Social Items

TPQ
Anthony McIntyre ☠  Up until Benjamin Netanyahu, who has held the position for a total of thirteen years, Israel's longest serving Prime minister was its first, David Ben-Gurion. 

He too was a mass murderer responsible for the Nakba of 1948, described as follows by Middle East Eye:

In a premeditated military campaign, Zionist forces killed thousands of Palestinians, destroyed hundreds of villages and forcibly expelled 80 percent of the Palestinian population from their homeland. After more than a year of relentless violence, the newly created State of Israel captured 78 percent of historic Palestine. The remaining 22 percent, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were occupied by Israel 19 years later and remain under Israeli military rule. 

This week's elections in Israel saw two prominent Kapo leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot battle it out with each other for primacy. For victims of Israel atrocity the electoral battle must appear as something akin to Hitler versus Himmler for the leadership of Nazi Germany. Not much hope could have emerged from that for Jews trapped in Nazi talons, where the left claw will rip and tear children apart as readily and as mercilessly as the right.

Honesty and Netanyahu are not mutual concepts. They repel each other. Yet, the New Arab usefully identified an element of honesty in its observation: 

Netanyahu and the parties to his right are the most honest expression of the Israeli state: a state founded on ethnic cleansing and sustained through racism, apartheid, and genocide. Others dress this reality in the language of democracy, coexistence, and peace. Netanyahu does not bother.

Those holding out hope that Eisenkot will change much need not hold their breath. Leader of the so called centrist party, Yashar, he is a former chief of staff of the Israeli Army. When chief of Northern Command in Lebanon in 2006, he formulated the Dahiya Doctrine, named after a Beirut suburb destroyed by the Israel Occupation Forces, killing over a thousand civilians. The IDF lust for child murder ensured that the youngest were not spared. Over a third of those killed were children. If there is anything the Israelis genuinely believe from the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, it is the Passover where the firstborn of Egyptian families were murdered. A cruel good for a cruel people.

Eisenkot's accusers had no need to spell out the barbaric strategic logic behind the Dahiya doctrine, he did it himself:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . .We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases . . . This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.

The outstanding Israeli journalist Gideon Levy days before the election warned that if Netanyahu were to win it would be disastrous. Yet, there is nothing to suggest that defeat for Netanyahu would result in a situation that would be in any way less disastrous,  or substantively different from what currently exists. 

Little can change as a result of an election in which:

over 77% of Israelis voted for right-wing and far-right parties, around 15%, largely Palestinian citizens of Israel, backed the Arab parties, and just 6.51% voted for the Zionist left.

What the election will do if Netanyahu is replaced as Prime Minister is give many in the West an opportunity to look away That includes our own government which seems hyper-aware of the truism that it is hard to get a government to see what is in front of its nose when staying within the cosy club depends on it not seeing what is in front of its nose.  

There is absolutely no reason for Drogheda Stands With Palestine or any of the other solidarity groups across the country to take the foot off the pedal if Eisenkot becomes Prime Minister of Kapo country.  The opposite is true. This government will use any opportunity to turn on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, treating them much the same as they have treated its students and young footballers seeking to come to Ireland while never once bothering itself to scrutinise IDF terrorists who can enter freely. The New Arab lays out concisely what any new regime offers.

Eisenkot and figures like him do not oppose the system so much as manage its image. Their objection to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is not that Palestinian rights are being denied, but that the denial has become too visible, too crude and too damaging to Israel’s standing abroad.

We are standing here each week of the year, to ensure that Israel in this part of abroad has zero  standing.
 
⏩Follow on Bluesky.

No Standing

Geordie Morrow ðŸ–Œ with a painting from his collection of art work.

Oil on canvas 16”x16”

⏩Geordie Morrow is a Belfast artist.

Who By Fire

Muiris Ó Súilleabháin ✍ There is a certain amount of justifiable schadenfreude in witnessing the fragmentation of the once-monolithic unionist bloc which, under various political guises, exercised power in the North from the foundation of the state.

