Author: George

Hate Crime and a 14 year old boy

I was recently told  of a case where a 14 year old boy from Lancashire was charged with a ‘hate crime’. It seemed a bit young to  me to be charged with this but I was intrigued and I looked further in to it. It appears that the boy having lost a bet brought the Quran, that he bought online, into his school. You might wonder why bringing the Quran into school is considered to be a forfeit but we are dealing with 14 year old boys here, so it doesn’t have to make sense to us. He ‘accidently’ dropped the book and was  sent to the Head Teacher, presumably for being disrespectful to  the Quran. The school called the Police. If, like me, you were expecting more from this story you will be disappointed. That’s it! Just to put some context into the story I should add that the boy is autistic. His mother, whilst apologising to a meeting of the local Muslim community said  ” … that her son sometimes found it difficult to understand social situations.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23) Another bit of information was that the Quran was only slightly damaged as confirmed by the Police and that there does not seem to be any intent to be disrespectful as confirmed by the school. “Head Teacher  Tudor Griffiths said: ‘We would like to reassure all our community that the holy book remains fully intact and that our initial enquiries indicate there was no malicious intent by those involved.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23)

You might be slightly confused at this stage as to how he could be charged with a ‘hate crime’ as initially reported by my friend. The answer is, that on the facts reported, which have not been disputed, he had not committed a crime and therefore could not be charged with a ‘hate crime’. However, my friend only got it half wrong as the boy was suspended from school and West Yorkshire Police stated “We have recorded a hate incident, but from our enquiries are satisfied that no criminal offences were committed.” See note 1 (Daily Mail 02/03/23) It is here that we start to get into ‘the weeds.’ The boys involved, the autistic boy and his 3 friends, had not committed a crime. Nor had anyone suggested that the ‘incident’ was driven by malice or hatred, something confirmed by both the  Police and the school. So on what basis was a hate incident being recorded? As you can see from note one, it appears that if someone is offended by something you have said or done, the Police can record a ‘hate incident’ without a trial and that record will appear against your name on any subsequent enhanced search. This is something that  Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union pointed out. His first point was that the measure was not intended to be used for trivial incidents. Secondly, that there had to be evidence,”  … of  motivation of prejudice or hate before officers make a recording, which can show up years later on enhanced criminal records checks.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23) On the evidence presented, he stated that the police action did not conform to the rules and that any such record should be expunged from the files. (See note 2)

Young wrote: “We are hard pressed to imagine a sequence of events more likely to chill public debate and freedom of expression than recording this episode as a ‘hate incident’ and attaching that data to the children’s records, in spite of the absence of any malicious intent.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23)

I have to admit that I am still struggling to find a ‘hate incident’ here but the 14 year old boy and his family  have certainly suffered consequences. My heart goes out to the mother of this autistic boy who at the meeting with the Muslim community, said that her son, “…  hasn’t eaten since Wednesday afternoon when this occurred because with his autism it put his anxiety to a level where he is beside himself. He is very, very sorry.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) This wasn’t the end of it, of course. False rumours that the Quran had been destroyed had been spread  and the family had received death threats as a consequence. The mother of this vulnerable boy said that, “He has received death threats, he has received threats that he will be beaten up if he goes back to school. He’s absolutely petrified.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) Now I can see a hate crime but it is not the one that the School and Police saw. Incidentally, one such boy who apparently sent hate mail seemed to have received very different treatment than our 14 year old boy,

A report was also made of a malicious communications offence in relation to threats being made to a child in connection with this incident. ‘A suspect was identified, who was also a child, and they were given words of advice by an officer. (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23)

So where are we with this story. We have a very frightened boy who has been suspended by his school; who has been threatened with violence; who has been investigated by the police; who has a non criminal record; whose mother had to apologise publicly to the Muslim community and for what? See Note 2

A more relevant question is, how did we get from a trivial incident involving a 14 year old autistic boy to national news and the involvement of the Home Secretary?  For this we must look at the actions of the authorities. Quite how this incident was reported to the Head Teacher is not known. However, the Head Teacher, Mr. Tudor Griffiths, had stated that his initial enquiries could find  “no malicious intent by those involved.” Yet, as reported by the Mail, he also said that “we have made it very clear that their actions did not treat the Koran with the respect it should have, so those involved have been suspended and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.” I would be very interested to sit in on this conversation and see how the boys actions were deemed to be unacceptable and presumably, warranted all the persecutions noted above. But his actions didn’t stop there, he escalated this trivial incident by reporting it to the police. He even facilitated a public meeting between the school, police and the  local imam. The West Yorkshire police were represented by  chief inspector, Andy Thornton, who thanked the Muslim community for…. “the tolerance and understanding shown”. (The Times, 08/03/23) Here we have the problem. There was little discussion about the event, an acceptance of the boys guilt, no reference to threats of violence and everything  to placate those who would replace the law of the land with sharia law. The Home Secretary, Ms Braverman, made it quite clear that there was no right, not to be offended under British law. No law of blasphemy, no requirement to be respectful of other faiths where there is no malicious intent. She further commented on the actions of the authorities as follows:

Ms Braverman said everyone — and especially the education sector and the police — had a duty to act in a proportionate manner, and to prioritise the welfare of children over any perceived or actual insults: “Schools answer to pupils and parents. They do not have to answer to self-appointed community activists.” (The Times, 03/03/23)

On cue the ‘community activists’ were very quick to register their outrage and victimhood. Local councillor,  Usman Ali, tweeted that the Quran was ‘desecrated’ and the action of the boys was a  ‘terrible provocation’ to Muslims. He called on the authorities to take action, otherwise community relations will suffer (The Times, 08/03/23) It took this case and Home Secretary to push back and state that we should not placate the loudest voices. That it is the ordinary citizen that is often in the front line against the mob and it is the role of the authorities to protect them. In this case, those that should have diffused  the situation chose to side with the mob and as often is the case failed the weak. Officers who bend the knee, wear political tokens don’t see themselves as fighting crime but fighting for social justice. We saw this in the reluctance of the police to pursue the  Rochdale child sex abuse ring for fear of being called racist. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Stephen Watson, said, “The public are getting a little bit fed up of virtue-signalling police officers when they’d really rather we just locked up burglars.” 

This case is important because it raises  the question of who do the public authorities serve? Do they support the rule of Law? Are they selective in how they perform their duties? Are they afraid to stand against mob rule and work for the protection of all British citizens? In this case we saw the School and the Police work as though the Muslim community were their clients. There was no attempt at ‘proportionality or prioritising the welfare of children’. There was no ‘hate crime’ no ‘hate incident’ but the only people to suffer any consequence were the boy and his family. We must return to the belief in common decency, tolerance and common sense that were the bedrock of the British way of life. We must interpret these virtues through the lens of  the passengers of the Clapham Omnibus and not the loudest voices. (Note 3)  We must refocus public servants on the duties that they are paid to perform. Schools should equip children with the tools that will enable them to make their own informed choices and the police should focus on catching criminals, without bending a knee.

 

The man on the Clapham Omnibus. The test of reasonableness in English law.

“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.”
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

Notes 

  1. Non-crime hate incidents are ‘any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice’, according to police guidance.
  2. The Home Secretary is to enhance the  rules governing reporting hate incidents, ” … to remind police forces only to record non-crime hate incidents where it is “proportionate and absolutely necessary”. She will instruct that any records that do not meet this criteria will be removed. (The Telegraph, 05/03/23)
  3. Reference to the Clapham Omnibus is a test of reasonableness established in English law. First used in McQuire v Western 1903. wikipedia

Sources

RORY TINGLE, ELIZABETH HAIGH, CHRIS BROOKE, 02/03/23, The Daily Mail,  Police should delete any data held on on autistic 14-year-old boy who ‘faces death threats’ after a Quran was dropped ‘accidentally’, say campaigners who slam officers for recording it as ‘hate incident‘, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812017/Police-delete-data-held-four-school-pupils-accidentally-dropped-Quran.html

MAX PARRY, 05/03/23, The Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary to crack down on police reporting of non-crime hate incidents, telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/home-secretary-crack-police-reporting-non-crime-hate-incidents/

TOMIWA OWOLADE, 08/03/23, The Times, We’ll never be multicultural if we fail Quran test, thetimes.co.uk/article/well-never-be-multicultural-if-we-fail-quran-test-jr7d2g6jh

The Times leading articles, 03/03/23, The Times, The Times view on religious privilege: The Right to Offend, .thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-religious-privilege-the-right-to-offend-tn5vzwfzl

The Gender Recognition Reform Bill

I am constantly surprised by the wide eyed astonishment and hypocritical hand wringing, when an event  that is wholly predictable but contrary to current progressive ideology,  occurs. Such is the case of the rapist and the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill (SGRRB). I have written on similar situations before, the case of Karen White comes to mind. For those who haven’t been keeping up with the news, the purpose of the  SGRRB is to update and consolidate various administrative practises carried out by Government and to make gender transition easier.  As summarised by the Guardian, ‘In 2014, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) introduced its gender identity and gender reassignment policy, which it developed with the Scottish Trans Alliance and is currently being updated. It advises that where an individual is permanently living in a gender other than that assigned at birth, “establishment allocation should usually be the new gender in which they are living”. (The Guardian 26/01/23. Bold highlight mine) There were two things that struck me on first reading the Guardian article. One was that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had prepared their gender reassignment policy with the assistance of the Scottish Trans Alliance, so there were no surprises on the outcome here! The other is that the SGRRB was an update of that policy. This would contradict those who would suggest that the Prison policy and the SGRRB are unconnected.

