Pandering to religious tribalism by Chris Sloggett.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Chris Sloggett wrote the opinion piece below on the 2nd, July on the National Secular Society website.

********************************************8************************

VOTERS and politicians who value social cohesion and basic democratic principles should reject the trend of pandering to religious tribalism, says Chris Sloggett.

The recent events at Batley Grammar School are well-documented, but still shocking to recount. A loud group of intolerant Muslims gathered at the gates of a school demanding a teacher's dismissal because they objected to a resource he used in class. The school suspended the teacher and issued a grovelling apology. The teacher faced threats, and soon afterwards two of his colleagues were also suspended.

A local investigation has found that the resource which the teacher showed - a cartoon of Islam's prophet Muhammad - was not used with any ill intent. The teacher was nominally reinstated. But he and his colleagues can't return to work because they fear they could be attacked. Meanwhile the investigation has effectively enforced a blasphemy taboo on the school by saying the cartoon, or similar ones, shouldn't be used again.

The teacher at the centre of the row has been driven out of the area and into hiding. The mob that hounded him has got what it wanted. Other schools around the country will have taken note.

And the politicians have moved on. The Department for Education has called on parents to accept the outcome of the local investigation. The department and others have presented this as if it's some kind of reasonable compromise. But anyone who cares about teachers' freedom to do their jobs without facing intimidation and threats - on this issue or any other - should say what this is: a meek surrender to demands for censorship.

When the protests first broke out many politicians and commentators wrung their hands. Some called for calm, but the message was often that the main concern lay in the minutiae of a handful of teachers' decisions about how to present a particular lesson in one school.

The grubby Batley and Spen by-election, which limped to a close...., helped to highlight the price to be paid for this. When the issue came up during the campaign, mainstream candidates' responses smacked of fear, self-interest and short-termist thinking. They either doggedly avoided it or offered responses which were weak to the point of meaninglessness, as a piece from Batley by Dan Hodges in The Mail on Sunday highlighted this weekend. Meanwhile George Galloway spotted an opportunity to weaponise the issue to try to win over some reactionary Muslim voters, saying the school had "absolutely no right" to use the cartoon.

Did the politicians think their positions were right, or did they just not want to upset a perceived bloc vote? Either way, this collective wall of silence was alarmingly predictable. It's now a standard tactic to treat large swathes of voters primarily as members of various religious 'communities', and to appeal to them through the gatekeepers who claim to speak for them.

But this approach sends the message that religious identity groups can make increasingly unreasonable demands and nobody will dare to say no to them. In Batley, there seems to have been a widespread unspoken agreement that freedom of expression - the most important freedom which citizens in a democracy enjoy - could be treated as a commodity and signed away for electoral convenience.

Politicians should beware where the multi-communal game leads. If they rely on religious identity politics to shore up their support, they'll come under pressure to extend more privileges to particular religious groups. Others will organise along competing identitarian lines, or grow bewildered that politicians appear uninterested in them. The principle that we all enjoy equal citizenship and that politicians should seek to serve all of our interests will be further frayed.

There will also be fertile ground for bad actors of various stripes. The Batley and Spen campaign was marred by inter-communal tensions and intimidatory tactics, including homophobic intimidation aimed at Labour candidate Kim Leadbeater. More moderate and reasonable voices, such as a group of Muslim women who rejected the authority of a "loud minority" of Muslim men this week, faced an uphill battle to make themselves heard. Several far right candidates also spotted an opportunity to advance their agendas.

This ugly campaign should be a prompt to pause and reconsider. Indulging religious tribalism is risky and unsustainable. Voters and politicians who value social cohesion and basic democratic principles should unite against it.

*************************************************************************

SPECTATOR: In praise of the Batley binmen

by Brendan O’Neill

If you need someone to support your right to freedom of speech, forget the teaching unions. Don’t look to the commentariat. And don’t even bother with the Labour party, many of whose younger, angrier members will often be found in the ranks of cancel-culture mobs calling for someone or other to be erased from polite society for having blasphemed against a trendy new orthodoxy.

No, it’s the binmen you want to turn to. It’s the nation’s fine refuse collectors who will back you up when your liberty to speak is being pummelled.

Consider the case of the Batley Grammar schoolteacher who was suspended for showing his pupils an image of Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Alarmingly, that teacher is still in hiding, fearing for his life. He has received death threats simply for doing what all good teachers should do: challenge their students to consider difficult moral questions.

The supposedly liberal establishment behaved shamefully in response to the demonisation and harassment of the teacher. Batley Grammar itself, in the face of angry protests outside the school gates, suspended him. The school essentially ‘threw him under a bus’, the teacher’s family said.

The teaching unions stayed almost entirely schtum about the case for ages. ‘It would not be appropriate to make any further comment’ while the school is investigating the incident, said the National Education Union. Not appropriate for a teaching union to comment on the fact that a teacher had received threats to his life and is now, according to his father, ‘devastated and crushed’, an ‘emotional wreck’?

In which case, why do teaching unions even exist?

The political class wasn’t much better. Tracy Brabin, then the Labour MP for Batley, now the Mayor of West Yorkshire, praised the school for dealing swiftly with this incident that had caused so much ‘offence' and 'upset’. She essentially sided with the protesters who wanted a teacher punished for blasphemy — these days referred to as ‘offence' and 'upset’ — rather than with the teacher and his right to free expression.

But not everyone has turned their backs on this persecuted teacher. Enter the binmen of Bury. Shaming the intellectual elites, these workers have taken a principled stand on behalf of the teacher and his right to free speech in the classroom.

The Bury branch of Unite, which represents refuse collectors, has put forward a motion championing the Batley teacher. The emergency motion, submitted for consideration at the National Conference of Trade Union Councils in June, urges all unions to back the teacher.

The motion points out that England’s blasphemy laws were formally abolished more than a decade ago and insists there should be no ‘dogmatic restraints’ on our right to discuss religious matters, including Islamic matters.

The proponent of the motion is Brian Bamford, secretary of Tameside Trade Union Council and a retired electrician. He says:

‘This is a motion which has come in from binmen, from ordinary working people… Freedom of expression is very important. I don’t feel guilty in any way for taking a stand on this issue.’

Bamford says an NEU official contacted him and asked him to consider withdrawing the motion. Apparently the official told him the motion ‘risks inflaming what is an extremely sensitive and very complex situation’. An NEU spokesperson said: 'It is a sensitive issue and the NEU did ask for the motion to be withdrawn. With every viewpoint that is expressed our members face yet more public exposure.'

Got that? Binmen and other working-class union members want to express support for a teacher who has been hounded into hiding for a supposed speechcrime, and a teaching union official is reportedly saying to them, ‘Please don’t do this’. This is bonkers.

These binmen have shown us what true solidarity looks like. Their support for the Batley teacher is in keeping with the best traditions of working-class activism. They saw someone being harried and silenced merely for displaying a religious image and they’re not having it. More power to their elbow, and their motion.

They have also shown up what passes for the liberal establishment these days. Too many people in positions of power treat freedom of speech as a negotiable commodity rather than as a core principle of democratic life. Too many turn away — or nod along — as people are shunted out of polite society merely for criticising Islam, or asking questions about transgenderism, or making an un-PC joke. Get 12 weeks for £12

Plus a free bottle of Digby Fine English fizz

Many so-called liberals now consider the right not to be offended to be more important than the right to free expression. So when they saw that fuss outside Batley Grammar, they instinctively sided with the right of the protesters to glide through life without ever having their religious beliefs called into question, rather than with the right of a teacher in a pluralistic democracy to use his freedom of expression to challenge and enlighten his pupils.

Thankfully, there are still people, like those Bury binmen – and of course like the Free Speech Union – who understand that no one has the right not to be offended. Who understand that freedom of expression is more important than any individual’s feelings or any religion’s diktats? Binmen for Free Speech — it’s exactly the campaign we need right now.

Written by Brendan O’Neill

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked, the online magazine.

CommentsShare Topics in this articlePoliticsSocietybatleybatley grammarbinmen

The Guardian Of Truth? by Les May

YESTERDAY, 2 May, the Filipino journalist Maria Ressa was presented with the World Press Freedom Prize by UNESCO in recognition of her fight for free speech in the Philippines where she has been the target of online attacks and judicial processes in which the law and law enforcement have been turned against journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary citizens under President Rodrigo Duterte.

