Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1080

Save Others Like Rahaf Who Need Protection

From the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain a piece on asylum seekers and the regimes they are desperate to escape.

Rahaf al-Qunun’s brave fight for protection from persecution ended happily with the Saudi teen’s arrival in Canada. The ex-Muslim who was fleeing her abusive family barricaded herself in her hotel room in Thailand and managed to reach safety despite her family and Saudi government’s attempts to return her to Saudi Arabia. Rahaf’s plight mobilised widespread support with countless groups and individuals demanding action by the Thai government and the UNHCR and cheering her on to safety.

Unfortunately, Rahaf’s plight is a reality for countless ex-Muslims, atheists, women and LGBT fleeing Sharia or “honour”-related violence condoned by Islamic states and movements. In more than ten countries, being ex-Muslim, atheist, or LGBT are even punishable by death. In these countries, being a free woman is a crime. Despite these harsh realities, countless asylum seekers in Britain and the west as well as refugee claimants in places like Turkey continue to be detained, refused protection despite evidence of persecution, mistreated and deported.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) calls on governments and the UNHCR to protect ex-Muslims, atheists, women and LGBT fleeing sharia, “honour-related” violence and Islamic states and movements.

Like Rahaf, they are refugees too.

On Monday 21 January 2019, 1-2pm, join Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain at Richmond Terrace SW1A 2NJ in London to demand asylum and protection for ex-Muslims, atheists, women and LGBT fleeing Sharia and/or honour-related violence.

Also, join #RefugeeToo campaign by highlighting your asylum or refugee case and the cases of others as well as exposing the absurd reasons given for refusals by governments and the UNHCR.

#RefugeeToo #IWant2BFree #SeekingAsylumMyRight #SaveRahaf #SaveExMuslims #SaveWomen #SaveLGBT #SaveAtheists #HandsOffExMuslims #HandsOffAtheists #HandsOffWomen #HandsOffLGBT #AtheismNotACrime #ApostasyNotACrime #BeingWomanNotACrime #BeingLGBTNotACrime #StopDeportations #StopDetentions

UK Activist Case Summaries


Marwa Mastouri is a Tunisian ex-Muslim woman who has received threats from her family and death and rape threats for her topless actions in support of those who do not believe in Islam, against hijab day and in solidarity with those who want to eat during Ramadan. She has written a book critical of Islam. Moreover, she has defended LGBT rights and recently carried out a topless action in support of Saudi women. Marwa is waiting for an interview with the Home Office.

Shawon Syed, a Bangladeshi ex-Muslim and bi-sexual has been waiting nearly two years for an interview with the Home Office. Shawan is an Editor of a magazine called “Boys Love World” and a sub-Editor of “Atheist In Bangladesh.” He continues to receive serious threats to his life. In Bangladesh, seven cases have been filed against him and his team for their criticism of religion and Islam. Islamist mobs have attacked and destroyed his home there and threatened his mother who is in hiding. His brother and father have already been murdered by the Islamists. Shawan has health issues and is currently homeless here in the UK. Shawan is a long-time activist who marched with CEMB at Pride and spoke at an event co-sponsored with Pride Festival on LGBT Rights, Blasphemy and Apostasy.

Mohamed Aly is an Egyptian ex-Muslim atheist. He left his country because he had been threatened with having his beliefs exposed to the public. He applied in the UK for asylum in April 2016 and has been refused on a number of occasions. Although the Home Office accepted that he was a genuine Ex-Muslim atheist, they advised him to return to Egypt and “live discreetly” as an atheist. The Home Office claimed that there is ‘’no policy of persecution in Egypt against Ex-Muslims atheists’’, it is merely ‘’discrimination’’. Mohamed is a long-time activist of CEMB involved in fast-defying actions during Ramadan and also marching at Pride in London amongst other actions and protests.

