Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

  • Globalising the intifada

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

  • Putting women at risk

    More on those "you need to be re-educated" nurses, in the Times:

    Transgender policies at hospitals are putting women “at risk”, four NHS nurses have claimed, after blowing the whistle on the “intimidating” behaviour of a trans colleague.

    Lawyers for Bethany Hutchison, Lisa Lockey, Annice Grundy, Tracey Hooper and Joanne Bradbury, who work at the Darlington Memorial Hospital, said they were launching legal action and speaking publicly after managers “continued to brush aside their concerns”.

    The four have claimed that female nurses at the hospital — part of the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust — have experienced panic attacks after being required to change into work clothes in front of a sexually active biological male.

    The male operating department practitioner, who the nurses have alleged has said openly that he does not take female hormones and is trying to get his girlfriend pregnant, identifies as a woman and uses the name Rose.

    Speaking for the group, Hutchison said that they wanted “women to be aware that there are transgender policies, particularly in the NHS, that are putting us at risk”.

    She said that “the extreme transgender ideology” was “ingrained” among health service managers and that it had “gone so far that we and other women have no choice but to speak out”.

    Hutchison claimed that nurses at her hospital were “terrified of sticking their heads above the parapet”, adding: “This cannot be right and we want a change in policy, not only at our hospital, but across the NHS and wider society.”The nurse also accused managers at her trust of being “threatening and intimidating” towards staff who had raised concerns about the hospital’s transgender policy.

    The nurses claimed that hospital bosses told them they needed “educating” to be more “inclusive” and to “broaden” their minds, according to The Mail on Sunday.

    Good luck to them.

  • Starting to look like self id

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

    Full thread:

    The Equality Act contains exceptions that allow for provision of single-sex spaces, services and sports. But it doesn’t define sex. The Gender Recognition Act allows males to be treated as tho they were female for most legal purposes.

    We simply don’t know if GRA provisions mean a man should be treated as though he were female for Equality Act purposes. It’s unclear & Labour are misleading us when they say the Equality Act doesn’t need clarification on this point. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on this.

    But so far the courts have indicated that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) means a male must be treated as tho female for Equality Act purposes. That’s a huge deal that makes it harder to lawfully provide single-sex services, spaces & sports.

    In that context of a lack of clarity Labour are proposing to make it easier for a man to be treated as though he were female – ie to opt in to the protected characteristic of female. It’s unclear exactly how their proposals would work but it sounds like the following.

    1. The judicial panel of lawyers/doctors that grant a GRC on the basis of an application that includes diagnosis of gender dysphoria from two clinical specialists would be scrapped. You’d only need a diagnosis from one specialist doctor then a GRC would be automatically issued.

    That removes any safeguard that could eg root out male sex offenders or male abusers from getting legal documentation that obliges providers to treat them as though they were legally female. Gender dysphoria is a pretty subjective diagnosis that abusive men can likely game.

    2. A requirement to show proof you’ve lived in acquired gender for 2 yrs replaced with 2 yr “cooling off” period. If it’s you have to wait 2 yrs before getting a GRC, that’s a weird thing to call it. If it’s you get it straight away but can reverse it starts to look like self id.

    3. Labour want to reverse the spousal exit provision in the GRA. This is NOT a “spousal veto”- Labour have adopted misleading activist language on this. If a spouse doesn’t consent to being in a same-sex as opposed to opposite sex marriage then an interim GRC is granted…

    That is grounds for automatic annulment. Then a full GRC granted post annulment/divorce. It means dissolution papers will show the dissolution of an opposite not same sex marriage. A wife CANNOT prevent her husband from getting a GRC though. To call it a “veto” is wrong.

    It’s deliberately obfuscating- why it’s so disappointing to see Labour adopt activist language. See also use of “conversion therapy” by activists to mean exploratory therapy for children who are gender questioning- why Cass review raised concerns about impact of criminal ban.

