Honour Based Violence in the British Royal Family

If we were to spend our lives believing everything the way it is presented to us by those in power, it might work out easier for us in the long run, to leave all the important decisions to somebody else but for those of us who choose to think critically, those of us who value honesty so much we are willing to suffer for it, the world is a stage and the 1% actors, presenting the side of themselves they believe we wish to see. There is no better example of this than the British royal family. ‘Sources’ reporting to the tabloids are palace staff, if not members of the royal family themselves. There is an army of royal correspondents, attached to their respective papers and broadcasting stations, and every last one is a royalist, prepared to read out official statements and pass them off as personal opinion. They hold dress rehearsals for funerals years in advance. The royal family is a live soap opera, fulfilling ideals of fairy tales that are poured into little ears from the moment the midwife assigns us female.

What nobody seems to consider, ever, not even the superior white feminists for whom femininity is a curse, is how the women who marry into the royal family are often treated as pariahs, as though they should be grateful for their privileges and in exchange cannot be allowed to have feelings ever again. Kate Middleton is a perfect example of a woman who submitted, she has made herself small (quite literally) and churned out those heirs like a good un, never speaking out of turn or hinting at a personality. When Markle gave birth the papers were placing bets on when Kate would pop next, like it’s a competition for the queen’s affections. As the oldest daughter in law, wife of the heir apparent, she is given preferential treatment, like access to looted Mughal jewels, whereas Markle is forbidden (according to the Daily Express who like to take a royal press release and make it their own). It actually makes me laugh because the royal family conducts itself in exactly the same way as those who engage in honour based violence in the South Asian diaspora have done; the eldest son is in charge and his wife is given first dibs on everything, promoting inequality and ill feeling.

Familial abuse is an issue I am familiar with, from personal experience but also in my professional career as a women’s worker. More often than not it is considered a cultural matter because South Asian families stick together as opposed to moving away when they go to university or get married. It is something I grappled with growing up, this notion that certain suitors might estrange you from the family, as a result most people married within the clan to avoid such grievances. If everyone knows what is expected of them there’s less chance of conflict further down the line. This is what the royal family did themselves, the queen was betrothed to her cousin as a young child (still feel sickened by the news reel gushing about this child being in love with a grown man), and Prince Charles was related to Diana in a number of ways, not least because they shared Henry Tudor as an ancestor. If the royals hadn’t been white and immensely privileged, you could say it was a Forced Marriage. Look at the misery they endured for the length of their union and how Diana felt she’d done her bit providing an heir and a spare. Imagine if she’d had girls!

When Piers Morgan attacked Markle with the words “I always thought you’d do this anyway” he sounded like the in laws on Bhaji on the Beach (a film about honour violence made in 1993) attacking their dark skinned daughter in law (who’d married their son for love against their wishes) for leaving the family after he’d beaten her, claiming that the darker ones are sly and can’t be trusted. Morgan insists he is not racist and this is not about racism but he’s an ex tabloid editor, and has always been untrustworthy. Why is he allowed an opinion? I ran away from home at the age of 15 because I was sick of outsiders inserting themselves into familial matters as though they are personally invested when in actual fact they thrive off drama and conflict, and are always looking to settle old scores. Morgan has been waiting for the opportunity to let rip, because he is a savvy racist and knows how to play the game. This is about Meghan Markle being an outsider, not least because she is black and won’t bow down to pressure. What else could have informed his childish prophecy?

When racists have attempted to rationalise their prejudice for me, they often bring up the refusal of other groups to assimilate, and the resistance to intermarriage, to their chagrin. At the heart of it they fear rejection so pre-emptively reject the rejecters, at least that is what they say. The Royal Family is surely an example of this, they are supported by like minded die hard colonialists who do not assimilate yet stand apart from the rest of us, because they like to feel special, and they actively resist outsiders, demanding they fall into line if they should break through or else risk the wrath of the entire establishment. They are the most intolerant of all.

