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.

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

I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But i prefer biology

Published on February 2, 2020

I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy

 written by Debbie Hayton on Quillette Circle

Feelings and opinions have displaced facts and evidence in many areas of the liberal arts. This is nothing new. A more recent phenomenon, however, is the extension of this trend into the realm of biology, which has fallen victim to the idea that men can become women—and vice versa—merely by reciting a statement of belief. It is an insidious movement that combines the postmodern contempt for objective truth with pre-modern religious superstitions regarding the nature of the human soul.

The subordination of science to myth was exemplified in the recent British case of Maya Forstater, who’d lost her job after pointing out the plain truth that transgender people like me cannot change our biological sex by proclamation. “I conclude from…the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate,” concluded Judge James Tayler at her employment tribunal. “The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

I’m not sure where that leaves me, a British transgender person who agrees with Forstater. As I know better than most, sex is immutable. I may have transitioned socially, medically and surgically, but I am as male now as I was the day I was born (and the days I fathered each of my three children). As a scientist, I know this to be a fact. It’s Judge Tayler who’s the absolutist here: Under the guise of tolerance, he’s put the force of law behind a cultish movement that treats biological reality in much the same way that the Catholic Church once treated Galileo and his heliocentric ideas. Just like its medieval forbears, this neo-religious crusade demands that adherents chant an absurdist liturgy—in this case, “Transwomen are women. Transmen are men.”

written by Debbie Hayton

READ MORE:

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

What’s a ‘Real’ Woman?

by Les May

IN recent days the ‘Twitterati’ have been busy tearing into each other about this question after an author of books for children ‘tweated’ a comment on the subject.

As anyone who reads NV will know I am a critic of the ‘Cocks in Frocks’ brigade who expect to declare they are ‘trans-gender’ and insist that everyone else accept it without question. But, as I have made clear previously, I am happy to treat any ‘trans-sexual’ person who has had gender reassignment surgery and the hormone treatment entailed, as a woman. For me the bottom line is whether they have shown the level of commitment to being a woman which is needed if they are required to lose their wedding tackle.

Is a trans-sexual woman a ‘real’ woman? Take a blood sample, send it to a cytologist, and he or she will tell you it came from someone with a Y chromosome, indicating the person was born a male. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. But that does not mean I cannot choose to treat the person as a woman both legally and socially, ‘real’ or not. I choose to do so because such a person would pass the ‘duck test’. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.) In this I differ from people like the author Germaine Greer and some of my friends.

This is a situation for which there is already at least one precedent.

Between 1965 and 1967 someone I have known all my life adopted three small children, all under 4 months of age. Three times he stood in court whilst the judge made it very clear that from the moment the Adoption Order was made he was responsible for every aspect of that child’s welfare and well being.

Is he the ‘real’ father? A DNA test would show that he is not related to any of the children, nor they to each other. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. (He simply says he’s their Dad.)

From the moment the adoption order was made he was treated by the state, and the organs of the state, as that child’s father. Legally that is what he now was and still is. The child acquired a new identity, its birth certificate was changed and it took his surname.

Not only is he considered for all legal purposes as the children’s father, socially he passes the ‘duck test’. For 50+ years his family and his friends have accepted that he is the children’s ‘father’, not withstanding the DNA evidence to the contrary. His children and grandchildren accept it too.

So what has this got to do with trans-sexual people? A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is the legal equivalent of an ‘Adoption Order’. Discriminate against people with a GRC and, to be consistent, you should declare your willingness to discriminate against people who adopt children and the children themselves.

But there is a wider lesson to be learned here. Some children are ‘difficult’ to place for adoption, wrong age, wrong abilities, wrong colour, spring to mind. Demands for amendment of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to allow ‘self certification’ centre around the stringency of the procedure and the time it takes. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever suggested that adoption law be changed to allow the procedure to be made less stringent and permit potential parents to ‘self certify’. This would no doubt make placing ‘difficult’ children much easier. It won’t happen because we recognise the potential for abuse of the system. The fear is that changes to the GRA would lead to similar abuses of the system.