    It’s crazy to propose reforms to the gender recognition process while it’s unclear what the implications for women’s Equality Act protections are. We urgently need clarity through amending Equality Act to be clear a GRC doesn’t change someone’s sex for these purposes.

    So in summary: Labour are claiming to be robustly defending Equality Act protections for single-sex spaces, services & sports while adopting policy positions that would water them down. That’s dishonest. They’re only getting away with it because it’s a technical policy area.

  • Refusing to be kind

    Yes, she's getting tougher:

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

    James Kirkup in the Spectator:

    When I used to write a lot about sex and gender issues, I would frequently call for moderate and temperate debate, based on evidence rather than emotion. I haven’t changed my views on that.

    I have, however, changed my view of J.K. Rowling. I used to think she was great, an admirable figure doing some good in a debate that badly needed strong, clear voices.

    I no longer think that about her.

    I now think she’s even better than that.

    This isn’t a column about Rowling’s views on sex and gender. It’s about her anger and her refusal, her unflinching, unapologetic and utterly glorious refusal to be kind….

    Surely as a famous woman known to millions she should embody the womanly virtues of warmth and generosity? What sort of example is she setting to little girls in unicorn T-shirts by telling men who disagree with her to shove off? Why can’t she just be kind instead?

    ‘It makes me really sad, ultimately, because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic,’ actor Daniel Radcliffe said recently of Rowling. ‘Empathic’ (able to understand and share the feelings of others) being a posh way of saying ‘kind,’ of course.

    There is powerful voodoo around ‘be kind’ because, frankly, who wants to be seen as unkind? As a man, I’m not subject to that cultural norm of niceness, but I still thought long and hard about writing this column, because it risks casting me as someone who defends nastiness and praises anger. But in the end, some things are more important than being nice. Telling the truth is one of them.

    And the truth is that J.K. Rowling, in her unapologetic, sometimes sweary glory, deserves even more praise and admiration than the world has already shown her. She’s not just taking on bad arguments for bad policies, she’s fighting even bigger and badder things – the cultural and social expectations that put girls into stupid pink T-shirts and the mental shackles of being ‘kind’.

  • The enemy’s black clouds and seductive spirits

    More on the increasingly desperate battle in North Korea to counter "non-socialist elements" in films:

    North Korean authorities recently held an ideological struggle session for workers and artists in the movie industry, claiming that non-socialist elements have infiltrated films produced in the country.

    “Earlier this month, a closed-door ideological struggle session on the non-socialist phenomena in the film sector was held with all cadres, workers, and artists of the General Directorate of State Films,” a source in Pyongyang told the Daily NK on Thursday on condition of anonymity.

    The meeting was organized by the Central Committee of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Workers’ Party of Korea, and three members of the department attended.

    “Earlier, the party committee of the General Directorate of State Films and affiliated state security officials had issued a report on the non-socialist phenomena in the film sector. The Supreme Leader [Kim Jong Un] was concerned about the issue, so the Central Committee’s Propaganda and Agitation Department organized the collective ideological struggle session,” the source explained.

    During the meeting, it was pointed out that workers in the film sector were introducing foreign elements into films. In short, officials criticized the fact that films with a strong non-socialist elements in costumes, props, plots and themes were being shown at film premieres.

    “Hoping that workers in the film industry would develop films in the Juche-style, we gave them the opportunity to watch unique foreign films and dramas, but this seems to have become a poison,” the officials said.

    “The blatant inclusion of non-socialist elements banned by the state in films is tantamount to disregarding party policy and directly challenging the Workers’ Party,” the officials continued, stressing that such acts should be strongly punished.

    The "non-socialist elements"would presumably be anything that isn't about and in praise of the glorious Kim dynasty.

    During the struggle session, officials from the Central Committee’s Propaganda and Agitation Department named several film workers and artists involved in the non-socialist phenomenon, saying, “They are guilty of desecrating our films and art.”

    “Unbeknownst to us, the enemy’s black clouds and seductive spirits first reached the creators and artists of film and art,” the officials said, adding: “We should have ruthlessly nipped the black sprouts in the bud from the beginning, but they have grown and reached the extreme.”