How is that the most public family in all of Great Britain escapes the attentions of the authorities, whether they are sexually abusing children or domestically abusing their wives and daughters in law? Emotional abuse is actually illegal in the UK but then so is racism and very little gets done about that. Women’s safety groups should be advocating for Meghan Markle, as a victim of familial honour based violence, she has “brought shame to the family” and is therefore at her most vulnerable (Diana died for her efforts). Antiquated beliefs such as this are mocked by the authorities when the victim is South Asian, as though we are backwards and savage yet the world’s media is happy to reinforce it for the royal family.

Aren’t you sick of the hypocrisy?

They wanna live like Common People

With less than 2 years since they were married, Harry and Meghan announced they would be stepping down as senior royals to focus on their own work away from the prying eyes of the scavengers we call the British press. There is no doubt it is in part due to the controversy surrounding sadistic Prince Andrew in recent weeks but that’s hardly the crux of it, they’ve proved (since her internment) not to have the slightest regard for her well-being; hosting state banquets for fascists like Trump (never mind the swooning speeches in his honour) and those closer to home, for eg the golliwog badge wearing Princess Michael of Kent. I would imagine Markle has never felt so unsafe, and Harry, for the first time in his life, has some appreciation of what life is like when you are not white (irrespective of all her other privileges).

One only needs to read the comments, snide remarks about how she’s holding on to her man and he’s never looked so miserable. In every shot, Harry is pointedly staring at something in the distance, bothered by whatever it is that has grabbed his attention whilst Meghan has on her camera face, her features fixed like Fort Knox, impenetrable to the braying mob making demands of her. I recognise that face, as people of colour we have long cultivated an image we present of ourselves in the face of unrepentant racism – for survival – that we somehow didn’t hear or understand what was said and therefore won’t react. They like to bait us, racists, they want us to fly at them so they can confirm we are savages, caught in the act. Personally, I am not bothered what racists think of me, if I’m a savage then so be it but that’s my privilege (?) as an unrefined working class granddaughter of immigrants.

What really riles me about this entire incident (making it my business) is the faux outrage from certain sections of the white supremacist commentariat, namely one Sarah Vine (famous for her appalling taste in men). She has stuck the boot in at every opportunity with microaggressions and continues to attack Meghan Markle, now suggesting the latter is undeserving of the honour bestowed upon her by the British monarchy and its loyal subjects. She asks “what happened to the enchanting couple we fell in love with?” Sarah, duck, that’s not love you have been heaping on them all these months, you sad, deranged, damaged adult child.

How can we expect this she ogre to appreciate the incongruence of her words? The truth is an inconvenience that is easily remedied with coercive power. Sarah Vine reminds me of every power tripping racist I have ever met; constantly reaffirming that you are shit, because you are not white, yet you must show (on request) gratitude for the slightly elevated experience you get for marrying a white guy. It’s a reminder that you will never be one of them, and then they have the gall to pretend they liked you (for a poc).

“Go home if you don’t like it” they snap when we complain of racism. They want us to suffer or get out altogether. How dare Meghan Markle take her power back? That’s what Vine is really saying, that the privileges of royalty negate the myriad of ways she is oppressed as a black woman. It really is insufferable the way establishment hangers on attempt to ingratiate themselves by fawning over the worst humanity has to offer. The royals are a motley crew of paedophile rapists, racists and adulterers who haven’t done an honest day’s work for centuries. At least the olde worlde kings – and even some queens – fought their own battles, alongside their subjects. I have no problem with legitimate authority, but these tiara wearing benefit scroungers are as vulgar as can be. Look at what you have to do in order to be accepted into the fold, poor Kate Middleton is a literal sliver of the woman she used to be. She also has a stage face and speaks as though she isn’t quite sure of herself but you wouldn’t know it from any of the official photos.

