Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Every communniny except half of humanity

    I will never understand how people like this can be so obtuse about it.

    Starting at 33 seconds:

    Trans people are some of the most discriminated against in our society, they suffer violence, they suffer harassment, and if you’re in favor of equality, as I am – I’m in favor of equality for everyone in the LGBTplus community, and everyone in the black and minority community, no holds barred, you know I – one reason I’m a liberal is I want to treat every individual with respect.

    Except women. Except, of course, women. This communinny, that communinny, but not women. Women don’t get respect, because of being women.

    What a revolting man.

  • It stated unequivocally

    Lib Dems shit on women.

    Liberal Democrats have voted in favour of scrapping a ban on transgender women using female lavatories.

    That is, Liberal Democrats have voted to let men stalk and terrorize women in women’s toilets. Gee thanks, Liberal Democrats.

    The party has been accused of treating biological women like “second-class citizens” after backing a motion calling for more “inclusive” single-sex spaces at its annual conference in Brighton.

    Yeah let’s be more inclusive. Let’s make public life more dangerous for women so that they will stay inside more, thus freeing up public spaces for men to enjoy. Men win, women lose; that’s inclusion.

    The Lib Dem motion, which received overwhelming support in the conference hall on Monday evening, proposed scrapping new guidance banning transgender women from female lavatories and changing rooms.

    It also stated unequivocally that “trans women are women” and “trans men are men”, and argued that “the rights of women and of trans people are not in competition”.

    It can state bullshit unequivocally all it wants, but it’s still bullshit. Of course trans women are not women. That’s what the word “trans” is there for.

    Last April, the Supreme Court ruled that the word “sex” in the act referred to biological sex, not gender identity, and the word “woman” meant biological woman.

    Earlier this year, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) brought out guidance making it clear this meant that only biological women should be able to use female lavatories.

    The Lib Dem motion stated that the EHRC code was “discriminatory and unworkable” and should be replaced with more “inclusive” rules. It called for Parliament to appoint a cross-party committee to review how the law should be changed to better protect trans people’s rights.

    Blah blah blah. You can’t. There are only two options. You pretend men can be women, or you don’t. Changing the law to protect trans people’s demands necessarily means removing some of women’s rights.

    It will now become party policy, committing the Lib Dems to lobbying for a new version of the EHRC guidance that is “inclusive, workable and ensures everybody can safely access public facilities and providers are protected from legal risk”.

    You can’t. If you let men use women’s public facilities then women can’t safely access them. You can’t square the fucking circle so just admit that you’re trashing women’s rights and safety for the sake of men who pretend to be women.

    Liberal Voice for Women, a Lib Dem group campaigning for sex-based rights, insisted the vote was “not reflective of the broader membership” and warned it would “not go down well on the doorstep” in target areas.

    Zoe Hollowood, who chairs the group and spoke against the motion on Monday, told The Telegraph: “I think what we’ve done today is a massive act of self-harm. For all Ed’s claim to care, he certainly does not seem to care about women.”

    Yup that is definitely not what I would call caring about women.

  • Trump in Manhattan

    Trump is babbling at the UN.

    Trump said that warnings about the dangers to humanity of A.I. — which have been heard from countless top A.I. programmers, executives and experts — were coming from the “same group of people” who promoted what he called “the Russia hoax.” “We will only encourage super intelligence,” Trump said. “We’re going to encourage it, not rein it in.”

    So he fully grasps the issues then.

    He also said the warnings came from those he claimed had overstated the dangers of a warming planet. “The very same people who all said we’ll be dead in 12 years because of global warming — a name since reborn to climate change because the planet was cooling, not warming, and no one was dead — these are the same people saying A.I. is going to kill us all,” he said.

    Nobody said that. Nobody said we’ll all be dead in 12 years. It’s the kind of thing he might say; it’s not the kind of thing reasonable people would say.