The electoral dominance of a single unionist party has come to an end. As a republican I welcome the demise of any political monopoly on power. Yet there is a flipside to this development that many who aspire to Irish unity, including those who profess a commitment to an Irish republic, appear reluctant to confront.

It is now time to throw a few fragmentation grenades into the discourse.

Political unionism may be fragmenting, its traditional parties increasingly divided and competing for an electorate that no longer displays the unquestioning loyalty of previous generations, but this should not be mistaken for a corresponding decline in support for the Union. Nor, more importantly, has it translated into any sustained increase in support for Irish unity since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

And therein lies an awkward political reality that constitutional nationalism and republicanism alike have yet to acknowledge. Almost three decades after the Good Friday Agreement, the erosion of unionist electoral hegemony and the emergence of Sinn Féin as the largest party in the North have failed to produce a demonstrable majority in favour of Irish unity. The political balance between parties has shifted considerably, but the constitutional position remains unchanged.

The fragmentation of political unionism may provide some understandable satisfaction to those old enough to remember the horrors of its former dominance, but mistaking the electoral decline of unionist parties with the constitutional decline of the Union is a dangerous exercise in political self-deception.

Political unionism seems incapable of doing anything other than plucking defeat from the jaws of victory. By reigniting the Drumcree debacle in 2026, Unionism has provided Sinn Féin with an unexpected political lifeline. At a time when the party's electoral fortunes appeared to be waning, unionism has managed to breathe renewed vitality and optimism into its principal political opponent, restoring something of Sinn Féin's standing within the Catholic, nationalist and republican community.

There can be little doubt that Michelle O'Neill is now well placed to return as First Minister following the May 2027 Assembly election, assuming, of course, that the Executive survives that long. And, remarkably, she probably has Jamie Bryson to thank for helping to reinvigorate her party during a period of political stagnation.

Indeed, when the history of the North is eventually written, I would not be in the least surprised to discover, in some wonderfully improbable twist of political satire, that Jamie had been recruited by the IRA as a sleeper agent. His extraordinary knack for leading unionism into one gut-reaction political cul-de-sac after another is astonishing. Were he deliberately attempting to advance Sinn Féin's electoral fortunes, it is difficult to imagine how he could be any more effective.

The ultimate irony, however, is that while Bryson and his fellow travellers may be doing Sinn Féin's electoral work for it, Sinn Féin itself is doing precious little to advance the cause of Irish unity. The electoral fortunes of Sinn Féin and the constitutional future of the North remain two very different questions; however enthusiastically constitutional republicans might wish to conflate them.

The Westminster Retreat

Sinn Féin's decision to run several of its Westminster MPs as candidates in the 2027 Assembly election is, in my view, indicative of two significant developments within the party.

Firstly, there appears to be a belated recognition that dispatching some of its supposed political heavyweights to the Palace of Westminster has achieved precious little beyond securing the much-coveted financial resources. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it suggests an emerging appreciation that the political battleground upon which any future border poll will be won or lost is not Westminster, Dublin or the international diplomatic circuit, but the North itself.

Despite the triumphant rhetoric surrounding Michelle O'Neill's elevation to First Minister, Sinn Féin's first period as the largest party in the Executive has been characterised by a conspicuous absence of political ambition or achievement.

I am told that an internal party review reached a similarly embarrassing conclusion, recognising both the limited political return from its Westminster operation and the increasingly obvious shortage of political talent within its Assembly team.

If that account is accurate, the decision to redeploy experienced Westminster figures to Stormont is more than routine electoral manoeuvring. It amounts to an acknowledgement that the party's much-celebrated electoral success has not been matched by its performance in governing the North.

Those shortcomings have been painfully apparent. The spectacle of Sinn Féin ministers and MLAs being routinely wrong-footed by the likes of Phillip Brett, Jonathan Buckley and Timothy Gaston has hardly inspired confidence in a party that presents itself as the government-in-waiting in the South.

Whatever one's view of their politics, these otherwise underwhelming unionist representatives have demonstrated an ability to interrogate policy, expose inconsistencies and exploit the weaknesses of their partners in government, who frequently appear ill-equipped and unable to respond.

