Tag Archives: misogyny

Rosie Duffield’s DARVO: is she trying to rehabilitate herself by blaming her victims?

Rosie Duffield: she broke lockdown to meet her married lover and had to resign as a Labour whip as a result. Now she’s claiming she is a victim of misogynistic abuse.

Former Labour whip Rosie Duffield is trying to reclaim the moral high ground by playing the victim and we need to reject her.

She has given an interview in The Times in which she claims that she is the victim of misogynistic abuse and death threats over her opinions about anti-Semitism, Brexit and – particularly – transphobia.

The article points to her Commons speech about domestic abuse – for which she received a standing ovation from teary-eyed fellow MPs – as a sign that she’s on the side of the angels.

It doesn’t mention the fact that she broke lockdown in order to commit adultery with a married lover last May. Is her new media appearance an attempt to rehabilitate her image?

Many seem to think so, and the article has triggered a storm on the social media – mostly, it seems to This Writer, between opponents on the transphobia issue.

I stay out of that discussion as much as I can. My personal opinion is that the way a person identifies their gender is nobody’s business but their own.

Nobody should receive death threats for the simple holding of a belief; if their belief is against the law, or encourages people to break the law (especially in violent ways) then there are legal remedies. I wonder whether the Times reporter responsible for the article has seen evidence of such threats, though.

I have seen many tweets like this:

I have also seen t

And then I saw these two…

… and it made sense.

If you check the Metro article, DARVO stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender“.

It states: “First you have Deny – that’s pretty self-explanatory. You’ll see the person accused of wrongdoing simply denying that that’s the case; ‘I do not hold those views’, ‘I never said that’, ‘I did not do that bad thing’.

“The Deny stage is where gaslighting starts to come into play, with the person often trying to simply deny someone else’s lived reality. ‘No, that doesn’t happen’, ‘no, you’re making that up’, or ‘that might have happened, but it’s not as bad as you say it is’.

“Then there’s [the] Attack bit. This is when the accused person will turn around the criticism to focus blame on the person calling them out. So let’s say a celebrity was called out by someone on Twitter – they might go into attack mode by accusing that person of just being jealous, or bitter, or a liar.

“Finally, you’ve got the Reverse Victim and Offender stage. This is where things get sneaky and subtle. Suddenly, the accused person will turn things around and say that actually, they’re not guilty of doing something terrible. In fact, they are the ones being treated poorly.

“In this stage, you might see someone introduce their own trauma as an excuse or a distraction tactic. They’ll respond to accusations of racism, for example, with a story about how they faced gender discrimination when they were younger. Or they might focus their statement on how they feel ‘bullied’ by the accusations, so those reading feel that the person who has been called out is actually the victim, facing online abuse rather than being challenged on their actions.”

Metro goes on to give an example that is pertinent to Duffield’s case:

“Let’s say an influential person is accused of transphobia. They issue a response in which they deny that they are transphobic – ‘I love trans people! I have many trans friends!’ – then attack their critics – ‘people saying I’m transphobic are just cruel, hateful people who want to cause division’. Finally, they Reverse Victim and Offender: ‘I’m receiving so much online abuse because I’m a woman and we live in a sexist society’.

“Now, as a critic, you’re stuck. If you continue to call that person out, you’re ‘cruel, hateful and want to cause division’. You’re being sexist. You’re piling on the online abuse.”

Isn’t that exactly what Duffield is trying to do?

Source: Rosie Duffield: ‘It feels like Gilead where women aren’t allowed to ask questions’ | Times2 | The Times

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Senior Labour staff urged to publish WhatsApp messages IN CONTEXT if they think #LabourLeaks report misrepresented them

I haven’t contributed to the so-called Forde Inquiry into the allegations in the (also so-called) #LabourLeaks report because I think it’ll be a stitch-up.

My own court case against Labour will go to trial on October 2 and I’m happy to let Mr Forde QC come to his own conclusions, which I may then find easy to use against the party if my own legal action is successful.

