quinta-feira, 25 de junho de 2026

The Spectator - The disturbing truth about the National Association of Muslim Police

 

(personal underlines, silent regrets...)

The disturbing truth about the National Association of Muslim Police

(Getty images)

The official representative body for Muslim police officers in Britain has branded Zionism “one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred,” described the Israel Defence Force as a “Zionist terrorist group” and defended Hamas against “unverified stories about acts of violence.”

The inflammatory claims are made by the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) in a policy paper on “confronting anti-Muslim hatred,” written by its then vice-president, Khaldoun Kabbani, published on its website last year but not publicised until now.

In the wake of the Henry Nowak scandal, the document will increase concerns that British police are being corrupted from within by extremist identity and grievance politics. It will also raise further worries about the Government’s controversial definition of “anti-Muslim hostility.” The NAMP paper is intended as a contribution to what the term should cover.

NAMP is affiliated to at least 16 of Britain’s 43 police forces and has a formal national role within the police. The College of Policing – the police’s official professional body, an arms-length organisation of the Home Office – praises NAMP as “an important part of policing” which plays “a crucial role in supporting our workforce” and has developed joint guidance with NAMP on matters including prayer and Ramadan. The latter recommends that police give Muslim suspects special treatment, including that “prayer and fasting times should be taken into consideration when planning searches of Muslim homes” and that Muslim suspects in custody be allowed 30 minutes between their fast and interviews.

NAMP also works with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, holding workshops with them and being allowed to present to the NPCC’s counter-terrorism advisory group with a request that the term “Islamist terrorism” be abandoned because “its use by the police contributes to faith hate crime.

The mentality behind this ridiculous demand – since 1999, 94 per cent of terrorist deaths in Britain have been caused by Islamists – becomes clear from the document we reveal today. In it, NAMP specifically defends an Islamist terror organisation, Hamas, against “alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence” committed by it on and after 7 October 2023, “including claims of beheadings and assaults. These reports have significantly contributed to increasing hatred towards Islam.”

Claims of 40 babies being decapitated were untrue, but the UN did document Hamas carrying out beheadings, or attempted beheadings, during the attacks, along with multiple sexual assaults.

NAMP also claims that “reports from Israeli and Western media initially claimed that Hamas killed 120 children…However, these reports have been challenged by more recent disclosures indicating that not a single Israeli infant was a casualty during the said attacks. It was later confirmed that only one child’s death occurred two days following the attack.”

In fact, according to that well-known friend of Israel, Amnesty International, at least 36 Israeli children were killed in the Hamas-led attacks, along with 659 adult civilians, many of them little more than children themselves. These numbers go unmentioned as NAMP attacks the media for “falsely insinuating that [Palestinians] perpetrate atrocities against innocents.”

Fortunately, NAMP knows who the real terrorists are. Its document speaks of “Zionist terrorist groups including the IDF” and opines: “Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity.”

With a certain inevitability, NAMP accuses “Zionists” of “the misuse of the Holocaust” in the Israel-Palestine conflict before itself grindingly misusing the Holocaust in the exact same cause. As it says: “In the tragic history of Auschwitz, the process of dehumanisation by the Nazis towards the Jewish people highlights a broader mechanism of oppression, where dominant groups suppress empathy through propaganda and indoctrination to facilitate cruelty. This mechanism is not confined to the past but is observed in contemporary conflicts, such as the situation between the Israeli Government and Military and Palestinians.”

As my Policy Exchange colleague David Spencer has written, a central element of the crisis that has enveloped British policing is the distraction of officers from the core policing task of keeping the public safe, preventing crime and catching criminals. Staff networks such as NAMP are a major cause of that distraction.

This is very far from the first controversy to envelop NAMP. Policy Exchange has repeatedly covered this subject over many years. As Spencer shows, NAMP has spent years lobbying for partisan changes in policing and government policy in a way that can only undermine trust in police impartiality. The Shawcross review of counter-extremism found that senior figures in NAMP and its force affiliates have promoted several individuals and organisations with disturbing views or affiliations and shared conspiracy theories, anti-semitic hate material and calls for the destruction of Israel. Why is an organisation like this allowed to be anywhere near the profession of law enforcement?

One definition of corruption is the perversion of an institution working in the public interest into one which at least sometimes works for private or sectional interests. The activist corruption now reaching into parts of the police risks becoming as harmful to public confidence, as demoralising for ordinary officers, and as much of a boon for criminals as was the straightforward money corruption of some forces in the 1970s. It requires a similarly deep, far-reaching reset, and a similar determination to expel and destroy it. One part of that must be to banish, or even better to outlaw, NAMP and other staff networks like it.

Andrew Gilligan is a senior fellow at Policy Exchange

Livro - Climat (Pourquoi Trump a raison...)

 A ler o que interessa! E com a densidade que tem! A que distância da intelectualidade saloia, da carneirada submissa, do lixo televisionado com concursos da treta e telenovelas redutoras, da superioridade dos media - leia-se "informação"...









quarta-feira, 24 de junho de 2026

The Spectator - What is ‘Q Manivannan’ doing in British politics?

