terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2025

The Spectator - The derangement of Harvard

 

(personal underlines)

The derangement of Harvard

It is 60 years since William F. Buckley said that he would ‘rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University’. Yet even the godfather of American conservatism would be surprised at how much more attractive the folks in the phone directory appear today.

Harvard is currently having a major row with Donald Trump’s administration. It results from the way in which the university responded to the 7 October attacks in Israel. While the Hamas massacres were still on-going, more than 30 Harvard University student organisations signed a letter which claimed to hold the ‘Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence’.

You might wonder why students at Harvard have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they imagine any ‘regime’ or government would be waiting for their take on things. Stranger still was the students’ apparent belief that Harvard was somehow central to the Israeli war effort. ‘Harvard out of Occupied Palestine’ was one of their demands. You would be hard-pushed to find anyone in the Middle East who believes that their lands are occupied by Harvard University, whoever else they think culpable.

Since then, events on campus have become increasingly insane. Jewish students were subjected to assaults, insults and intimidationall while the university authorities defended all this as a ‘speech’ issue. In a set of notorious hearings in front of a Congressional committee, the then president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, insisted that calls for ‘genocide’ against Jews would have to be judged based on their ‘context’.

Many observers noted that if it had been black students being chased across the Harvard campus with calls for lynchings then things might have been regarded differently. If foreign students were shown to have participated in such activities, then withdrawing their visas would have been the least of the demands. Yet students at Harvard who were part of a group that attacked their Jewish peers were not only given free rein to do so, but only the other day a number of them were honoured by the university and given further scholarships.

The latest Trump administration has made Harvard one of the focuses of its attempts to de-radicalise the American university system. It has threatened to freeze tens of millions of dollars of federal subsidies to the university and warned that the Internal Revenue Service would be taking away the institution’s tax-exempt status. Last week the Department of Homeland Security said that it was revoking Harvard’s certification for participating in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program – effectively cutting billions of dollars of further financing.

Many Americans will have been surprised to learn that billions of dollars of their taxes have been going to educate foreign students at Harvard – including the sort of foreign students who use their time to foment revolution in the United States. Harvard started legal proceedings against the government within the day, once again reminding us that the only people who always benefit from this sort of dust-up are members of the legal profession.

This week the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the Trump administration is ‘holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, anti-Semitism and co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist party on its campus’. She went on: ‘It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enrol foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.’

Harvard and its supporters have done what any university would do, insisting that the cuts threatened by the Trump administration have already affected research into cancer and other diseases. This is a pretty cunning move. Harvard knows what it could do to clean up the mess made by its students and faculty, yet it presents itself as the victim of brutal and inexplicable cuts that threaten the very things that everybody agrees a research university should focus on. It is the playbook that the left always uses whenever financial cuts occur, here or in the US – portraying them as falling hardest on ‘the most vulnerable’. Campaigners are one step away from proclaiming: ‘It is such a shame that since the government’s slashing of funding to our egregious and politicised campaigns all the puppy sanctuaries will have to close.’

Harvard is betting that it can win the war with Trump. His administration is clearly enjoying the opportunity to sock it to an institution that has become increasingly partisan and political. Yet all the time the obvious correction remains in plain sight.

The trouble lies in the fact that Harvard is no longer Harvard, just as so many other institutions in the West are not what outsiders imagine them to be. Harvard’s best line of defence would be to return to what it is meant to be – a genuinely world-class university which prioritises the cultivation of excellence. It is many years since it or most other higher education institutions in the US have been any such thing. It is one reason why students are desperate to enrol in new establishments such as the University of Austin and Ralston College in Savannah. These places aim to provide a true, classical education, because it is so hard for Americans to find it where they once did.

One left-wing author claimed this week that through its attacks on Harvard, the Trump administration ‘has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself’ which ‘if successful will undermine Americans’ ability to comprehend the world around us’. We shall see. But for that line of argument to work, the people in what used to be the phone directory would have to be persuaded that Harvard has been an enlightening presence in American life of late, rather than an utterly deranging one.

