Aja Romano asks ‘Can I still read Harry Potter?’

AJA ROMANO claims to have been a Harry Potter superfan for yonks! So much so that the BBC has invited her to present a 30-minute Radio 4 documentary called: ‘Can I still read Harry Potter?’

Alas, in June this year J.K. Rowling ventured her views on the trans issue resulting in Romano rethinking a treasured childhood allegiance. On Thursday Radio 4 at 11.30am addresses questions about cancel culture, safe spaces, the appeal of Potter for LGBTQ readers and the new online relationship between authors and fans. Meanwhile, the Financial Times critic reports that Rowling has suffered a increase in sales since furore about her comments began. ***********************************************************

Who is now 'The Left' and what about the workers?

beware long angry rant

by Dave Douglass
  
David Douglass worked as a coalminer in the coalfields of Durham and South Yorkshire, and was NUM Branch Delegate for Hatfield Colliery from 1979.  He appears in the documentary The Miner's Campaign Tapes to discuss the role of the popular media in the strike of 1984–85. In 1994–95 he was Branch Secretary at Hatfield Main, but after the pit was privatised the NUM no longer had any recognition there.  Dave was also until the 12th, August 2019 a Friend of Freedom Press, the anarchist publisher.   
*************************

SINCE Thatcher and Major decimated Britain's industrial base there has been a seismic change in 'left' perceptions, and who exactly speaks for 'the left'.  Consistently the working class itself, self-consciously advancing its own interests not only embraced the politics of social change, anti-capitalism, and socialism, it determined for itself the how and what of strategy, tactics and general social outlooks.  The middle class 'left' the liberals the paper sellers in general stood in awe at the mighty columns of organised labour and respected 'the workers' as people who knew what was best for the class but knew who the class was and how it thought.  All other struggles and oppressions and individual hardships suffered by this or that specific, sexism or racism as symptoms of capitalism not necessarily overthrown by the end of capitalism were nonetheless subsumed into the overall class struggle, that being the struggle of the working class itself.

Some tectonic plates however have shifted, and we find now on issue after issue 'the left' is not by enlarge represented by horny handed sons and daughters of labour, nor yet the mass of intellectual or technical white-collar workers.  Almost at every stage 'the left' now confronts the opinions and politics of the working class , by 'the working class'  I am not talking figuratively here, I mean literally the folk who labour by hand and by brain , the working class communities, though mostly these are now post-industrial centers of unemployment and social deprivation.  These are the heartland of the working-class traditions with conscious class struggle halls of fame.  The left now isn’t us, not these people, the left is now the army of middle-class liberal leftists who deem to speak on our behalf and know what’s best for us. In order to do this they have of course to confront our own attitudes and outlooks and conclusions, so consistently over the last twenty years 'the left' has defacto become 'anti the working class' at least how we express our opinions and outlooks and conclusions.  

Any collection of normal working-class folk expressing opposition to what currently passes as left politics, is likely to be designated 'far right' or any of the numerous 'isms' which separate us out from the shining paths of liberal agendas.   Often the aspiration of the 'left' is synonymous with that of the state itself, on issues such as remain or leave the EU, or racism, transism, censorship, safe spaces etc.  So often the 'left' has become the cheerleader of the state singing off the same hymn sheet and forgetting the most fundamental principle of class warfare, to keep an independent identity from the state and its interests. The bleating of the 'left' over social distancing, scooting folk out of the parks or beaches, crying for harsher and longer curfews and abandoning any notion of civil liberties and social freedoms.

