Author: Ophelia Benson

Yeah, see…we don’t want men like Herbert barging in. We want them to go away and stay there.

If she hadn’t already peaked, meeting Scott in the flesh would have done it… pic.twitter.com/SxV4hkRWnx

— Le_Sorelle_Arduino KPSS (@Sorelle_Arduino) July 20, 2026

Aw, sad, it looks as if Trump isn’t going to be able to put that guy in jail after all.

The Trump administration’s case against the former Olympic canoeist accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is about to fall apart.

Following the draining of the Reflecting Pool last week, David Hearn filed a motion to dismiss the federal indictment against him. In his motion, Hearn argued that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia failed to preserve the physical evidence against him: the lining of the pool that he is accused of damaging.

Rooky error.

The case against Hearn has always been weak, considering that other people have noticed sections of the pool’s paint and lining, applied on President Trump’s orders, coming apart and peeling. Hearn is accused of “forcefully and violently” tearing two square feet of the pool’s newly added blue paint, and he maintains that he merely touched an already peeling piece of paint.

Trump’s lawyers really should refuse to use his wording; it makes them look so dumb.

Trump has blamed vandalism for the sorry state of the pool, when in reality the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the water in a futile attempt to kill algae probably led to the paint and liner peeling away. 

Hp is useful for cleaning out your ears. Swimming pools, not so much.

Meanwhile, the White House has enlisted the FBI to bolster the case, but considering that the pool has been repeatedly drained, they’re not likely to come up with any new evidence, wasting even more tax dollars. 

Wull they could plant some!

Originally a comment by The Whimster Gap on Words words words.

It shows an astounding misunderstanding – or misrepresentation – of how the law works, too.

From elsewhere in his post:

The science has never been put before the Supreme Court. The full evidence on sex development, on chromosomal variation, on the fifty documented intersex conditions, on what biology actually shows, has never been tested at the highest level because the people it describes were kept out of the room.

I’ll leave aside the asinine idea that people are always expert on their own predicament, and the even more asinine idea that others cannot be more expert. But still: it is not the job of the UKSC to rule on the science. Lismore’s account of that Court is the account of someone whose understanding of the law is drawn from daytime television, and for someone whose understanding of the law is drawn from daytime television.

In his mind, people walk into a courtroom waving documents, shouting “Objection!” and there’s a hiatus in the hearing during which the judges examine their consciences, weep, and then deliver a judgment based on having listened to their hearts. They might applaud, too. There’s probably an orchestra in the canteen to play a rousing theme.

Real life is not like that.

The Supreme Court is not a debating chamber. It determines what the law is, not what it should or should not be. Even in a case concerning trans people, the Court does not have to listen to trans people, any more than a group of oncologists has to listen to people with cancer when discussing how best to interpret a scan.

Originally a comment by iknklast on Words words words.

If the trans ‘community’ want to be women, they need to understand what women understand, and feel what women feel (not just what the men wearing woman face think women understand and feel).

To wit: women have long been treated to laws made and enforced with no women in the room. Women were not consulted when laws were made that protected the patriarchy. Our voices were not heard until we went out there and made them heard. By doing this, we gained some measure of rights, obviously not equivalent among all women everywhere, and there are some places where women still have no rights.

Trans hasn’t actually suffered this. If you dig deep enough, it’s not unusual that there is trans in the room…but no women, who are also affected by any laws giving trans ‘rights’ to invade their spaces. Women who worked and marched and petitioned and voted until we finally gained a voice are now losing that voice, while the voice of trans can be heard loud and clear, coming at us from every direction, in spite of their small numbers. How many trans have been through what the suffragettes suffered? How many of them have been arrested for peaceable protest, and kept in conditions worse than that of murderers, in some instances?

In reality, most trans haven’t been arrested for violent protest, threats, destroyed property, and women harmed. How many women would be able to avoid arrest if they called for the killing of, say, Sophie Mollie?