Youtube - Talking with doctors

 

Interesting programs with doctors talking on different subjects



Why You Should Stop Having Dairy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaE__jxWqY













Música - Hahn: Chansons grises: No. 5, L'heure exquise

L'heure exquise - CDA67962 - Hyperion Records - MP3 and Lossless downloads 

Da banda sonora da série "


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke2u8JtS9tc





Almoço - DSL 2 (Escola Alemã 2)

Em 27.06.2025, na Trafaria, no Fragateiro, eu o Carlos Medeiros, o Manuel Ribeiro e o João Leite passámos mais uma tarde a discutir a actualidade. 





The Spectator - Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

 (personal underlines)


Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg (Getty images)

Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch footage of Hamas’s 7 October atrocities? That’s the accusation being made by Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz. Greta and her crew, upon their arrival in Israel last night, were taken into a room to be shown the harrowing truth of what Hamas did 20 months ago, says Katz. But when the video started rolling, and ‘they saw what it was about’, they ‘refused to continue watching’, he alleges.

This is a serious charge. Thunberg and her fellow sailors should address it with haste. For if what Mr Katz is saying is true, if they really did look away upon being shown footage of the torture and slaughter of the Jews of Southern Israel, then we need to know why. To shut one’s eyes to the grim reality of Hamas’s anti-Semitic barbarism is to be wilfully blind to one of the great horrors of our age – did you do that, Greta?

Greta’s boat, the Madleen, was intercepted by Israeli forces. She and 11 other keffiyeh-wearing agitators had been hoping to land in Gaza, to ‘break the blockade’. It was a ‘selfie yacht’, in Israel’s salty words, that was carrying a ‘tiny amount of aid’. Israel towed the boat to its port city of Ashdod. The crew, these self-imagined saviours of Gaza, are being repatriated to their countries of origin this week.

Many shrill claims are being made about Israel’s interception. We’ve been ‘kidnapped’, said Greta. They haven’t. They’re fine and they have sandwiches. If anything happens to us, this is a war crime’, cried one of the boat folk as the IDF boarded. This is teenage petulance masquerading as activism. Israel just saved you from a bloody warzone and you accuse it of war crimes? How about showing some gratitude?

If these people want to see real war crimes, they could do worse than watch Hamas’s own footage of the racist terror it inflicted on the innocents of Israel. And yet, according to Katz, they turned a ‘blind eye’ to those war crimes. They looked away from the screen. His allegations are being widely reported in Israel and beyond.

Self-styled warriors for human rights refusing to watch one of the bloodiest assaults on human rights of the 21st century so far? Implacable anti-racists turning away from the worst act of anti-Jewish racism since the Nazis? If this is true, then it surely speaks to a profound moral blindness among the activist class, where they will sympathise with suffering humans everywhere except in Israel.

We await comment from Greta and the rest about whether they ‘refused’ to watch – and if so, why. To my mind, if this shunning of truth did occur, then it is of a piece with the left’s agonised and sometimes outright shameful attitude towards 7 October. 

Greta and Co would only have been doing physically what the ‘pro-Palestine’ set has been doing morally for nearly two years: refusing to grapple with the enormity of what Hamas did to the Jews on that darkest day.

The activist set has a truly tortured relationship with 7 October. Some deny it, in a gross rehash of Holocaust denialism. It’s exaggerated, they cry. Women weren’t raped, they claim. Others say it was ‘resistance’. ‘This didn’t start on 7 October’, they snivellingly say, as if Hamas’s fascistic actions, its slaughter of Jewish women and burning alive of Jewish families, were an ‘understandable’ response to Israeli policy. The last people who thought a pogrom was a legitimate response to political grievance were the Nazis.

The anti-Israeli mob can’t make their minds up. They can’t decide if 7 October didn’t really happen, or it did and it was justified. Their swirling post-truth disorientation, their sick refusal to speak honestly about what an army of anti-Semites did to Jews in this very decade, is born of a depthless moral cowardice. For they know that the truth of 7 October threatens to utterly shatter that precarious moral high ground they teeter on.