If you are an adoptive parent and anything I have written above about ‘real’ parents has made you a little uncomfortable, that was not my intention. There’s more to being a mum or dad than sharing a few thousand base pairs of DNA. Families are made not born.

**************** 

Manchester Anarchist Bookfair Review 2019

 by Christopher Draper

AFTER years of uncomradely bans and exclusions that led to the organisers themselves being banished from this favoured venue it is good to see the Bookfair back at Manchester’s Pumphouse Museum.  Saturday December 7th’s 2019’s fair was efficiently organised with a good range of books, associated literature as well as music, tee-shirts, badges etc on offer.  Admission was free and with a café on site a good time was had by all, or nearly all (more of that later).


Six hour-long talks were advertised:  “Anarchism and Education”; “An Introduction to IWW”;  “What is the Anarchist Party?”; “Marie Louise Berneri’s - Journey Through Utopia”;  “The Government of No One” and “Chav Solidarity” respectively.


Having practiced anarchist education within and without the state system for 50 years I was especially interested in the first talk.  The speaker, Dr. Nick Stevenson, a sociology lecturer at Nottingham University, promised to discuss “more humanistic alternatives” but confined most of his speech to elucidating the ideas of Ivan Illich.  He seemed a nice bloke but this was woefully inadequate as even a basic introduction to “Anarchism and Education”.  Nick seemed blissfully unaware of the numerous practical anarchist educational initiatives that have taken place in Britain since Louis Michel founded her “International School” in London in 1891.  Instead of ivory-towered philosophising about Illich we would have been much better occupied analysing the rise and fall of the dozens of living and breathing free schools that flourished all over Britain in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, never mind the continuing libertarian education on offer at Summerhill.  When I met Nick afterwards he spoke movingly of how his own children had suffered at the hands of the state system and it struck me that this would have provided a better starting point for discussion of real life anarchist alternatives, past, present and future.


My fears of abstract philosophising only increased after attending Dr. Matthew S Adams, Loughborough University lecturer’s talk on Utopias and then Dr. Ruth Kinna’s (another Loughborough lecturer) talk about her book, “The Government of No One”.  I wasn’t reassured when I googled Mr Adams and discovered he’s just published a “Handbook of Anarchism” (Palgrave-MacMillan 2019) that costs £199.99!


Unfortunately the “International Workers of the World” couldn’t even manage to organise themselves so their talk never happened and consequently for the second hour the valuable discussion space remained empty and unused.  I took the opportunity to walk around the hall and chat to stallholders. Despite my lack of affection for Marxism I found the “International Brigade” stallholder most comradely and appreciated our discussion about the decline of politicised working class culture and the collapse of the Clarion movement.   I similarly enjoyed comradely conversations at the Hunt Sabs, PM Press, and West Yorkshire Communist Anarchist stalls and was particularly impressed by the latter’s newsletter that wittily describes Hebden Bridge as, “A nice little drug-town with an unwelcome tourist problem.” 


I’d only half completed my circuit of stallholders by 12.30 so missed “The Anarchist Party’s” talk but as I later learned they advocate voting Labour it’s just as well I didn’t attend.  Unfortunately I had to leave before the last talk to catch a train back to Wales so can’t comment on the “Chavs” although that might well have proved the most useful event of the day (perhaps someone could enlighten us?).

Overall the Bookfair was a great achievement by the organisers. In today’s political climate it’s easier to sit back and do nothing, they dared to bring anarchism back into a venue that is precious but fraught with problems (more of that in a forthcoming article).  They had to steer a difficult course between providing lively debate but avoiding the destructive antagonisms that have so blighted recent anarchist bookfairs.  Unfortunately I learned afterwards that even this event wasn’t free from censorship.  When a group of women from “Make More Noise” attempted to distribute leaflets on gender politics they were asked to leave on the basis that only approved stallholders could distribute literature (there’s more of this on Twitter).  Apparently there was no consequent violence or blacklisting but neither was this an entirely satisfactory conclusion.  Couldn’t the leaflets have been left on a stallholders table or perhaps a table provided for non-stallholders to leave “non-authorised” leaflets?