 

(personal underlines)

LBC - rough days (tempos difíceis)...

What is ‘Q Manivannan’ doing in British politics?

(Getty Images)

In an age full of nepobaby second-generation politicians posing as ‘outsiders’, new Green Party MSP ‘Q Manivannan’ is the real thing. Indeed, the St Andrew’s postgraduate is so much of an outsider that he doesn’t even hold British citizenship or permanent residency, and is unable to take up paid employment as a condition of his student visa. ‘Q’ was allowed to stand for office last month because the Scottish government – the Wuhan Lab of terrible ideas in UK politics – recently changed the rules allowing foreigners with only limited leave to remain to compete in elections. Although Manivannan faced a probe into his visa, the powers-that-be ruled that being a politician wasn’t a real job. This prevented possibly the funniest outcome of all – the new member of the Scottish Parliament representing his constituents in Edinburgh and Lothians East remotely from Tamil Nadu.

A ‘transgender Tamil immigrant’, ‘Q’ – born Srivatsan Manivannan – identifies as non-binary and describes himself as ‘passionate about more caring politics rooted in the working class, the queer, and the solidary’. Currently engaged in a research project called ‘Archiving and (Re)imagining Caregiving as Peacebuilding in Third World Social Movements’, at the time of his election he was also crowdfunding £2,000 to pay for his visa, apparently too impoverished to pay for it himself.

The more I read about Manivannan, the more he comes to resemble a Sokal-like hoax designed to test the limits of what progressives will accept if it wins them social approval. Always smiling for the camera, Q seems to have a cheerful demeanour and hugely adds to gross national gaiety; he will make a fine footnote in the history of modern Britain, as some future Gibbon explains how the world’s foremost imperial power found itself giggling into the sea. He certainly has reason to be cheerful; the £77,000-a-year salary of an MSP compares favourably with the average Indian annual wage of £2,500, or indeed the typical earnings of a graduate in Britain doing a PhD in peace studies, which can’t be that much more.

Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination on my part, but I find it hard to understand the mindset of someone who moves to a foreign country and, before even becoming a citizen, decides that they have the right to set its laws. Of course, as a billion Indians might say in response, you chaps do have some form on this matter yourselves.

What makes the situation somewhat galling is that the Scottish Greens are in favour of independence. Professor Peter Sarris put it well when he wrote: ‘Call me old fashioned, but I do feel it somewhat out of order for someone to come to my country as a guest on a student visa, and then set about trying to break it up? A bit like allowing a stranger to come round for tea and then sitting back as they decide to smash the crockery’.

Since British taxpayers, via the Scottish Social Science Graduate School, funded Q’s PhD, we might regard this as ingratitude, but many countries would view such behaviour as actual subversion. In Singapore, where I just visited, the authorities take a very dim view of non-citizens getting involved in politics. Even displaying foreign flags is mostly prohibited, and agitating on behalf of one of the world’s various ethnic squabbles will have you deported as a troublemaker. The Singaporeans consider us utterly mad for tolerating the presence of foreign-born radicals in Britain, but they famously do not welcome outsider involvement of any kind.

Lee Kuan Yew famously said in a 1971 speech that ‘I am not interested in advice from Asian emigres on what should be in Singapore. Their advice is worse than useless. They have no sense of shame, or they would stay and help their own countries progress and their fellow countrymen live less wretched lives. Instead, they flee to greener pastures and give us advice.’

On another occasion Lee explained his thinking like so: 

If you are an authority on Greek literature but a non-citizen, then you would be wise to leave the question of whether or not Malay should be the only official language to those who are citizens. The best thing is to stick to your subject. Now if you are an authority on economics and your research shows that a certain type of industry cannot be successfully established in Singapore, then by all means propound the results of your research and your conclusion thereon, even if it should conflict with a pet scheme of the minister in charge of industrial development. And if you are an economist of repute the minister would be well to read your exposition of the subject.

In that spirit we should welcome Q Manivannan’s expertise on (Re)imagining Caregiving as Peacebuilding in Third World Social Movements, while leaving all other issues to those who are citizens.

Of course, while visiting the city-state has probably not been a good influence on whatever lingering liberalism may remain within me, Britain is not Singapore and never has been. Foreign nationals are welcome to have their say and sometimes an outsider does indeed have a better view of where the country has fallen behind, especially when it involves sacred topics. Britain has historically been among the more open political cultures, and we had Indian-born MPs in the 19th century; indeed, you could go further back than that to the foundation of the House of Commons by a Frenchman.

Yet Indians could be parliamentarians in the reign of Victoria because they were imperial subjects; the empire is long gone, and yet something of that empire mindset still lives on among Britain’s elite. We still, bizarrely, allow Commonwealth voting, whereby foreigners are allowed to take part in our democracy purely because their countries were once invaded by Britain. Many of ours rulers still see their job as serving humanity in general rather than the British people. MPs, diplomats and even ministers feel no embarrassment about displays of dual loyalty; with this in mind, it seems like hardly a stretch to allow non-citizens to make our laws. Yet there are limits.