Similarly, the excruciatingly painful performance of Sinn Féin's Assembly team has exposed a glaring absence of political talent. Its MLAs appear incapable of dissecting legislation, articulating coherent positions or subjecting political opponents to any meaningful scrutiny.

These shortcomings have been equally apparent among the party's ministers, where crude political messaging has too often been substituted for competence, and the ability to repeat a carefully rehearsed party position has been mistaken for the capacity to defend it.

These weaknesses have not gone unnoticed by the SDLP opposition under the leadership of Matthew O'Toole at Stormont. O'Toole has repeatedly demonstrated the value of detailed policy knowledge, effective scrutiny and the ability to construct an argument that extends beyond the familiar sectarian slogans.

In doing so, O'Toole has exposed one of Sinn Féin's fundamental weaknesses: electoral dominance does not automatically confer political competence, and holding the office of First Minister is no substitute for effective political ambition.

Making History, But to What End?

Sinn Féin has spent almost three decades confusing the acquisition of political office with the advancement of its once-republican objective.

Its core electoral message has scarcely evolved over 30 years. From its earliest electoral breakthroughs to its most recent campaigns, the appeal to voters remains essentially the same: make history by voting for Sinn Féin. Vote for us or you will get them. Yet surely the more pertinent question is not whether voting for Sinn Féin will make history, but what difference it will actually make.

When Chris Hazzard launched his Strangford campaign in the salubrious surroundings of the Montalto Estate, and when Sinn Féin unveiled its four for West Belfast campaign in the publicly funded Ionad Eileen Howell, the well-worn electoral battle cry of making history was once again centre stage.

Consider Hazzard's candidacy in Strangford. If elected, what would he actually do differently from the incumbent Alliance Party MLA he hopes to displace? What distinctive policies would he advance, what improvements in public services would he deliver, and how would his election bring the achievement of an Irish Republic any closer?

Similarly, returning four Sinn Féin MLAs in West Belfast would have precisely the same impact on the endemic child poverty, housing stress and unemployment that have plagued the constituency for generations as their previous electoral victories have had. Strip away the symbolism, the party branding and the bullshit historical rhetoric, and the answer is apparent: none whatsoever.

Sinn Féin has become extraordinarily adept at presenting its own electoral advancement as a historic achievement in itself, and the electorate has, for now, bought into that premise. But the time will surely come when the party is asked to explain what tangible political or social change that advancement has actually delivered. Winning another seat, securing another ministry or returning another First Minister has become both the means and the end of its political strategy.

The electorate is no longer being asked to endorse a programme of fundamental societal transformation, but merely to participate in the continued electoral advancement of Sinn Féin, with the vague assurance that history is somehow being made in the process.

The Constitutional Reckoning

Ultimately, the fragmentation of political unionism and the electoral resurgence of Sinn Féin should not obscure the central political reality that neither bloc appears particularly capable of confronting.

Unionism, despite its seemingly limitless capacity for political self-destruction, continues to defend a constitutional position that retains the majority of public support. It has time to regroup, realign and discover a new generation of political leadership, even if that leadership eventually emerges across two or three parties. Unionism can continue to lose elections, surrender its political dominance and humiliate itself in one entirely avoidable confrontation after another, yet still retain the Union.

Sinn Féin, meanwhile, does not have the same luxury of time. Having mastered the art of winning elections, it must now demonstrate that those victories can deliver the political change it has promised. The electorate in the North is politically astute, but it is also fickle, and electoral loyalty cannot be taken for granted indefinitely.

For all the triumphalism surrounding Michelle O'Neill's elevation to First Minister, the electoral arithmetic and the feverish rhetoric about an imminent border poll, Sinn Féin has failed to deliver any fundamental political change.

Jamie Bryson may yet prove to have contributed more to Sinn Féin's electoral fortunes than some of its own strategists, but what Bryson appears to overlook is that unionism can afford to squander political power while its constitutional objective remains secure.

There is, however, a mirror that Sinn Féin seems equally unwilling to look into. Just as Bryson's antics may have helped reinvigorate the party's electoral fortunes, Sinn Féin's own conduct at Drumcree, its belligerence in the aftermath and its apparent disregard for the institutions of the state, the rule of law and the police service it has pledged to support may yet have unintended electoral consequences.