The Trade Union movement now that the big militant industrial unions like the miners and shipyard and heavy engineering proletariat have gone and construction workers and car and others have paled into insignificance, it is the white collar and professional unions which dominate.  Not that the nature of the work union members do, or even our opinions matter too much.  The unions and the TUC are now dominated by middle class liberal agenda's, re-education classes, PC speak schools, and making policy fit the liberal middle class left agenda is now the dominant 'culture' of the TUC. it is doubtful how far workers are actually allowed to express their opinions on subject like Brexit with unions like UNITE and GMB swinging in behind leave agenda's despite their rank and file's opinions (RMT and ASLEF were exceptions).  The passing of anti-radical feminist policies denying the existence of women as a biological sex, even in the Women’s Commission of the TUC is a case in PC point.  You could cite almost any major issue over the last twenty years and the so-called left will have drawn the opposite conclusion to the bulk of the actual working class and particularly the traditional working class, postindustrial communities and regions.  Brexit comes to mind, but then also the degree of hysteria and anti-industrialization in response to climate change is another, the remain position of the PLP and NEC and host of bright young mainly southern middle class liberals in the Labour Party itself, Identity politics and the trans impositions, and oddly the lock down and attitudes to withdraw of civil liberties and rights . There is now a miss match between those who see themselves as the left leaders of the working class and the working class itself.  The attitude of the current left tends be one of 'fuck em' if they won’t do as we tell them, they are all Tory, racist, xenophobic, sexist, transphobic, fascists anyway.  They appear to find the working class and engaging with our politics at large, entirely superfluous. In one way, it was this contempt for the opinions of the working class communities which led to the surprising victory of the Tories, the belief that Brexit- committed communities in the rust belts who were the heartlands of Labour support would never vote Tory and could therefore be ignored.  Actually I was one who swore they would never vote Tory too I knew they were never going to vote for Labour on a remain anti-industry program, but the degree of their anger transcended for the space of time it took to put the cross on their deep hatred of the Tories over generations of struggles.  The left is now expert at painting the working class into corners charging us with racism, and empire loyalism monarchism and patriotism and other such absurdities.

The statue toppling hysteria sweeping the nation, no I understand not many are being knocked over by groups of Simon pure iconoclasts, but the fear that they will and the fear of being regarded as reactionary, or racist has panicked City Councils into the pre-emptively felling them themselves. Let’s be clear I have no attachment to any of the victim statues thus far and I doubt that I will shed any tears for any on the secret hit list. What rattles us is that someone else has come along and imposed these judgements upon us, that without public discussion and debate a group of unelected vigilantes can decide what is 'appropriate' for us to continue to view.  

Cities are being scoured.for offending masonry and brass and any obscure imperialist lackey can now pay the price. This is an attempt to sanitize history it is an attempt to make the nasty history go away and remove memory of it, when clearly we should be doing the opposite. They were erected within a social and political context and thankfully that context has now changed , the statue though is a reminder of social attitudes and politics of the past , as long as there is adequate information boards alongside there is no reason why they need to be removed.  The statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square is a case in point, was Nelson a distinctive character of history who served the state and the cause of his country as he would have seen it at the time?  Obviously, nobody today including the ruling class would aspire to empire building and defense and colonialism which they did at the time, almost anyone with a brain cell knows this is a historical monument in a historical context.  Actually it is quite interesting from a social history point of view, walk round the base plinth and look at the images of the seafarers in the height of the battle, look at the racial composition of the crew and the ages of the lads running through bombardments with gun powder for the guns, there is a clear presence of black seamen and boys, volunteers earning their freedom from slavery serving 'their' country.  Statues and plaques are interesting platforms for discussing history and understanding it.  Following the logic of the liberal iconoclast would surely see the pyramids fall and the colosseum?   There are already moves afoot to move the statue of the emperor Constantine from York, it appears the guardians have suddenly found out Roman Society was based on slavery, there noo !   I think most of us knew that, it really doesn’t make us want to run through the country uprooting all the many Roman monuments and remains for fear we upset.  Well who exactly?

Churchill and the miners existed in mutual hatred and class warfare, as miners children right through the post war period and before we were raised on stories not so much of Goldilocks and three bears, but Churchill and Tonypandy, and 26, and his hatred toward us.  Was he due his distinctive Mohican grass haircut and spray-paint during the class war protest of a few years ago?  Of course, he was.  Was he a distinguished member of the British ruling class and a memorable character from history, of course he was.  A statue of him in the coalfields would be blown to kingdom come, but outside parliament is fine by me, of course when we the miners pass it, our tale our history in regard to him is somewhat different than the ones told by the tour guides (incidentally see:  'The Day Britain Said No' a more clear sighted history of Churchill) and dauntless any demonstration by the working class or radical movements will find expressions of class war on the statue and plinth, no problem here.

