Mick Hartley

WATCH: Rescued Israeli hostage Qaid Farhan, speaks about being a Muslim Arab Israeli in Hamas captivity.

Hamas asked him to give them Jews to kill, and he refused.

He chose humanity over his own safety. pic.twitter.com/sx26Kk28np

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) September 4, 2024

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

The Network of Sikh Organisations, concerned about the impact of proposed legislation against "Islamophobia", have written to Angela Rayner:

We want to raise our grave concerns about the APPG [All Party Parliamentary Group] ‘Islamophobia’ definition which has already been adopted by the Labour party and incorporated into its governing body’s code of conduct. Adoption of this contested definition into law would have serious implications on free speech, not least the ability to discuss historical truths. The former home secretary Sajid Javid argued adopting the APPG definition would ‘risk creating a blasphemy law via the backdoor’. Meanwhile, former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood co-authored a report outlining how the definition has already been weaponised to shut down those accused of offending some members of the Muslim community….

As a representative organisation of British Sikhs, we are particularly troubled that one of the working examples of ‘Islamophobia’ which accompanies the APPG definition, includes the words: ‘…claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule..’ On the face of it, this is a devious attempt at historical revisionism. Islam did indeed spread ‘by the sword’, and the subjugation of minority groups under Islamic rule continues to this day. Take the recent ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan as an example, or the massacre of Yazidis by ISIS, the reference to the ‘genocide in slow motion’ of Christians by the Archbishop of Nigeria, or the appalling treatment and persecution of minority faiths in Bangladesh and Pakistan. If the government choses to incorporate this definition into law, then discussing the history of the Indian subcontinent, and the persecution of religious minorities across the world today, in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria will be absurdly equated to ‘racism’.  This would be counterproductive, cause disquiet and perversely persecute truth tellers.

Moreover, seminal moments in Sikh history will be censored and considered ‘racist’, like the martyrdom of our 9^th Guru, Tegh Bahadur, or 5^th Guru, Arjan. This has been emphasised in a report by the Free Speech Union (FSU) – Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law By The Back Door. By shutting down historical truths about current and historical religious persecution, the government will create a hierarchy of religions. Images of Sikh martyrs are displayed in some gurdwaras across the UK. Many of these would be deemed ‘Islamophobic’ – equated to ‘racism’ and potentially subject to criminal complaint. However, we’d be free to talk about the crusades and early Christian antisemitism, without fear of being censored by complaints of ‘Christianophobia’. The right to openly discuss religions, their beliefs and history, is a basic tenant of public debate and the free exchange of ideas. This essential freedom is critical to safeguarding pluralism and broadmindedness. It is, we are sure you’ll agree, the bedrock of a civilised, free and liberal society. 

Any adoption of the APPG definition into law, would be untenable and would serve to create religious discrimination, which is likely to be subject to legal challenge in the form of a judicial review. We believe more free speech is the answer, not less. Yes, there are difficult conversations to have about historical truths, or specific aspects of religion, but shutting them down, is not the solution. We believe describing prejudice against Muslims as ‘anti-Muslim’ is much more accurate (and compliant with existing law), as would be the description of prejudice against Sikhs, Hindus and Christians as ‘anti-Sikh’, ‘anti-Hindu’ or ‘anti-Christian’. Our country needs a level playing field for all faiths and none, not preferential treatment for select groups. 

Well said. As has been pointed out often enough, to legislate against "Islamophobia" would be to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door – for just the one religion. It's clear enough why Islamic groups would support such a move, but not at all clear why a supposedly progressive secular organisation like the Labour Party would choose this particular path. 

At least there are some jobs for women under the Taliban: spying on other women:

The Taliban is using female workers to spy on other women to enforce harsh new laws.

Since returning to power in 2021, the Afghan regime has banned women from working outside the home or attending school and university.

But some women are still employed at the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (MPVPV), the body that polices the restrictions, and more recruits are wanted.

“They are needed to handle other women,” said an official from the ministry.