Aftab Ahmed is an ex-Muslim from Pakistan who applied for asylum in August 2015, been refused a number of times and is submitting a fresh claim. His father was killed by the Taliban and he was threatened by them; he continues to receive threats due to his activities with CEMB. In his refusal letter, the Home Office asserted that since the Taliban was a non-state actor, “the authorities are able to provide protection.” On his being agnostic and unable to return to Pakistan, the Home Office has said he “would be able to live as someone who does not follow Islam. As [he has] not converted to another religion, [he] would not be required to talk to anyone about [his] religion.” Aftab is a key CEMB activist involved in organising and participating in our protests and actions, including fast-defying and against blasphemy laws at the Pakistani embassy, defending LGBT rights at Pride and opposing compulsory veiling.

Fasahat Hasan Rizvi is a Pakistani ex-Muslim whose asylum claim has been rejected on a number of occasions. Fasahat’s spouse was forcibly divorced from him because his religious in-laws with links to an Islamist group there believed him to be an apostate. When she joined him in the UK and they had a second child despite the divorce, her family threatened to kill them for adultery and murder their child “born out of wedlock.” According to the Home Office, though, “it is believed that the authorities in Pakistan are able to provide [him] with effective protection” and that he can relocate to another city in Pakistan other than Karachi. According to the refusal letter, the Home Office states:

You are an educated male of working age and are able to speak Urdu and English, one of the official languages of Pakistan. You have already demonstrated considerable personal fortitude in relocating to the UK and attempting to establish a life here and you have offered no explanation why you could not demonstrate the same resolve to reestablish your life in Pakistan.

Fasahat stopped believing in Islam early on but realised he was an atheist here in the UK after reading Dawkins’ book and making contact with the CEMB. Fasahat has been one of CEMB’s main activists and organisers since 2016, however, the Home Office says “it is not accepted that [he] is an atheist.

Letter from Fasahat’s 12-year-old daughter

My name is Hurmat Fatima and I am proudly standing here to support my family, my belief, my atheism and i am fighting for my rights. I have done continuous 8 years of education in this country so how do you expect me to go back to Pakistan and learn the compulsory local language (urdu, hindustani and more)? How do u expect me to go back to pakistan and learn Islam when i am a free-thinker and an atheist? How do you expect me to go there and be proud of my atheism when you can be sentenced to death for not believing in islam?

Home office know the terrible conditions that my family and i live in and yet they still choose to ignore us. They know that my daddy has mental issues and it can be risky for him to deal with lots of stress and depression. As a daughter, i feel extremely upset for him because i don’t want to lose my daddy. My parents try day and night to provide me and my sister the best life and the best environment. Because of you, we all suffer. They are the ones that taught me that all human beings are kind and generous and that you should never judge anyone but clearly home office is showing the complete opposite. I am thankful to my parents because they encouraged me to develop my critical thinking and i am really proud of being an atheist.

We have done everything that home office asked us to do, they have all the evidence all the proof what more do they want? We have respectfully and patiently waited for their response and they choose to refuse us. Do they realise that going back to pakistan is extremely risky, it isn’t even a joke, it is a matter of death and we can even be prosecuted just because of our belief? Do they realise that Islam considers atheism as a threat? Do you realise that if we go back to pakistan we have to constantly hide from everyone? They can at least have sympathy for us.

I have written several letters to home office through my account taking my time and my effort in it and they choose to ignore it. Just because i am a child that doesn’t mean that i can’t fight and that i can’t say my opinions or fight for my rights.

Just because home office are high standard people that doesn’t mean that they forget their respect. You should treat everyone equally and respectfully.

I am sorry but i have no words to define home office but disrespectful.

International #Refugeetoo

Basma is a 24-year-old Yemeni ex-Muslim woman who fled to Turkey. In Yemen, she was not able to live freely and decide what to do with her life. A woman there is a slave to her family and community. Because of her outspokenness about the situation of women and her criticism of Islam, she was called an “infidel” by professors at her university where she was studying mass communications and by her own father who threatened to turn her in to the authorities. Basma feared she would be killed by Islamist groups or sentenced to death as others have been so she fled before finishing her degree. Moreover, as a black woman from a persecuted group in Yemen that are openly called “Akhdam” or servants, she faced horrendous racism. In Turkey, where she hoped to reach safety, life has been hell. She was jailed for 4 months in a deportation centre and attempts were made to deport her a number of times, which she has resisted.