In her acceptance speech she said "Equally dangerous and insidious (is the) virus of lies unleashed in our information ecosystem, infecting real people, who become impervious to facts… It changes the way they look at the world. They become angrier, more isolated. They distrust everything. In this environment, the dictator wins, crumbling our democracies from within."

This is an apocalyptic scenario of our political future: a world where as she puts it ‘power and money rule’. But it’s not just in the political sphere that people are susceptible to becoming impervious to facts as they navigate the information ecosystem. For some people the problem is ‘big tech’, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and the rest of social media, and the answer is for governments to regulate it. This view ignores the experience in the Philippines that it is the government that is using the law to determine what is acceptable as ‘facts’.

Nor is it just with social media that the problems reside. Mainstream outlets have exploited the knowledge that most people do not check what is fact and what is opinion. Pointing out that just because someone says something is true does not make it so, is unwelcome news both to some people in the media and to many readers and viewers. Facts become just what someone wants to believe and woe betide anyone who disagrees. I don’t take at face value what Meghan Markle had to say in her televised interview. I don’t matter, but Piers Morgan paid the price for his dissent.

The Guardian, once a byword for rectitude and fairness, has no qualms about printing a story about the actor Noel Clarke knowing that the likely outcome will be that he will never be able to clear his name and will probably never be able to work as an actor again. I have no idea about whether whether the allegations made are true or false, and importantly, nor does the person who wrote it or the editor who chose to include it in the paper. The editor could, and in my view should, have declined to publish any allegations which had not been reported to the police by the complainants.

By last Saturday The Independent, another supposedly quality paper, was running a story by Victoria Richards which began ‘I have never met Noel Clarke, but I have met men who have behaved in the way Clarke is accused of behaving’. Again, if what she says in this piece is true, why did she not report it to the police? Why should I believe her just because she says it?

A few days ago the Victims Commissioner said ‘Far too few rape cases are resulting in a charge and hundreds of complainants annually are being denied justice.’ But where is the justice for anyone, accuser or accused, in the Noel Clarke story? Where in the response of ITV and Sky is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? The question ceases to be whether the accused will get a fair trial, it becomes whether s/he will get a trial at all.

Maria Ressa spoke of a ‘virus of lies’; so how do we vaccinate ourselves against it? The first thing is to recognise that it is not just a problem of ‘Big Tech’. Supposedly more respectable, media outlets try to shape our perception of events by what they decide is a story and how they slant it.

The second thing is to recognise that it is a problem we have to solve for ourselves and our families, rather than relying on a government imposed solution, which itself may become dangerous to free thought and expression. As Maria Ressa put it "fight and win your individual battle for integrity". Don’t buy your teenage daughter an expensive smartphone and then complain when something bad happens to her.

Scepticism about the truth of what you see, what you read and what you are told if you venture into what Ressa calls the ‘information ecosystem’ has to be the order of the day. There is a lot of space between distrusting everything and watching the dictators win because you no longer know what is true and what is false, and filtering out (some of) the lies and manipulation by questioning everything.

We can ask: Who is saying this? How reliable have they been in the past? Is there any way of independently verifying their account? Who gains from this version of events? Are they trying to pass off assertions as facts? These things require some effort on our part. If we are not prepared to make it there is one thing we can all do; don’t pass on stories unless you are certain they are true. Better still; don’t gossip!

************************************************************

Nothing new about cartoons which mock religion!

Posted on National Secular Society website: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 by Bob Forder

Religious leaders have long feared irreverent drawings that could challenge their authority. We should remember that amid the latest effort to prevent the use of Muhammad cartoons, says Bob Forder.

In recent weeks there's been another furious response to the use of Muhammad cartoons – this time in an educational setting, at Batley Grammar School in Yorkshire.

There is nothing new about cartoons being used as a device to poke fun at the religious. They have been a contentious source of blasphemy prosecutions and allegations ever since technical developments enabled their mass print production.

An early example is Leo Taxil's 'La Bible Amusante', which satirised what Taxil regarded as biblical inconsistencies and absurdities. G.W. Foote latched onto the cartoons in this book when he founded The Freethinker in 1881. He would undoubtedly have been encouraged by efforts to have Taxil's book banned in this country. From the outset Foote republished some of the cartoons as 'Comic Bible Sketches', although they were supplemented by others. More than anything else it was cartoons that made The Freethinker notorious and the reason the newspaper was such an immediate success in terms of its circulation.

At the same time, the leading US freethought newspaper The Truthseeker was publishing Watson Heston's cartoons (example below), which satirised biblical passages and celebrated US secularism and secular heroes like Thomas Paine. These were later collected together in books such as 'The Bible Comically Illustrated' and 'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Textbook'. These caused quite a rumpus, although little is known about Watson Heston.

Both D.M. Bennett (who founded The Truthseeker) and Foote were clear about the purpose of their cartoons. They reasoned that if you laugh at priests or ministers you can't take them seriously and they therefore lose authority. He had a point – and the same could be said for imams as for priests. I think this accounts in large part for the furious response in Batley.

Foote was eventually prosecuted for blasphemy (partly for the special 1882 Christmas number of The Freethinker, which was a cartoonists' feast). I include a copy of the cartoon from the front page (see main image). Other contents included a cartoon strip "A new life of Christ" and a particularly contentious cartoon "Moses getting a back view" with a quotation from Exodus "And it shall come to pass that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and I shall take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts". The cartoon features a rather startled Moses staring at a pair of well-filled check trousers with a tear in the rear. None of this has me rolling around with laughter, but I can understand the furious response provoked in 1882 – and Foote's courage in publishing them.

Foote got a year in Holloway Gaol and was widely regarded as a hero and martyr in National Secular Society circles. It was this that ensured he became president when Charles Bradlaugh – the NSS's founder – resigned in 1890.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were published for similar reasons and are part of the same tradition.

There is, however, a significant difference between now and then. Those who objected in the 19th century were largely part of an elite which held a privileged position in society as a whole, embodied and supported by the established church. In some ways those demanding retribution in Batley can be considered amongst the least privileged in society and, for them, this is an issue tightly linked to their ethnicity and sense of identity.

This makes the issue far more complex and helps explain the disappointing woolly thinking, platitudes and fudge about the need to engage and listen that has crept in amongst what might loosely be termed the liberal left. But those condoning the dangerous and over-hasty behaviour of the Batley Grammar School governors and management really need to think again.

Secularism is a fundamental liberal democratic principle. The strength and success of liberal democracy rests not only on principles such as fair elections but also on the assumption that the political system accommodates all religions and beliefs with equal respect and access, apart from those intent on its overthrow.

A failure to understand this, and the freedom of speech it entails, is the real threat to us all, particularly the less privileged. Freedom of speech must entail a right to offend, however regrettable this might seem.

Sadly, the array of religious and community leaders (some self-appointed) assembled outside Batley Grammar School purport to represent a less privileged community. But giving in will simply enhance and protect these leaders' own status and position within their community, at others' expense, and run the risk of that community becoming further isolated from society at large.

**********************************************************************

Will We Abandon The Enlightenment? by Les May

ON the first Easter Sunday we were together my wife rushed into the garden to tell me that the Pope was just about to give his address ‘Urbi et Orbi’, to the city and the world. I was baffled at her enthusiasm. Our mutual lack of understanding was because she had been brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition and I in the Anglican. It has not stopped us living in peace and harmony for 46 years. Nor has it meant that our ideas have remained fossilised in the past. But it’s a difference that had people imprisoned, tortured or burned at the stake 500 years ago.

The Reformation*, when Henry VIII broke with Rome and established himself as the head of the Anglican church, is seen by some as one of the most significant events in English history. But at this distance a more realistic appraisal is that it merely exchanged one form of intolerance for another; an insistence that one set of beliefs was the one true way, for another.

For the next 150 years the insistence that they, and they alone, knew the truth about how to worship their God drove those who happened to be in power at the time to impose their beliefs on the populace. Burning at the stake was in vogue during the reign of ‘Bloody Mary’, as she was called in my history book, but not that of my wife. During the heyday of Puritanism in the mid 17th century dancing and Christmas celebrations were forbidden, a bit like Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal to celebrate today, or the Taliban’s ban on pigeon flying.

