Mick Hartley

Our inability to assess risk

Hands, face, space: that's the government's exciting new Covid-19 slogan.

Joanna Williams in the Times - Treating us like children won’t keep us safe:

When decisions are made on our behalf, we abdicate personal responsibility. We no longer have any need to understand complex issues for ourselves. But rather than this self-imposed ignorance being reassuring, we panic. A poll conducted last week showed that British people believe 7 per cent of the population have died from coronavirus — 100 times higher than the real figure.

Our capacity to evaluate risk and exercise judgment, not just as individuals but across society, suffers. From the moment the first cases of Covid-19 appeared in Britain, it was known that this was a virus that could be fatal to the elderly but was relatively benign in children. Yet we discharged old folk from hospitals into care homes while closing schools and keeping children at home.

Even today, bowling alleys and ice-skating rinks remain closed but people with underlying health conditions are expected to get back to work. Union leaders are once again questioning the safety of schools reopening despite there having been no recorded cases, anywhere in the world, of teachers having caught coronavirus from their pupils. Newspaper column inches are given over to berating beachgoers, despite the chances of someone catching Covid-19 while sitting outside being infinitesimally small.

Our inability to assess risk has disastrous consequences. According to the Office for National Statistics, England has had the highest rate of excess deaths in Europe. Significantly, not all of these deaths have been as a result of coronavirus: cancer patients have gone untreated and people have died at home from heart attacks rather than going to hospital. Most tragically of all, more children have committed suicide during lockdown than have died from coronavirus.

Assessing risk and exercising judgment is hard work. Crucially, it requires not just access to information and data — much of which has been kept out of the public domain — but also a rigorous public debate about the balance of risk that as a society we are prepared to tolerate. So far, good citizens have been expected to practise obedience, not critical thinking.

The prime minister and his government are rightly facing criticism for their handling of the pandemic. In response, the temptation for Boris Johnson is to be seen to act decisively. But a panicked imposing of arbitrary rules may be worse than not acting at all.

Back in 1784, the philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the Enlightenment as a collective emergence from self-imposed immaturity. All that is needed, he declared, is for people to have the freedom to make public use of their own reason in all matters. More than two centuries later, it seems we are still struggling to come of age.

Of course, as Williams acknowledges, this isn't just about the current pandemic. We already have a considerable number of restrictions on our behaviour, from seat belts in cars and speed restrictions to the ban on smoking in pubs. It's inevitable in a modern society. The pandemic lockdown, though, is testing our reliance on such restrictions way above and beyond the normal - to breaking point, perhaps. I notice in shops now, for instance, that the supposed requirement for face-masks in being widely ignored. Is that a sign of gross irresponsibility, or an indication that people are beginning to make their own decisions and are sick of being told what to do when they know their chances of catching or passing on the virus are minimal by now? I wear one out of courtesy, really, but I can't say I'm outraged by those who don't bother.

There is only power

Published later this month, and already a #1 Amazon best-seller in America, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity--And Why This Harms Everybody, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, traces the origins of "woke" culture to the academic undermining of the western liberal worldview by Critical Theory.

Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist? Have you read that certain people shouldn't practice yoga or cook Chinese food? Or been told that being obese is healthy, that there is no such thing as biological sex, or that only white people can be racist? Are you confused by these ideas, and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society? In this probing and intrepid volume, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay document the evolution of the dogma that informs these ideas, from its coarse origins in French postmodernism to its refinement within activist academic fields. Today this dogma is recognizable as much by its effects, such as cancel culture and social-media dogpiles, as by its tenets, which are all too often embraced as axiomatic in mainstream media: knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous. As Pluckrose and Lindsay warn, the unchecked proliferation of these anti-Enlightenment beliefs present a threat not only to liberal democracy but also to modernity itself.

Andrew Sullivan is impressed:

What the book helps the layperson to understand is the evolution of postmodern thought since the 1960s until it became the doctrine of Social Justice today. Beginning as a critique of all grand theories of meaning—from Christianity to Marxism—postmodernism is a project to subvert the intellectual foundations of western culture. The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or  even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and “problematized” whenever possible. Postmodern theory does so mischievously and irreverently—even as it leaves nothing in reason’s place. The idea of objective truth—even if it is viewed as always somewhat beyond our reach—is abandoned. All we have are narratives, stories, whose meaning is entirely provisional, and can in turn be subverted or problematized.  [...]

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas. Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike. [...]

The rhetorical trap of critical theory is that it has coopted the cause of inclusion and forced liberals onto the defensive. But liberals have nothing to be defensive about. What’s so encouraging about this book is that it has confidence in its own arguments, and is as dedicated to actual social justice, achieved through liberal means, as it is scornful of the postmodern ideologues who have coopted and corrupted otherwise noble causes.