Adam Graham/Isla Bryson The Scottish Sun

You are now up to date on the history of the SGRRB and now we introduce the rapist and the paedophile. To our  left we have Adam Graham, as he was when he was convicted of two rapes. Subsequently, he had a kind of Saul on the road to Damascus moment and declared that he was a woman. I don’t mean to compare Isla Bryson to St Paul in any way other than to say that his transition was equally as sudden. After conviction and before sentencing he was remanded to  Cornton Vale, the only women’s prison in Scotland.

Andrew Burns AKA Tiffany Scott

The paedophile comes by the name of Andrew Burns or, at least it was when he committed a litany of violent offences, including stalking a 13 year old girl. He had a similar, ‘road to Damascus’ moment and now claims to be Tiffany Scott. He is considered to be extremely dangerous and it was the fear that he would be allowed into a woman’s prison, as reported by the Daily Record, that put the spotlight on the Bill (Financial Times 30/01/23). In response, Scottish justice secretary Keith Brown announced that no transgender offender with a history of violence against women or girls would be placed in a female-only facility. Brown had last week defended the Scottish prison’s service right to assess cases on an individual basis and called its record “exemplary”. (Financial Times 30/01/23) It may sound like a technicality but Adam Graham (the rapist) was, in fact, remanded to a women’s prison and Andrew Burns (the violent paedophile) request to transfer to a women’s prison was under consideration by the SPS as reported by the Daily Record. Surprise, Surprise the public blowback caught the Scottish government completely off guard. The Justice Minister sought to dodge the public anger and say that it was in the hands of the SPS. This only inflamed critics more and the First Minister had to jump in with a less than satisfactory response. Opposition parties now ‘smell blood in the water’ and an interview which was supposed to restore confidence in the government only made things worse. Ms Sturgeon repeated the Justice Ministers promise that ‘no transgender offender with a history of violence against women or girls would be placed in a female-only facility’ but as the Mailonline reported she left the door open to exceptions, she said that there’s a ‘danger with a blanket approach because you catch cases that you shouldn’t’.  This was instantly seized on by opponents such as Cybernats group Wings over Scotland, … , who tweeted: ‘Which cases of rapists in women’s prisons SHOULDN’T you catch? Which rapists should you be allowing into women’s prisons? Just the *nice* rapists?’ (Mailonline 29/01/23)

The government has now done what all governments do when their backs are against the wall, they have promised an ‘urgent review’ of the transgender prisoner transfer policy. As followers of the BBC’s  ‘Yes Minister’ series will know the real intention of a review/inquiry/probe is to take the heat out of a bad news day and to revise history in the way that suits the government. However, there are a number of questions on the story so far that are worthy of comment. To get back to my opening line, why was the government so unprepared for an event that had been predicted in debate in Parliament, had happened before in the UK, reference Karen White and in the US? Could it be that they are so divorced from reality that  JK Rowling was correct when she said:

 ‘Never forget, Sturgeon, her government and supporters have insisted that it is ludicrous to imagine anyone would dress in women’s clothes to get access to vulnerable women and girls. Wouldn’t happen. Everyone is who they say they are. To question this is hate’. (Mailonline 29/01/23)

Is it that simple? That these people are so blinded by the new religion they deny the evidence of their own eyes and ears? I had heard of another reason that this issue was pushed and it was that Ms Sturgeon wanted to beat her predecessor in the victim stakes by pushing trans progressive policies. She wanted her legacy to show how progressive and virtuous her leadership had been. There may also have been a political motive, to find an issue that the London Parliament would have to stop and turn it in to a demand for Scottish  Independence. It could be one or all of these motives but I am rather inclined to favour the JK Rowling approach.  My reasons are twofold. The first is the chaos and confusion that this  caused the Government. This didn’t have the appearance of a policy that had been thought through with a prepared strategy to respond to critics. The second is that this is the wrong issue, the wrong hill to be prepared to die on. It is very emotional, threatens women’s safety and crosses all political lines. The public is right to suspect that this is part of an ideological battle and that a politised bureaucracy cannot be trusted to go against their employers, in the this case the Minister for Justice and his boss, the First Minister. Indeed Ms Sturgeon argues  my case by saying: “Trans women don’t pose an inherent threat to women – it’s abusive and predatory men that do that (Sky News 30/01/23) To which JK Rowling tweeted:

‘So in Nicola Sturgeon’s Scotland, trans women AREN’T women if they’re convicted double rapists, like Adam ‘Isla Bryson’ Graham. JK Rowling tweet

If Ms Sturgeon really believed what she said then JK Rowling’s tweet is correct. If we trust Ms Sturgeons  statement that “no transgender offender with a history of violence against women or girls would be placed in a female-only facility” then why does the SPS need to make any risk assessment? The problem is that this last statement was wrung from her as she was facing the political abyss. Part of the defence of the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill (SGRRB is to suggest that it is such a small issue that it is hardly worth all the fuss being made of it. As the Guardian states: trans men and trans women comprised 0.05% and 0.15% of the prison population respectively as of September 2022, (The Guardian 26/01/23). This argument could easily be turned on its head by asking, why do we need a new Bill to provide for such a small population when the risk is borne by the remaining 99.85% of the female prison population? It prompts a question raised by Fair Play for Women   which is, ” when does a female’s right to safety override the feelings of males? Where do we draw that line and who decides?” In a case presided over by  Justice Holroyde, the Judge recognised the competing rights of women prisoners but as I wrote in the Karen White article,

The Judge in this case talked about competing rights. I would say that the first duty of the Prison Authorities is to the women prisoners basic Human Right of safety, privacy and dignity. In other words these rights are superior to those of the trans women.

Surely we can trust the SPS and believe the Justice Secretary when he says that their  record is “exemplary”. Well, not quite, as JK Rowling points out,

“However, trans woman and paedophile Katie Dolatowski, who covertly filmed a 12-year-old and attempted to rape a 10-year-old, both offences committed in women’s public bathrooms, IS a woman and remains in the women’s prison from which Adam Graham is to be removed.” (Mailonline 29/01/23) see note 1 below

If you follow the note below and read the article by the Scottish Express entitled Meet the monsters: the dangerous trans women prisoners held in Scottish jails you might dispute the Justice Secretaries confidence in his SPS. There are similarities between the Scottish Prison Service and their counterparts in the rest of the UK.  Neither were independent from their political masters, both operated out of the public view, there was no accountability, no independent review and both failed. In the case of HM Prisons Service in England  the government had to issue one of the most outrageous apologies I have seen:  The Ministry of Justice has apologised for moving her [Karen White] to the women’s prison, saying that her previous offending history had not been taken into account. The Guardian 11/10/18. I am not aware that any of the senior HMPS officers or, their political master suffered any consequences for this debacle. I would note that the current position in the rest of the UK is less progressive than that of Scotland, as reported in note 2 below. I will leave you with the the response from the Independent Policy Review group,  Murray Blackburn McKenzie to the promise of an urgent review made by the Scottish Government. I only hope that it is conducted by someone other than the Scottish Trans Alliance.

While we welcome this move, the measures are exceptionally limited. They fail to account for the fact that most violent or sexual offending by men goes unreported and that few cases are prosecuted in court. It fails to consider factors other than the risk of a sexual or physical assault, overlooking the impact of the presence of a male prisoner on female prisoners’ psychological safety, let alone their privacy and dignity. It adds a caveat: that an offender with a history of violence against women could be placed in the female estate in exceptional circumstances. And it does not appear to regard as relevant that offenders have a history of violence against men, as in the case of Andrew Burns/Tiffany Scott.

The SPS has separately stated in the media that the ongoing policy review will be independently assessed by experts in women affected by trauma and violence. We welcome this move, although the review must not rely on organisations with a history of diminishing and belittling women’s trauma responses, when these are related to accurately reading another person’s sex.

Lastly, it is disappointing that it has taken a high-profile case hitting the headlines for these issues to receive the attention they deserve at senior levels of government. (MBM 30/01/23)

 

Addendum

Nicola Sturgeon says time is right to resign as Scotland’s first minister. Ms Sturgeon insisted her resignation was not in response to the “latest period of pressure”, which has included controversies over gender reforms, trans prisoners and the strategy on independence. BBC News 15/02/23

Notes

  1. Re JK Rowling tweet. Dolatowski, has now been released from prison on a deferred sentence pending a further court appearance for a review hearing on March 16. Ben Borland, 02/02/23, Scottish Express, Meet the monsters: the dangerous trans women prisoners held in Scottish jails, scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/meet-monsters-dangerous-trans-women-29115407
  2. In England and Wales the policy is markedly different. While there is the same rigorous risk assessment, more than 90% of transgender women in prison are housed in men’s prisons and there is no obligation to move transgender prisoners according to their wishes. Those without a GRC are sent to the prison according to their sex assigned at birth “as a matter of course”. (The Guardian 26/01/23)

Sources

Libby Brooks, 26/01/23, The Guardian, Why Scotland’s gender reform bill is sparking concern over trans prisoner policies, theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/26/trans-prisoners-in-scotland-case-by-case

Lukanyo Mnyanda, 30/01/23, Financial Times, Nicola Sturgeon criticised for ‘botched’ policy on Scottish transgender prisoners, ft.com/content/9ca38e1b-c9b0-46da-9d3c-59709fa5ef5fOn Saturday,

Murray Blackburn McKenzie, 30/01/23, MBM response to the Justice Secretary statement on protecting prisoners, murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/01/29/mbm-response-to-the-justice-secretary-statement-on-protecting-prisoners/

Martin Robinson, 29/01/23,Mailonline, JK Rowling roasts Nicola Sturgeon over decision to send trans double rapist to women’s prison as she points out that trans paedophile who tried to rape 10-year-old is still at jail from which Isla Bryson has been removed, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11684175/JK-Rowling-roasts-Nicola-Sturgeon-decision-send-trans-double-rapist-womens-prison.