Can I warn against allowing a simple 'hit list' of statues and monuments and plaques as this will always favour those opposed to and rarely those who defend, not least because the defenders won’t know whether or not they need to do any defending or whether someone is attacking something they think is valuable. Can I also warn against taking at face value accusations against particular historic figures, these may well come down to poor research or a particular political or cultural or class interpretation.  Scratching around for something to link Tyneside and the river and the region with the Slave Trade in order that we too might be suitably contrite and consumed with self-guilt, on the day of the first, BLM demonstration in Newcastle,  Look North focused on Blackett Street.  Repeating a poorly researched piece in I think the Journal, talking about Newcastle and the slave trade, the author firstly couldn’t even spell Fredrick Douglass's name right ! But then went on to talk about Blackett having made his fortune in an offshoot of the slave trade by importing Rum.  A totally misguided image was thus conjured up enough that now the name Blackett Street is now on some hit lists. Let’s be clear Blackett was a Liverpudlian , Liverpool being certainly a center of the slave trade though also strongly working class opponent of it. Blackett had started as a young merchant apprentice to his Cousin who did make his fortune in slaves, but he himself didn’t. The fortune and business and wealth of the river, city and region was coal not slaves. Of course, at this time boy miners from six years old worked in the mines, bonded to the coal owners and not allowed to run away or be employed elsewhere on pain of imprisonment the blacklist and starvation. This is the wrong sort of slavery of course, since these children who happened to be sometimes white, if they found time between the 18 hour shifts to get bathed and eat and sleep.  Doubtless some middle-class liberal PC wit will tell us they had 'white privilege' although I’ve never discovered just what that was.  It’s almost certainly true Blackett would have received cases or barrels of rum from his cousin, all rum consumed worldwide was based on the slave trade , as was tea, and cotton and much else, but this wasn’t how fortunes were made on the Tyne or Newcastle which were NOT part of the slave trade other than living in a country and state which overall was.  We had no specific connection and the penitents ought to stop scraping the bottom of (rum) barrels to find one.

The problem with a witch hunt is once you start looking, the world is full of witches.  All Judeo-Christian traditions including Islam have condoned slavery.  Neither Mohamad or Jesus condemned it or banned it or spoke or instructed against it, the bible euphemistically refers to master’s 'servants' rather than the slaves they actually were.  Paul went further and instructed the slaves not to disobey their masters and work hard for them.  This means all religious statues, churches, temples in that tradition Islam, Judaism, and Christianity could be charged with complicity and excusing slavery worldwide and therefore should be removed and shut down.

Modern morality imposes strict age limitations on sexual relationships, courtship and marriage, all sorts of outrage and repudiation is heaped upon those who breach the law or the consensus, but history had no restrictions especially on kings and queens.  If the trend is to take modern values and mores back into ancient history regardless of context and understanding of past society, the censorship of past artifacts could be unlimited.  How many kings and queens have been under 16 or were not even teenagers when they married,?  How many preteens and even on occasion babies, were married?  The whole of European history as it is represented could be shut down.

So, buildings, paintings and statues and books and even the history of such times could be banned and removed from view or knowledge.  The young comrades of the Chinese Red Guard during the so called 'cultural revolution' in their enthusiasm for change, destroyed swathes of ancient Chinese heritage believing it was keeping China in the past. it wasn’t of course, as the miner’s slogan says 'the past we inherit the future we build'.

