• They not only have to endure the slave labour conditions, and the contempt that they're held in by the Chinese, North Korean workers in China are now getting the same draconian ideological controls as at home. From the Daily NK:

    North Korea is strictly enforcing three recently enacted laws on its citizens working abroad: the Reactionary Ideology and Culture Exclusion Act, the Youth Education Guarantee Act, and the Pyongyang Dialect Protection Act. These regulations are severely restricting North Koreans’ freedoms both at home and abroad.

    An investigation into Chinese seafood factories has revealed that North Korean workers are completely cut off from outside information. According to a source who spoke to Daily NK on Oct. 31, “(North Korean workers) are strictly prohibited from reading South Korean books or viewing South Korean videos or photographs in their dormitories. American and Japanese media are also prohibited, as is Chinese media that is considered risqué or non-socialist or anti-socialist in content.”

    Workers who violate these rules face serious consequences under North Korean overseas labor regulations. “Workers can not only be sent back to North Korea but may also face a tougher review back home, and their managers can lose their jobs, too,” the source explained. This amounts to collective punishment, with managers being held responsible for their subordinates’ violations. The heightened scrutiny for returnees could result in life imprisonment or execution, as stipulated in the Reactionary Ideology and Culture Rejection Law.

    Since mid-October, the regime has intensified ideological education about these laws among overseas workers. This push coincides with North Korea’s recent constitutional amendment declaring South Korea a hostile state.

    “Lectures held in the middle of this month for North Korean workers at a seafood factory in Donggang, Liaoning province, focused on clearly defining the state’s permanent territory and correcting social and historical attitudes about the two hostile states,” the source said. “The lectures are designed to police workers’ ideology while stressing the rupture with South Korea.”

    The Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act has created additional restrictions. In early October, a worker at a Dalian seafood factory received punishment for humming a South Korean song – a month of extended work hours and mandatory self-criticism. The law specifically prohibits South Korean terms of address like “oppa” (older brother) and the honorific “-nim.” Workers must instead use official titles or “comrade.”

    In July, four workers at a Donggang factory faced financial penalties for using the term “oppa” while discussing a South Korean movie. The relatively mild punishment suggests these infractions are too common to warrant the law’s full penalties, which can include at least six years of hard labor or even death. (Article 58 of the Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act states that violations of the ban on the “puppet state” dialect are to be punished by at least six years of hard labor, with the possibility of a life sentence or capital punishment.)

    "Received punishment for humming a South Korean song". It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

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

    Context:

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

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

  • The FA's transgender policy exposed in all its absurdity:

    A girl footballer with suspected autism has been hit with a six-match ban after asking a “bearded” transgender opponent: “Are you a man?”

    The 17-year-old cried as she was found guilty of “discrimination” by a National Serious Case Panel over remarks made during a match against a trans-inclusive club….

    Following a three-hour hearing last week in which she denied having been transphobic at what was a pre-season friendly back in July, she was banned for six matches, four of which were suspended.

    “This case was heard and found proven by a National Serious Case Panel, and the individual has been suspended for six matches, with two to be served immediately and four suspended for 12 months,” the FA said in a statement.

    The National Serious Case Panel? Oh dear. The pomposity makes it even more ridiculous.

    The girl, who wept as she was grilled for around 30 minutes during proceedings conducted via video conference, had been facing a ban of up to 12 games.

    That hearing was branded “farcical” by one of those present on the call, who said the alleged victim was repeatedly “misgendered” as “he” by panel members. The girl was also said to have been asked repeatedly: “How many LGBQT+ players do you have in your team?”

