Mick Hartley

Though of course the hard left are, as ever, up there alongside their Muslim "comrades" in the fight for Gaza:

Jess Phillips was heckled by pro-Palestine activists after narrowly defeating a far-left candidate who has accused Labour of backing Israeli “genocide”.

The re-elected MP for Birmingham Yardley beat Workers Party candidate Jody McIntyre by just 700 votes on Thursday night.

After being declared the winner, Phillips’s attempt to give a victory speech was interrupted by chants of “free Palestine”.

She told the audience at the count: “I see we’re going to continue with the class we had during the campaign.”

The Labour MP continued: "I will carry on with my speech. I understand that a strong woman standing up to you is met with such reticance [resistance?]”

Faced by more chanting, she asked officials to throw those heckling her out of the venue. 

The campaign, Phillips said, was the "worst election I have ever stood in"….

A “brilliant” community activist who had joined her to campaign was filmed on the street and had her tyres slashed, Phillips claimed, while a woman canvassing on her own was screamed at by an older man.

She would not allow the family of Jo Cox MP, who was killed by a far right extremist during the Brexit campaign, to campaign with her because of the “aggressive” mood.

Phillips concluded: “I didn’t bring my children here tonight, because I knew this would happen and they deserve better.”

Phillips won 11,275 votes while McIntyre recieved 10,582.

Speaking to Muslim news website 5Pillars during the campaign, McIntyre said Labour would lose seats in Birmingham “god willing”.

Can you imagine any other situation where a hard left candidate would use the phrae "god willing"? Dropping the old socialist principles there to pander to the Muslim vote…

"Yes Palestine is a big issue… but this is not the only issue we’re campaigning on and it’s not the only reason we’ve got the overwhelming amount of support that we’ve got.”

Labour’s position on Gaza is “abhorrent, disgusting, if not criminal,” he added.

Many Muslim voters supporting his campaign would never return to supporting the party, McIntyre claimed.

"We call them the genocide party, we call them the party of injustice and corruption,” he added.

"The genocide party". ffs. Best tone down the old Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism "dictatorship of the proletariat" stuff comrades – it's the old Jew-hatred that's going to get us the votes here.

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as an independent candidate in my home constituency of Islington North. No surprise: a Vote Corbyn poster decorates almost every other window round here. He's been campaigning on a Gaza ticket – "Today, Palestine is on the ballot. If you re-elect me as an Independent MP in Islington North, I promise to always stand up for the people of Gaza." This is largely a victory for the "progressive" metropolitan left, but elsewhere it's the Muslim vote, and specifically the Muslim Vote ("Muslim issues at the forefront"), that's been making a difference.

David Rose at the JC:

The incoming Labour government will face intense pressure over the party’s policy towards Israel and the Middle East after radical, pro-Palestine candidates scored a series of triumphs and unseated two shadow cabinet ministers, Jon Ashworth and Thangam Debbonaire.

Candidates backed by campaign group The Muslim Vote (TMV) beat Labour in constituencies with a high Muslim electorate across the country, from Islington North – where the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn retained his seat after running as an independent – to Blackburn, where Adnan Hussein, a local solicitor who also stood as an independent, won in a town that had been Labour for 69 years.

Ashworth, the shadow work and pensions secretary who was one of Labour’s busiest TV performers during the election campaign, lost Leicester South to Shockat Adam, another pro-Palestinian independent endorsed by TMV, while in Dewsbury Iqbal Hussein Mohamed scored a majority over Labour’s Heather Iqbal – a former aide to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves – of almost 7,000….

In Ilford North, Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary who also played a leading role in Labour’s campaign, came close to defeat by TMV’s Leanne Mohamad, winning what had been a safe Labour seat by just 500 votes. Mohamad, a TMV post said, “took on a seasoned politician with the weight of the Labour Party machine behind him to a razor thin margin; all with no time to prepare.