And then it stopped; not all at once, not everywhere in the world, not even everywhere in Europe, but slowly this thing we call ‘The Enlightenment’ came into being. It wasn’t a single thing, but included a range of ideas centred on, sovereignty of reason, empirical investigation and the evidence of the senses as the primary sources of knowledge. It advanced ideals such as individual liberty, constitutional government, separation of religion and state, and toleration, including religious toleration. The countries where these conditions still do not exist are too well known for me to need to enumerate all of them; three will suffice, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Although The Enlightenment has dethroned religion as the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge its ideals of individual liberty and of religious tolerance has ensured that those so inclined can hold and practice their beliefs without persecution by the state, and the state will act to ensure that they are able to do so. It is no coincidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said; ‘We have to speak freely, I’m much more towards the US end of the spectrum on freedom of speech than I am elsewhere towards the other end. I think we have to be open to hearing things we really dislike’.

Even if many of a religious persuasion do not, Welby is aware that his Anglican faith benefits from that ideal of tolerance which those of us who do not share his beliefs attempt to give meaning to. Tolerance of other peoples’ beliefs and their practice of them does not mean that they should be immune to critical analysis or criticism. I believe that any claims about the existence or non-existence of transcendental beings or deities have no meaning in the absence of any empirical test to determine their veracity. But it does not stop me defending the rights of Christians to express their views on God’s opinion on homosexuality, even though I think they are nonsense, or defending Asia Bibi against persecution in Pakistan.

In other words the freedom that the followers of Islam, including those who reside in Batley and are demanding that the teacher who did something they dislike should be sacked, have to practice their beliefs in this country rests firmly upon ideals of The Enlightenment. Insisting that we in the UK abandon those ideals and adopt their own stance of intolerance towards those whose views we disapprove of will not serve them well. Anyone for banning Halal slaughter?

*****************************************************************

EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE:

* Dating the Reformation

Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. The key ideas of the Reformation—a call to purify the church and a belief that the Bible, not tradition, should be the sole source of spiritual authority—were not themselves novel. However, Luther and the other reformers became the first to skillfully use the power of the printing press to give their ideas a wide audience.

‘Last Friday's behaviour by Police [in Bristol] was the most violent I have ever seen'

by KILL THE BILL PROTESTER, Wednesday Mar 31, 2021

I’ve been working in various roles in the community, youth and social sectors for around a decade, including the last four years in Bristol.

I have worked with some of the most disproportionately criminalised and marginalised communities including addicts, the homeless and vulnerably homed, refugees, travellers, juvenile detainees, mental health patients, young people in care, deprived/low-income neighbourhoods and BAME young people.

Although on occasion the police, as the only system we have, have supported me in these roles, they are often at best incompetent or ineffective and at worst actively harmful and violent.

I have seen how the defunding of youth and social sectors (who work at the roots of these issues) leads to an increase in crime and social issues, and believe that reallocating these funds away from the police would begin to effect long term positive change in our communities, rather than perpetuating crime and incarcerating people away from society.

As a queer person, and as a Jewish person, my identity intersects across two communities with a history of persecution at the hands of the state. I, like many other queer people, know the violence that the LGBT+ community has faced at the hands of the state and how riots such as Stonewall have been integral to our freedom and human rights. As a Jewish person, I can understand, from a specific perspective, the very real fear that people feel when the state begins to use police power to persecute minorities and ethnic groups.

So these, among other reasons, are my personal and professional reasons for opposing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and criticising the police.

You can read sources from much more knowledgeable people about the rights this bill would infringe, not just in terms of protesting but to the cultural rights and rituals of some of the UK’s most marginalised communities.

I attended the initial march on Sunday. Contrary to statements from the mayor and the “Bristol city leaders group” (many of whom are ironically not based in Bristol themselves) that the protest was made up of violent hooligans from outside the city, I’ve seen a much larger demographic.

I’ve met doctors, nurses, paramedics, youth workers, community leaders and teachers at the protests, all who are important parts of Bristol’s infrastructure and all of whom oppose the bill and remain critical of the actions of the police. People have been administering first aid and acting as legal observers – both essential for monitoring people’s safety, documenting injuries and unlawful behaviour and noting the actions of the police.

Despite being law abiding members of the public and essentially neutral bystanders at the protests, many of these people have been assaulted by police and remain in fear that they will be targeted or criminalised simply for monitoring legalities or tending to injuries (some very serious) inflicted by the police.

I had to work through part of the initial Sunday riots, but caught the end of the violence outside Bridewell. Contrary to the (now retracted) reports of police injuries, medics have confirmed multiple serious injuries inflicted by police on protestors that night, many of which are soon to be reported in an official capacity.

I had to leave again on Tuesday’s College Green occupation, but was surprised and disgusted to hear that the conscientious and peaceful, mainly sitting, protesters I had left had been assaulted once again.

Last Friday’s behaviour from the police was the most violent I have ever seen. I followed the back of the police line from a distance, checking behind them for fallen and injured protesters.

Countless people lay on the floor injured, ranging from concussions and bruises to serious head wounds, dog bites and pepper spray-induced temporary blindness. There were many more injuries I didn’t witness directly but most of us will have seen the many videos documenting these.

On one occasion I sat with an autistic man who had been trying to reason with the police and calm the crowd behind him. He had been hit in the chest with a shield, then hit again as he tried to stand up and get out of the way. He’d then fallen back and hit his head and arm on the ground. He was in a state of shock, with a possible serious head injury.

As I was administering first aid we were shouted at and threatened by police (who at this point were waiting idly by as the main group of protesters were in the distance). One police officer smirked when I asked him what he thought of the injured protestor on the floor as he walked past. I’m only speaking from my own experience and what I saw, but there is evidence mounting that suggests this was not an isolated incident.

As we move forward, we have now seen the police change tactics. They have realised (and proved) that without heavy police presence, and weaponised riot officers, protests remain largely peaceful.

This should not be misconstrued as an apology though – they haven’t apologised or acknowledged the violence caused on Friday, and will now be using their lack of action at Tuesday’s protest to uphold their claims that they are enforcers of peace and justice, not perpetrators of violence and institutional injustice.

Remain cynical, and stay wary on Saturday’s march.

This account comes from a Kill the Bill protester and first aider who wishes to stay anonymous.

130 imams and scholars urge PM to condemn Batley school teacher

By

5Pillars (RMS) - 2 months ago

Over 130 imams and Islamic scholars have written to the Prime Minister urging him to condemn the showing of blasphemous cartoons to Muslim children at Batley Grammar School.

In an open letter to Boris Johnson, the imams and scholars say the incident was an attempt to incite hatred and Islamophobia whilst pushing forward extremist white supremacist ideology.

So far three teachers have been suspended over the incident which has led to widespread outrage within the Muslim community. On the other hand, right-wing media, politicians and civil society commentators have supported the actions of the teacher.

The letter was organised by the Muslim Action Forum. Below is the letter and list of signatories in full:

Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned British Muslim citizens and scholars are writing to express our unequivocal condemnation of the depiction of the caricature of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, by the RE teacher at Batley Grammar School. It is inconceivable that such a depiction in an RE lesson can be based on the notion of discussing “freedom of speech” or even a critique of the personality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It was prima facie, based on the usual attempt of inciting hatred and Islamophobia whilst pushing forward extremist white supremacist ideology, which inevitably creates chaos and anarchy.

The hallmark of any civilised society cannot be the freedom to abuse and provoke certain members of society. Current legal proscription of xenophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and other language of incitement of violence, ensures that we all remain in the realm of civil society. Why is it then that hatred against Muslims and Islamophobia is so widely defended and accepted? Surely, in sowing such seeds of hatred, we only advance the vested agenda of a tiny minority of extremists on all sides, that seek to gain from any form of chaos and anarchy. Depicting the caricatures of the Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, will inevitably offend and provoke the feelings of 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet, and this cannot be unintentional or an act of a civilised member of society.

There are some who stand in solidarity with the teacher, guided by their blind hatred of the Muslim community in our country. They fail to understand how the love of the Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him means more to every Muslim than everything else that is dear to them. In a world where many are self-centred, egotistical, and selfish members of society, they fail to understand how a man who lived over 1400 years ago can be more meaningful to over 1.6 billion Muslims than their own dear lives.

The global coronavirus pandemic has taught us that there are issues within society in which we are one, we must care for each other otherwise we end up dying together. We need to cling onto those issues that help us to learn to live together and uphold common values to ensure a civilised society. The outcomes of the heinous acts of the teacher inevitably lead to shaking the fabrics of our society, greatly damaging social cohesion and harmony. We invite you as Prime Minister, the political head of our country, and as our fellow British citizen, to stand with British Muslims in the condemnation of such divisive actions. The reprehensible actions of the teacher are a call to action to all civilised members of our society to unequivocally condemn such intentional behaviour.