30/01/23, SKY News, No trans women in female jail have history of violence against women, says Justice Secretary Keith Brown, news.sky.com/story/no-trans-women-in-female-jail-have-history-of-violence-against-women-says-justice-secretary-keith-brown-12799278

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fifa

 

I have to say that the World Cup sort of crept up on me and as a consequence I haven’t been able to work up the same enthusiasm as in the past. That is partly due to it appearing in the middle of the Premier League season, partly the playing conditions and partly the corruption associated with FIFA. After the FBI and Swiss authorities’ investigations into FIFA and the subsequent prosecutions it was hoped that the reputation of the worldwide football association would be restored. However, in the opinion of Mark Pieth, who was tasked to improve governance in the organisation, “the supposed modernization under current FIFA head Gianni Infantino has “plunged it into the Dark Ages of [former FIFA president Sepp] Blatter.” As Pieth notes, “they’re simply not up to regulating themselves.” Washinton Post 20/11/22. Which brings me to the reason for this essay. Not so much the question of corruption but the mention of the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino.

Gianni Infantino had taken on the responsibility of locating the 2022 World Cup to a venue that had no or, very little football infrastructure and a reputation for enforcing strict Sharia law. Knowing that this created issues for the ever-present alphabet soup community he received assurances that Sharia law enforcement would be relaxed for the period of the World Cup in Qatar. There was also the problem of migrant labour that was imported to build the football stadiums and associated facilities. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the Guardian, amongst others, have focussed on pay and conditions of these exploited workers. It is against this long-tailed background of complaints that my attention was drawn to the FIFA presidents inaugural address to open the competition. First of all, I must disclose that I didn’t listen to the full 57-minute speech. I don’t know anyone who did. Infantino started his speech in the manner of an inebriated father of the bride who, ignoring all the frozen stares of his family, made the occasion all about himself.

“Today I feel Qatari,” he said. “Today I feel Arabic. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. Today I feel [like] a migrant worker.” He added: “Of course I am not Qatari, I am not an Arab, I am not African, I am not gay, I am not disabled. But I feel like it, because I know what it means to be discriminated [against], to be bullied, as a foreigner in a foreign country. As a child I was bullied – because I had red hair and freckles, plus I was Italian, so imagine.” The Guardian, 19/11/22

 

Just a couple of points. Whilst not diminishing the effects of his early experience, hopping across the border from one western European country to another, bears no resemblance to the hardships suffered by foreign labourers working in Qatar. There is one ‘oppressed’ group that he missed, possibly because it is not recognised in the LGBTQ+ acronym, and that is, women. He hastily rectified this by adding this half of the population to the list of people he ‘feels like’ at least sparing us from describing women as ‘birthing people’. Was his empathy for everyone, other than white men, a criticism of his hosts anti gay laws, the hardship suffered by foreign workers and the restriction on women’s rights? From the excerpts of  his speech that have surfaced, seemingly not. Like the drunken fathers speech, it is difficult to see what he did mean. By mentioning all the progressive shibboleths he must have known that this would highlight the cultural differences between the West and the hosts. In a further twist he had complained about some of the criticism he had received from Human Rights groups and he defended himself as follows

Infantino had suggested critics were “handing out moral lessons to the rest of the world” and said nations should “not allow football to be dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists”. The Guardian, 13/11/22

Does he not see the hypocrisy between his speech cataloguing all the groups  driven by Western progressive ideology that he feels part of  and his demand that Football be kept free of  ideology and politics? To give him the benefit of the doubt I don’t think that he does. I think that he his so focussed on shameless and pathetic virtue signalling that it blinds him to the obvious contradictions in his position.

I could continue the drunken father analogy further but drinking in stadiums were suddenly forbidden two days before the start of the matches. However, that was not the only thing that seemed to break the peace negotiated with the Qatar authorities. Plans by European teams to display the LGBTQ+ rainbow colours came under attack and players who wore these emblems were threatened with punishment if they did not conform. Flags and emblems were also taken from supporters entering the stadium and FIFA seemed to be compliant with this. Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, “FIFA is now little more than a mouthpiece for the Qatari despots. It is giving cover for a sexist. Homophobic and racist dictatorship.’ Daily Mail 18/12/22.  Infantino, who I believe expected applause from the progressives, was stung by the criticism and reacted with the racist card saying that Europeans should apologise for the past 3000 years history. Not withstanding the fact that there wasn’t a Europe at that time he defended the Qatar government and FIFA by charging opponents with Hypocrisy.

The view from Qatar was, you knew what you were getting into when you first took the money. You knew that we maintain a strict religious theocracy under Sharia law  and you knew that we would defend our beliefs against Western decadence. They also, pointed out that, “Many here in Qatar are asking why there wasn’t a similar uproar when Russia hosted the World Cup in 2018 or when China hosted the Olympics in 2008; both countries with their own human rights issues.” (BBC News 23/11/22). It is a hard question to answer especially when you consider the questionable  FIFA bidding process. There was another group of less than heroic’ standing, defending the rights of the alphabet soup community, who caved in to the pressure from the Qatar Government. As reported by Forbes, “The national soccer federations of the Netherlands, England, Wales, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark issued a joint statement announcing they are backing off, stating they did not want to put their players “ in a position where they could face sporting sanctions.” (Forbes 21/11/22) Meanwhile the families of the Iranian Team were reportedly under threat because the team didn’t sing the national anthem in protest against the death of Mahsa Amini.  The lesson to take away from this is that it is easy to ‘take the knee’ in a Western country where there is no consequence for doing so, than in countries like Qatar and Iran.

What do we take from the speech and events surrounding the World Cup. First of all, the very bad news is that Infantino is making a bid to remain as FIFA President until 2031. That means a constant flow of corruption, contradictory policies and meaningless self congratulatory virtue signalling. Secondly, this will be matched by sporting administrators and over paid sports men and women. (Assuming we still recognise biological men and women in 2031). Infantino is your quintessential example of someone who see’s a role beyond that in the job description. He see’s himself as a major political force and is prepared to compromise his responsibilities to football to further his ambition. This is a modern trend and is borne out of lack of a sense of duty toward those for whom you are responsible and a lack of humility. Three thousand years ago, Infantino would know that the Greeks had a god named Hubris who represented arrogance, lack of humility, wanton violence etc. What he seems to have forgotten is that this god is followed by another called Nemesis, the goddess of fate and retribution. Perhaps, the goddess Nemesis would save us from an extended term  of President  Infantino and allow him to be replaced by someone who has the best interests of the game at heart instead of the corruption, arrogance and virtue signalling of  Gianni Infantino.

Sources

Dan Hough, 20/11/22, The Washington Post, Qatar is taking the heat for FIFA corruption, washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/20/fifa-qatar-world-cup-corruption/

Sean Ingle, 19/11/22, The Guardian, ‘I feel gay, disabled … like a woman too!’: Infantino makes bizarre attack on critics, theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/19/fifa-gianni-infantino-world-cup-qatar

Shanti Das, 13/11/22, The Guardian, Anger over Fifa president’s ‘stick to football’ letter to World Cup teams, theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/13/anger-over-fifa-presidents-stick-to-football-letter-to-world-cup-teams

Shaimaa Khalil, 23/11/22, BBC News, World Cup 2022 armband row: ‘Two parallel universes on human rights controversies’, bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63718164

Siladitya Ray, 21/11/22, Forbes Business, World Cup: Teams Will Not Wear Rainbow Armbands After FIFA Threatens Yellow Cards, www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/11/21/world-cup-teams-will-not-wear-rainbow-armbands-after-fifa-threatens-yellow-cards/?sh=511d320e4bd3

Misinformation, Disinformation and then there’s The Guardian.

Very recently I wrote an essay on ESG and the attempt to politicise the business community using investors funds as a weapon. (E.S.G.) In that essay I exhorted everyone to use common sense, with a dash of scepticism, when receiving information on important issues. My woke sensors were activated when I heard of an article entitled, What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures and they were fully deployed when I heard it was sourced from The Guardian. I looked up the article and the first thing I noticed was a curiously worded subtitle. See if you can spot what caught my eye. “In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like.” (The Guardian 19/10/22) I will come back to that or, ‘circle back’ as the late Jen Psaki would often say. Reading on, I was struck by a number of photographs which showed a cotton wool like substance in Petrie dishes, an example and explanation below.

large amount of whitish material in petri dish“This image shows the gestational sac of a nine-week pregnancy. This is everything that would be removed during an abortion and includes the nascent embryo, which is not easily discernible to the naked eye.” Dr. Joan Fleischman

For clarity, I should advise that Dr Joan Fleischman is part of a pro-abortion group called the MYA Network, ‘which is made up of a network of clinicians and activists, who show what tissue in the first nine weeks of pregnancy actually looks like.’ (The Guardian 19/10/22)

See the source imageThe thing that struck me about the subtitle and large parts of the MYA supplied data was the constant reference to ’tissue’ when we would normally be talking about the embryo or, the foetus.  To be fair there is a reference to the aborted embryo in the above picture but it, ” … is not easily discernible to the naked eye” I don’t understand why that means it can’t be shown in the photograph by enlarging it to scale. This is important because the thrust of the article is to depersonalise and dehumanise the foetus. What we are shown is not, “everything that would be removed during an abortion” but some innocuous cotton wool like material that has no potential for life.  There is no attempt to argue against the above chart which shows the development of a child but by using the artifice of showing only, the tissue, seeks to persuade people that there is no moral or, criminal argument to be made against them.