“You are the community's real winner. You Put Gaza back on the ballot. You've created history and given us incredible hope for the future.”…

In all these constituencies, the Gaza war figured as a central campaign issue, with Labour repeatedly battered for supporting Israel’s right to self-defence after the October 7 terrorist massacre. One of the few consolations for pro-Israel Labour supporters was that in Rochdale, the Workers Party’s anti-Zionist firebrand leader George Galloway lost the constituency he had won in a by-election in February to Labour’s Paul Waugh – although Waugh himself made a demand for an immediate Gaza ceasefire a key part of his campaign.

TMV claimed on X that “all this talk of a Labour landslide” was hiding the “real political earthquake” – what it called “the nearing end of the Labour-Tory duopoly that has held the country back for decades”. According to a BBC analysis, Labour’s vote was down by an average 15 points in seats with big Muslim electorates.

A Labour source told the JC it was far too early to assess what impact the TMV’s apparent success would make on the incoming government’s policy. Nevertheless, he accepted that “it is of concern, for sure”.

Indeed it is. Though seeing the back of Galloway is a small ray of sunshine.

When TMV was launched last year, it announced that its goal was to demonstrate that Muslim voters would ‘no longer tolerate being taken for granted. We are a powerful, united force of 4 million acting in unison…. We are focused on seats where the Muslim vote can influence the outcome,” the TMV website says. “In 2024, we will lay the foundations for our community’s political future.”

The results of the general election suggest that this goal has been met.

This is worth a read:

https://t.co/hC754KKrT0

— Dr P (@Psychgirl211) July 4, 2024

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

An extract:

Psychological distress and aberrant behaviours are always conceptualised through the lens of culture, and in any society, at any given time, we create medical and psychological narratives to best understand aspects of human behaviour based on these prevailing norms. These then go on to shape further behaviours. This is known as the ‘symptom pool’.

Anorexia was almost unknown in Hong Kong until a public awareness campaign was launched by Western psychiatrists in the 1990s. Within a few years there was a 2,500% increase in cases. Girls diagnosed with anorexia were treated sympathetically, they were taken out of school and given positive reinforcement for their illness. Unsurprisingly, more girls began restricting their eating, thus causing a growing feedback loop of youngsters developing anorexia. The awareness campaign in Hong Kong, had in effect, created and spread a novel mental illness (and its behavioural sequalae) into a population of receptive and suggestible adolescents.

In the 1980s and 90s ‘False Memory Syndrome’ led to families being torn apart by accusations of supposed childhood sexual abuse, particularly incest. Through guided imagery, hypnosis and simple suggestion, psychologists encouraged clients (mainly women) to ‘recover’ entirely factitious ‘memories’ of sexual abuse, some supposedly occurring as early as three months old!…

Currently the West is in the grip of an unprecedented medical scandal arising from a new entrant to the symptom pool, namely Gender Dysphoria. Here is why from the perspective of being a nearly 30-year qualified clinical psychologist, I believe that Gender Dysphoria is a false construct. One that has caused, and if not stopped, will continue to cause immeasurable harm to innumerable numbers of people.

The addition of Gender Dysphoria to the symptom pool is fed by the concept of gender identity, an unprovable, metaphysical belief that we all have an innate sense of our ‘gender’. That our gender exists outside of our physical bodies.

Gender Dysphoria occurs when one’s gender identity does not match one’s sexed body.

Following from a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is the near inevitability of ‘gender affirming care’. This involves the highly unethical and entirely experimental use of synthetic cross-sex hormones and the surgical mutilation of physically healthy bodies in order to align with one’s supposed gender identity.

But Gender Dysphoria itself is not real. It has no clinical or evidentiary basis. It is a false construct, created ex nihilo and first published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), 5th edition, in October 2013. We psychologists should not be involved in any of it.  […]

Gender Dysphoria is the only psychological construct wherein the client essentially diagnoses themselves and also determines their own severity, (the Humpty Dumpty effect). The therapist is simply expected to ‘affirm’ the client’s false belief. The clinical assessment, intervention, evaluation and reformulation that occurs with every other psychological condition is not allowed. It is often even illegal. In some countries such as Brazil, Taiwan, Ecuador, Argentina, Germany, New Zealand and Canada, a therapist attempting to work ethically, (ie carrying out exploratory psychotherapy such as simply asking a client why they think they are ‘trans’) can lose their practicing license, or even be convicted for practicing so-called ‘conversion therapy’.