They don’t even suffer the minor instances. No one asks them to make a sandwich, buy a gift for the ‘little woman’, or spread their legs for the boss. They have absolutely NO idea of what it’s like to be a woman, and to feel like a woman.

Most women don’t react over the top to being ‘misgendered’, because for us, it’s so minor and uneventful compared to the other things we deal with every day. For trans? It appears that is often the full extent of the ‘violence’ they suffer.

Trump says he’s 6’3″. This says he isn’t.

Rodrigo is, therefore Trump is not.

Michael Nugent on the Amnesty report:

An Amnesty UK report has grouped together, under the label of a single ‘anti-rights movement’, two very different types of organisation. One is those who promote conservative Christian beliefs about social issues. The other is those who promote the sex-based rights of women and LGB people. It called for reviews of their charitable status, services, funding, and activities.

After a predictable backlash, Amnesty has withdrawn the report pending an internal review. That’s useful, but Amnesty also must address the harmful impact of having published it in the first place. This has hurt the reputations of those it unjustly maligned, and Amnesty’s own credibility as a human rights group.

Something similar happened six years ago. Amnesty Ireland called on the media to ‘end giving airtime to’, and politicians to ‘no longer provide legitimate representation for’ people promoting the sex-based rights of women and LGB people. These attitudes are bad enough coming from individuals on social media, but much worse coming from a human rights body.

And also much worse, in my view, when the attitudes in question are based on a ridiculous fiction and indifference to women’s rights. Quite a lot of reason to disapprove when you add it all up.

For some reason, the current Amnesty UK report does not address people of religions other than Christianity who promote conservative beliefs about social issues. Why is this? Some of these people not only promote their beliefs as public policy, but actively enforce them on women, LGBT people, and children within their communities.

We all know why is this. It’s because Amnesty doesn’t want to be called “Islamophobic” and perhaps even because it thinks Islam is a good thing in some way.

Victoria Smith at The Critic:

Despite their frequently pompous styling, the arguments of gender identity ideologues have always been profoundly immature, a strange mixture of some first-year undergrad realising that how we choose to define things collectively shapes our experience of the world (while forgetting the “collectively” bit) and a teenage incel trying to own the feminists by asking them how they really know he’s a member of the dominant class (do they, like, want to see his dick?). The conflation of “redefining women” in the sense of re-evaluating the intellectual capacities, bodily integrity and political status of adult human females, and “redefining women” as “a group that can include men”, is frankly idiotic, yet this is the logic upon which Capraro’s assertion about “fixed and distinct roles” relies, not to mention similar assertions in texts such as Judith Butler’s Who’s Afraid of Gender? and Amia Srinivasan’s The Right to Sex. The trouble is, it’s so stupid it can make you believe you must have missed something. The high status of those pushing this nonsense has made too many people believe their misgivings are misplaced, proof of their own — and not the speaker’s — moral and intellectual inferiority. 

It’s true. The stupider it is the more people think it’s so opaque it just has to be right. It can’t be what it looks like – large numbers of once intelligent people telling enormous absurd lies – so instead it must be deepity piled on deepity. which is why we peasants don’t understand it.

The Telegraph tells us there’s a report, commissioned by the government Office for Science and produced by seven academics. It’s unclear whether the seven academics are scientists or not.

The 136-page report, by a group of seven academics and commissioned by the Government Office for Science, categorises “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives” as a type of “false and misleading information” seen in the UK.

Well that’s certainly not science. It might be in the basket labeled social science, but labels can easily be misapplied.

Just for a start it’s not science to prattle of “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives” – that’s just sneery political abuse. Demanding that people say men can be women is not science, and punishing or maligning people for refusing to say men can be women is not science.

They’re probably talking about social science, but if it’s social science that claims men can be women – literally be women, not just call themselves women – then it’s still not science.

The study, from May 2026, was designed to inform government policy on “identifying and tackling harmful misinformation”.

It uses data compiled by EU-funded fact-checkers to identify 11 key categories of “false and misleading information”, backed up by a list of examples.