The organisers must be congratulated but anarchism requires more than sycophancy and the “Freedom” website regrettably treated the “Make More Noise” women and their Twitter supporters with contempt.  My main concern is that the predominance of academic philosophising in the discussion space (3 out of the 5 talks delivered). In the 1960’s Feminism was a revolutionary, libertarian movement (I was there when Germaine Greer spoke at the Warwick University occupation in 1970!) but it spawned “Women’s Studies”, provided safe academic careers, was increasingly commodified and now “Women’s Hour” compiles an annual list “Women’s Powerlist”!  Is anarchism going the same way, with ever more academic chiefs and fewer activist Indians? We mustn’t let professors define our politics or encourage the emergence of an academic “Priest-Class”.  These ivory-towered experts share their musings in the journal “Philosophical Studies” (available at the Bookfair), but how many working class activists are going to read it, let alone write for it, at £14 an issue?   I’m not anti-intellectual but Kropotkin, Russell and Chomsky were also activists and theory must surely be constantly refreshed and informed by struggle to be useful. Anarchist theory and anarchist activism cannot flourish if conducted by separate groups with the former leading the latter – we are not Marxists.


The problem is wider than the Bookfair and I don’t doubt that the academics and the organisers are all nice people but that doesn’t preclude constructive criticism.  I would suggest two modifications for next years Manchester Bookfair.  Firstly no more than one philosophical talk with five more practical workshops led by everyday, down-to-earth anarchists and secondly an open-to-all “Free Speech” stall including material that may well shock and offend, perhaps supported by a “Free Speech” workshop?

For Peace, Love & Anarchy……………………Christopher Draper, Llandudno

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

A Rat’s Nest of Contradictions

by Les May

SOMETIME this month draft guidelines drawn up by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are expected to be sent to English and Welsh schools.  The Scottish government cancelled what are assumed to be similar guidelines in June.

A leak of the new guidelines suggests that schools would be advised and sometimes required to open areas of school life that have previously been treated as separate on the basis of sex to children who identify as that gender.  A boy who identifies as a female would be allowed to use girls’ changing rooms and on school trips could legally be placed in the same bedroom as a girl, and vice versa.

A women’s advocacy group, Fair Play for Women, has argued that whilst the EHRC guidelines consistently protect children who identify as ‘trans-gender’ equal weight has not been given to protecting girls. They go on to say it must be made explicit that sex and gender identity are different, and that it is important that girls to be able to recognise and name the male sex as otherwise the right of girls to assert their boundaries, e.g. with regard to touching, is taken away.

See also:

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Women%20and%20Equalities/Enforcing%20the%20Equality%20Act%20the%20law%20and%20the%20role%20of%20the%20Equality%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Commission/written/90972.html

Under the guidelines if a girl feels uncomfortable that a child she identifies as a boy, but who self identifies as a girl, is using a girls’ changing room then it is the girl who feels awkward who must go and change elsewhere, not the boy.

In 2018-19 the number of children, some as young as three (3), identifying as ‘trans-gender’ was 2,590 according to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) of the NHS.   This is 30 times (3000%) more than ten years ago. A governor of the NHS trust under which GIDS operates resigned this year concerned about the ‘affirmative model’ used by GIDS too quickly leads to the prescription of puberty blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones.  He also suggested that in some cases the difficulties which some children have, and which become identified as being about gender identification, may in fact be because they have become aware of their sexual orientation. In common parlance ‘they are gay’. This suggestion deserves serious consideration.

When the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee took evidence for their report, Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission it received submissions from members of the public. Two of these were:

‘We desperately need legal clarity on the terms ‘transgender’ ‘transsexual’,

and ‘gender reassignment’—I think [the] way they are currently being

used, and the way the [Equality Act] interacts with the GRA 2004, is being

abused, misused, misapplied and misrepresented.’