This is what Labour has been threatening: a ban on gender "conversion therapy", ie instant affirmation of the child's fantasy, or else. We shall see.

And because there is no instrument to measure Gender Dysphoria, there is no way of assessing whether whatever the client is feeling has reached a clinical threshold, its severity, if and when it has reduced or been alleviated, or even if it exists. And yes, clients can lie or be deluded. This is why any assessment for Gender Dysphoria, such as it is, ought to be a systemic and lengthy process to eliminate and redirect individuals who are confabulating. (The UK’s Gender Recognition Act, even though very flawed, may have recognised this by imposing a minimum period of two years). And for children, any assessment of Gender Dysphoria should always involve their family, school and wider social systems. It should never be with the child alone…..

From the JC:

The grandmother of Israeli opposition lawmaker Sharren Haskel was the victim of an antisemitic assault by “Arab thugs” outside Paris, the Knesset member said on Wednesday.

“Antisemitism in France has been on the rise for a long time. Since October 7, it has become unbearable, and the government of France ignores it,” Haskel wrote in a post on X, responding to a report by Israel’s Kan News on the incident, which took place earlier this week.

Two men attacked the 88-year-old after she left her home in Val-d’Oise, just north of Paris, according to the report.

One of the assailants reportedly punched Haskel’s grandmother in the face, breaking her teeth and knocking her to the ground. After the fall, one of them was said to have continued to kick her in the back while shouting, “Dirty Jew, dirty old lady, this is what you deserve.”

Just for being a Jew.

French authorities confirmed to Kan that a probe had been opened into the attack. In the complaint, Haskel’s mother noted, “I think they saw my Star of David necklace, otherwise they wouldn’t know.” She had to seek medical attention for pain in her back, knees, shoulder and right wrist.

The University and College Union (UCU) has history in the trans debate, having notably failed to support Kathleen Stock as she was harrassed out of Sussex University for her gender-critical views, and, according to a Times report, having organised witch-hunts against those members deemed to hold "transphobic" opinions. No surprise, then, that they've now come out against the Cass Review:

Academics have condemned the University and College Union’s decision to campaign against a widely praised independent review into NHS treatment for gender-questioning children, claiming its position is “anti-scientific” and could expose researchers to harassment.

The outcry follows the unanimous vote by the UCU’s national executive committee to adopt a motion which claims that the landmark Cass Review into gender identity services for young people, published in April, “falls short of the standard of rigorous and ethical research expected of research professionals” and “provides no evidence for the ‘new approach’ it recommends”.

The 388-page report by Hilary Cass, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has been hailed as the most extensive and thorough examination of evidence relating to medical care for gender-dysphoric children.

But it came to the wrong conclusions! It wasn't trans-friendly. So…bad, very bad.

Using a union motion to argue against a lengthy and detailed report was also unwise, suggested Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at UCL. “The notion that the way to counter a scientific report is to vote against it shows a total lack of comprehension of the scientific method. It is sad to see a union which is supposed to represent academics opposing evidence-based medicine,” she said….

A UCU spokesperson said the union was “an unequivocal supporter of trans rights, a position established and repeatedly endorsed by our annual congress”.

“This motion was brought by our members after listening to concerns about the Cass report from the trans community, including LGBTQ charities such as Mermaids and Stonewall.

“Our union will proudly work with trans-led organisations to resist any recommendations that could harm young trans people and will pressure the government for an approach to trans healthcare that affirms and centres the trans community.”

Never mind the science, feel the ideology.

John Collier, February 1943. Albuquerque, New Mexico. "Photographs show the modern city and 'Old Town' Albuquerque."