 We have to acknowledge that Britain was a long time Imperialist and colonialist state, it invaded other countries, it imposed empires it suppressed other cultures and peoples, throughout that long period of the 'empire of which the sun never set' statutes and heroes of the time were built and commemorated. If the attempt is to be allowed to remove all markers to these people and any attempt to see them in historic context then essentially any appreciation of history will be impossible. All statues of Victoria and all other imperial monarchs, generals, wars , must be removed, Lord Collinwood springs to mind, certainly no Mr Nice Guy to his crews. Baden Powell the founder of the scout movement, unsurprisingly an imperialist empire loyalist, was not put up for that reason, but for founding the international scouting movement.  Shock horror they now discover he condemned homosexuality, but society condemned homosexuality, it was highly illegal and poor souls rotten in jails, were beaten and murdered for the offence, that was the injustice of the period in which he lived. Also as man trying to found an organization of little boys would hardly be a public advocate of same sex relationships would he ?, pedophilia being synonymous with homosexuality in those days.

A controversial figure in history, not particular Mr Nice Guy might well still be important corner stones of history and events and worthy of marking. I would expect that if Adolf Hitler had been born on Pilgrim Street Newcastle a plaque at least would mark this fact, that would simply be a historic marker and not some celebration or badge of honour.

The miners have particular reason to remember our slavery and oppression and see in the character of Lord Londonderry in Durham City Centre a monument worthy of removal, but how would that serve our history?  That statue allows us to tell that story, and to demonstrate that the same history can have at least two versions and two sets of facts.  I use it often given on the stump lectures.

 ******************************

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

Just A Few Minor Details

by Les May

BETWEEN 10 May 1940 and 23 May 1945 Labour MPs were part of a coalition led by Winston Churchill.   Initially Clement Attlee was a member of the five man Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal.  From February 1942 Attlee was also Deputy Prime Minister.

In other words any planning for the post war world, including planning for an overhaul of the health care system, was as much done by Labour politicians as it was by those from other parties.   Labour didn’t just ‘get lucky’, implement existing plans drawn up by someone else and take all the credit for the formation of the NHS, as two recent contributors would have us believe.

Listening to Jeremy Hunt this morning I was left with the impression that one of the responses to the staggering number of deaths in Care Homes and similar facilities is likely to be a coming together of the Care Services and the NHS. This has been a long term ambition of Andy Burnham who has written and spoken about this since he was Health Secretary 2009-2010.   If, as I expect, legislation to bring this about will be in a future Queen’s Speech will the two recent contributors who are so keen to deny Labour credit for establishing the NHS be demanding that Burnham receives a share of the credit for a coming together of the care and health services?  Personally I am happy to give credit for this to whatever government brings it about.

As for the ‘Libertarian Left’ if it does not like the ‘statist’ model we have now it has had 73 years to bring into existence a viable alternative to the NHS and has done precisely nothing.   It is always ready to snipe from the sidelines, but never wants to devote time and energy to giving some thought to exactly how an alternative system would deliver specialist as well as routine care; how it would deal with epidemics of, for example, winter flu; provide a vaccination service for children which by its nature relies on ‘herd immunity’ to be fully effective; or how it would be funded.  What would its response to the Covid19 pandemic look like? How much thought has it given to international trade or international terrorism, cyber hacking or effective strategies to combat climate change?

Any answers to questions like this will be a long time coming, not least because so many of those who sail under the flag of the ‘Libertarian Left’ have lost themselves on the barren shores of ‘trans issues’, both for and against. 

****************************** 

Would the election of Long-Bailey lead to witch-hunts in the Labour Party?

Rebecca Long-Bailey
By Derek Pattison

Rebecca Long-Bailey is Unite's choice for Labour's next leader. In their Spring 2020 issue of 'unite Works' the magazine for Unite members, Long-Bailey, a 40-year-old Roman Catholic Salfordian, is described by Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, as having both "Brains and brilliance." 

The article, or should I say, panegyric, tells us that Long-Bailey, the daughter of a dockworker, grew up in working-class Salford and before going to university (to study politics and sociology) and becoming a solicitor, had worked in various odd jobs including a pawn shop, call centre, furniture factory, and as a postwoman. You might say that 'Becky' has pulled herself up by her own bootstraps, or that is what we're led to believe. Unite members are told of her gastronomic delights, a Chinese takeaway, sweet and sour chicken balls, fried rice, chips and curry sauce. According to Long-Bailey, what distinguishes her from the other Labour leadership candidates, is "her deeply-held socialist beliefs." She says:

"My politics are very specific. I've always been true what I've believed in. I was one of the first MPs in 2015 to give a speech where I said I was proud socialist. At that time, that was unheard of."