    “Officials from the Central Committee’s Propaganda and Agitation Department made it clear that the ideological struggle session would end with punishment, not just criticism,” the source said, adding: “In fact, after the struggle session, it was announced that more than a dozen workers and artists in the film sector would be dismissed, suspended and revolutionized.”

    Revolutionized? As in, sent to a labour camp? Or just shot?

  • Making a GRC easier

    Here we go:

    Labour will make it easier for people to legally transition by removing the need for them to prove they have lived as their preferred gender for two years.

    Under existing rules, transgender people wishing to have their new gender legally recognised must obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

    They are required to submit proof that they have changed genders, which can include official documents such as utility bills or passports, or even library cards or supermarket loyalty cards.

    Officials insist on two years’ worth of documentation to ensure the person is prepared for a permanent change. However, The Times has learnt that Labour will ditch the requirement in an attempt to “remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance”.

    Instead, transgender people will be required to undergo an effective cooling-off period for two years after their application for a GRC is submitted. A single doctor specialising in gender issues will be able to provide a medical report supporting the change to their new gender.

    A single doctor specialising in gender issues…not hard to guess where their sympathies will lie.

    As well as simplifying the application process, Labour will also get rid of a requirement to have consent from the spouse of the person wishing to change gender.

    The changes are likely to heighten concern among critics over Labour’s approach to transgender issues. It comes after JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author, accused Labour of “abandoning women” over its stance of gender….

    Labour’s proposal was criticised by Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, who said it would “unravel all the protections in the current system designed to protect women and girls” and create “loopholes for predators and bad-faith actors to infiltrate women-only spaces and put us at risk”.

    Top comment, from LGB Alliance's Kate Harris:

    Here we go. Labour have learned nothing from the disaster that unfolded in Scotland. We suspected it; we smelt it. Now we know for sure that Labour don't give a fig for women's and LGB rights. Hypocrites now exposed in all their regressive cult beliefs. Bye bye Labour.

  • Wrongheaded and an etymological fallacy

    Talking of wrong-headed but seemingly progressive policies which the next Labour government might well choose to implement, here's Ed Husain at the Spectator – Don’t outlaw ‘Islamophobia’:

    ‘One of the things that’s coming up over and over again is Islamophobia,’ says Keir Starmer in a campaign video, talking to Sadiq Khan. ‘We need to say over and over again that Islamophobia is intolerable… and I think there’s more we can do in government. There’s certainly stuff online that needs tackling much more robustly than it is at the moment.’ The video shows the London mayor nodding in agreement. He tells Starmer: ‘Your experience as a prosecutor means you’ll be thinking about the strategy we can use.’

    It's intolerable to criticise Islam? To say anything derogatory about one particular religion? Because that's what's being said here.

    But it’s not the strategy they should be worrying about so much as the unintended consequences. Outlawing ‘Islamophobia’ – as Starmer, with a massive majority, could easily do – makes no sense. I’m both a Muslim and a historian of Islam and I find the whole notion of Islamophobia to be wrongheaded, an etymological fallacy.

    The notion of Islamophobia was invented to mirror homophobia and draw parallels with anti-Semitism. But the word itself is inherently flawed. Both homophobia and anti-Semitism are directed against specific peoples. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Violence or discrimination against adherents of any religion is obviously indefensible, but it should also go without saying that in a free society people should be at liberty to criticise or mock any organised religion. No intelligent Muslim should place the word ‘Islam’ and the word ‘phobia’ together in a single phrase. This is why the word did not exist until relatively recently. Islamophobia has been largely promoted by Islamists and jihadists, to protect them from scrutiny.

    But Starmer looks all set to go ahead. As with gender ideology, he's been fooled into thinking that this is some kind of progressive policy, protecting a disadvantaged minority. It isn't. 

    If you look into the forces demanding that Britain outlaws Islamophobia, you find the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western global movement dedicated to destroying Israel and removing all Arab and Muslim governments; an organisation that is openly homophobic and misogynistic….