The official said the Taliban has hired women to monitor Instagram pages and report instances where women post pictures with uncovered faces.

“You know how Instagram works … they can hide their pages so no one can see them, but we have women who are our eyes,” said the official, who works at the ministry’s women’s department.

He added that some women are coerced into this role, while others are paid for their work, which also includes accompanying male Taliban members on street patrols.

“Some women were arrested and released only on the condition that they inform the ministry of any illegal activity they observe from the women they follow,” the official said.

Though some women are only too happy to oblige:

One of the women working for the MPVPV is a female informant known as Golnesa. The 36-year-old spends her days monitoring and reporting on her fellow Afghan women – some of the most oppressed in the world.

“It varies from day to day,” she said. “Some days, I patrol the city to look for those who do not adhere to the rules of chastity.

“Other days, I visit different locations to find women who are not following the dress code, I go to busy supermarkets and women’s clothing shops.”

When she spots a woman with an uncovered face or visible ankles or a woman laughing with shopkeepers, she refrains from intervening personally.

“They would say ‘Oh, you are a woman too, why are you doing this?’”

Instead, she contacts male officers who arrive with American rifles slung over their shoulders.

“It’s their job to handle the situation with these women, and many of them are taken to police stations,” she says.

“I don’t support women who protest in the streets and claim to represent all women,” she says. “They don’t represent me or many other Muslim women who are tired of seeing indecency.

“Supporting the infidels isn’t freedom,” she added. “True freedom means women should stay at home, raise their children, serve their husbands and not worry about anything else.

“This is an Islamic country, our brothers fought so hard to kick the infidels out, we cannot just let a few women endanger the religion.

“I am proud to be helping the brothers implement the new rules, women initially thought our brothers were joking, but now everything is law and passed by Amir al-Mu’minin,” she says, referring to the Taliban’s supreme leader. “I have a holy duty.”

Here's her freedom. The Taliban, in one image:

[Image: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP]

The demonstrators in Tel Aviv want the hostages released: Netanyahu wants to defeat Hamas. These aims are, it's becoming increasingly clear, incompatible. Jonathan Spyer in the Spectator on Netanyahu's unenviable dilemma on Gaza:

The murder of six Israeli hostages by Hamas in Gaza earlier this week led to an outpouring of grief and fury in Israel. For a considerable and vocal section of the public, the anger was directed – in a way perhaps surprising to outsiders – not against the Islamist group responsible for the murders, but against the Israeli government.

Large and stormy demonstrations took place in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Histadrut, Israel’s trade union federation, organised a (partially observed) one-day general strike. The demonstrators’ demand was a simple one: a deal to release the 97 remaining hostages now. At least 33, by the way, and possibly more of the Israelis remaining in Gaza, are believed by the authorities to now be dead.

The demonstrators’ demand, and the government’s refusal to accede to it, reflect the core dynamic of the war in Gaza, which has been apparent from its outset. The current focus is on the future of the Philadelphi Corridor, a nine-mile wide strip at Gaza’s southern border. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on a continued Israeli presence on this territory. The demonstrators and those who lead them dismiss the cardinal importance of holding this area.

But the dispute over Philadelphi conceals a larger issue. Israeli accession on this point will open the way to the conclusion of a deal to end the war. According to the terms of the deal currently on the table, Israel will carry out a complete withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, including from the Netzarim and Philadelphi corridors, and from the buffer zone which it has been constructing along the border since the entry of Israeli ground forces into the strip in late October 2023. In return for this, and for the additional release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners – including individuals convicted of the murder of many civilians – Israel will secure the release of the remaining hostages over the three phases of the agreement.

This proposal, frankly and unmistakably, grants Hamas victory in the war that it began with the massacres of 7 October last year. It can’t really be spun any other way. The organisation, having initiated the war, will have come through it intact as the de facto governing authority in Gaza. In addition, it will have secured the release of a generation of Palestinian fighters, both from its own ranks and from the ranks of other Palestinian movements. The price in blood will have been high. But the achievement will be clear.