Visual search query imageIt might be argued by MYA that the pictures showing the foetal development and the one opposite are misleading but on the basis of the contrived Guardian article I would prefer to take my information from the National Health Service. (NHS)

Your baby at 10 weeks: The ears are starting to develop on the sides of your baby’s head, and the ear canals are forming inside the head. If you could look at your baby’s face, you’d be able to see an upper lip and 2 tiny nostrils in the nose. The jawbones are developing and already contain all the future milk teeth. The heart is now fully formed. It beats 180 times a minute – that’s 2 to 3 times faster than your own heart. The baby is making small, jerky movements that can be seen on an ultrasound scan. NHS

In addition to the words that are absent from the article we need to look at the ones that are used. In the picture that purports to show ‘everything that would be removed during an abortion’ the invisible embryo is described as ‘nascent’. I will leave you to look up your own definition but one that will serve for this article is as follows: nascent, coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential. Is Dr Fleischman arguing that there is no potential for life before nine weeks? If so, she seems to be in dispute with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who, in their Seventh Edition of Your Pregnancy and Childbirth book, ACOG states that, “The first eight weeks of pregnancy are a time of rapid growth for your baby. Most of the organs have begun to form during these weeks. By the end of the eighth week, the baby – called an embryo at this stage – is about half an inch long.” 

The main part of my criticism of this article is not that it is pro-abortion but that it is basically dishonest. There are arguments for both sides of the debate, but they should strive to be factual and honest. In this case, meanings are hidden, and facts distorted by slight of hand. If the intention was to reduce the stress of a mother seeking advice, she shouldn’t have to pick her way through this article like a lawyer vetting a contract.  I had thought of entitling this piece ‘Lies, Dam Lies and the Guardian but I think that the title I chose reflects the modern trend of redefining direct language with obscure words, the meaning of which can be changed at will. With this in mind, I will leave you with the same sentence and sentiment with which I closed my essay on ESG. I am not saying that we should review the arguments promoted by the Flat Earth Society, but we should apply the same level of scepticism to those that make decisions, on our behalf, in the name of the experts. 

Sources

Poppy Noor, 19/10/22, The Guardian, What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures, .theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue

nhs.uk/pregnancy/week-by-week/1-to-12/10-weeks/

American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Your Pregnancy and Childbirth book, 7th edition

E.S.G.

 

I had heard about the so-called sustainable investment ratings, otherwise referred to as the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating, in general discussions about investment strategy. However, I had assumed that this was something that the Americans had invented to make their pensioners even more miserable amongst rising prices, rising crime and woke policies. Imagine my concern when I came across an article in the London FT headed, ESG Ratings Face Examination in Fight Against Greenwashing ( FT 28/05/22). It seems that it is not just an American phenomenon after all. In essence, the aim of an ESG investment is not to maximise shareholders returns but to take a more holistic view and to invest in companies that maximise stakeholders returns.

The ESG strategy means investing in companies that score highly on environmental and societal responsibility scales as determined by third-party, independent companies and research groups. “At its core, ESG investing is about influencing positive changes in society by being a better investor,” says Hank Smith, Head of Investment Strategy at The Haverford Trust Company. (Forbes Advisor)

If we lay aside the aims of ESG, as stated by Hank Smith, the thrust of the FT article was to look at the question of the quality and integrity of the ‘third-party, independent companies and research groups’ as mentioned above. The concern is that some rating agencies are providing false or, suspect data to promote companies with ratings that are misleading to investors. This is known as greenwashing. As Sacha Sadan says, “People do get surprised when they see certain stocks (such as oil and gas) in a portfolio that’s an ESG best in class … and that’s why, as a consumer regulator looking after people, we have to make sure that is correct.” (FT 28/05/22) Various government agencies and the EU are getting involved to put some standards and structure into this unregulated area with particular focus on ‘transparency, conflicts of interest and requirements to demonstrate the validity of metrics’.  Before we get carried away with even more regulation, perhaps we should take note of Klasa’s observation about rating agencies in her article.

Rating agencies attracted controversy in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis when they gave prime ratings to highly risky mortgage-backed securities that ultimately blew up and tanked global markets. A 2011 US government enquiry concluded that the leading, “credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. (FT 28/05/22)

What the FT article is saying is that everyone’s definition on what is an acceptable ESG rating, is a matter of the agencies or in house departments own world view. Given that amount of ambiguity, would you buy a used car from these people?

What are the basic factors that rating agencies take into account to produce an ESG score. In the first instance we have already mentioned the transition from shareholder to stakeholders return as a measure of a company’s success. According to Forbes, the stakeholders are ‘workers, communities, customers, shareholders and the environment.’ ESG proponents would argue that a positive drive to satisfy stakeholders in a company would show that it is well run and a good bet for investors. To assist in this evaluation Forbes has defined the objectives that would promote a good ESG score in the three categories. In summary, under the Environmental heading the question is, what environmental impact does the company have.  This may be measured by its carbon footprint, pollution or practises that may impact on the climate. On the Social front, the company is measured on its social impact both within and outside of the company. Therefore, are it’s hiring policies diverse and inclusive. Does it support progressive groups like BLM and LGBQIA within its employees and the broader community. Governance looks at how the management is structured. Is it diverse and representative? Does it drive progressive change? I am sure that my summary can be improved on by those promoting the ESG approach but it must be obvious that, in the main, these are political objectives.  The assumption is that by driving companies to achieve these social goals then you achieve the twin objectives of a more progressive community and a more profitable business. To say that most of these objectives are subjective understates the case and to assume that becoming a good ESG rated company makes you a profitable investment lacks logic. One of the biggest supporters of ESG is Blackrock and I mention it not because it is the only company promoting ESG but because its CEO, Larry Fink, is the most vocal.  Mr Fink has been very vocal in his opposition to fossil fuels but has made a huge wager on the Chinese economy by investing in China’s Mutual

source: Rhodium Group

Fund Industry. The graph to the left shows that China’s Greenhouse Gas emissions exceed that of all developed nations combined (BBC 07/05/21). Does this not conflict with the E for Environmental part of the ESG policy he promotes? Does the fate of Muslims under the Chinese regime fit with the S for Social inclusiveness and equity segment? As for G for Governance, who knows how the Mutual Funds are managed in this respect. As reported in the Times, “BlackRock’s silence on China’s regime is particularly jarring because of its evangelical promotion of environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. “A company cannot achieve long-term profits without embracing purpose and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders,” Fink said in his latest annual letter to chief executives. (The Times, 30/08/20) So far, we have a political progressive policy, that cannot be universally defined, which is hugely subjective and as we have seen, very selective and open to corruption. But is it successful as an investment strategy? To be fair, it is a little too early to evaluate with any certainty. However, logic would suggest that if our only objective was shareholder return, then it would seem that by excluding non-progressive companies, that the pool of potential profitable investments is reduced. It may be a little mischievous of me to note that the people who would make investment choices on your behalf have just achieved a new investment record. As reported by Bloomberg, Blackrock managed funds lost $1.7 trillion of its clients’ money since the beginning of the year — the largest sum ever lost by a single firm over a six-month period. Another casualty was the investment company that manages Harvard University’s portfolio which made a loss last year. In a response to questions about the loss, one of the points made by HMC was that it restricted the type of investment it made and thus reduced the possibility of a positive return.  “A number of institutional investors leaned into the conventional energy sector, through either equities or commodity futures, adding materially to their total return. HMC did not participate in these returns given the University’s commitment to tackling the impacts of climate change, supporting sustainable solutions, and achieving our stated net Zero goals.” (HMC, October2022) The concept of shareholder returns is a simple and well-established concept and is easily measured. Public policy is made by elected governments and is enforced by law where interested parties can make their case. Thus, there is a large volume of employment, environmental and social law which a company must abide by. What ESG attempts to do is push a social and political policy on companies by using investors funds to vote progressive policies at AGM’s and bar access to investment by downgrading ESG scores for non-favoured companies. By doing this, Blackrock and its associates by passes public review and attempt to effect political change by the back door. If we return to the attempts to regulate this train wreck, we might extend the list of actors of whom we should be nervous. As Klas pointed out in her article, the rating agencies have a very poor record on ‘transparency, conflicts of interest and requirements to demonstrate the validity of metrics.’ The same complaint can be made of the ideologically driven green decisions made by western governments which has resulted in the energy crisis. Neither big investment companies nor governments can be trusted to regulate in favour of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

I hope that I have brought the discussion up to date but even though I have described my problems with the actors promoting this ideology I have not stated my basic opposition to it in principle. The current status of this debate is how do we regulate the ESG policy, but I take issue with it at a more fundamental level.  In my own case I have invested in a private pension after agreeing a risk factor, targeted net income and an appropriate portfolio with my pension advisor. As far as I am concerned the objective is to give me the highest income possible commensurate with the agreed parameters.  I have no contact or contract with Blackrock or with any other investment vehicle and yet they use my funds to promote progressive policy. How can that be legal? Rather belatedly, this challenge has been taken up in the US.

Nineteen state attorneys general wrote a letter last month to BlackRock CEO Laurence D. Fink. They warned that BlackRock’s environmental, social and governance investment policies appear to involve “rampant violations” of the sole interest rule, a well-established legal principle. The sole interest rule requires investment fiduciaries to act to maximize financial returns, not to promote social or political objectives. (WSJ 6/09/22)

We have become so used to everyone else resolving our perceived problems that we have surrendered our rights and responsibilities as individuals. We listen to that seductive voice that says, don’t worry we are the experts, and we know what’s best for you.  However, the reputation of ‘experts ‘as a class has suffered some damage over the past few years. For example, those experts who didn’t see or, benefited from, the 2009 crash. Those experts who claimed to be ‘the science’ but closed down opposing opinions during Covid. Those who supported the Tavistock Institute and their like, supplanting ideology for science and in the process doing great harm to children. We have the prospect of a cold winter and sky-high energy prices due to governments lack of any common-sense strategy in relation to green policies. The list goes on, but the message is the same. Perhaps the experts and professional classes are not so expert in matters that exist in the real world.