To admit that Hamas visited Nazi-style violence on innocent Jews would be to admit that leftists took the wrong side in the aftermath of that grimmest crime against humanity. For self-styled anti-fascists to acknowledge that they made excuses for the worst act of fascist violence of our times is unthinkable. So they bury, or at least downplay, the truth of Hamas’s atrocities, all to the low end of preserving their own phoney moralism. Nothing as trifling as the suffering of Jews can be allowed to meddle with the self-aggrandising narratives of the new left.

We cannot know for sure if Greta and her friends really ‘refused’ to watch the 7 October footage. If they did, might this be why – because they could not bear to glimpse the barbarism committed by the Palestinian side in this war? By the side whose flag they wave and whose keffiyehs they wear? They must tell us what happened. This is important.

Desporto - Sumo (torneio de Maio)

E Onosato venceu, uma vez mais. E foi promovido a Yokozuna!






Em ascensão?













Em declínio...

Ura

Midorifuji

Nishikigi

Shodai



Mitakeumi

Ryuden











 

Série - O suspeito

 






Reflexão - LBC (Leste - Oeste)

(enviado à SIC N) 


Exmos. Senhores:


1 - Sou espectador assíduo, há muitos anos, do vosso colaborador Nuno Rogeiro, no programa “Leste- Oeste”. Para que conste, nunca o vi, nem o conheço pessoalmente.

2 - É, na verdade, e por mais piadas e insinuações mais sarcásticas que sejam difundidas nos media e nas conversas privadas, alguém que continua a passar informação fidedigna mas, sobretudo, sustentada! É uma questão de experiência e, já agora, em extinção...!

3 - No passado dia 22.06.2025, a vossa “colaboradora” que interpelou o Entrevistado, ultrapassou largamente - na minha perspectiva, claro -, as suas funções, interrompendo, “complementando”, insinuando”, enfim, sendo de uma inconveniência e má educação que já há algum tempo não via na SIC N.

4 - Se foi por indicação superior, compreende-se ( a incompetência do superior hierárquico!!), mas lamenta-se. 
Se foi por iniciativa da “entrevistadora", creiam-me solidário com a paciência  do Dr. Nuno Rogeiro. Como é possível aguentar “profissionais” deste calibre que, pondo-se em bicos de pés, pretendem quase que substituir-se ao entrevistado? Gabo-lhe, uma vez mais a paciência, bem como esta característica adicional...

5 - Antevejo a resposta com que V. Exas. me irão contemplar: “agradecemos ….", “o seu mail foi reencaminhado”, "mas procuraremos….", "melhoria da qualidade….”, "etc”.
Isto se a resposta acontecer, claro está!

6 - Se efectivamente estão apostados na melhoria da Qualidade, lutem por ela, eliminem quem não a tem, expurguem os que não servem!

Os meus cumprimentos

Luiz Carvalho

quarta-feira, 25 de junho de 2025

Livro - História Diplomática de Portugal (Pedro Soares Martinez)


 








Reflexão - Programas na Televisão (LBC)

 "GPS"


"Business Watch"


"Think Tank" 


"Leste - Oeste"


"Torto e direito"









The Spectator - End of the rainbow: Pride’s fall can’t come soon enough

 

(personal underlines)

End of the rainbow: Pride’s fall can’t come soon enough

Is Pride flopping? This parti-coloured celebration of all things LGBTQIA+ started half a century ago as an afternoon’s little march for lesbians and gay men. Then it became a day, then a week, then a month, and now it spreads throughout the summer, accompanied by all manner of feast days and ‘visibility’ events. Its expansion coincided with the addition of all the letters after the first three. This is when it became a jamboree not only of boring homosexuality – very old hat – but just about anything else that its purveyors consider unconventional, ranging from wearing wigs to not fancying any kind of sex at all. Every peccadillo was deemed worthy of a flag and a float.

But the wheels finally seem to be coming off the Pride clown car. What was mushrooming is now shrivelling. Several newly Reform-led councils – including Kent and Durham – have taken down Pride flags from their municipal properties and won’t be flying them during the high days, or any others. The Times reports that Whitehall has banned civil servants from buying Pride lanyards. This is supposedly part of a ‘crackdown on waste’ – but it’s conveniently timely.