We welcome the actions of the governors of the Batley Grammar School to suspend not only the teacher in question, but also the other co-conspirators, who designed this attack on our civilised society. The whole of the British Muslim community shall critically observe the next steps that the school takes to ensure that justice is done.

Kind regards,

Shaykh Faiz Siddiqi, Muslim Action Forum

Imam Adil Shahzad, Bradford

Imam Khalid Hussain, Leicester

Shaikh Tauqir Ishaq, Nuneaton

Shaykh Zain Siddiqi, Birmingham

Shaykh Noor Siddiqi, Coventry

Shaykh Waseem Ahmed, Manchester

Mufti Wajid Iqbal, Bradford

Shaykh Mohsin Haveliwala, Bolton

Mufti Nizamuddin Misbahi, Blackburn

Mufti Muhammad Qasim Zia, Sheffield

Shaykh Shabaz Ahmed, Ashton-under-Lyne

Shaykh Zahid Sharif, Ashton-under-Lyne

Imam Muhammad Anis, Birmingham

Imam Husnain Yaqoob, Nottingham

Imam Muhammad Amir, Stoke-on-Trent

Imam Abdul Rasool Alwari, Preston

Maulana Muhammad Kaleem, Bolton

Mufti Muhammad Naseerullah Naqshabandi, Bolton

Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad Irfany, Bolton

Sayyid Muhammad Hamdani, Bolton

Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad Samdani, Bolton

Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad Zarkani, Bolton

Professor Muhammad Masood Hazarvi, Luton

Imam Mohammed Bilal, Peterborough

Imam Sudagar Hussain, Bradford

Imam Adeel Attari, Bradford

Imam Muhammad Adeeb, Stoke-on-Trent

Imam Qari Muhammad Ayub, Stoke-on-Trent

Maulana Atif Jabbar Haidary, Birmingham

Shaykh Muhammad Farooq Nazami, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Bashir, Birmingham

Imam Barkat Ahmed, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Akhtar Ali, Southampton

Shaykh Sufi Arshad Mahmood, Leeds

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Ali, Southampton

Mufti Muhammad Saqib Qadri, Oldham

Mohammed Shafiq, Ramadhan Foundation, Rochdale

Imam Muhammad Qasim Qadri, Nottingham

Shaykh Naveed Jameel, Nottingham

Imam Muhammad Asrar, Nottingham

Shaykh Muhammad Naveed Ashrafi, Blackburn

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Ali, Warrington

Imam Hafiz Amjad Mahmood, Bury

Shaykh Qari Mohammad Tayyab, Manchester

Mufti Muhammad Qasim, Manchester

Imam Muhammad Ilyas, Manchester

Mufti Muhammad Rubel, Manchester

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Ozair, Manchester

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Omair, Manchester

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Yasin, Manchester

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Fahim, Manchester

Allama Hafiz Muhammad Zia, Birmingham

Maulana Muhammad Umar, Birmingham

Maulana Muhammad Zahoor, Birmingham

Syed Muhammad Riaz Barkati, Accrington

Imam Mobashir Iqbal, Manchester

Shaykh Muhammad Din Sialvi, Nelson

Hafiz Niaz Ahmad Siddiqee, Birmingham

Mufti Wali Raza Rizvi, Worcester

Imam Hassnain Raza Siddiqee, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Faisal Javed, Birmingham

Imam Abbas Ashra, Newcastle

Shaykh Muhammad Yaseen, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Zulkarnain, Leicester

Imam Muhammad Maruf, Eccles

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Iftikhar, Manchester

Shaykh Syed Munawar Hussain Shah Bukhari, Blackburn

Shaykh Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah Bukhari, Blackburn

Syed Talha Bukhari, Blackburn

Syed Usama Bukhari, Blackburn

Allama Nawaz Hazarvi, Peterborough

Shaykh Mufti Ansar ul Qadri, Bradford

Syed Muhammad Zafarullah Shah, Birmingham

Mufti Fazl Ahmed Qadri, Derby

Shaykh Pir Mohammad Dilshad Hussain al-Qadri, Leeds

Shaykh Pir Tayyab-Ur-Rehman, Birmingham

Allama Qari Mahmood Ul Hassan Farashwi, Walthamstow

Allama Nabeel Afzal Qadri, Coventry

Allama Mohammed Zahoor, Oldham

Imam Hafiz Ghulam Rasool, Black Country

Shaykha Rukia Bi Mahmood, Stoke-on-Trent

Ustadha Nz Shahid, Sandwell

Ustadha Tahira, Oldbury

Ustadha Shazia, Smethwick

Ustadha Zaib, Oldbury

Ustadha Naila, West Bromwich

Ustadha Ghazala, Tipton

Ustadha Nasrin, Tipton

Imam Muhammad Hafeez, Tyseley

Imam Sajid Mahmood, Walsall

Imam Hashmi, Dudley

Imam Hafiz Akram, Dudley

Imam Hafiz Shafiq, Tividale

Imam Hafiz Yaqub, West Bromwich

Imam Syed Nazir Shah, West Bromwich

Qari Muhammad Yunus, Tipton

Imam Hafiz Siddique, Oldbury

Imam Hafiz Muzammil, Tipton

Imam Hafiz Rayharn, Sandwell

Imam Hafiz Abdul Qadir, Blackheath

Imam Hafiz Abdulla Sultani, Erdington

Imam Hafiz Dilpazir, Erdington

Imam Hafiz Abdul Ghafoor Chisti, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Allah Baksh, Birmingham

Imam Hafiz Muhammad Miyan, Manchester

Imam Hafiz Shabraz, Wolverhampton

Imam Yusuf Qamar, Lye, West Midlands

Imam Maulana Munawwar, Smethwick

Imam Qadhi Sajid Zaffar, Birmingham

Shaykh Mohammad Arshad Misbahi, Manchester

Imam Abdul Hafeez Aziz, Bradford

Molana Muhammad Islam, Birmingham

Imam Asim Hussain, Bradford

Mufti Qari Saeed, Newcastle

Allama Ayub Chishti, Blackburn

Allama Masood Qadri, Bolton

Allama Muhammad Husein Qadri, Bolton

Imam Subhanoor Chowdhury, Leicester

Allama Zafar Mahmood Farashwi, Manchester

Imam Qari Muhammad Aurangzeb, Manchester

Shaykh Sabir Ali, Bolton

Mufti Tahir Ali, Bolton

Imam Tayyub Ali, Bolton

Imam Azhar Ali, Bolton

Shaykh Syed Ghulam Dastgir Shah, Halifax

Sahibzada Junaid Akhtar, Birmingham

Allama Sajjad Razwi, Halifax

Syed Usman Ali al-Qadri, Bradford

Imam Hafiz Mohammed Razvi al-Qadri, Leicester

Nadir Muhammad, Centre for Muslim Policy Research, London

Imam Hafiz Uthman, Birmingham

Shoaib Malik, Muslim Action Forum – National Co-ordinator, Warrington

YORKSHIRE LIVE REPORTS: THOUSANDS SIGN PETITION SUPPORTING TEACHER

Thousands of people have signed a petition calling for a Batley school teacher to be reinstated after he allegedly showed derogatory caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed.

The unnamed teacher, who is now under police protection, has been suspended from his role with Batley Grammar School issuing an apology to parents who have been protesting outside the school gates.

Ricky Gervais has waded in on the row by condemning the protesters and there are calls for the teacher to be reinstated after a pupil started a petition.

It has been signed by thousands of people and is gathering momentum despite [other] protesters calling for the teacher to be sacked.

Other reports:

The organisers behind the online petition claim to be students at the West Yorkshire school.

They said the teacher "was trying to educate students about racism and blasphemy" and was "not racist and did not support the Islamophobic cartoons in any manner".

It added: "This has got out of hand and due to this, students have missed out on lessons because of 'peaceful' protestors" .

*********************************************

Let a Great Assembly Be . . . ! | by Andy Wastling

Verse : 65 :

`Let a great Assembly be Of the fearless and the free On some spot of English ground Where the plains stretch wide around.'

The Masque of Anarchy

Percy Bysshe Shelley ( 1819 ) following the Peterloo Massacre of that year.