One of the categories included is defined as “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives, ‘gender ideology’ claims targeting schools and public institutions, Pride event misrepresentation and transgender athlete controversies”.

It’s not about narratives. We are not the ones telling fairy tales. We are not the ones talking pretentious bullshit to manipulate gullible people to agree that men are women if they say they are. We’re not the ones whose entire Weltanschauung rests on a giant lie.

The examples – published alongside the report – include the case of Imane Khelif, who became embroiled in a row over biological sex when competing as a woman in Paris in 2024, despite allegedly failing sex tests the previous year.

Khelif won gold but was subsequently banned from competing in all future World Boxing events in the women’s category in the absence of proof of being biologically female.

The list suggests that saying “Imane Khelif is a man” would be an example of “racist/Islamophobic misinformation”.

So many ways of being wrong. It’s not automatically racist (even if some people who agree that Khelif is a man are racist), it has nothing to do with Islam, Islam is in fact hateful, it’s not misinformation.

It’s here. Not in a few years; now.

Water reserves are being depleted rapidly in northern Italy, threatening farming as the region’s main river dries up, local officials warned Friday.

The Po River District Basin Authority (ADBPO) said the situation was “extremely critical” and available stocks in the river basin would be exhausted in 10 days at the current irrigation rate if there was no rainfall.

As a result of the reduced flow rate in the Po River delta, salt water from the Adriatic Sea is pushing 20 to 25 kilometers (12.5 to 15.5 miles) upstream, partly preventing the irrigation of fields.

The authority also said the ecosystem could be affected.

…

Piedmont, which borders France, has been one of the regions in Italy worst affected by the heat waves that have hit Europe.

Water levels in major lakes in the region have fallen. Lake Maggiore’s fill rate dropped 17% — or 33 centimeters (13 inches) — in the space of a week.

Lake Como fell by 15%, the ADBPO said.

Once the water goes…

This has gone very badly for Nadia Whittome.

Organisations focused on ending violence against women and girls are concerned that the government’s VAWG strategy will fall short due to insufficient funding.

I asked the Minister for Women and Equalities how the government will ensure that the funding matches the strategy’s… pic.twitter.com/Yw3AhTJbrY

— Nadia Whittome MP (@NadiaWhittomeMP) July 18, 2026

Comment after comment after scathing comment has pointed out that she doesn’t even know which people are women or girls so how can she effectively challenge the government on ending violence against women and girls?

One of many:

How will you reduce violence against women when you consider women to be a mere costume a man can wear?

Dehumanising women, by treating us as some abstract thought in a man's head, leads to increased MVAWG.

Especially when you actively oppose single sex services.

Resign.

— KPSS Woman who said NO (@MegaSausageHead) July 18, 2026

The Telegraph:

As the granddaughter of Sean MacBride, Amnesty’s late co-founder and international chairman, Iseult White feels the human-rights charity is part of her DNA. In the Seventies and Eighties, the pre-Christmas period at home was always spent writing to various prisoners of conscience around the world, and supporters of Amnesty’s work were always in and out of her grandparents’ house.

An Irish Republican, MacBride, who died in 1988, had spent time in prison, as had his firebrand mother, Maud Gonne, who set up the Women Prisoners’ Defence League. Years after Amnesty was founded in London in 1961, initially to fight for prisoners of conscience, MacBride widened its remit in the 1970s to champion miscarriages of justice and oppose torture. A fundamental principle of the organisation was that human rights were universal.

So when, in 2020, White saw that Amnesty International Ireland had signed a letter from the lobby group Transgender Equality Network of Ireland, effectively calling for the silencing of free speech on trans issues, she saw red. The letter demanded that the media and politicians “no longer provide legitimate representation” for people described as sharing “bigoted beliefs”.

“The whole letter was batshit crazy, and I couldn’t believe that Amnesty had signed,” says White, a psychotherapist. “And then I saw the CEO of Amnesty on Twitter claiming it was only British feminists who had any sort of issue around self-ID.”