Pride events themselves are dissolving. Several celebrations during Pride Month, which begins on Sunday, have faced financial difficulties. Lincoln, Plymouth, Southampton and Hereford have all either been abandoned, cut back, or had to rely on emergency bailouts from wealthy private backers. ‘Many of our usual sponsors are unfortunately unable to help due to budget constraints,’ the organiser of Lincoln Pride told the BBC last month. His counterpart in Worthing reported that ‘he had unsuccessfully been trying to secure sponsorship since September and warned the event might be cancelled unless that changes’. Plymouth Pride was axed altogether – its website tells us that ‘despite our best efforts, the lack of national and local funding, alongside a decline in volunteer support, has made it impossible to deliver the event this year’.

Nobody knows how much these shortfalls have to do with the Trump administration’s shuttering of USAID. But it’s a very strange coincidence if not. It is known that the American taxpayer was unwittingly partly funding Pride events in Britain, such as ‘Classical Pride’, a series of concerts in London which celebrates the ‘importance of LGBTQ+ music and musicians to classical music’.

America has seen many of Pride’s biggest corporate sponsors withdrawing their cold tootsies from the rainbow sock. Mastercard, Citi, PepsiCo, Nissan, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, Diageo and Darcars Automotive have all pulled back from stumping up for celebrations such as Pride St Louis and WorldPride in Washington. San Francisco Pride faced a potential $300,000 shortfall due to these withdrawals; NYC Pride reported an estimated $350,000 deficit. A Gravity Research study noted that around two in five corporate executives planned to reduce Pride engagement this year. With the second coming of Donald Trump,
the shine has come off the rainbow. He’s given executives good cover to walk away.

Back home, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act (in a case brought by women’s rights charity For Women Scotland) has provided a similar opportunity. This leads us to the major fracture line that’s started to break the whole LGBTQIA+ project apart; the inevitable smash as the ideology of ‘trans’ – what I call genderism – collides with reality.

Many of the bigger Pride events (London, Manchester and Brighton among them) have reacted to the cooling of the government towards ‘trans rights’ by suspending any party political involvement whatsoever – even from still wildly enthusiastic supporters like the Greens and Lib Dems. This seems to be a face-saving exercise, the age-old ‘dump them before they get the chance to dump you’ strategy.

2025 is the year the genderist movement finally started to break apart. It has been a mad, wild ride. I’m sure there’s more to come, but after many false alarms it feels like a corner has finally been turned. The collapsing of Pride under the weight of its own internal contradictions is a sure sign that the jig is up.

The preposterous propositions of Pride are a strain on credulity. Its adherents have to hold so many directly contradictory beliefs in their heads at the same time – for example, that men wearing women’s clothes are utterly hilarious when this is classed as ‘drag’, but worthy of seriousness, respect and indeed genuflection when this is classed as ‘trans’. Following the Supreme Court ruling, we hear that one of the main reasons men want access to women’s toilets is because if they don’t get it, butch lesbians will be assaulted by vigilante women when they go in there. Permitting trans women to use the ladies’ will, apparently, make everyone safer. If it does your nut in even hearing this blather, heaven knows the brain ache it must give to those pretending to believe in it.

A crowd celebrates the Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of sex, 16 April 2025 Getty Images

The ruling has brought the Pride complex down to earth with a thump, but even so its supporters are trying to bargain with the simple truth delivered by the Supreme Court. This is being done in the time-honoured ‘soft Brexit’ style – often, tellingly, by the same people, e.g. Baroness Hale and Nicola Sturgeon. They are pretending not to understand the ruling, looking for loopholes, trying to delay it and ‘both sides’ it.

Humza Yousaf, the former first minister, now says that the Scottish National party’s disastrous self-ID policy – which would have allowed people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis – was merely ‘handled’ badly. As infuriating as such grudging retreats from politicians are, they are another signal that the tectonic plates under Pride are shifting.

