Author: Mick Hartley

‘with speed’ by providing male, female and gender-neutral changing rooms, adding: ‘We want you to feel comfortable and safe.’

The salutary effects of the Supreme Court ruling….

Douglas Murray – whose book On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel, Hamas and the Future of the West was published in April – talks to Brendan O'Neill at Spiked:

We see young people from Britain to Australia, Canada and America, who really don’t have a dog in the fight, accuse the Israelis of things like colonialism, genocide and white supremacy – all of which are offences that these young people in particular have been told that they themselves are guilty of. As I wrote in my last book, The War on the West, it is unclear what you are to do, as a generation taught that you are guilty of crimes for which you have no responsibility. It is an unsolvable situation. But the Jewish State presents an answer – a scapegoat on to which you can project all the crimes you were told you were guilty of.

See also, On Settler Colonialism – from Adam Kirsch:

But what if there were a country where settler colonialism could be challenged with more than words? Where all the evils attributed to it – from "emptiness" and "not-enoughness" to economic inequality, global warming, and genocide – could be given a human face? Best of all, what if that settler colonial society were small and endangered enough that destroying it seemed like a realistic policy rather than a utopian dream? Such a country would be the perfect focus for all the moral passion and rhetorical violence that fuels the ideology of settler colonialism. It would be a country one could hate virtuously – especially if it were home to a people whom Western civilization has traditionally considered it virtuous to hate.

o you from the last bullet, since your suicide is better than disgrace."

This reflects the ongoing messaging from the Palestinian Authority, which continues to defend the horrific atrocities committed against Jews on October 7 as "legitimate resistance," while simultaneously criticizing Hamas for enabling Israel's reentry into Gaza and its subsequent counteroffensive. In doing so, the PA seeks to bolster its popular support by defending the October 7 massacre—an event widely celebrated among Palestinians—while also shifting responsibility for the claimed 55,000 deaths in Gaza onto Hamas.

Despite this, recent polls indicate that Hamas remains significantly more popular than Fatah, especially since the October 7 attack elevated Hamas terrorists to the status of Palestinian icons. According to surveys conducted in May 2025, 59% of West Bank Palestinians still believe that the October 7 assault on Israel was the "correct decision" [PSR]. In the hate-saturated Palestinian consciousness, their one day of glory, in which they raped, tortured, burned families alive, and murdered nearly 1200 Jews, was worth the cost of 55,000 Gazans lives.

Charleston, South Carolina, ca. 1915. "Old Public Market."

[Photo: Shorpy/Detroit Publishing Company]

an style=”font-size: 11pt”>“Now that ‘cultural nationalism’ has been classified as a subcategory of extreme right-wing terrorist ideology, even mainstream, right-of-centre beliefs risk being treated as ideologically suspect, despite falling well within the bounds of lawful expression.

“Topics captured under the Prevent category of ‘cultural nationalism’ include widely held views, ranging from concerns about immigration and social cohesion to the belief that integration should be a policy priority, and that shared cultural norms help sustain a liberal society.”

Well, yes. As one commenter noted, "So a programme designed primarily to monitor sympathies for islamic terrorism has now decided that people who worry about islamic terrorism are themselves terrorists."

It's not been doing too well, Prevent. It was the subject of a damning report two years ago after its failure to stop Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, who was referred to it on three separate occasions. Perhaps if he'd expressed concern over immigration the threat posed by his radicalisation might have been taken more seriously.

when trans people are also being asked to "accept perceived reduced rights", this is more important than ever.

Oh god. It's that "gender being determined by biology" which is doing the damage here. Sex is determined by biology. As for gender, well, in its usual meaning nowadays as, basically, sexual presentation in the cultural climate you're in – dress how you want, present yourself how you want. Live how you want. But you can't change your sex. 

It's not that hard. Really. Unless you're a psychologist.

Added: to spell it out….this sex/gender confusion has devastating consequences.

The old way: if you're a girl who likes cars and playing football, and doesn't like dolls and girly things, then…*shrug*. So what? If you grow out of it after puberty, fine. If you don't grow out of it after puberty, fine. Maybe you're lesbian, maybe you're not. Whatever. You'll find your own path.