‘The combined effect of the [Gender Recognition

Act] and the [Equality Act] is to conflate sex and gender irretrievably, and what remains is a rat’s nest of contradictions, where sex-based rights cannot be properly invoked.’ (My emphasis)

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/equality-act-role-of-ehrc-report-published-17-19/

I agree entirely with the two submissions quoted above. The media use the word ‘trans’ and ‘trans-gender’ interchangeably and with no clarity about what is meant when they are used. Ditto when ‘non-binary’ and ‘gender fluid’ are used. This makes the situation more opaque when clarity is what is needed.

As the law stands schools have to provide lunchtime meals suitable for Muslim children. If the guidelines soon to be issued by the EHRC are enacted Muslim girls could find themselves sharing a bedroom with someone they, and their and other parents, identify as a boy.   Expect trouble!

My apologies to rats everywhere for dragging them into the ‘trans’ argument. You deserve better.

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

The 'New Offensive' on the Bullshit Generation?

&

SOLIDARITY STATEMENT from 'NEW OFFENSIVE'

Editorial note on background to 'New Offensive'

Constructive Dismissal at the Anarchist HQ:

'Murder in the Central Committee' (Asesinato en el Comité Central) is a novel by the Catalan novelist and Marxist writer Manuel Vázquez Montalban, who wrote the book in 1981.  The plot of the book is about  how during a meeting in Madrid of the Central Committee of Spain’s Communist Party a crime is committed when there is a brief power failure.  The lights are back on a few seconds later, but in that short span of time the Secretary General, Fernando Garrido, is killed, stabbed in the chest.  (1)

Who stabbed Dave Douglass?

 ON the day of the Glorious Twelfth of August this year a stabbing was enacted at the meeting of the Friends of Freedom Press Directors at Angel Alley in Whitechapel in London's East End; the stabbing was announced when Steve Sorba told the Freedom Friend's directorate meeting that the highly respected former miner Dave Douglass had embarrassed his fellow Director colleagues by favouring a booklet which questions some of the stranger aspects of gender politics and their censorious brethren; describe as 'Cocks in Frocks' in the contentious booklet.*

THE statement below from 'NEW OFFENSIVE' comes from one of the author of the controversial booklet 'Shit Wigs & Steriods'.  A recent consequence of this publication has been that the former public schoolboy Simon Saunders employed by Freedom had urged the Friends of Freedom Company Secretary, Steve Sorba, to ban a formerly appointed Friend of Freedom director, the highly respected ex-miner Dave Douglass from South Shields.  The reasoning for this effective constructive dismissal and no-platforming of Dave Douglass was that he had been accused of commenting sympathetically on this booklet.  In a panicky email issued on the eve of the weekend before the meeting of the Freedom Friends directors, Secretary Sorba was to declare to his fellow directors in an e-mail:  'It has been brought to my attention that Dave Douglass has made public comments supporting a pamphlet which is fundementally transphobic (and in places homophobic as well).'  **

Dave Douglass told Secretary Sorba that nothing he had ever said was 'transphobic' or 'homophobic'!

Yet as Secretary Soba insisted that he had 'embarrassed the "committee"', Dave Douglass agreed to take the bullet as he didn't want to be on a committee that was 'embarrased' by him in such a way.  In other words just as in Vázquez Montalban's noir detective novel Spanish Communist Party's Secretary General, Fernando Garrido, is killed, stabbed in the chest so Dave Douglass wasn't stabbed in the back, but he was stabbed in the chest by Secretary Sorba acting at the behest of posh public schoolboy Simon Saunders, a Morning Star hack using his smart phone weapon he sometimes uses for blacklisting folk.  ***