Netanyahu wants to deny Hamas their victory. The demonstrators, horrified at the suffering of the hostages (as Hamas intended), see their release – whatever the concessions – to be the most important factor, overriding all others.

From the very start, it has been obvious that the goal of ending Hamas rule in Gaza, and the objective of freeing the Israeli hostages were contradictory. The hostages were taken precisely and specifically to frustrate Hamas’s destruction. At the current point in the war, this reality can no longer be blurred.

Regarding the option of accepting the ceasefire deal as is, it is worth remembering that the road to 7 October was paved by an identical deal, though on a smaller scale. Recollection of that deal and its results are the strongest argument against repeating it on a larger scale. Netanyahu and his supporters don’t and can’t assert that argument, though, because the deal took place on Netanyahu’s watch and at his instigation.

The deal in question was the release of 1,027 convicted Palestinian terrorists in return for one kidnapped IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit, in 2011. This took place against the background of an impassioned and emotional public campaign, reminiscent of the current demonstrations. In it, Yahya Sinwar, mastermind and instigator of 7 October and commander of Hamas in the current war, was released.

One should be cautious of prediction in our region. But I have no doubt that the intention, at least, of the Hamas leadership is that just as 7 October followed the Shalit deal, so the successful conclusion of the hostage deal currently on offer will be followed within a few years by a united Arab Muslim military uprising west of the Jordan River, under Islamist leadership, with the intention of bringing about Israel’s demise. These are the current stakes.

There's an article by Liel Leibovitz in Tablet making the same points, though, predictably, in stronger terms. A taster:

It’s all the more tragic, then, that instead of having these painful conversations, Israelis are engaging en masse in the most rank American-style lunacy. Slogans like #BringThemHomeNow, for example, demonstrate just how hollow and inflamed Israeli public discourse has become. To whom, exactly, is this exhortation addressed? Surely not to Hamas, the only group with the actual power to release the hostages. Instead, it’s a bombastic bit of emotional manipulation, daring anyone to defy it while at the same time giving cover to political movements with unclear aims and means. Just like Black Lives Matter—and who would ever argue that they don’t?—the Bring Them Home movement in Israel is now an amalgam of anti-Bibi activists who’ve been marching for years under a host of different banners, bolstered by sheer emotionalism that argues for a deal at any cost, even if it means leaving Hamas victorious.

Thankfully, not all Israelis agree with this defeatist madness. In recent days, a post from an unnamed reservist in Gaza has been going viral in Israel for making a very different argument than the one you hear parroted by self-appointed experts on TV or hear shouted in the streets of Tel Aviv. “The Philadelphi Corridor is more important than hostages,” wrote the reservist. “It’s more important than me and my entire battalion, which has been fighting in Gaza since the beginning of the war.” Approximately every 100 meters, he explained, a tunnel passes through the fence, openings used for smuggling massive amounts of contraband. Therefore, the reservist continued, “leaving Philadelphi for one day means a death sentence for thousands more Israelis … Our blood is no less red than the blood of the hostages, although we are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sake of defeating the enemy.” Take a deep breath, the reservist concludes, “and think again about your rhetoric. Now you are on the side of our worst enemy.”

For the other side of the argument – and to appreciate how polarised the ongoing debate has become – see David Horovitz's latest editorial in the Times of Israel – Under Netanyahu, Israel is in existential danger:

It is truly unthinkable.

That the prime minister of Israel would manufacture an unwarranted demand, and present it as existential, in order to thwart a potential deal for the release of the hostages held for almost a year by Hamas in Gaza. And to do this because he fears that the extremists with whom he built his government, who are hellbent on plunging Israel into regional war, would otherwise force him from power….

Palestinian Islamic scholar Sheikh Muhammad Qaddura:

Palestine is a bride, her dowry is blood, and we must endure, because we aspire to have an independent country, but the Israeli entity is a transgressing and oppressive entity, and therefore, this entity will be completely eliminated from this geographical area that is Palestine. We say to Khomeini, who raised the slogan 'Israel must be eradicated from existence.' Rest assured, in your Paradise, oh great imam – this slogan will be realized soon Allah willing.