The new hermits

When Russian photographer Natalia Ershova was unable to leave home for two months because of illness she started to communicate online with friends, and became aware of how many were, in effect, hermits - never or hardly ever leaving their rooms.

“It surprised me that some of them would not want to simply go for a walk in the park or visit the cinema–that they had chosen to stay at home of their own free will,” she says. “As it turned out, communicating via the internet and social media was quite enough for them.”

Her project Journey to the edge of the room was the result, examining the culture of Russians in big cities who prefer to remain home-bound.   

The heroes of my project are people who practically never leave their homes. Many work from home, some are supported by relatives. These are very different people, but they are united by one thing - they "live" on the Internet. Some of them have many friends, but they communicate with them online or at home. And some of them are modern hermits.
I filmed my characters in their apartments, with [their] animals and [their] favorite things. I asked each of them the question: "Why do they lead such a lifestyle?" ...
Now most people are dependent on the Internet in one way or another, and my characters are an exaggerated version of Internet addiction and social alienation.
I think that with the development and spread of the Internet, this is a very relevant trend, especially in large cities, where the pace of life is too fast, there is too much stress and too many people.

The theme of social isolation has, of course, been given an unexpected relevance with the coronavirus pandemic.

Viktor, 30 years old. Hermit for ten years. “To live against all odds.”

Anna and Eliza, 30 years old. Hermits for seven years. “We like to live such a life. We are free!”

Alyona, 31 years old. Hermit for seven years. “I need this at the moment.”

Mikhail, 28 years old. Hermit for ten years. “Because I don’t particularly like bunches of strangers, and I work nights and from home.”

Yelizaveta and Peter, 25 years old. Hermits for one year and a half. “It is convenient for us to live like this and not to work.”

Eugene, 30 years old. Hermit for three years and a half. “Due to [an] unconventional world perception since my childhood, [there came a point where it became impossible to be part of conventional society], and I had to leave. And I have no regrets about this.”

Kristina, 29 years old. Hermit for two years. “I don’t work and I live as I want.”

Olga, 27 years old. Hermit for three years. “I like to work as a freelancer: to [do] cosplays of my favorite characters, as well as reviews of video games.”
[All images © Natalia Ershova]

An abuse of members’ money

The unlovely Unite boss Len McCluskey, still complaining about Labour's antisemitism payout, is now threatening to withdraw the union's financial support.

Len McCluskey, the left-wing leader of Unite, has warned that it would be “a mistake” for Labour to take its financial contributions “for granted” following the decision to pay damages to antisemitism whistleblowers.

Mr McCluskey, in an interview with The Observer, stated that there was “no doubt” that the Unite executive would seek a review of its funding of the party.

He claimed that much of the six-figure damages that had been awarded to the seven whistleblowers who spoke to the BBC’s Panorama in July 2019 had come from Unite funds.

“It’s an abuse of members’ money,” said Mr McCluskey, a key supporter for former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

McCluskey should know a thing or two about abusing members’ money: he's being doing it himself for long enough. From Private Eye:

Rather than spending Unite members’ money on fighting to save jobs as Covid-19 leads to mass unemployment, Len McCluskey gives every appearance of throwing it at fat-cat lawyers.

A letter from Carter-Ruck to the Labour party’s solicitors Martin Howe & Co, seen by the Eye, reveals that the pricey law firm was acting for Jeremy Corbyn, his director of communications Seumas Milne and Jennie Formby, Labour’s general secretary under Corbyn (and McCluskey’s former lover).

How could the trio afford solicitors reputed to charge £500 an hour? The letter sent on 21 July, as Labour prepared to settle libel claims brought by Panorama’s John Ware and seven Labour whistleblowers, offers a clue. Carter-Fuck told Labour’s lawyers its clients were “supported by Unite”.

No expense spared for Len's pals - and from union funds, it seems. Though in the end it didn't do them any good.

And it's not the first time:

Late last year the former Labour MP Anna Turley sued Unite and the alt-left “news” site Skwawkbox for falsely accusing her of joining the union on a “fraudulent basis”. The judge awarded her punitive damages and estimated costs of at least £1.5m. Skwawkbox’s editor revealed that Unite was meeting his bills too.

Determined enough to commit genocide

Michael Doran and Peter Rough, in Tablet, question the long-held American assumption that China's strategy is driven by economic interests. Far from it: China is in fact actively engaged in a hard-power political contest, looking to replace the US in key strategic areas like the Middle East:

China is advancing on the Middle East with ruthless determination, because the region is of more vital interest to China than any other, aside from the Western Pacific. Indeed, China is actively working to oust the United States from the Middle East—a reality that the American strategic community would overwhelmingly prefer not to recognize, but one that is nonetheless becoming glaringly obvious.