You will understand why I see no point in contributing when I make this point: if Mr Forde’s inquiry was above-board, why did a small left-wing blog have to suggest that disputed WhatsApp messages be published in full?

The demand is an obvious one, but it has been made on the Skwawkbox blog, not in the mainstream media or by anybody directly concerned with the inquiry. The article states:

Former staff accused in a leaked Labour Party report of abusive comments toward other staff, racism, obstructing disciplinary processes to facilitate media attacks – among other things – and even of sabotaging Labour’s electoral campaigns are trying to sue the party for breach of confidentiality.

They also claim that their WhatsApp conversations were used out of context to incriminate them – a defence remarkably similar to the one that Keir Starmer just abandoned in order to pay ‘whistleblowers’ a huge amount of money in a case Labour’s lawyers said the party was likely to win.

If those attempting to sue the party believe the context of:

  • comments such as ‘pube head’, discussions of bra-less female employees and women’s weight and glee at Labour’s first black woman MP allegedly crying in a toilet
  • the diversion of party campaign funds to an ‘Ergon House’ account to use for their own priorities
  • comments expressing horror at Labour’s strong performance in the 2017 general election
  • actions to block and derail investigations into antisemitism and other racism

would show that those comments and actions were innocent and entirely in keeping with the positions they held and the substantial salaries they received for filling them, then the solution is simple:

Publish their conversations in full, so everyone can see for themselves.

How suspicious that none of the individuals concerned seem keen to take up that offer!

Perhaps they fear the evidence will serve merely to corroborate that of others who have gone public with their own submissions to Forde – assertions which support the leaked report’s claim that senior officials of the Labour Party spent years sabotaging Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and succeeded in preventing him from winning a general election in 2017 (and possibly in 2019 as well).

Here‘s a piece on Open Democracy that provides ample information on the subject. I am grateful to a Facebook friend who summed up its claims as follows:

The Offices of the Leader of the Opposition are less than half a mile away from Labour party headquarters on Victoria Street. Labour party HQ is responsible for setting up the party leader’s offices. They should have been up and running when Jeremy Corbyn took over from Ed Miliband. Joe Royle has submitted evidence to the internal Labour inquiry, chaired by Martin Forde QC into sabotage by party employees before the 2017 general election.
1) There were no ‘handover notes’ left for the new leader’s team.
2) Many of the office computers had gone missing.
3) The computers that remained were old and kept crashing.
4) There were not enough monitor screens for computers.
5) John McDonnell’s offices had been completely gutted.
6) The walls were bare, with staples and blu-tak left behind.
7) There were desks without chairs or computers.
8) Attempts to hire new staff were delayed, frustrated or blocked.
9) Jeremy Corbyn had only 16 staff. Ed Milliband had twice that.
10) The party refused to hire a former treasury economist (James Meadway), so he had to be seconded from a trade union which did hire him.
11) Discussions from meetings were leaked to journalists instantly.
12) The leader’s office could not trust Labour HQ not to leak every policy announcement in advance.
13) A rally for John McDonnell was held in the middle of nowhere to deter members from turning up and prevent press coverage.
14) This tactic had been used before.
15) Press releases were blocked.
16) Staff members briefed against Jeremy Corbyn’s office.
17) The party’s message was deliberately kept off social media.
18) Coordinated staff resignations
19) The 2017 manifesto was leaked (never happened before).
20) Facebook adverts designed to be seen by Corbyn’s team only but prevented from being seen by the public (£5,000 cost per one).
21) Staff disappointed that the party did so well in 2017.
22) Corbyn’s staff’s access to Labour HQ was revoked in anticipation of losing the election.
23) Resources, including campaign organizers, were diverted away from winnable marginal seats to safe Labour right-wing seats.
24) Labour lost the seats necessary to win the 2017 election by 2,227 swing votes.