The danger for Sinn Féin is that its behaviour could provide the catalyst needed to draw the long-dormant garden-centre unionist back into the electoral fray. A section of the electorate that has grown weary of unionism's endless internal quarrels may discover a renewed political motivation, not through any great affection for the traditional unionist parties, but through opposition to Sinn Féin's conduct.

Sinn Féin cannot afford to squander the opportunities presented by unionism's self-inflicted decline, yet that is precisely what it has done. It has turned unionist political incompetence into Sinn Féin electoral success, without translating that success into transformational societal change.

Having spent decades promising to end British rule in Ireland, Sinn Féin has instead found itself with little option but to administer it. Whether the party has chosen to administer it badly, or simply lacks the competence to do otherwise, is a question worth asking.
 
⏩Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.

The Fragmentation Of Unionism And The Illusion Of Republican Progress

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand One Hundred And Thirty Nine

 

A Morning Thought @ 3310

Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 24-October-2026.


Photo GOL: African Palm workers Norte de Santander, Colombia

For a long time successive governments in Colombia have talked about solving the issue of illicit crops and drugs and each one promises to carry out the task and pulls from its sleeve its Ace, its magic bullet that kills the monster like the silver bullets in the horror films. But just like in those films the monster is not what it seems and the magical properties of the silver bullet are a folktale.

The problem partly lies with how they define the problem. The peasant, they say, grows coca because he is poor and coca is a profitable crop and so another profitable crop is required as an alternative. The peasant just simply grew the wrong crop and that is why he is poor. They completely ignore the economic aperture that destroyed the Colombian countryside. Even the first version, in English, of the US counter-insurgent and anti-narcotic project known officially as Plan Colombia acknowledged that in the 1990s 700,000 hectares of agricultural land were lost due to the economic aperture.[1]

Given the collapse of the countryside and the production of food the same project proposed that the peasants specialised in exotic crops for the European and US markets. Amongst the crops that stood out were coffee, African palm and cocoa. Though it should be said that prior to Plan Colombia the Samper government (1994-98) made the same proposal. Nothing is original, the proposals from various governments are almost identical, a copy and paste. They all plagiarise each other. Plagiarism is the basis of all policy on the countryside and drugs, regardless of the government, whether it be Uribe or Petro. They all plagiarise each other: the peasant has to be convinced or forced to change crops without any reference to free trade and the domination of the food production chain by a handful of companies.

They bet on a small number of crops that are already extensively planted in the country, such as coffee and cocoa. In 2001, 675,342 hectares of coffee were harvested producing 637,140 tonnes. In 2024, this had increased to 837,685 hectares with 839,846 tonnes. It reached its zenith in 2017 with 903,950 hectares and a harvest of 851,640 tonnes. In the case of cocoa the improvement was even more dramatic increasing from 83,138 hectares to 197,709 hectares with a corresponding rise in production from 36,731 tonnes to 67,678 tonnes.[2]

Despite this the coca crops and the production of cocaine also increased dramatically i.e. these crops and this model for resolving the coca problem did not work. Despite this, all governments talk alike when it comes to proposing a solution. Petro throughout his government spoke of promoting agroindustry, as if he were the first to think of it. In the election campaign, Iván Cepeda took up the baton and acknowledged the impact of neoliberal measures in the countryside and still stated that they want to “strengthen national production, industrialise the countryside, export foodstuffs with value added and create wealth for the nation and rural communities.”[3]

We will revive productive chains such as cotton, yucca, cocoa, coffee and corn articulating production, industrial transformation and commercialisation with value added in the regions. It is not about going back to the past, but rather of creating a new rural prosperity based on the modernisation of production, the creation of employment, the industrialisation of the countryside and economic justice for the peasant and rural communities.