Arsalan Nejati is a 32-year-old Iranian who has been persecuted for his political views and social activities as an ex-Muslim, an independent author, blogger, and a member of the atheist and humanist society in Iran. In 2014, after he published his story, he was arrested and tortured by Iranian security. After his conditional and temporary release, the threats continued. He was forced to flee to Turkey. He applied for refugee status to UNHCR on 5 May 2015. He has been sent to a satellite city without the right to work and no financial support from UNHCR. After two and a half years, he was rejected by the UNHCR because whilst they say he had established that he was an atheist, “there is not a reasonable possibility that [he] will suffer serious harm if [he] return(s) there due to [his] faith as an atheist.” The UNHCR did not accept his appeal and informed him that his case has been transferred to Turkish Immigration Office.

Iman Soleymani Amiri is a lawyer, a writer and critic of Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Due to various activities on social media, he was identified by security agents and forced to flee the country before his arrest. He is director and author of Islamic Criticism Channel with more than sixty thousand subscribers. His audio and video content is available to the general public on various channels and networks. He is a weekly expert on a weekly program called “Islam, a Reasonable Need to Know”. He applied to UNHCR in Turkey for refugee status a year and a half ago. He has received no response from the UNHCR. Recently, his case has been forwarded to Turkish Immigration Office.

Amir and Mina Kalateh are Iranian ex-Muslim siblings. Amir became an atheist at 16 and persuaded his mother and sister to become atheists too. They took to social media, became admin of Atheist Iranian Community with nearly 12,000 followers. One day, they found that one of their meeting places had been exposed and the security were looking for them. Amir fled first and when Mina and Amir were summoned to court, Mina and her mother Mehri fled the country to Turkey. They arrived in 2016 and have still not been interviewed by UNHCR.

For more information on the #RefugeeToo campaign, contact
Maryam Namazie and Sadia Hameed
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
www.ex-muslim.org.uk
hello@ex-muslim.org.uk

A Morning Thought @ 247

In Defence Of A Border Poll

Ciarán Cunningham sees merit in a border poll in the North. 
‘In defence of a Border Poll’. Guerrilla politics and the campaign for a Unity referendum
In January 1970, at the United Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, Seamus Costello, IRA Guerrilla leader and future founder leader of the IRSP declared:

“I favour guerrilla tactics in parliament, the same as I do in many other respects… And I see no reason why with a few TDs or a few MPs of the right calibre, pursuing the right policies, why they cannot destroy the confidence of the people in these institutions and bring them tumbling down in ruin.”

Whatever the context of that year’s gathering, Seamus’ principled rejection of abstentionism that night, could not have simply referred to participation in the elected chambers, North, South or other?

Costello was of course making a logistical (and ideological) declaration of faith in the ability of principled republicans to appropriate and utilise mechanisms of the state to ultimately bring down the state itself; a formidable doctrine of Guerrilla politics.

He was not the first to espouse such a proposal; in 1918, Sinn Féin and the IRA participated fully in the post WW1 Armistice British Westminster elections, utilising the enemy’s procedures, protocols and resources to ultimately take power and put into action the Democratic Program of the 1st Dail; the most revolutionary political program practiced in Irish history. No doubt, many initially opposed that tactic also, on a point of understandable principle.

In 2016, Seamus Costello’s party, the IRSP, embracing the very same doctrine and considering undeniably radical demographic shifts occurring in the occupied six counties, made a judgment call, that there was more to be gained than lost in openly campaigning for a ‘Border Poll’ or referendum on Irish Unity; on a 32 County basis if possible but via the mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement if need be; the latter being the more realistic of options in the immediate term.

Recognising the growing trajectory of the ‘Catholic Nationalist Republican’ population of ‘the North’; the IRSP - having learned from previous delegation visits to Scotland, Catalunya and Britany - reasoned that the formation of a ‘broad front’ style, street based movement (as existed in those nations) may with a push, help shove a vote for Irish unity over the line in the Six Counties, if not in this decade, then certainly within the coming decades.