The Irish Amnesty had effectively waded into what had become known as the gender wars, which saw many feminists and gay men coming out against the idea that society should unquestioningly treat a biological man as a woman if they identify as the opposite sex.

But attempting to silence those who held an opposing view seemed like “authoritarian behaviour”, which is what Amnesty was established to campaign against. “I was shocked,” says White, who describes herself as same-sex attracted. “I felt hurt. So I put myself out there, I wrote a letter saying that by signing such a document, Amnesty was seeking to deny legitimate representation to people of conscience.”

White soon discovered what happens if you speak out against the trans lobby. She got death threats and was warned by her bosses to stay off social media. It became such a storm that she felt she had to take some time off work.

But at the same time she started to look at Amnesty with clearer eyes, and some of the projects it was involved in – from working with pimps to legalise prostitution to working with a British group since accused of having an “Islamist orientation and views” – shocked her, all the more because the organisation’s reputation relies on the good work done by her grandfather and others. The Amnesty International building in Dublin is named after MacBride, who served as Amnesty’s international chairman until 1975 and helped shape it into a global human-rights NGO.

All worth it to get pimps labeled “sex workers” amirite?

White was one of the earlier figures to start raising the alarm about Amnesty’s recent approach. This week, though, a spotlight was shone on the body’s approach to trans issues – and women – when its UK arm published a report called A Growing Threat: The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK, written by Chiara Capraro, a programme director at Amnesty International UK. It warned that an “anti-rights ecosystem” was threatening “the safety of women and LGBT+ people in the UK”. It identified 117 of these supposedly dangerous organisations, which ranged from British feminist and lesbian and gay organisations to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, to American Christian groups. Perhaps most shockingly it listed Beira’s Place – JK Rowling’s charity for female rape survivors – among the alleged offenders, for which it is now facing legal action from the Harry Potter author.

She wants to be incloooosive of darling Amnesty UK.

Amnesty UK hastened to explain “We didn’t see it, we were asleep at that time, our feet hurt, we were busy, we had just gone out for a sandwich, we had an itch, it was raining hard, our car wouldn’t start, a stoat came down the chimney, our clothes were missing, all the doors were locked.”

But the broad rhetoric from the report fitted into a pattern of criticism of gender-critical groups that remains on Amnesty’s website.

Charlotte Cadden, a former police officer who leads the PoliceSeenUK campaign for sex-based rights, warned Amnesty that “by misattributing the threat of violent protest, hate crime, criminal damage and assault to groups fighting for their sex-based rights, you risk fuelling further violence towards women and anyone who holds sex-realist views in society”.

But they’re very willing to take that risk, because quite frankly they detest women who hold sex-realist views.

It has also led to fury from some of the charity’s best-known supporters. The actor John Cleese, who helped organise and perform fundraisers for the charity in the 1970s, wrote on X: “I was once a major fund-raiser for Amnesty. But in those days, it was about preventing torture. Not about sexual identity. I disown them.”

Global treasure, that man.

[I]n recent years the organisation has increasingly waded into controversy. In 2010, Amnesty drew criticism for collaborating with Cage, an advocacy group that was campaigning for “victims of the war on terror”, to campaign against Guantanamo Bay detentions and torture. The relationship led to the departure of Gita Sahgal, the head of Amnesty’s gender unit, who wrote an internal email condemning Cage, which in 2024 was described in Parliament by Michael Gove as giving “rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views”. Amnesty distanced itself from Cage after the 2010 row, but Sahgal later described an “atmosphere of terror” and “deep misogyny” at her former workplace where, she said, staff were cowed into accepting the prevailing line.

She’s been a hero of mine ever since.

In 2015, Amnesty sparked anger from feminists when it issued a report as part of a push to persuade countries to decriminalise the sex trade. One key group quoted in the report was the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, even though its vice president, Alejandra Gil, had been jailed for 15 years for sex trafficking.

Ah yes the campaign to call the prostitution of women “sex work” – so progressive.

In 2019, an independent report commissioned after the suicide of two Amnesty International staff members found a “toxic” working culture at the organisation, including widespread bullying, public humiliation, sexism, racism and abuse of power by management.