In his call for freedom, it is perhaps the first modern statement of the principle of nonviolent resistance.

Let a Great Assembly Be . . . ! | by Andrew Wastling

It's entirely understandable that a widespread national campaign is rapidly developing amongst campaign organisations , activists , academics and individuals. Patel might have inadvertently created a united front against this rogue government as an entirely unintended consequence.

It's heartening to read in yesterday's Independent that : More than 700 of the UK’s leading legal academics have signed a stinging open letter urging Boris Johnson to ditch draconian restrictions on the freedom to demonstrate, in one of the largest protests of its kind in decades. ( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/police-bill-academics-letter-priti-patel-b1818695.html)

The attack on traditional Gypsy and Romany Travellers is straight out of the Tory Attack Handbook on New Age Travellers in the Public Order Bill of the 1980's which also generated a huge popular backlash. Some of us will also remember attending the huge and lively demonstration against the Criminal Justice Bill in the 1990's . The government is clearly expecting widespread expressions of popular discontent post Covid and are accordingly rigging the courts and legislature well in advance .

Murdoch of course has never forgiven Extinction Rebellion from preventing his newspapers being delivered and will no doubt have demanded an appropriate government response to ensure it won't happen again. Patel will as they say : Just be following ( Murdochs ) orders !

Unsurprisingly there are a large number of public petitions circulating on this huge attempt to marginalize and reduce the right to protest as follows:

House of Commons : Do Not Restrict our Rights to Peaceful Protest

https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/108799139/signed

Friends , Families & Travellers : Stand Against Harsh New Laws for Roadside Camps

https://action.gypsy-traveller.org/page/78097/donate/1?locale=en-GB&en_chan=tw&ea.tracking.id=Twitter_crim_tres&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=Email%20To%20Target%20_%20Crim%20Trespass&en_ref=207204871

Netpol : Netpol's Charter For Freedom of Assembly Rights

https://netpol.org/charter/

38 Degrees : Protect the Freedom to protest

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-the-freedom-to-protest

Liberty : Stop The Policing Bill

https://action.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/page/78339/petition/1?ea.tracking.id=twitter

Protect Everyone Bill : ( email your MP )

https://action.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/page/77270/action/1?ea.tracking.id=twitter

Global Justice Now : Defend the right to Protest

Defend the right to protest | Global Justice Now

Friends of the Earth : Defend Your Right to Protest

Add your name to defend the right to protest | Friends of the Earth

*********************************************************

John Humphrys on Freedom of Expression

FREEDOM of speech, especially freedom of the press is in danger the world over.Two major Western Democracies, USA and the UK are trying to curb the press. Not my own opinion but also recently retired broadcaster, John Humphrys, who wrote this headline in his newspaper column this week: "Don't silence us hacks, Boris....muzzle your 'evil genius'"

He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the American Declaration of Independence: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press. Were it left to me Ito decide between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter".

UK police just arrested two journalists in one week

The UK government likes to brag about how we live in a democratic nation that “supports human rights, democracy and good governance around the world”. But its support for democracy doesn’t seem to stretch to upholding the rights of journalists.

In the past week, two journalists were arrested trying to go about their jobs, reporting on protests in different parts of the country. Meanwhile, the UK continues to score badly in rankings for World Press Freedom. At 35th in the world, it lags behind much of Europe. And in September 2020, The Council of Europe issued a Level 2 “media freedom alert” after the government blacklisted journalists from Declassified UK.

Taken together, this paints a grim picture of press freedom in the UK. And it’s one that should worry us all.

Threatened with a Covid fine & then arrested

Denise Laura Baker was arrested on Saturday 30 January as she attempted to cover the police evicting anti-HS2 activists from their protest tower in Euston.

Baker is an accredited photo and video journalist who has been making a long-term documentary about the resistance to HS2’s high speed railway line. Police and National Eviction Team bailiffs began to evict activists on Wednesday 27 January, and Baker had been there daily documenting it.

She told The Canary that there were lots of police on the Saturday of her arrest. In Baker’s opinion, the police were trying to remove anyone that could witness and document the actions of police and bailiffs. Baker said:I was approached by a female officer who told me to leave the area. I informed her that I was working legitimately and showed her my NUJ press card. She told me that it was not a recognised card and that it did not prove I was working. I informed her that I had been there since Wednesday with no issues. She called over colleagues who said they were going to issue me with a Covid fine. When asked for my details I refused and explained that in accepting the fine I would legitimise their accusation of me being unlawfully in the area and give them free rein to keep moving me on. I then walked away from them and continued working.

They followed me, insisting that they were issuing a fine and if I didn’t give my details they would arrest me, which is eventually what they did. They then cuffed me, put me in the police car and took me to Kentish Town station.

Baker continued:

'It is my belief that they simply wanted me out of the way so there were less witnesses to their work on that day.'

Journalists are classed as key workers in the coronavirus pandemic and Baker should, legally, have been allowed to carry on doing her job.

The second arrest of the week

But Baker wasn’t the first journalist finding herself in police cells last week. Freelance photographer Andy Aitchison was arrested on Thursday 28 January. The police came to his house more than six hours after he photographed a protest at Kent’s Napier Barracks, where hundreds of asylum seekers are currently being imprisoned. The police seized Aitchison’s mobile phone, as well as the memory card from his camera, and arrested him under suspicion of causing criminal damage.

Commenting on Aitchison’s arrest, Baker told The Canary:

Mine is the second recent incident where a reporter has been arrested while working. It’s extremely concerning that if a photographer or journalist appears to be on good terms with the activists, they are at risk of being targeted. These actions set a dangerous precedent. Aitchison’s case is particularly concerning given the seizure of his phone and memory card. Journalists not only do not have to reveal their sources, but they are also obligated to protect them. As the NUJ states:

The NUJ ethical code of conduct stipulates that a journalist must protect the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her or his work.

Normally if the police want to view a journalist’s footage for evidential purposes, they have to do it through the courts. In 2012, media organisations won a High Court battle against the police who wanted their footage of the eviction of Dale Farm. On winning the case, head of newsgathering at the BBC stated:

Journalists must maintain their independence, must not be seen as evidence gatherers and must not have their safety compromised

NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents.

In 2019, The Canary reported how the Metropolitan Police arrested freelance journalist Guy Smallman while covering an environmental protest. And in September 2019, journalists from The Canary were obstructed and assaulted while covering protests against the London arms fair.

At the end of 2020, the National Union of Journalists reminded the police to respect journalists’ roles as key workers after “hostility towards reporters and photographers” who were covering anti-lockdown protests.

The Canary contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment on Baker’s case. But it had not responded to the specific case at the time of publication and instead referred us to the guidance from National Police Chief’s Council.

UK press freedom is a “cause for concern”

Reporters Without Borders releases an annual World Press Freedom Index. It highlights that while the UK “champions” media freedom, the reality is different for reporters on the ground. The organisation argues that:

Despite the UK co-hosting a Global Conference for Media Freedom and assuming the role of co-chair of the new Media Freedom Coalition, the UK’s domestic press freedom record remained cause for concern throughout 2019.

And it pointed out that:

During the general election campaign, the Conservative Party threatened to review the BBC’s licence fee and Channel 4’s public service broadcasting licence if the party returned to government.

Reporters Without Borders has also highlighted how the current government has done its best to shut down the dissenting voices of what it calls “campaigning” media. In particular, it argues that government bodies have used:

heavy-handed responses to reporting on stories related to the Covid-19 pandemic.

It continues:

We are alarmed by the UK government’s dismissal of serious public interest reporting as ‘false’ and coming from ‘campaigning newspapers’. These Trumpian tactics are only serving to fuel hostility and public distrust in media. While high-profile cases like that of Julian Assange fill newspaper headlines, many lesser-known journalists, whose work is absolutely vital in holding the government and corporations like HS2 to account, are also facing persecution. We should all be horrified at these attacks on press freedom.

*************************************************

Trump And Freedom Of Speech by Les May

A REGULAR THEME of what I have written for Northern Voices is the threat to freedom of speech posed by those who try to prevent people whose views they disagree with from presenting them to others. When this happens in universities and colleges it is commonly called ‘no platforming’. It’s a staple tactic of those who engage in the politics of identity.

It is the antithesis of how George Orwell defined liberty when he said ‘It is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. So is the decision by Twitter to refuse to allow Donald Trump to post on the social media platform an attack on liberty?