    Trump claimed responsibility for the U.N.’s budget crisis, saying that he had slashed its budget by some 15 percent and that as a result the organization had to lay off 4,000 staff members. The U.S. is the top donor to the U.N., but Trump ’s budget cuts hit humanitarian programs. The United States has also withdrawn from multiple U.N. agencies, including from the World Health Organization and UNESCO, the cultural heritage agency.

    Good good good. Who needs health? Who needs cultural heritage?

    “To the victor belong the spoils,” Trump says as he celebrated the outcome of his military operation in Venezuela, speaking just a couple miles away from the prison where that country’s former president, Nicolás Maduro, is being held after the U.S. captured him in January. Since then, the United States has expanded access and control over Venezuela’s oil reserves.

    …

    Trump’s boast that “To the victor belong the spoils” shatters yet another international norm. For generations, American leaders took pains to insist that U.S. foreign interventions were not motivated by material gain — especially control of foreign oil.

    And then along came Mister Wouldn’t Recognize a Norm if it Bit Him on the Ass.

    In a repeat of last year’s speech, Trump said, “While others have talked, I have acted.” He turned to Iran, which he called “the No. 1 sponsor of terror.”

    …

    “I have a big decision to make,″ he said: to make a deal with Iran, or “annihilate the Islamic republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destory people and countries again.” It was a remarkable moment: a threat from the U.N. floor, by a world leader, to wipe out an entire nation.

    It was jarring to hear the president of the United States openly threatening to annihilate a nation, considered a war crime, from the podium of the United Nations.

    Yes, that is jarring. The reporter who wrote the first two paragraphs is David Sanger; the reporter who wrote the third is Farnaz Fassihi. Perhaps Trump would like to take her out while he’s at it.

  • Permission to point finger sir

    And today’s prize for peak patronizing misogyny and telling women what to do goes to……………..Benjamin Ryan!

    We’re so lucky to live in a time when patronizing dweebs like Benjamin Ryan think they get to tell us what and how to write and talk.

  • “No reason,” he said

    I see the problem here, he’s misidentified the cause.

    Trump’s pronouncement, which came after a string of setbacks in the courts and Congress, caught many advisers — including those who deal with the press on a daily basis — by surprise. Trump did not point to any particular story or tension point as the cause when asked about it later that day.

    “No reason,” he said Friday, when asked about the ban, adding, “It’s a very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.”

    Yes, well, we have laws about that, Bubba, so you have to have a reason, and even then the Constitution may tell you no. Either way just saying you don’t feel like it is not suffish.

    The president said his frustration stemmed from coverage dating back years. “It’s really just cumulative stories over the last two years. You get sick of it,” he said.

    There’s your problem right there. They’re not “stories”; they’re reporting. The problem is not the coverage; the problem is you doing these things. You’re shooting the messenger. It’s not the messenger who is doing the things, it’s you.

    The president said his frustration stemmed from coverage dating back years. “It’s really just cumulative stories over the last two years. You get sick of it,” he said.

    See this is what I’m talking about. We get sick of it: we get sick of what you are doing. The reporting is just information about what you’re doing; it’s the doing that’s the problem, not the reporting.

    He’ll never get it, of course.

  • The elite

    Nice graphic.

  • In a truly remarkable development

    I’m not the only one who’s surprised that Fox is on Team Free Press instead of Team Trump. Occupy Democrats writes:

    BREAKING: OMG. Fox News announces it REFUSES to cover Trump’s events in stunning show of solidarity with CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO after Trump BANS them from the White House Press Pool!

    Wow, did not see THIS coming…

    In a truly remarkable development, Fox News’ Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton announced this morning that “This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

    “This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be no replacement pool put in place.”

    This means no press coverage of any White House events, no press coverage of Trump’s trip to the UN, nothing.

    All five networks – CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS – are refusing to participate in the press pool, meaning there will be no coverage for any of the affiliate stations across the country.

    This also means the only coverage we will see will come from the White House, essentially creating Trump-regime state media.

    But we know Donald Trump very well at this point, and we know he LOVES the media and he won’t be able to stand knowing that his stupid words and stupid face aren’t being blasted into every TV screen across America.