For a woman marrying into the royal family, there is only one role; stoic, submissive and enamoured with your prince charming, regardless of where he’s sticking his dick. I have a feeling Meghan Markle had to draw the line early on and I respect her for that. Even more for rejecting the royals and holding on to her man. For Prince Harry I have a little begrudging respect, I still haven’t forgotten his little paki friend but he has been using his position to raise awareness of the insidiousness of racism and a little goes a long way from the top.

As for the royal family, I had never quite appreciated how dysfunctional they were but the way they so readily sell each other out has been a revelation. For sure, Prince Andrew should be disowned but the way his daughters are rumoured to be paying for the sins of their father, well, that’s just shameful. In a similar fashion, senior royals, ie daddy and granny are distancing themselves from the disenchanted couple, shaking free the dead leaves in dramatic statements about how they are heartbroken and will shun the deserters. They love money and power so much, family members are completely expendable.

I guess we realised that when Diana died (who’d be so proud right now, not even kidding).

T S Eliot: a bigot, control freak and abuser of women

Like many of his treasured peers, for all their talent and genius, T S Eliot was a bit of a bigot. He made derogatory references to blacks, Jews and women in his work and whilst this is patently clear to the aforementioned, there are many who would seek to excuse his behaviour, though perhaps not all that interestingly, they are also white men. Eliot was merely providing a commentary on the actual racists, not ascribing to the words himself, as one ardent fan put it. No doubt they will rush to defend him on the latest charges, that he was a lovelorn romantic, not a controlling head worker insistent on having the final word, pulling strings from beyond the grave even.

T S Eliot and Emily Hale met when he was studying philosophy at Harvard. When Eliot’s advances towards Hale fell flat, he moved to the UK in 1914 and married Vivienne Haigh-Wood. Their 18 year marriage was described as tumultuous, which, as a feminist and women’s worker, I perceive as abusive. It was hardly surprising she ended up in a mental asylum, that’s just what they did with women who fought back, claim they were hysterical, lock them up and throw away the key. The silencing of women has evolved in its methods somewhat but as I can vouch from experience, the intentions/outcomes remain the same.

Emily Hale requested that Princeton University release Eliot’s letters to her 50 years after her death. I wonder why she left it so late, what prevented her from making them public at the time. Eliot hounded her for over 30 years, though in his recently released statement he claims to have seen the light after 20 years or so as to how ill suited they were because she wasn’t very intelligent or sophisticated, in a move reminiscent of modern day street harassers, how men catcall with compliments until they are rejected or ignored, then they turn and say you’re a dumb ugly bitch. T S Eliot was an entitled douchebro doing a 30 odd year stretch in the friendzone which leads me to suspect he eventually wore her down and made her feel unsafe. Perhaps people were starting to listen and believe her. Perhaps she entrusted his letters to the university because they were not safe in her possession. She couldn’t say anything whilst she was alive and such was his power, she left it a whole half a century before the truth of it all ever saw the light of day. Yet still he felt entitled to dismiss his own letters to her in a bizarre posthumous riposte, as the works of “a hallucinated man”, relinquishing agency, ironically claiming madness as an excuse for his fixation. Eliot had Hale’s replies to his letters incinerated by a friend of his, yet the narrative goes it was a consensual and passionate correspondence. Given that we only have his word for it, and any evidence to the contrary was destroyed, I am inclined to believe she wanted nothing to do with him.

“I tried to pretend that my love for you was dead, though I could only do so by pretending myself that my heart was dead.”

T S Eliot

This sounds like an apology for abusive behaviour “I only hurt you because I had to”, because “you made me”. He even plays the women in his life off one another, claiming Vivienne was the real muse because even though she “nearly was the death of me, she kept the poet alive” whereas Hale would have killed the poet thus robbing the world of his greatest works. Eliot’s literary contribution holds more value than the rambling words of a hysterical woman who would have killed his creativity. I am astounded at his cocksuredness, he reeks entirely of incel and I wouldn’t be surprised if his marriage was for show, to make Emily pay for spurring his advances. No wonder poor Vivienne lost her mind.