And what are the so-called victims in this case – the ones whose WhatsApp chats were quoted and who say they were misused – doing?

Are they backing calls for the chats to be published in full?

No. They are trying to hide the evidence and have the Forde Inquiry closed down.

Here‘s The Guardian (and shame on that rag for giving this demand column space):

lawyers for the accused officials say the WhatsApp messages were used selectively and edited to give a false impression. They also say the inquiry should be abandoned given the damage already caused by the leaked report.

It’s interesting that these staffers would suggest that a tactic regularly employed by Labour’s disciplinary system to falsify accusations of anti-Semitism against party members (I have personal experience of this) has been used unfairly against them.

Some might call it “sauce for the goose” (suggesting that such treatment is poetic justice for the likes of these people) but I would not be one of them. For one thing, I expect the accusation to be proved false when (if?) the facts come into the open.

And Claudia Webbe, who headed the disputes panel that used those tactics at the time, seems to agree. Although I am uncomfortable with having to side with someone who was part of the system that attacked me, I think she makes points that are worth reading in this matter:

“It’s disgraceful that anyone would attempt to justify racism towards black Labour MPs and misogyny towards women employees, which has driven many of our members, particularly BAME members, to leave our party in disgust.

“If former officials thought quotes in the report – which are clearly copied and pasted from WhatsApp – were misleading, they would welcome the Forde inquiry having the chance to see the full texts. Instead, they seem to want to stop the inquiry from looking at the evidence because they fear it will confirm the accuracy of the WhatsApp messages.”

Ultimately, the Labour staffers whose WhatsApp chats were used (and we all know who they are, even if we can’t mention the names yet) are unsafe whatever happens.

If the Forde Inquiry publishes the messages in context, so we can all judge them for ourselves, then it seems likely they will be exposed as racists and misogynists (and possibly anti-Semites as well).

If they succeed in blocking it, then we will all draw the obvious conclusion that the inquiry would have revealed them to be racists, misogynists etc and their names will automatically poison anything with which they try to associate themselves.

If I were in their position, I’d let the information be published and allow the public to make an informed choice, rather than try to hide it like a coward.

Refusal to condemn Trump’s racist tweets highlights where the problem lies in BRITISH politics

Victims of racism and misogyny: Donald Trump has told these four Congresswomen to “go back” to the countries from which they came; they are all US citizens.

Right-wing, and so-called ‘centrist’, politicians in the UK have validated misogyny and racism – and fake claims of anti-Semitism – by failing to condemn the racist tweets in which Donald Trump attacked four US Congresswomen.

All are from ethnic minorities although three were born in the United States, but Mr Trump suggested they should all “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”.

It’s as bad as Theresa May’s racist advertising lorries from 2013, which bore the legend, “Go home.” Here’s what he said:

He has doubled-down on his words in subsequent tweets:

Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have condemned Mr Trump’s words. Ms Omar said his “blatantly racist attack” on four women of colour was “the agenda of white nationalists”, while Ms Tlaib called it “simply a continuation of his racist, xenophobic playbook”.

Notably failing to condemn Mr Trump’s racism were Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt. They criticised Mr Trump for using the words he did, but both repeatedly refused to say whether they considered the US president’s remarks to be racist.

Commentators in the UK have taken note of this spinelessness on the part of these men, one of whom is certain to be the UK’s new political leader before the end of the month.

Absolutely right.

Note that Jeremy Corbyn was quick to recognise racism. Messrs Hunt and Johnson failed to do so – but were happy to accuse Mr Corbyn of being a racist, on the basis of no hard evidence at all.

Indeed!

Do you agree? Mr Maginn also stated:

On the anti-Semitic aspect of the claims, we have this:

Ah, but of course we do, as Rachael’s sarcastic tweet highlights.

Yes. Well done, UK-based supporters of Donald Trump, on your exemplary service to fascism.

You have supported false, misogynistic and racist claims against democratically-elected representatives of people in the United States.