The Singaporeans value social harmony, which is best served by a clear distinction between naturalised citizens and resident foreigners; the latter enjoy the full protection of the law, but they have no right to take part in the country’s political affairs, for the simple reason that they are not invested in the country. As with so many areas, here they seem to have a less naive understanding of human nature and incentives than their former colonial masters. They are also more forward-looking.

Our elites equate ‘open’ with high status and modernity, but it is actually the British-style approach which has become antiquated with hyper-globalisation. At its most acute the risk of hostile foreign interference grows stronger with freer movement, better technology and economic integration, most notably in the case of states like Russia and China. While the Singaporeans have always been acutely aware of the risk of political infiltration from communist China, Britain’s rulers seem blindly unaware of the dangers.

State interference is not the only risk, however; perhaps more of a problem is the rise of the Global South Aristocracy, members of ruling elites from non-western countries who help to polarise and radicalise the political systems of the states they move to. Talking the language of social justice and equality, they promote a form of identity politics which raises their own prestige, and which is often comically opposed to their ancestors’ record of oppression and slavery. What distinguishes the Global South Aristocracy from the exiles and refugees of the past is that their ire is mostly directed at their new homes, rather than injustices in their homelands. These are the ‘emigres’ whom Lee despised, and the incentives to build careers in richer states are far more immense now than in his time.

While Q claimed to have ‘grown up starving’ in India and that as a ‘queer Tamil immigrant’ he would be a voice for the ‘working class and marginalised’, it turns out, inevitably, that he went to a private school. As the Sunday Times reported, ‘Manivannan comes from an upper middle-class household in Chennai, one of India’s wealthiest, most cosmopolitan cities.’ Although his party want to ban private schooling, ‘Manivannan attended both private high school and university, and went on to run a subsidiary of an Indian business that coaches the children of the super-rich to access the world’s elite institutions.’ I could give you that advice for free: just call yourself ‘they’ and waffle on about gender identity. Every western progressive will swoon at your every word. They might even elect you.

The tale is too farcical to be enraging, too much of a right-wing fever dream, too obvious and predictable. True to the script, one of the first things Edinburgh’s new representative did after election was to push for Scottish taxpayers to fund reparations for Palestine. Of course they did.


Desporto - Portugal Uzbequistão (5-0)

"Confiança de volta"...

E o resto? Tirando a barafunda do 4º golo, a sorte do chuto de Rafael Leão no 5º, salva-se o 1º e 3º golos intencionais e o chuto de Nuno Mendes .(que infantilidade de barreira!!). Estavam mais acordaditos e picados, claro. Mas entre a R.D. Congo e o TRuzcrigbiwuzbequistão,  a escolha é difícil...

Agora sim, vamos começar a jogar. Com a Colômbia, a sério! Aguardemos e continuemos a sonhar.




Teatro - Plateias d'arte (Festa do ano lectivo - Edelweiss)

 Em 21 de Junho na Incrível Almadense, cantando o Edelweiss em inglês.




Observador - Já somos 11,5 milhões. Já fomos (Tiago Dores)

 


(sublinhados pessoais)

Já somos 11,5 milhões. Já fomos

Há quem diga que o melhor é uma boa conversa. Outros afirmam ser mais eficaz uns bons copos. Mas depois de que vimos ontem, creio ter ficado claro que nada melhor do que um bom Uzbequistão para reconciliar (quase) todo um país com o seu melhor futebolista de sempre. É verdade que o Cristiano ainda “só” marcou dois golos, estando longe dos 5 que o Messi já tem, mas nesta disputa é possível que o Messi seja a lebre e o Cristiano a tartaruga. Também porque confio que o Ronaldo venha lá de trás, lançado, e ultrapasse o argentino, mas mais por já ter provado ter uma casca muito grossa para aturar todo a sorte de críticas palermas.


Quanto ao Uzbequistão, é aproveitarmos agora para fazer pouco, tipo o Borat com o vizinho Cazaquistão. Que, ao ritmo de crescimento que a coisa leva, este país asiático quatro vezes maior e quatro vezes mais populoso que Portugal vai precisar de meros 25 aninhos para, também ele, nos ultrapassar em termos de riqueza. E uma vez que a fase de grupos do Mundial não nos obriga a fazer grandes contas, se calhar podíamos focar-nos nestas.

Quem também andou a fazer contas foi o Instituto Nacional de Estatística. O INE fez umas contas de somar e descobriu que a população portuguesa se multiplicou até aos 11,5 milhões. É verdade, a realidade voltou a teimar em contradizer António Costa: desde 2021, sempre entrou mais um ou outro imigrante, que é como quem diz para cima de 800 mil. Contando apenas aqueles cuja entrada conseguimos, de facto, contar, somou-se à população portuguesa, em 5 anos, a população de uma Lisboa mais um Porto. E ainda há quem insista que os clássicos planos quinquenais socialistas estão sempre condenados ao fracasso: desculpem, mas esta importação de eleitorado sob a forma de mão de obra semi-escrava, criando a ilusão de crescimento por via do aumento do PIB, foi um sucesso retumbante.