Like so many of the literary classics, Eliot hid behind his accolades so that he could do no wrong, despite the many ways he and his peers made the world a crueler place for its most vulnerable inhabitants. We reward them despite their racism and misogyny, allowing them to influence another generation who buy into the notion that art is suffering and to make good art, you must be emotionally volatile. I experienced it in one of my own adult relationships, and it’s made me cautious of writers, even preventing me from pursuing my own dreams, because I clearly cannot want it enough, if I am not willing to sink to the depths they do.

Gendered violence is romanticised, from Hunter S Thompson to Ted Hughes (Bret Easton Ellis and Jack Kerouac etc) and just because they refer to their victims as their ‘muse’, it doesn’t make it any less alarming for those of us who abhor violence in all its forms (but also) because we have have been victimised in this way.

We should all take a leaf out of the French publisher Gallimard’s book in its response to the investigation of Gabriel Matzneff, an 83 year old essayist who is alleged to have seduced another French author when she was just 14 and he was in his 50s. It remains to be seen why now and not any time in the last 50 years, as Matzneff has always been outspoken in his preference for underage kids, and this leads on to even more unsettling analysis of France as a soft touch when it comes to paedophilia, but the #MeToo movement, and the millenials who carry it aren’t going to shy away from the honest truth, because that’s the only way things change.

Who's the Most Prolific: Reynhard Sinaga or Jimmy Savile?

When the news of the ‘most prolific rapist’ in the UK broke, I resisted biting, because I’m frankly nauseated by the way the mainstream media has retained all of its problematic features, and continues to peddle fake news and propaganda, with gendered reporting being the least of its worries. Fascism trumps everything, at least that’s how I’m approaching things these days, although there is a direct link between fascism and domestic violence. It came hot on the heels of another news report, I’m thinking specifically of The Sun and how it chose to present the story of a domestic homicide, focusing on the new male partner of the primary victim instead of the gendered violence that led to the fatal attack. This is just how they’re going to frame things now, because the fascists are in control and they absolutely hate women.

In its 2nd day of reporting (leaving me no choice but to react), this case is unusual in that the victims were all men. Reynhard Sinaga, an Indonesian national, allegedly the most prolific rapist in British legal history (I guess it has to make it to trial to be considered), was convicted of luring heterosexual men to his flat where he raped them whilst they were unconscious and filmed the attacks. Since the initial report there has been some speculation that other victims may have come forward. Whilst I am glad this monster is off the streets and happy justice has been served, it provides a stark comparison for female victims of sexual violence, how the legal system takes rape seriously when the victims are straight men, and how they are afforded the appropriate responses; their previous sexual histories are not brought into question, nobody cares that they were drunk or consensually entered his flat. Sinaga will not be considered for release for a very long time having landed a 30 year sentence. I’m forced to consider whether he would do less time if he had been white and this angers me, that in an unjust system I am moved to contemplate the human rights of a rapist.

Is he more prolific than Jimmy Savile with 1300 victims, whom the cops were always aware of yet did nothing about? How about John Worboys, the black cab driver who was alluded to as the most prolific at the time of his conviction even though he was only found guilty of attacking 12 women, despite the fact that more than 100 victims had come forward? What makes Sinaga’s victims more believable than Worboys’?

If Sinaga had been white, if his victims had been women, or even children, the British media wouldn’t be so sensationalist. With the upper echelons of British society embroiled in sex abuse scandals stretching back decades and conviction rates being at an all time low despite the numbers reporting being higher than they’ve ever been, the British media is choosing to misrepresent rape culture so that white men, who make up the largest proportion of sex offenders in the UK, committing the worst acts (on young babies), are nowhere near as prolific as this foreigner targeting straight (possibly white) men.

There is something deeply disturbing about all of this, and to me, suggests predators are controlling the narrative, firmly pointing the finger elsewhere, whilst the real demons carry on uninterrupted.