We will plant crops according to the territorial vocation, water availability, productive calendars, technical support and agrifood health and safety. Will protect national production against contraband, unnecessary importations and commercial practices that destroy in-country capacities.[4]

It sounds nice. But the proposal is very similar to the Export Stake for Colombia 2006-2020 of the criminal and Uribe’s Minister for Agriculture, Andrés Felipe Arias.[5] They all mention that phrase “value added” without explaining what it means in practice and how they will go about it. For example, in the case of coffee value is added when it is roasted, ground and packaged. Except for some special coffees which the multinationals are also buying up, the coffee is roasted and packaged in Europe and the USA. What are they thinking of doing? Roasting it all in Colombia and exporting it?

The sale of coffee beans reached 52 billion US dollars in 2025 and Europe dominates the market.[6] The industry is undergoing a concentration into a few hands of the sale of green bean coffee. How are they going to face up to an entire industry? The green bean coffee industry is profitable partly due to the volume of material that it deals with. They are not going to tolerate an upstart in the market and the multinational companies and consumer countries are not going to tolerate a massive importation of roasted coffee to compete with their multinationals. Starbucks’ income is over 30 billion US dollars per year and Nestlé has sales of coffee in excess of 25 billion US dollars. Governments have been overthrown for less.

All of the Colombian governments have supported the coffee crop and market as it currently exists. Really, there is no need to revive coffee nor cocoa. They are going through their best period as regards crop extension. Not so with cotton. There are currently barely 13,000 hectares compared to 350,000 to 400,000 that existed in the 1970s. It entered in crisis in the 1970s, gave some signs of recovery in the 1980s before entering into its definitive decline following the economic aperture of President Gaviria (1990-94). International competition and the impact of the free trade agreements put the growers under pressure. Cepeda mentions the neoliberal measures, but does not say what they were and what he aims to do about them. For example, the use of certified seeds is now mandated. The peasant who seeks credit has to use them. He cannot use the same seeds he gets from the crop or traditional seeds etc. In practice many peasants have to buy these seeds which are produced by multinationals. It has been state policy for some time and the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) and the Colombian Seed Association (Acosemillas) campaign in favour of their use referring to them as authorised seeds. The phrase is not accidental. Now under the new government of De La Espriella it was proposed that an electronic bill of purchase of authorised seeds be presented before loans and other benefits such as subsidies were awarded.[7]

Cepeda’s proposals do not break with the power structure in the countryside and he was open and explicit about it:

This proposal will go forward hand in hand with the agrifood industry that currently exists in the Colombian countryside, supporting it and integrating it into the national transformation of production.[8] 

That is to say, the same collection and distribution points and power structure in the countryside. He proposes to integrate the peasant further still into the agribusiness that currently exists. He states that he will strengthen production according to the zones, ideal crops etc. The same proposal as Felipe Arias as was pointed out earlier.

De La Espriella, for his part, took up the issue of cocoa and promises to expand the crop even more and to support the sector. He states that he reached an agreement with Fedcacaco “which foresees the planting of 50,000 hectares of cocoa where there are currently illicit crops.”[9] The same as before. The eternal plagiarism, though he undoubtedly aims to deepen the changes in the countryside and strengthen further still the power of the agricultural bourgeoisie.

The proposals for the countryside and to resolve the coca issue are always plagiarised, by one and all with slight variations and an untouchable backdrop: the domination by large scale national and international capital of the production of foodstuffs. However, the countryside requires a different solution. It requires a break with the past and the existing power structure in the countryside. It needs a proposal from the peasants. Unfortunately the peasant organisations frequently repeat their own takes on the variations of the plagiarists.

All of the harm done by neoliberalism cannot be undone from one day to the next, and less still when they don’t even mention neoliberalism and capitalism. All the governments seek to guarantee the neoliberal model and that the companies that benefit from it in the countryside remain. The peasant is poor precisely due to capitalism and the current neoliberal model. The debate can be dodged but the peasantry time and again runs up against the economic reality. Under capitalism it is fated to disappear and become rural workers as happened in Europe and the USA. The proposals from Samper, Uribe, Petro and Cepeda to promote agribusiness is a proposal to finish off the peasantry. They take advantage of the coca crops to push the peasantry into the claws of its enemy: the multinational food companies. Meanwhile the coca problem is not resolved because it is a lesser problem for capitalists.