Sim, mas e a pressão sobre hospitais, escolas, justiça e segurança?, perguntarão os ainda não totalmente “zombificados”. Então mas não acabaram de ouvir que o PIB está a crescer, seus muito em breve walking deads? O PIB está a crescer e é a um ritmo quase tão acelerado como o da lista de Roménias que continuam a ultrapassar-nos em PIB per capita, ou seja, em riqueza média por pessoa.

Porque a subida do PIB não significa estarmos mais ricos. E isto só não é tão óbvio como se imagina, por não ser difícil imaginar as desgraçadas consequências de décadas de sistema de ensino manietado por comunistas. Pego num exemplo que escutei a Konstantin Kisin — que devem por sua vez escutar, na condição de tal não vos tirar tempo à leitura desta crónica — ao qual acrescentei algum colorido, de modo algum autobiográfico.

Imaginem que vivem com o(a) vosso(a) cônjuge e dois filhos e que, como agregado familiar, têm um rendimento anual de (para facilitar as contas e a depressão) 100.000€. Ou seja, o PIB da vossa família — o valor da riqueza que vocês produzem anualmente — é de 100.000€. Ora, como a vossa família tem quatro pessoas, o PIB per capita é de 25.000€. Ou seja, em média, cada elemento da vossa família tem 25.000€ por ano para viver.

Agora, imaginem que os vossos sogros, reformados, vêm viver convosco. E que para lá das sessões de visionamento de todos os êxitos de Steven Seagal que o vosso sogro faz ao sábado, acompanhadas pela ininterrupta degustação de pevides envergando apenas umas cuecas — slip, não boxer, obviamente — a presença dos vossos sogros traz também para o agregado familiar (além de quilos de cascas e sal entre as almofadas do sofá) um valor anual de rendimentos de 20.000€.

Isto é, o total de rendimentos do vosso agregado familiar — o vosso PIB —  passou de 100.000€ para 120.000€. Portanto, cresceu 20%. No entanto, o vosso agregado familiar, que tinha quatro pessoas, tem agora seis. Significa isto que o PIB per capita passou de 100.000€ a dividir por 4, ou seja, 25.000€, para 120.000€ a dividir por 6, ou seja, 20.000€.

Portanto, o PIB cresceu 20%, mas o PIB per capita caiu 20%. A riqueza total da família aumentou 20%, mas o que cada um tem para viver diminuiu 20%. Como quem entrou no agregado familiar é “menos produtivo” do que quem já estava no agregado familiar, a riqueza média diminuiu. E se continuasse a entrar gente que acrescentasse cada vez menos do que quem entrou antes, o valor do PIB per capita tenderia para zero. O que só espantaria quem subestima a capacidade do socialismo nos deixar, inclusive, abaixo de zero?

Como será o caso do primeiro-ministro, Luís Montenegro. Daí esta ideia brilhante de um Fundo Soberano para o estado investir em empresas estratégicas. Por acaso, quando dou por mim a imaginar o futuro de Portugal, depois de consumir uma quantidade ainda socialmente aceitável mas já não irrelevante de bebidas espirituosas, também acabo muitas vezes a divagar: fogo, o que este país precisava mesmo, mas mesmo, e muito urgentemente, aquilo que nos podia, enfim!, colocar no rumo do prosperidade, era o estado ter só mais um bocadinho de peso na economia. Eh pá, deixem-me sonhar. Mas, pelo sim, pelo não, tomo já dois ou três Guronsans.

Enquanto não vamos rapidamente ao Fundo Soberano, é esperar que a nossa explosão demográfica contribua para o surgimento de mais Cristianos Ronaldos. Se bem que, tendo como exemplo o que mencionei sobre PIB e PIB per capita, se calhar não devemos esperar novos CR7s: no máximo, talvez um ou outro CR5,6.


terça-feira, 23 de junho de 2026

Observador - Talvez seja isto o que merecemos (Nuno Gonçalo Poças)


 

(sublinhados pessoais)

Talvez seja isto o que merecemos

A esquerda é uma força de bloqueio, nenhuma das mudanças de que o país precisa será feita com ela; o Chega juntou-se-lhe; o PSD está viciado numa forma imprestável de fazer política.

Ainda não está farto de tácticas? Ainda não está farto deste jogo de sombras e de intenções encapotadas, de narrativas vividas no limbo das chamadas “crises políticas”? Não está saturado, absolutamente saturado, de um jogo que é jogado entre três partidos que disputam o poder, exclusivamente o poder como fim em si mesmo? Não está entediado, talvez mesmo irritado com estas maiorias de bloqueios permanentes, em que uma bloqueia a outra, e a outra se bloqueia a si mesma? Ainda sente que algum desses três partidos, liderados por quem os lidera actualmente, é, de facto, capaz de trazer mudanças profundas ao statu quo do regime, do Estado, da sociedade portuguesa? Talvez mereça isto, então.