You have supported the weaponisation of false allegations of anti-Semitism against the same women – and the false labelling of political opposition to the Israeli government as anti-Semitism.

In doing so, you have supported the liars in the UK who have also weaponised false allegations of anti-Semitism and false labelling of political opposition to the Israeli government as anti-Semitism.

And you have done it for selfish reasons (“a sweetheart trade deal that would put our NHS at risk”).

Anybody who actually supports this – especially Conservatives who have or will vote for either candidate in their leader election – should crawl back under their rock and die of shame.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Shooting range that used image of Shamima Begum is a LONG way off-target

The target: Using an image of Shamima Begum in this way may be seen as racist, Islamophobic, and misogynist.

It’s one thing to suggest that IS defector Shamima Begum should not be allowed to return to the UK – but putting her face on a target in a shooting range is completely beyond the pale.

You may recall that This Site ran a poll to gauge public feeling on Ms Begum’s request to return and Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to revoke her citizenship of the UK instead.

After nearly nine days – and 2,151 votes – the result was relatively close, with around 56 per cent saying she should be stripped of citizenship and 44 per cent saying she should keep it.

But there is a world of difference between wanting that young woman to face the consequences of her actions and wishing actual harm upon her, of course – and this is why the decision of the Ultimate Airsoft Range in Wallasey, Merseyside, is unacceptable.

By using an image of Ms Begum as a target on the shooting range, it is encouraging unhealthy fantasies of harming her – and people like her.

We’re looking at racism, Islamophobia, possibly also misogyny. None are welcome.

Amazingly, a spokesperson for the centre actually said the decision to use her as a target allows children as young as six to “have some light-hearted fun bringing out the inner child in all”!

As one commenter in the Mirror‘s version of this story stated: “That’s the ‘inner child?’ Blimey. Wouldn’t want to meet the inner parents.”


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

‘Dick pic’ row exposes Tory hypocrisy about permissible behaviour

Really, Brandon Lewis – that big? The Conservative Party chairman discusses the size of… his own hypocrisy. He’s underestimating.

Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis would be regretting he spoke up about this – if he had the slightest shred of self-awareness.

Mr Lewis – misnamed “The voice of women in politics” by his party – seems to think that it is inappropriate for the Labour Party to put forward Sally Keeble as a candidate for election because, it seems, she pressed the “like” button for a ‘dick pic’ on Twitter – an image of male genitalia.

No – the “optics” (as the way a topic looks has been described by pretentious political commentators lately) are terrible. Labour followers have been having fun with this all day. Some have suggested possibilities regarding the picture that was the subject of Ms Keeble’s arousal…

… although the above seems unlikely. Apologies to those of a weak constitution who are shocked at having to see this particular example of one, so many years after the person concerned left public life.

Others made more pointed remarks – about the behaviour of Conservative representatives:

And Ash hasn’t even scratched the surface. What about the mountain of porn that was found on a computer in Damian Green’s office, back in 2008? He rose to a Cabinet position as Work and Pensions Secretary before that particular issue brought him down (it was really repulsive porn).

And what about the infamous “sex spreadsheet” listing 36 Conservative MPs whose alleged sexual indiscretions would make liking a “dick pic” shrink to insignificance?

That good, eh? That reminds me – I posted my own two-penn’orth on this subject: “Will there be a trend of people liking dick pics in protest at this? And will those protestors find themselves victimised for it by a future Brandon Lewis?”

Maybe not.

Maybe by then, Conservative Party leaders will have learned to have a proper sense of proportion.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Tory London Mayor candidate unrepentant over accusations of racism and misogyny

Shaun Bailey: Conservative candidate for Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny.

Remember Shaun Bailey? He’s the Conservative London Mayoral candidate who branded the incumbent, Sadiq Khan, as “Mad Mullah Kahn (sic) of Londonistan” and said single girls in inner cities “deliberately become pregnant” in order to secure homes and benefits from the government, so his record of racism and sexism is firmly established already.