Don’t believe us? Ask the Uighurs, the brutalized people of Xinjiang province, which the Chinese government is actively colonizing by moving in millions of ethnic Han Chinese. The lucky among the Uighurs, who number some 11 million in total, are trapped in an inescapable web of surveillance and oppression. The unlucky ones, numbering perhaps 1 million, are interned in ideological indoctrination camps where they are exploited as slave labor, tortured, and, according to recent reports, subjected to forced sterilizations.

What motive can China have for its ongoing torment of a small ethnic minority, which brings Beijing an ongoing avalanche of negative publicity in the West? Xi’s policy flows, the experts tell us, from Beijing’s fear of terrorist and separatist movements among the Uighurs, who are a Turkic Muslim people with ethnic and religious ties to their neighbors and to Turkey. Whatever the validity of this analysis, it misses the strategic vector, which again points directly to the Middle East.

Xi’s signature foreign policy achievement is the Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion program that invests in infrastructure projects across the world designed to funnel resources back to a hungry China, thereby creating a global Chinese sphere of interest. The jewel in the crown of the Belt and Road Initiative is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor—a multibillion-dollar program to build highways, rail lines, and pipelines from the port of Gwadar on the Indian Ocean to Xinjiang, the Uighur heartland. The northern terminus of the corridor is Kashgar—a Uighur city which, with cameras in every crevice, is likely the most surveilled metropolitan area in the world. China is crushing the Uighurs, in other words, because their territory sits athwart China’s critical overland supply routes.

How determined is China in its advance toward the Middle East? Determined enough to commit genocide.

The economic theory, once so widely accepted in Washington, goes with the belief that globalism, and an increasingly wealthy middle class, would transform China into a kinder, gentler communist power. And we've seen how well that's worked out.

On top of all the other concerns, there's the increased cooperation between China and Putin's Russia - a Russia that showed how to muscle America out of the picture in the Middle East with its Syrian campaign in support of Assad.

The coordination between Moscow and Beijing in the Middle East is part of a much larger story. “In the past six years, we have met nearly 30 times,” Xi Jinping said about Vladimir Putin last year upon his arrival in Moscow for a state visit. “Russia is the country that I have visited the most times, and President Putin is my best friend and colleague,” Xi said. For his part, Putin replied that Chinese-Russian ties had “reached an unprecedented level” and described the relationship between the two countries as “a global partnership and strategic cooperation.”

These were more than just diplomatic pleasantries. While significant areas of friction remain, China and Russia are now working hand-in-glove in many key areas, including in defense. The U.S. intelligence community’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” last year led with the statement: “China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.” The assessment did not identify the Middle East as an area of major alignment between China and its Russian partner, but it should have. Together, they are searching for ways to loosen the bonds between Washington and its allies and to strengthen anti-American forces in the region, which are led by Iran....

Another fact that Americans tend to miss is that China’s economic size and strategic advantages position it as the senior partner in the relationship—meaning that Xi Jinping, not Putin, calls the shots. It is Russia’s job to intervene militarily in the Middle East and, thereby, to take the heat from the Americans. Meanwhile, China benefits from Russia’s “destabilizing” activities....

It's a long piece, but worth a read.

Red dog

Street art round Redchurch Street and Brick Lane this morning:

Hunted like birds

The brutal murder of Pınar Gültekin, a 27-year-old student who was allegedly killed by an ex-boyfriend last week, has inspired a wave of protests in Turkey.

Her death, the latest in a series of high-profile murders of women, has sparked a series of public protests in Turkey against gender-based violence, and led to a surge of support for an international social media campaign that has seen women across the world post black-and-white pictures in memory of female victims of violence.

It has also cast light on efforts by the conservative Turkish government to repeal legislation designed to protect women. This week the ruling AKP will decide whether to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, a 2011 Council of Europe framework formed to support victims of gender-based violence, which they once hailed as a centrepiece of their progressive social policy.

Women’s equality before the law is protected under the secular Turkish constitution, written under the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern nation. Yet in recent years, women’s rights have come under attack from the conservative leadership.

Politicians, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have repeatedly made statements denigrating women’s rights — claiming that women are not equal to men and that those who do not have children are “incomplete” and “deficient”.

Activists say this has bred an environment where women’s lives are seen as less valuable — and where men can get away with murder.

“Women are hunted like birds here, and [the politicians] are just watching,” said Gulsum Kav, founder of We Will Stop Femicides, a Turkish women’s rights organisation. “I don’t believe the international community realises the seriousness of femicide in Turkey.”

This is happening at the same time as Erdogan is pushing his Islamist agenda - most notably with the recent decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque. It's almost as if the two are related in some way.

That international social media campaign, encouraging women across the world to post black-and-white pictures of themselves in memory of female victims of violence, lost its focus for a while:

As the hashtags were translated and shared in other languages and western celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, Eva Longoria and even Ivanka Trump picked up on the trend, the original context appears to have been lost on most users, morphing into a lighthearted - if directionless - display of female solidarity.