ESG is one example where an unpopular social change is introduced via the backdoor and suddenly, we are financing something that we fundamentally disagree with. What can we do about it? The first thing to do is to recognise that it is happening all around us. I used to be very sceptical about conspiracy theories, but lately they have an unfortunate habit of being wholly or partly true. We only need to think of the origins of Covid and how the idea that it began in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was fiercely contended for so long. I am not saying that we should review the arguments promoted by the Flat Earth Society, but we should apply the same level of scepticism to those that make decisions on our behalf in the name of the experts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

Adrienne Klasa, 28/05/22, Financial Times, ESG Ratings Face Examination in Fight Against Greenwashing, p15

E. Napoletano, Benjamin Curry, no date, Forbes Advisor, www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/esg-investing/

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined, 07/05/21, BBC, bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57018837

Jed Rubenfeld and William P. Barr, 6/09/22, Wall Street Journal Opinion, ESG Can’t Square With Fiduciary Duty

,N.P. “Narv” Narvekar,October 2022,Harvard Management Company,/finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy22_hmc_letter.pdf

Emma Dunkley, 30/08/20, The Times, Larry Fink, thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-fink-blackrocks-ethical-investment-evangelist-kowtows-to-beijing-wqt6hs3jp

Letter to The Financial Times – 23/08/22

 

I was somewhat puzzled by the weekend article entitled, ‘Apprehension and Reconciliation in the Deep South’ written by your L.A. bureau chief, Christopher Grimes. Was it a family travelogue where the absent son returns to his roots and reconciles with family over the political divide or, was it just another political hit piece? My reading suggest the latter as most of the article focussed on the Republican candidate Herschel Walker with a guilty by association with Trump verdict. There was no context to the article outlining the issues or, any mention of Walkers opponent, Raphael Warnock, who has an even more interesting history. It seems clear to me that Mr Grimes resignation from ‘nuance and soft reasoning’ extends to his political views. Perhaps he should leave the L.A bubble more often and reconnect with the real world.

Source

Grimes, C (20/08/22), Apprehension and Reconciliation in the Deep South, FT Weekend Magazine. p14

What a Tangled Web We Weave – Liz Cheney and the Jan 6 Committee.

I read an article in the FT headed, “Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings.” (FT 23/7/22) I have seen similar articles in American publications and if I had seen this in the New York Times or the Washington Post it would not have surprised me. I have to say that I was a bit taken aback to see it in the FT and I thought that anyone who wasn’t following US politics would have been misled by the lack of context in the article. If the point of the article was only to say that Liz Cheney had benefited from Prime Time exposure I could have lived with that as a premise but challenged it as a fact. I think that it is more than wishful thinking on behalf of the quoted  Democratic Congressman who suggests that the Liz Cheney Committee will save the Dems in the mid terms. The fact that this attempt to divert attention away from the President’s miserable performance, has failed is reflected in the Yahoo, YouGov poll which put Trump above Biden if the election was held today.

The article started out by describing Cheney’s determination to end Trumps political career but doesn’t explain that she is part of the ‘never Trumpers’ wing of the Republican Party. The Committee’s verdict has already been decided in advance of the hearing and her role in massaging the evidence to try to convict Trump has  won much praise from his enemies. Reference to her being “..the star of the show” and it being thanks to her that, “we now have this weight of evidence in favour of prosecuting Trump.” (FT 23/7/22) are evidence of this. The fact that the Hearings are very much a Show and not a Trial is underlined by the appointment of James Goldston to produce the TV episodes. His mission is to, “hone a mountain of explosive material into a captivating multimedia presentation for a prime-time hearing,” (Axios, 6/6/22)

“Jan. 6 committee enlists media chief who buried Epstein scandal to dramatize prime-time hearing”  BLAZETV STAFF, June 08, 2022

It should be impossible to mention the January 6th Committee and Liz Cheney without detailing it’s purely partisan and corrupt structure. The fact that a Congressional Committee is not allowed to pursue criminal charges is ignored by Cheney and the Democrats but the objective is clear. An example of this is the Cassidy Hutchinson episode where her ‘evidence’ was brought, at short notice, to prime time television but it turned out to be another bombshell that failed to ignite. From the start her every sentence seemed to be qualified by, ” he said something to the effect of …”. A first year trial Lawyer would have asked, ” But I am asking you what he did say.” But there was no cross examination because the entire committee, Judge and Jury was made up of people who had voted for Trumps impeachment. A unbiased Judge would have ruled out most of her ‘testimony’  because it was hearsay and as it turns out was contested by the people she quoted. The dramatic wrestling match between an unfit President and three secret service agents in the Presidential SUV has been declared untrue by the agents present. A note, written by Hutchinson and identified by her as being in her handwriting has been claimed by Eric Herschmann to have been written by him. Surely this could be resolved by recalling Eric Herschmann and the agents but the Committee declined to do this, why?  Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (see note)

It is clear that the American public would like an unbiased investigation about Jan 6 and also the summer of BLM riots that proceeded it. They would be interested in finding out how the Capital Police was so unprepared; what role the FBI played especially given it’s involvement in the Governor Whitman case; who is Ray Epps; did the Capital Police start the violence and so many other questions. Many of these questions could be answered by releasing the 14,000 hours of CCTV and body cam video that the DOJ refuses to release. Why? The American public should be able to make up their own mind based on all testimony being released to public view and all witness’s being cross examined  by the Congressmen that were nominated by the Republicans. Instead we have little bits of testimony selectively leaked to the public or testimony of the quality of  Cassidy Hutchinson.

There is no smoking gun, either figuratively or literally. “As of last month, according to the Justice Department, about 80 Capitol protesters have been charged with possessing a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Examples of those weapons include pepper spray, flags, walking sticks or batons, a helmet, a taser, and a fire extinguisher—hardly the kind of items that could be successfully used in overthrowing the government.” Julie Kelly 5/7/22

Much of the evidence is already known to the public but the Cheney’s Committee has attempted to stitch together a story that falls apart at the slightest challenge. If we take the snippets and highly edited pieces of Trumps speeches, that make up the montage of ‘evidence’ supporting an insurrection charge, we can apply a simple test to see whether the attendees on that day saw it as a call to arms or, merely Trumpian rhetoric.  Estimates of the numbers attending the rally vary widely, mainly on partisan lines. If we take a mid point between the Law Enforcement and Associated Press estimates  we come to a crowd of 40,000. (See note) If we round up the numbers arrested for Jan 6  offences, we are currently around 850, we can say that 98% of those attending were not incited to insurrection. I understand that this is a very rough and ready test, perhaps the crowd number should be higher or lower. Certainly, the majority of charges  are for parading and trespassing, not charges usually associated with insurrection but the conclusion still stands.

So why so much discussion on the partisan committee, when the article merely commented on  Liz Cheney’s, new found, popularity amongst the left?  Two reasons. The first is that this show trial would be impossible without her enthusiastic support and this corrupt Commission will be what she will be remembered for. Therefore, writing about Liz Cheney and not exposing the Committee is a little like discussing Nixon without exploring Watergate.  The second is that I would partly agree with the articles conclusion that a Republican candidate, such as DeSantis, would benefit the most from these proceedings. However, there is another possibility that given the current Presidents inability  to succeed on any issue, that it may result in a call for a strong leader which would favour Trump in 2024. It would be somewhat ironic if Liz Cheney lit the fuse that propelled Trump to a second term.

 

 

Notes

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. Wikipedia

Rally Numbers: “Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press.” L.A. Times, Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection, The facts you need to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection and its fallout – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Sources

Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings, Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 23/7/22

Yahoo News/YouGov poll Yahoo Tabs | PDF | Fox News | Msnbc (scribd.com) 

Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ Julie Kelly 5/7/22 Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ › American Greatness (amgreatness.com) 

Scoop: Jan. 6 committee’s secret adviser, Mike Allen, Axios AM, 6/6/2022

,

Jan 6

As January 6th approached I wondered how the President would approach the Capital riots, one year on. To summarise his Jan 6th speech, he managed to get through it more or less coherently but failed miserably to take the opportunity to unite a country that his administration had done much to divide. The subtext was that those MAGA right winger deplorables couldn’t be trusted with democracy and that only he and his cohorts could carry the torch of freedom handed down by the founders. It was the speech of a desperate man beset on all sides by the evidence of his own failures and so, no surprise to anyone.

To get a fresh look at the event with the benefit of hindsight, I turned to the Irish Times and was immediately struck by the editorial titled The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack. (IT 06/01/22) I suppose that I shouldn’t have been too surprised but the lack of any basic journalistic endeavour to present a balanced view is very tiresome and yet another example of where the legacy press is today. I don’t intend to examine it line by line but the word Insurrection in the title deserves some attention. As the editorial staff at the Irish  Times well know, a Reuters report in August 2021, reported that the FBI could find no evidence of an insurrection.