    Her parents were outraged both by the hearing and the outcome, with her mother telling Telegraph Sport: “We’ve always taught our daughter to ask questions, and if she doesn’t feel comfortable or she doesn’t feel safe then she should go to somebody in charge and ask the question. In safeguarding training at places of work, you’re always told that you should question everything but she’s been told and effectively sanctioned by the FA for doing so. She asked, ‘Are you a man?’, and she admitted to that. The FA is essentially saying that no woman, when faced with what appears to be a male on the pitch, is entitled to ask a question.”…

    Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters, told Telegraph Sport: “The FA has declared open season on women and girls in football with its disastrous policy, which means that no one can question a male player participating in a women’s game.she admitted to that. The FA is essentially saying that no woman, when faced with what appears to be a male on the pitch, is entitled to ask a question.”…

    “Anyone who does could find themselves suspended just for asking. Disciplining women and girls for saying what they see plainly in front of them makes a mockery of the game. The FA’s new strategy for women’s and girls’ football is worthless as long as this transgender inclusion policy is in place. How can the FA talk about a commitment to true equality in community football while undermining the rights and safety of the very players it claims to be supporting?”

    Back to Orwell: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

  • The case of Roz Adams and the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has finally been settled:

    A trauma specialist has been awarded almost £70,000 and won a public apology from the rape crisis charity who forced her out of her job in a row over women-only spaces.

    The payment to Roz Adams was twice the anticipated figure and came after a tribunal found she was the victim of a “heresy hunt” at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), where her “sex realist” beliefs were at odds with those of Mridul Wadhwa, the trans activist who was the centre’s chief executive.

    Adams suffered harassment after she stood up for a female victim who wanted assurances she would receive counselling from a woman, with Wadhwa identified as the “invisible hand” behind the counsellor’s persecution.

    For 16 months under Wadhwa, who identifies as a trans woman but has no gender recognition certificate, the ERCC had no women-only spaces. Referrals to the centre have been paused while its safeguarding procedures are revamped.

    In his remedy ruling, Ian McFatridge, the judge, ordered the centre to publish a statement and to refer survivors of sexual assault to Beira’s Place, the women’s refuge established by the author JK Rowling as an alternative source of support for female victims of sexual violence.

    Ha! Game set and match to Rowling and all the gender critical women who've been fighting this case.

    So then – where does this leave Rape Crisis Scotland and its CEO Sandy Brindley, who's been in full support of Mridul Wadhwa throughout…

  • At least someone can see a possible positive side to a Trump victory:

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

    Full text:

    During the years 2016-2020 I struggled to explain to American audiences that from the very narrow and selfish perspective of an Israeli, and putting aside everything that was going on in the US, the Trump Administration policies in the Middle East were nothing short of perfect.

    They included two key pillars: Basing the American exit from the Middle East on support for Israel and Gulf allies rather than Iran, and, more to my expertise, sending a clear message to Palestinians and other Arab nations that enough is enough – they need to start coming to terms with Israel's past victories in 1948 and 1967.

    This second message was conveyed through a series of important policies from defunding UNRWA, closing down the PLO office in DC, removing some PA funding, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and recognizing the Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory.

    This second message was also augmented through a Peace Plan that let the Palestinians know that they can have a state, sovereignty and economic prosperity if they actually pursue it (to which, true to form, they responded with "no, no and a thousand times no").

    It is no coincidence then that the Trump Administration ended its first four term with four peace agreements between Israel and Arab/Islamic countries and momentum for more.

    The Biden Administration, in an act that I repeatedly described in real time as juvenile, undid almost all of the Trump Administration policies. They refunded UNRWA and other Palestinian causes, with no strings attached (Congress made it a bit more difficult), turned a cold shoulder to the Abraham Accords (for a year, refusing to even call them that), and went back to a long and failed policy of indulging Palestinians and saving them from any reckoning with their past defeats, and the absolute destruction that is their total ideology of no Jewish state in any borders. It is therefore also no coincidence that the Biden/Harris administration ends its term on the cusp of a regional war.

    Unfortunately, even after the October 7th massacre and invasion, with all the love that President Biden personally and truly has for Israel, the policies undertaken by the administration extended the war and the suffering, by refusing to state that the war must end with a clear Israeli victory, Hamas/Gaza surrender, full release of hostages, and that Israel is under no obligation to supply its enemies before they surrender and release the hostages.