Rebecca Long-Bailey became the Member of Parliament for Salford and Eccles at the 2015 General Election. She has served as Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet since 2017. Many of her more controversial comments and views were not dealt with in the Unite interview with her, so here are some key facts to focus on when holding your nose and voting for Long-Bailey.

Long-Bailey would like to see Luciana Berger return to the Labour fold even though she stood unsuccessfully for a rival party, the Liberal Democrats, at the last general election. She would also like to see Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spin doctor, return to the party even though Campbell publicly admitted to voting Liberal Democrat at the last election. 

During the campaign for Labour leader, Long-Bailey announced that she had signed up to the Board of Deputies of British Jews ten pledges, or 'Ten Commandments', aimed ostensibly at tackling anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Thousands 0f people called on her to oppose the 10 pledges which they fear is aimed at censoring criticism of Israel. During an interview with Robert Peston in February, Long-Bailey was asked by Peston: 

"Do you regard it as anti-Semitic, to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact? Is that an anti-Semitic statement?

Long-Bailey replied, "Yes," and then Peston pointed out that the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, had said that statement is not anti-Semitic.

A Roman Catholic, Long-Bailey has said that she opposes the law on abortion after 24 weeks on the grounds of disability arguing that disability and none disability should be treated equally. She's also said that though she believes in a woman's right to choose, she "would never contemplate abortion." What seems curious, is why a Roman Catholic, should be in favour of abortion at all and why Long-Bailey should support same-sex marriage which many Christian's consider reprehensible and contrary to scripture.

Among her other pledges, which Long-Bailey took on board and signed up for, was the bizarre '12-point plan' initiated by a group called 'Labour Campaign for Trans Rights'. The plan, (which is likely to lead to women Labour Party members leaving the party in droves if it ever becomes Labour policy) demands the expulsion of anyone deemed to be espousing "bigoted transphobic views" and names 'Women's Place UK' and 'LGB Alliance' as 'transphobic organisations' that must be opposed. Women's Place, which is comprised of Labour Party members, wants to keep 'women-only' spaces' and denies being transphobic and says the accusation is defamatory.

As a member of Unite the Union, I emailed Rebecca Long-Bailey on 9 March 2020, to give her the opportunity to explain what she really understood by 'bigoted transphobic views' and sought her view on some aspects of the transgender issue (see below). I was curious why a Roman Catholic would want to expel Labour Party members who insist that a person's sexuality is biological and not something that can be self-assigned or embrace such ideological idiocy. To date, I have not had a response to my email.

Long Bailey has called on Unite members to vote for her in the Labour leadership election and says that "Labour will need a leader (who) will be able to tackle Boris Johnson at the dispatch box", and told Unite members: "I don't think he'll be able to handle a northern, working-class woman with a forensic eye for detail."

Len McCluskey believes that Long-Bailey "has the brains and brilliance to beat Boris Johnson", but if Long-Bailey cannot face or avoids answering a couple of questions from a fellow Unite member, I don't think Mr Johnson has much to fear from facing Ms Long-Bailey at the dispatch box. No wonder up to 50 MPs have threatened to resign if Rebecca Long-Bailey is elected Labour leader, which now seems highly unlikely.


Dear Rebecca Long Bailey,
I am a member of Unite the Union and have a vote in the forthcoming Labour election contest. My union has given support to you but I am not sure that I share their confidence in you as a possible and credible leader of the Labour Party.
You recently signed up to a campaign (a 12 point plan), that calls for the "expulsion from the Labour Party of those who express bigoted transphobic views", and you called on Labour Party members to support this campaign that deems the organisation 'Woman's Place UK' to be a trans-exclusionist hate group.
As I am rather concerned with the way in which ideological madness and the denial of objective reality seems to have gained a foothold in the Labour Party, I would be grateful if you would answer the following:
If a Labour Party member was to declare that a man cannot be a woman because he has a penis, and cannot be a woman because he cannot menstruate, give birth, or go through the menopause, would you as Leader of the Labour Party, call these views 'bigoted and transphobic' and would you support the expulsion of this person from the Labour Party?