Desde que o Chega surgiu em cena que as discussões sobre qual a melhor forma de lidar com ele dominaram o espaço público. Linhas vermelhas, defesa de coligações, cercas sanitárias, cedências totais a Ventura, já tudo esteve em cima da mesa. Lidar com o Chega tornou-se um tema em si mesmo, como se o jogo táctico dos partidos fosse o princípio, o meio e o fim da política nacional. Como se nada disso tivesse, ou devesse ter, na base projectos políticos substantivos.

Quando o Chega surgiu, com um deputado no Parlamento, o PSD podia e devia ter crescido. Tinha ao seu lado alguém que sinalizava problemas sentidos no quotidiano pelos portugueses. Tinha muitas soluções erradas, muitas vezes nem soluções tinha, mas não estava errado no essencial da análise. As célebres linhas vermelhas nessa altura seriam aceitáveis, poderiam ter surtido efeito, mas o PSD esqueceu-se de que esse jogo precisava de uma substância. Esqueceu-se que esse disco poderia ter um lado A, geométrico, mas precisava de um lado B, substancial. O Chega foi crescendo, ameaça progressivamente o lugar do PSD – afinal, foi mesmo para isso que surgiu. No PSD ninguém parece compreender o que se tem passado. Luís Montenegro começou a sua aventura em São Bento convencido de que lhe bastaria ser um António Costa com a aparência das alterações legislativas, um melhor gestor do que os socialistas, eventualmente em busca de um momento que lhe permitisse voltar a eleições e ganhar espaço de manobra. Graças à Spinumviva, esse momento aconteceu antes do que gostaria, e este Governo tem tentado implementar esta ideia de que o PSD se pode manter equidistante de PS e Chega, tentando negociar com os dois, perdendo quase sempre, para poder dizer, depois, aos portugueses que é vítima de um bloqueio e precisa de ver a sua maioria reforçada. Sucede que essa maioria reforçada dificilmente chegará por uma razão: Montenegro nunca convenceu os portugueses de que quer, de facto, implementar reformas profundas no país. Sugere que tem aplicado alterações cirúrgicas aqui e ali, nesta e naquela área da governação, melhorando isto e aquilo, sem que nada se sinta, na prática, na vida dos portugueses, e a sensação que fica é que o Governo, tendo um lote de bons ministros, não tem liderança política que dê suporte, ânimo, incentivo a um programa de reformas. O país precisa praticamente de uma revolução tranquila e Montenegro oferece-lhe maquilhagem. Dirá, como julgo que já disse, que o país não está preparado para mudanças maiores. Acabará engolido pelas suas meias-tintas.

A dada altura, com o Chega convertido em partido médio, praticamente ao nível de PS e PSD, a ideia das linhas vermelhas tornou-se obsoleta. Mantê-las, trazendo para a política partidária uma ideia de superioridade moral que assentava na falta de ideias de outro género, contribuiu apenas para esta manutenção do impasse e dos bloqueios permanentes. Dirão que Ventura, como agora fica cabalmente demonstrado, não é confiável. Não é, nunca foi. O seu objectivo não é chegar ao Governo, é ter poder efectivo; não é ser número dois, é liderar. O prazo para o trazer para a esfera da responsabilidade, e de o obrigar à decisão de fazer cair um Governo ou de se aburguesar perante o seu eleitorado, tentando o derradeiro abraço do urso, passou. Ventura sabe hoje que pode dizer e fazer o que lhe apetece porque tem ao lado a inconsistência e a falta de substância do PSD. Come eleitores à esquerda, come eleitores à abstenção, já comeu à direita o que tinha para comer, é um glutão evolutivo que vive do estado de inércia a que o PSD se deixou conduzir. Esse caminho de degradação tem anos, naturalmente. A culpa não é propriamente de Montenegro ou Hugo Soares que, coitados, não são capazes de melhor do que isto. São a representação de um fracasso, é certo, mas são ainda mais fruto daquilo em que se tornou o PSD.

Tudo isto gera uma sensação de frustração que não acabará bem. A esquerda é, de facto, uma força de bloqueio, mas nunca foi outra coisa. Nenhuma das mudanças de que o país precisa, e que são forçosamente impopulares, será feita com ela. O Chega juntou-se à esquerda e formou uma maioria paralisante. O PSD podia, e devia, olhar ao redor e compreender que, face a este estado de coisas, precisa de coragem e não de tacticismo, de perceber que se o resultado é o chumbo, a reprovação, as maiorias paralisantes, então mais vale ser radical. Não será capaz. O PSD é irreformável, e está viciado numa forma de fazer política que já não existe, como ficou claro no Congresso do passado fim-de-semana. E assim permaneceremos, até ao dia em que o Chega vencer uma eleição e PSD e PS se juntarem no derradeiro bloco central, fazendo o que sempre fizeram e fazem, incapazes de parar o desastre. Quando ele chegar, não faltarão os surpreendidos.