The new way: if you're a girl who likes cars and playing football, and doesn't like dolls and girly things, then…this means that you're a boy. That's because real girls don't like cars and playing football, and do like dolls and girly things. So you need to transition. First the puberty blockers, then the hormone replacement, and then, very likely, the surgical mutilation. You'll be sterile, your sex life will be problematic at best, and you'll require constant medical attention for the rest of your (shortened) life. 

It's not hard to see which side here is governed by "societal expectations" and gender stereotypes.

physical restrictions – for example, not many of them have much… pic.twitter.com/XDgfcZEE59

— Sarah Deech ☕️ (@londonette) June 7, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Full text:

Shocking misinformation from the BBC's Global News Director, Jonathan Munro, on whether Hamas controls how local Gazan journalists operate:

"They're not restricted in what they are able to see and show. There may be physical restrictions – for example, not many of them have much fuel to go from one town to another – but there is no restriction on what they can show, what they can see and what they can film when they're on location. There is no suggestion at all that any of those people are under any political influence."

This is utter rubbish, sadly.

Hamas's tight – and often violent – control over journalists has been well known for years. How on earth can the BBC claim not to know this?

From last month – Gaza journalists speak out about Hamas intimidation, threats, assaults.

OXIc15jk

— Wales-Women’s Rights Network 💜🤍💚🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (@WRNWales) June 5, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Article here. All female pronouns. Aren't journalists supposed to report the truth?

From a Times report on the problems facing BBC Verify, and the ongoing war of words with the White House:

Despite the focus on Verify, some consider the criticism it faces to be a symptom of the BBC’s wider failure to properly report on events in Gaza.

“No one turns to Verify after it has done a bit of geo-locating and says ‘The wool has now fallen from my eyes and I can see clearly’,” said one senior journalist.

“Hamas is a body that routinely lies and executes people it doesn’t like, but we treat them as if they’re of equal status to a democratically elected government that runs an open society. Impartiality does not mean neutrality — it means truthfulness.”

John Ware, the former BBC Panorama reporter, called the broadcaster’s coverage of events in Gaza “quite timid”.

“[No] programme has spent any time in the Palestinian Authority, looking at the official outlets, which almost daily spew out the most revolting antisemitic tropes,” said Ware.

For the BBC only one side is guilty of spewing hatred, and it isn't the Palestinians.

gn—having achieved its core objectives—would likely cease….

Why has the genocide framing of the Gaza conflict dominated media coverage to a far greater extent than conflicts with far clearer claims to that label?

Traditional factors such as access or transparency do not offer satisfactory explanations for the sudden expansion of the term genocide or for the escalation in its use by mainstream outlets. Israel’s open media environment, combined with its geographic proximity to Gaza and the steady stream of imagery and testimony emerging from the territory—often via NGOs and local sources, some affiliated with Hamas—enables consistent and detailed, if often false or misleading, reporting. Far from inoculating Israel against baseless charges, this openness perversely amplifies them, making the country a uniquely visible and morally charged target.

While anti-Israel prejudice in the mainstream media is long-standing and certainly plays a role, framing the problem as one of bias fundamentally misunderstands its nature. The rapid escalation in the use of the term genocide is not the product of ignorance; rather, it is entirely purposeful, with mainstream reporters and essayists engaging in frequent linguistic and legalistic contortions to justify their usage of an inflammatory term in order to delegitimize the actions of one side in a conflict and legitimize the actions of the terrorist organization that started the Gaza war.

Well yes. But surely an important factor here is that old truth: the Jews will never be forgiven for the Holocaust. Now, at last, comes the chance to point the finger at those smug people who, by their very existence, and in particular by their determination to build Israel, a land of their own where they can be free from persecution, keep reminding us of the unparalleled evil that was inflicted on them by the great civilisation that was Europe. By us. The opportunity is being gleefully seized. Ha! See? They're just as bad as us. No – they're worse. All the old antisemitic canards about the nasty Jews – hey, it turns out they're true after all!