"The difference between us and the Israeli enemy is that while we welcome our martyrs with ululation, exclamations of joy, rallying cried, and roses, they are mentally defeated. This is manifest in their wailing, screaming, disbelief, denial, and other forms of anguish. […]

"In wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood war, the Palestinians no longer pin their hopes on any kind of [negotiations] whatsoever. We do not trust or pin our hopes even on the Arab League or the GCC. We pin our hopes on resistance and confrontation alone. The enticement [of a ceasefire] will never allure those whose goal is martyrdom, victory, or liberation. This would work with those who want this world, but those who want the Hereafter have completely turned their backs on this, because the Palestinians have become more aware, and they understand better that the gun is the only way to liberate Palestine, and that the Israeli enemy must be eliminated from Palestine in its entirety.

"As I said in the past, after Palestine is liberated, we will not accept that even a single grave of a Jew remain in Palestine, so no trace or memory of them remains. Any Hebrew words will be erased, and it will be replaced by Arabic words, and words in the languages of countries that stood with the Palestinians."

Clear enough, I'd say.

Michael Rubin, director of Labour Friends of Israel, in the Times – Labour’s decision will embolden Tehran to pursue its terrorist goals:

Since the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, Labour has steadfastly repeated its belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.

It has been right to do so — but the government’s decision this week to suspend some arms sales to the Jewish state will do little to further that aim.

Nor will it help bring the tragic conflict in Gaza to a close, advance a wider regional peace and a two-state solution, or aid the Israeli opposition in its political struggle to end the era of Binyamin Netanyahu.

Israel is the UK’s closest ally in the Middle East and the only one to share our liberal democratic values.

Over the past 11 months, Iran’s decades-long campaign against Israel has reached a new level of intensity.

To the north, Hezbollah has made daily attacks. To the south, the Houthis have launched more than 200 projectiles at Israel and menaced international shipping. And from the east, Iran launched an unprecedented direct attack in April, firing more than 300 rockets, drones and missiles into the country.

But Israel’s ability to resist the threat posed by the Iranian regime is also a vital UK national interest. Israel is the third-largest supplier of arms to Britain, including weaponry that has been used to defend the lives of our troops serving overseas.

Israel helps keep our streets safe from terror at home and protects us from cyberattacks.

While Israel bears the heaviest cost of Tehran’s aggressive ambitions beyond its own borders, those ambitions threaten us too. Iran is the leading sponsor of state terrorism globally and is now a nuclear threshold state.

It has the region’s biggest stockpile of ballistic missiles. And Iran is Vladimir Putin’s closest ally in Ukraine: having supplied Russia with deadly suicide drones, the regime is now believed to be on the brink of delivering ballistic missiles.

The decision to restrict arms sales to Israel will have been heard in Tehran. With its suggestion of a further weakening of western support for Israel, the move risks emboldening the Iranian regime, leading not to the de-escalation we all seek but to further escalation and bloodshed. The message has also been heard in Israel.

There is enormous hurt that Britain would treat an ally in this fashion at the very moment the country is mourning and burying the six hostages Hamas brutally murdered at the weekend. For the past 11 months, the hostages, their families and all those who lost loved ones in the October 7 attacks have endured unimaginable suffering.

It's a cheap and nasty move by Labour, whether motivated by a desire to appease the party's significant Palestinian-friendly members, or a cynical attempt to keep the Muslim vote onside. And, as this Times editorial states, it's diplomatically inept.

The decision on Monday to suspend the export of military components destined for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) is an object lesson in how not to conduct diplomacy. Citing fears that the parts in question might be used in IDF operations violating international humanitarian law, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, in effect consigned Israel to the category of rogue state. With decidedly imperfect timing, this insult to a friend was issued just as Israelis digested the execution by Hamas of six hostages seized on October 7.

The announcement of the killings brought Israelis flooding on to the streets in protest at what they regard as the callous and intransigent position of Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, in regard to securing a ceasefire and the release of those held in subterranean captivity. Israelis have a perfect right to demonstrate against their government, a right that differentiates them from Arab neighbours. But Labour’s half-hearted jab at Mr Netanyahu — the UK is a minor supplier of arms parts to Israel and only a tenth are affected by the embargo — was as pointless and offensive as it was diplomatically inept.

This unforced error, which will not help the tormented people of Gaza and appears to have caught the Americans unawares, has served only to dismay moderate Israelis and advocates for Israel in Britain. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defence minister, spoke of being “deeply disheartened” by the move at a time when his country was engaged on several fronts. At home, Ephraim Mirvis, chief rabbi of the Commonwealth, said the timing beggared belief. Labour Friends of Israel, meanwhile, spoke of Tehran being emboldened by the move.

Mr Lammy, whose judgment has in the past been found wanting (he nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership, was an opponent of the nuclear deterrent and compared Conservative Brexiteer MPs with Nazis) has fallen back on the advice of government lawyers as an excuse. But such advice is routinely overruled in the cause of national policy. Of course, the prime minister must share the blame for this hamfisted attempt to placate the anti-Israel element in his party. For no measurable benefit, the UK has alienated a friend and important intelligence ally. Britain’s disloyalty to Israel at a critical hour will not be forgotten.

If this debacle helps Lammy's speedy departure from high office, so much the better.

Netanyahu not doing enough to free Gaza hostages, says Biden.

You can vehemently disagree with Netanyahu's policies and harbor deep disdain for the man, while also recognizing that everything he says here is true pic.twitter.com/iNEee1HZrO

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) September 3, 2024

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

Jake Wallis Simons on the hypocrisy of the government's Israel arms ban:

Over the last three years, Britain sold £3.1bn of weapons to Qatar, the world’s foremost sponsor of Sunni jihadism and the principal benefactor of Hamas. It sold £1.9bn’s worth to Saudi Arabia, which has been engaged in a bloody war in Yemen that has not, shall we say, been fought entirely according to democratic norms.

Turkey, which has crushed the Kurds once again with less concern for human rights than one might hope, received £799m in British arms. The United Arab Emirates, often viewed as a dictatorship in Whitehall, purchased a £416m cache, while the Egyptian police state was able to buy a £318m arsenal as it continued its flirtation with Islamism and enthusiasm for corruption.

By contrast, Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy and the only power to respect the rights of women and minorities, which is locked in an existential struggle against the forces of jihadism that menace us all, bought £83m of British arms, a sum that constitutes just 1 per cent of its total weapons purchases.

Yet it is the Jewish state that attracted David Lammy’s criticism yesterday, as he announced that he was suspending 30 arms export licences to Jerusalem amid misinformation that it has been prosecuting the war in Gaza to excess.

Both in terms of kit and intelligence sharing, the Israeli-British security partnership – as enshrined in the 2020 bilateral military cooperation agreement – has been of at least as much benefit to London as Jerusalem. Arguably, it has benefited us more.

Britain’s Watchkeeper surveillance UAVs, based on Israel’s Hermes 450 drone, have saved countless British lives in Afghanistan. British troops have trained on Salisbury Plain with Israel’s cutting-edge Rhino mobile command and control centre.

Mutual assistance has been enjoyed for decades. In 2015, Israeli intelligence helped the Metropolitan police discover a bomb factory in northwest London, complete with three tonnes of ammonium nitrate hidden in disposable ice packs.

Mossad’s former deputy director, Ram Ben-Barak, told me that an Israeli air strike on Syria’s secret nuclear reactor in 2007 was the result of intelligence from British spies. Without it, Bashar al-Assad may have fought his civil war with nuclear weapons as well as chemical ones. Our shared values and interests are significant. What will become of them now?