Now he is being accused of the “worst kind of casual sexism and misogyny” after Labour unearthed a 2007 interview in which he praised the discipline shown by teachers in earlier times because they “were men, then”.

He also used the interview to argue that handing out contraception at schools encouraged teenage pregnancy and complain that young girls can have abortions without parental consent. So he’s another man who thinks men should be able to dictate to women what they do with their bodies.

Some might criticise Labour’s tactics in unearthing comments made many years ago and throwing them back at the person who made them. But then, what have the right-wing media been doing with Jeremy Corbyn since 2015? Salt for the goose.

And Mr Bailey seems strangely unrepentant. In a public meeting in Croydon last year, he said, “There are things I regret saying… But it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”

The latest revelation was bound to attract censure. Rosena Allin-Khan tweeted: “The level of sexism, casual xenophobia and misogyny from Shaun Bailey is Trumpesque. It’s not something we expect from someone wanting to be the Mayor of London.”

“Trumpesque” is the word. Who can forget the moment on Donald Trump’s first day as US President, when – surrounded by men – he signed an executive order forbidding the spending of federal money on international groups that perform, or provide information on, abortions?

The Conservative government has already earned justified criticism for its austerity measures that have overwhelmingly attacked women more than men.

It seems if Mr Bailey were to become London Mayor, that city would see a huge increase in such unreasonable misogynstic hatred.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

People aren’t trolling Nusrat Ghani because of misogyny – and the reasons are obvious

Nusrat Ghani.

Tory MP Nusrat Ghani appears to be a little upset at the response attracted by her call for an urgent debate on Clive Lewis’s use of the word “bitch”:

The trouble is that she, along with those others who have been trying to make something of this incident, is pushing a false argument.

Nobody is denying the offensive nature of the words used by Mr Lewis – least of all Mr Lewis himself, who has apologised after being made aware that they did cause offence.

But context is everything, and his remark was made in an attempt at humour, with no offence intended – to a man. This is, at the very least, a subversion of the offensive nature of the words – albeit, in hindsight, an unsuccessful one.

The claim that the words used were gendered is easily defeated as there are many instances of men calling other men “bitch”. Indeed, one definition in the Urban Dictionary states that a bitch is a “modern-day servant; a person who performs tasks for another, usually degrading in status”.  To This Writer, it appears to be the relevant definition when considering Mr Lewis’s use of the term. Note the use of the word “person” – not “woman”. Therefore it can be someone of either gender.

Nobody female who was at the event has come forward to say they took offence at the time (to my knowledge), and my understanding is that the organisers took no complaints at the time.

So Mr Lewis used a non-gendered term of abuse, in a humorous (or attemptedly humorous) manner, while speaking to a man.

And Nusrat Ghani wants us to think it implies hatred towards women.

Yes. I would like to see a debate on the subject.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely:

All things considered, that would be a lucky escape for Ms Ghani.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Celebrities are taking sides against the intolerance that is sweeping the West. Bravo!

P!nk: "To any of you closet racists, homophobes, sexists... We are not friends."

P!nk: “To any of you closet racists, homophobes, sexists… We are not friends.”

It is heartening to see that people in the public gaze are using their status to call for people of good conscience to stand fast against the wave of – what shall we call it? Hard-right attitudes? Fascism? Nazism? – sweeping the Western World.

It seems the election of Donald Trump as US President has sparked incidents in that country, and those who stand up against it are to be praised.

So here‘s the singer P!nk*: “To anyone reading this: if you think this is a time for misogynistic jokes, or for laughing about voting in a person that doesn’t believe in climate change, or humanity. To any of you closet racists, homophobes, sexists….. please block me. Please unfollow me. We do not respect each other. You do not have my respect, and I obviously don’t have yours. We are not friends.