Statistics add credence to the prospect. Within the Occupied Six Counties, the broadly ‘Protestant Unionist Loyalist’ population are no longer the perpetual majority which that statelet’s founders relied on them always being.

We don’t need drawn out statistical lists to tell us how in ‘the North’ Catholic children are no longer the minority community that we, and our parents, once were. And while the IRSP are not naïve enough to suggest that a future ‘Catholic majority’ will automatically translate into a vote for Irish Unity, experiences in Scotland and Catalunya, strongly suggest that innovative modes of political organising can, (indeed have) transformed once stagnant nationalist voter bases into proactive mass movements for national independence via a referendum.

If such a process, that is the creation of a broad front style, nationally aware, street-based mass movement could inject enthusiasm into the currently passive yet nationally minded voter base of ‘the North’, and in turn help to mobilise a significant ‘Yes’ vote amongst a growing nationalist demographic in the future, then surely (the IRSP reasoned) the option is at least worth exploring?

I have spent the past year travelling around Ireland and parts of Europe making this very point on behalf of ‘Yes for Unity’, the Republican Socialist campaign for a referendum on Irish Unity; sometimes in venues which were pleasantly receptive, sometimes in rooms where the reception was bordering on contempt, every event well worth it, nonetheless.

I encountered various strands of opposition to our proposals during this time, all of which I disagree with, but none of which I resent being made.

In fact, I wasn’t always sold on the concept of a border poll myself. Always conscious of the deeply held principles that cause many well-meaning Republicans to baulk at the thought of allowing a British secretary of State to umpire an election on unity within an unfairly partitioned section of Ireland; not so many years ago I rigidly held to the same line which led the nationalist population of the North to reject and boycott the ‘border poll’ of 1973.

As is often the case however, emerging political reality can trump the importance of previously vital principle.

In 1973, it was totally inconceivable that a Border Poll could have proved successful for Nationalists; today that is not necessarily the case, in future decades it simply need not be the case.

In March 2017, for the first time since the creation of the Occupied Six County state, party political Unionism lost its majority position in Stormont; a turn of events which prompted me – like many others – to visit reliable statistical research avenues to gain a wider picture of what may be going on behind the scenes.

I found that all reliable bodies tasked with gathering statistics in the North, i.e. the statistics & research agency, labour force surveys, school enrolment bulletins and equality commission monitoring reports, were making findings which strongly suggested that our generation of what is the broadly ‘Catholic, Nationalist, Republican’ population, will be the last that lives as a minority within this artificial state. Our children will not be in a minority position.

This could mean a lot of things to a lot of people, not all of them conducive to Republican support for a Border Poll of course. But it could also, with the right perspective and the right type of campaigning from Republicans and Socialists, give future voters keen to dismantle partition, a chance (to paraphrase Costello) to “bring the institution crumbling down in ruins”.

Bearing in mind examples in Scotland and Catalunya, where a shift in modes of nationalist organising, away from both clandestine militant activity & traditional party political electoralism, towards an all embracing ‘broad front’ style street based approach to campaigning on an independence referendum, has seen pro-active support for independence in those nations rocket to the extent where aspirations to independence have become much more than just aspirations.

In Scotland, a MORI poll in 1999 recorded that only 27% of the Scottish voting population were pro-actively in favour of Scottish independence, by 2016 that figure had mushroomed to 46%. In Catalunya, in 2005, Spanish government statistics recorded that a mere 12% of the Catalan population were pro-actively supportive of independence, by 2015 that figure had risen to 45%. By the time the Spanish military were smashing up polling stations in Barcelona, 43% of the Catalan population had tried to vote, of those 90% had declared for freedom.