I am writing this from Tel Aviv, where few Israelis noticed the Lammy announcement yesterday. They could be forgiven for their inattention; the funerals of the six hostages who were executed underground by Hamas were taking place, a development that sapped Israel’s precious store of hope and cast the already anguished country into further depths of mourning. The quirk of timing that led the foreign secretary to single out Israel on a day of national grief was described by Britain’s Jewish Leadership council as “disappointing”.

Nicely understated. More of a disgrace, I'd say – but absolutely no surprise from Lammy.

More on the BMA debacle, from Sanchez Manning in the Telegraph – The trans row ripping apart Britain’s doctors’ union:

The anger is palpable in the voice of Dame Professor Clare Gerada as she demands to know what right Britain’s biggest doctors’ union has to second-guess the Cass review – the landmark report on NHS child gender services, which found that children had been let down by a lack of research into medical interventions – after it announced it would lobby against implementing the recommendations.

“Cass took four years and did thousands of interviews, eight independent systematic reviews, had endless consultations and has come up with a very good report,” Gerada, a former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, says. “Then along comes the British Medical Association in a meeting that no one is really invited to and makes this ruling.

“What right has the BMA to second-guess the Cass review, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges – which represent our professional values – and the three major royal colleges covering psychiatry, paediatrics and GPs?”

Published in April by leading paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, the review found that there is “remarkably weak evidence” about the long-term impact of puberty-suppressing hormones, known as “puberty blockers”. Last month, the Government renewed a temporary ban on the drugs’ prescription to children not already taking them.

But while the review has been accepted and supported by the vast majority of the medical establishment, the BMA announced on July 31 that it would lobby against the implementation of its recommendations.

The union said that following a motion passed by the BMA council it will set up a “task and finish” group to “publicly critique” the review. It went on to publicly condemn the Government’s restrictions around puberty-blocker prescriptions.

Today the BMA’s membership is at risk of being riven apart by this extraordinary decision – and more than 1,400 doctors have signed an open letter expressing their “dismay” at the BMA’s position. Among them are 70 professors and 23 former or current presidents of medical royal colleges and clinical leaders – some of the country’s most eminent physicians.

Gerada is one of them. She says she wants to know: “Why is the BMA doing this?

“I prescribe medicines to children and adults and every single one of those medicines has been through rigorous clinical studies. I can tell patients what the reason for that medicine is and the risks and benefits. That’s standard.

“All the Cass review is doing is saying we need to do the same for puberty blockers. This is about making medicines safe for children.”

Gerada, 64, who has been a member of the BMA since she was 18, also questions how the union is going to carry out a thorough “critique” of the Cass review by January, which is when it has said it will present its evaluation.

“What does the BMA think it is going to do in four months and what expertise is it going to draw on? My view is it should not be doing this. The arrogance of that beggars belief…

“After Christmas I am going to seriously consider whether I will apply for a council position on the BMA or resign.”

Dr Az Hakeem, a consultant psychiatrist, has specialised in treating patients with gender dysphoria. He resigned his BMA membership some years ago and today he has his own take on why the union has taken this stance.

“The BMA has been taken over by a brigade of people wearing red braces and putting pronouns in their bios who have turned their back on evidence-based medicine in favour of a cult of ideology,” he argues.

“To dismiss the very hard work of Dr Hilary Cass and her team and their four years of evidence-based research is a mockery of the position that they hold.”…

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Lenny Cornwall, who has been a member of the BMA since 2016, argues that the incident has exposed the “outrageous way” the doctors’ union is operating.

“I hadn’t quite realised how it [the BMA council] operates in terms of it being so secretive,” he says. “It is taking an ideological decision when the Cass report is a scientific review. That is not an appropriate thing for a medical union to do.

“It should be saying you have to accept the medical scientific process. It is not a matter for the BMA to review medical scientific evidence.”

Interestingly, there's some info about the BMA activists driving the trans ideology:

The motion was reportedly tabled by Vassili Crispi, a junior doctor in Yorkshire, and consultant anesthetist Dr Tom Dolphin, who was previously a chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee.