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) – The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials. Reuters 21/08/21

The Times in it’s own editorial initially refers to the rioters as a ‘mob‘ that stormed the Capital and then upgraded them to ‘insurrectionists‘ mid way through the piece. MSN defined the term Insurrectionist as follows, “The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” At this point I would like to commend the IT for not calling it an armed Insurrection as many others did. As of 1st May 2021 Julie Kelly (13/05/21) found that only 44 out of  400 people arrested were charged with either possessing or using a dangerous weapon. The list of the armoury is as follows:

  • Nine people with pepper spray;
  • Nine people with a pole or flagpole;
  • Four people with a riot or police shield;
  • Four people with a small baton;
  • Three people with a stick;
  • Three people with a baseball bat;
  • Two people with a taser;
  • Two people with a fire extinguisher;
  • Two people with a crutch;
  • One person with a stun gun/walking stick;
  • One person with a police helmet;
  • One person with a knife;
  • One person with a hockey stick;
  • One person with an ice axe.

No wonder the combined forces of the Capital Police, DC Metropolitan Police, FBI and the National Guard were overcome!

The editorial goes on to repeat the progressives trope that Trump was responsible for the attack stating, “the insurrectionists were directed by the then president to “fight” to prevent Vice-President Mike Pence from validating the electoral college votes in the official tally in the House that day.”  The word “fight” used by Trump in his address on the 6th has been used by nearly every newspaper as evidence that he was urging his supporters on to defeat the government by force. The IT deliberately took it out of context. When Churchill called for the British people to ” fight on the beaches” he literally meant that people should forcibly defend their homes against the invaders. When Boris says that he will fight the next election on a certain issue the  difference in meaning is quite clear and the public and the IT know it. What is strangely missing from the text is what Trump also said and this needs no interpretation,

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” D Trump excerpt from 06/01/21 speech

Here the Irish Times and its political allies in the US have a problem. In the Cambridge Dictionary definition of an Insurrection there has to be three elements: organisation, ambition to overthrow the government and violence. The same report from Reuters stated, “Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.” The Reuters article was published in August 2021, does anyone believe that if there was any possibility of tying Trump to any of these elements, that the press and big tech would remain quiet? Also very telling is the fact that as at Jan 4th. 2022, although unleashing the largest investigation under taken by Federal agencies the DC prosecutors haven’t enough evidence to charge any of the 710 arrested with insurrection or any like charge.  Of the 71 sentenced so far, 64 were found guilty of misdemeanours’ of which the most common charge was for parading or demonstrating in the Capital. (realclearinvestigations 04/01/22) I mean parading???

Hopefully, we have dispensed with the IT and US legacy press claim than Jan 6th was an insurrection.  However, the Democratic led Jan 6th. Committee is trying very hard to connect the Capitol riots with historic events such as Pearl Harbour and 9/11. They are trying to make the riot a unique event, another ‘day of infamy.’ The difficulty here is twofold. The first is that  just as with the two impeachment attempts, the public has moved on. The second is that so called ‘threats against democracy’ are more common than they pretend. For example, in 2009 the Wisconsin State Capital was attacked by progressive protesters. In Texas the State Capital was invaded by Pro Choice activists and in 2017 there was the anti Trump riots in DC protesting against Trumps inauguration. We also have the invasion of the Capitol during the Kavanagh proceedings in an attempt to halt the business of Congress. If the Committee and the IT were really interested with ‘threats to democracy’ perhaps they should look at the almost year long riots of the previous year. Real Clear Investigations did a comparison of the Jan 6, 2020 and 2017 riots. The summary is as follows:

Highlights:

The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police  officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.

Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigour than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases, and prosecutors and judges alike have weighed Capitol riot defendants’ political views in adjudicating their cases.

Dozens of accused Capitol rioters have been held in pretrial detention for months, where they have allegedly been mistreated.

In the summer 2020 riots, the vast majority of charges were dismissed, as they were in the Inauguration 2017 unrest. Prosecutors have dropped a single Capitol riot case.

I think that the BLM led protests of 2020 fit the definition of an insurrectionist movement much better than the ill led and organised mob that the IT and legacy media see as the main threat to democracy. The message here is that when you discuss an historical event, context is everything. This applies not only to the riot but also to the editorial reference to electoral fraud and Trumps attempt to reverse the result. We seem to have forgotten that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won. The House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004  and President Trump’s win in 2016. Four years after the vote Clinton is still claiming she won. “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for … The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.” (Yahoo 20/10/20) So was Clinton and the legacy press’ claim that Trumps election was illegitimate the match that ignited the 2017 riot which resulted in 200 arrests?

The full title of the editorial is The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack. Hopefully, you accept that the claims that Jan 6th was an insurrection have been disproved. By the way, a good test to ask anyone who pushes the insurrection claim, is to ask them how many people were killed that day. If they say 7, then they are including 3 people who died subsequently to the riot. If we take the remainder, on the day,  one died of an accidental overdose, two of heart failure and one was shot. So who was actually killed on Jan 6? It was an unarmed protester, Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by a Capitol Police officer whilst she was attempting to enter the building via a window. I can only say that if the same procedure was applied to the BLM protested police shootings as was applied in this case we would see a repeat of the 2020 violence in a city near you today. As a foot note, Officer Sicknick was not killed by a fire extinguisher or bear spray but suffered a heart attack post Jan 6. So what is left in the article to discuss. The IT has followed the progressive line in calling voter legislation fraud, “There is a real danger that the changes could facilitate a Trumpite-Republican majority in the November midterms and even clear a path to Trump’s re-election in 2024.” (IT 06/01/22) You will note the breathless invocation of ‘the Trump’ as if there is no other proof needed to evidence the presence of evil intent in the Bills. I think that the comparison between the various red state  reforms with Biden’s Voting Rights Bill is for another day but I would recommend Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway as a thought provoking assertion that the election was fraudulent but in a different way than Trump argued. Think Hunter Biden and the news blackout about the contents of his laptop, during an election.

Jan 6 is a very big subject and much of the true story hasn’t been told. Video evidence has been restricted and even denied to defence attorneys on very frail grounds. The involvement of the FBI is beginning to be questioned especially after revelations in the forthcoming Governor Witmer case. Given the size of the Federal police operation, why is there no progress on the mysterious ‘pipe bomber’? The New York Times reported that at least two FBI informants were with the Proud Boys when they breached the first exterior barrier right before 1 p.m. on January 6, doing what exactly? What about accusations of police brutality, have they been properly investigated? Why was the Capitol Police so badly prepared and why won’t Pelosi release her mails concerning the Security of Congress. Are those arrested being given fair trials and why are some still in prison for minor charges, especially comparing this to the bail set for the Wisconsin Parade Killer. Where is the ACLU on prisoners rights as a Judge finds two DC Jail officials in contempt of Court stating, “I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abused”? (thedailybeast13/10/21) The list just keeps going and as I have already stated the public has moved on. The strategy of using Trump to frighten voters has failed in Virginia and other states where the lack of any alternate  Democratic policy was laid bare. The IT  editorial has a second part to it which claims that, “US democracy is still under attack.” Do we really think that these mainly ‘trespasser’s’ and ‘paraders’ and rioters armed with sticks and pepper spray are domestic terrorists? Are they really a match for the forces of law ranged against them such as the DC Police, Capital Police, ATF, FBI, Secret Service, National Guard et al? The real threat to Democracy is where the Attorney General investigates parents who criticise school boards under domestic terrorism laws. The real threat to Democracy was a lie supported by the legacy press, big tech and senior government officials who claimed that the elected President was a Russian Spy.  The real threat to Democracy was the corrupt affairs of  Hunter Biden in China and Ukraine and the possible link to his father. The real threat to Democracy was the suppression of any reference to the Hunter Biden laptop which had an effect on the election. There are many other examples of politically driven malfeasance from Biden’s administration where the common denominator is a corrupt elite in government, the law, education, entertainment and big tech supported by the compliant press..    This is what I see in the Irish Times editorial. A willingness to buy in to a narrative that was set on Jan 6 before all the facts were clear.  A  hysterical clinging to the bogeyman Trump and an unwillingness to commit to good, well balanced journalism.

 

 

 

 

References

All emphasis or highlighting in the text is mine. 

The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack , Editorial, 06/01/22

FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6 (msn.com)  Conn Carroll, 20/08/21

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated – sources | Reuters , and 

Still No Evidence of Armed Insurrection on Jan. 6 (theepochtimes.com) Julie Kelly, 13/05/21

www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html Jan 4th

news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html, Mairead McArdle, 9/10/20

www.thedailybeast.com/furious-judge-finds-dc-jail-officials-in-contempt-for-abuse-of-jan-6-prisoner-christopher-worrell, Pilar Melendez, 13/10/21

Innocent until proved guilty?

 

I had been following the case of the January 6th rioters/protesters in the US who had been arrested but held on remand for, in some cases, over seven months in conditions that would not be accepted for convicted criminals. In this case the presumption of innocence seems to have been suspended for purely political reasons. It was with these thoughts in mind that I saw that a conviction for rape had been quashed in the High Court, in the UK, after the discovery of new evidence that was not put before the Jury at the original Trial in 2013.  The reason for my interest was that the  issue of consent was at the centre of the prosecution’s case which meant that the Jury had to make it’s decision on whose evidence it found more believable. The accuser presented an edited number of posts which supported her claim that there was little contact between her and the accused after sex. The accused, Danny Kay, asked the prosecution to assist in recovering the deleted messages but this wasn’t done and he was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. It was his sister-in-law who discovered the backup files which were the basis for his successful appeal. The Appeal Judge, Mr Justice James Goss said: “We have come to the conclusion that, in a case of one word against another, the full Facebook message exchange provides very cogent evidence both in relation to the truthfulness and reliability of (the woman) … and the reliability of (Mr Kay’s) account and his truthfulness.” (BBC 22/12/20)  Mr Kay was released from prison after serving two years of his sentence. Before we get to the question of presumption of innocence I would like to comment on the police and prosecution’s lack of competence in this case. Mr Kay had warned them that the evidence on which they based their case was misleading and edited but with all the technical expertise at their disposal it was the defendants sister-in-law who found the  evidence that was so compelling to the Court of Appeal. Mr Kay’s lawyer said, “Danny’s case is slightly unusual because all reasonable lines of inquiry don’t necessarily seem to have been followed,” (BBC 5/1/18). You don’t say!

Derbyshire Police said it has referred its investigation to an independent regional review team to “ensure lessons are learned” and “would welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation with Mr Kay.”

The concept of presumed innocence goes far back into history and has many sources. In it’s widest sense François Quintard-Morénas can see elements of the doctrine as far back as the  ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi ; the ancient Greeks and Roman Law but he claims that it was the 14th. Century French jurist, Johannes Monachus, who first coined the phrase, “innocent until proved guilty.” This concept has made it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as follows.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

Having served prison time and with his reputation permanently damaged Mr. Kay sought compensation for the unsound verdict. As his lawyer pointed out, “the government had not properly considered how the woman’s manipulation of the messages undermined her credibility and the context of the discussions.” (BBC 01/08/21) As an aside I would have said that his conviction was also partly due to the prosecution not doing it’s job. This was turned down and the reasoning is interesting and I have copied the rationale from the BBC report as follows.

Lady Justice Macur said the retrieved messages “did not explicitly or implicitly discuss the act of sexual intercourse or the issue of consent, nor establish that the nature of the ongoing interaction was inconsistent with an offence of rape”. While noting Mr Kay “has suffered greatly because of his conviction and imprisonment”, she said his case did not meet the requirements for an award to be made. “For compensation to be payable, the newly discovered fact admitted into the appeal proceedings must positively disprove the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and not merely undermine the safety of the conviction,” she said. BBC 1/08/21

What Lady Justice Macur is saying is that the original case was found to be unsafe because evidence undermining the credibility of the accuser was withheld. In this case the question of whether consent was given was the central issue and it was decided on the basis of who the Jury believed. However, to receive compensation a new and higher bar has to be met. Not only has Mr Kay to prove that the prosecution did not prove it’s case but Mr Kay has to prove his innocence. 

If we believe that an accused is innocent until proved guilty we must believe that Mr Kay is innocent. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt not for him to prove his innocence. The finding of Lady Justice Macur might lead others to say that he only got off on a technicality, the ‘no smoke without fire’ argument. The reality in this case was that the person making the accusation, knowingly doctored evidence and lacked credibility yet, it is Mr Kays name that is in the news. It is Mr Kay who served prison time on the basis of the accusers tainted evidence and the incompetence of  the authorities. It is Mr Kay who has to prove his innocence, even though validated by the Court of Appeal, to obtain compensation.

There are principals in law and civilisation that are self evidentially right and fair yet they are constantly under threat, never more so than now. They are being eroded everyday and Mr Kay’s experience is a case in point. He is innocent of the crime of rape but  still guilty in Lady  Justice Macur’s court room and his good name has suffered by her decision. His accuser doesn’t have these problems as she is protected by law from being identified. I can understand the reasons for this but shouldn’t presumption of innocence mean that he should have the same protection? We could also take the case of Zachary Benn who was held on remand in prison for six months on the charges of rape, sexual assault, blackmail, robbery, and possession of a bladed article. A desperate character indeed but the prosecution offered no evidence when it went for trial. The Recorder observed that it was unsatisfactory for the authorities to enter a plea of nolle prosequi on the date of the trial whilst the defendant was held in prison for six months. According to the Manchester Evening News “the complainant had admitted to telling untruths and further enquiries by the police and fire service had uncovered more untruths.” Even though the claimant held to her story, the police couldn’t support a prosecution. Note the language in the context of this essay. The claimant told “untruths”, otherwise know as lies and,” …it was deemed there was not a realistic chance of a conviction.” rather than, Mr Benn had been falsely accused and he is innocent under the legal concept of presumption of innocence.

The two examples given above relate to accusations of rape where there is no neutral witness or, forensic evidence to support a charge either way. It is not intended to be an assault on the #Me To movement or to be a deterrent to men or women bringing such cases to law. What I am trying to demonstrate is that there is a fundamental principle of law that you expect to be the guiding principle in any case where someone makes an accusation against you or someone you care for.

Mr Kay expressed his shock at the proceedings which led to his imprisonment, “It was devastating for a system that you trust to let you down like that … I had complete faith in it, I trusted that the truth would come out in the trial and it didn’t.” (BBC 05/01/18)

 You might take the view that mistakes happen that these cases are rare and it is better for the community to call out the many and suffer a small number of casualties than the other way around. The problem is that these are everyone’s protection and in these days of partisanship you too might find yourself condemned in the court of  public opinion and subsequent conviction in a court of law. The Crown Prosecution Service conducted a review of rape cases current in 2018 and found that in 47 cases the prosecution had withheld or, disclosed late, exculpatory evidence which could aid the defence.  Perhaps not so few casualties after all. Meanwhile, in the ‘Land of the Free’ at the Senate hearing to approve President Biden’s nomination for the position of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, Ms Lhamon was asked whether she had tweeted that enforcing presumption of innocence and due process on college campus’s would result in more sexual abuse? She replied, “I think what I said in the tweet, so, the regulation permits students to rape and sexually harass with impunity.” (Newsmax 4/08/21) Ms Lhamon co authored the ‘Dear Colleague Letter’ which forced over 500 colleges to reduce defendant student rights when accused of discriminatory harassment purportedly forbidden under Title IX. This resulted in over 700 civil actions brought by students who were refused basic constitutional and Human Rights by the college equivalents of the the 17th. century Star Chamber.

As mentioned in my opening paragraph, the erosion of rights are not limited to sexual crimes but to those involved in the January 6th. riots and many other cases. Once basic rights are seen as expendable in one case then infection soon spreads to the extent that the President of the US can issue an executive order that he knows is unconstitutional. Doesn’t the end justify the means? Yes there is always collateral damage but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, can you? Even if you don’t see the inherent unfairness and injustice of this position the expansion of this attack on basic human rights will eventually engulf you and yours.

“It does not feel real to me and I don’t have closure. My life will not be the same again. … When I leave here I will not get my life back.” MEN 21/6/21

The above statement could have been made by any number of victims of crime but it was made by Mr Benn, who had spent six months in prison, falsely accused of rape.

Sources

Rape conviction quashed over new Facebook evidence – BBC News 22/12/20

Danny Kay: Rape conviction man ‘let down’ by system – BBC News 5/01/18

Danny Kay: Man cleared of rape loses High Court compensation bid – BBC News   1/08/21

Kavanaugh, Ford and the History of Being ‘Presumed Innocent’ | Time 5/10/18

Man charged with rape is found not guilty and walks free from court – Manchester Evening News 21/06/21

Catherine Lhamon’s Nomination to Lead Civil Rights in the Department of Education Is Dead | Newsmax.com 4/08/21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I one of the Last Feminist Standing?

The Royal Courts of Justice in LondonA recent decision by the Court of Appeal caught my eye because it concerned  housing self identified female trans prisoners in female prisons. My interest had been tweaked because I had referenced a similar case in an essay in April 2019. (“Teeny – Weeny” O’Connor ) The facts of this case are that a female ex prisoner claimed that she had been sexually assaulted, whilst in prison, by a trans gender female (biological male). The trans female held a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and had previous convictions for serious sexual offences. (BBC 2/07/21) The plaintiff argued that women prisoners are placed at a higher risk when trans women are allowed to opt to serve their prison sentences in woman’s prison. In strict summary the Court found that the Minister of Justice (MOJ) acted lawfully under the terms of the Equality Acts, especially the Equality Act 2010. The MoJ (Defending) argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including “facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health”. (BBC 2/07/21) The Court did expand on the main findings in two important ways. Although it found the MOJ actions ‘lawful’ it did say that it may not necessarily be ‘desirable.’

In the first instance the Judge, Justice Holroyde,  said that it was the responsibility of the MOJ not only to carry out the terms of the relevant Equality Acts but to assess the risk to the female prison population of taking such actions. As he said, “… the policies require a careful, case group by case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed … Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so.” According to the women’s rights group, Fair Play for Woman (FPFW), the  MOJ does carry out risk assessment by only allowing trans women who are considered ‘safe’ or those who have changed their gender on their birth certificate to transfer to female prisons. Of the second group those who are considered ‘unsafe’ sleep in separate quarters at night and are supervised during the day. The Judge accepted that not only was there a physical risk in this situation but it was traumatic for women to be denied their safe space, especially for those who had suffered abuse in the past. “Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant’s case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition … that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.” Lord Justice Holroyde , Spectator 2/07/21

In the second instance, the Judge recognised that rights conferred under the Equality Acts are not infinite but constrained by the rights of others. In this case the interpretation of the MOJ that their responsibility was mainly,  “facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender ” (sic) Judge Holroyde made it clear that the MOJ, through it’s policies had an equal responsibility to both the trans and non trans  women in the prisons.“… the policies permit, and indeed require, the necessary balancing of competing rights.” Lord Justice Holroyde , Spectator 2/07/21. 