    We anticipate a very short resolution to this standoff. Trump’s ego will not be able to stand not being on TV for more than six or so hours.

    We hate to hand it to them, but good for Fox News for standing up for the First Amendment and our right to a free press.

    And standing down for the wannabe dictator.

  • The five networks

    The NY Times is doing live reporting on the backlash against Trump’s attempt to stifle the news media.

    CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Monday sued the Trump administration for barring them from the White House grounds, saying it was a violation of their First Amendment rights to cover the president.

    The five networks that have suspended their pool coverage of President Trump — ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC — just issued a joint statement: “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

    Interesting to see that Fox has some principles.

    Bryan Boughton, the Washington bureau chief at Fox News and the acting chair of the television pool consortium, wrote in a note to pool members on Monday that the decision to halt TV pool coverage “follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties.”

    I’m guessing Trump is amazed and furious that Fox is not with him on this one.

  • A more blatant violation

    Game on.

    MS NOW, CNN and Politico are set to sue President Donald Trump on Monday morning and to ask a federal judge to reverse his total ban on those three media outlets from the White House.

    Journalists from the outlets were prevented from entering the White House on Saturday, a day after Trump announced he would bar them from working there.

    I have an idea – let’s bar him from working there.

    “This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” the lawsuit says.

    “Presidents from the earliest days of the Republic have disagreed with and complained about the tenor and content of press coverage of their administrations,” the complaint, set to be filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, notes.

    But “the Constitution protects the liberty and property interests that news organizations and White House reporters have in their press credentials and the access those credentials afford them to cover the White House for the benefit of the public,” the suit says. “No official can deprive Plaintiffs of those interests on a whim — with no notice, no process, and no warning—as the President did here.”

    He can, but he’s not allowed to. The trick is getting the “not allowed to” to result in not being able to. Trump just wholesale ignores rules and laws that say he’s not allowed to do X; it’s only force that can stop him.

    Trump in announcing the ban on Friday accused the outlets of writing fiction and lies about him, and warned, “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” in a Truth Social post announcing the ban. The president cited what he called “cumulative stories” by the three news organizations, adding, “You get sick of it.”

    Yes but you don’t get to shut down the press because you get sick of it, dumboy. You’re doing it, but you’re not allowed to. There may come a time when you will be forced to stop. I’m not holding my breath.

    In a joint statement on Monday, the three outlets said, “This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.”

    This lawsuit needs to win. We need it to win. If Trump gets to ban journalists…well, you do the math.

    The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in a statement after Trump’s announcement, suggested he would lose a legal challenge to the ban because of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections for the media.

    “The First Amendment prohibits the president from punishing journalists because he doesn’t like their coverage, just as it prohibits him from punishing universities because he doesn’t like the courses they offer, or from punishing law firms because he doesn’t like the clients they represent,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the institute.

    “With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now,” Jaffer said.

    Well, no, you wouldn’t, because it’s Trump. We’ve learned by now that Trump never learns anything.

  • Guest post: End Times Fascism

    Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Bring back toxic lead!!

    I haven’t read it yet, but End Times Fascism by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor seems both interesting and highly relevant. Here are some of the main points from what I have gathered so far:

    • What the authors call “End Times Fascism” consists of 3 main strands (all part of the MAGA coalition): the Christian Right, the tech oligarchs, and the white supremacists.

    • The Christian Right are longing for the apocalypse, and actively seeking to bring it about, because they see it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the precursor to Jesus’ long awaited return.

    • The tech oligarchs, many of them deeply influenced by trans-humanist philosophy, are hoping to make an obscene profit from devouring the Earth’s last resources and think they personally can escape the resulting mass-extinction by going for the Dr. Strangelove solution, colonizing Mars, uploading their souls to the cloud etc.

    • The white supremacists are longing for a cataclysm that will purge the Earth of undesirables and hope to emerge from the resulting carnage as the planet’s undisputed rulers.