References

[1] Plan Colombia (1999) Plan For Peace, Prosperity, And The Strengthening Of The State. P.9

[2] Figures taken from FAOSTAT.

[3] Cepeda, I. y Quilcué, A. (2026) Tres revoluciones para hacer de Colombia una potencia mundial de la vida. pp 71 & 72 

[4] Ibíd., p.74

[5] Min Agricultura (2006) Apuesta Exportadora de Colombia 2006-2020. 

[6] Fortune (07/09/2026) Coffee Beans Market Size. 

[7] El Tiempo (29/09/2026) Acosemillas propone exigir factura de compra para acceder a créditos y subsidios del campo. María Alejandra Moreno Flórez. 

[8] Cepeda, I. y Quilcué, A. (2026) op. cit. p.73

[9] La Razón (17/07/2026) Gobierno electo acuerda con Fedecacao un plan para sembrar 50.000 hectáreas de cacao. 

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

The Mirage Of “Resolving” The Coca Issue

The Irish Politics Newsletter ★ Recommended by Ian Major.

Apart from the fact he was a Nazi collaborator

In Dublin, there is a place called Fairview Park, and in that park there is a statue of a man who died of a perforated ulcer in a German submarine. This is the kind of thing that happens in Ireland, a country where the dead are never really dead, and the history is always arriving late like a bus or a train. The statue is of a man called Seán Russell, once chief of staff of the IRA, who in 1940 spent a summer in a villa in the leafy Berlin suburb of Grunewald, being flattered by the attentions of the Nazi Reich. He was there to solicit German help for his war on Britain. The Germans, who were then occupied with other forms of barbaric enthusiasm, were happy to make the right noises and let him ask.

In the Irish Parliament this week, Micheál Martin rose to inform the leader of the opposition that the government would not be taking any “lectures” from Sinn Féin on foreign policy or neutrality. This is a time-honoured tradition of parliamentary declamation, in which one party says something the other party has been waiting all week to be offended by. 

Continue @ TIPN.

The Problem With Commemorating Sean Russell

Christopher Owens 🎵 with the 68th in his Predominance series.

“You're always there, inferior. My time to let it go, oh/My brother, now hold that iron.
Time to collide/Your face is strong, your eyes want to unfold inside of me.” @ Sunny Day Real Estate

Horns up 

New Horizons


Stage B – Yesterday Yet to Come

Although never releasing a studio album in their heyday, Belfast’s first gothic punk act were able to support Siouxsie and the Banshees as well as be televised. This release sees the band revisit their early demos, compile tracks from recent releases as well as live tracks (onstage and in session). Fans of post-punk and goth rock would do well to investigate these pioneers via this compilation and hear how their sound has progressed right up to the present day. Recommended.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Bogside Sniper Squadron – s/t

The Philadelphia/Derry based IRA blackened death metal group’s first album sees them add Thin Lizzy to the riffage department (something that is seemingly required of most Irish metal acts once they hit a certain point). ‘Five Demands’ starts off a jig before turning into a d-beat number (obviously a glorious thing) that pays tribute to the hunger strikers. ‘The Procession of Sands’ threatens to be a militaristic march before turning into a jig and ‘Touts Crucifixion’ lashes out at Stakeknife and co in furious fashion. No frills, no fucking around. This rules.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

Mass Hallucination – s/t EP

Three tracks in barely four minutes does seem like taking the piss but this Leeds based act ply a particularly scummy and unkempt trade, operating somewhere between Killing Joke and Rudimentary Peni (obviously a brilliant thing if you ask me) and this EP makes for a savage listen. ‘Dragging a Rope’ contains a rather filthy bassline while ‘Lacerated’ just plummets the listener around the head. Next time, put out a full LP lads as we could do with even more.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.

The Body and Cel Genesis - Whole Wide World

Fresh from their excellent gig in Dublin a few months ago, the ever-prolific Portland duo team up with electronic act Cel Genesis for an album that pounds (due to the presence of two drummers) and has a crunch to the electronics that gives the noise a digital dirt that is often lacking in records of this ilk. ‘Remind Me’ is the obvious standout but ‘Everything’ comes a close second due to its mangling of rave euphoria, turning into being akin to descending into hell.