And then there’s the Hamas angle but this is long enough, I’ll spare you.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Focus.

At the conference, White House ​deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said leftists were driven by “envy and hatred” and derided antifa demonstrators as “all deformed in some way, in ​their appearance, in their ⁠dress, in their mannerism”.

“Why is there not one normal-looking person among them? Every one of them, through the course of their life and their decisions, has scarred their body and their appearance in many different ways to the point in which their outer appearance becomes a manifestation of their inner hatred,” Miller said.

This is the most classic of the conservative/liberal divides, isn’t it? Straight out of 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s television. Postcard-perfect Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith on the one hand; Maynard G. Krebs and those perverse, long-haired hippies on the other. “Not one normal-looking person among them” sounds like something Archie Bunker might have whined while watching the news in 1971.

Of course, the point of “abnormal” dress/appearance, and of body piercings and tattoos and scars and all the other stuff that by the 1990s had become more-or-less mainstream fashion, is that it emerged from all the people conservatives refused to include in their vision of “proper” society: the sailors, the dockworkers, the bikers, the ex-cons, the hippies, the inner-city punks, the BDSM fetishists, the carnies, the gays and lesbians, the traumatized war veterans…

“Freaky” dress (including gender-bending), and minor body modifications like piercings and tattoos, symbolized a liberal worldview because these things rejected narrow ideas of what constitutes “normal-looking” and they synthesized the cultural practices of the marginalized into a new idea of “normal”.

It’s sadly true that, as the culture war has plodded on and become entrenched, some young people have taken the idea of challenging norms to extremes, and it’s morphed into “queer theory” and a new set of ideas about children being born in “wrong bodies” (etc) that doesn’t merely challenge some narrow-minded, outdated social norms, but many sensible, principled ones, too — and even the biological facts of the human species. And these extremists have become aggressive and intolerant, to boot. It’s beyond irritating that the gender ideologues have ended up handing the far right a big win on this front, by taking a reasonable liberal idea and stretching it to such extremes that, to some people’s ears, Stephen Miller’s fascist garbage starts to sound almost sensible in response…

An excellent point from Graham Linehan in the Glinner Report:

Section 8 of State of Hate 2026 is headed ANTI-LGBTQ+, and it runs alongside sections on Patriotic Alternative and the fascist Homeland Party. Inside it you’ll find the Scottish Family Party, the Family Education Trust, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, and Fair Cop.

Fair Cop is Harry Miller’s organisation. It was “established to protect police officers who face disciplinary issues for expressing anti-trans, misogynistic and other anti-LGBTQ+ views”, they write, and Miller started it in 2019 “after he was investigated for posting anti-trans content on social media”. That’s a striking way to describe a group founded by a man who in February 2020 won a High Court ruling that Humberside Police had acted unlawfully in recording a non-crime hate incident against him for tweeting about the Gender Recognition Act, and who won again at the Court of Appeal against the College of Policing in December 2021.

He is not mentioned in the document as having won. In an earlier version, published three months after his Court of Appeal victory, they called him “a police officer critiqued for transphobic tweets” and left it there. They’ve since corrected the ‘former’. They have not found room for the judgments.

But we do get a little glimpse of how the sausage is made. Fair Cop, they write, has “strong links to the far right and the broader ‘gender critical’ milieu”.

It’s one sentence with two halves, far right on one side, gender critical on the other. Holding them together is the phrase “and the broader”, which does no logical work at all and all of the dirty work. It never asserts that gender-critical women are far right, it just puts them in the same clause and lets grammar do what an accusation would have to prove.

That last paragraph is a masterpiece.

Farking hell.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who shot a Colombian man in Maine this week is an Army veteran who has struggled with serious mental health issues since early childhood and never should have been given a badge and gun to patrol American streets, several of his close relatives told The Associated Press.

David Brouillette has a history of terrifying and violent behavior, according to those relatives. They accuse him of attacking women in his life over the years, and one shared a voicemail with the AP from last winter in which he told her that he thought someone should slit her throat.