One disturbing aspect of this case was the absence of reliable statistics. You would have thought that as the issue was a matter of great public interest that the MOJ and the Prison Service would have kept extensive records of numbers of trans woman in the prison population as a whole and those that had transferred to woman’s facilities. It seems that between 2016 and 2019, 97 cases of sexual assault were recorded in female prisons of which 7 appears to have been committed by trans women. The problem is that these numbers relate only to those trans women without a GRC. There are no numbers for those who have a GRC document. (BBC 2/07/21) In my view the Judge made a rather odd comment about the lack of data and the quality of the little that was produced. He said the plaintiffs  ‘claims about the risk of sexual assault were a “misuse of the statistics, which… are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions”.’ (BBC 2/07/21) This seems somewhat unfair as it seems to suggest that the plaintiff is responsible for the provision and quality of MOJ and Prisons Service statistics. It also appears to conflict with his directions concerning the assessment of competing rights as it would be impossible to do this without access to comprehensive data. Fair Play to Women agreed and noted:

We say: without proper data, and without knowing the full extent of the impact on women, how can these competing rights be balanced properly? And when does a female’s right to safety override the feelings of males? Where do we draw that line and who decides? Fair Play for Women

Karen White

This case raises a number of issues and it reminded me of my earlier essay which focused on the fallacy of social justice which was founded on equality of outcomes. As part of this essay I had made a reference to a case of a self identified trans woman who had demanded and was allowed, to transfer to a woman’s prison. Her name was Karen White and her face and history was featured in a campaign leaflet created by Fair Play for Women, as shown above.  The leaflet hasn’t enough space to describe the horrendous record of this person. Let me summarise the criminal record of this woman.

Born – Stephen Terence Wood, Sentenced  for two counts of rape, two sexual assaults and one offence of wounding; previous convictions for indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, animal cruelty and dishonesty. Prosecutor Chris Dunn described White as an “alleged transgender female” who has used her “transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons whom she could then abuse.” The Guardian 11/10/18

Even the above record doesn’t give the full story, whilst on remand she admitted an attraction to children and said that she would think nothing of sexually abusing them. It would be difficult to find any creature less worthy of rights under the Equality Acts and yet the authorities upheld them even though the outcome was absolutely predictable.

The Ministry of Justice has apologised for moving her to the women’s prison, saying that her previous offending history had not been taken into account. The Guardian 11/10/18

There will be those who would say that this case is more than two years old and that new procedures have been put in to place since then to prevent a reoccurrence. To those people I would say that the the procedure is still being administered by the same people who criminally put this dangerous predator  into close proximity to very vulnerable women. The fact that there is no transparency in the process and that the authorities have done very little to collect data to see whether there is still risk makes me very sceptical about the good faith of the MOJ in this matter.

The Judge, quite rightly, established that there were competing rights in these cases and I will come back to that principle later. However, the framework of the Judgement suggests that there are only two stakeholders in the issue, transgender women and female prisoners. As you can see opposite, Fair Play For Women compiled a report using the woefully inadequate  MOJ and Prison statistics and best estimates. The key findings are represented here and a major point is that sexual and violent crimes are typically a male pattern offence, with some 13,000 male sex offenders in Prison against approx 100 females. (FPFW) According to their estimates 41% of transgender inmates are serving prison sentences for sex offenses and if this is correct we can draw a couple of conclusions from this. The first is that there is a third stakeholder in this discussion and that is the public at large. We are able to contrast two different ways of treating sex offenders inside and outside of prison. On the outside we are able to prevent the likes of Karen White teaching at Schools, joining children’s clubs or taking part in any activity that would put her in contact with vulnerable people. Almost uniquely, her record follows her even though she may have served a sentence for her crimes. Her name is recorded on a sex offenders register which is checked each time someone is being vetted for a position involving vulnerable communities and it is a defence against any challenge to the hiring policy of an entity, in these circumstances,  if a person on the list is refused a job. Therefore there is a recognised legal presumption that the risk to the community is too high given the rate of recidivism of sex offenders. Why then should a vulnerable population of women in prison be treated any differently?

The Judge in this case talked about competing rights. I would say that the first duty of the Prison Authorities is to the women prisoners basic Human Right of safety, privacy and dignity. In other words these rights are superior to those of the trans women.

FPFW has suggested that 41% of trans identifying women are sex offenders and question the basic assumption that these self identify women have in fact transitioned. They would claim that, ” … transwomen are not like women. Their sexual offending patterns are more in line with other males, and not females. As such, significant risk mitigation procedures must be in place before any trans-identifying male is allowed into a women’s prison.” In the case of those who have a record of sex offenses and who want to move to a women’s prison it should not be unreasonable to apply the ‘Duck test.’ That is,

if she walks like a man, talks like a man, offends like a man and has a man’s genitalia then surely he is a man!

As a first and immediate step any such person should be prevented from making such a move until there is a fully transparent and audited procedure in place.

At this point I would like to clarify that not all transgender inmates want to transfer to a women’s prison and that their position in male prisons is not enviable but it makes no sense to solve one problem by shifting it sideways to create a bigger one. Judge Holroyde has clarified some issues in his judgement but the question posed by FPFW has not been answered, ” when does a female’s right to safety override the feelings of males? Where do we draw that line and who decides?” What sort of tariff did the judge have in mind whilst data is collected by a strangely disinterested authority or, whilst new cases are being brought by female inmates. A rape, a couple of sexual assault’s, perhaps a suicide?

What has to be done? FPFW says that the first priority is to collect data that the authorities can be held accountable for. There must be research conducted by independent bodies into the effects on women of making any changes that may affect their human rights. I think that they will struggle to find academics of sufficient quality who will undertake this. As can be seen by the strength of the push back to any perceived challenge to the trans industry, a genuinely independent study requires people of courage who may find their careers at risk by even questioning the prevailing orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, the authorities have proved that they do not see this issue as a priority and will only act when they are forced to. This means a return to the Courts which, in turn, means that another woman has suffered unnecessarily.

The public discussion has been slow to start and the woman’s prison issue has followed the trans woman in woman’s sports case. These cases are linked but suffer from the same problem. The traditional defenders of woman’s rights have seemingly  nearly all retired. Those woman of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s who marched, chained themselves to railings and burned bra’s are all strangely quiet about the very definition of what is a woman. Those who do stand up for woman rights are labelled as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminist.) and vilified at every opportunity. There are notable exceptions such as Sharon Davies, Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling but it would be a brave person who hasn’t the financial security of these celebrities to risk all for principle. The case of Maya Forstater, who lost her job over her gender critical tweets has been repeated and the threat of retribution has silenced opposition to the trans industry. (See note) However, it isn’t just the fear of financial and career  loss that holds back  criticism of trans woman in woman’s prisons or, woman’s sport. After all, the warrior  feminist of the past claim to have faced far worse in facing the patriarchy.

Picture
The National Organization of Women

I would suggest that the difference between the Feminist cause in the 1960’s and now is that todays feminists are in denial about the identity of their true enemy. Second wave feminists evolved from the counter culture wars centred around anti Vietnam war protests.  “Feminists often thought of themselves as revolutionaries rejecting a fundamentally unequal and corrupt power establishment in favour of participatory democracy whereby all the voiceless and suppressed could gain a measure of control over their own lives.” (Counterculture) In this battle against Patriarchy they were supported by their revolutionary brothers and sisters who wanted to breakdown the existing structure and create a new order. For a while this disparate movement focussed around the war in Vietnam and the campaign for woman’s rights. After all, they were fighting the same enemy, weren’t they? The problem with this alliance was that that the revolutionaries didn’t see the improvements in woman’s rights as the end objective.  As the revolutionaries morphed into the ‘progressives’ they sought out new victims to champion, this time Gays and Lesbians became the new cause and Feminists slipped down the hierarchy of victimhood. As the movement gained pace and political respectability, new causes had to be found and now the cause of Trans genderism, which effects less than 1% of the population, dominates cultural and political debate. There are some who see the issue of men in woman’s sports and prisons as the return of the patriarchy but if there is such a thing as the collective Patriarchy, then it’s main characteristic is that it is traditional and conservative. Redefining woman as ‘people who menstruate’, is clearly not something they would do.

“We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced,” she continued. “Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now.” JK Rowling

It should be difficult to take issue with Rowling’s statement where the very idea that there is such a thing as a woman is in doubt yet, looking at the response to hers and other supporters of women’s rights  you can see the depth of hatred for her position. This is not from the right, not from men, not the usual suspects but from the progressives that the second wave feminists ran with. The ‘brothers and sisters’ look for a new outrage, a new cause that can galvanise the sheep into even more extreme positions and the feminists are afraid. They are afraid of losing their raison d’être,  losing their revolutionary credentials, losing their positions in academia and quango’s, above all losing their influence in the progressives new society. Like the old French revolutionaries they have to prove their loyalty and commitment to each new progressive absurdity and if that means abandoning the women’s cause, then so be it. History will repeat itself, the progressives will turn on themselves because their cause has no roots, no relevance to real life and real people will reject them. But for the moment, has it come to this? Can it be that women’s rights are left to old white men like me and a handful of women? Am I really one of last last feminists left standing?

 

Notes

Maya Forstater – lost her case against unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal as a result of gender critical tweets. This decision was reversed on appeal where the Judge said that the Tribunal had erred in law. Forstater said: “I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters.”

 

Sources

Trans Women in female jails policy lawful, High Court rules, BBC, Eleanor Lawrie, 2/07/21,www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57692993

The court judgement that confirms women pay for trans rights, Spectator, James Kirkup, 2/07/21, www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-court-judgement-that-confirms-women-pay-for-trans-rights

transgender prison policy | judicial review | Fair Play For Women, FPFW, 6/07/21

Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates • Fair Play For Women 

Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life, The Guardian, Nazia Parveen, 11/10/18

Picture THE 1960S-70S AMERICAN FEMINIST MOVEMENT: BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS FOR WOMEN.” Tavaana.

Feminism – Counterculture of the 1960’s and 1970’s (weebly.com)