“To everyone else, we shall overcome. Stay on the path of love and tolerance. Hug your kids. Teach them about diversity and about fighting for others, and sticking up for themselves. I will do my part.”

Will you do yours?

*A Facebook friend posted this on her page; I’m sure I could have used any number of other messages by celebrities… right?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The media, US citizens and the world have all been Trumped – US election opinion

[Image: David Rowe, Political Cartoon Gallery.]

[Image: David Rowe, Political Cartoon Gallery.]

Donald Trump’s election as US President is not a victory for working people.

It is a victory for a very rich businessman who certainly doesn’t have the interests of the poor at heart.

The majority of people earning less than $50,000 a year voted Clinton – although, as a candidate, she was almost as bad as him.

Was this a victory for misogyny? That’s debatable.

Certainly it seems likely some people will have voted against Hillary Clinton because she is female. That would reflect very poorly on the American people.

But the same American people also knew that her selection as the Democrat candidate was based on who she knew within the party, and not on what she could do for the people of the United States.

She was seen as someone who had played the system, whereas the common perception of Mr Trump was of a man who had fought the system and won. In the face of that, allegations about him grabbing women inappropriately were ignored – and America will have to face up to the uncomfortable meaning of that at some point in the future.

Was it a victory for racism? That’s debatable too. I’ve seen the word “isolationism” bandied about this morning and that seems to fit the bill more appropriately.

What about the media? Well, the Trump campaign faced a huge amount of opposition from a mass media that wanted more of the current (failed) political consensus. We were told he couldn’t win the Republican nomination, but he did. Polls were carried out to show he couldn’t win, but he has.

If this election has achieved anything, perhaps it is that people will not trust the established news sources as much as may have previously been the case.

In This Writer’s opinion, that’s a step forward. You shouldn’t trust anybody who has a vested interest in any issue while saying they report it impartially. Conversely, I could earn more money as a babysitter than I do working on Vox Political – so you know the opinions here are my own, and I based them on the best facts I can get.

As for the future: Everybody is keen to write off Donald Trump’s presidency before it starts, but let’s not forget he’ll have a huge administrative machine behind him, and it is to be hoped that they will be able to guide him away from some of the more obvious disasters that we all fear.

That doesn’t mean America – and the world – isn’t in for a bumpy ride. But it is better to live in hope than in fear.

Taking a wider view, people seem to be realising that if Trump’s election is a disaster for democracy, it is one that was decades in the making – and a symptom of a failed political system.

If it shakes people out of their complacency – not just in the States but across the world – that will be a good thing, in the long run.

That’s just about the best that can be said.

Do you want Vox Political to cover a story? Use this form to tell us about it (but NOT to comment on the article above, please):

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

More lies – or perhaps merely stupidity – from UKIP

Bizarrely, this is one instance of UKIP getting something right: The image by UKIP's youth branch, Young Independence, makes it clear that the party is opposed by the NUS. There is no mention of a ban.

Bizarrely, this is one instance of UKIP getting something right: The image by UKIP’s youth branch, Young Independence, makes it clear that the party is opposed by the NUS. There is no mention of a ban.

Our friends at UKIP have been at it again.

What follows is mainly from the A Liberal Life blog, detailing UKIP’s attempt to claim the National Union of Students voted to ban the party from standing for election within that organisation, when in fact all the union did was declare that it formally opposed UKIP.

Daniel Stevens, NUS International Students’ Officer, explained the decision on the NUS website. He said UKIP made the arrival of Romania and Bulgaria in the European Union a central focus of its 2013 election campaign, “using fear, misinformation and xenophobic language. They claimed the move would [lead] to an influx of 350,000 to 400,000 Romanians and Bulgarians a year, claimed that it would have an enormous impact on public services and went as far as to say it would lead to a ‘gateway for organised crime’… I have met Romanian students at UK universities and colleges who have been absolutely demoralised in the way their country has been stereotyped and portrayed by UKIP. One student went as far as to say that they now felt ashamed to be Romanian in Britain. There is something fundamentally wrong and blatantly xenophobic about a party that is willing to demonise and stereotype an entire country for its own political devices.”