Northern Voices believes that Freedom should adopt an approach which encourages free debate and we avoid a party-line in our columns.  How can an organisation that claims to be anarchist possibly uphold a postion that seeks to avoid drama and controversy?   Clearly Secretary Sorba is a businessman, a manager and a Director, but has not understood anything about anarchism.  Moreover, Secretary Sorba is short-sighted if he believes that he can have a quiet life by disposing of Dave Douglass in this way: does he not realise that by seeking to avoid complicated issues like this merely allows them to fester.  Dave Douglass is merely the canary in the coal mine for Secretary Sorba, Simon Saunders and Freedom Press.  We judge this by considering the statement of support for Northern Voices below; it states that those who are those who are attacking Dave Douglass, Helen Steel**** and those who support free speech will 'wipe the floor' with the enemies of liberty and free discussion.  

After the debacle that led to the closing of the London bookfair when Helen Steel was surrounded, bullied and intimidated for defending free speech, Freedom hesitated before finally adopting a stand supporting the 'Cocks in Frocks.  It seems now that they backed the wrong horse.

*  northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com › 2019/07 › review-transsexuals-vs-cock...

** (https://tinyurl.com/y3msflq6 )

***northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com › 2016/07 › pensioner-attacked-at-anarc...

****northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com › 2019/08 › helen-is-feminist-who-holds...

 ***********

Solidarity Statement for Northern Voices from 'New Offensive':

 I WANT TO STATE that the New Offensive Booklet: ‘Shit Wigs and Steroids’ is a series of short articles and it contains considerable references to more in-depth discussions around the subject of Transgender.  These articles are by Women, Lesbians and Gay activists, victims of male violence and many other critical thinkers on the subject of gender politics.  The gang of us who put it together are not connected with Northern Voices, so seeing the same tactics used on some of us used on yourselves, shows patterns of censorship that are in no way acceptable, fair, just or logical.

We are proud to have done this booklet and to see the positive impact it is having.  Our use of language, is the language that we use.  We are not conservative in our approach, nor approach issues touching us as working class people with the privilege of objective viewpoints.

Class privileges? we are exempt of!

We had proof readers and discussions covering all aspects of the booklet (yes there are a few spelling errors in spite of our abilities).

We are engaged with many people in this discussion, both in England and amongst other European working class radicals and anarchists.  We are very pleased to state we are in this (as always) for the long game.  We hope to force people out of their self identified ‘safe spaces’.  We will name and confront them if they have played roles in trying to shut down or discredit working class activists, or bullying them into silence.

Those of us who put the booklet together and stand proudly by it are not lightweights intellectually. We are seeing it picked up by all kinds of people that are open to discussion.  We understand Simon Saunders declared the booklet ‘homophobic’, considering it is in defence of  lesbian and gay identity, we do expect an explanation of  such absurd claims.  We are proud to stand our ground.  As working class people.

Basically we don’t give a fuck if you find our ‘crude’ language demeaning, abrasive, provocative, or threatening.  At ‘New Offensive' we still have a sense of humour, irony and determination to straighten out some bullshit.

We hope any future attention our publication gets will actually focus on the blacklisting of activists, the right to self defence, and the rejection of authoritarian and bogus ideologies etc. 

'Door policies' to publiseed events simply seem to protect a minority of people from ridicule, scrutiny and the harsh criticism of their Thatcherite indulgent identity politics. 

One point that is clear is that anyone looking seriously at gender politics, has to include prisons; Suicide rates; sexual abuse; health and inequalities; class bias; and the enviromental  brutalisation of the working classes.  To see gender politics, just being reduced to nothing in the hands of  the likes of Pablo, Steve Moss, Simon Saunders (public school boy) is beyond cringeworthy.  To look at Transgender as an issue without looking at 'De-Transitioning'; drug dependancy; the erasing of Lesbian and Gay identity; health issues; etc. etc. is irresponsible. 

So rather than being supporters of the issues surrounding gender and sexual politics, this group of wannabe gate-keepers, are silencing the issues on the very subjects they claim to be the champions of.   Thankfully the discussion does exist  outside of their declared safe spaces.   The discussion is now in full flow without them!! 