The most prolific rapists in the UK have the protection of the establishment and the legal system, and you’re never going to hear about them.

What do Uighurs, the Rohingya and Muslim Indians all have in common?

I wrote about the plight of the Uighurs recently, and asked whether we are looking in the right place to make sense of the reports coming out of China, that it has enacted a ‘final solution’ for its Muslim minority by placing them in ‘re-education’ camps and subjecting them to torture. China is not the only Asian country to have implemented oppressive measures with their Muslims minorities in mind, it follows Myanmar and its genocide of the Rohingya, not forgetting the momentous anti government protests erupting across India, in Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Kashmir and Karnataka, condemning a law which offers amnesty to all non Muslim migrants from neighbouring countries. Secularists oppose the law because of the distinction it makes on the basis of religion and how it undermines the Indian constitution. Earlier this year Modi’s far right fascist Hindutva government stripped 2 million people of their citizenship in the state of Assam. With each step, India has dehumanised its Muslim population so that it becomes easier to do with them what it will.

Laws do not erase human rights violations, Geneva Conventions exist for this reason. It was perfectly legal to keep slaves at one time, and to rape your spouse in Britain, as recently as the 90s. Laws are not magic, they are not ordained by a higher power. Law makers are often monsters, appeasing other monsters.

Perhaps India and Myanmar signed on to the same treaty Victor Gao repeatedly offered as an explanation for China’s actions. He insisted that the camps were within the remit of the law, and this was endorsed by 50 other countries. Modi is changing laws so that he too can glibly offer the same excuse when humanists come knocking at his door. Subtracting Myanmar, China and India from the total leaves 47 countries, and aren’t you interested to find out who they are? Shouldn’t we turn the spotlight on them and ask why they are signing treaties we are not privy to? These supposedly anti terror conventions could be closed door meetings on ‘The Muslim Problem’, with each nation slyly nudging and winking their way towards a Muslim Holocaust. The West is pulling all the strings, leaving developing Asian nations to hold the front line, reassuring them that without European human rights they are free to do as they wish, within the constraints of their own constitutions.

The West is still dividing and conquering, as it has done for 500 years, making promises to all enemies of Islam that they are stronger together in fighting a common enemy, except when the shit hits the fan, the west will sit back and feign complete ignorance. Oh, it threatens to take away our human rights (those laws standing between us and our respective failed states) but I now think this is just for show, to reassure our human rights defying allies we are not far behind. Theresa May promised an assault on our human rights almost 10 years ago, but we are still in possession of them. Boris vowed to do the same, when he was re-elected, but I’d like to see him try. He has since appealed to his critics for peace, knowing full well the conditions for an uprising are optimal. They cannot take our human rights away, it’s asking for trouble. Instead it is an empty threat, to reassure those who are already in breach of international law.

Aung San Suu Kyi should ask where all her western supporters are, now she is under investigations for human rights abuses at The Hague. China’s government should stop signing on to anything promoted by the west as a shared common interest because it hates China more than it has terrorism in common with them. India, in typically foolish fashion, must consider how it promised to be a world superpower by 2020 and how it has utterly failed in this respect, no doubt curtailed by all the broken promises western capitalists made, when it led us into a global recession. Modi’s critics grow daily, and the protests show no sign of waning.

Non white heads of state and leaders of nations should know by now they are just puppets in this system of white supremacy. It has been constructed in such a way to condemn anyone who resists it, as a terrorist, and to be an ally you have to submit to the notion whites are in fact supreme. Non whites will always be subordinates, tugging on the sleeve of their oppressively white big brother, scapegoated in the end as the real oppressor, because weak people who lack principles are so easy to stitch up.

Watch the west invade the east to save all the Muslims, just like they did the Jews, and how all protestations hinting to the actual truth will be dismissed as avoidance on the part of the perpetrators, just as Mehdi did with Gao.

History is doomed to repeat itself, because we deserve it.