    • Like the older forms of fascism, this latest iteration is a reaction to a perceived threat to the power and status of the dominant, but whereas the old fascists all had their own versions of “Der Untermensch”, the End Times Fascists see humanity itself as the inferior race, to be replaced by AI, cyborgs, disembodied ghosts living in the cloud etc.

    • Since what these people are advocating is not in most people’s best interest, they needed an authoritarian leader prepared to push their agenda through by force and found it in Donald Trump.

    As the authors point out, it’s easy to dismiss these ideas as silly, and indeed they are. Yet the fact of the matter is that they are now enormously influential at the highest levels of the American government. As both the older forms of fascism and the MAGA movement itself have demonstrated all too clearly, an idea doesn’t have to be intellectually respectable to be consequential, and the potential for self-fulfilling prophecies is only too obvious.

    Seems worth a read.

  • Can you make the smile any bigger luv?

    The reaction hasn’t died down yet. From a feverish discussion on social meeja which I won’t bother to share:


    One does have to wonder what the thinking was. Why share that photo, as if it’s perfectly normal, very friendly, very gemütlich?

    There’s the archbish, in priestly robes but otherwise just a regular person such as you’d encounter in the beans aisle at Waitrose, and there’s a person dressed to look like one of the pillars upholding a tomb. There’s the archbish grinning broadly while the other party stands there blotted out, hidden, concealed, shrouded, made part of the night. Given what the party in the black shroud looks like, why is the crazy lady smiling so broadly?

    Really, why is she? The whole thing is an atrocity and an insult, so what is she beaming about? Did it not cross her mind, for instance, that the black pillar’s husband/owner must have nothing but disgust and contempt for the beaming archbish? That he thinks she too ought to be dressed like a bale of fabric and forbidden to say a word? What is the point of this photo op?

    We will never know.

  • The real problems

    Eleanor Mills on Rory Stewart:

    His remarks on a Spectator podcast about Britain’s grooming gangs (a polite euphemism for the mostly Pakistani-origin men who preyed on and gang-raped vulnerable, predominantly white girls in care, in the most horrendous, nightmare-inducing ways) now place him, for me, beyond the pale.

    “Do I think that [the grooming gangs scandal] is a big problem for Britain? No,” he told host Michael Gove. “What are the real problems facing Britain? Not this.” He then went on to name the economy and a lack of innovation in public services as far more pressing.

    Well grooming gangs are not a problem for him, so…

    Anyone who has watched the BBC drama Three Girls, based on the true stories of victims of grooming gangs in Rochdale, or read any of the official reports into what happened to children in Rotherham, Telford, Oxford or any of the other cities where these depraved men operated, wouldn’t be human if they didn’t feel angry and “bang on” about it. It is a massive stain on our society that so many young girls were abused for so long and the authorities did nothing about it.

    They didn’t want to be accused of Islamophobia, you see.

    What makes Stewart’s dismissive remarks, made in the context of defending the Muslim community, even worse is that they are an exact echo of the attitudes that allowed this abuse to continue for so many years. Local authorities didn’t take action for fear of being thought “racist”, even though many of the abused girls were in their so-called “care”.

    Is Stewart aware that even “the Muslim community” consists of female people as well as male people? Does he think he’s showing solidarity with that “community” by being conspicuously indifferent to women and girls?

  • No to the steamroll

    Let’s not do this, shall we?

    Also, it’s a lie about the 59 cities and capitals. They don’t.

  • Bring back toxic lead!!

    More evil from the bad man and his bad people:

    Humane World for Animals and Humane World Action Fund, formerly called Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund, issued the following statement in response to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing federal agencies to expand hunting on public lands and permit the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle. The order raises serious concerns about how wildlife on public lands, which belong to all Americans, will be managed, including whether decisions will continue to prioritize science-based conservation and the health of wildlife and their habitats.