    So as a new Trump administration is being formed, my hope for a change in the situation, even for peace, rest on the expectation that this administration will again emphasize support for Israel and Gulf countries over Iran, defund UNRWA completely and hopefully this time will mobilize more countries to do the same, make it clear that Israel has US backing to win the war, and that Hamas/Gaza is expected to surrender and release the hostages, that Israel is under no obligation to supply an enemy before it surrenders and as it holds hostages, that Lebanon needs to make full peace with Israel rather than another worse than useless UN resolution, and that Palestinians and other Arab countries can enjoy sovereignty, peace and prosperity when they finally finally finally understand not only that Israel is here to stay, but that the Jewish people, in building their sovereign state in the Land of Israel, are home.

    Well…who knows? We'll see.

    On the other hand a Trump presidency surely spells disaster for Ukraine. But again – who knows? What Trump says and what Trump does often don't have much in common. But Israel can to a large extent, as we're seeing, take care of itself. Ukraine can't. Ukraine needs western – and in practice that means largely American – support. That really matters. I don't think anything, at the moment, matters more.

  • Daniel Finkelstein today in the Times:

    At a campaign stop in Iowa in 2016, Trump remarked: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Correctly, he added: “It’s, like, incredible.” When he said it, it seemed ridiculous. Even making the remark seemed politically incompetent. It doesn’t seem ridiculous now.

    It is almost certainly an overstatement to suggest that none of his wayward personal behaviour has ever lost him any votes. But remarkably, he has remained politically viable through a series of quite extraordinary scandals. He has been convicted of multiple felonies, has been found by a court to have raped a woman, has been disowned by his former vice-president and national security adviser, has been called a fascist by his former chief of staff and has been described by his former military chief as “the most dangerous person ever”. And this merely scratches the surface of the scandals he has been embroiled in and the staff members who have sounded the alarm about him.

    And yet through crimes and gaffes and crassness, through incompetence and lies and vindictiveness, he has sailed on. He has won the Republican nomination three times and the attachment of roughly half of a great and prosperous country for almost a decade. And counting. How could this possibly have happened? How could he have got this far?

    There are some conventional explanations, of course. Ruy Teixeira was correct in Monday’s Times to talk of the way that progressive ideology has damaged the political prospects of the left. Persisting with Joe Biden in the last couple of years didn’t help, either. And within the Republican Party, the economic libertarian approach of Ronald Reagan began to lose support of less well-off social conservatives and nationalists.

    Yet this still can’t fully explain how, in an American political system that ate up and spat out candidates with fairly minor foibles, Trump was able to persist to arrive at today, let alone tomorrow.

    Here are the three things I think this tells us, none of them very encouraging and all of them relevant to Britain. They are, as I say, things Trump has made us see that we cannot unsee.

    First, people simply don’t care about political scandals anywhere near as much as journalists and other politicians do. Minor scandals are hardly noticed at all, with the protagonists completely unknown. Major scandals may entertain but they often don’t outrage because people (wrongly) think that all politicians are pretty much the same.

    In 2016, Trump did not seem to many potential voters in any way a less suitable president than Hillary Clinton. And this was not because they thought him a saint. It was that they thought her at least as much a sinner. They also thought her a hypocrite because Trump, at least, didn’t pretend. Hypocrisy is why partygate mattered, while Boris Johnson’s sex life did not.

    That seems right. Because Trump says so many outrageous things, people assume he's not a hypocrite. He "tells it like it is". Nonsense, of course – the man's a compulsive liar. But it is a key part of his appeal.

    Second, Trump shows how we reason. We start with what we want to think — what it suits our interests to think — and we fit our explanation of events round it. So people who support Trump saw his criminal convictions as evidence that he and they were right and that the liberal establishment had rigged the system against them. Social media intensifies this tendency to motivated reasoning.