But we must not forget that nearly all institutions, both public and private, are still impaled on the high heel of genderism. In particular, terrestrial TV news remains in the firm grip of a very small, but very loud and intimidating, cadre of gender activists. One of the main reasons why the rainbow cult got so far was that the media didn’t do its job.

I know from experience that people often refuse to believe you when you tell them the plain facts about this period. Because you can’t possibly be telling the truth – it would have been on the news! There can’t really have been a rainbow dildo butt monkey invited to rampage around a school library and promote reading to young children (as there was in 2021). There can’t have been a thousand titles won by men competing in women’s sports.

And the media still isn’t doing its job. If I were to tell you, for example, that Pride In Surrey, which last year was given £24,000 of taxpayers’ money from the council, was founded by a man who is now serving a sentence for child rape, and hosted a gig by a man convicted of attempted murder, you wouldn’t believe me. Or that there was a message posted the other day on Police Scotland’s official internal intranet that directly compared the gender critical movement to the Nazi party. How about that? Not news, apparently. 

On one level, it’s all been strangely entertaining, as a kind of Grand Guignol spectacle of human irrationality. But as Pride falls, it’s time to confront the horrors that the rainbow masked. As Helen Joyce, advocate for Sex Matters, said in a recent interview: ‘There are a lot of people who can’t move on – the people who have transitioned their own children. Those people are going to be like the Japanese soldiers who were on Pacific islands and didn’t know the war was over… [They] have done the worst thing that you could do, which is to harm their children irrevocably… So those people will still be fighting.’

Five years on, the manias around Black Lives Matter and lockdowns have dissipated. It is almost dizzying how swiftly the response to Covid has vanished from the discourse. But both of those neurotic outbursts have the advantage that they were fairly swift and thus fairly easily memory-holed.

It’s possible that Pride and LGBTQIA+ might go the same way, dropping off in bits, forgotten along with other embarrassing crazes like deely-boppers and people thinking Gary Barlow was sexy. I fear not. The frenzy has been too long, too protracted. I think it will need a direct, committed, top-down directive to really, finally, stop it.

A Reform administration – or any other – will have to be fully committed to the serious work of snuffing it out for good. A flag removal policy is a good first sign, but they will have to tough this one out, expunging genderism from the institutions – police to universities to courts – all while avoiding the rainbow-coloured bricks that will certainly be thrown their way. Pride may be dying, but it won’t lie down.

The Spectator - The unbearable smugness of American journalists

 (personal underlines)


The unbearable smugness of American journalists

Polls occasionally appear which reveal the extent to which people trust – or rather don’t trust – journalists. In one last year, something called the Edelman Trust Barometer found that just 31 per cent of the British public said they trust the media, a fall of 6 per cent in a year. This puts the media class at a level of trust somewhere between politicians and burglars in the public’s eyes.

Still, any British hacks reading this can console themselves with one thing: at least most of our media does not cloak itself in the mantle of the utmost righteousness and hold itself out as some sort of priestly class.

The same poll discovered that only 39 per cent of the American public trust journalists. To watch the US media feeding and back-slapping itself, you would think that the figures were quite otherwise.

The thought occurred to me after I had once again been dragged kicking and screaming to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last weekend. This is an annual event where the American media class gathers in great numbers and with significant pomp. The flags and colours are presented at the beginning of the evening. A military band plays throughout, providing a soothing backdrop to the conversation. The national anthem is sung. Then some bizarre creations of the US media spend the night trying to talk over a roomful of journalists about how important they all are and how good they should feel about themselves.

At the best of times the dinner is excruciating. Much of the British media – as referred to in last week’s column – may be insufferable, but by and large we manage to avoid pushing the idea that democracy itself is at stake if anyone dislikes us.

American journalists, by contrast, as they dress up in black tie and ballgowns and descend on the capital, seem to think that it is they who are on the front line of the battle for democracy. US soldiers may be based around the world, its firefighters and police may be on the streets, but it is American newsrooms which really stand between democracy and disaster. To quote just one of the straplines with which the American media has promoted itself over recent years: ‘Democracy dies in darkness.’ In fact democracy can die perfectly happily in the bright light of day. Indeed, it seems eminently capable of karking right in front of the blaring lights of news lenses while most journalists pretend not to notice.