    The Sept. 17 executive order directs federal agencies to expand hunting access on public lands, permit the use of lead ammunition and tackle, and increase “targeted management of predators”—a euphemism for the discredited practice of “predator control,” where wild carnivores are killed ostensibly to increase numbers of game species like deer and elk for hunters. While the order does not directly repeal the nationwide requirement for nontoxic shot in waterfowl hunting, in place since 1991, it leaves unclear what longstanding restrictions on toxic lead could be affected as agencies implement the directive.

    Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund, said:

    “Once again, this administration is firmly placing our nation’s wildlife in the crosshairs of a minority of Americans who hunt or fish, and in this executive order it is with lead ammunition and tackle. Entire ecosystems will be subject to the toxicity lead brings to our environment. If the government acknowledged the risk and banned lead in paint for our homes and businesses, why would we sanction its use in our sensitive ecosystems? With safer, more effective alternatives available, we should be reducing wildlife’s exposure to toxic lead, not creating new opportunities to spread it across the lands and waters they depend on.”

    Ah well, it’s only stupid libruls who object to spreading toxic lead. Real Americans like a little poison in their food.

  • A sharp departure

    If the national Attorney General won’t follow the most basic rules, what are we even doing?

    Attorney General Todd Blanche is blurring traditional boundaries between politics and federal law enforcement with recent speeches at political events that mark a sharp departure from norms meant to protect the Justice Department from the appearance of partisan bias.

    From the appearance and, one hopes, the reality of partisan bias. I for one care far more about the reality than the appearance. I want that fucker to be free of trumpy bias, not just appear to be that.

    Blanche took the stage this week at an event for a Republican Senate candidate in North Carolina days after speaking at a GOP midterm convention, where he praised Trump and touted the administration’s tough-on-crime approach.

    What tough on crime approach? Trump is the most criminal president we’ve ever had, by miles. Nixon looks like an angel next to him. Harding was a saint.

    “It lends credence to the arguments that the Justice Department is hopelessly politicized,” said Richard Painter, who was a White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “And that’s not where we want to be right now.”

    It’s not where we want to be ever. That’s why the “traditional boundaries” were there.

    The Justice Department said Blanche’s appearances at political events are made in his personal capacity, and noted that his speeches have addressed the administration’s efforts broadly but do not get into agency policies or official business.

    Oh come on. The federal AG can’t appear at public events in his “personal capacity” as opposed to his official one. That’s not possible. It’s not a suit he can take off, it’s a fact about him that doesn’t change unless he resigns or is thrown out.

    The Hatch Act prohibits government officials from using their official positions to influence elections. That includes supporting candidates while acting in their official capacities. Watchdog groups have long complained that the law isn’t a strong deterrent and enforcement has been inadequate and uneven.

    The Justice Department under Biden in 2022 tightened its restrictions on employees’ attendance at political events after then-Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins attended a fundraiser that featured first lady Jill Biden. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by Trump in April, later rescinded those restrictions.

    Of course she did.

  • Tom Jack Ron and Don

    Jake Tapper nails it.

    Boom-tish

  • Fame at last

    Developments in Sarah Phillimore’s libel case against Jolyon Maugham:

    Open letter sent August 28 2026

    Phillimore v Maugham KC: Open Offer

    KB-2026-002022

    1. We continue to act for the Claimant, Sarah Phillimore, in a spirit of collegiality and with a genuine desire to resolve this matter proportionately. We invite you to consider both this open offer and the reasoning that follows with care.

    The current position

    2. Our client’s Particulars of Claim set out three publications, each of which accused her of leading a campaign of harassment so wicked that another person attempted suicide. Your client admitted at the pre-action stage that each publication was defamatory at common law and caused serious harm to our client’s reputation. The publications achieved very substantial reach: over 400,000 followers on X alone, with hundreds of thousands of views, and continuing publication on Bluesky, TikTok and Instagram to audiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

    I recommend reading the whole thing. The lawyerly dispassion and clarity are a treat. Upshot is Phillimore did nothing wrong so you might as well settle, you damn fool – only of course the last three words are not actually written. Felt in the air, but not written.

    Maugham of course did not agree to settle.