From us at 'New Offensive' it is time to call out these sponging bastards . When Rob Ray (Simon Saunders) comes to terms with the wider discussions around Transgender, he might also  take a look at his own class privilege and the way he is using that as a weapon to demonise, control and shut down working class anarchists.  So quite simply,   Solidarity with you at Northern Voices, we are proud to see you take this stuff seriously.  Shit Wigs and Steroids is us documenting the absurdity of the situation for the wider working class movement and for sincere discussion amongst  class struggle anarchists .

'WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WIPING THE FLOOR WITH A FEW PEOPLE'.


(1)  Murder in the Central Committee (Spanish: Asesinato en el Comité Central) is a 1982 Spanish thriller film directed by Vicente Aranda. It stars Patxi Andión and Victoria Abril.^[1] The plot follows a private detective, an ex-communist and former CIA agent, who travels from Barcelona to Madrid to discover the identity of the assassin of the leader of the Spanish Communist Party who was stabbed during a blackout while presiding over a meeting of the party's Central Committee. The film is a thriller with ironic political overtones.
The script was written by director Vicente Aranda. It was based on a book of the same name by Manuel Vázquez Montalbán, one of a series of novels that featured the character of a hard-boiled detective called Pepe Carvalho. It was adapted for the screen the year after its publication.^[2] Asesinato en el Comité Central was Aranda’s first work shot in Madrid instead of his native Barcelona. The film received a cold commercial response.^[3]

 
'Murder in the Central Committee' (1981) has Pepe leaving his beloved Barcelona to investigate the murder of the General Secretary of the PCP and is a profound -- and often hilarious -- commentary on the changing face of post Cold War Europe.

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

NOT the Page 3 Girl!- 'Shit Wigs & Steroids'

For years Northern Voices has had its flatterers at 

Freedom Press, who have claimed we represent 'The Sun'

of the North.  Today we have pleasure in publishing

our first 'NOT the Page 3 Girl', and we know those

sleek Southerners who love us will be delighted. 

The NV Editors 

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

Review: Transsexuals vs Cocks in Frocks?

 by Les May

 _________________________________________________________________________

 "Shit Wigs and Steroids: Anarchism's (and the left's) Tolerance of Delusion" 

 'BOOKFAIRS & BULLSHIT'

This booklet is an A5 size 24-page critique of identity politics which challenges what it sees as the dominant politics of a 'wannabe' London based elite who are setting themselves up as a mouthpiece for current anarchist thought in the UK.  It claims to be rooted in a northern working-class perspective based on anti-authoritatianism.  It is a collective project that questions what it sees as the 'bogus claims of the transgender headcases' ; it entitles itself under the e-mail address:  newoffensive01@gmail.com

 Price £2 including postage & packing.

_______________________________________________________________________

I WAS asked to review this booklet by someone who had erroneously been identified as the author.  When this came to the attention of the real author he initiated contact with the supposed author, which led to me receiving a review copy.  Any opinions in this review are entirely my own and should not be attributed to anyone else.

Reviewing this booklet is not easy.  It is difficult to discern a linear sequence and it can be read in a number of different ways.  At one level it is one episode of an anarchist soap opera in which the horny handed sons of toil from the gritty north take on the effete, never done a proper day’s work in their lives, London scribblers and their acolytes.  The title says it all ‘Shit Wigs and Steroids. Anarchism’s and the left’s Tolerance of Delusion.  Bookfairs & Bullshit’.

Eager to wash anarchism’s dirty washing in public we get three pages, or should that be six pages, I said it was difficult to discern a linear sequence, of ‘What Happened at the Liverpool ‘Anarchist’ Bookfair 2018’.  Certainly nothing for the bookfair organisers to be proud of.  At this point you realise that the author’s way of expressing things is, shall we say, OTT.  Here’s a sample ‘… his gang of ponces have supported violence against women through attempting to stop free speech in a public environment’.  So far as I am concerned their ‘crime’ is nothing to do with violence against women, it is attempting to stifle debate on transgender issues.  At this point I began to wonder if the author had swallowed the whole of the feminist lexicon.  Here’s another sample which is the title of a booklet the author encourages us to read, ‘Gender is not an Identity, it is a Tool of Patriarchy a Feminist View of Gender Identity Politics’.  Patriarchy, Feminist, Gender all in one sentence, pass me the sick bag please!