So it was with considerable amusement to me that the American media handed out awards to other American media for noticing things the public had noticed years before. One of the biggest awards and cash prizes of the evening was given to Axios news for its report – offered up last year – that Joe Biden may not be at his mental best. The award for this scoop is named the Aldo Beckman Award for Overall Excellence. Wherever Aldo’s relatives are, I hope they sue.

At least the recipient – Alex Thompson– had the grace to admit that the cover-up which many journalists had engaged in over President Biden’s mental and physical decline was one reason why the public don’t much trust them any more. Don’t forget that until Biden’s disastrous debate performance last summer, most commentators were saying that he was in tiptop shape and that, as one reporter put it, 2024’s Biden was actually the best version of Biden.

Thompson’s mild criticisms landed into a strange silence. Some – notably the New York Post – had covered Biden’s decline for years, but were accused by the White House and other media organisations of publishing ‘deep fakes’. If you ran a story about Biden not knowing quite where he was, you could be sure of a slurry of attacks from the White House and the rest of the media. Those same journalists are now releasing books admitting that during his last years in office, Biden didn’t always seem to be aware that he was president.

The other highlight of the evening was the inaugural Center for Integrity in News Reporting Award. This award – which came with a $25,000 cheque – was given to Anthony Zurcher of the BBC for a story in which he described some of the diplomatic and political consequences that the Israel-Hamas war had caused for Biden. I searched the room for Trey Yingst and other correspondents who have covered the Gaza conflict from places more dangerous than the White House lawn, but the speech from the stage was too distracting. ‘Now more than ever, it’s important for those of us in the media to provide impartial and fair reporting without favour or fear,’ we were told. It was explained to us – and the young student journalists in attendance in particular – that we must not feel ‘fear’ from the ‘fallout from our stories’ and especially not fear ‘what people in power may say, do or think. Maybe that’s something you learned the first day in journalism school, but I think it lands differently… I think it means something more now.’

At this point I weighed up a range of options from a different school of journalism: which was whether to be violently sick into the nearest ice bucket or to stand up and blow a huge raspberry at the stage and then the entire room.

Of all the forms of back-slapping that are odious, surely the greatest is the back-slapping by a journalistic class who in the main have spent recent years doing anything but actual journalism.

Still, there were rounds of after-parties to go to. I bumped into a few politicians on the way out, thought about what I had just witnessed, mulled on the question of trust in institutions, and reflected once more on the multiple advantages of a life of crime.

Reflexão - Paradoxes about Israel at the United Nations (LBC)

 UN Watch invited Luai Ahmed to address the United Nations:  https://unwatch.org/yemeni-activist-asks-un-why-is-it-when-arabs-kill-millions-of-arabs-no-one-bats-an-eye/ “High Commissioner, my name is Luai Ahmed, and I come from Yemen. May I ask why your report mentions Israel 188 times — yet fails to mention the Islamic Republic of Iran even once? How can you speak about the conflict while ignoring the party who armed, trained, and funded the terror proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — who have been bombing Israel thousands of times? Why do you not mention that the Houthis in Yemen have spent millions of dollars to fire hundreds of rockets and drones at Israel, instead of using the money to feed my starving people? And I ask the UN, the Arab League, and all the campus activists who have been waving the Palestinian flag since October 7: Where is the Yemeni flag? In my country, half a million people have died in the last 10 years. The biggest famine and humanitarian crisis in modern history. Why does no one care when half a million Yemenis die? And let’s look at Sudan. In less than two years, more than 150,000 people have been killed. Where is the flag of Sudan? Nowhere. In Syria, half a million people were killed. Where is Syria’s flag? Nowhere. Mr. President, why is it, that when Arabs kill millions of Arabs, no one bats an eye? Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? And why is Qatar sitting here as a member of this Human Rights Council when they host the Hamas terror chiefs in luxury hotels in Doha?” (UN Human Rights Council, Feb. 27, 2025)



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QzraVl786hY




The Spectator - Richard Hermer’s campaign against Britain

 (personal underlines)


Richard Hermer’s campaign against Britain

Five years ago, the man who is now Lord Hermer gave an interview to the Times. The then QC was asked how he’d want to be remembered. The answer he gave was curious. ‘The world will be a better place,’ he said, ‘when privileged men like me stop seeking a place in history.’ I’m not sure who Lord Hermer thinks should be seeking a place in history, though I assume he was just paying lip service to the spirit of 2020 and wanted to be read to mean that in future most of the running should be done by underprivileged transsexuals.

