I have provisionally labelled this essay as ‘the Elephant in the Room’ but I am conscious that this phrase has become somewhat overused. However, it does adequately describe my reaction to an Irish Times article entitled ‘Homeless figures reach record high with 14,429 people in emergency accommodation.’ What   has piqued my interest  in the article is, what wasn’t mentioned, hence my provisional title. The figures were released by the Department of Housing and related to those 10,028 adults and 4401 children in emergency accommodation in the week of July 22nd to 28th. You might be forgiven for thinking that the homeless figure was smaller than you had been led to believe. The article stated that this involved 2,086 families which could be easily managed within the Taoiseach’s promise of 250,000 houses over  5 years. (The Independent 07/04/24) Well not quite, as there are 6,573 single adults included in the numbers, it doesn’t give a breakdown by sex which would have been interesting. Let us assume that this means that we have to add the single adult number to the number of families to get the number of housing units required to solve the housing crisis. Well again not quite, as the numbers exclude the following:

None of this data includes homeless people who are in domestic refuges, those in direct provision centres who have leave to remain in the State, those who are sleeping rough, or the 2,539 male asylum seekers awaiting offers of accommodation. Irish Times 30/08/24

There doesn’t seem to be a holistic set of statistics for the homeless, which is surprising given the number of plans published by various parties to solve the problem. If we take the definition of homeless to mean all those who have no permanent accommodation, then we must add back those who have been excluded from the Department of Housing report. For example, as shown in fig 1 opposite, there are 31,563 people in direct provision managed by the International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS). If we take the most recent weekly breakdown of those in direct provision (fig 2) as fairly representative, we can see that the housing requirement is not far short of the 30k figure in that  all the groups shown in fig 2 will require separate housing units, with the exception  of the children. I fully understand that this is a rough and ready

estimate but I don’t see any attempt by the IT to question the Department of Housings  definition of homelessness.  Why go down this particular rabbit hole? It is just to demonstrate that we need to question every statement made by government and media. There may be a reasonable explanation as to why homelessness is defined by one government department differently from the man or woman in the street. It is the job of the media to question and explain why that may be so.

The reaction to the report was predictable and the usual suspects  were canvassed. Focus Ireland’s chief executive Pat Dennigan said ‘that family homelessness was continuing to rise mainly because families were finding it’ “harder than ever to secure a home and move out of homelessness”. ‘Labour leader Ivana Bacik described as “utterly heartbreaking” that thousands of children were “heading back to school” from emergency shelter.’ Catherine Kenny, chief executive of Dublin Simon, said as winter approached “the urgency of addressing the homeless crisis becomes even more pressing”. She continued: “An exponential increase in the development of new social housing … must be at the forefront of any Budget discussions.” (Irish Times 30/08/24) I am trying not to be disparaging about the above commentators but when I say the usual suspects they do tend to belong to a particular mindset who believe the only solution is government intervention and whose policy is mainly emotionally driven. However, there are those who I don’t mind disparaging and right on time we have the solution from Sinn Fein. They has seen the Taoiseach’s bid of 250k houses and have raised it to 300k with no impact on the exchequer. I will leave any analyse of their bid to those of us who believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Also, for those of us  who remember the Celtic Tiger housing boom and the never ending saga of the Children’s Hospital, I am more than a bit sceptical about the governments ability to bring such a large project to fruition, in a timely, cost effective and efficient manner. What is the common theme from most of the above commentators is that we must increase supply by government subsidy, in one form or another. The Taoiseach says we need 250,000 units, Sinn Fein says 300,000, why not 500,000? These are just numbers thrown into the wind. Do we have the resources to do this and where are all these houses going to be built? We all remember the ‘ghost towns’ of the Celtic Tiger years. What we are not hearing is anything resembling a coherent plan.

And then we come to the Elephant in the room. When considering the shortage of any commodity we need to look at both sides of the supply and demand equation. John Ring, director of research at Savills, summarised the situation, as follows:

“While it is true that many countries across the world are facing housing shortages, it is important to recognise that the severity of Ireland’s is on a different level to others … Ireland has unique drivers – a delayed natural population boom, high migration due to strong economic growth, and structural legacy issues resulting from the Celtic Tiger crash – that explain why Ireland has the unenviable position having the worst supply-to-population growth [ratio] of the countries analysed.” (Irish Times, 15/08/24)

He might also have added government inactivity to the causes. If we look at the

year ended April 2024 population estimates produced by the CSO (fig 3)  we immediately see one of the most important elements fuelling the housing crises,  mentioned by John Ring. The number we should look at is the top line which shows that there was an estimated 141k immigrants in the 12 months ending in April 2023 and 149k in 12 months ending April 2024. Now before anyone points out that we should subtract the emigration number to establish the net immigration figure, I would remind them that , in this instance, we  are looking at housing demand and not population growth. In the CSO graph Fig 4: Immigration Classified by Broad Citizenship Group, 2018 – 2024, two things become obvious. The first is the exponential growth in immigration from 2021 and the second is the dominance of the ‘Rest of the World’ number. In the last two years that number was 86.8k for 2024 and 81.1K for 2023 but there was an outward flow, in this class, of 21.5k in 2024 and 14.4k in 2023 which can be offset.(CSO 27/08/24)  The impact on housing demand of the other groups is fairly stable.

If we focus on the largest variable on the demand side of the equation we can also accept that not all of the net ‘Rest of the World’ numbers will require individual housing units. (86.6+81.1-21.5-14.4=132k) If we make another assumption and apply the proportions of single v family numbers in IPAS care  in fig 5 to the two year net figure of the ‘Rest of the World’ immigration, we will get some idea of the real demand for housing. If we can extrapolate from fig 5 it would mean that single males make up 57.4k of the ‘Rest of the World’ total, single woman 16.9k and the remaining 57.7k is representing couples and families. If we want to gestimate how many units that makes, we can use the proportions in fig 2 to hazard a guess to breakdown the last category. Thus, if we take 3% of the family class and divide by 2, we get an approximation of the single parent number housing units. ( 3% x 57.7 /2= 0.87 units). If we then take the remaining number, assume 4 people per family (2022 Census records 1.34 children per family) we can have a view on what the ‘Rest of the World’ housing demand is. (3% x 57.7,/4 = 14k).

So, what is the final gestimate of housing for the biggest variable in the immigration numbers? Rest of the World net immigration 132k.  Demand for accommodation based on that number, Single males 57.4k + single females 16.9k + single parents 0.9k + families 14k = 89.2k/2 = 44.6k units per year

I fully recognise that these are numbers held together by string and Sellotape; from disparate sources that don’t always line up and based on assumptions that are somewhat arbitrary. However, I couldn’t find a similar official breakdown, either from government sources or the media. I am sure that there is such a breakdown but to the ordinary citizen it is difficult to find. Up until 2021 Ireland had a housing problem, within three years it has become a housing crisis and the main reason for the change is immigration. To clarify, this essay is not about immigration, per se but about the absence of any honest discussion about the impact on the people and the plans to deal with what are foreseeable challenges. And that is the most frustrating part. The housing crisis is just one manifestation of this sudden change that is obvious to anyone with their wits about them.  However the government and the media are operating under the rules of a form of omerta. Any discussion on housing should look at all the variables and instead of trying to label  any contrary opinion as disinformation, should publish their own plans for the future and the data supporting them. As a random example, I read an article from the Irish Times editorial entitled, The Irish Times view on the housing crisis: further threats facing into 2023. Apparently, the only driver was the slowdown in building, nothing on the demand side changed it seems. In contrast, across the Atlantic/ Megan Specia sums up the current situation in an article entitled, ‘The Social Contract Has Been Completely Ruptured’: Ireland’s Housing Crisis’ (New York Times 15/01/24) I have discussed this issue in another essay (Dublin Riots  ) and silence on one of the main  reasons for the housing crisis is another manifestation of an increasing gulf between the citizens and government in Ireland. Finally, I was tempted to go with the New York Times heading but have stayed with the Elephant in the Room. It may be a bit  hackneyed but it fits.

Sources

Kitty Holland, 30/08/24, Irish Times, Homeless figures reach record high with 14,429 people in emergency accommodation, https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/08/30/homeless-figures-reach-record-high-with-14429-people-in-emergency-accommodation/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Homeless figures reach record high with 14%2C429 people in emergency accommodation&utm_campaign=evening_update_digest

Ian Curran Jack Horgan-Jones, 18/08/24, Irish Times, Ireland’s housing crisis ‘on a different level’ with population growing at nearly four people for every new home built, https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2024/08/15/housing-irelands-population-is-growing-at-nearly-four-people-for-every-new-home-built/

CSO, 27/08/24, Population and Migration Estimates, April 2024, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2024/keyfindings/

I was going to introduce a new culture page and comment on my recent attendance  at two opera’s and one play. However, the Dems had a bad week and I couldn’t resist commenting on the rare sight of the Democratic party in complete disarray. It started, of course, with the Presidential debate and the picture, opposite, tells the whole story. What does surprise me is the impact it had on the progressives. Like most sane people I thought that everyone knew that the President was suffering a decline and as a result, a very low bar was set for his performance. Normally, if he managed to stay upright for 90 minutes, the press would laud whatever he managed to remember from his week long training session, declare him victorious and we could all move on. That didn’t happen! I think part of the reason why the resulting implosion was so dramatic was that the legacy press just couldn’t defend or miss or diss inform what was in front of peoples eyes.

I will follow up on the reverberations from this disaster later but a slew of Supreme Court decisions added to the progressives’ misery. Of the nineteen, end of term, decisions published, three stand out as being immediately relevant for the election in November.

1. Fischer v. United States – This case revolves around the interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 section 15.12.C2. This act was a response to the destruction of evidence in the Enron case and made it an offense if a person, “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” Scotus 603 US 2024. Jan 6 prosecutors, used this act, in conjunction with others, to charge protesters with obstructing official proceedings but the Supreme Court found that the section under which they were charged was limited by the listed destruction of physical evidence and not prevention of  the proceedings. This complicates Jack Smiths case against Donald Trump and as an example of the asymmetric application of the law, it should have have been used against Hillary Clinton,  who destroyed evidence that was the subject of an investigation. Not surprisingly, in that case the DOJ declined to press charges.

2. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce.

These were two cases brought by fishermen against a government agency who forced the fishermen to pay for an onboard inspector. The issue before the court was that there was no basis in statute or any other regulation that gave the agency the power to do this. The Court decided to overturn, what was known as the Chevron deference, where there was undue weight given to government agencies  when expert opinion was needed to decide on  ambiguous law. In the cases before it, SCOTUS ruled that Congress had not given these wide powers to the government and therefore, the actions were ultra virus.

3. Trump v. United States. This is the decision that has created most noise from the Dems. Talk of Trump sending Seal Teams to assassinate some political enemy abound. The editorial from the Financial Times, of all papers, gives us a flavour of the end of democracy mantra so loved by the Dems. The editorial is entitled, The Supreme Court has undermined US democracy, and in its final paragraph grandly talks in terms of the American revolution helping to spur the world away from ‘tyranny and towards democracy and accountability. But look around you! We have truly witnessed a revelation when we saw the debate and the frailty of the President. This had been an open secret to those on the right but to those who depended on the legacy press it was really shocking. At every turn government spokes persons, journalists and celebrities talked about how sharp he was, behind closed doors until the lie was exposed. Also, When you talk of the threat to democracy you surely can’t be talking about the Biden administration attempt to prevent his political opponent from being on the ballot, SCOTUS Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson.

Think about it. Who has weaponised and used state agencies to promote autocratic rule against it’s opponents, from pushing Russiagate to hiding Hunter’s laptop from the electorate. Who commands the sort of power that includes the FBI and intelligence agencies to the so called free press. Do we really believe Donald Trump has that power? The FT regrets that the three remaining cases will probably not be heard before the election. Hardly the fault of SCOTUS or Trump, as they could had been heard any time in the last couple of years. As the FT  implies the real planned timing was to land these cases to coincide with the Republican primaries and November elections. Speaking of lawfare, the FT shows no interest in putting the SCOTUS decision in context. It did not happen in a vacuum but in response to the attempt to eliminate a political opponent by very undemocratic means. In an article explaining why this provision was needed now, the Washington Examiner made the following comment.

“The difference now is that the Democratic Party has decided Republicans must be prevented at any cost from winning presidential elections and that abusing the criminal justice system and lying about the current president’s mental health are all justified toward that political end. The Supreme Court put a brake on that slide Tuesday and we applaud it.” Washington Examiner, 02/07/24

The FT only had to do a little research to see that the four main cases against Trump were politically motivated. For example, if we look at the prosecutors, both Bragg and Fani Willis were elected on a ‘Get Trump’ ticket. Nothing partisan about that then. Jack Smiths appointment has been challenged and his claimed independence from the Biden DOJ is looking very suspect. But hasn’t Trump been found guilty in NY? The short answer is that he could only have been found guilty in NY or DC, where Trump derangement syndrome is endemic. Even the Justice Department didn’t take the case, possibly because it had failed in a similar case against the Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. It just got worse when the only witness that could prove conspiracy was a disbarred lawyer, a felon who had serially lied and contradicted his own evidence, who hated Trump and even admitted stealing from him. Michael Cohen is a real piece of debris. I would challenge the FT to take even a cursory glance at this case and tell me that it wasn’t politically motivated with the objective of taking out the Republicans Presidential candidate.

When Joe Biden first stood for President he gave one of his reasons for standing as his opposition to Trumps support for racism, supposedly expressed in his 2017 Charlottesville speech. Biden has repeated the ‘Very Fine People’ quote on many occasions, the most recent being the Presidential debate.  The problem is that Snopes, hardly a conservative organisation , has fact checked it and found that, ‘No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists ‘Very Fine People’. Given the number of times Biden used the quote we can only assume that this was deliberate miss information, However, the interesting thing is that it only appears to have been fact checked very recently. This means that the press had looked the other way, as it did with Bidens decline and so many other things, for around seven years and only now seems to have applied some basic journalism to current events. The challenge for the FT is to prove that it isn’t part of the media who covered up Bidens incapacity. The media who supported the whole Russia gate lie, who hid the Hunter laptop from the electorate, who hasn’t reported on the weaponisation of the Federal agencies. Who looks away when Mayorkus says that the border is secure and says that Trump is the enemy of democracy, whilst supporting efforts to prevent him standing in an election.

It is also evidenced by the FT editorial that ignored the context of the Supreme Court decision and without irony, projects all the undemocratic attempts by the Dems to subvert democracy, on to Trump claiming that he is the threat to democracy. 

So, we have seen the chaos caused by one event which showed the extent of the Biden administrations contempt for the truth and the media’s compliance by reporting the party line. The FT has to make a decision as to whether they are part of that group or, whether they will go the extra mile to give a balanced view of the news. The editorial referred to above was not balanced or, well researched but a rather lazy and biased fabrication. However, I will agree with their sub title to the editorial which read:

We have now observed the extent to which an occupant of the Whitehouse can erode democratic norms. FT 03/07/24

When will the FT realise that the above is a perfect description of the present administration and be brave enough to report the truth.

Sources

Editorial, The Financial Times, 03/07/24, The Supreme Court has undermined US democracy

Washington Examiner, 02/07/24, Supreme Court strikes proper balance on presidential immunity, washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3065980/supreme-court-strikes-proper-balance-on-presidential-immunity/

Jonathan Turley, 24/03/24, Why Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump is falling apart, New York Post, https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/why-braggs-case-against-trump-is-falling-apart/

I was going to do a follow up to my essay on the the proposed amendments to the Irish Constitution ( see Referendum ) but the Scots launched their Hate Speech Act on April Fools day and I couldn’t resist commenting on it. ( Hate Speech ) I had put the Referendum on the back burner until an article in the Irish Times caught my eye. Before we examine it, I would like to say that the quality of investigative journalism has fallen but in equal part, the ability of people to asses the truthfulness of the information supplied has also deteriorated. You used to accept that the Guardian and the Telegraph were reporting from different ends of the political spectrum but the basic facts were there and usually the opposite view was given some space to give a sense of balance. Now there is a definite partisan bias to mainstream news coverage. On the other hand, readers are far less inclined to question what and how news is reported.  Well let’s see how well the IT matches up to that low  bar.

The story concerns the thirty ninth and fortieth Amendment to the Constitution and one of the most contentious  issues was the attempt to redefine the family by adding the term ‘durable relationships’ to Article 41.1.1. Opponents to the Amendment immediately pointed out that this phrase had no legal meaning in this context. Indeed, the leading opponent of the referendum, former Justice Minister  Michael McDowell, raised the potential problems with taxation, succession and family law. As reported by the I.T, “Campaigners for No warned before the family vote of “long-term consequences” for tax law. But when the Government was asked whether it had examined the tax implications of the proposed amendment, it stated in unambiguous terms that there would be no tax impact.” (IT 21/05/24) Unfortunately for the government, this position was not true. As a result of a freedom of information (FOI) request documents relating to this question were released by the Revenue, and told a different story.

Revenue officials warned of potential tax law changes arising from the family referendum before Ministers claimed the proposal had no tax implications, according to newly-released files that raise fresh questions about the Government campaign. (IrishTimes, 21/05/24)

It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this. The government has run for cover and used the Attorney General as a shield against the accusations of miss or diss information to push through an unpopular change to the Constitution. This is as if the prosecution in a murder trial hid exculpatory evidence from the defence lawyers. The government were put on notice that the Department that administered the tax regime had serious doubts about the wording to be used in the amendments. An honest government would have disclosed the Revenue’s reservation and the A.G.’s review and let it be part of the public debate. There is no other way of putting this, the government hid the revenue’s warning and repeatedly lied to the public on the tax question.

What else can we take  from the I.T. article. There are two bits of information that I think are worth looking at. The first is, who filed the FOI request? It is not clear, from the article, whether it was  the I.T.  or publications like Gript but credit to both of them for following up on this story  The second question is, which Ministers lied to the public? You wouldn’t know from the IT article, which means I have to deduct some points gained for pursuing the story. They talk about the government and it’s spokesmen but no names. We are too used to tiredly accepting low standards from high officials but just like naughty children, if there are no consequences for bad behaviour, then it becomes the norm. The view of the IT seems to be, ‘not  much to see here’ and described the lie as a “constructive ambiguity”.  (IT 22/05/24) That’s a new one on me and I am sure that it took a lot of resources from the IT staff to come up with that one. They further stated that, although the government was hiding behind the A.G. one could “imply” that this meant that they had, at least, considered  the Revenues opinion, even though their conclusion was wrong. Hold on though, it just gets even more distant from reality as the editorial continued,

The trouble is that such nuances get lost in the noise. Instead, the impression that is left is one of a government misleading the electorate. That, in the current climate, can further erode public trust. Governments would do well to bear this in mind in advance of future referendums. (IT 22/05/24)

We seem to forget that the government and all it’s people work  for the Irish citizens. The government has no money or assets of it’s own but disperses money taken from those citizens. We seem to have morphed into a society run by a small elite of cultural marxists and their fellow travellers who exist in a bubble totally out of touch with the people that ultimately employ them. This is why the IT  didn’t identify those who lied but talked in terms of ‘nuances’ and the rather ridiculous ‘constructive ambiguity’. This, in part, explains the outcome of the referendum, the very short version being that Leo and Co. got hammered and humiliated and he resigned! There was another issue related to the proposed change of definition of the family in the constitution and that relates to immigration. As reported by Gary Kavanagh, a  senior official in the Department of Justice said “The State has been able to maintain an immigration system so far precisely because Article 41 is applied to a small, tightly-defined group of people. The State will not be able to regulate immigration if this protection is applied any more widely.” (Gript, 21/05/24) Was it a ‘constructive ambiguity’ that prevented this issue surfacing during the debate on the referendum?

The IT is correct when it says that there is a loss of public trust in government institutions and also in those that support them. There is no ‘noise‘  that deafened people to an explanation of the governments action. There is no ‘impression‘ that the  government mislead the electorate as the IT put it. There is no doubt that the government lied  but they lied with the expectation that there would be no consequences. I will leave it to Senator Sharon Keogan to sum up.

“Today’s disclosure, in addition to the Interdepartmental Minutes and the leaks by Gript and The Ditch earlier this year, make it an inescapable fact that this government misled the Irish public on the Constitutional referendums…..“This should be a national scandal – if this were a different period of time in which we didn’t have so many journalists seeking Special Advisor roles. The legacy media would be asking government ministers, ‘when are you going to resign?’(Gript, 21/05/24)

Sources

Arthur Beesley, 21/05/24, The Irish Times, Revenue officials wthe sarned privately that family referendum could force tax changes

Editorial, 22/05/24, The Irish Times, The Irish Times view on referendum information: a potential erosion of trust

Maria Maynes, 21/05/24, Gript, SENATOR: REVENUE OFFICIALS’ WARNING THAT FAMILY REFERENDUM COULD FORCE TAX CHANGES ‘SHOULD BE NATIONAL SCANDAL’

Two proposed amendments, which voters considered on Friday, were intended to reflect the more secular, liberal values of the nation’s modern era.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-style/2024/03/16/metropolitan-bubble-referendum-fallout-for-irish-politics-and-wider-society/?

I had intended to follow up my last essay on the two proposed amendments to the Irish Constitution but ever reliable Scotland  managed to gazump that project by doing something even more stupid that I just couldn’t ignore. I probably will do something on the amendments story but spoiler alert, the very short version is that Leo and Co. got hammered and humiliated and he resigned. (Constitutional Amendments ) So what did the Scots do that elbowed Leo and Co from the front page? Well the clue is in the title of this essay. They finally enacted the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. You note that it was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2021 but only enacted in April 2024. This was due to widespread opposition to it, not least of which came from the Scottish Police who were charged with, well, policing it. The delay is even more remarkable when you realise that most of it’s most objectionable provisions were already built in to the Public Order Act of 1986 which it consolidates. I have already discussed the utter ineptitude of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) leadership in an essay concerning the housing of sex offenders and violent criminals in women’s prisons. (Safe Spaces) Both Nicola Sturgeon and her successor, First Minister Humza Yousaf, have their fingerprints all over this latest measure, which should fill no one with confidence.

By the way, just a sample of the amount of thought put in to this legislation is that complainants can visit any of 400 ‘third party reporting centres’ to process their claims. Pictured opposite are the owners of one such office, who operate a sex shop but you could also make your claim at a mushroom farm and a caravan park. As the police have no opportunity to pre vet these complaints and as most are anonymous it isn’t difficult to see where this is going.

So what are the new provisions of the 2021 Act? In summary, they incorporate the basic structure of the 1986 anti racist Public Order Act but expand it in two ways. Firstly the protected class is expanded from race to include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity. It also includes an enhanced ‘stirring up provision’ which was first introduced in the 1986 Act. As an aside, the term ‘stirring up’ is borrowed from the name commonly given to the collet for the twenty fifth Sunday after Trinity or, the day people made their Christmas puddings. More importantly, the first thing to note is that there is no welcome for women in the new protected classes.

Quite why women were omitted is not clear but the First Minister has promised a special Act, in the future, all to themselves. I would hazard a guess that the inclusion of transgenderism in the new act gave Yousaf a problem. If he included women as a separate category as well as transgenderism,  then where does a man claiming to be a woman sit at the table of the new protected classes? If a woman is protected under the Act does that mean that terms like TERF and transphobe can be classed as hate speech against them? I could imagine that JKR could come up with a far spicier collection of hate speech used against her but if she were to take action under the Act, will the police be the ones to arbitrate on the question of, what is a woman?

Before going into the detail of how this is going to be administered I would like to say that I am  concerned about the widespread number of people represented by the protected classes. I understand how this comes about, the authorities want to demonstrate how seriously they take crimes against minorities. The problem comes when nearly everyone is included, as in this case. If we add women to the listed group mentioned under the Act, I leave it to you to work out who has been left out.

As mentioned above, one of the main groups to oppose the Bill were the Police. There are three main areas of concern when looking at the involvement of the police in enforcing the Hate Speech provisions. The first is the contract between the public and the police on which all community policing relies. People understand the trade off between giving the Police powers, to maintain public safety, as long as they are exercising it in a fair and effective way. However, rank and file of the Scottish Police Federation are unhappy to be put in the front line of managing contentious social and political issues. such as this one.

General secretary [of the Scottish Police Federation] Calum Steele said: “Police officers are all too aware that there are individuals in society who believe that to feel insulted or offended is a police matter……The bill would move even further from policing and criminalising of deeds and acts to the potential policing of what people think or feel, as well as the criminalisation of what is said in private.” BBC Scotland, 28/07/24

The second issue is the practicality of the police administrating the Act. Whilst senior management promise that every complaint will be investigated The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, told MSPs that there was “enough anger and hateful bile online to occupy every police officer in Scotland”. (The Times, 30/03/24) Indeed at a time when the Police have said that they don’t have the resources to investigate low level crime, the consumption of person hours to review  anonymous hate speech complaints is not at all popular with the public (See comment below). Police Scotland announced that they received 7,152 complaints in the first week of operating the Act. Obviously, this high number reflects the novelty of opportunist malcontents making  anonymous accusations against those who don’t share their world view. The Guardian, always with it’s finger on the news pulse, reported that Police spammed with complaints by neo-Nazis under new Scottish hate crime law. It’s those neo-Nazis again, what would the legacy press do without them? How the Guardian pierced the veil of anonymity, which the police said was used in nearly every case, and how they accounted for the complaints made against both  JKR and Humza Yousaf is a mystery. However, the more important question is, do we really believe that Police Scotland thoroughly reviewed 7,152 reports in a week? If you believe a Police spokesman who said, “This significant demand continues to be managed within our contact centres and so far the impact on frontline policing, ….. has been minimal.”  then it must be true. (Mail Online 11/04/24) However, if common sense and past history is a guide, then we should look to other sources such as a report issued by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) who says that staffing levels for frontline policing is stretched and only extensive use of overtime covers the gap. This will become important when we look at the number of cases listed as a non-crime hate incident.

The third problem with how the Act will be administered, follows on from the first two. We have seen the reluctance of the rank and file police to get involved in highly charged social and political issues. We have also seen from front line police that they are  unable to investigate certain crimes due to lack of resources. Chief Inspector of Constabulary Craig Naylor said: ‘Many of those frontline officers and staff we spoke to indicated they felt that current staffing levels in their areas left them feeling vulnerable and, at times, unsafe.‘ (Mail Online 11/04/24) In both cases the police management have taken the  opposite view. As we have seen, the police spokesman, quoted above  talked about there being minimal effect from the 7k+ Hate Speech complaints received in the first week. In summary, the senior management of Police Scotland see no problem with policing hate speech whilst those who have to interact with the public, the rank and file, fear the loss of public confidence as they drift further away from their traditional role of catching criminals. The public have a right to be uneasy about assurances from senior bureaucrats that we can sleep safely while the experts are on the job. It was the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) advised by the Scottish Trans Alliance, who designed the gender identity and gender reassignment policy to be implemented in Scottish Prisons. As JKR pointed out in her tweet this enabled Adam Graham (opposite) to be remanded in a women’s prison before public opinion forced a reversal. (see my essay The Gender Recognition Reform Bill). In the nature of state adopted ideology, it  is no surprise that this situation had occurred before, this time in neighbouring England  in the case of Stephen Terence Wood.

Mr Wood, like Mr Graham was convicted of double rape and also like Mr Graham then claimed that he  was a woman. He adopted the name of Karen White (see my essay Am I one of the Last Feminist Standing?)  For those who believe that the state is apolitical and only has the  interests of the public at heart, they  should study these cases and then decide whether any state authority can be trusted to perform their duties faithfully,  without rigorous public scrutiny. .  To summarise, in both cases  transgender ideology was baked in to the system; policy decisions were hidden from public view and there was no real consequences for those who failed their charges. I will leave this point with the pathetic apology made by the English Minister of Justice for exposing women prisoners to the mercy of Mr Wood.  The Ministry of Justice has apologised for moving her to the women’s prison, saying that her previous offending history had not been taken into account. (The Guardian 11/10/18) 

The proponents of the Act had a rather strange, contradictory and convoluted response to the various criticisms levied at them. Angela Constance, the Justice Secretary, said the 240 hate crimes recorded in the first week proved why the act was needed. (Daily Record 10/04/24) Does she understand that her figure of 240 represents approx 3% of the complaints made? Does she also understand that this only means that the Police consider that there may be a case to answer in these 240 instances? In other words, unlike a crime of violence, they are not ‘hate crimes’ until they have been proved to be so in a Court of Law. Humza Yousaf, on the other hand, tried to show that, ‘there is nothing to see here guv’ by saying that free speechers and JKR had nothing to fear since 240 ‘hate crimes’ was such a small, insignificant number that it proved how effective the police had been in policing the ‘hate speech’ complaints. The description of Mr Yousaf as being someone who pulls the pin out of a grenade and then throws the pin away, comes to mind. Mr Yousaf further defended his bill in a radio interview, saying: “I’ve asked this question of many people who’ve opposed the act. Can they give me an example of behaviour that is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred that they don’t think should be prosecuted? And no answer comes.” The Times 06/04/24  I think that this is something of a circular argument and goes to the heart of the matter. Ask any 10 people to give an example of behaviour that is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred and you will get 10 different answers. Katie Neeves, for example, was disappointed that the Police refused to take up JKR.s challenge to the Act. Ms Neeves was mentioned in JKR’s series of tweets and felt that “JK Rowling is a bully and this act was designed to stop bullying” and because her name was mentioned alongside the likes of Adam Graham (See above) that this was, “….inciting hatred and it resulted in me receiving thousands of messages of hate.” (BBC News 02/04/24) Just for information, Ms Neeves is a trans woman who is the UK’s UN Woman’s delegate. We seem to have two opposing views on one series of tweets and it is no surprise that it is on the trans issue. Surely the Minister of Community Safety can give us a definitive ruling on what is a hate crime and what isn’t?

If the public appear bewildered, so do Scottish government ministers. Siobhian Brown, the minister for community safety, was unable to explain on BBC Radio Scotland whether “misgendering” a person counts as a criminal act. This, she said, would be for the police to determine. The Times 06/04/24

There is another aspect to this legislation that the Scottish public are only now becoming aware of and that is the strangely named non-crime hate incident. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act: factsheet published on 16/04/24, had very little to say about this feature of hate speech policing, other than to say that these incidents had been recorded since 2004 and were kept purely for statistical purposes. The first problem is to try to understand what this odd animal is. In simple terms it is a hate speech complaint that the police decline to prosecute. We need to step into the weeds a bit here and understand that we are not recording an event, like a violent death, for example. We are trying to determine the mindset of someone who has said or, written something, someone has taken offense to. So who decides that? The coroner records a violent death and determines it’s cause and it is recorded in the crime statistics as such. However, a hate speech crime can not be described as a crime until the mindset of the accused, has been proved by the police to be threatening or abusive to someone, or it has to cause them fear or alarm. Siobhian Brown, the minister for community safety, seems to be happy  to leave this to the police but just before the activation of the Act the police were asked ,what was the criteria for recording a non-crime hate incident (NCHI)? The police referred to the current national guidelines, which read as follows:

“For recording purposes, the perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident or in recognising the malice element of a crime.” …….”The perception of the victim should always be explored, however they do not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief and police officers or staff members should not directly challenge this perception.” The Herald 29/04/24

This means that I could, anonymously, complain about JKR’s tweets and even though the police avoided confronting her in court, because I say that I am offended, the complaint will be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. No proof required, no evidence, no investigation just anonymous me, saying that I am offended! What sort of crime statistic does the Scottish government think they have here? This is year one accountancy stuff. Under pressure, Alan Speirs, Deputy Chief Constable for Professionalism, Strategy and Engagement (what splendid titles they have) said that NCHI’s will be recorded, “where it is necessary and proportionate to do so”  and where it, “meets a particular policing purpose.”  (The Herald 29/04/24) I wonder if Mr Speirs understands what that means? Does it mean that the guidelines have been changed? If so, what are the new rules? We know that there are going to be new rules because of the Miller v College of Policing ruling in England and Wales. We have already discussed the highly subjective and prejudicial way these NHCI reports are recorded as hate crimes, it now seems that these reports may be available to third parties who have requested an enhanced check from Disclosure Scotland. Such checks would be made where someone is seeking employment with children, for example.

Disclosure Scotland confirmed that enhanced checks “may include reference to non-conviction matters” such as non-crime hate incidents while The Scotsman understands information within hate incidents would fall under other relevant information in enhanced checks handed over by Police Scotland. (The Scotsman 28/04/24)

Is it possible that somewhere close to Scotland had a similar system that had been tested in the Courts? As Police Scotland well knew before the implementation of the 2021 Act the Appeals Court in England and Wales, had handed down a ruling stating that the recording of a NCHI which was available to third parties, violated the complainants right to free speech. It also, referred to the ECHR concept of ‘chilling’ free speech where such a record may cause a person to be discouraged from engaging in debate due to fear of prosecution. Once again we have seen chaos and confusion whenever a question is raised concerning this Act. Siobhian Brown, the minister for community safety, refers the matter to the police who say that they will act “proportionally”, whatever that means. However, Siobhian would be less confident in the police were she to look across the border and see what happened to a 14year old, autistic boy who had a non crime hate incident, recorded against him in England. Can she guarantee that a similarly, politicised, under resourced and overstretched Police Scotland will not make the same mistake?

And we could go on. As you peel away each layer of this proverbial onion it reveals yet another problem with this legislation. And here is the problem. The Hate Speech Act and the failed Named Persons, Gender Recognition and Behaviour at football proposals were all the products of a small cabal of not very bright but loud progressive elites. They believe that all aspects of society can be policed by a benevolent state. These are the people that Calum Steele (above) talked about when he said, “Police officers are all too aware that there are individuals in society who believe that to feel insulted or offended is a police matter.” These are the people of Davos or, Brussels who preach racism, agism, disability-ism, religion-ism, sexual orientation-ism, and transgender identity-ism. These are the people who have the levers of power. who inflict DEI and ESG on everyone else. These are the Leo Varadkars of this world, who amidst a housing, immigration and public services crisis chose to tinker with the Constitution with Amendments that no one wanted. These include the likes of John Kerry and his associates who clog up the Airport at Davos with their private jets and claim that they are ‘too important’ to travel coach, with the rest of us. We can add Dr Fauci, who during covid, ignored all other opinions claiming that he ‘represented science’. Closer to home we have the appalling arrogance and technical incompetence of the expert class at the British Post Office as can be seen on the ITV program, The Post Office v Mr Bates. Finally, we come to the terrible trio of SNP leaders, Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf who aptly demonstrate the failure of corrupt progressive policies. From unrealistic Green  party climate programs to unpopular DEI (Divisiveness, Exclusion and Indoctrination: quote Marty Kotis) government social engineering projects. In the end this Act will fail because those that dreamed it up had no concept on how the real world works. They are constantly surprised by the reaction of the ‘deplorables’ to their ill thought out and authoritarian policies of which the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is a perfect example.

Comments

John Paterson
14th March 1:24 pm

“Recent statistics show that 5,738 charges of hate crime were reported in Scotland in 2022-23.” “Minister for Victims & Community Safety Siobhian Brown said: For those impacted by hatred and prejudice, the results can be traumatic and life changing.” There were 103,393 crimes of dishonesty (including theft, shoplifting, housebreaking and fraud) in Scotland in the same period.
A lot of these will now no longer be investigated.
Is it not traumatic and life changing for some of those who impacted by these crimes? The Herald 01/04/24

Sources

Alex Massie and Sian Bradley, 06/04/24, The Times, How Scotland made a mess of its hate crime law — in a week of chaos

Chris McCall, 10/04/24, Daily Record, Police Scotland swamped with more than 7,000 complaints in first week of new hate crime laws

Xander Elliards, 10/04/24, The National, Police Scotland publish Hate Crime Act data,

Jody Harrison, 01/04/24, The Herald. Explained: What are Scotland’s new Hate Crime Laws?

Leo Sands, 10/04/24, Washington Post,  Scotland’s hate speech law ignites culture war far outside its border

28/07/24, BBC Scotland, New Scottish hate crime laws ‘could devastate legitimacy of police’

Mike Wade, 30/03/24, The Times, ‘You can’t police the world’: barrister takes on ‘insane’ hate crime law

Jon Brady, 11/04/24, Mail Online, Is that it? Just four per cent of hate complaints in Scotland made under Humza Yousaf’s controversial new law the week it came into force are being treated as crimes – with only EIGHT cases related to trans issues

Andrew Learmonth, 29/04/24, The Herald, Hate Crime: Questions over Police Scotland’s recording of hate crimes

David Bol, 28/03/24, The Scotsman, Fears recording non-crime ‘hate incidents’ could hamper job prospects under disclosure checks

Miller v College of Policing: Social media, ‘non-crime hate incidents’, and the right to freedom of expression. https://www.mountfordchambers.com/miller-v-college-of-policing-social-media-non-crime-hate-incidents-and-the-right-to-freedom-of-expression/

I often scan the headlines of the legacy press when looking for suitable subjects to write about. One such source is The Irish Times, which used to regard itself as being the paper of record but rather like the NY Times has revealed itself to be the paper of the new aristocracy.  Never the less, I saw a heading for an opinion piece by Sorcha Pollak, which piqued my interest. It was entitled,  ‘What changes would women make to the Constitution? Here’s what 10 said’  (IT 03 /02/24) Two things struck me when I saw this article, the first was the  list of the 10 women who would give us guidance on Constitutional changes. Now, I do feel that I have to be fair and point out that Sorcha Pollak didn’t claim that this selection represented a statistical cross section of all women in Ireland. Nor did she claim that they had to live in the real world, which means not being  employed by an NGO, in Academia or described as being an activist. The following is Sorcha’s list:

Article 41.1“The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”  Irish Times, 18/01/24

Mr. Varadkar is unhappy that the description of the family, in this Article, does not reflect the modern reality that there are other types of family unit that were not common when the Articles were originally drafted. However, there is no difficulty with the original text as it stands as it only makes the point that the family is not a creation of government but of nature. I would suggest that what the framers intended was to establish the general principle of the pre-eminence  of the family in law; that it should be supported and protected and  that it is the natural primary and fundamental unit of Society. What this proposal does is to unnecessarily introduce the concept of a “durable relationship” into the Constitution when it is quite obvious that no one knows what this means. If we accept this amendment, we will be subject to an endless series of court cases to establish what a ‘durable relationship’ is;  determined by unelected Judges, that will dilute it’s commonly understood meaning until it means everything to everyone. It is worth noting that the recent  O’Meara judgement, in respect of Social Welfare legislation, was reached under the current version of  Article 41.1. I will, temporarily, leave discussion of Article 41.1 with some suggestions on how to determine what a ‘durable relationship’ is by referring to the  Chair of Ireland’s Electoral Commission and Supreme Court Judge, Marie Baker. The Guardian reported her as saying, ‘one indicator of durability was treatment by other people. “Are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send your postcards, Christmas cards to both of you? These are indicators of your commitment to one another.” (The Guardian, 25/01/24) I would have thought that a joint bank account might be a better indication of durability but if the Chair of Ireland’s Electoral Commission and Supreme Court Judge says Christmas Cards, who am I to say otherwise.

Delete 41.2, which reads: “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

It is proposed that Article 41.2 be deleted. You can tell by all the above crossing out that those on Sorcha Pollak’s list above, are really unhappy with Article 41.2. Those that propose deleting this article take the view that it states that women’s place is in the home. Article 41.2 does not say that women should stay at home. What it does do is recognise that women are the main homebuilders and should be recognised as such. This is as true today as it was true in1937.  ‘In Sinnott v Minister for Education, Ms Justice Denham, the first female Chief Justice, wrote:

“Thus, in Ireland, in relation to the family and the home, women have a constitutionally recognised role which is acknowledged as being for the common good. This gives to women an acknowledged status in recognition not merely of the physical aspect of home making and family building, but of the emotional, social, physical, intellectual and spiritual work of women and mothers. The undefined and valuable role of the father was presumed and remained unenumerated by the drafters of the Constitution.” (Iona Institute 07/02/24)

What it does say is that Mothers, who make the choice to stay at home and raise children,  should not be forced into the workforce because of economic necessity.  Article 41.2 imposes no burden or, duty on any women who makes a different choice. It also doesn’t differentiate between traditional family structures and single parent families, which are overwhelmingly headed by women. As an aside, I did see an opinion piece that suggested that unless we deleted 41.2 we could return to the days of the marriage ban! I should mention that last year we were  celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the  Civil Service (Employment of Married Women) Act, 1973. This law reversed the 1940’s legislation that forced women to resign from public service employment, when they married. Neither the 1940’s legislation and it’s reversal 50 years ago based their arguments on Article 41.2.  I know that any retention or rewording of this Article will not cool the ire  of the proponents of this referendum. However, I am concerned that the unique contribution of woman should not be disappeared from the Constitution. We are at a time  when the very definition of a woman is a matter of dispute and I feel that there is an agenda to redefine what we once understood with certainty, with bland words of little meaning.

Article 41.3 delete the six words in Bold: “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

I am not sure that the deletion of the words, “on which the Family is founded” add anything to Article 41.3 especially since we can’t define what a family is in Article 41.1. A quick look at the the CSO table 1a, Family types in Ireland, Censuses of Population, 1996 – 2016, suggest that 66% of families are still headed by a married man and woman. This would appear to counter the claim by Leo that somehow two thirds of families are in an archaic institution that should be swept away for the sake of modernism. I am not convinced that this article  has prevented the government from supporting any other form of social unit and feel that they  have failed to justify their attack on the majority.

Article 42B The State recognises that the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

The 40th. Amendment proposes deleting Article 41.2, which we have already discussed, with a new Article 42B. This suggested text is the epitome of bland and has deservedly been attacked by commentators on both sides of the debate. Both sides see this wording as merely vacuous with the objective of replacing 41.2 with something, almost anything. What it does accomplish, when taken with the other amendments, is to delete women, especially mothers, from special mention in the Constitution. It turns the central position of the  of the family in society to mean anything you want it to mean.

So how should we view the proposed Amendments? I suspect that  most of the population will glance at the papers and decide that it has no affect on their daily lives and ignore it. There will be some, who are irritated that Leo is tinkering with the Constitution whilst Public Services such as Health, Housing, Public Safety, Education etc are deteriorating. They may also take the view that this is a vanity project for Leo and associates to virtue signal how modern and progressive they are to their betters in Brussels and Davos. Ironically, the rush to push through the Amendments is so that an announcement of the attempt to diminish the role of women in Irish society, can be made on  International Women’s Day (8th. March). To those that identify with the above,  I would offer the following advice. If you don’t understand the point of a contract or, the terms, then employ the principle of caveat emptor or, buyer beware. If you think that these proposals deflect from serious issues facing the people of the Republic, then  send a message to the government with a resounding NO vote! My own view is, all of the above but also I put these proposals into a wider context and look at what is happening in other parts of the western world. I see a divergence between the political elites and those that they govern. If you think that we are entering into tin foil hat territory, then look around. When we see men in women’s sports in America or, that fact that it was only in 2023 that biological men were banned from women’s prisons in the UK, we can see how far we have travelled down the slippery slope. This attack on social norms, some of which predate civilisation, have been cooking for some time. I will leave you with an extract from a speech by Maria Steen, to the Iona Institute, which should also be read out on International Women’s Day:

“De Beauvoir, the renowned second-wave feminist, spoke in 1975 …. of the need to destroy the “myth of the family and the myth of maternity and of the maternal instinct”. De Beauvoir said that women should not be offered the choice of staying home to raise children, “precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make [it]”. In short, women needed to be forced to do what feminists see as good for them.” (Iona Institute, 07/02/24)

Send a message, vote no!

Sources

Press Release, 07/12/23, Government approves proposals for referendums on family and care, www.gov.ie/en/press-release/c9193-government-approves-proposals-for-referendums-on-family-and-care/

Rory Carroll, The Guardian, 25/01/24, Ireland kickstarts vote on constitution’s wording about women and  family.www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/ireland-kickstarts-vote-on-constitutions-wording-about-women-and-family

Aoife Moore, BBC, 05/12/23, Irish votes on gender and family to be held in March.

Jennifer Bray, Irish Times, 18/01/24, Women in the home referendum: what exactly does the Government want to change, and why? www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/25/referendums-march-8th-explained-women-in-the-home-definition-of-family-carers-marriage-international-womens-day-ireland/

Maria Steen, Iona Institute, 07/02/24, The referendums on motherhood and the family, ionainstitute.ie/maria-steens-talk-on-the-referendum/

CSO, Family types in Ireland, Censuses of Population, 1996 – 2016, gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/26847/fb6091d872ac48378c7c091a412df386.pdf#page=null

On Thursday 23rd. of November, Dublin City centre erupted in a riot, the scale of which hadn’t been seen since the ‘troubles’. Headlines like Dublin riots: Roles reversing in one of world’s most welcoming cities, Sky News; Dublin riots: Damage to cost ‘ten of millions’ – The Telegraph; Dublin riot saw most riot police deployed in Irish state history BBC, Catholic bishops call on people to oppose racism and misinformation following Dublin riots Irish Times, are just a sample of the national and international reaction to the event. A week after the riot we are now in the familiar territory of finding someone to blame. Even as the first rioter put match to paper our propaganda machine, a.k.a. the legacy media, immediately went to the ‘go to’ villains of the far right. This gave the politicians time to organise their defence by promising tougher policing and a clampdown on ‘hate speech’. By the way, as part as the political theatre around the riots we have kicked the Police Commissioner and the Minister for Justice around in the Dial to show how seriously we take this breakdown of law and order. They have also promised to issue a new stronger brand of pepper spray and tasers for the Guardai and even more restriction on free speech, in the form of upgrading the Hate Speech legislation. I am absolutely confident that these measures will solve all of the problems. (Do I have to explain sarcasm these days?) Now I understand that there will be those who would interject at this point and ask that I adjust my tinfoil hat as it is letting through too many conspiracy theories. I would respond by saying that too many, so called, conspiracy theories have turned out to be true and ask that you bear with me as I am going somewhere with this train of thought.

If we look at the photograph to the left, we can see the identikit view of the ‘far right’ rioter familiar to the Irish Times reader. Having done this I wonder how many of the basic tenants of conservatism he could name. Would he start with market capitalism, free speech, small government, meritocracy, equality of opportunity over equity of outcome, for example. I would suggest that any of these ‘gentlemen’ would struggle to come up with any two basic principles of the right. If we added additional child support from absent fathers and increasing the audit of state benefits, I think that the number of real far right activists at the riot, will shrink to a very small percentage.

Why is it important to have this discussion? Quite simply, if we keep lumping together any opposition to the establishment view as being far right and promising ever more repressive legislation, we will have more violence in Ireland. Pat Leahy wrote an opinion piece in the Irish Times concerning the riots (25/11/23) and the sub title read, “Pretending that ‘this isn’t us’ is like pretending  that the city is adequately policed or that the streets aren’t frequently filthy. If you want to solve a problem, you have to face up to it.” Further on through the article he identifies law and order issues as rising to the top of peoples concerns and linked to this was concerns over the increase in immigration.

“This includes facing up to the fact that immigration has now become an issue in Irish politics. Every week now independent TDs use Dáil time to complain about the proposed accommodation of asylum seekers in their constituencies. Government TDs tend to raise their concerns in private, but they also see the public meetings in their constituencies and they hear the public concerns.” (Irish Times 25/11/23)

Bye the way, does anyone recognise the person in the photograph? Top marks to anyone who who identified him as Roderic O’Gorman, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Quite an impressive portfolio if only for the length of the title. In regard to the ‘integration’ part I would reference the 2017 Migrant Integration Strategy which says, in part, “Government to promote the integration of all migrants who are legally residing in the State. It envisages a whole-of-government approach to enhance diversity, inclusion and equity for migrants across all aspects of Irish society through increased focus on social inclusion measures, improved access to public services and targeted action to address racism and xenophobia..”  What I don’t immediately see in this ‘whole government approach’  is any attempt to be transparent with and to listen to the the existing Irish Public. What I also don’t see is any action to be taken in respect of illegal immigrants. The response to anyone asking about the effects of immigration on the health service, schools, social welfare, housing or law and order etc, seems to be covered in the last sentence. Any criticism about government policy on migrants is met with “targeted action to address racism and xenophobia..”  What we are beginning to see is the the ingredients of a volatile and unstable society where trust in democratic norms have been eroded by the lack of transparency and  social contract with citizens.

I recently conducted a very, unscientific, poll amongst a small group of friends. The question was, how many foreign immigrants came to the republic in the twelve months ending April 2023? The average answer given was around 50,000. The reason that I picked that time period was because the Central Statistics Office had published it’s report on migration for that period. The summary is shown below.

“An influx of 141,600 immigrants was a 14-year high, and the second successive 12-month period where over 100,000 people had immigrated to Ireland. Of those people, 29,600 were returning Irish citizens, 26,100 were other EU citizens, and 4,800 were UK citizens, and 81,100 were from other countries – including nearly 42,000 Ukrainians. “(ITV)

I think that it would have been a surprise to my friends to hear that, in one twelve month period, a net 77,600 non EU, UK and Irish citizens migrated to Ireland. To put that in perspective, that is more than the population of Drogheda and Dundalk combined. (CSO 2016. Population Distribution) What is disturbing about these numbers is the sudden escalation whereby two consecutive  twelve month periods have recorded over a total of 140,000 immigrants (CSO). More to the point, it is quite obvious that those supporting immigration at these levels have absolutely no idea how to deal  with it. If we take one headline, almost at random,  Ireland offering asylum seekers tents amid acute housing shortage. (the Guardian, 6/12/23) we can see a level of ineptitude and lack of common sense that typifies the whole immigration policy.

What I have  not said. I have not entered into the discussion of the rationale behind these numbers. As noted, 44,000 immigrants were refugees from the war in Ukraine and I would think that most people would support this, in principle, if not the numbers.

The problem I have with the immigration policy is that there is no actual policy.

We seem to be overwhelmed by the numbers and unable to get to grips with the inevitable outcomes. As Pat Leahy says, “If you want to solve a problem, you have to face up to it.” The government knows very well that the whole housing and welfare sector is on the edge of collapse and that throwing thousands of extra people into the mix is only adding fuel to the fire. What we see are more and more ad hoc reactions to a housing crisis, an invisible integration policy and a clampdown on any dissent.  Up until fairly recently the government has had an easy ride. Firstly, the numbers have only recently ramped up. Secondly, we believed in the brand of Ireland of a Thousand Welcomes  and remember the history of our emigration to other countries. However, we think that what happens in other countries will not happen in ours. Pat Leahy identifies this gene as,  “Pretending that ‘this isn’t us”. By believing that we are not like those nasty racist countries, enables us to pretend that the problems of France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Italy and so on will not be replicated hear.

And so to the riots. Do I think that the Gardai need to be reequipped? Probably. Do they need to be more aggressive against all violent crime? Yes. Do they need to rethink the use of resources and strategy on policing? Yes. Do we need to further restrict speech that is in opposition to the established creed? Not unless you want to drive opposition into the arms of nihilists, extremists left or right and the alienated. What is happening now is a ‘finger in the dyke’ policy of plugging leaks whenever they appear. What we are not dealing with is ordinary law abiding citizens who now distrust the organs of state and see a divide between the elites and themselves. They are frustrated by being labelled as far right racists whenever they ask how many immigrants the government is proposing to let into the country over the next five years? What is the integration policy that will accommodate the migrants, without negatively impacting on already overstretched public services?  How does the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth propose to deal with the cultural issues that plagued countries with large immigrant populations? The point is that there is no serious  discussion on these and similar issues. There is no contract between the establishment and the citizens on this matter. Questioning government migrant policy is seen as un-Irish and blemishing our image as a new progressive country. There is a kind of blindness which allows us to ignore  other peoples experience because we are better than them, ‘this isn’t us’. By a policy of treating the symptoms of the unrest and not dealing with the reality of a shift in public opinion, we are condemned to a repeat of last Thursdays riot.

Sources

James Hockaday, ITV, n.d., What led to the Dublin riots and what does it mean for Ireland?www.itv.com/news/2023-11-24/what-led-to-the-dublin-riots-and-what-does-it-mean-for-ireland

Stephen McDermott, The Guardian, 27/11/23, The Dublin riots shocked Ireland – but some of us saw this creep to the far right coming, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/27/dublin-riots-far-right-ireland-anti-immigrant

It is with some trepidation that I approach my next essay as it takes a somewhat critical view of one of the most respected charities in Britain and Ireland. The game is instantly given away by the picture on the left of a lifeboat, in familiar blue and orange kit, racing through the sea to effect yet another brave rescue. For this reason I wanted to set the scene a little, something on the lines of ‘some of my best friends are RNLI crew’. Well not quite true but I did spend a weekend at the RNLI Headquarters at Poole, recently. Whilst I was there I met Volunteers and crew and to a person they were a lovely bunch, much as you would expect from meeting them locally or,  watching them on TV. I must also mention two volunteers who staff the RNLI shop next to the lifeboat station that we visit each year to purchase Christmas cards, diaries, T shirts and the like. One lady has a silver badge for 40 years service supporting the local lifeboat and the other a gold badge  for 50 years service. They are all very ordinary, extra ordinary people. Having said this, I was a bit surprised to see that there had been some criticism of the RNLI on publication of their annual report in 2019. Headlines like, ‘RNLI funding burkinis for Africans while cutting jobs’ seemed to have provoked threats of cancellation of subscriptions, on the one hand and name calling of those protesters as racist, on the other. The problem appears to be the involvement of the RNLI in international projects in Bangladesh and Zanzibar. The RNLI is not maintaining full rescue services in either country but in co operation with other agencies, is using cheap and innovative measures to reduce the number of deaths due to drowning. A fuller explanation can be seen in a rebuttal to these reports, issued by the RNLI, link below.

So where is the issue? In my opinion there are two pillars that support the RNLI’s position  near the top of the league of charities that the public trust. The first is a simple mission statement, ‘We save lives at sea’. Yes, I know that they also operate inshore but the ethos is the same. From the drunk who falls off the quay wall, to the children swept out to sea on a plastic sunbed, there is no hesitation, no moral condemnation, just action. When migrants are in trouble at sea, at a time of political turmoil on the issue of immigration, there is no  softening of their response. Political issues are for politicians, saving lives at sea is the business of the Lifeboats. The second pillar is that it is locally based and operated by locals. This means that the organisation was firmly based on common sense and practicality. Loyalties were consolidated through generations of RNLI families, supporters could see the benefits of their fundraising efforts. Observing these two pillars have served the institution well since it’s foundation in 1824, by continuous organic change to meet  new challenges, be it the reduction of the fishing fleets and the rise of the pleasure boats or innovations in  technology. I would add two supporting tests to these principle. The first is, how does any decision add to the effectiveness of saving lives at sea? The second is, how do we maintain public trust in the institution?

To the outsider, the first sign of a problem is the appointment of a ‘diversity leadership group’ tasked with promoting the ‘International Day Against Homophobia’. (Daily Mail, 14/09/19) Where do we start with this? In short, this initiative fails both tests. It adds nothing to the efficiency of front line operations and risks the public questioning whether their contributions are being well spent. I am   wondering what on earth does International Day Against Homophobia’ have to do with the lifeboats mission? The management of the RNLI know that this is a highly contentious and highly politicised issue and yet they abandon the traditionally neutral position and took a side by endorsing the LGBGTQIA+ program. To the challenge that,  “…  the charity has become too hung up on political correctness” the RNLI responded, “We are a charity that our volunteers, supporters and those we rescue can trust to do the right thing – whether that’s rescuing those in peril, keeping our volunteers safe or making sure anyone who is part of the RNLI feels welcome and valued.” (RNLI, 15/09/19) Not really an answer then, certainly no explanation as to why RNLI resources are being spent on LGBGTQIA+ issues.

Then we come to the Burkinis issue. To be fair there is more to it than just supplying swimsuits to Muslim women but why is the RNLI involved? If  the work carried out by RNLI personnel is as described in the information leaflet and they have been involved in the projects since 2012, surely under the ‘teach a man to fish’ principle the work should have been handed over to local resources by now. The inference from the RNLI response, that the cost is a small amount, less than 2% of expenditure, equates to £3.3m in a year when the institution is in deficit. “…  the charity’s £189,000-a-year chief executive Mark Dowie warned last week that it is ‘facing some major challenges’ after making a loss of £6.3 million last year, and announcing 135 job cuts.” (Daily Mail, 14/09/19) Our local silver and gold medal holders might have a different view of the 2% cost to support the international projects. They were very proud to tell us that they raised over £1000 for the local station at a local event last year. I wonder whether they see £3.3mlln as a small amount? Similarly, those that lost their jobs might have a different view on half of the deficit being spent abroad instead of saving at least some of the jobs at home. Andrew Bridgen M.P., summarised the frustration of some of the subscribers, as follows:

 “While these causes are no doubt worthy they are more suitable for support from our international aid budget than the RNLI. At a time when income is down and demand is increasing in the British Isles it should be sticking to its core priorities or it could have a detrimental effect on UK giving. There is an urgent need for the RNLI executive to review this spending. It is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, not the Royal International Lifeboat Institution.’ (The Times, 14/09/19

Predictably, the usual suspects were quick to label anyone who was uneasy about these projects as racist, xenophobic, child murderers etc., etc. If we circumnavigate the predictable knee jerk reaction, we might see that the real threat to the RNLI is mission drift and the separation of a new management from the base. To see an example of this we need to go no further than the once respected charity, Oxfam.

Oxfam was started in 1942 and was instrumental in giving aid to countries whose economies had been shattered during the war. Supported by sponsors and a network of local charity shops it became an internationally recognised charity whose mission was to end poverty. However, in 2010 Oxfam aide workers were sent to Haiti in the wake of an earthquake and complaints were made that  some of the earthquake victims were sexually exploited . A report conducted by Oxfam in 2011 resulted in some resignations but there was no mention of sexual exploitation. (BBC, 11/06/19) When the news finally broke and the Charity Commission investigated, they found a lack of governance and common decency that not only applied to the disgraceful events abroad but also allegations of sexual misconduct in its charity shops.(The Times, 07/06/23)

“What went wrong in Haiti did not happen in isolation,” Charity Commission chief executive Helen Stephenson said. “Over a period of years, Oxfam’s internal culture tolerated poor behaviour, and at times lost sight of the values it stands for.” (BBC, 11/06/19)

What we had, in this case, was a total lack of governance over it’s own operations which resulted in appalling behaviour by its employees and perhaps even worse, an attempt to cover up the resulting scandal. You would think that after this catastrophe, after the loss of 7000 regular donors (Guardian, 20/02/18), withdrawal of government support, being banned from Haiti and the breach of trust between Oxfam and the public that it would try to rebuild it’s reputation. You would be wrong. In 2021 Oxfam circulated it’s infamous ‘whiteness survey’ to it’s 1800 staff. In the survey it defines racism as, “… power construct created by white nations for the benefit of white people. This power construct has been based on ‘viewing white people as superior and underpinned by an unparalleled power structure, the by-product (white privilege) of which gives a unique privilege based on the colour of your skin’. We understand whiteness as the overarching preservation of power and domination for the benefit of white people and ultimately that which white supremacy serves to protect.”( The Telegraph, 01/07/21) I have given that statement far too much space and I am sure that a good editor would shred it as literally a waste of space but a couple of thoughts on it. First, as Patrick O’Flynn observes, Oxfam is a mainly white institution. Are the authors of the survey saying that Oxfam is itself racist and should be shut down? If they believe their own ideology, why doesn’t the white management team immediately resign and make way for minority replacements? Most importantly, there is no mention as to how  their mission to combat poverty fits in with their racist world view. I could say much more about this survey but Oxfam didn’t stop there. An employee was hounded out of the Charity for the sin of asking why J.K. Rowling’s books were threatened with  being banned from Oxfam shops. (The Times,07/06/23) This was followed up by a 92 page Inclusive Language Guide which was issued to all staff this year. Just to get a flavour of it’s contents there were  “chapters on race, power and decolonisation, gender justice, sexual diversity and women’s rights, disability, physical and mental health, migration and feminist principles for language use.” ( The Telegraph, 16/03/23) Again, not much about combatting poverty but a lot about inclusiveness and permitted language. I will not waste any more space by giving examples from this work but I will let  Maya Forstater (see Note) sum up my views, as follows:

“The Oxfam Inclusive language guidance is a chilling document. It seeks to impose gender ideology on both staff and the people Oxfam works with. Language like ‘cis, womxn and pregnant people‘ is far from inclusive.” As she says,  “Women in sub-Saharan Africa have a one in 37 chance of dying in pregnancy and labour, this is the reality.”( The Telegraph, 16/03/23)

And now we come to Pride Month 2023 and Oxfam’s nasty contribution opposite. The picture on the right of the frame  is a still from a cartoon showing a caricature of three transphobic characters  taunting some LGBGTQIA+ figures. The style of the caricatured figures are very reminiscent of 1930’s Nazi propaganda in the depiction of Jews. What was also spotted was the similarity of the central twisted figure, labelled TERF, with JK Rowling (left in frame), who has also been labelled a  trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). Again, you have to wonder about the mindset of senior management of the charity who must have approved this disgusting caricature. Of course they apologised for the ‘mistake’ edited out the offending part and reissued it because they had to, ‘highlight the threat to LGBT people’. No highlighting the continuing threat to Oxfam employees and vulnerable people abroad, as The Times reported:

“Every year since  then there have been fresh allegations of sexual misconduct in its charity shops, in African refugee camps or in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” (The Times, 07/06/23)

The real reason Oxfam has such a miserable record is, that they just don’t care! Don’t misunderstand me, the people who serve in the shops care. Although why they should after reading the 92 page guidelines inferring that they are white supremacist’s. The people in the field care, although why they should when Head Office seems more concerned with racism and trans activism than saving the pregnant mother who has a 1 in  37 chance of dying in childbirth. Who are these people who are offended by me using the words, Head Office, pregnant and mother? Well a cursory glance at Oxfam’s Management Team turns up Dr Fenella Porter, Head of Equalities. You already have a suspicion of where we are going with this but I will copy her description of her role in Oxfam as follows.

 “I was appointed to lead one of these teams, the Equalities Team. This team supports the changes we need to see within the organisation to further embed our feminist leadership principles, and promote the safety and empowerment of all, with diversity, inclusion and anti-racism at the heart of our work.” Oxfam, on line

There is a reason that they rank 43 in the YouGov most popular charities in Britain!

So where does that leave the RNLI? Have they sunk to the same depths as Oxfam? If we take the same YouGov survey, on the popularity of Charities, the RNLI has fallen out of the top 10 and now lies at number 12. The answer to the question, based on this metric, is that they have some distance to fall before they are at the same level as Oxfam. However, there are some worrying factors that suggest that they are on the same downward path. Certainly, there is a challenge that surrounds the migrant issue and how in the future the RNLI is going to respond to ever increasing numbers risking their lives in the Channel.  “Earlier this month the charity said it saved 108 Channel migrants’ lives in 2022. It launched 290 times to rescue migrants, mainly from the South-East coast, including Hastings.” (Express, 27/06/23) There is a sense that management doesn’t like the local, overwhelmingly male, make up of their front line employees and volunteers. Equally, those who risk their lives are feeling under threat and that the loyalty to the service, built up over generations is undervalued. From the outside we get glimpses of the conflict including the saga of ‘the storm in a tea mug’ at Whitby station. (Apologies, couldn’t resist it) Here, two crew members were dismissed after mugs displaying pictures of naked women were discovered in a cupboard. Subsequently, three of their colleagues resigned, claiming the dismissal was  excessive. The latest clash is reported from Hasting, which was mentioned above as being in the front line in the migrant crisis. Here, there had been complaints of ‘Alpha males’ being sexist  towards women and and racist by not recruiting minorities. The examples reported, don’t seem to justify the headlines but I am open to  persuasion  that not all of the facts are known. I also wonder if the local Life Boat crews have really been given a fair hearing. We are not talking about recruiting for the Head Office in Poole but for a dangerous job where your life may depend on your colleague. I recall a TV program which showed one crew member holding on to the harness of a colleague who was preparing to jump from one heaving deck to another to save lives. Perhaps that level of trust is only established over a long time working together as a team. Talk of, ‘The RNLI, sitting in their plush head offices in Poole, Dorset, are ruining the institution with their latest woke crusade.’ (The Daily Mail, 29/6/23) and ‘They are making us do inclusion and diversity courses which seem to take priority over sea training with a boat. There are no ‘safe spaces’ at sea, that’s why you need a lifeboat.” (The Daily Mail, 3/7/23) do not suggest that Head Office and the front line are on the same page. In addition to this, the charge that the RNLI has taken a left turn into woke territory is substantiated by the company it keeps and takes advice from. Exhibit one:

The charity said: ‘We aim to be truly inclusive, valuing diversity, and appreciating everyone for their individual contribution to saving lives at sea. To help us achieve this we are members of Stonewall Diversity Champion programme, an advisory service based on the Equality Act, to embed LGBTQ+ inclusion across their organisation.’ Daily Mail 03/07/23

This is not a neutral act. It quite clearly states that it’s objective is to  ‘embed LGBTQ+ inclusion across their organisation.’ As such it fails both tests outlined in earlier paragraphs in that it adds nothing to the effectiveness of the seagoing mission and damages public trust in the organisation. In fact, it is worse than this. It has meant that there has been a trickle of experienced and loyal crew leaving the service and forced ‘re education’ for recalcitrant employees will do nothing to change this.

There is a lot more that can be said on this subject but to me the story is about managing change. As discussed, the past success of the institution was partly down to it’s tightly knit local base. As it grew in numbers and complexity a new top down organisation developed where decision making became centralised. There were two ways that this change could be accomplished. Either, strengthening communications between the centre and the Lifeboat stations or, taking this opportunity to bring the RNLI into the progressive 21st Century. The RNLI has made a clear decision to take the second course and by so doing has abandoned any pretence of neutrality by joining the ranks of those who believe society should be driven by equity of outcomes  as against equality of opportunities. The subcontracting of driving a culture change to meet the  LGBGTQIA+ agenda has been given to the social justice activist at the Stonewall Diversity Champion programme. This is a little like being told that there has been some vandalism in the village. Instead of sending for the local constable, the Witchfinder General is called in and not surprisingly finds evidence of witchcraft everywhere. Could this have been handled in a different way? It would be interesting to follow up on the comment about management sitting in their offices in Poole and ask how many times the top management team visited Lifeboat stations around the UK and Ireland? How many times did they turn up to training or, fundraising days with a bag of pastries and  possibly two replacement fun mugs at Whitby? How many times did they have ‘off the record’ chats about new recruits or, the suitability of the ones presenting? It is an expensive and time consuming process to visit and establish relations with your people but with goodwill many of the presumed offenses could have been resolved at an early stage. This method would reinforce the two pillars that support the RNLI. and answer the two tests of efficiency and public trust.  The problem for the progressives in the management team is that they do not want a cohesive and efficient organisation that simply saves lives at sea. They want to be like Oxfam and virtue signal how progressive they are in turning an old fashioned “paternalistic” organisation made up of predominately ‘toxic’ males into an organisation that aims to embed, “diversity, inclusion and anti-racism at the heart of our work.” We see the same rhetoric being  used by both charities and it won’t be long before the RNLI has it’s own Diversity Manager who sees everything through one prism and sucks the life out of the institution. It won’t be long before the RNLI issues it’s own 92 page manifesto to the bewilderment of my two long service medal winners.

In the new RNLI it seems that all things must be seen through a social justice prism to the detriment of the historical goodwill between a volunteer service and the public.  Certainly the example of Oxfam gives a clear signal as to where that path ends.  In the end I would rephrase a comment  made by an RNLI crewman which sums up my belief:

If you are in difficulty at sea, who would you rather see manning the orange and blue lifeboat coming to your rescue? The Hastings coxswain with 15 years service with the Lifeboats or, someone trained by  Stonewall in LGBTQ+ inclusion rhetoric?

Notes

Note 1 Maya Forstater – lost her case against unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal as a result of gender critical tweets. This decision was reversed on appeal where the Judge said that the Tribunal had erred in law. Forstater said: “I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters.”

Sources

Michael Powell, 14/09/19, Daily Mail, RNLI buys burkinis for Africans as it axes 100 UK jobs: How £3.3million of donations to lifeboat charity are spent abroad including aid for Tanzania swimmers and creches in Bangladesh, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7464961/How-3-3million-donations-RNLI-spent-abroad.html

David Brown, 14/09/19, The Times, RNLI funding burkinis for Africans while cutting jobs, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rnli-funding-burkinis-for-africans-while-cutting-jobs-tnctwwl7d

Lifeboats Statement, 15/09/19, Information about the RNLI’s International work, rnli.org/news-and-media/2019/september/15/information-about-the-rnlis-international-work

LEADING ARTICLE, 07/06/23, The Times, The Times view on Oxfam’s attack on JK Rowling: Losing the Plot, thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-oxfams-attack-on-jk-rowling-losing-the-plot-vs9j5lmpc

Manveen Rana,., 11/06/19, BBC Online, Oxfam criticised over Haiti sex claims, bbc.com/news/uk-48593401

PATRICK O’FLYNN, 01/07/21, The Daily Telegraph, Oxfam is ‘white’ to its core. If it can’t deal with that, it should close down, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/oxfam-white-core-cant-deal-should-close/

Gabriella Swerling, 16/03/23, The Daily Telegraph, Don’t say mother or father as it could offend, Oxfam tells staff, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/16/oxfam-avoid-words-mother-father-gender-woke/

SUE REID, 29/06/23, The Daily Mail, Will a woke obsession with diversity sink the RNLI? Some have called it a migrant ‘taxi service’, now SUE REID investigates how the lifeboat charity is mired in a toxic culture clash
By SUE REID

HANISHA SETHI, 27/06/23, the Express, ‘Racist language’ at RNLI alleged but ‘alpha males’ hit back at ‘woke crusade’, /www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1784878/woke-rnli-alpha-males-diversity-class

SUE REID, 03/07/23, The Daily Mail, Will a woke obsession with diversity sink the RNLI? Some have called it a migrant ‘taxi service’, now SUE REID investigates how the lifeboat charity is mired in a toxic culture clash, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12252423/Will-woke-obsession-diversity-sink-RNLI-SUE-REID-investigates-lifeboat-charitY.ht

I was recently told  of a case where a 14 year old boy from Lancashire was charged with a ‘hate crime’. It seemed a bit young to  me to be charged with this but I was intrigued and I looked further in to it. It appears that the boy having lost a bet brought the Quran, that he bought online, into his school. You might wonder why bringing the Quran into school is considered to be a forfeit but we are dealing with 14 year old boys here, so it doesn’t have to make sense to us. He ‘accidently’ dropped the book and was  sent to the Head Teacher, presumably for being disrespectful to  the Quran. The school called the Police. If, like me, you were expecting more from this story you will be disappointed. That’s it! Just to put some context into the story I should add that the boy is autistic. His mother, whilst apologising to a meeting of the local Muslim community said  ” … that her son sometimes found it difficult to understand social situations.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23) Another bit of information was that the Quran was only slightly damaged as confirmed by the Police and that there does not seem to be any intent to be disrespectful as confirmed by the school. “Head Teacher  Tudor Griffiths said: ‘We would like to reassure all our community that the holy book remains fully intact and that our initial enquiries indicate there was no malicious intent by those involved.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23)

You might be slightly confused at this stage as to how he could be charged with a ‘hate crime’ as initially reported by my friend. The answer is, that on the facts reported, which have not been disputed, he had not committed a crime and therefore could not be charged with a ‘hate crime’. However, my friend only got it half wrong as the boy was suspended from school and West Yorkshire Police stated “We have recorded a hate incident, but from our enquiries are satisfied that no criminal offences were committed.” See note 1 (Daily Mail 02/03/23) It is here that we start to get into ‘the weeds.’ The boys involved, the autistic boy and his 3 friends, had not committed a crime. Nor had anyone suggested that the ‘incident’ was driven by malice or hatred, something confirmed by both the  Police and the school. So on what basis was a hate incident being recorded? As you can see from note one, it appears that if someone is offended by something you have said or done, the Police can record a ‘hate incident’ without a trial and that record will appear against your name on any subsequent enhanced search. This is something that  Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union pointed out. His first point was that the measure was not intended to be used for trivial incidents. Secondly, that there had to be evidence,”  … of  motivation of prejudice or hate before officers make a recording, which can show up years later on enhanced criminal records checks.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23) On the evidence presented, he stated that the police action did not conform to the rules and that any such record should be expunged from the files. (See note 2)

Young wrote: “We are hard pressed to imagine a sequence of events more likely to chill public debate and freedom of expression than recording this episode as a ‘hate incident’ and attaching that data to the children’s records, in spite of the absence of any malicious intent.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23)

I have to admit that I am still struggling to find a ‘hate incident’ here but the 14 year old boy and his family  have certainly suffered consequences. My heart goes out to the mother of this autistic boy who at the meeting with the Muslim community, said that her son, “…  hasn’t eaten since Wednesday afternoon when this occurred because with his autism it put his anxiety to a level where he is beside himself. He is very, very sorry.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) This wasn’t the end of it, of course. False rumours that the Quran had been destroyed had been spread  and the family had received death threats as a consequence. The mother of this vulnerable boy said that, “He has received death threats, he has received threats that he will be beaten up if he goes back to school. He’s absolutely petrified.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) Now I can see a hate crime but it is not the one that the School and Police saw. Incidentally, one such boy who apparently sent hate mail seemed to have received very different treatment than our 14 year old boy,

A report was also made of a malicious communications offence in relation to threats being made to a child in connection with this incident. ‘A suspect was identified, who was also a child, and they were given words of advice by an officer. (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23)

So where are we with this story. We have a very frightened boy who has been suspended by his school; who has been threatened with violence; who has been investigated by the police; who has a non criminal record; whose mother had to apologise publicly to the Muslim community and for what? See Note 2

A more relevant question is, how did we get from a trivial incident involving a 14 year old autistic boy to national news and the involvement of the Home Secretary?  For this we must look at the actions of the authorities. Quite how this incident was reported to the Head Teacher is not known. However, the Head Teacher, Mr. Tudor Griffiths, had stated that his initial enquiries could find  “no malicious intent by those involved.” Yet, as reported by the Mail, he also said that “we have made it very clear that their actions did not treat the Koran with the respect it should have, so those involved have been suspended and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.” I would be very interested to sit in on this conversation and see how the boys actions were deemed to be unacceptable and presumably, warranted all the persecutions noted above. But his actions didn’t stop there, he escalated this trivial incident by reporting it to the police. He even facilitated a public meeting between the school, police and the  local imam. The West Yorkshire police were represented by  chief inspector, Andy Thornton, who thanked the Muslim community for…. “the tolerance and understanding shown”. (The Times, 08/03/23) Here we have the problem. There was little discussion about the event, an acceptance of the boys guilt, no reference to threats of violence and everything  to placate those who would replace the law of the land with sharia law. The Home Secretary, Ms Braverman, made it quite clear that there was no right, not to be offended under British law. No law of blasphemy, no requirement to be respectful of other faiths where there is no malicious intent. She further commented on the actions of the authorities as follows:

Ms Braverman said everyone — and especially the education sector and the police — had a duty to act in a proportionate manner, and to prioritise the welfare of children over any perceived or actual insults: “Schools answer to pupils and parents. They do not have to answer to self-appointed community activists.” (The Times, 03/03/23)

On cue the ‘community activists’ were very quick to register their outrage and victimhood. Local councillor,  Usman Ali, tweeted that the Quran was ‘desecrated’ and the action of the boys was a  ‘terrible provocation’ to Muslims. He called on the authorities to take action, otherwise community relations will suffer (The Times, 08/03/23) It took this case and Home Secretary to push back and state that we should not placate the loudest voices. That it is the ordinary citizen that is often in the front line against the mob and it is the role of the authorities to protect them. In this case, those that should have diffused  the situation chose to side with the mob and as often is the case failed the weak. Officers who bend the knee, wear political tokens don’t see themselves as fighting crime but fighting for social justice. We saw this in the reluctance of the police to pursue the  Rochdale child sex abuse ring for fear of being called racist. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Stephen Watson, said, “The public are getting a little bit fed up of virtue-signalling police officers when they’d really rather we just locked up burglars.” 

This case is important because it raises  the question of who do the public authorities serve? Do they support the rule of Law? Are they selective in how they perform their duties? Are they afraid to stand against mob rule and work for the protection of all British citizens? In this case we saw the School and the Police work as though the Muslim community were their clients. There was no attempt at ‘proportionality or prioritising the welfare of children’. There was no ‘hate crime’ no ‘hate incident’ but the only people to suffer any consequence were the boy and his family. We must return to the belief in common decency, tolerance and common sense that were the bedrock of the British way of life. We must interpret these virtues through the lens of  the passengers of the Clapham Omnibus and not the loudest voices. (Note 3)  We must refocus public servants on the duties that they are paid to perform. Schools should equip children with the tools that will enable them to make their own informed choices and the police should focus on catching criminals, without bending a knee.

“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.”
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, 2008

Notes 

1. Non-crime hate incidents are ‘any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice’, according to police guidance.
2. The Home Secretary is to enhance the  rules governing reporting hate incidents, ” … to remind police forces only to record non-crime hate incidents where it is “proportionate and absolutely necessary”. She will instruct that any records that do not meet this criteria will be removed. (The Telegraph, 05/03/23)
3. Reference to the Clapham Omnibus is a test of reasonableness established in English law. First used in McQuire v Western 1903. wikipedia

Sources

RORY TINGLE, ELIZABETH HAIGH, CHRIS BROOKE, 02/03/23, The Daily Mail,  Police should delete any data held on on autistic 14-year-old boy who ‘faces death threats’ after a Quran was dropped ‘accidentally’, say campaigners who slam officers for recording it as ‘hate incident‘, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812017/Police-delete-data-held-four-school-pupils-accidentally-dropped-Quran.html

MAX PARRY, 05/03/23, The Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary to crack down on police reporting of non-crime hate incidents, telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/home-secretary-crack-police-reporting-non-crime-hate-incidents/

TOMIWA OWOLADE, 08/03/23, The Times, We’ll never be multicultural if we fail Quran test, thetimes.co.uk/article/well-never-be-multicultural-if-we-fail-quran-test-jr7d2g6jh

The Times leading articles, 03/03/23, The Times, The Times view on religious privilege: The Right to Offend, .thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-religious-privilege-the-right-to-offend-tn5vzwfzl

I read an article in the FT headed, “Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings.” (FT 23/7/22) I have seen similar articles in American publications and if I had seen this in the New York Times or the Washington Post it would not have surprised me. I have to say that I was a bit taken aback to see it in the FT and I thought that anyone who wasn’t following US politics would have been misled by the lack of context in the article. If the point of the article was only to say that Liz Cheney had benefited from Prime Time exposure I could have lived with that as a premise but challenged it as a fact. I think that it is more than wishful thinking on behalf of the quoted  Democratic Congressman who suggests that the Liz Cheney Committee will save the Dems in the mid terms. The fact that this attempt to divert attention away from the President’s miserable performance, has failed is reflected in the Yahoo, YouGov poll which put Trump above Biden if the election was held today.

The article started out by describing Cheney’s determination to end Trumps political career but doesn’t explain that she is part of the ‘never Trumpers’ wing of the Republican Party. The Committee’s verdict has already been decided in advance of the hearing and her role in massaging the evidence to try to convict Trump has  won much praise from his enemies. Reference to her being “..the star of the show” and it being thanks to her that, “we now have this weight of evidence in favour of prosecuting Trump.” (FT 23/7/22) are evidence of this. The fact that the Hearings are very much a Show and not a Trial is underlined by the appointment of James Goldston to produce the TV episodes. His mission is to, “hone a mountain of explosive material into a captivating multimedia presentation for a prime-time hearing,” (Axios, 6/6/22)

“Jan. 6 committee enlists media chief who buried Epstein scandal to dramatize prime-time hearing”  BLAZETV STAFF, June 08, 2022

It should be impossible to mention the January 6th Committee and Liz Cheney without detailing it’s purely partisan and corrupt structure. The fact that a Congressional Committee is not allowed to pursue criminal charges is ignored by Cheney and the Democrats but the objective is clear. An example of this is the Cassidy Hutchinson episode where her ‘evidence’ was brought, at short notice, to prime time television but it turned out to be another bombshell that failed to ignite. From the start her every sentence seemed to be qualified by, ” he said something to the effect of …”. A first year trial Lawyer would have asked, ” But I am asking you what he did say.” But there was no cross examination because the entire committee, Judge and Jury was made up of people who had voted for Trumps impeachment. A unbiased Judge would have ruled out most of her ‘testimony’  because it was hearsay and as it turns out was contested by the people she quoted. The dramatic wrestling match between an unfit President and three secret service agents in the Presidential SUV has been declared untrue by the agents present. A note, written by Hutchinson and identified by her as being in her handwriting has been claimed by Eric Herschmann to have been written by him. Surely this could be resolved by recalling Eric Herschmann and the agents but the Committee declined to do this, why?  Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (see note)

It is clear that the American public would like an unbiased investigation about Jan 6 and also the summer of BLM riots that proceeded it. They would be interested in finding out how the Capital Police was so unprepared; what role the FBI played especially given it’s involvement in the Governor Whitman case; who is Ray Epps; did the Capital Police start the violence and so many other questions. Many of these questions could be answered by releasing the 14,000 hours of CCTV and body cam video that the DOJ refuses to release. Why? The American public should be able to make up their own mind based on all testimony being released to public view and all witness’s being cross examined  by the Congressmen that were nominated by the Republicans. Instead we have little bits of testimony selectively leaked to the public or testimony of the quality of  Cassidy Hutchinson.

There is no smoking gun, either figuratively or literally. “As of last month, according to the Justice Department, about 80 Capitol protesters have been charged with possessing a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Examples of those weapons include pepper spray, flags, walking sticks or batons, a helmet, a taser, and a fire extinguisher—hardly the kind of items that could be successfully used in overthrowing the government.” Julie Kelly 5/7/22

Much of the evidence is already known to the public but the Cheney’s Committee has attempted to stitch together a story that falls apart at the slightest challenge. If we take the snippets and highly edited pieces of Trumps speeches, that make up the montage of ‘evidence’ supporting an insurrection charge, we can apply a simple test to see whether the attendees on that day saw it as a call to arms or, merely Trumpian rhetoric.  Estimates of the numbers attending the rally vary widely, mainly on partisan lines. If we take a mid point between the Law Enforcement and Associated Press estimates  we come to a crowd of 40,000. (See note) If we round up the numbers arrested for Jan 6  offences, we are currently around 850, we can say that 98% of those attending were not incited to insurrection. I understand that this is a very rough and ready test, perhaps the crowd number should be higher or lower. Certainly, the majority of charges  are for parading and trespassing, not charges usually associated with insurrection but the conclusion still stands.

So why so much discussion on the partisan committee, when the article merely commented on  Liz Cheney’s, new found, popularity amongst the left?  Two reasons. The first is that this show trial would be impossible without her enthusiastic support and this corrupt Commission will be what she will be remembered for. Therefore, writing about Liz Cheney and not exposing the Committee is a little like discussing Nixon without exploring Watergate.  The second is that I would partly agree with the articles conclusion that a Republican candidate, such as DeSantis, would benefit the most from these proceedings. However, there is another possibility that given the current Presidents inability  to succeed on any issue, that it may result in a call for a strong leader which would favour Trump in 2024. It would be somewhat ironic if Liz Cheney lit the fuse that propelled Trump to a second term.

Notes

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. Wikipedia

Rally Numbers: “Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press.” L.A. Times, Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection, The facts you need to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection and its fallout – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Sources

Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings, Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 23/7/22

Yahoo News/YouGov poll Yahoo Tabs | PDF | Fox News | Msnbc (scribd.com) 

Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ Julie Kelly 5/7/22 Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ › American Greatness (amgreatness.com) 

Scoop: Jan. 6 committee’s secret adviser, Mike Allen, Axios AM, 6/6/2022

,