Usually when I read this sort of stuff I assume the writer is what I call one of ‘The Leg Over Brigade’, i.e. a man who spouts feminist pleasing language in the hope of being viewed favourably in the amorous stakes.  I don’t think this is the case here, the author seems to genuinely believe what he is writing and I doubt that his overuse of the slang terms for female genetalia as descriptions for people who views he disagrees with, will endear him to many feminists.

Anarchism he says ‘has pretty much become a wendy house for children to play in’.  He means of course the ‘London effete’ version of anarchism and lays at its door ‘authoritarian behaviour, censorship, bullying and (yawn) misogyny’.  These charges are not unique to anarchism, ‘the Left’ is riddled with similar exponents.  ‘The transgender arguments are at best nonsense, at worst (yawn) misogynistic, indulgent and delusional’, he tells us.  Well that’s a point of view, an opinion, an assertion.  This is anger talking.

But if you first strip away the anger, then all of the feminist rhetoric, you realise he has a point, you’ve just got to unearth it.

What this booklet is all about is the proposed changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) which could move away from medical assessment to ‘self certifying’, and about the people who refuse to engage in discussion about the implications of such a change and want to bully the rest of society into accepting it without question.

I’ve written previously about what I see as the absurdity of a man with a full set of wedding tackle being allowed to claim he is a woman and be housed in a women’s prison, the ‘Cocks in Frocks’ syndrome as the author rather nicely puts it.

What I had not considered is how the 5000 transexual women for whom the 2004 GRA was created, might view self certifying.  It’s an interesting perspective.  The rational, understanding, empathetic way the 14 contributors to this piece have structured their argument and their recognition that whilst it is women who will be most affected, changes to the GRA will affect the whole of society, is an example of how this debate should be conducted.

I found this so striking that I was initially tempted to quote it in full.  I won’t; you’ll have to get hold of a copy of the booklet and read it for yourself. Significantly some of the contributors to this are older women who ‘transitioned’ up to 50 years ago.  Almost all the noise comes from those of university age,

Much of the author’s anger is directed at the politicisation of identity, of irrelevant lifestyle choices, of ‘Look at me, me, me I’m non-binary’ or the way that some people portray individual decisions as somehow taking a radical stance, and think we should all take notice. I’m inclined to agree.  My wife, my sister, my sisters-in-law, my daughters, my granddaughters, couldn’t care less. 

*********** 

TINA'S TRANSGRESSIVE TEA-TIME!

by Christopher Draper

I'VE just come back from a fascinating trip to Bury Museum and was particularly amused by my visit to the first floor cafe, or 'TINA'S TEAROOMS' as it is now denominated.  I was initially impressed by the non-gender-binary signage marking the location of "TINA'S TOILETS", regrettably not quite as positive or joyful as the sign illustrated above but nonetheless adequate and appropriately enlightened.  Less enlightened however was Tina's binary-gender-specific afternoon tea menu! (illustrated below)

Whilst GENTLEMEN (for £15) are offered 'Doorstopper Sandwiches' and 'A Big Wedge of Cake', LADIES (£13) get 'Finger Sandwiches' and 'Mini Cakes and Fancies'.  Are us NON-BINARIES expected to starve?

***********

Emperor's New Gender & Liverpool Leaflet

Left click on above leaflet to get clear image.
Last April the above leaflet got a lad thrown out of the Anarchist Liverpool Book fair for distributing it.  Readers must make their own judgement about the issues and intricacies of gender politics.  British Anarchists these days are fragile plants who can't cope with criticism even when it is badly written and poorly produced as above.  Northern Voices stands up for free speech and doesn't take sides in this knock-about stuff.  Life is hard enough without having to obsess about all this trivia with the drama Queens of anarchism.