Brouillette’s troubling past further challenges how thoroughly the Department of Homeland Security has vetted recruits as it went on a hiring spree to help carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

At least 10 people have died in encounters with immigration agents since Trump launched the crackdown after retaking office, including 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national who was shot and killed by Brouillette on Monday while in his car near his home in the coastal Maine city of Biddeford.

A history of violence is not a hindrance but a bonus.

The reliably fatuous Daniel Lismore writes:

JK Rowling worked at Amnesty documenting human rights abuses. This week she offered millions to destroy it.

They ruled on trans bodies without letting a single trans person speak

There are around 300,000 trans and non-binary people in the United Kingdom. Depending on how you count, there are up to 1.1 million intersex people. That is as many as 1.4 million human beings whose bodies have just been defined by a Supreme Court that refused to hear from any of them.

It’s not a “hear from” category of thing. It’s not subject to vote or debate. It’s not a choice. Our wishes cannot change it. What sex people are is not like what religion people are or what political tendency they are or what work they do. It’s a category that just is what it is. Even 1.4 million human beings can’t change that.

That is not a metaphor. When For Women Scotland reached the Supreme Court, trans organisations applied to intervene and were turned away. The judges decided what a woman is without a single trans woman, trans man, non-binary or intersex person in the room.

But, again, that’s beside the point, because neither Daniel Lismore nor a judge can actually make people either women or men. The question was put to judges only because this ridiculous new ideology had made such a tangled mess of the law that they had to. The reality of which people are women and which are men stayed the same throughout.

Bev Jackson writes:

…“trans women” are male. They are men. They may wish they weren’t men, wish everyone could see them as women, genuinely believe that they are somehow women, but they are not women. You can’t “identify” out of your sex – if you could, there would be no women left in Afghanistan. It is just another fiction.

And in fact, there are a lot of things you can’t “identify” out of. You can’t identify out of your species. You can’t identify out of your history. You can’t identify out of your ignorance. You can’t identify out of your inability to fly.

It’s all very sad, but it’s reality. We are what we are and not something else. We can do a lot to alter ourselves, to make ourselves better or worse or some of both, to learn and train and experience, but we can’t do everything we can imagine doing. We can’t identify out of our ignorance but we can whittle away at our ignorance by learning things…but we can’t learn everything.

The “identify” mantra is a branch of laziness. “Easy for some” is a phrase that pops into my head often these days. If only women could just idennnify out of being objects of contempt!

I suppose this is part of why trans ideology is so irritating. It’s the shortcut thing. “That’s not fair!” goes up the plaintive cry. No, it damn well is not fair. No shortcuts! No cheating! No pretend-magic! The rest of us can’t idennnify out of our limits, so neither can men who like to pretend to be women. It’s not fair!!

Good headline.

JK Rowling: Amnesty has ‘deep-seated hostility’ to women’s groups

Oh well. We had…what…50 years or so of lefty/enlightened men treating women as if we were fellow humans, adults, colleagues, comrades; or if not treating us that way at least pretending to, or saying they did, or meaning to one of these days.

JK Rowling has issued fresh criticism of Amnesty International UK, accusing it of demonstrating “deep-seated hostility to all organisations that believe sex is real”.

Her comments were in response to an article in The Times on Thursday which revealed the charity’s apparently long-held view that “gender-critical” feminists were anti-rights.

Pot calling kettle black much? Amnesty is not exactly warmly affectionate toward women’s rights, now is it.

Amnesty was forced to withdraw a report this week which claimed that dozens of organisations, including Beira’s Place — a centre for victims of sexual violence that was set up with the help of Rowling — “targeted” LGBT people.

Forced? No it wasn’t. It may have felt it had to in order to save face, but that’s not the same thing as being forced.

The charity insisted it regretted publishing the report and that the language used “does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK”.

Oh really?! But they’ve been using that language for years! Yes, it’s been getting steadily worse, but it certainly didn’t begin just a few days ago.