While I cannot agree on the substance, I can agree on one specific. The world would certainly be a much better place if people like Lord Hermer stopped seeking historic roles. For although he is now the Attorney General of England and Wales, there is little to suggest that his noble lordship has any love for this country. Indeed, he appears to have spent his career defending anyone who literally wants to attack us.

In their recent efforts to explain the Attorney General’s unfortunate list of past clients, Hermer’s defenders claim that as a barrister he had to obey the ‘cab-rank’ rules of the job. It was for this reason, they say, that Hermer spent his career defending such clients as Gerry Adams and almost every variety of Islamic terrorist. Yet the claim is demonstrably daft. To have represented one al-Qaeda terrorist might be a duty, but to represent at least five would seem to be a habit. Never mind that your other clients include the families of Isis members and so on.

Even if his client list wasn’t a giveaway, Hermer’s history of political pronouncements tells us everything about where his prejudices lie. Over recent years he has said that if there was one law he’d enact it would be to take Britain back into the EU, and he has called the British empire ‘deeply racist’. He has collaborated on a writing project with the Electronic Intifada: a group who are not as nice as they sound. And he has repeatedly praised Phil Shiner, the shyster lawyer recently given a two-year suspended sentence for fraud after spending decades using lies to persecute British soldiers through the court system.

But then Hermer, like Shiner, is one of those lawyers who pretends that recently invented international laws and human-rights laws are the most important of all, far exceeding such things as laws enacted by the will of the people.

Consider the advice Hermer has given on the Chagos Islands. There is no world in which handing over billions of pounds and strategically important territory to a foreign state is a good deal. But Hermer’s argument is that the government has no choice because of ‘international law’.

In fact, with the Chagos Islands, as with so many other issues, ‘international law’ and ‘human rights law’ are simply political warfare by other means. People like Hermer defer to the principle of international law only in order to push their existing agenda. And if you don’t approve of it then you are a Nazi, as he so brilliantly argued last week.

Another friend of Sir Keir Starmer’s, Philippe Sands – who’s been happily enriching himself by representing the government of Mauritius in the Chagos case – also holds himself out as a moral advocate of immutable laws. And yet the advocacy of people such as Sands and Hermer only ever goes in one, anti-British direction. During a recent talk at Cambridge university, Sands even boasted about how he had ‘humiliated’ Britain in the international courts. He went on to crow that it is a ‘special’ thing to be able to humiliate your own country and be celebrated in that country because of it.

It is true that the same courtesy would not be extended in Mauritius – nor communist China, the power most likely to benefit from the Chagos deal. But Hermer, Sands and, indeed, Starmer have sussed out the system as it is – or as they have helped make it. Only in a country like this one could someone spend a career advancing the cause of the country’s enemies and then be enriched and ennobled for doing so.

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Hermer could be found asking: ‘How can courts, when patently motivated by politics, command public respect?’ It’s a good question. He went on to assert that the Supreme Court was making decisions ‘in the face of public opinion supporting contrary views’.

So which is it? Hermer and co are perfectly happy to warn of ‘politically motivated courts’ when a court does not follow their own political bent. But when it does, its decisions are apparently sacrosanct. And while everyone – even lawyers – doubtless has their biases, one of the great mysteries of our age is why these people’s biases should always be against us.

It would be understandable if the British government ignored the decisions of international courts when they act against our interests. One rather hopes that the British government would favour the interests of this country over any others. But why should there be a legal and political elite which seems to approve of court decisions only if this country comes out worse?

