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?
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
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
Last night in London, four days after the slaughter of Jews in our cousin nation of Australia, radical leftists held a vigil. For the dead Jews? Don’t be daft. It was for the Palestine Action hunger strikers. It was for those silver-spooned self-harmers, those preening, plummy food-dodgers who think they can do to the nation what they once did to mummy and daddy: stomp their feet until they get what they want. And there you have it: self-styled anti-fascists weeping not for the Jews murdered by fascists, but for vain, posh Brits whose torment is wholly self-inflicted.
– Brendan O’Neill
Britain is like an alcoholic who has spent a decade reassuring himself that, despite his binges and blackouts, he is “high functioning”. The reality is, however, that he is increasingly not actually functioning at all. We are headed for the rock bottom we so badly need. The moment of clarity is coming. It will be painful. But it’s the only thing that can save this country.
– Konstantin Kisin (£)
“Childhood criminal records to be wiped by David Lammy”, reports the Telegraph.
Childhood criminal records for thousands of people will be wiped under plans being considered by David Lammy.
The Justice Secretary is to review the current system in order to prevent people’s childhood convictions from blighting their future job prospects.
Mr Lammy is considering “simplifying” the system to ensure that checks are “proportionate” to their crime after evidence that people in their 50s, 60s and even 70s found that childhood offences such as stealing a bicycle or fighting in the street were still being disclosed to potential employers.
However, Mr Lammy’s plans have faced criticism over how far any changes would wipe potentially more serious offences, such as drug dealing or harassment, from childhood criminal records.
My first thought was the same as that of David Fairey, the writer of the top comment to the Telegraph story:
Ah! So this from a government that wants Farage to explain a comment he allegedly made aged 13?
Taking the breathtaking hypocrisy of the “liberal” establishment as a given, is this a good idea?
Penelope Gibbs, the director of Transform Justice and part of the FairChecks campaign, said: “Our criminal records system is unfair and holds people back from getting work. Childhood offences committed decades ago are disclosed on DBS checks even if the person has led a crime-free life for years.
“David Lammy is a long-standing supporter of the FairChecks campaign for reform, and has now committed to implementing positive change.”
There have been changes since Mr Lammy’s review in 2017, but campaigners said they fell short of his original proposal to wipe the slate clean for childhood offences except for the most serious.
He highlighted then how 22,000 black, Asian and ethnic minority children had their names added to the police national database, including for minor offences such as a police reprimand. Any police record can be taken into account in DBS checks if a constabulary decides it is relevant to a standard or enhanced job.
I would have to see what Mr Lammy’s exact words in 2017 were to see whether I was going to be as irritated by his “highlighting” the black and ethnic minority children in particular as the Telegraph writer wants me to be.
Mr Lammy said: “The result in adulthood is that their names could show up on criminal record checks for careers ranging from accountancy and financial services to plumbing, window cleaning and driving a taxi.
“I believe that once childhood cautions and convictions have become spent, they should very quickly become non-disclosable, even on standard and enhanced DBS checks. In my view, the system should provide for all childhood offending (with the exception of the most serious offences) to become non-disclosable after a period of time.”
If someone other than Lammy said it, would you agree?
To my surprise, Rachel de Souza, holder of the quintessentially Blairite office of Children’s Commissioner for England, is quoted in the Telegraph article and elsewhere as saying that children involved in the Southport riots should have their criminal records wiped.
I support the jury system as I support democracy: it is the worst system of justice around, except for all the others. My own experience of serving on a jury was inspiring in some ways, frustrating in others. The current Labour government wants to abolish them for all but the most serious cases. Assuming Sir Keir Starmer and Mr David Lammy MP are sincere in their claim that all they want to do is speed up justice, are there any better ways to do that than denying the accused their ancient right to a jury of their peers?
David Friedman was recently summoned to present himself for jury service in the US. He seems to have been sent home without ever reaching the jury-box. I have the impression that the the American courts turn away a higher percentage of those called to jury service than the UK courts do, and also that they make much more of a fuss about excluding jurors who might be biased, which over there often seems to mean in effect excluding jurors who might be intelligent. Despite this and many other differences between the two systems, not all of which favour the UK, I think that Professor Friedman’s observations on the careless way in which jurors’ time was wasted might be relevant to us here. The underlying reason Friedman and his fellow jurors (or whatever the word is for people who are called to be jurors but are not chosen) got to know every crack in the courthouse wall was that the people who have power to speed up or slow down cases pay next to nothing for the jurors’ time. Friedman writes:
What most struck me, as an economist, about the process was the implication of its having access to nearly free labor — there was no payment for the first day, fifteen dollars a day thereafter. The courthouse was towards the south end of the county, about half an hour’s drive from me, forty-five minutes from the north end. We were told that the jurors were selected at random, with no attempt to select jurors for cases in the south courthouse from the south end of the county — because doing that would have biased the selection, how was not explained.
Out of more than eighty of us called in only about twenty-one were put through the voir dire process. The rest were presumably there in case more were eliminated, but it is hard to see how that could justify calling in that many. A jury system that took the value of our time seriously could have called in half as many, perhaps fewer, and, if that occasionally turned out not to be sufficient, additional candidates the next day. By the end of the first day they knew that they had most of the jurors they needed, could have saved most of the rest of us the time and the trip.
Further evidence is how our time in the courthouse was used. We arrived the first day by nine, were sent home at four, a total of seven hours on site. Of those seven hours we spent most of an hour waiting to be told what room we were to go to, an hour and a half for lunch, two hour long breaks. We were actually involved in the jury selection process for less than three hours out of seven.
That again looks like a result of treating our time as a free good, but I do not know enough about what else was happening to be certain. Running a trial, even the preliminaries to a trial, involves coordinating the activity of multiple people: juror candidates, the judge, the attorneys, perhaps others. My guess is that if the county had to pay a market rate for our time they would have found a schedule that used it more efficiently but I could be wrong.
I have so far interpreted what I observed as evidence that the people responsible did not care how much of our time was spent in the process, since our attendance was compulsory and the price paid for it low, on the first day zero, but there is another possible interpretation of the evidence.
→ Continue reading: Want to save money on jury trials? Try paying jurors!
|
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.
|