Livro - O Instituto Superior Técnico (Alfredo Bensaúde)

Há 100 anos!...


 








domingo, 21 de junho de 2026

The Spectator - The rise of the child-haters

 

(personal underlines)

The rise of the child-haters

On Petersfield station, southbound side, there’s a huge billboard advertising a tropical holiday with a photo of a beautiful couple joyfully splashing each other in the water. I walked past it, stopped, walked back and stared. ‘Adults-only holiday,’ read the billboard. ‘Entirely child-free.’

But this wasn’t ‘adults only’ in the 20th-century sense: getting frisky with strangers after a pink gin and an all-you-can-eat buffet. What was being sold was a holiday guaranteed to contain not a squeak of any disgusting child, and the whole tone of the advert was one of joyful relief: At last! Just what we’ve all always wanted, but never dared to admit! The beautiful couple could spend their days scrolling freely on their expensive phones, undisturbed by the excited shouts of infants. And no need to worry about a depressing return to a world full of kids, because as the fertility crisis has grown across the developed world, so, in its shadow, an entire industry of child-free activities has also begun to flourish. There are child-free restaurants, child-free gardens, child-free hotels, all advertising themselves with the same indefinably unpleasant air.

Perhaps, on the face of it, there doesn’t seem much wrong with wanting to be shot of kids. Children can be intolerable. My own son talks nonstop at a volume you might use to hail a distant ship, and vomited continuously throughout his last plane flight. But this isn’t just an understandable desire for peace. This is a dislike of children for being children, no matter how they behave. It’s not the crotchety old complaining, it’s youngish types, within sight of childhood themselves; the same young people we’re always desperately trying to persuade to reproduce.

Until very recently, the fashion was for announcing that not having kids was an ethical decision. Who with a clear conscience could bring a child into this doomed world, or birth another carbon-guzzling life-form? Couples declared themselves ‘child-free by choice’ in much the same superior way that they said they were dairy-free. But just as we’ve all grown used to this dismal trope, so the culture has taken a more sinister turn. Do you remember the scene in Chitty ChittyBang Bang when the child-hating Baroness reacts to children as if they are vermin, screaming and lifting her skirts? Well keep that in mind, that’s very much the vibe.

Online, if you look under the right virtual rocks, there’s any number of people discussing how to push children back out of public life. Child-free beaches would be nice, they think, and child-free housing, and what about entire child-free trains, and flights banned to the under-18s? ‘Why do babies travel for free anyway? They should pay even if they’re sitting on someone’s knee.’ Here’s one of the strangest comments: ‘Why do people have to travel everywhere with their children? Can’t they leave them behind?’ In storage maybe, or with the sort of timed feeding bowls you can get for cats.

It’s odd that in this hypersensitive age, when making gentle fun of gingers, or girls, or joking about anyone’s appearance in any way is taboo, children are so easily, mockingly referred to as subhuman. There’s a new slew of nicknames given to them by the child-phobics: ‘Crotch goblins’ or (forgive me) ‘cum trophies’, as if children are just the unpleasant by-products of sex. YouTubers – all of them, ironically, tucked and plumped up to mimic maximum fertility – make a deal of their child-phobia and rant about how revolting babies are. ‘Actually get them away,’ says one woman with the sort of gesture you might use to sweep away dead flies. An American man with a southern drawl says: ‘I don’t really like kids, coz they’re gross, they get on my nerves, they talk too much, they stink.’ Very camp. Very Mean Girls. An easy win, I guess for ‘pick-me’ nihilists looking to break Christian taboos and stick it to the old order of things.

Not one of the child-haters ever addresses the fact that they themselves were kids not so long ago. But then we long ago lost a sense of a self stretched across time, with a feeling for ancestors and a duty to future generations. It could be this is the logical endpoint of individualism: no past, no childhood, just me, right now.

Each video has to go a little further than the last, to be edgier, crueller. But though everyone everywhere online is trying to maximise engagement, this isn’t just an influencer phenomenon. When you look for it, there’s child-hatred seeping out of all sorts of crevices on the internet. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article recently complaining about dogs in restaurants. Here are some of the online comments: ‘I’d rather eat with a dog at the next table than a screaming child’; ‘Better than kids yelling and running around’; ‘I want a vaccine registry for children the way we have for dogs. Children carry myriad more communicable diseases than do humans and in this city, are worse behaved across the board’; ‘I’d rather have a well-behaved dog sitting next to me than a baby crying.’

We’re well into the era of dogs as substitute kids. In my north London neighbourhood it’s quite normal to see a young couple out for a stroll with a French bulldog or a cockapoo in what looks like a baby sling. The shops and cafés offer ‘puppuccinos’ and dog ice-cream more prominently than they do treats for kids. There are water bowls outside the cafés but no highchairs. Nothing like the sight of a baby to put the regulars off their shakshuka.