However, The Times unearthed a second report — published in May and still available on Amnesty’s website — that also represented “gender-critical” feminists as “a movement against the rights of women and LGBTI people”. 

Yuhuh, feminists are against the rights of women. Brilliant thinking there, Ammers.

The Times then quotes JKR at length without saying that’s what they’re doing. There are a surprising number of mistakes and omissions in this article.

“It appears that, far from being an accidental slip-up or an editorial error, the latest defamatory report accurately represents Amnesty UK’s deep-seated hostility to all organisations that believe sex is real and important, in contexts such as same-sex attraction and healing after sexual violence and trauma. 

“Those who’ve been defamed are owed an explanation of why Amnesty claimed to have withdrawn the report because of its ‘language’ when, per The Times article, it had already expressed exactly the same beliefs, in the same language, months previously.

“The defamatory report has already had serious consequences for a service supporting women at the most vulnerable time of their lives, as detailed by Beira’s Place lawyers in the legal letter sent two days ago. The withdrawing of the report cannot undo the harm it has already done and is continuing to do. If Amnesty is under the illusion that the women’s, children’s and gay rights organisations it has attacked will be unwilling to go to court, they have made yet another massive error of judgment.”

Amnesty busy making life even more difficult for victims of male violence.

After threats of legal action from organisations including Beira’s Place, Amnesty this week withdrew its report, “A Growing Threat: The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK”, and issued a statement that claimed the document was uploaded accidentally without passing internal review.

Which, as many people have pointed out, is laughable coming from Amnesty given the crap they’ve been saying about us for years.

Oh has it now. How interesting.

Not content with publishing a report branding women’s and gay and lesbian groups as “anti-rights”, Amnesty International UK has been running a free course for anyone to learn how to oppose what it calls the “anti-gender movement”. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/wubGm8RiLe

— Gethin Chamberlain (@newsandpics) July 16, 2026

Run by Amnesty, it was billed as “an introduction to gender justice and the rise of the anti-gender backlash around the world”. pic.twitter.com/xRAXhTuVp6

— Gethin Chamberlain (@newsandpics) July 16, 2026

Because how dare women continue to know that men are not women?

This will require some investigation…

Because women are filth, you see.

A plane passenger allegedly invoked Islam’s strict Sharia law to avoid sitting next to a woman – then assaulted a female flight attendant who tried to smooth it out, according to reports. 

The passenger – only identified as a 29-year-old Turkish migrant living in Germany – was arrested when his June 1 flight landed in Dusseldorf, Bild reported Thursday. 

“According to initial witness statements, the man invoked Sharia law and refused to sit next to a woman,” a police spokesperson told Bild, referring to Islam’s strict codes.

When a female flight attendant tried to speak to him about it, the irate passenger punched or slapped her in the face, the report said.

Sorry, bub, that’s not something you can do. Airlines don’t have to obey your religion.

The romantic tale of tv networks and Trump’s torrents of lies:

Some major TV networks showed President Donald Trump’s prime-time address live on Thursday night while others pointedly did not — a divide that highlighted Trump’s long record of lying and renewed discussion about the news media’s responsibilities.

…

Trump made network decision-making a talking point in his speech. He harshly criticized NBC and ABC for not preempting their prime-time shows for his address and said it “should mean a revocation of their licenses.”

Why should it? There’s not some law or rule that tv networks are required to air presidential speeches live. It’s their decision, not the government’s and certainly not the president’s. Trump sees himself as a dictator rather than a president. We’re letting him act like a dictator, which is highly unfortunate.

Trump’s fixation on false claims about the 2020 election made Thursday night’s address a fraught event for every organization in the business of live news coverage.

…

CNN opted not to take the speech live, instead treating it like other presidential events that are monitored for news and scrutinized for accuracy.

“We’ll be monitoring what the president says tonight, as we always do, but aren’t taking it live, given the president has a well-documented history of saying blatantly false things about elections,” anchor Kaitlan Collins told viewers.

In other words the president is a habitual shameless liar.