[Photo: Shorpy/John Collier for the Office of War Information]

Still there:

Graham Linehan wrote in The Critic some weeks back on Ian Hislop and Private Eye, where the issue of gender ideology has been completely ignored despite the obvious point that – you'd think – it should be right up the Eye's street to expose surely the greatest medical scandal of recent times and an extraordinarily powerful and perverse cultural phenomenon. It's a source of endless ridiculous situations of the kind the Eye would normally relish, where people indulge in self-evident absurdities in the name of a "progressive" ideology: cheering on hulking great men winning in women's sport, police and media reports on women rapists and female penises, lesbians being told they're like sexual racists for not sleeping with these new lesbians-with-a-dick. But no, nothing. Britain's leading satirical magazine just isn't interested. Is it because of Hislop's long-standing and no doubt highly remunerative BBC gig on Have I Got News for You? Or doesn't he care?

Now there's this from the latest issue 1627, out today:

The disdain – "avid TERFs" – is palpable.

The repeal of the Gender Recognition Act is, apparently, only for reactionary transphobes and the likes of Orban. But the GRA dates from a different era, when it seemed the decent thing to do. Alas it hasn't aged well, having been massively abused by trans activists as a passport for inserting themselves into women-only spaces – as Victoria Smith notes in The Critic today, in her piece on Why Labour doesn’t understand the gender wars:

Years ago, gender self-ID was a Tory cause, with former Women and Equalities Minister Maria Miller insisting the only opposition came from women “purporting to be feminists”. If that sounds confusing now, it is only because the male-dominated left’s enthusiasm for sex denialism eventually became — as many of us warned it would — an open goal for the right. In the period leading up to this, though, you got the sense that many Tories saw “trans rights” as a low-cost way of looking progressive — a kind of super-charged version of gay rights, with none of the inconveniences that come with supporting single mothers, women fleeing violent relationships or those facing pensions inequality. They loved women, the Tories, so much so, anyone could be one….

Starmer, just like Harriet Harman, cannot admit that what we know now is completely different to what was known during the passing of the GRA in 2004 and the Equality Act in 2010. Apart from the few prescient feminist voices out there, I doubt many people were anticipating that soon there would be claims that trans women could menstruate and breastfeed, or that lesbians would be told by Stonewall to overcome their genital preferences, or that women in general would end up being rebranded vagina owners, uterus havers, bleeders and the like. Likewise, little attention was paid to the tremendous influence of misogyny-soaked porn on the self-perception of trans-identified males. The trans woman for whom the GRA was written was Coronation Street’s Hayley Cropper, the post-operative trans woman who never once told Roy that “sissy porn made me trans” or that she liked nothing better than being “treated like a piece of meat”. Today, we know how male people behave when it is made easier for them to identify as women. It is not like Hayley Cropper.

So yes, there's a genuine problem: the issue of men being legally able to claim that they've changed sex has not worked out well for women. Not that the Eye cares.

Another Eye column mentions the Starmer – Rosie Duffield disagreement:

Why the obsession with what's in people's pants? Bluntly, because Rishi Sunak knows it reliably generates him favourable headlines on GB News and in right-wing papers.

Hmm. Clear enough, I think. Gender-critical is just right-wing obfuscation.

I wondered the other day why Starmer has such a perverse reluctance to apologise to Rosie Duffield. Could it be that he's been warned by colleagues that he mustn't go there, on pain of rejection by all the trans-friendly Labour figures who hate her and have been so rude to her?

Jean Hatchet at The Critic:

Why is Rosie Duffield so terrifying to Keir Starmer that he cannot say her name, cannot speak with her, cannot answer questions about her directly in interviews? He would have to do just one thing; he would have to say that she is not wrong. He would have to tell the Party he agrees with her views, which he does when they are expressed by Tony Blair, and that would be it. The thorn would be out and the painful interrogations over.