The Twitter decision does not prevent Trump saying whatever he likes. Twitter is under no obligation to provide space on it’s servers for the outpourings of Trump, myself or anyone else. If he wants to use some form of social media to enlighten his followers with his wisdom, he is entirely at liberty to set up his own version of Twitter.

Veteran Trump watchers will recognise the irony of his complaint. There are many instances at his press conferences of his refusing to answer questions he does not like and denigrating accredited journalists.

*****************************************************************

Judge Rejects Extradition of Julian Assange

A JUDGE today has refused to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US.

In a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court this morning, Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied the extradition on grounds that Assange is a suicide risk and extradition to the US prison system would be oppressive, given the likely impact on his fragile mental health.

The US, which has been seeking to bring Assange to the country to put him on trial for conspiracy to hack as well as a number of charges under the controversial Espionage Act, has said it will appeal.

Assange, she said, is "a depressed and sometimes despairing man genuinely fearful about his future," and if extradited, would be "housed in conditions of significant isolation," hampering contact with family.

There was evidence of a risk to Assange's health if he were to face trial in the United States, Baraitser said, adding that the 49-year-old activist's risk of committing suicide appeared to be "substantial."

Lawyers for the United States immediately said they would appeal the ruling.

Assange was arrested in April 2019 and has since been held in a high-security prison. He had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, where he sought asylum to dodge sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Assange was arrested after Ecuador withdrew its offer of asylum. Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno said the country's patience for Assange had "reached its limit" after "repeated violations to international conventions and daily life."

Assange was indicted on 17 new charges of violating the Espionage Act in 2019 and already faced a charge from March 2018 of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion, which carried a maximum five years in prison.

He was accused of working with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain and publicly release classified information. The new charges brought his total charges to 18 counts with each violation of the Espionage Act carrying a maximum 10-year sentence.

Assange has consistently claimed he was acting as a journalist but Baraitser said earlier in extradition hearing that his receipt of thousands of classified files went beyond investigative journalism.

In her ruling, the judge dismissed arguments from Assange's legal team that he couldn't be afforded protections under the U.S. Constitution, but agreed that he could not be extradited on health grounds.

*****************************************************

Cambridge University dumps proposal it be 'respectful' of all views

THE GUARDIAN Ben Quinn @BenQuinn75

Wed 9 Dec 2020 19.26 GMT

Proposals requiring Cambridge University staff and students to be “respectful” of differing views under a freedom of speech policy have been overwhelmingly rejected in a vote by its governing body.

The policy will instead emphasise “tolerance” of differing views after an amendment put forward by those concerned about the impact on academic freedom was carried by a landslide majority (86.9%).

Cambridge alumni including Stephen Fry had been among those who had opposed elements of the new policy, which the actor and writer had described as “muddled”.

Visitors to the university would also have been asked to be “respectful” of the views and “diverse identities” of others.

It was subject to a ballot in recent weeks among members of the institution’s Regent House, its official governing body, which is largely comprised of academic and senior administrative staff.

There are also implications for the issue of “no platforming” as a result of the support for three amendments, elements of which stress that those invited to speak at the university “must not be stopped from doing so” as long as they remain within the law.

The vote was welcomed by Cambridge’s vice-chancellor, Prof Stephen Toope, as “an emphatic reaffirmation of free speech in our university”.

He added: “Freedom of speech is a right that sits at the heart of the university. This statement is a robust defence of that right.

“The university will always be a place where anyone can express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, and where those views can be robustly challenged. The statement also makes it clear that it is unacceptable to censor, or disinvite, speakers whose views are lawful but may be seen as controversial.

“Rigorous debate is fundamental to the pursuit of academic excellence and the University of Cambridge will always be a place where freedom of speech is not only protected, but strongly encouraged.”

The new policy reads: “In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the university expects its staff, students and visitors to be tolerant of the differing opinions of others, in line with the university’s core value of freedom of expression.

“The university also expects its staff, students and visitors to be tolerant of the diverse identities of others, in line with the university’s core value of freedom from discrimination.”

However, other academics at the university have expressed concern about the changes to the original policy statement, while the Cambridge branch of the Universities and Colleges Union has said that it and the amendments are not “fit for purpose”.

Prof Priyamvada Gopal, an academic at the university, tweeted: “There is no ‘free speech row’ at Cambridge. There is the university scrambling to follow government orders based on false moral panic, there are the poor students trying to make it less draconian, & there are the Freeze Peach brigade trying to stop the right to protest.”

The controversy has played out against the backdrop of increasingly fraught debates on campuses and elsewhere about the limits of freedom of speech.

Students at Cambridge University called earlier this year for a porter at Clare College to be suspended from his job after he resigned from his role on the city council in protest over a motion in support of transgender rights.

Opposition to the original freedom of speech policy proposal was spearheaded by a number of people at the university including Dr Arif Ahmed, who is a reader in philosophy there.

He told The Times last week: “A lot of people feel as if they’re living in an atmosphere where there are witch-hunts going on, a sort of academic version of Salem in the 17th century or the McCarthyite era.”

• This article was amended on 10 December 2020 to add Gopal’s title as a professor, to give Dr Ahmed his correct honorific and to describe him as a reader in philosophy rather than a philosophy professor.

********************************************************

An academic version of McCarthyism?

by Brian Bamford

A CAMBRIDGE philosophy professor has branded as 'woke' the constraints on freedom of speech in higher education an academic version of McCarthyism.

Dr Arif Ahmed has spoken out as his university is being balloted today to approve a policy requiring students, staff and visitors to be 'respectful' of different views and opinions.

Last Saturday in the Financial Times, Camillia Cavendish wrote a piece entitled 'Mandating "respect" for other people's opinions hurts free speech' in which she said: 'The university's governing body, the Regent House, is voting... on a new code of conduct which demands that staff, students and visitors be "respectful" of different opinions [and that this] harmless-soundng clause is meant to support free speech.' Ms Cavendish claims: '"Respect" is a soft-edged word that means different things to different people', and it 'can easily morph into a prohibition against giving offence.' Arif Ahmed who is leading the academic rebellion against the 'Respect' code said: 'There's no limit to how far this can go'! adding: 'Did the Charlie Hebro catoons respect Islam?' or 'Was [18th-century Scottish philosopher]David Hulme a respecter of religion?' He concluded: 'Who decides? A word like "respect" is worse than useless.' And the result would end with people sliding 'all the way from civility to a kind of deference which would refrain from attacking Islam, Christianity or Judaism.' Ms. Cavendish argues: 'The Cambrige row shows how hard it is for institutions to keep their footing in this new world of outrage. Twenty years ago, English universities felt little responsibility towards students beyond the lecture hall. Today, they are beset by activism for censorship from the political left and right.'

As a fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Mr Ahmed is leading the Campaign for Cambridge Freedom, which wants to amend the policy to require differences of opinion to be 'tolerated' rather than 'respected'.

'A lot of people feel as if they're living in an atmosphere where there are witch-hunts going on, a sort of academic version of Salem in the 17th century or the McCarthyite era,' he told The Times.

Arguing that the notion of 'respect' is 'dangerously vague and open-ended', he urged his fellow academics to back his amendment requiring 'tolerance' as they vote to approve the new policy.

'The more long-term danger is that this language will be weaponised so that we will be subject to discipline if we try to invite someone who's disrespectful or if we ourselves speak in a disrespectful way,' he said.

'If a view is idiotic we should be quite free to say a view is idiotic. If a religious or political or other position is a tissue of bigotry and superstition, then we should be free to say those things without fear that somebody would find it disrespectful.'

Cambridge Professor, Ross Anderson told Ms. Cavendish: 'If the respect agenda becomes entrenched in disiplinary and grievance proceedures, and arguements which used used to be sorted out by people saying "grow up and stop being silly" fall to intervention by HR busybodies, that will mean the end of academic academic tenure as we know it".'

Ms. Cavendish says though such claims may be 'exaggerated' the Cabridge 'fudge' is dangerous, and she asks 'Do we really want to risk returning to a world where enquiring minds huddle together in secret, debating bann4ed works and wondering if they dare say what they believe?'

Let's see what happens in the Cambridge vote later today.