Dolphin, who has acted as a media spokesman for striking doctors, has previously boasted of charging the NHS £1,870 for a single cover shift during the strikes. Later he donated the sum to the BMA’s strike fund, writing on X (formerly Twitter) that the war chest “supports people to strike, meaning the strike is stronger and the win will come sooner”.

Last October, in another post on X, he described the Conservative government’s decision to ban trans women who were born male from female hospital wards as “cruel, unworkable and almost certainly illegal”.

Crispi, meanwhile, who was also said to have been active in driving the doctors’ strikes, is the co-author of a paper, published in a medical journal, that called for the adoption of “gender-neutral terminology”, and demanded that LGBTQ+ education must be “embedded” with the undergraduate curricula for medics and ‘regularly revisited during postgraduate training”.

A third doctor who backed the motion was Emma Runswick, 28, the deputy chairman of the BMA council. She too has been central in the pro-strike coalition of junior doctors who were elected to the BMA’s leadership body in 2022 and she describes herself as “unashamedly socialist”. (She is the daughter of two Labour activists who have supported former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.)

She has been open on social media in sharing her view on puberty blockers. In one post, she criticised Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s ruling to continue the ban on puberty blockers for children as a “terrible political decision”.

For many medics, one of the greatest surprises isn’t the motion to challenge the Cass review but the sheer number of medics willing to publicly oppose the BMA’s stance. Gerada and Cornwall point out that previously many doctors were fearful of speaking out on issues of child gender treatments. That “bubble” has now burst.

“This has fired up doctors in a way that I hadn’t quite grasped when I signed the letter,” Cornwall says. “When the signatories go up to more than a thousand you realise that actually there’s a massive strength of feeling here.

“That’s because the Cass review was seen as such a relief because people have been so frightened to challenge gender-affirming care for children for fear of being called a bigot.”

A blessing in disguise then? The ideologues who've taken control of the BMA have now revealed themselves, allowing doctors at last to see clearly the true colours and motivation of their union representatives.

The Global Imam’s counsel has released a statement condemning Hamas’s barbaric executions and stating in clear terms, “we hold Hamas directly responsible for the deaths and suffering of all innocent lives lost since Oct. 7.”
Why? Because they are logically, factually, and legally… pic.twitter.com/diLBMwviLv

— Elica Le Bon الیکا‌ ل بن (@elicalebon) September 2, 2024

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

"The Global Imam’s counsel has released a statement condemning Hamas’s barbaric executions and stating in clear terms, “we hold Hamas directly responsible for the deaths and suffering of all innocent lives lost since Oct. 7.”

Why? Because they are logically, factually, and legally responsible, and Jihadism is understood to be a threat to the entire Middle East – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

The Global Imam's Council? Our story:

The story of our blessed Council begins in early 2007 following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical government, which fueled sectarianism between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. As the power vacuum in Iraq widened, many violent movements competed for control over our country’s future. Daily bombings and bitter sectarian battles besieged a once-stable Iraq. As chaos devolved between Sunni and Shi’a factions, ISIS arose around 2006, conducting massacres and other atrocities cloaked in the name of Islam.

For more than ten years prior to the rise of ISIS, senior Islamic leaders and honorable Imams gathered regularly at the ancient Supreme Islamic Seminary in Baghdad, Iraq, to discuss the affairs of their respective Muslim communities. These gatherings included numerous Islamic authorities, muftis, and countless prominent figures. As a result, tens of mosques, Islamic centers, educational institutes and charitable organizations were established. In the wake of the tragic events of 2014 and the occupation of Iraqi cities by ISIS terrorists, the Iraqi government invited peace-loving and patriotic Imams to combat the spread of ISIS’s ideological terrorism and Islamist propaganda, and to encourage the many brave, civilian Iraqi men and women who took it upon themselves to liberate their cities from terrorism….

See here for that statement on Hamas, if you can't read it as set out above.