Some, like Nigella Lawson, have realised their mistake: “I have only just found out that this challenge was originally meant to draw attention to the growing number of murders of women in Turkey, and am mortified didn’t know when I posted. It seems inappropriate now, and hardly fitting for the serious and terrible issue of femicide. I apologise”. 

Nothing yet from Ivanka Trump, but we live in hope.

For knowing that only women have a cervix

Here we go again:

Labour MP Rosie Duffield has denied allegations that she is transphobic, after a row erupted following her comments about a cervical cancer campaign.The debate started last night on Twitter after Ms Duffield commented on a CNN tweet about new American Cancer Society guidelines that state: “Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65, with HPV testing every five years.”She liked Piers Morgan’s reply ‘Do you mean women?’ After being flooded with complaints, Duffield added: “I’m a ‘transphobe’ for knowing that only women have a cervix….?!”

The JK Rowling saga started with a similar comment on basic female biology, as I recall. On seeing a message aimed at "people who menstruate", she replied "I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?". Now it's Rosie Duffield's turn to provide a biology lesson which doesn't meet with trans approval.

The people at Labour Campaign for Trans Rights are horrified: 

We in the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights are shocked by the comments made by Rosie Duffield today. To insist that “only women have a cervix” denies the existence of trans men and many nonbinary people. Not all women have cervixes, and not everyone who has a cervix is a woman.

Inclusive language harms nobody and costs little; it is a simple act of support for trans people in a political culture that is increasingly hostile towards us. The level of hostility that exists towards something as basic and harmless as inclusive language is representative of this climate of intense transphobia.

Labour MPs partaking in this right-wing campaign to marginalise, exclude and oppress trans people is unacceptable if we are to continue calling ourselves the party of equality. Moreover, it is contrary to the socialist principles of equality and liberation and represents a deep failing of that MPs responsibility to their transgender constituents.

We expect the party whips to take this forward, and the Labour Complaints Team to take forward the numerous complaints we know of already.

We need education and engagement to build understanding and solidarity towards trans people at every level of the party; including MPs, the leadership, party staff, and ordinary CLP members....

They want understanding and solidarity but only on their terms, while completely failing to understand how petty and vindictive they sound.

Roses are....

...at Queen Mary's Gardens, Regent's Park:

Modern policing

An interesting approach to solving crime, by the Hertfordshire police in Bishop's Stortford. Put out an appeal for witnesses who may have seen anyone "acting suspiciously in the area", but deliberately withhold a description of the perpetrator:

Between 2 AM and 2:30 AM on Saturday, December 21 2019, in the South Road area, near the Shell petrol station and driving test centre, a man in his thirties was ending a night out on the town when he was subjected to sexual violence.

The lead investigator on the case, Detective Inspector Justine Jenkins, described the survivor as “absolutely traumatised,” and praised him for coming forward. “The victim’s bravery in reporting the incident is highly commendable, as the stigmas and myths around sexual assaults on men can often put people off contacting police.” The statement provided no description of the suspect, appealing to members of the public “who may have witnessed anyone acting suspiciously in the area during the early hours of that day” to contact Hertfordshire police.

On April 15, investigation by the Major Crime Unit of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire led to a raid at a home in Plaw Hatch Close. 44-year-old Wayne Rogers, who resided at the home, was arrested. He was charged with Assault By Penetration, Sexual Assault and Possession Of A Class A Drug on May 27. He was freed on bail as the investigation continued. 

In a June 8 statement that again appealed to witnesses as well as other possible victims to come forward, Detective Inspector Jenkins said: “We are now in a position to confirm that our enquiries have led us to believe the alleged suspect was a male who was posing as a female at the time of the incident.”

The detective inspector intimated that the information had been withheld to ensure “any coverage of the case in the media” would be handled “supportively and sensitively, both in terms of the male victim and of the LGBT+ community,” because “we do not want to be in a situation where members of the gay or trans communities in particular are being targeted by hurtful comments or actions as a result of this information being released.”

The detective inspector further urged the media: “We would ask that you please take this into consideration when preparing any coverage and ensure you are regularly monitoring or removing any offensive comments posted on social media.” 

In other words the police withheld information about the assailant in a serious crime, for fear of offending the "trans community". 

Hertfordshire police received backlash for failing to reveal a critical detail, hindering an investigation that the lead investigator herself had acknowledged was “highly complex and challenging.”

Barrister Kama Melly QC said: Being attacked sexually in the street is a terrifying experience and all victims are entitled to a proper police investigation. The police know that the best way to find that perpetrator is by circulating an accurate description promptly and efficiently. Descriptions of suspects have never in my experience taken into account political tensions or personal sensibilities.This victim, like all victims, is entitled to a robust investigation – I fail to see how such an inadequate description of this suspect assists in bringing this suspect to justice.