than the standard sentence.”

    He will be eligible for parole just 2 years and 6 months into his sentence.

  • Venerating the Ayatollah and glorifying martyrdom, at a South London school. From the JC:

    Green-bandanas

    A pro-Hezbollah teacher at an Islamic school located minutes from a London synagogue has vowed to make children holy warriors, the JC can reveal.

    Photos obtained by this newspaper show schoolgirls at Jaaferiya school in Tooting wearing green bandanas and a boy wearing a T-shirt that reads: “I don’t see death as anything but bliss.”

    The school’s walls can be seen plastered with images of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s brutal Supreme Leader notorious for operating terror proxies across the Middle East, human rights violations and seeking the destruction of Israel.

    In a Facebook post on October 7, a trustee and teacher at Jaaferiya school, Aun Ali Naqvi, shared an emoji of a Palestinian flag and said the day marked “happiness”.

    A day later he wrote in a chilling post: “We will make our children soldiers of Imam (Aaj)” – a 9th-century figure whom Shia Muslims believe will reappear one day to wage an apocalyptic war against non-Muslims and rid the world of evil….

    The charity that runs the school and its mosque, Idara-e-Jaaferiya, is already under investigation by the Charity Commission and the JC’s evidence has been added to the probe, a spokesman said.

    This comes a day after we heard about the Iran-supporting UK charity.Labaik Ya Zahra, and its Jihadi Lioness.

    How many more?

  • California Imam Marc Manley on the divine judgement of the Los Angeles fires, as Allah wreaks his revenge for the destruction in Gaza. "Did you think you would be able to rain down terror on the land of Allah and that you would not face some consequence?"

    Why didn't Allah just prevent the Gaza bombardment in the first place? These gods work in very mysterious ways.

  • Scottish poet Jenny Lindsay has first-hand experience of being hounded by literary folk, having been ostracised and branded a hateful transphobe after daring to complain about threats of violence openly made against "Terfs" prior to a Pride march. She wrote about her experience in Anatomy of a Hounding, and expanded on this in her book Hounded: Women, Harms and the Gender Wars. Here she is at the Spectator on The ‘self-cancellation’ trend taking over the literary world:

    I’ve spent the last few years focused on highlighting the illiberal harms being meted out to women who oppose gender identity ideology and its activism. In the literary world this has included targeted harassment campaigns, demands for no-platforming of feminist writers and the subsequent creation of a cultural atmosphere of deep fear at being ‘associated’ with any woman branded a ‘terf’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)….

    As much as I feel instinctive empathy towards those targeted by such campaigns, institutions like literary festivals have – particularly in the ‘gender wars’ – routinely failed to stand against this new illiberalism. They have become a mirror of, rather than a powerful antidote to, the obvious culture of silencing and ‘No Debate.’

    In late December 2024, the writer and journalist Helen Joyce announced that she would be appearing at this year’s Oxford Literary Festival in April, in a session chaired by feminist writer and campaigner Julie Bindel. It is Joyce’s first ever book festival booking.

    Both Joyce and Bindel are amongst the best-known UK writers branded as ‘terfs’, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, the assignation of which has meant quiet cancellation from consideration for book festival events for years. This is despite Joyce’s 2021 book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality being a bestseller, a courageous and much-needed dive into one of the biggest cultural and legislative schisms of our times.

    The booking has caused the usual consternation amongst writer-activists also due to appear at the festival. Four have so far deplatformed themselves, releasing statements on Bluesky, Twitter/ X or via their websites outlining their reasoning. Anyone familiar with the ‘gender wars’ will know exactly the type of claims made in these statements before reading them. They lack originality, relying instead on tired tropes about Joyce being ‘anti-trans’, a ubiquitous but persistent misreading of her views, as well as the absurd claim that her views are somehow powerful enough to affect a trans person’s ‘right to exist’. The statement by writer Hesse Phillips appears to me to be a classic of this genre, containing the hyperbolic remark that Joyce’s attendance would cause a risk to ‘safety’ for any trans-identifying author. That simply not attending Joyce’s event seems not to be an option. (They can’t attend, of course. The event sold out swiftly.)

    By merely being in the same brochure – not the same room, not the same event, not the same date and time – Phillips says they and Joyce would be under the ‘same banner’, associated together. Author AJ West, who has also pulled out, stated on Bluesky that he did so due to wanting to show ‘solidarity’ with trans writers, lending credence to the suggestion that Joyce – who, in full disclosure, I have both met and admire – is somehow a dangerous individual, armed with something other than words, wit and a willingness to discuss the most tricky of subject matter.

    One might think that these writers deplatforming themselves while a festival holds firm in booking not one, but two prominent feminist writers, is at least some progress. That the event sold out swiftly is testament to savvy programming and a recognition that, whether activist-writers like it or not, the general reading public are hungry for such events and are tired of writers like Joyce and Bindel being sidelined. Nevertheless, this new ‘self-cancellation’ trend – popularised by FFB last summer – is highly manipulative.

    It is illiberal activism dressed up as righteous self-sacrifice. It is designed to put pressure on all other writers to do the same, or risk guilt-by-association. It is aimed at disrupting the programme so much that the festival may feel no choice but to give into activist demands, lest their entire operation become unviable. As much as FFB’s campaign encouraged all festivals to fear mass disruption should they fail to suitably berate their main sponsor, it is also to signal to other festivals that they will face similar action should they dare programme a ‘gender critical’ author.

    This is ‘cancel culture’ at its most extreme….

    For many years, these illiberal writers have been ‘winning’ their campaigns through instilling fear, rather than actually changing minds. Many of these activist-writers have been given a false belief on a wide range of issues that they are correct and that their tactics against their opponents are remotely compatible with democratic values, or acceptable in a healthy, diverse, literary sector.

    The only way to stop these tactics being successful is to stand up to them. Gatekeepers, programmers, curators: it is not 2018 anymore. Most writers, alongside the public, are more opposed to this illiberalism than ever. Excuse my bias, but ‘gender critical’ feminists have also been proven to have more than a smidgen of a point with our arguments. May the Oxford Literary Festival hold firm and 2025 be the year that other festivals find the same vertebrae.