Antisemitism under the Tories

In the run up to the general election the right wing and allegedly centrist talking heads really drove home the point that a Labour win would mean a rise in antisemitism, comparing the anti racist leader to Hitler and equating socialism with nazism. This assertion, devoid of any actual truth, minimised the growing threat from the actually fascist Tory government and erased its pernicious hostile environment in favour of cheap tactics to destabilise the opposition and confuse voters. It worked, not least because a sizeable chunk of the British electorate are card carrying bigots, pining for world domination; as a dangling carrot, Brexit was the only motivation they needed. The Tories lied, and nobody cared and now we must all face the repercussions.

I wonder if Rachel Riley paused for breath when she launched her scathing attack against Labour, to think of what it might mean for her unborn daughter, to grow up in a world where the truth can be so easily manipulated in the pursuit of power. I wonder what she’s feeling today, in the wake of the attacks both here and the US. You can’t blame a Labour government for these incidents, the Tories are in power both sides of the pond, elected by white supremacists. Currently conducting their own investigations into members alleged to have engaged in antisemitism, Tories are hardly friends of the Jews, at least not those outside of the 1%. Why hasn’t Boris Johnson publicly apologised? Why hasn’t he expelled the guilty parties? Perhaps Rachel Riley could lead the campaign to hold this government to account for the ways in which they have forsaken the Tory voting Jewish community, or perhaps not, because maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t give a shit about anyone but herself and will raise her little princess to conduct herself in the same ruthlessly power seeking way.

Rachel Riley and friends (Tracey Ann Oberman, Eddie Marsan etc) seem to be working against the best interests of the 300,000 strong British Jewish community. Propaganda works in a variety of ways; it alienates the community that is being given preferential treatment (compare the condemnation of antisemitism to any other form of racism) and singles them out as an ‘other’. Othering immediately polarises groups, “why are they special?” In the latest spate of attacks on Jews in Britain, the offenders are frequently black, a racial group that is historically subjugated by all others. Imagine what it must be like for black people who are denied their heritage, their violent histories, scapegoated, cast aside, to see this seemingly white passing group of individuals, blonde and blue eyed in some cases, claiming to be the most racially victimised and being granted that status by the establishment. If you weren’t already mad, it might push you over the edge. This is what we are witnessing now, a backlash to all the dishonesty where regular Jews are brutalised for the actions of a malicious minority.

It’s not the first time this has happened, historically. Wherever there has been a holocaust, a genocide, be that Jewish, Rwandan, Bosnian, Indian, Congolese, etc etc it has been enabled by malevolent forces from within one’s own community. This is not to say the buck starts and ends with them, they do not hold ultimate power but the oppressors wouldn’t get very far on their own. The Mughals demise began with the tattle tales of the extended family, feeding the British tidbits of privileged information that ensured their demise. Of course, the British turned against their informants too, but no one was around to see them get their comeuppance and the shame of what went down has effectively curbed any attempts at reunification for all parties involved. The British were sneaky like that, breaking a thing so badly, it is impossible to put it back together, just look at India, Palestine and Ireland for proof.

Human behaviour isn’t very unique or groundbreaking, but utterly formulaic. If you sell out your friends/comrades/community, you’re marked out as disloyal and unpredictable. It might win you favour with the oppressor, but only whilst you’re functional as a useful idiot. When they get what they came for, they’re gone, leaving you to bite the dust. Rachel Riley should be made into a cautionary tale or a nursery rhyme, to teach future generations about wolves in sheep’s clothing, or at least a t shirt with a doctored image and outstanding royalties. She is by no means alone; there were a number of red flags we should note; when organisations purporting to protect Muslims, like Tell Mama, come out in support of virulent islamophobes such as Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch in the fight against antisemitism, we should be afraid for all regular Muslims and Jews, especially socialists. When allegedly left leaning magazines like the New Statesmen (with its variety of bigoted staff) claim they are resisting antisemitism by taking a stand against a leftist Labour, you know we’re through the looking glass. Tories (shy or otherwise) crave power and socialism was such a threat to their tax breaks they sold entire communities out. They do not speak for us.