WOKE-up vs Sleepwalking politics?

by Brian Bamford
'Woke' is increasingly used as a byword for social awareness.

EARLIER this month Helen Steel and some other women were thrown out of the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair for distributing a leaflet with which the organisers apparently disapproved.  This leaflet was not as was initially claimed - a so-called Terf leaflet attacking transexuals, but rather was a considered argument against what the leaflet described as 'The Curse of Identity Politics'.

The authors of the leaflet offer a critique of the current thrust of anarchism in the UK, as is shown in their introduction below, but should this be accepted as grounds for their exclusion?:

'Anarchism in the UK is a joke. Once symbolising hard-fought struggles for freedom, the word has been stripped bare to make way for narrow-minded, separatist and hateful identity politics by middle class activists keen to protect their own privileges. We write this leaflet to reclaim anarchism from these identity politicians.'

Northern Voices may disagree with some of the contents of this leaflet but it ought not to be grounds for the exclusion of those putting forward these ideas.  Indeed, we seriously consider that there ought to be a mix of diverse views at bookfairs that profess to be anarchist or libertarian.

Whatever else the authors argue for authors which would seem to include Helen Steel are right conclude with the following statement:

 'Final note. To us anarchism is cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity and fighting the real centres of power. Anarchist spaces should not be for those who merely want to fight those around them. We have a proud history of internationalism and diversity, so lets reclaim our politics for a genuinely inclusive future.'

wokeanarchists@protonmail.ch - wokeanarchists.wordpress.com

 To read the leaflet that Helen Steel and the others were chucked-out for distributing go to:

 https://wokeanarchists.wordpress.com/

https://325.nostate.net/.../against-anarcho-liberalism-and-the-curse-of-identity-politics-...

***********

On Listening To Woman’s Hour

by Les May

ON Tuesday morning a friend telephoned me to suggest that having recently written about problems with the Gender Recognition Act, I might like to listen to BBC Woman’s Hour where the proposed changes were to be discussed.

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/10/ask-about-wedding-tackle.html

I assumed that the ‘Karen White’ case in which a man called David Thompson, who had previously been jailed for life for rape, had been housed in a women’s prison after claiming he identified as female and had gone on to sexually assault two female prisoners, would be discussed.  It got a mention.

I assumed that someone would point out that the prison service had a duty of care to the female prisoners.  No one did.  Nor did anyone point out that the decision to move him to a women’s prison was made by an anonymous ‘local transgender board, though much was made of the fact that under the current Gender Recognition Act (2004) the decision about whether a certificate is issued is made by an anonymous board.

I assumed that someone would point out the absurdity of the prosecutor continuing to refer to White as ‘she’, as in ‘Her penis was in her hand and she was winking at the victim.’  (There may be a spelling mistake here.) No one did.

The problem it seems is MEN! No woman is safe on the streets. We men don’t need to use the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to find Machiavellian ways to assault women. We’re at it all the time.  That’s why they need ‘safe spaces’ like the ‘snowflakes’ who inhabit our universities.  And there was me thinking that in the context of the GRA what women need is ‘privacy’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_%28slang%29

The women taking part in this programme all wanted to sound ‘cool’.  They did not want anyone ‘calling them out’ for voicing an unpopular opinion such as, ‘We cannot let the demands of individuals who identify as trans override the need for others to maintain their own sense of privacy and dignity.’ Or ‘A person’s sex still matters.’

That’s what you are going to get when the only people giving their opinion are happy to say that their contributions are ‘academic’. These women were drawn from too small a stratum of society. Perhaps this was intentional. It wouldn’t do to have have some random woman saying things that would generate complaints.

Why has any discussion of possible changes to the GRA by Woman’s Hour been left until three days before the consultation ends? Must be a male conspiracy.

**********