*******************************

Pledges, Demands and Blackmail by Les May

I WAS recently chatting to an older lady who has actively supported Labour for the forty plus years I have known her. She tried to persuade me that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘right wing’ plot to remove someone who is widely considered to be on the ‘left’ of the Labour party, though as the economics journalist William Keagan pointed out some years ago the policies of Clement Atlee government in 1945 were more radical. I disagreed with her; so far as I am concerned the accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ which led to Corbyn’s downfall are a systematic attempt by a small number of Jewish people and organisations to ensure that Labour party policies are not critical of the actions of the state of Israel towards Palestinians.

Overt scepticism amongst Jewish people about Labour party policies towards Israel predate Corbyn’s election to the leadership in September 2015. In April 2015 the Jewish Chronicle (J.C.) published an article by Marcus Dysch when the Labour leader was Ed Miliband which said:

‘Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were 'very' or 'quite important' in influencing how they would vote.

'The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance.

'The Labour party itself fared worse than its leader, with its Israel policy attracting only eight per cent of Jewish voters. The Tory approach was preferred by 61 per cent.’

I should however caution that the survey from which the above was derived questioned only 580 Jewish people and we do not know how this sample was obtained.

The day after, 8 April 2015, the website Forward carried an article Liam Hoare with the title ‘How Ed Miliband Lost Britain's Jewish Voters’.

Hoare tells us: ‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge. ‘The British Jewish community is a middle class community and the Conservatives are the traditional home of the middle class...’

‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge’ and .The nadir of Miliband’s relationship with the Jewish community then came in October when Labour backed recognition of Palestinian statehood during a symbolic vote in Parliament. Miliband thought it good politics, but the fact that attitudes toward Israel influence the vote of 73% of British Jews apparently wasn’t taken into account.’

I have no doubt that Ed Miliband’s critical stance was a response to the scale of the casualties inflicted by Operation Protective Edge.

Wikipedia says this: 'Between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). Gazan civilian casualty rates estimates range between 70% by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65% by United Nations Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36% by Israeli officials, The UN estimated that more than 7,000 homes for 10,000 families were razed, together with an additional 89,000 homes damaged, of which roughly 10,000 were severely affected by the bombing.'

Now whilst I disagree with the seemingly uncritical support for Israel which seems to be offered by many Jewish people in Britain I believe they are entitled to hold such views and if they so wish vote accordingly at the ballot box. Although it would be quite untrue to say that the late Jim Dobbin courted Catholic voters, I doubt that his public stance against abortion did him any harm with them. Voting for an MP whose views you share is what parliamentary democracy is about.

But this is very different from the attempts being made by a small number of Jewish people to manipulate Labour into being a party which will never be critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. And if you think my choice of the word ‘manipulate’ is too strong or ‘cue anti-semitic trope here’, then consider this.

In January of this year the Board of Deputies of British Jews published ‘Ten pledges to end the antisemitism crisis’ directed at the Labour party. Though I think that all the ‘pledges’, which are in reality demands, are attempts to circumscribe the freedom of action of the Labour party and the freedom of expression of its members, I will highlight two of these which I think are particularly pernicious.

Number Seven reads: ‘Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community. The Jewish Labour Movement should be engaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.’

Number eight reads: ‘Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.'

The first thing to note here is that these two are inter-related. Both seek to define the ‘Jewish Community’ by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. We are left to assume that the right sort include those who run the Board of Deputies, which does not speak for the 70% British Jews who are either secular or Charedi, and those who control the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and individuals who do not align themselves with the Board of Deputies, are to be ignored. Just to make the meaning of this ‘pledge’ absolutely clear the Jewish Chronicle of 12 January described JVL as a ‘fringe’ organisation.

I understand that the Jewish Labour Movement refused to campaign for a majority of Labour MPs at the 2019 general election and that it does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party!

I find it difficult not to believe that both the so called pledges, which are in fact a thinly disguised attempt at blackmailing the Labour leadership, and the constant attacks on Corbyn using accusations of anti-semitism, are anything other than attempts to shift Labour policies to a position favourable to a foreign power, in this case the state of Israel. This is not new; I am old enough to remember and have known people who wanted to shift Labour to a line more favourable to the foreign policies of the USSR. They were recognised for what they were and called ‘fellow travellers’.

Let’s recognise the problem for what it is and not make the lazy mistake of turning Corbyn’s suspension into yet another left/right battle. The blackmail seems to be working.

The many articles on the website of the Jewish Voice for Labour are well worth reading. Attitudes to Labour are more diverse amongst Jewish people than you may have been led to believe. Remember the Board of Deputies does not speak for all British Jews.

******************************************

Managed Decline ? ( Unpublished letter to Rochdale Observer Letters Page )

from Andy Wastling

Readers might also want to watch the latest Communities, Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee from 24 September discussing the fire safety issues at Rochdale's Seven Sisters flats and other potential sites across the Township at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPK1yiRqlUc&feature=youtu.be

23/09/2020

Dear Editor , Viewpoints ,

Managed Decline ?

Yet more controversy over the widely opposed & universally unpopular plans by Rochdale Borough Housing (RBH) to College Bank flats , 'Take responsibility and resign' : Councillor sends message to landlord's top brass after fire safety issues discovered at Rochdale's Seven Sisters flats' , Manchester Evening News ( Nick StathamLocal Democracy Reporter 23/09/2020 ) reminds me that a whole host of organisations have seriously failed the residents of College Bank over a number of years to the point of managed decline.

For example on the issue of fire safety only last year an important consultation in September 2019 designed to inform constituents [1] regarding Proposals for £12.8million in cuts to the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, including reductions of fire engines, crew numbers and fire stations. Quite understandably this too has been the subject of controversy due to a woeful lack of participation from our elected representatives from elected Councillors across Greater Manchester .

The consultation report notes that "Updates were sent to councillors from across Greater Manchester through the consultation, to encourage them to respond and spread the information out to their local constituents. The email update was sent to 637 Councillors and 259 opened the email '

.

This means that 378 Greater Manchester Councillors did not open this email . I just wonder if a spokesperson for Rochdale Council would like to write in to ' Viewpoints ' and let readers know exactly how many Rochdale Borough Councillors bothered to open this email and contributed to the consultation ?

I'd also be interested to know exactly how many if any , local voters received an email from their local ward councillor cascading information to them regarding the proposals to cut the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service by £12. million and asking for their opinions to feedback to the Public Consultation ?

Yours faithfully ANDREW WASTLING

Drake Street , Rochdale

APPENDIX :

[1]. https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s1927/Consultation%20report%20230719%20final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3YfKyCULj9g4xioEjBbJAE9CffLPUEXQjcEftye5X0cips0RdqLGCZzJc

Our 'Kakistocracy' plumbs new depths!

by ANDY WASTLING

Kakistocracy (English pronunciation: /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/) is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.Origin of kakistocracy. Greek kakistos worst superlative of Kakos bad.

This unpublished letter ( below ) to the local media in Manchester last Summer, was an attempt to respond to the declining professional standards of our local political class in Rochdale exposed in the Zoom broadcast of a local council meeting in July subsequently covered in Manchester Evening News article : a Councillor called a 'bitch' for voting with Tories in stormy virtual meeting 'after the mic was left on by mistake' , (Nick Statham - Local Democracy Reporter Manchester Evening News , 17 July 20202 ) .

Such juvenile shenanigans from our elected councillors will come as no surprise to those amongst us who have sought to hold the ' three ring circus ' masquerading as local democracy to public account . Having been outed in the local media the link to the previously broadcast zoom meeting mysteriously vanished into the ether leading some local campaigners to suspect the usual Rochdale Council cover up from the councils digital media team (mal) practiced as they are in the devious & dark arts of censorship & obfuscation..

Indeed a follow up Freedom Information Request :

Location of public link to view Zoom Meeting for Rochdale North Township Committee Meeting 16/07/2020 seemed to confirm this when the eventual response indicated that the council does not have a requirement to publish pretty much anything they don't wish to publish :

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/678543/response/1618283/attach/html/6/Legal%20FOI%20Townships.doc.html

This reluctance from our local authorities to respond to reasonable requests from members of the public for information is just the latest example of Local Kakistocracy plumbing new depths .

We live after all in a town that has has ' 36 cameras operated on behalf of the council plus 41 run by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing ' (1) observing the daily activities of local citizens like ourselves . But not a single electronic device filming RMB Councillors Meetings on a permanent basis as they perform their civic duties on behalf of the local electorate. You'd almost think our councillors have something to hide ?

APPENDIX : (1) . https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/big-brother-watching-youall-day-8987905

Dear Editor , Rochdale Observer / Manchester Evening News :

Comedy Gold !