    Then there’s the part about the witness.

    9. We are mindful that the person at the centre of the underlying complaint – Sophie Weddell – is, on any view, a vulnerable individual. Weddell’s own witness statement, served in support of the GLP complaint, described very significant mental health difficulties. Our client takes no pleasure whatsoever in that contested defamation proceedings, with the publicity they inevitably attract, risk causing Weddell further distress, particularly if your client’s truth defence requires them to give evidence and be cross-examined on the matters set out in the Particulars of Claim, the BSB’s decision letter, and the Independent Reviewer’s report.

    10. Our client would prefer that Weddell is spared that ordeal entirely.

    Weddell, on the other hand, is on Blue Sky jumping up and down begging to be a witness.

    Dear Austin McCormick, I'm happy to be Jo's Witness in court.I ask the following defamatory blog post be removed. As this contributes to SV PhIllmore's harrassment against myself and my gender identity.sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/an-open-of…

    — Sophie Molly (@sophiemolly.co.uk) 2026-09-19T18:31:19.525Z

    He cannot wait for his closeup, Mister DeMille.

  • A pattern

    The FBI Director is a wackjob.

    Not in a good way.

    An Atlantic report on Patel in April chronicled a pattern of heavy drinking, odd behavior, and mysterious absences—it was headlined “The FBI Director Is MIA.” Representative Jamie Raskin is investigating his payments of more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars to favored FBI agents. He’s fired long-term, respected FBI agents for political reasons. Patel has also been in trouble for using public assets to ferry himself and his country music star girlfriend to entertainment venues.

    Other than that…

    Patel was grilled on some of his decisions at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Tuesday. He opened by recounting a barrage of purported FBI accomplishments in reducing violent crime and thwarting terrorism, many of which were exaggerations or falsehoods, featuring activities largely the terrain of other agencies, not the FBI.

    Oh well, it’s only the FBI.

    Illinois Senator Dick Durbin opened by saying flatly that Patel should be replaced. He was the first to express bewilderment at the agency’s new welcome mat to applicants who’d “engaged in bestiality.” It was left to GOP Senator John Kennedy to drill down on the strange new regulation. When pushed, Katel insisted that “the previous regulation automatically disqualified any individual who participated in either side of it,” to which Kennedy asked what the entire audience had to be wondering: “Either side of bestiality? So you disqualified the animal?”

    Kennedy went on: “You’re not saying that if a human being had sex with an animal, they can be an FBI agent?”

    Patel tried to explain. “Applicants who have engaged in bestaility means they were victims of bestiality because they were forced to do so. At this FBI we are not going to criminalize and prevent victims from serving.”

    Forced to do so? Is this some new fad? Why haven’t we been told?

    Senator Adam Schiff put Patel under a magnifying glass over whether he had fired FBI agents who worked on either major investigation into Trump—into his wrongly holding onto classified information after leaving office, or fomenting the January 6 insurrection. Patel was evasive, then eventually admitted that “most” such agents had left the agency, but claimed that they’d retired. Schiff pointed to numerous lawsuits by FBI personnel claiming wrongful termination, as well as Attorney General Todd Blanche’s boasting that Patel had gotten rid of all the Trump classified-info investigators. But Patel continued to filibuster and claim that wasn’t true.

    Let’s hope he doesn’t have any pets.

  • Oops scratch the harmony award

    Archbish has to take it back. Whoops! Maybe think about it more carefully next time, eh wot?

    The archbishop of Canterbury has withdrawn an interfaith harmony award she gave to an Osama Bin Laden apologist on the anniversary of 9/11 last week.

    The withdrawal follows a public backlash after the National Secular Society and other outlets revealed [that] Tahir Ashrafi, as chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Council, had bestowed the title “Saifullah”, or sword of Allah, on Osama Bin Laden, in 2007.

    Here’s the thing, Archbish. We don’t want swords of Allah (or of Jahweh or Jehova or God or Jesus, either). Swords are bad things; they’re hurty and killy. The goal is not violence, not endless war, not slaughtering each other over who has the best fictional goddy character. Don’t be rewarding people who are all in on the slaughter part.