    But it is the third lesson of Trump’s rise, and persistence, that is the most worrying. Far from his contempt for democracy — his active subversion of it in January 2021, his open flirtation with dictatorship before and since — being politically ruinous, it actually attracts many voters.

    An alarming number of people don’t care at all about liberal democratic norms as long as things are all right for them. And they rather think “strongman” rule might be a better idea than rule by a load of squabbling politicians. They like that Trump is (as he is thought to be) a successful and ruthless businessman. They like that he belittles others. They think he is doing that on their behalf.

    He isn't, of course.

    A comment from a Times reader:

    I have just watched a programme beamed from the Middle East (not from Israel, by the way). Many of those interviewed hoped that Trump would win, especially the women who were interviewed. One of the main reasons they gave was that "he doesn't lie". So, okay, he doesn't lie… deliberately. Instead he opens his mouth and blurts out the first and usually the most sensationally insulting thing that comes into his head. Whether it is true or not is immaterial, and usually it isn't true. So he does lie, but does so with such force that his listeners admire him for speaking in "plain" terms. The truth is unimportant. It is "his" truth, and that's what counts to them. He frightens me, and so do his supporters.

  • One hundred years ago, a Republican victory for Calvin Coolidge. "November 4, 1924. "Election night crowd at Washington Star."

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

  • As Jo Bartosch reminds us, Joe Biden has been the first trans-activist president:

    The trans issue has grabbed the US electorate by the genitals. In the pre-election period, Republicans have reportedly spent more than $65million on television ads highlighting the madness of the Democratic Party’s push for ‘trans inclusion’. And who can blame them? Sane Americans would surely struggle to vote for a party that has championed dangerous puberty-blocking drugs for children, invited trans flashers to the White House and housed male rapists in women’s prisons. And what all-American sports fan wants to see men run, cycle or swim off with trophies meant for women?

    Under the Biden-Harris administration, so-called trans rights have been sanctified, becoming a holy mission for the mainstream left. Last year, Biden claimed on Transgender Day of Visibility that ‘transgender Americans shape our nation’s soul’. In the same speech, Biden claimed there is an ‘epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls’, although all the evidence would suggest it is actual women and girls who are being put most at risk from his trans-rights crusade, as sex-based rights are corroded and women’s spaces are thrown open to any man who claims to be a woman.

    As Biden now prepares to shuffle off the global political stage, it’s worth looking at the damage he has done while waving the insipid baby blue, white and blush-pink tricolour trans flag. The president’s position was clear from the outset. On his first day in office, he blithely signed away women’s rights when he nodded through an executive order, entitled ‘Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation’. By treating discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity’ as equivalent to sex discrimination, the order effectively removed the sex-based rights of the nearly 900,000 women who work in the federal government, and more who rely on statutory services. A year later, his administration proposed similar changes to Title IX. Title IX was established to defend women’s rights in education. But the updated version instead obliterates single-sex bathrooms, sports and locker rooms in federally funded schools.

    The ramifications for women at the sharp end of Biden’s trans-inclusive policies have been obscene. As Reduxx magazine has consistently reported, the most dangerous and predatory male prisoners are now routinely locked up with women inmates who are then penalised if they complain.

    Elizabeth Chesak, president of feminist organisation Women’s Declaration International USA, says Biden’s trans-inclusive policies are wildly unpopular, and that many federal district courts have blocked them from being enacted. ‘According to polling conducted last year on behalf of WDI USA, most Americans – including Democrats – agree that a woman is an adult human female’, she tells me.