What triggered the rise in pro-active sentiment in both of these nations? Undeniably, factors included the shift towards popular, broad front and street-based initiatives. Season after season of mass rallies, mock referendums, public debates and (vitally) the intervention of the Left, had taken the issue of independence out of the hands of the stuffy few usual suspects and brought it down to a street level. This in turn injected an enthusiasm into the independence project not hitherto present, making what was previously impossible, now seriously achievable.

It is not a pipe dream to suggest that the same process of popular progressive mobilisation could occur in the occupied six counties, in favour of a Border Poll, taking advantage of shifting demographics, newly found nationalist confidence and our people’s proven ability to mobilise when needed.

There are of course several principled counter arguments to such a proposal, but with further consideration they largely lose their merit, not least because the growing prospect of a border poll occurring sometime in the future appears certain to overtake all aspirations of those steadfast political movements and individuals who simply want Irish Unity to happen some other way. Demographics and popular opinion may prove bigger than all of our plans.

Principled objections to the ‘Yes for Unity’ position usually take the form of the following questions.

Question 1. What would we do in the event of a No result?

This question was easily answered by the IRSP’s original ‘Britain out of Ireland/ Ireland out of the EU’ position paper which first proposed the Border Poll position. And it is an answer shared by the ‘Yes for Unity’ campaign. The opening caveat of the IRSP position paper simply states:

In the event of any failure to end partition via so called ‘constitutional’ means, Republican Socialists would be under no more compulsion to recognise the Unionist Veto than we are today.

Seamus Costello’s declaration that he favoured “Guerrilla tactics in parliament” just as he did “in many other respects”, opened up for his party the prospect of taking or leaving the mechanisms of the state as and when it suited them, confident that they need not compromise their overall goals while doing so.

In layman’s terms then, if the Border Poll project breaks down, we get another bus. We owe this state no courtesy.

Question 2. Isn’t a border poll just a sectarian headcount?

This is also easily answered, as such opportunistic critiques were also forwarded throughout decades of brutal political and people’s struggle against the Orange state, most often by the lifestylist left and other anti-republican tendencies, who, (from a position of political cowardice) were more offended by positive aspirations to end partition than Loyalist aspirations to maintain it. We owe nothing to such people today.

Question 3. The Republic has already been declared (in 1916), why vote?

In regard to those who hold to the ‘already declared republic’ position; we have a great deal more sympathy for this line of questioning than the others and understand the passionate beliefs of those who find notions of voting today on independence and sovereignty unpalatable, we find it unpalatable ourselves.

However, repeated research suggests that demographics and public feeling are shifting with a momentum that may soon over shadow any such concerns in terms of real time political relevance.

When a border poll scenario arises (which it most likely will) it will be bigger than the program of any one political party or any revolutionary tendency. And, if a significant section of the Irish working class within the occupied six counties decides to march in that chosen direction, then it would be nothing short of arrogance for Republicans to stand aloof and tell them that they are wrong. To do so would risk us appearing like the Jacobite faithful of old, passionately waiting for warships that existed only in our minds.

Surely the Democratically elected 1st Dail would not have wished for their adherents to stand, many decades after their passing, and evoke their monarchical title rights? And all because the electoral process was being presided over by the enemy (as was their own) all the while passing up on tangible opportunities to seriously weaken British rule in Ireland, if not end it?

Of course not! And, it is at this point where supporters of a Border Poll may start asking equally difficult questions of their critics.

Question 1. What should republicans be doing while a Border Poll is occurring? In all likelihood, a border poll is going to occur within the next few generations if not earlier; Brexit, demographics and public opinion make it a virtual certainty. Do republican opponents of the process suggest we simply stand aloof and wag our fingers at hundreds of thousands of progressive people in ‘the North’ determined to break out of the sectarian state in an opportunistic fashion? What would be revolutionary about that?

Question 2. What if we win? Serious question. If a border poll was successful and the Republican Left had been seen to stand aloof from the process which had secured Irish Unity, why would we then think we could credibly argue for a stake in new Irish society? Had Catalunya succeeded (and it may yet) then the left there would have been recognised as an integral part of what emerged, and precisely because they were part of the people’s momentum that had delivered independence. The Neo-Liberal right are already planning for their image of a post Border Poll United Ireland; for the left to abstain is absurd.