    The council bestowed the title in reaction to the UK knighting Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was forced into hiding after the Iranian supreme leader issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for his death because the book was deemed ‘blasphemous’.

    Speaking in 2007, Ashrafi said: “If a blasphemer can be given the title ‘Sir’ by the West despite the fact he’s hurt the feelings of Muslims, then a mujahid [jihadist] who has been fighting for Islam against the Russians, Americans and British must be given the lofty title of Islam, Saifullah”.

    Ashrafi told the BBC yesterday he was only trying to convey “the hurt felt by many Muslims”, but he defended the comparison between the author and the architect of a terrorist atrocity which killed thousands of civilians.

    Meanwhile, of course, one of the fanatics finally got to Salman and took one of his eyes. That’s the faction the archbish wanted to flatter.

    Ashrafi has also expressed support for Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which makes it a capital offence to insult Islam. It is routinely used to persecute Ahmadi Muslims, who hold different beliefs to the majority of Muslims in Pakistan, as well as other religious minorities and nonreligious people.

    In 2021, Ashrafi reportedly endorsed remarks by Pakistan’s prime minister which appeared to blame women for being assaulted if they do not wear hijab. He has also said a man may marry up to four women without his first wife’s consent. In 2023, he allegedly described the perpetrators of the October 7 attack as “freedom fighters”.

    After a torrent of public criticism, Lambeth Palace issued a statement last night which said: “previous comments made by Imam Ashrafi have come to light that have led Lambeth Palace to reconsider this award and we can now confirm today that the award has been withdrawn”. No apology has been issued.

    In other words Lambeth Palace admitted it had been grotesquely lazy and sloppy about vetting the guy they wanted to give a nice churchy interfaithy prize to. Listen up, Lambeth P: religions are not automatically or invariably sources of compassion or fairness or sweet reason; not yours and certainly not that violence-loving other one.

    National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans said: “We welcome the withdrawal of this award, but it is astonishing that it was given in the first place – on the anniversary of 9/11, no less.

    “This episode reveals not only appallingly poor judgement and inadequate due diligence, but a dangerous naivety about the religious figures legitimised in the name of interfaith engagement.

    “A Church capable of such a serious failure of judgement should not enjoy constitutional privilege, including 26 bishops making our laws. It is time the Church of England was disestablished.”

    I cannot disagree.

  • Dictator announces a news ban

    Ok, so, it’s unconstitutional, but he’s doing it anyway and getting away with it anyway.

    Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico on Saturday said they were denied access to White House grounds after President Trump announced a ban on the three media outlets.

    He can’t do that. But he’s doing in anyway.

    On Friday afternoon, a Bloomberg News reporter asked Trump about the ban at a press conference and whether he was trying to intimidate the press. “No, no, no, no. I dislike dishonest press, like you. I think you’re terrible,” Trump responded.

    He also said: “They purposely write negative news, and they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.” Trump said there was no specific news story that led to his decision, instead it was a frustration that had built up over the last two years.

    In other words it’s as unconstitutional as it can possibly be.

    CNN said in a statement on X Saturday that they have “a right under the U.S. Constitution” to report without interference from the government.

    “We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account, and we will continue to report on the actions and processes of this administration without fear our favor.”

    And Trump will continue to put obstacles in their path until someone stops him.

    Trump’s announcement comes amid a midterm election season where Democrats have an edge — Trump has faced pushback over his unpopular war in the Middle East, a looming affordability crisis, and threats to demolish the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center.

    White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich said Friday that “the Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference.”

    “That protection does not depend on whether the president likes a news organization’s coverage, agrees with its reporting, or approves of the questions its journalists ask,” she said.

    Theodore Boutrous, a leading First Amendment lawyer in the U.S., told NPR that the ban is, on its face, unconstitutional.

    Trump don’t care. Trump does what he wants. The dictatorship is now.