    Offence is needed for freedom, and citizens of open societies must learn to become resilient. Criticism and discussion are the harbingers of progress. Muslims do not need to be patronised with excessive legislation.

    Today it is ‘Islamophobia’. What’s next? Are we to be prohibited from questioning the gender inequality of literalist Islam: wife-beating, the unfairness of divorce laws, inheritance disparity, reactions to apostasy? Islamophobia laws are a step backwards, making it harder for reformist forces in Islam. This is something that today’s secular politicians struggle to comprehend.

    Kemi Badenoch put it well back in February, in response to Annaliese Dodds' demand that the Tories tackle "the scourge of Islamophobia":

    We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion. The definition of “Islamophobia” she uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.

    As I said some years back:

    The charge of Islamophobia deliberately obscures that separation between a person and their beliefs. It accepts the Islamic vision of an immutable union of person and religion. We should refuse to accept those terms. A person's ethnic origins may be Pakistani, Arab, Kurd, European, whatever, and to criticise or abuse them for that is racist and unacceptable. Their beliefs, whether in Islam, Scientology, UFOs, or any other ideology, creed or cult, is an entirely different matter, and should be open to criticism, debate, scepticism, up to and including ridicule. That's the way we do it, and that's what we should be defending. Worship who or what you want, wear what you want, think what you want, but don't expect to be spared from being offended by the opinions and beliefs of others. The charge of Islamophobia is, precisely, an attempt to make criticism of Islam illegitimate – and that attempt should be resisted. We should be free to criticise Islam just as we criticise Christianity, socialism, capitalism, or any other system of beliefs.

    The fact that the most well-known Islamic apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is under constant police protection, that Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am Not a Muslim", has to write under a pseudonym, and that cartoons of Mohammed still attract death threats and Facebook bans, suggests how far we still have to go. The aim should be, at least for those Muslims resident in the West, that they feel as free to abandon the faith of their parents (or not to, of course) as Christians, atheists, and all the rest of us are free now to make our own choices. As long as Islamophobia is accepted as a legitimate term of criticism, we won't start making any progress.

  • Afghanistan and the UN

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

  • ‘You need to be re-educated’

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

  • The spinelessness of the political class

    Matthew Syed, in praise of JK Rowling:

    Reading the column by JK Rowling in The Times yesterday criticising Labour’s shifting and often craven stance on trans issues confirmed to me the spinelessness of the political class — the willingness of frontline politicians to follow what they perceive to be the path of least resistance; not to say the right thing to avoid being seen to say the wrong. In many ways it is a summary of much of what has gone wrong with western culture in the social media age: free speech has been replaced by fear of cancellation and groupthink. Reading Rowling’s words made me feel depressed about the state of the Labour Party but also exhilarated that a high-profile figure has the guts to call it out.

    I should perhaps say at the outset that I have long wanted Labour to win the election (I don’t think I’m alone in regarding this Tory administration as woeful), but my fear all along has been that this front bench is flaky and willing to bend to the latest manifestation of progressive opinion. It appears to be packed with chameleons who don’t really have solid foundations and can therefore be cowed by a transitory mob, as long as it is co-ordinated and determined, like the extreme end of the trans lobby during the high point of its cultural power.

    Many in this shadow cabinet, after all — including Keir Starmer himself — openly supported Jeremy Corbyn (Starmer said he would make a “great prime minister”) and paraded themselves with this radical socialist when they thought it was in their interest but are now seeking to pass themselves off as fiscally responsible types, hoping we will not notice the contradiction. Others happily dog-whistled to the antisemitic base in the Labour Party when it was in the ascendancy and then surreptitiously backtracked when the wind shifted.

    Is it any surprise, then, that when we hit peak trans activism, they started to obediently spout the ideology of the dominant group, like Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution?

    And if they fell so heavily for gender ideology, what future absurdities will they embrace in the belief that they're "progressive"?