But the dogs could point to some sort of explanation. Urban pets these days are low-maintenance, mostly non-shedding; you can farm them off to a dog-walker with no fear of social services coming knocking. Maybe the root cause of paedophobia is a simple horror of the sheer effort that having and raising an actual child involves and the total disruption to a carefully balanced and curated life.

The Spectator - Japan isn’t as safe as you think

 


Japan isn’t as safe as you think

There is certainly room to doubt Japan’s stellar safety rating

Tokyo cityscape with Fuji mountain in Japan (iStock)

I was robbed in Tokyo recently, an experience as unexpected as it was distressing. Despite long years in London, plus decades of rough and ready globetrotting to some of the sketchiest places on earth, I have never been a victim in any of these notorious crime hotspots (I feel snubbed especially by London), but this was the second such experience in supposedly the safest city in the world.  

What are the odds? The first time I dropped my wallet in a branch of the bargain bucket Don Quijote store and later received a phone call from the staff saying they had it, with ID cards intact but 50,000 yen gone. This time there was no phone call, it’s all gone, a similar amount of cash but far more worryingly, my entire suite of credit and ID cards. 

It probably happened in the teeming and chaotic Tokyo mega-station with my small backpack unzipped and the wallet removed while I wandered around in my habitual careless, reverie. One gets complacent in Japan. It would have been the work of a moment. Two hours on the phone speaking to robots to block the cards, a day in the air conditioner-free hell that is the Tokyo Immigration centre, and another day spent assembling documents for three separate submissions to Japan’s leading credit agencies to forestall identity theft (a huge problem here) was just the work of the first few days. There is plenty more to do. 

And I had no access to money! Luckily my partner, who was staying elsewhere at the time, lives up to the stereotype of the typical Japanese woman for whom every potential adverse eventuality short of alien invasion, must be meticulously prepared for. She had secreted away an envelope of ‘earthquake money’ in my flat that I was able to draw on. Bless her.   

Was I just unlucky? Perhaps, but there is there is certainly room to doubt Japan’s stellar safety rating. Crime has been rising, especially pickpocketing centred around tourist hotspots for each of the last four years – logically coinciding with a surge in visitor numbers, but also, somewhat contentiously, with an steady uptick in immigration.  

The impression that foreigners are fueling a mini crime wave is part of the rationale of Prime Minister Sanae Takachi’s rightening of immigration rules. On the campaign trail she spoke of inappropriate behavior by ‘foreign visitors’ and has implemented a number of measures aimed at making it more difficult to enter Japan and to remain. I will have to pay about ten times as much as I was used to for my next work visa. 

The figures are confusing and disputed, though. Those released up to 2025 did show the number of foreigners arrested increasing mainly for petty offenses and the proportion of crime committed by ‘foreigners’ at an all-time high of 5.9 per cent (3 per cent of the Japanese population are non-Japanese), but some of that is visa offences (a crime Japanese cannot commit). 

Anecdotes are at least as powerful as statistics, though. The murder of a Japanese woman by a Vietnamese immigrant in 2025 in Saga prefecture sparked nationwide fears despite it being a vanishingly rare, if horrible, event. For the record, the only clue I have to who took my wallet is the two attempts to use one of the credit cards, which shows an online retailer in Nigeria. 

The good news is that overall crime rates in Japan remain very low, though the reliability of some of the positive statistics is at least questionable. We are talking about reported crime and acutely sensitive categories such as sexual assault or domestic abuse in a shame-based culture may well be significantly underreported. Groping is prevalent enough that many train lines have women’s only carriages. 

Not quite the crime-free paradise it is sometimes, rather patronizingly, depicted as then. But there is still much to admire in the way modern Japan deals with crime. There is the ubiquitous but unobtrusive police presence via the kōban (police box) system, the severe penalties (especially for drugs offenses) and the steadfast refusal to romanticise villains. And, I’d still liked to think, despite what happened to me, generally high levels of citizenship. 

There has also been some effective policy making. The infamous crime syndicate yakuza took a massive hit in the late 1990s when the government made it illegal for anyone to do business with them. That made it virtually impossible for yakuza members (who are registered bizarrely) to open a bank account, get a mortgage or even a mobile phone. Recruitment dried up and most of the few that remain are now comically ancient, a Dad’s Army mafiosi

Getting robbed in Tokyo was an upsetting, disillusioning experience and will remain an unpleasant memory. I’d prefer to recall the time I left my wallet on a bus, picked it up from the local kōban intact and tied up with a neat pink bow, by a policewoman who bowed deeply to me and thanked me in exquisitely formal Japanese as she returned it.  

Those sorts of memories I’ll cherish, but sadly it’s not the whole story.  