Question 3. Why should participation in a ‘Border Poll’ be viewed differently to any other Civil Rights campaign? Our parents and grandparents took to the streets to demand Civil Rights within the occupied six counties, to demand housing, jobs, the right to vote, and an end to Internment; Republicanism in its entirety backed them and rightly so. Today, Republicans in the six counties regularly utilise the courts system to secure further civil rights in terms of Judicial Review, appeal rights etc. Were those Civil Rights marchers “running with a begging bowl to the Brits” ? as Border Poll advocates have been colourfully referred to in some quarters in recent times? Why is the ultimate Civil Rights demand (an end to partition) any less honourable than the demands of past generations in ‘the North’?

Question 4. Why presume that advocating for Border Poll rules out other forms of struggle? Amazingly, some of the most vociferous opponents of the IRSP ‘Border Poll’ position, claim to admire the legacy of Seamus Costello. But Seamus himself made it very clear, on very many occasions, that his party should consider each and every tactic available, depending on their desirability at the time. Speaking of abstentionism from parliament he said to an American journalist “There are circumstances and conditions under which it might be desirable to abstain, and if we felt that it was tactically desirable at any particular point in time, in either the North or South, to abstain, then we would do so. That would depend, however, on the circumstances”. In the same interview he also said, “We see both parliamentary institutions in Ireland as institutions that have to be abolished if we are to make progress towards a Socialist Republic”.

Again, Seamus was making it Chrystal clear that Republican Socialists could and should utilise institutions of the state alongside all and any other forms of struggle in order to bring down the very same state, as per the suitability of the tactic at that time. The doctrine of Guerrilla Politics.

For the IRSP & ‘Yes for Unity’ that is exactly what they are doing. It suited in 1973 to abstain from a referendum on Irish Unity, but the factors which made ’73 unfavourable have without doubt shifted and may shift further if given the right push. In the meantime, the same people campaigning within ‘Yes for Unity’ remain active in and open to, every other form of political, socio-economic and agrarian struggle going as avenues to be explored on the long road to the Worker’s Republic. And if this road fails, those other political avenues will still be there, Guerrilla politics.

Much more can be said on the topic and no doubt will. Capitalism and the right are already attempting to monopolise momentums towards Irish reunification and ‘Yes for Unity’ are the only Socialist campaigning group in the field. For our part we intend to lobby those open to the concept of a referendum but to urge them to do so for the right reasons. The Left cannot afford to abstain from this fight to do so not only hands the field back to the British state (literally) but to the right wing, economically.

But let us never forget, that even following a successful Border Poll, national independence without Socialism will not be independence at all, this requires a further push to get Ireland out of the European Union as a necessary step towards creating a Socialist Republic, the IRSP are the only party in Ireland saying this and ‘Yes for Unity’ is confident in that analysis.

Time will tell, either way, considering all of the above, we have nothing to lose.

⏩ Ciarán Cunningham is a West Belfast republican

The Malign Incompetence Of The British Ruling Class

From The New York Times a piece by Pankaj Mishra, historically contextualising Britain's bumptious Brexiteers.
Describing Britain’s calamitous exit from its Indian empire in 1947, the novelist Paul Scott wrote that in India the British “came to the end of themselves as they were” — that is, to the end of their exalted idea about themselves. 
Scott was among those shocked by how hastily and ruthlessly the British, who had ruled India for more than a century, condemned it to fragmentation and anarchy; how Louis Mountbatten, accurately described by the right-wing historian Andrew Roberts as a “mendacious, intellectually limited hustler,” came to preside, as the last British viceroy of India, over the destiny of some 400 million people.
Continue Reading ...

A Morning Thought @ 246

Have Your Say On The Future Of This Island

Let It Bleed

Christopher Owens with his view of a book by Nicole I. Nesca. 



The cover makes me think 'Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer' as done by Kraftwerk. The collection of books clearly came from Bill Bryson's library, and Benny Hill obviously positioned the Greek sculpture. And the title is clearly a Rolling Stones reference.