Can I also ask if you also support the view that if a man self identifies as woman and commits sexual offences against women, he should be treated as a woman offender and if convicted, sent to a woman's prison?
Yours sincerely,
Derek Pattison

Labour’s betrayal of women,

 children and homosexuals.

What do you do if you abhor Tory politics but there’s nobody else to vote for?

Bea Jaspert

Feb 16 · 6 min read

Illustration by Ailin Rojas Bondarczuk

WHAT do you do if you are appalled by the imposition of austerity on the poorest and most vulnerable alongside tax breaks, perks and freebies for the rich, inherited wealth and big business? If you are sickened by the scapegoating of immigrants, the demonisation of foreigners, the denigration of the poor, the criminalisation of black people, the cronyism, the profit motive as god over all other considerations etc — but the only opposition party with any hope of ever beating the Tories at the polls has signed up to a misogynistic, homophobic cult?

That is the Hobson’s choice facing women, and those who support child safeguarding, women’s sex-based rights, and the sex-based rights of homosexual people.

It is also the choice facing anyone who believes in freedom of speech and freedom of expression as fundamental democratic rights.

Labour Campaign for Trans Rights last week issued a contentious series of pledges — contentious for a number of reasons:
1. They define “transphobia” as dissent with ‘gender identity ideology’.
2. They slander Womans Place UK — a grassroots group campaigning for female sex-based rights, and LGB Alliance — who campaign for homosexual/bisexual rights, as “transphobic hate groups”.
3. They call for the expulsion from the Labour Party of all dissenters.

READ MORE:   https://medium.com/@BeaJaspert/labours-betrayal-of-women-children-and-homosexuals-90c724c1c0d0?fbclid=IwAR0XL_LVfRUKt3AH_ly1RAjeCr9iWZkKB2gFAm6OCutRo5VwvO-vJc1cyNc

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

Free Speech: Heretical, Unwelcome, Provocative!

by Les May

I WROTE the article italicised below in October last year. I thought that the topic and the approach would make it suitable for Peace News.   It would not be correct to say that the editor refused to publish it, he simply did not acknowledge it.

Given the recent ruling by Mr Justice Julian Knowles in a case brought by Harry Miller.  I have included it below this link to a Guardian article.  In his ruling Knowles stressed 'the vital importance of free speech”, saying it included “not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative.'

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

In one of this year’s Reith lectures Jonathan Sumption, who between 2012 and 2018 sat as a member of the Supreme Court, raised the question of whether the law may be returning to its earlier role as a means of enforcing social conformity. As instances of how it had exercised this function in the past he cited the use of the law to enforce a single pattern of religious worship in the 17^th century and the continued discrimination between denominations into the 19^th century.

To act as a mechanism for social conformity it is not necessary that this be exercised by the state, only that the state passes laws which allow individuals to use the law in a way which forces others to conform to their views.

In October of last year a case came before the Supreme Court in which a Gareth Lee had placed an order for a cake decorated with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’.  The owners of the bakery, Daniel and Amy McArthur declined the order because as Christians they were being expected to express a view that they disagreed with. Lee argued that they were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual. Two lower courts had accepted this argument but the Supreme Court did not.

The president of the Court Lady Hale said:

‘It is deeply humiliating to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief’.

‘But that is not what happened in this case. As to Mr Lee’s claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation’.

The court accepted the argument of the McArthur’s lawyer that forcing them to bake the cake would be forcing them to go against their religious beliefs.

Lee was trying to use the Courts to force the McArthur’s to accept his view of the world.  His mistake was to argue that the couple were being ‘homophobic’ when they simply had a different view about the world.  A view to which he took exception.

But, as I have argued previously in Peace News, Lee’s approach is far from uncommon.

https://peacenews.info/node/9175/no-right-not-be-offended

Increasingly we see people who express a view which the listener or reader does not like being labelled as antisemitic, homophobic, islamophobic, mysoginistic or some similar pejorative epithet.