No Gods, no masters, only solidarity with workers wherever they’re from. In this rising tide of fascism, we are each other’s allies.

Resist the fake narratives and ffs, read a history book.

We Are All Uighurs

By now we have all heard about the Muslim Uighurs in China, being detained in torture camps or as the Chinese government refers to them, ‘schools’ or ‘re-education camps’, to rehabilitate people they believe pose a terrorist threat. I first heard about them two years ago, in sporadic news reports that were quickly refuted by Chinese activists I’d come across in my radical activism. Whilst the reports seemed credible, activists reasoned that the people/states alleging these crimes had ulterior motives; for example, the US establishing its own oppressive regimes against Muslims could be using China to deflect from this fact. It seemed plausible, China is a threat to the western world by all accounts and the US is hardly a paragon of virtue in the so called war on terror, Muslim ban case in point (not forgetting the violent threats against Muslims in congress).

There is no denying now there is a modern day holocaust being conducted under our very noses. The Chinese aren’t even denying it anymore, but they are saying something important. We can’t just brush this detail under the carpet in dogged pursuit of half truths, whatever is convenient for us, economically or otherwise, or we’ve lost the struggle against the oppressive establishment wherever we are in the world. The pro government Chinese commentator Victor Gao says here 50 countries signed an accord supporting China in the fight against terrorism, using methods that are lawful (which include torture) under Chinese law. Mehdi ignores this repeatedly, instead binarising the issue, placing China at odds with the rest of the allegedly peace seeking and non violent world, which is just patently untrue.

It is plausible that the convention of 50 odd nations at a summit for counter terrorism initiatives might have sanctioned torture and concentration camps as a necessary evil in the war on ‘terror’ (Muslims). They’ve been doing exactly that at Guantanamo for almost 20 years. When Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, came out in support of Arsenal player Mezut Ozil following his widely reported criticism of China’s human rights abuses of his fellow Muslims, my irony meter blew a gasket. The US is no ally to Muslims but it is an historic rival of China and would love any excuse to invade it.

Muslims are a target wherever they are in the modern world, from the New Zealand terror attacks to the US ban on Muslims. Like Jews in the second world war, they are considered vermin and I have no doubt in my mind the 50 or so countries signing on to the global enterprise in the war on terror did so fully aware of the potential for ‘final solutions’, especially in nations where the law on human rights is tenuous at best. It is perhaps why the UK is seeking to strip Britons of our human rights, so that it is easier to usher in that (sorely missed) ‘golden era’ Boris has promised us, which translated to war, rape and famine for the rest of the world.

Churchill saved the Jews, an accidental legacy, driven home by the victors of a war against fascists (who wanted everyone to speak German), even whilst we had black shirts operating on our own doorstep, and the black and tans in Ireland. Myanmar commits a genocide against the Rohingya, displacing 730,000 Muslims and the western world is nowhere to be seen, instead leaving it to an African nation, Gambia, to launch proceedings at The Hague. I’d be very suspicious of western efforts to free the Muslims, not when they are the driving force behind many of these actions. Aung San Suu Kyi speaks with the confidence of a trickster who has the backing of western powers and the ability to claim up is down, she was untouched by accounts of rape and murder, much like the Chinese Victor Gao. For the Gambian foreign minister who brought this case to the UN, Abubaccar Tambadou, Muslim solidarity no doubt informs his actions but he added, “this is about our humanity, ultimately”. I believe him, not least because Gambia has made a concerted effort to respect human rights since its dictatorship ended 3 years ago.

Be under no illusions, the Chinese government has interned Muslims for the purpose of torture. It is not denying this, I don’t think, but reminding us it is not alone. Unfortunately for China, it hasn’t learnt from history but maybe we can, and this time when we say never again, we might have some chance of keeping our promises.