Moving on to immigration, he pointed out that the NUS represents more than half a million international students, and that he spoke to members of that group every week “who are incredibly fearful of what UKIP represents, and I don’t blame them. Along with UKIP’s entire manifesto, its policies on immigration are currently undergoing a review. Whilst it stresses that it wants a non-discriminatory immigration policy, there is no indication of what that might look like. What’s clear is that UKIP [is] content to use xenophobic language to get their point across. Its previous manifesto stated that ‘multiculturalism has split our society’ and ‘our traditional values have been undermined’. Its new poster strongly implies that 26 million unemployed Europeans are after British jobs.  UKIP’s entire campaign is based on immigration policies. The language it uses is an ‘us vs them’ mentality. Farage has suggested that parts of the country have been ‘taken over’ by foreigners and claiming that this has come at a ‘financial’ and ‘social price’.  UKIP [has] repeatedly refused to create policies, or in fact a campaign, based on verified evidence of the impact of immigration. Instead [it uses] negative buzz-words that play on people’s emotions to drive an agenda of division.”

Finally, he pointed to what he called UKIP’s “problematic membership”. He stated: “Whilst UKIP will defend itself as not being racist, almost each week brings another case of a party member standing for a position that harbours racist, islamophobic, disablist or homophobic views”. For example:

• The star of UKIP’s TV ad dismissed Ed Miliband as “a Pole,” tweeted islamophobic messages and said Africans should be left “to kill themselves.”
• A UKIP candidate called for Lenry Henry to “emigrate to a black country.”
• An MEP called for British Muslims to sign a non-violence charter.
• A UKIP candidate in Enfield sent messages saying gay marriage sickens people and made misogynistic comments about a female councillor.
• A UKIP candidate in Leeds listed Nazi war criminals as individuals who inspire him.

“These examples are just from a two week period.”

He concluded that some had claimed that NUS passing policy that opposed UKIP contravened free speech. “On the contrary. Students across the country have democratically voted to hold UKIP accountable [for] its actions and views,” he stated. “We must always be suspicious and vigilant against the politics of fear and any political party that is willing to use xenophobia to gain political influence.”

He made it clear that if anyone else from UKIP wanted to run for office in the NUS next year, they would still be entitled to do so.

Now you know the background, let’s get back to the dodgy dealings on A Liberal Life, where we are told that yesterday (August 3), UKIP “community spokesperson” Suzanne Evans tweeted that the NUS was a “leftie dictatorship” for “not allowing UKIP candidates to stand for election”.

Faced with the fact that no such ban exists, the response was, “Debate impossible with LiberalIsland [that’s the author of the blog] – clearly believes it’s fine to ban party that won last nationwide election.”

Then some supporters of this lady jumped in to, well, support her. None of them had an answer to the main point of fact and the best they could manage was a lame “the opposition is equivalent to a ban”.

This is the face of UKIP today. Yr Obdt Srvt has been enjoying (if that’s the word) a debate over UKIP’s opposition to a European Parliament resolution calling on member states to legislate against domestic violence including marital rape. The latest UKIP position is that they were right to oppose the EU resolution because the European Parliament is undemocratic (so does this mean their election win is not valid?) but it would be inconsistent with UKIP’s intent to regain democratic self-government to oppose the Welsh Government’s planned law on the subject.

Apparently the safety of women in the home is of no interest whatever. In fact, the correspondent made this clear by stating: “I suspect that the practicalities of enforcement will largely vitiate a well-intentioned measure. Rape and assault outside the home are not prevented by laws criminalising them.”

Clearly UKIP is perfectly happy to justify its inconsistencies by playing with words.

Hopefully the public can see through that.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Buy Vox Political books!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards