Mick Hartley

Forty years in Ireland

Photographer Martin Parr has made a number of visits to Ireland over the last four decades and now, for the first time, several of the resulting images are brought together in a book, From the Pope to a Flat White, Ireland 1979-2019. 

Some of the photos feature here at Magnum, together with an introductory essay, by journalist Fintan O’Toole which looks at the changes Ireland's seen over the last forty years or so, from the conservative society that turned out in force to welcome Pope John Paul II in Dublin's Phoenix Park in 1979 to the modern urban world of "Innovation Districts" and flat whites - nicely echoed in Parr's switch from black and white to colour:

The Pope gives mass at Phoenix Park. Dublin. Ireland. 1979. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

The Pope gives mass in Knock. County Mayo. Ireland. 1979. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Westport Horse Fair. From 'A Fair Day'. County Mayo. Ireland. 1983. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Belmullet Fair. County Mayo. Ireland. 1983. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Mayflower Ballroom. County Leitrim. Drumshanbo. Ireland. 1981. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Rainbow Centre. From 'A Fair Day'. County Leitrim. Glenfarne. Ireland. 1982. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Amethyst Ballroom. From 'A Fair Day'. County Roscommon. Elphin. Ireland. 1982. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Puck Fair. From 'Early Works'. County Kerry. Killorglin. Ireland. 1980 © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Glenbeigh Races. From 'A Fair Day'. County Kerry. Ireland. 1983. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

St Mary's Holy Well. This well is visited on 15th August, The Feast of Assumption, for private prayers. From 'A Fair Day'. County Leitrim. Killargue. Ireland. 1981. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

On the last Sunday of July about 50,000 people climb Croagh Patrick for Ireland's most important pilgrimage. From 'A Fair Day'. County Mayo. Croagh Patrick. Ireland. 1983. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Abandoned croft. From 'A Fair Day'. County Leitrim. Near Manorhamilton. Ireland. 1983. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

A drive through McDonalds. Nutgrove shopping centre. Dublin. Ireland. 1986. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Finglas shopping centre. Dublin. Ireland. 1986. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Butlin’s Holiday Camp. County Meath. Mosney. Ireland. 1994. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

County Mayo. Knock. Ireland. 1996. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Dublin. Ireland. 1986. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Dublin. Ballymun. Ireland. 1986. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Innovation district. Dublin. Ireland. 2019. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Flat White. Dublin. Ireland. 2019. © Martin Parr | Magnum Photos

Also included, some of Parr's images of Abandoned Morris Minors in the West of Ireland, which I covered here.

On JCPOA 2

There's plenty of commentary on offer, prompted by the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, on whether Joe Biden will or should resurrect the JCPOA nuclear deal that Obama signed with Tehran, and which Trump wasted no time - "the worst deal ever" - in abandoning.

Art Keller, at Qullette, argues that JCPOA was a bad deal for America, but perhaps, after four years of Trump, Biden might be able to come away with a better, tougher agreement.

But more cogent, in my view, is Lee Smith at Tablet:

Barack Obama will never forgive Benjamin Netanyahu for being right about the Iran nuclear deal. In his new memoir, Promised Land, Obama writes that the Israeli prime minister’s “vision of himself as the chief defender of the Jewish people against calamity allowed him to justify almost anything that would keep him in power.”

In fact, Netanyahu put his job on the line by doing something few Israeli voters support—he challenged an American president and potentially endangered the U.S.-Israel relationship. In March 2015, he went over Obama’s head to make his case to the representatives of the American people and told Congress that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would give Iran a clear path to the bomb. Since many restrictions were due to expire by 2025—the so-called “sunset clauses”—Iran would have an industrial-scale nuclear weapons program in about a decade.

“We’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war,” Netanyahu told Congress. “That’s just not true.”

Netanyahu was right. Donald Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May 2017 and there was no war. Trump sanctioned the Tehran regime into penury and instead of war, Iranian demonstrators took to the streets to protest against those who’d squandered the country’s wealth by funding international terror.

In January, the president ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Middle East experts warned that he’d woken a sleeping giant and the region would shortly go up in flames—but again, there was no war. In fact, the Trump White House’s clear stance against the world’s leading sponsor of terror made room for peace in the Middle East. In the summer, the Abraham Accords gave Israel new regional partners, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan all agreeing to normalize relations.

Obama’s Iran deal was the costliest mistake of his presidency for the peoples of the Middle East. The premises on which it was based were proved false. And yet Joe Biden can’t wait to reenter the JCPOA, with Secretary of State-apparent Antony Blinken pledging to keep “non-nuclear sanctions” intact, signaling his clear intention to lift nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

The only thing that could interfere with such wonderful plans, the press warns, is an impending Trump strike on Iran, which might come any day now. According to The New York Times, Trump asked his cabinet for military options after the U.N. reported that Iran had exceeded its limit of enriched uranium.

Does that mean Trump or Bibi is actually on the verge of attacking Iran? Of course not. On both the American and the Israeli fronts, Trump administration policy was to get American troops out of global hot spots as fast as possible—not start wars. What the war drums mean is that the phony communications infrastructure that marketed the Iran deal from 2013-2016 is up and running again. [...]

Biden’s prospective Middle East team shows very clearly that Obama will be calling the shots. Reportedly in line for a top job is Obama’s Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who spent the last four years threatening America’s key regional ally that it better not get too comfortable with Trump—or else the next Democratic administration would punish them. Rob Malley is also likely to be a major presence. Obama’s key point man on the Middle East recently lamented that the legacy of his boss “was premised on his being succeeded by someone like him, maybe a Hillary Clinton, but certainly not a Donald Trump.” The “experiment that got suspended halfway through,” as Malley put it, can now be completed under the protective cover of a “moderate” Biden administration.

In other words, Biden will very likely be looking to cement some kind of second JCPOA deal with Iran. And if he does he'll no doubt claim that it's tougher and more realistic than the previous version. But, given Tehran's duplicity, that's unlikely to be the case. All the mullahs want is to have sanctions lifted and to return to their old pre-Trump ways of destabilising the region - and prolonging their rule at the expense of the long-suffering Iranian people.

Going for the Boyz

The latest spat in the world of trans activism, as related by Jo Bartosch:

With rippling torsos and muscular buttocks bursting from every page, Boyz magazine makes even WrestleMania seem positively heterosexual. Boyz is a monthly publication for gay men. Unlike much of the gay press these days, its focus is on lifestyle, dating and shopping rather than the intricacies of gender politics.

Last Thursday, it was blasted by the windbags of social media. Actor David Paisley (from soaps, apparently) alerted his 20,000 followers on Twitter to a potential hate crime. The Boyz Twitter account had quote-tweeted the LGB Alliance, a group of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who question the tenets of the transgender faith, to promote a male-only social event on Zoom.

Actor David Paisley is not just "from soaps". He's a regular campaigner for trans rights who did his bit for the March consultation on Scotland's Gender Recognition reform - proposing to allow individuals to change their legal sex by means of a statutory declaration - by promising to send anyone who gave the "right" trans-friendly responses a nude photo of himself. Oh yes.

But back to the article:

The Boyz Twitter account also made the following shocking statement: ‘Listen yourself to the founders of the LGB Alliance, and then make up your own mind, you don’t have to agree but at least hear them out.’

The outrageous suggestion that people ought to think for themselves was never going to be left unchallenged. Enter Paisley stage left, along with his supporting cast, including Guardian journalist Owen Jones. In a frenetic series of tweets, the television actor tagged in as many companies which advertise in Boyz as he could find, in order to make them aware of the magazine’s transgression. The virtuous Twitter mob also set its sights on David Bridle, the managing director of Boyz. Bridle is something of a community elder and has been at the helm of Boyz since 1991, when Paisley was just 12 years old.  [...]

Boyz has now issued the standard grovelling apology. It has also promised to be re-educated on trans issues by trans-youth lobby group Mermaids. Paisley is now crowing over his social-media victory and is apparently delighted to have brought a long-standing gay magazine to its knees.

The LGB Alliance, of course, is far from being a hate-filled transphobic organisation. It was formed as a breakaway from Stonewall UK last year after it became clear that Stonewall had abandoned its original gay agenda in favour of a trans activism which many saw as a regressive throwback to old gender stereotypes, dressed up in progressive trans-friendly clothing.

The LBG Alliance is filling a gap left by the LBGT movement’s uncritical embrace of trans politics. Today there are no longer any mainstream services, groups or even dating apps that are exclusively for those who are same-sex attracted. Many LGBT organisations today campaign, in effect, against the right to be homosexual. This is because transgender politics calls for people to be recognised for who they claim to be internally, not for the sex of their bodies. The result is that, this year, ‘Chiyo Gomes’ – a female who has had a mastectomy – is a finalist in next year’s Mr Gay UK competition. Furthermore, despite the female biology and lack of penis, in Britain today it could be construed as a hate crime to refer to ‘Chiyo’ as a straight woman rather than a gay man.

For the crime of offering an alternative to transgender ideology and for defending the importance of biological sex in homosexuality, the LGB Alliance has been hounded and smeared across the media.  [...]

Like most ordinary people, most lesbian, gay and bisexual people aren’t particularly engaged in the culture wars. Aside from moaning about Pride becoming commercialised and feeling a bit emosh about Nicola Adams having to drop out of Strictly, there is not that much pulling us together, especially when the only messages we get from the likes of Stonewall are that ‘trans women are women’ and ‘debate is hate’. But ask any gay man if he would have sex with a ‘man with a vulva’ or a lesbian how she feels about penises, and it will be pretty obvious that despite the online tantrums of transgender activists, biological sex still matters.

A little piece of Paradise

Russell Lee - May 1940. "A residence and post office at Paradise, Cochise County, Arizona, former center of mining development, now a fruit section."

[Photo:Shorpy/Russell Lee]

Berries

Stroud Green:

Not racism

A professor at the University of Calgary gives us a taste of the kind of material presented by the powers-that-be, in their rush to embrace the current dogma that we all inhabit an apparently irredeemable state of racism. From the university's "courageous conversations" about equity, race, systemic racism and anti-racism:

It’s not only public figures like Trump and so on, who constantly deny that they are being racist and claim to be non- or even anti-racist, but ordinary people also, perhaps your friends and your family constantly repeat how “that wasn’t racist” or “I’m not racist.” But I’m suggesting that beyond this well-known denial of racism, what is particular to what I’m calling “not racism” is that it contains a definition of racism, which is constructed negatively through opposition. This definition is characterized by the fact that it denies racialized people’s subjective understanding of what racism is and negates this experience. In this way, “not racism” is what I call a form of discursive racist violence… “Not racism” as a redefinition of racism lends itself to a positivist approach to social science, one that historically has been bound up epistemologically with the idea of race. So “not racism,” I hope to encourage you, is also epistemically racist.

Not racism is epistemically racist. OK. So racism is....epistemically non-racist? Am I doing this right?

At the Boating Lake

Birds on birds at Alexandra Palace:

 

 

What is really being asked is a pretence

We heard from Nick Cohen last week on the battle in Cambridge between a demand from the university authorities that people 'be respectful of' the opinions of others, and a rebellious faction who see this as an unwelcome attack on free speech, and would substitute 'tolerance' for 'respect'.  The critics have managed to force a vote on the matter.

There's a piece on this in today's Sunday Times, with a fine contribution from Stephen Fry - ‘Respect’? This is thought control:

Doubtless for the best motives, a rather muddled insistence on automatic “respect” is being injected into Cambridge University’s free speech policy.

A demand for respect is like a demand for a laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given if not felt.

There are many opinions, positions and points of view which I find I do not and cannot respect. That is surely true for all us.

Even if someone were to pull out a gun, point it at my head and demand respect for their opinion, I could not with any honesty offer it. Fear and dread would certainly elicit a trembling acquiescence — but real respect? That cannot be supplied to order. It comes from somewhere else.

To be forced to feel other than we do is manifestly an impossibility. Therefore what is really being asked is a pretence, a display of lip-service, which in a university whose reputation is founded on empirical and rational inquiry, open argument and free thought, is surely inimical.

Not sure I'd agree with that rather weak 'inimical' there, though. 'Preposterous' might be better. Or 'ridiculous', 'fatuous'....

Doubtless we can all hope for respectful attitudes in matters of debate and interpersonal exchange — much as we hope for friendly manners in all circumstances — but to burn respect into statutes and protocols is absurd, or worse. Such an impulse tips over the line into thought control.

A free mind is obliged to respect only the truth. There is so much passion and distress fomenting the debate on campus freedom and academic discussion that decisions are made and policies implemented on the basis of fear rather than reason or sense.

This has nothing to do with “sides” or particular issues. Think of the human attitude or political philosophy you believe to be among the most wicked and dangerous in the world. Do you consent to being forced to respect it?

Perhaps what is meant is that Cambridge wants decorum and politeness. These are codes, much like a dress code, to which any reasonable person might be expected to conform. But please do not tell us what to think and feel.

No such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body'

Here's a reply by Amnesty International on Twitter to a complaint about their recent activity, including calling women 'womxn' and saying political representation should be removed from women if they don't believe in gender ideology:

Allowing self-determination of our bodies is a basic principle of feminism and human rights. There is no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’ - a person’s genitalia doesn’t determine their gender. 

Oh dear.

We've been here before. This is basically the same formulation that ActionAid UK came up with in July. They're singing from the same hymn sheet.

In response to a request that the word "gender" be replaced by "sex", ActionAid offered this reply:

Thank you for your email. We agree that words are important. As ActionAid UK is an organisation focused on supporting the most marginalised women and girls in the world, it is important to us that we are clear that when we are talking about women and girls, we are including transgender women and girls in our definition of women and girls.

ActionAid UK defines women and girls as anyone who self-identifies as a woman or a girl. Allowing self-determination of our bodies is a basic feminist principle. ActionAid UK understands there is no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’, and that a person’s genitalia doesn’t determine their gender. As such, we’ve used the word gender not sex, and include trans women and girls in our definition of women and girls. ActionAid UK also recognises that many non-binary people and trans men face gender discrimination.

As Sarah Phillimore responded at the time:

ActionAidUK declares itself to be a charity ‘that works with women and girls living in poverty’. It apparently recognises the harm done to women and girls by violence. Women and girls do not ‘chose’ to become victims of violence, rape, sex trafficking, FGM or abortion from their mother’s wombs. They haven’t ‘self identified’ into this condition. It is immediately obvious to those who hurt and kill them, who deny them an education, who force them into marriage aged 12, what sex they are. For about 99% of living humans, it is immediately obvious what sex they are.

Women are not oppressed, raped and killed for their GENDER.

They are oppressed, raped and killed for their SEX .

That Amnesty International can claim, astonishingly, that there's no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’ indicates just how far and how deep the mind-rot has spread.

Light stones

Photographer Reuben Wu uses drones to add artificial light to natural landscapes. In his series Light Storm, he's capturing the dramatic eroded stone shapes and canyons of Utah and New Mexico, lending them an extraordinary other-wordly look. 

[Images: Reuben Wu]

On Instagram.