The court’s ruling means that provided we do not discriminate against someone because of what they ARE, we will not find ourselves in court for expressing our dissent from the views they hold. In other words such an expression of dissent is not ‘judiciable’, to use a word which has recently been rediscovered.

I would not expect to find it a matter for a court to consider if I decline to call someone who says they are transgender, ‘she’ or ‘her’, if I sincerely believe them to be a man. If however referring to such a person as ‘he’ or ‘him’ becomes seen as ‘hate speech’, as some people wish it to be, then it could be claimed that this is a matter for the courts.

Commenting on the ruling in the wedding cake case the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

‘Freedom of expression – including the right not to express a view – and freedom of belief are rightfully protected in a democratic society and this case demonstrates the need for a more nuanced debate about how we balance competing rights’.

Debate, nuanced or otherwise, has been noticeably absent from anything surrounding what have become known as ‘trans’ issues.   Are claims of being cis, trans, non-binary and gender-fluid simply ephemeral affectations as some people see them or do they go to the core of an individual’s being and identity?  Unless we are willing to discuss the question we will never resolve the matter.

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

Tail Succeeds in Wagging Dog!

by Les May

Angela Rayner aka Cinderella

LAST year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group.  Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals.  One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation.  One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties.  Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart.  I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences.  It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.

Given the apparent failure of Labour to get its policy message over to the electorate, which in no small measure was a result of the constant distraction of trying to deal with the anti-semitism row, one might have thought that anyone hoping to lead the party would avoid taking sides about anything which might cause a rift within the party.  Seemingly not!

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner and Emily Thornberry have all pledged support to the 12 demands of the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. Keir Starmer is reported as having said ‘trans rights are human rights, that the issue shouldn’t become a political football, and that the we need to dial this down’.  (I’m not surprised at the first three, but I thought Thornberry had ‘more oil in her can’, as we say in Rochdale.

Yesterday the ‘i’ reported that a senior Shadow Cabinet member representing a northern constituency had called it a distraction and said ‘My constituents don’t give a flying fuck about transsexual issues’.  Debbie Hayton, who refers to herself as ‘trans’, wrote in The Spectator, ‘they seem oblivious that the public has little time for extreme transgender ideology’ and that ‘Labour is lurching towards a crisis brought on by transgender campaigners whose demand for compliance is total’.

It would appear that Labour has learned nothing from what many people still see as a witch hunt those who refused to buy into the demands of the Zionist lobby disguised as an attack on anti-semitism.  It is too late to put the ‘trans’ genie back in the bottle; the damage is already done.  Labour cannot afford to expel members for thinking differently.  Tolerance means accepting that others have a different view to you.  It does not mean that you have to accept that someone else is right and you are wrong, just because they say so.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/do-rebecca-long-bailey-and-angela-rayner-have-a-problem-with-trans-people-like-me/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rebecca-long-bailey-keir-starmer-trans-rights-pledges-womens-place-a9333376.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1241298/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-Labour-leadership-contest-Lloyd-Russell-Moyle-bbc-news-politics-live

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/13/veteran-left-wing-feminists-row-labour-leader-hopefuls-branding/

https://labourlist.org/2020/02/trans-rights-deputy-hustings-and-tv-debates-labours-leadership-latest/

https://twitter.com/Labour_Trans/status/1226939313264394241

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

Freedom of Expression & the High Court Decision

from Steve Starlord

A CLASH between the Right to Freedom of Expression in relation to Harry Miller's alleged transphobic tweets recorded by the police as a 'non-crime Hate Speech'.

