We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
“Aborting baby girls proves Britain’s multiculturalism experiment has failed”, writes ex-Guardian writer Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph:
“…there are those who so value sons over daughters that they pressurise the women in their communities to abort female foetuses. This grim practice is called sex-selective abortion, and while most might assume that it only happens in the likes of China and India, it is in fact taking place in Britain too, among both first and second-generation immigrants whose roots lie in the Indian subcontinent.
It is rarely spoken about, but has come to light of late after the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provides abortions to more than 100,000 women across the UK annually, was criticised for suggesting that termination on the grounds of “foetal sex” was not illegal.
Official advice, however, begs to differ. “This Government’s position is unequivocal: sex-selective abortion is illegal in England and Wales and will not be tolerated,” the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said this week. “Sex is not a lawful ground for termination of pregnancy, and it is a criminal offence for any practitioner to carry out an abortion for that reason alone.”
Later in the article she gives her own view:
I may believe in a woman’s right to choose but this is not about choice. This is about maintaining “traditions” which dictate that sons are prized breadwinners and girls are to be married off.
I do not see any good reason for the scare quotes Suzanne Moore put around the word “tradition”. A tradition of which Suzanne Moore disapproves is still a tradition. Nor do I see any good reason for her saying “this is not about choice”. It quite obviously is about choice. Unlike Ms Moore, I am closer to being “pro-life” than “pro-choice”. Here’s an old post of mine that talks about that. I do not agree with the view that the question is simply one of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body; there is another life involved. The exact weight to give the competing rights of the foetus depend on a lot of factors, primarily how developed – how far from being a clump of cells and how near to being unquestionably a baby – the foetus is, but also including other factors such as the risk to the mother and whether the foetus is developing normally. However if one grants that a woman’s right to choose abortion does override the foetus’s right to life in particular circumstances, then the nature of a right to do something is that the person with that right does not need the approval of others to do that thing.
Putting it another way, how can it be justified that a female foetus that is solemnly decreed not to have a right to life suddenly gains that right if the woman wants to abort because of sexist tradition? Does that still work if the foetus is male and the woman wants to abort it because she’s a radical feminist?
There have been so many criticisms of Mearsheimer that I doubt anyone cares at this point. But I wanted to raise something rarely mentioned: M. is not actually making a realist argument. Which is ironic given how much damage he has done to the realist brand.
I’m going to share a secret only political scientists know about. There are actually two John J. Mearsheimers. The first one wrote The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) and says powerful states are dissatisfied by nature, and will go to war whenever they can. The second one, born in 2014, disagrees. Yes, states go to war because it’s the central feature of political life — except Russia, who goes to war because of American liberals. The first Mearsheimer is a theorist of international anarchy. The second is a moralist of American sin. The two have never met, but if they did they would hate each other.
– Seva Gunitsky
Starmer’s commitment to universal human rights – which necessarily implies open borders – is now a threat to national security and, paradoxically, the human rights of the British people. By welcoming el-Fattah, a virulent anti-Semite, Starmer has violated the right of our Jewish community to feel secure in their own land. His refusal to police the pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic hate marchers since October 2023 has also trampled on the security of British Jews and infringed upon their liberty – Central London has become a no-go zone.
– Joe Baron
Our speech laws are bad enough. But at least they can, in theory, be repealed and amended by members of parliament. NCHIs, by contrast, just bubbled up out of the policing quangocracy. No law was ever passed instructing the police to waste their time like this. But on and on they’ve gone, for more than a decade now.
– Tom Slater
When details of its launch leaked, the Financial Times branded it a “Reform UK think tank”. It is easy to understand this assumption: it is led by Jonathan Brown, a former Foreign Office diplomat who went on to serve as Reform’s Chief Operating Officer. But the reality is more nuanced. Non party-political, CFABB is part of a broader network that is sympathetic to Reform’s aims but not an adjunct of it.
Nimbleness is one contrast with traditional approaches. As James Orr, the chairman of CFABB’s advisory board, told me, Reform is not just disrupting Westminster with their politics, but also their speed of action. “As a start-up, they operate at a much faster pace than the conventional parties; Farage makes decisions on policies in minutes, rather than months. Westminster’s methodical think-tank cycle — commissioning research, editing reports, convening panels, publishing white papers — simply cannot keep up with leaders who decide policy positions as quickly as Reform.”
– Tom Jones
Benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice
– Annunziata Rees-Mogg
This is a real tweet from the European Commission:
https://x.com/EU_Commission/status/2004462313508950137f
One port, one cable, one Europe.
This holiday, unwrap the power of one: USB-C for all.
Yes, not just phones, tablets, and laptops. In three years, every charger will be under the same tree.
Because less waste, smarter choices, mean more for everyone, all year long.
https://link.europa.eu/QDMFTh
This is an excerpt from a scholarly article about the history of Islam:
By the beginning of the fourth century of the hijra (about A.D. 900), however, the point had been reached when scholars of all schools felt that all essential questions had been thoroughly discussed and finally settled, and a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one might be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all. This ‘closing of the door of ijtihad‘, as it was called, amounted to the demand for taklid, a term which had originally denoted the kind of reference to Companions of the Prophet that had been customary in the ancient schools of law, and which now came to mean the unquestioning acceptance of the doctrines of established schools and authorities.
– Joseph Schacht, quoted by Wael B. Hallaq in Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?
If you think that the ability of the European Commission to recognise when something has reached a point where no improvement is possible is good enough to allow it to safely close the door of ijtihad on charger cable design, consider the evident fact that none of the multiple people in the Berlaymont building over whose desks the draft of that tweet must have passed knew enough history to veto that title.