As a local taxpayer I was blessed to hear live the controversial Council Meeting broadcast on Zoom and discussed in your Local Democracy Reporters recent excellent article : ' Councillor called a 'bitch' for voting with Tories in stormy virtual meeting 'after mic left on by mistake' , ( Nick StathamLocal Democracy Reporter Manchester Evening News , 17 July 20202 ) .

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/councillor-called-bitch-after-voting-18613624

I often hear local people deriding the standards of professionalism , common sense ( or lack of ) and the lack of value for money our sixty strong cohort of councillors represent to the public purse in an era of increasing austerity.

However I strongly disagree, and think perhaps that we are all missing a trick ? Could we not hire outour Councillors to the highest bidder as travelling Troubadours an Alternative Comedy Group who can be leased out to the Alternative Comedy Circuit to bring laughter & merriment to the North during such dark times ? The latest production from the sketch writers at No.1 Riverside was sheer brilliance ! Situation comedy at its very apogee I'd have thought !

So far audiences to Council Meetings have been limited to a small but fanatical fan base ( I include myself in this definition ) .However after some considerable reflection I feel it's clearly now time to further widen audience participation. I've been trying to syndicate this latest episode to try and garner an interest from the program commissioners at BBC Comedy who are keen to see the profile of right wing comedians reach a wider & more divergent national audience . I'm sure the vast majority of our Council Meetings have any potential as pilot episodes of a new comedy series of 30 minute duration .Working title : It's Dim Up North !

It seems obvious that we have huge local resources of as yet untapped comedy potential lying dormant - along with many of our councillors. I feel we could generate much needed funds for our struggling local exchequer if we could only divest or sub contract our Councillors undoubted talents as comedians to be shared with the nation.It's obvious to many talent spotters that with such a rich comedy acting pool of sixty or so under-employed councillors that we have almost unlimited potential for numerous combinations of comedy duos , solo performers, and background extras. However the Zoom meeting with most comedy potential has been inexplicably expunged from the public record? Could someone at Rochdale Council explain its disappearance and direct me to a public link so I can take this project forward to ensure Rochdale Council is given the prominence on the UK Comedy Circuit it so richly deserves?

Thank you.

Yours,

Andrew Wastling Drake Street , ROCHDALE

The Wrong Kind Of News by Les May

I HAVE never taken Extinction Rebellion (XR) very seriously and I increasingly see their performances as a bit of street theatre. In part this is because when I hear people say they have 'demands' it tends to make me think they have a much higher sense of their own importance than I am inclined to assign them; in part it is because I think they give the impression that they have simple answers to complex issues.

So far as I understand their latest stunt, blockading access to printing presses, it is because the papers printed on them are unsympathetic to their views and don't print the sort of news regarding the issue of climate change that they would like to see. My response to this is 'Welcome to the real world'. Try getting anyone in the mainstream media to take seriously alternative viewpoints about, for example, raising of the pension age for women, domestic violence, contact with children following family breakdown, rape and sexual assault, etc.

Annoying though this is, not publishing the things the XR people would like to see is neither censorship nor an attack on freedom of speech. No one is saying 'you cannot say that', they are just saying 'don't expect us to print what you do say'. If XR owned the papers how much news would be published expressing scepticism about human activities being the cause of climate change?

Appendix

In 1972 the Club of Rome published a study called The Limits to Growth (LtG) so the issues which XR are now addressing have been known for nearly half a century. Had this been taken seriously at the time we would not now be facing the same level of climate change. The problem XR needs to address is not how to get governments to sign up to their demands; it is how to persuade all the people who elect those governments that we have to consume less materials and energy, and that unlimited economic growth is a fantasy. The rapid shift to buying goods ordered on-line and the insistence of many people that they must have a continental holiday this year in spite of the Covid 19 pandemic, does not suggest to me that there is any great enthusiasm for reducing consumption. Changing that is where the work needs to be done.

**************************

Press Baron's news outlets blocked

Boris Johnson condemns Extinction Rebellion protesters

YESTERDAY it was reported that Boris Johnson had condemned the Extinction Rebellion protesters for trying to silence free speech after they blocked access to three printing presses owned by Rupert Murdoch. The blockade affected the distribution of several national newspapers – including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph – which arrived late on newsstands on Saturday. Mr Johnson labelled the protests ‘unacceptable’ and pointed out that a free press was ‘vital’ for holding his Government to account for its actions on climate change. He tweeted: ‘A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.’

More than 100 protesters – who accused the papers of failing to report on climate change – used vehicles and bamboo structures to block roads outside three press sites in Hertfordshire, Merseyside and North Lanarkshire. Police said 72 people have now been arrested. Home Secretary Priti Patel accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on democracy’. She wrote: ‘This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion. This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable.’

Yet do we have a free press?

In his book 'THE PREVENTION of LITERATURE' [Polemic, No.2 January 1946] George Orwell wrote: 'In our age, the idea of intellectual liberty is under attack from two directions. On the one side are its theoretical enemies, the apologists of totalitarianism, and on the other its immediate, practical enemies, monopoly and bureacracy. Any wrter or journalist who wants to retain his integrity finds himself thwarted by the general drift of society rather than active persecution. The sort of things that are working against him are the concentration of the press in the hands of a few rich men, the grip of monopoly on radio anf the films, the unwillingness of the public to spend money on books, making it necessary for nearly for nearly every writer to earn part of his living by hack work, the encroachment of official bodies like the M.O.I. [Ministry of Information] and the British Council, which help the writer to keep alive but also waste his time and dictate his opinions...'

Orwell was writing in a time of war, but can the typical journalist today claim to be free and independent of the press barons like Murdock etc?

Boris Johnson has condemned Extinction Rebellion protesters for trying to silence free speech after they blocked access to three printing presses owned by Rupert Murdoch. The blockade affected the distribution of several national newspapers – including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph – which arrived late on newsstands on Saturday. Mr Johnson labelled the protests ‘unacceptable’ and pointed out that a free press was ‘vital’ for holding his Government to account for its actions on climate change. He tweeted: ‘A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. ‘It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.’ More than 100 protesters – who accused the papers of failing to report on climate change – used vehicles and bamboo structures to block roads outside three press sites in Hertfordshire, Merseyside and North Lanarkshire. Police said 72 people have now been arrested. Home Secretary Priti Patel accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on democracy’. She wrote: ‘This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion. This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable.’

Shadow International Trade Secretary Emily Thornberry told Times Radio she was concerned for older readers who may have missed out on their daily dose of news. She said: ‘I don’t really know what it is that is expected to be achieved and I know that for many older listeners it’s very much part of their daily life, getting their paper delivered in the morning and I just think it’s wrong.’ A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) September 5, 2020 This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion.This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable. https://t.co/3DfasjD6sS— Priti Patel (@pritipatel) September 5, 2020 The Sun accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on all the free press’. Today’s Sun carried an opinion piece by Sir David Attenborough calling on Brits to do more to tackle climate change. The piece was commended by Carrie Symonds, Mr Johnson’s fiancé, who said the protest was an own goal. She wrote: ‘I care about climate change and biodiversity a massive amount but preventing a free press to spread this message further is just wrong. Not to mention all those small businesses that rely on being able to sell newspapers.’

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/05/boris-johnson-blasts-extinction-rebellion-for-unacceptable-protest-against-newspapers-13227269/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

While owned by News Corp, the presses also print other titles such as the Evening Standard. Extinction Rebellion co-founder Gail Bradbrook wrote an opinion piece for the Standard the day of the protests, leading some to accuse the organisation of hypocrisy. The co-founder of XR actually wrote a column for the standard yesterday before hurrying over to blockade their printing presses https://t.co/SsiqohUYUN— Martha Gill (@Martha_Gill) September 5, 2020 A good day to #buyanewspaper A free press matters to all of us who value a free society. They mustn’t be silenced by an intolerant minority. pic.twitter.com/r3r3ksGkbN— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) September 5, 2020 Extinction Rebellion defended the blockade by accusing the papers of not paying enough attention to climate change. A spokesman said: ‘We are in an emergency of unprecedented scale and the papers we have targeted are not reflecting the scale and urgency of what is happening to our planet. ‘To any small businesses disrupted by the action this morning we say, “We’re sorry. We hope that our actions seem commensurate with the severity of the crisis we face and that this day of disruption successfully raises the alarm about the greater disruption that is coming”.’