We took a group of 35 people to visit the brilliant @novaexhibition last night. Thanks to fantastic Nova team - and good to link up with @OurFightUk & @StopTheHate_UK
A bracing but necesary experience. **EVERYONE** should go.
Nova https://t.co/83x6CoV7NW
When in political panic, they always grab the BAN bag. Ban social media for under 16s but give 16yos the vote; proclaim digital ID will be voluntary but age-gate post 16s to access online public square; evidence-based policy that ignores ALL evidence from ban in Australia...GRRR
"The connection between frustration, voting, replacing the people in power and seeing change - doesn't work"
@joshsimonsmp - who's just resigned his seat - @ #BattleFest 2024 "Elections, riots and distrust: what’s the state of democracy?"🗳️🙋♂️
👇
If as described, this really is shocking anti-Reform sectarianism by Tories. Read full statement. Would like MP to explain what on earth explains this or if there's been some crossed wires.
Brendan O'Neill (@spikedonline) dismantles the smokescreen of anti-Zionism, highlighting the incoherence of targeting Jewish nationhood while ignoring other global conflicts.
Royal Holloway student Brodie Mitchell was confronted by Huda El-Jamal, President of the Friends of Palestine Society, who called him a “wannabe Jew” and questioned why he wasn’t wearing a kippah.
Brodie — who describes himself as a “non-Jewish Zionist” — responded by asking why she was wearing a “tea towel” on her head, referring to her keffiyeh.
Within 24 hours, Brodie was suspended from campus for nine weeks, locked out of campus, and told to vacate his accommodation.
His comment was branded “offensive”, “Islamophobic” and “anti-Palestinian”. He even had to request permission to give his side of the story — against the backdrop of the Government’s new “anti-Muslim hostility” definition.
Meanwhile, Ms El-Jamal faced no disciplinary action.
This is two-tier policing of speech on campus.
The Free Speech Union is supporting Brodie and has lodged a complaint with the Office for Students. He is now back on campus, but under severe restrictions on who he can speak to and what he can say — with expulsion threatened for even minor breaches. He has also received death threats and faced harassment from fellow students.
The university is now spending what his barrister calls a “grossly disproportionate and unreasonable” sum in an apparent attempt to force him out of litigation.
We are challenging these restrictions and urging the OfS to investigate. Brodie’s case will be heard over three days in the High Court in June, where he will say that he has unfairly been deprived of seven weeks of study time.
We have also put the Government on notice of potential judicial review over its “anti-Muslim hostility” definition if they don’t immediately withdraw it and its associated guidance.
We will defend the right to criticise any religion and stop the Muslim blasphemy law — but we need your help 👇
Watch Brodie Mitchell on @GBNEWS
I had a brilliant time discussing sovereignty and how to bring politics back to the people on the Take Me Home Podcast.
With @RedActuary and Sebastian Moore of @SDPhq
Definitely a great new podcast crew to follow.
Link 👇
https://t.co/b47O7JY93u
@LostTransport@Fox_Claire@AudreySuffolk Reducing the stigma of abortions, easier access to abortion facilities has indeed facilitated often earlier terminations. That should be encouraged and extended to remove wider barriers, which will further reduce risks involved in later stage abortions.
@LostTransport@Fox_Claire@AudreySuffolk I think we should have a fuller conversation about abortion in the UK as the law does seem way to restrictive and punishing for what I think women need. And I'm definitely not in favour of more coercion or punishment of women around their choices on abortion.
@LostTransport@Fox_Claire@AudreySuffolk I think the risks women face having abortions aren't reduced by criminalising and punishing them for it - on the contrary it increases the risks they have to take. We should be trying to make it easier for women to access safe and legal ways to have an abortion.
@LostTransport@Fox_Claire@AudreySuffolk I think it's good that women making a tough decision to abort late aren't punish for that decision. Perhaps it should be made easier for women by improving access to terminations, and reduce the dangerous behaviour.
@BarberBeve87986@Richard70641109@Fox_Claire@acadofideas What choice do you think a foetus can make? That sounds like a straw man argument to facilitate a 3rd party making the choice for the woman who's pregnant. If the 3rd party can make the choice, why can't the woman who's pregnant?
@BarberBeve87986@Richard70641109@Fox_Claire@acadofideas Should the issue of a woman deciding on termination hers, based on her having enough time to decide rather than any other factor? I'm an avid supporter of that view you've just put forward.
@BarberBeve87986@Richard70641109@Fox_Claire@acadofideas I definitely think babies born alive should have all the medical resources needed to keep them alive made available. The choice of what a woman wants to to with her pregnancy is best discussed with the woman and her medical advisors. Sometimes that may be termination. Her choice.
@FractusPontus@Fox_Claire If there's a baby then all facilities should be made available to assist the baby to live a full and happy life. Or are you doing the sleight of hand thing where you're talking about a foetus but use the word baby? Either way, the least stigmatising the better isn't it?
@FractusPontus@Fox_Claire That's a choice I think each woman should be free to make for herself to be honest. Reducing the potential for mental scars, regret and guilt seems like a good thing to me. Punishing women for having an abortion, exercising her autonomy, doesn't seem like a positive outcome to me
@FractusPontus@Fox_Claire That is the issue at stake for sure - the autonomy of women. I don't see that removing the autonomy of women and looking to punish them will improve their lives or choices. I'm in favour of improving their lives and choices.
@BarberBeve87986@Richard70641109@Fox_Claire@acadofideas Alas not. Making provision more freely available legally and through the provision of medical services without threats of punishment would be beneficial, and reduce the risks taken.