Impressive for a cover. Hence why I picked it up.

Let It Bleed is the sixth book from Nicole I Nesca. Her and her husband, Tony, have teamed up to create Screamin' Skull Press. Their mission statement is to "...journey toward a more rebellious future for literature...", as they feel let down by mainstream publishers because they (according to Nicole) "...wouldn’t have the courage to publish the kind of work that we want to create. It’s interesting – sometimes we wonder, could Charles Bukowski find success in today’s market?"

Since the 2018 Booker Prize winner was a story about a young girl being harassed by a milkman, I highly doubt it. Although the fact that it was set during our recent history makes me suspect this lifted it above the average shite that qualifies for prizes these days.

Anyway, kudos to the Nesca's for taking the punk rock approach and doing it themselves. And, I'm pleased to report, Let It Bleed is a collection of prose and poetry that is so simplistic in it's approach, that it is brilliant.

Beginning with the bold statement 'this is a work of fiction', the reader has 'Haemorrhaged' thrust upon them. A stark tale, it's narrator tales the tale in such a cold, disconnected fashion that one can only conclude that she's still in shock over what happened and the dehumanisation that goes hand in hand with the medical process, well demonstrated in the payoff lines 'I am six months removed from the haemorrhage. Let it bleed.'

Such a tale, with it's mix of clinical telling and attention to grotty details, lets us know this is going to be some book.

'Act like I Don't Remember' is a poem that manages to take sibling rivalry/differences, examine their different outcomes in poignant, but defiant fashion. Poignant, because of the extreme differences, and defiant because of their working class backgrounds.

'Cumbersome' is the inner mind of a neurotic type who both craves and avoids attention. The narrator is someone who knows fine rightly they will never be satisfied, but have come to terms with it, as shown by the use of the line "(Melodramatic guitar solo)" in the middle of the monologue.

Only running 120 odd pages, Let It Bleed hits the reader with it's combination of big emotions, ordinary people and straightforward delivery. Plenty try and fail with this approach, but Nesca's secret weapon is that the characters who make up the book are ordinary people struggling to make their way through this world in some shape or form, be it for medical, political, social or self inflicted reasons. But none of them actually realise that they're struggling. They simply see it as some sort of barrier that either has to be crossed or has been put there for a reason. This ends up giving the characters an air of rank ordinariness, which is a relief from most tales where the narrator is either puffed up to superhuman levels of goodness or arseholiness.

This is the real deal.

Nicole I Nesca, 2017,  Let It Bleed. Screamin' Skull Press ISBN-13: 978-1387421787

⏩  Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland.Follow Christopher Owens on Twitter @MrOwens212

A Morning Thought @ 245

The Abandonment Of Asia Bibi

Brendan O'Neill sees Liberal-Left hypocrisy behind the abandonment Of Asia Bibi.
Why Western progressives are not fighting for this persecuted Pakistani woman.
Where are the West’s solidarity marches for Asia Bibi? Where are the t-shirts? Why aren’t ‘Free Asia Bibi’ flags flying on campuses? Why haven’t student progressives elected Asia as the symbolic head of their unions, as they did with persecuted Eastern European writers in the 1970s or African liberation leaders in the 1980s?

Bibi, after all, comes across as an ideal person for those of a genuinely liberal or leftist persuasion to get behind. She’s a woman. She’s a farm labourer. She is part of a persecuted minority (Christians in Pakistan). And she has been subjected to awful punishments and deprivations merely for saying something.

In a different era, Asia would have been a cause célèbre in certain Western circles. But not today. Why? Because many in the West now agree that the thing Bibi is alleged to have done, and for which she has been so severely punished, is indeed immoral – that is, mocking Muhammad.

Continue Reading …


Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. 
 
And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Brian The Blasphemer

Anthony McIntyre heaps scorn on Sinn Fein lemon suckers whose faces immediately sour at humour directed their way.

"Pomposity needs to be punctured and hypocrisies exposed. Today’s all-too-common...



[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]