I would, for instance, expect the government, and its legal advisers, to try to work out how to use international law to stop our borders being invaded on a daily basis. What’s confounding is that we should be run by people who have spent their careers caring for those who have most abused those borders – and all the other laws and courtesies that used to exist in this country.

Still, perhaps the day will come when privileged men like Hermer stop seeking a place in history. That day cannot come soon enough.

Almoço - Gil Vicente 1967

 Em 22.06.2025 na Trafaria, no Fragateiro com o Luis Melo e o Alberto











Almoço (LBC)

 Em 20.06.2025, na Trafaria, no Fragateiro, com Jorge Orestes e Armando Lopes




domingo, 22 de junho de 2025

The Spectator - Is nothing private any more?

 

(personal underlines)

Is nothing private any more?

We all need a place away from public view – but we should also remind ourselves why our privacy has been so invaded

A few years ago, when I taught at university, a student who lived with their parents told me they had argued with their mother about what they described as ‘queer identity’. The student had secretly recorded the argument and wondered what I thought about them using it for a piece of writing. I think their assumption was that because I’m a journalist I would embrace the idea. I did not.

How did the UK become a place where young people think it’s permissible to record a relative at home and make that recording public? Why has privacy been so easily discarded, and why have people welcomed its demise so they can control the behaviour of others?

My assumption was that Strangers and Intimates would focus on recent decades and technology – with the erasure of privacy stemming from people having the means of surveillance to counter behaviour they think should be punished. But Tiffany Jenkins goes deeper than that, telling the story from the Reformation onwards, examining why people intruded on privacy long before the internet age, and why others fought for it:

The fact is, we are all different in private. We may not be our best selves when we shut the door. We misspeak, we think the unthinkable, we let off steam, we rant and we rave, and we say and do stupid things. Privacy conceals harmful behaviour and impedes accountability, and yet we all require that place away from public view.

That tension, between wanting to be left unchecked to behave as feels human vs the desire of society to protect people from harmful behaviour and accountability, is what drives Jenkins’s book.

In early 17th-century England, courts punished behaviour such as adultery, sex outside marriage, drinking in alehouses during church service and dancing on the Sabbath. They ‘relied upon members of the community to police each other’, Jenkins writes. As well as religious control, she tackles the impact of feminism, the more recent hawking of our private lives – Prince Harry and Big Brother get a mention – and the clampdown on freedoms. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it illegal to say something even at home that could stir up hatred against people with protected characteristics:

This is a historic change. Since the 17th century, it has been accepted that there is a crucial distinction between what a person says or thinks in private and their public speech, a demarcation between private life and public life. Only totalitarian governments ignored that.

Jenkins takes care to remind us why privacy has been invaded, from a law against incest introduced in the 1600s to the killing of seven-year-old Marie Colwell in 1973 by her stepfather and the increased intervention that followed. But she also mentions the ‘removal of 121 children from their parents in Cleveland in 1987, based on later disproved allegations of sexual and Satanic abuse’. So there is a line – but where to draw it?

It has been misjudged many times, whether by a student recording a parent, Boris Johnson’s neighbours revealing his quarrel with his partner over spilled wine (an example Jenkins refers to), or those online warriors who expose private messages with ‘got receipts’ chutzpah but show no awareness of the broader damage they are doing for a petty win. I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, before email. Letters were private. Even when I started using email, at university and then work in the early 2000s, it was regarded as private. It was only when an infamous email (I won’t mention the name, for privacy’s sake) went viral that we realised the risk. Now we know emails are not private, so we’re careful – the same as we are in all our messages and in our behaviour. We are always being monitored, so act accordingly.

Towards the end of Strangers and Intimates Jenkins writes:

The divide between public and private… has dissolved. The two realms have become indistinguishable, leading to confusion about the rules governing each and preventing the realisation of their respective benefits.

For years it felt shocking that so many turned against free expression, and it seemed impossible that the tide could turn back again. But that tide has shifted a bit. Maybe the erosion of privacy could also be reversed, so we can behave in the more human way, as we once did. This book might be a start.