Police officer’s ‘transphobic’ tweets were lawful, high court rules in landmark case (14 February 2020)

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/14/harry-miller-police-officer-transphobic-tweets-lawful-high-court-trans-media-watch/

Police officer’s ‘transphobic’ tweets were lawful, high court rules in l... Harry Miller, an ex-police officer accused of 'transphobic' tweets, has won a partial victory after a High Court... "Police officer’s ‘transphobic’ tweets were lawful, high court rules in landmark case" Not yet spotted anything else online about this apart from this article on Pink News. I've just seen it announced on BBCNews24 on TV. I mentioned this website the other day when we were chatting in IKEA. Police transgender rules breach right to free speech, court told (20 November 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/20/police-transgender-rules-breach-right-to-free-speech-court-told Police transgender rules breach right to free speech, court told Owen Bowcott Ex-officer Harry Miller taking legal action after being accused of hate incident "Police transgender rules breach right to free speech, court told Ex-officer Harry Miller taking legal action after being accused of hate incident" ********************************************

Long-Bailey ignites row after pledging to fight 'transphobic' women's groups!

Drag Queen Story Times for 5-year olds

The Salford MP Rebecca Long-Bailey, has ignited a furious row within Labour's ranks after signing up to a campaign to fight women's groups who have been branded 'transphobic' and has pledged to expel offending party members, if she becomes the next Labour leader.

The Labour leadership contender has urged Labour members to join her in backing a 12-point plan initiated by a group called the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. The plan demands the expulsion of anyone deemed to have espoused "bigoted transphobic views" and names 'Women's Place UK' and 'LGB Alliance' as 'transphobic organisations' that must be opposed. 

Women's Place, which is comprised  of Labour Party members who want to keep women-only safe spaces, denied it was transphobic and said the accusation was 'defamatory'. It called on the Labour Party to oppose the misogynistic abuse of women. "Defend us or expel us", it said, in a statement. Other Labour members have warned of a "witch-hunt" if the 12-point plan is adopted.

While some Labour members have warned that the plan, if adopted, will lead to thousands of women leaving the Labour Party, the gay Guardian columnist and Labour supporter, Owen Jones, called Long-Bailey a "hero."

Only recently, Long-Bailey provoked criticism when she announced that she opposed the law on abortion after 24-weeks on the grounds of disability. She said that she believed that disability and none disability should be treated equally. She also said that though she believed in a women's right to choose, she "would never contemplate an abortion."

What seems curious, is why Long-Bailey, a Roman Catholic, should be in favour of abortion at all or why she should be a supporter of same sex marriage or want to expel Labour Party members who insist that a person's sexuality, is determined by their biology and not something that can be self-assigned.

Having antagonised many feminists in the Labour Party by allying herself with the vitriolic transgender faction and having pledged to fight and expel so-called 'transphobic' women's groups, is this now the nail in the coffin for Long-Bailey, and has it quashed any hopes of her becoming the next leader of the Labour Party? Already 50 MPs have said they will quit the Labour Party if Long-Bailey wins the Labour Leadership.

At the last General Election, huge numbers of working-class traditional Labour voters deserted Labour to vote Conservative, in order to put Boris Johnson back in Downing Street. If Labour is serious about winning back these disenchanted Labour voters, do they really think that bizarre arguments about transgender rights, queer politics and identities, or Stalinist purges of people who question the cult of transgenderism, is the way to woo these Labour voters back? A northern Labour MP has told the 'ipaper': "My constituents don't give a flying fuck about transsexual issues."

Take this, as an example, of political correctness gone mad in a looney-left Labour controlled council. The picture at the top of this article, which shows a child on the stomach of a drag queen, was quickly taken down by Newham library after there was a backlash from members of the public who found the picture offensive and inappropriate. Newham London Borough Council, which is only composed of Labour councillors and has been Labour controlled since 1964, celebrated LGBT History Month in February with a series of 'Drag Queen Story Times' for the under 5s and their parents and carers. Newham library said:

"By providing spaces in which kids are able to see people who defy gender restrictions, Drag Queen Story Time allows children to imagine the world in which people can present as they wish. Where dress up is real."

Is life really one big gay party? Life is certainly no dress rehearsal, and you only get one crack at it. Is it any wonder that Labour is becoming unelectable and is a laughing stock, when five year old's are being taught to 'defy gender restrictions' by drag queens as some form of crazy social engineering project. Childhood doesn't last very long, so leave the kids to it. Thomas the Tank Engine and Horrid Henry, are far more appropriate stories for 5-year-olds than 'Drag Queen Story Times.'