Cartoon - Jim Unger

 








Série - Dark Winds (S1, S2, S3, S4)

 Série muito interessante sobre uma realidade pouco conhecida





Música - Sharon Burch - Sacred Wind (Navajo)


 





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMbeUl7oEQ&list=RDFkMbeUl7oEQ&start_radio=1

sábado, 20 de junho de 2026

Polemia - Émeutes à Paris : le PSG et le « Match du Siècle »

 


soulignements personnels

Émeutes à Paris : le PSG et le « Match du Siècle »…


En France, on a le désastre heureux. C’est déjà cela. Merci le sport et surtout merci le foot ! Les bobos friqués se divertissent à Roland-Garros et adulent leur nouvelle idole, Moïse Kouamé, si bien prénommé. Le PSG, c’est pour la France d’en bas, celle qui « fume des clopes et roule au diesel », comme disait si élégamment un porte-parole du gouvernement macroniste, Benjamin Griveaux. Mais voilà : le PSG a gagné en Hongrie et la France est priée d’exulter, malgré quelques ombres au tableau.
Michel Geoffroy

1. Il n’y a pas que le PSG qui fasse « déborder »
2. L’autosatisfaction officielle
3. L’Orchestre du PSG joue sur le pont du France

Il n’y a pas que le PSG qui fasse « déborder »

Ce ne sont pas tant les « débordements » — c’est-à-dire, en clair, les violences urbaines — auxquels a donné lieu l’annonce de cette victoire qui sont honteux, n’en déplaise aux politiciens et aux médias.
Des « débordements » ? Mais il y en a tout le temps et à n’importe quelle occasion, puisque notre pays est devenu la lanterne rouge sécuritaire de l’Europe !
Dans les fêtes foraines, désormais théâtre d’affrontements périodiques entre bandes de « jeunes » ; dans les fêtes de village, pourries par des rixes parfois mortelles ; dans les quartiers où, lorsqu’on organise une boum, il vaut mieux fermer portes et fenêtres donnant sur la rue pour éviter d’attirer de « jeunes » intrus.
Et que dire des bagarres dans les matchs amateurs ? Des « débordements » auxquels nous ont habitués l’extrême gauche, les milices antifas et les écolos radicaux depuis des années ? Des émeutes ethniques à répétition, toujours accompagnées de saccages et de pillages ?

L’autosatisfaction officielle

L’insupportable ne réside pas non plus dans l’autosatisfaction habituelle du ministre de l’Intérieur, toujours content des forces de l’ordre — 22 000 policiers et gendarmes quand même mobilisés pour… cette célébration du PSG — puisque la France est selon lui un « grand pays de gestion de l’ordre public ». Un understatement comme diraient les supporteurs anglais chers à M. Darmanin…
L’insupportable ne réside pas non plus dans les sempiternelles condamnations officielles des comportements « inacceptables », jamais suivies d’aucun effet réel, sinon d’inciter de fait à la récidive en diffusant un sentiment d’impunité chez certains.

Non, le pire, c’était justement ce torrent de jubilation hypermédiatisé auquel a donné lieu cette victoire sportive. Comme si notre destin se jouait dans un match de balle au pied.

L’Orchestre du PSG joue sur le pont du France

L’orchestre du Titanic jouait pendant le naufrage du paquebot.
Samedi et dimanche derniers, la victoire du PSG a servi d’orchestre pour accompagner, dans les vivats et les selfies, le naufrage de la France.
Car si le PSG a gagné, la France, elle, coule, épuisée par bientôt dix années de macronisme.
Pas un domaine d’activité où les choses se soient améliorées depuis 2017. Pas un secteur qui ne connaisse aujourd’hui crise, dysfonctionnement et démoralisation.
Croissance zéro du PIB au premier trimestre 2026, inflation et chômage à la hausse, dette explosive. On ne compte plus les entreprises ou les commerces qui ferment, ni les annonces de plans sociaux. Pendant que les titres de séjour accordés pour motif « humanitaire » ont atteint, au 31 décembre 2025, un niveau record de 700 000. 88 654 détenus au 1er mai 2026, un record aussi, pendant que les violences et les atteintes aux personnes ont encore progressé.
Quand, sur le plan institutionnel et diplomatique, la France sombre dans le ridiculement tragique.
On nous dira que la victoire de notre équipe nationale nous met justement un peu de baume au cœur, malgré ces désastres. C’est oublier que le sport n’est qu’un divertissement, au sens pascalien du terme : il ne change rien à la réalité des rapports de force.

Le Match du Siècle

En 1984, le dessinateur Dimitri publiait une bande dessinée acide intitulée Le Match du Siècle. Il y décrivait un Pacte de Varsovie envahissant l’Europe en pleine Coupe de football : les frontoviks découvraient, sidérés, des positions défensives désertes parce que tout le monde, à l’Ouest, regardait les matchs. Et ils finirent accueillis aux cris de « On a gagné ! » dans le pays qui avait gagné la coupe !
Encore un effort et on y sera bientôt.

Michel Geoffroy
01/06/2026