The fact that he cannot do this is, I believe, very much to do with his real, and legitimate fear of what would come next. This would be the point where he would have to admit the root of the “toxicity” he is so keen to point to whenever Duffield is mentioned. If Starmer stood up against the misogynist, trans activist bullies in the Labour Party and backed Rosie Duffield, a rage would be unleashed that would tear his leadership to shreds. Women know this because it has happened to us as individuals and collectively in groups. We have been demonised, ostracised, harassed and silenced. Starmer knows this and he rightly fears it more than he fears the much more reasonable feminist women. 

Facing down the calls of women’s groups is significantly safer to do than facing the vicious trans juggernaut and trying to stop it rolling over you….

An interesting analysis of the new Kim Jong-un badges and their significance, from Gil-sup Kwak in the Daily NK:

North Korea’s Korean Central TV broadcast news of the second day of the Eighth Party Central Committee’s 10th Plenary Session on June 30, showing party officials attending the session wearing a Kim Jong Un portrait badge on their left chests.

North Korea is a hereditary dictatorship based primarily on the manipulation and idolization of symbols. Therefore, portraits and badges of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are core symbols that are constantly present in people’s lives, at work and at home (portraits) and on clothing (badges).

However, for the first time it has been confirmed that Kim Jong Un’s solo badge has replaced a badge with portraits of both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il (known as the “double portrait”). This is no small event. In short, Kim Jong Un has openly revealed his intention to “break away from previous generations and stand completely on his own,” a direction he has been cautiously pursuing for some time.

Since taking power, Kim Jong Un has outwardly emphasized the Baekdu bloodline succession by emulating Kim Il Sung (including physique, dress, and speeches) to supplement his legitimacy. Behind the scenes, however, he has shown tendencies to break away from Kim Jong Il by purging designated protectors such as Ri Yong-ho and Jang Song-thaek, accompanying his wife and daughter to public events, normalizing party organizations, and recklessly developing nuclear weapons. Now he’s gone further and broken with both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

Notably, this year North Korea has focused more on overtly promoting Kim Jong Un by distinguishing him from previous generations. Notable examples include: ①declaration of the “two-state narrative”; ②reconstruction and relocation of the Party’s Central Cadre School with the reintroduction of Marx-Lenin and the installation of Kim Jong Un’s portrait; ③reduction of events related to Kim Il Sung; and, ④distribution of Kim Jong Un badges.

First, the two-state narrative is a Copernican revolution that completely negates the Kim Il Sung-Kim Jong Il line and changes North Korea’s 79-year strategy toward South Korea from cooperative/forcible reunification to hostile/forcible incorporation. The destruction of the Three Charters of National Reunification Monument and the recent construction of barriers along the Military Demarcation Line are symbolic actions of this change….

The return of the Marx-Lenin portraits shows Kim’s determination to compete not only with the Juche ideology of his predecessors but also with orthodox communism. Meanwhile, hanging portraits of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un together is a measure to impress upon his people that he has now reached the same level as his predecessors. It could also be an attempt to show that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are supporting actors and Kim Jong Un is the leading actor….

In his 13th year in power, Kim Jong Un continues to take steps to stand alone (positioning himself as the country’s “New Sun”). While this is fundamentally based on the two-state narrative when considering domestic, inter-Korean, and international factors, the “de facto alliance treaty” that resulted from two summits with Russian President Vladimir Putin may have boosted Kim’s confidence.

Going forward, I would expect North Korea to reinforce the idolization of Kim Jong Un by expanding the distribution of his portraits and other idolization objects, and by declaring his birthday a national holiday. The regime is likely to emphasize and propagate Kim Jong Un as an outstanding ideological theorist and global leader who surpasses his predecessors through the two-state narrative, the people-first policy, and the formalization and dissemination of the new Five Major Ideas of Party Construction (political, organizational, ideological, disciplinary, and work style building).

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

See also, Kim's new best friend Putin.

John Vachon, March 1943. "Baltimore, Maryland. Davidson Transfer Company trucking terminal. Lubricating a truck tractor."

[Photo: Shorpy/John Vachon, Office of War Information]