Just a reminder that no matter how bad things get, this too shall pass
In what might come as a surprise to some, and I would suggest is a counter to a broad narrative, an Employment Tribunal (a form of Labour Court) in England has upheld the principle that criticism of ‘unreformed’ Islam is legally protected. The Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether or not the Claimant (Plaintiff in old, sound [ 🙂 ] money) could in principle bring a claim on the basis that he held a belief that had sufficient cogency as to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. As far as can be discerned from the judgment, there was an issue (which is very much now an issue for a determination on the merits at a later hearing) as to whether the employer was taking action against the Claimant (the circumstances of which we know nothing) because of his manifestation of his belief, (which is permissible) rather than because he simply held those beliefs, which is not permissible; e.g. a nurse who is a devout Christian being sacked for being a Christian rather than specifically, sacked for e.g. saying to a seriously-ill patient ‘Convert or face Hell-fire soon!‘ which could well be a manifestation of a belief at which offence might be taken.
The issue that the Tribunal considered is set out in the judgment (linked above) as follows:
“The belief that Islam, particularly in a traditional form – rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form – is problematic and deserving of criticism in so far as it fails:
(i) To recognise a separation between religion (sacred) and politics (secular) and/or the Church and state,
(ii) To value and respect fundamental human rights such as:
• freedom of conscience and of speech,
• to eschew and condemn violence in the name of religion (Islam),
• to treat and respect women and girls equally when compared to men and boys.”
The Claimant appears to have been ‘hauled up’ by his employer over his Twitter/X usage, there is reference to a file of 141 pages showing his Twitter feed, which the employer sought (at this stage) to use to argue that his belief in the need for a ‘reformation’ of ‘unreformed Islam’ was not genuinely held, i.e. that he was using this ‘belief’ as a shield for views that would not be protected. That is yet to be determined, if it is continued with by the employer.
The main points of the Claimant’s case were the following which he considered problematic were noted at paragraph 13 in the judgment:
‘In his witness statement [C/14], the Claimant has cited the following
“traditional and unreformed Islamic belief[s]” that are that are incompatible with “Western values” in that they:
(i) advocate or justify violence against non-believers or apostates;
(ii) promote unequal legal status for women;
(iii) call for the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality;
(iv) reject the separation of religion and state, and seek to impose religious law;
(v) promote antisemitism or hatred towards groups including reformed Muslims;
(vi) condone child marriage;
(vii) permit forms of slavery or indentured servitude;
(viii) justify domestic violence, including wife-beating and female genital mutilation (“FGM”).’
It is important to note here that the Claimant’s belief isn’t about hostility towards Muslims as such, but to the holding and promotion of the ‘unreformed’ version of Islam that he is objecting to.
The issue for the Tribunal hearing the final case is summed up at paragraph 17:
‘The degree to which the Claimant will be able to establish that these tweets were a manifestation of the pleaded belief or that the Respondent will be able to show that these were inappropriate manifestations of, or otherwise separable from, the belief, are matters which fall to be decided at the final hearing.’
I.e. was the Claimant criticism of the ‘unreformed’ Islam that he weighs in against inappropriate, which takes into account the position that he held in the employer that he worked or works for.
There is nothing in this judgment that surprises me, it seems to be a legally-sound decision that the principle of criticising a belief on the basis of its incompatibility with ‘Western values’ (whatever they might be) is one where not only is it lawful, but an employer who acts against an employee for doing so (unless the manifestation is inappropriate) is itself acting unlawfully. Clearly, given that Courts are holding that such expression is legally-protected in principle, any notion that such comments are criminally unlawful are unfounded so any police action arising from those Tweets would be wholly unlawful.
And what we, the people, need to worry about is therefore that this is merely the start of Project Stop Fascism. Labour were only elected 18 months ago, and they have already reached a position at which they think it sensible to delay elections, mostly abolish jury trials, and begin edging back towards EU member status. What might they do in a year’s time? Two years’ time? Three?
Delaying the next General Election would require primary legislation, and one reassures oneself by thinking that they surely couldn’t go that far. But I’m by no means the only person who has had the thought crossing his mind, and the fact that senior Labour figures are being forced to dismiss the idea publicly – a dismissal which is about as reassuring as your boss telling you that there are ‘currently no plans for compulsory redundancies’ – itself would have been unthinkable two years ago.
– David McGrogan
There are also no prizes for guessing why Sir Keir is behaving in such an anti-democratic fashion. “If there is a Conservative government, I can sleep at night,” he said. “If there was a Right-wing government in the United Kingdom, that would be a different proposition.” He couldn’t have summarised the phenomenon of the uniparty any better if he’d tried.
Labour and the Conservatives, in this conception, are competitors: Reform is an enemy: an existential threat to a consensus both parties have played their role in promoting.
– Sam Ashworth-Hayes (£)
The Rycroft Review comes as the Head of MI6 has also warned about Russian propaganda and influence operations that “crack open and exploit fractures within societies.”
But if the review only confines itself to elections, party finance and overt corruption, it will miss one of the most consequential forms of foreign influence in recent decades: sustained Russian attempts to shape UK energy markets and energy policymaking.
It is now unarguable that decisions taken by ministers in the mid-2000s and 2010s left Britain dangerously exposed when gas prices surged in 2021–22. During this period, there were live debates on core questions of energy security: the future of strategic gas storage at Rough (closed down in 2017), nuclear policy, maximising recovery in the North Sea following the Wood Review (2013), the 2015 decision to end coal-fired generation, and the failure to develop UK shale gas. Through a combination of indecision and damaging policy choices, Britain’s exposure to international gas markets increased sharply.
– Maurice Cousins
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Recent Comments