    ‘Whether or not Biden actually believes that a woman can have a penis, it is apparent that his human-rights policies are driven by transgender ideologues. Many of us once again feel disenfranchised by both major parties, as Republicans want to restrict abortion access, and Democrats have sold out to gender-identity ideology, which radical feminists see as a men’s rights movement. Democrats may continue to see women leave the party as long as the political left shows women they see them as nothing more than an idea in a man’s head.’ …

    Many of Biden’s actions that have been heralded as great steps for ‘trans rights’ have been downright chilling. His appointment of trans activist Rachel Levine first as assistant secretary for health, and then as an admiral and head of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, has allowed the dangerous fiction of the ‘transgender child’ to be embedded into medical protocols across the US. Levine has repeatedly made the false claim that there is ‘no argument among medical professionals’ surrounding the care of children who identify as transgender and that ‘gender-affirming care for transgender youth is essential and can be life-saving’. In the years since Levine’s appointment, detransitioners have begun to file lawsuits against the medical professionals who removed their breasts, sex organs and prescribed them hormones. The damage to these young people will be felt long after Levine and Biden have left office.

    In essence, the Democratic Party has sacrificed women’s rights and children’s safety at the altar of gender ideology, providing Republicans with an open goal.

    Exactly. As has been said often enough, the whole issue of “gender identity” has tainted progressive politics in the eyes of an entire generation, with countless people abandoning their liberal political affiliations and losing trust in liberal media outlets because of it. People can change sex, they're told; troubled young girls should have their breasts cut off and be given powerful drugs to wreck their puberty as part of "gender-affirming care" if social media persuades them that they've been "born in the wrong body"; men can be imprisoned with women if they wear a wig and a dress, and can compete in women's sport if they just say that they've transitioned. Yes, you're being lied to. Of course the Republicans are going to use that. Who knows how different the election might be looking now if the Dems had ditched the trans activists.

    Ooh look – here's Biden meeting Dylan Mulvaney, that simpering parody of a girly girl:

    Added:

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

  • Back to MEMRI TV, for a breath of fresh air from Lebanese filmmaker Youssef El-Khoury:

    Interviewer: "As a Lebanese, did you not feel proud [in 2006] to see the Lebanese resistance facing the Israeli army? Didn't you feel proud when you saw Hassan Nasrallah saying 'watch [the Israeli ship] burn,' and at that moment it was bombed?"

    Youssef El-Khoury: "I need to recognize him as a resistance fighter before I can be proud of him. I have never seen him as a resistance fighter, or as someone who liberated south Lebanon. I saw him as someone who occupied south Lebanon. […]

    "I am upset that it wasn't us – since 2006 and to this day – who managed to get rid of the plague called Hizbullah."

    Interviewer: "But are we relying on Israel to liberate us?"

    El-Khoury: "Who should I rely on? I am just one person. I can walk out of here and a car would run me over and break my neck. What do I know? All the Lebanese are relying on Israel. They are all liars. They are all waiting for Israel, because they do not know how to tell Hizbullah to hand over its weapons and stand trial, for destroying Lebanon twice.

    "Some people want Lebanon's identity to be an identity of resistance. You have two choices. Either you go for that, and continue to take beatings for 50 years more, or you can choose to join the new age that has entered the region."

    Interviewer: "The Israeli age?"

    El-Khoury: "Yes, the Israeli age. We have been through the Syrian age, the Pax Syriana, and from there, we moved to the Pax Iraniana, and now we have embarked on the Pax Israeliana. Note, it is nothing new when it comes to Lebanon."

    Interviewer: "You can stand trial and go to prison for saying this."

    El-Khoury: "So I will stand trial but the people who have destroyed Lebanon will not stand trial?" […]

    Interviewer: "Your opinions serve Israel."

    El-Khoury: "How come my opinions serve Israel? Do you think that the Israelis, who know everything that is going on, are waiting for my interview on MTV, in order to benefit from my opinions? How can Israel benefit from my opinions? All that happened was that one of my interviews was translated by an American research institute called MEMRI. I did not know anything about it, but it turns out that it is one of the most important research institutes in America. When it translated my interview, people saw it, and a Jewish TV channel and Fox News both commented about it….