The album can be streamed and purchased here.


Golden Oldies


Broken Bones – Without Conscience

Taking nearly 5 years to record this record and then having Bones reform Discharge around the same time meant this LP was going to be overshadowed. And it shouldn’t be. Although lacking the more overtly metal elements that made ‘F.O.A.D’ such an exciting listen, it’s a ferocious piece of UK hardcore tracks and tracks like ‘8 Second Seizure’ and ‘.co.uk’ demonstrate this.
 


Lydia Lunch – Retrovirus

This live album from 2013 sees Lydia teaming up with underground hero Weasel Walter, former Sonic Youth drummer Bob Bert and former Swans bassist Algis Kizys for an evening of her songs stretching across her various collaborations. They’re a testament to the power of Lydia as a songwriter and a performer but also just how fresh and powerful her band makes them. Closing with a cover of Alice Cooper’s ‘Black Juju’ is an astute move.


⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Predominance 68

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand One Hundred And Thirty Eight

 

Religious Derangement Syndrome @ 22

 

A Morning Thought @ 3309

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain ✊ On 26 September 2026, the sold-out Leaving to Live: Women’s Blasphemy, Apostasy and Freedom conference brought together feminists, ex-Muslims, lawyers, secularists, artists, campaigners and people with direct experience of leaving Islam for a day-long gathering in London.

MCed by Fariborz Pooya and Haram Doodles, the conference addressed the many ways women pay a price for questioning, leaving or challenging religion, through state repression, imprisonment, threats, family and community coercion, asylum and migration, concealment, isolation and the long process of rebuilding a life on one’s own terms.

The conference was united by a central question: who gets to decide the terms on which we live? Betty Lachgar’s imprisonment in Morocco, the experiences of women living as closeted ex-Muslims in Britain, the difficulties apostates can face in the asylum system and the psychological consequences of leaving high-control religious environments were not treated as separate issues but different manifestations of the same struggle over who has authority over women’s beliefs, bodies, relationships and lives.

At the centre of the conference was the case of Moroccan feminist and rights activist Ibtissame Betty Lachgar, imprisoned in Morocco since 10 August 2025. Betty’s sister, Siham Lachgar, opened the conference by speaking of her “sister in blood and in struggle” and of Betty’s long history of feminist and civil-disobedience activism. She described both Betty’s deteriorating health in prison and her continued solidarity with other women there. In words relayed from prison, Betty said that although detained she remained “revolutionarily free” and faithful to her feminist principles.

Betty’s lawyer, Ghizlane Mamouni, then gave a detailed account of her case, the application of Article 267-5 of the Moroccan Penal Code and the grave danger to Betty’s health. Mamouni told the conference that what was happening to Betty was “not only her story” but “a warning to all of us,” and asked the question increasingly heard by activists in Morocco: “Who will be next?” She described the deterioration of Betty’s prosthesis, the repeated rejection of requests for medical release and the wider chilling effect of repression on activists, artists and others who speak publicly.

Betty’s case showed in its starkest form what can happen when religious authority is backed by state power. But the conference repeatedly returned to the fact that coercion does not begin or end with the state. It can also operate through family, community, social isolation, threats, shunning, economic dependence and the fear of losing everything that makes ordinary life possible.

The first panel, on Women’s Blasphemy and Resistance, brought Mamouni together with Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, artist and ex-Muslim activist Haram Doodles and Head of Campaigns at the National Secular Society Megan Manson. Gaylor spoke about FFRF’s support for Betty and the decision to award her the 2026 Avijit Roy Courage Award, established with Bonya Ahmed in memory of the Bangladeshi-American atheist writer murdered in Dhaka in 2015.

The discussion considered blasphemy, secularism, freedom of religion or belief, the political power of religious-right movements and the particular consequences for women who challenge sacred authority. It also addressed the false opposition between defending minorities from racism and defending women, atheists, ex-Muslims and dissenters from religious fundamentalism.

Manson stressed that freedom of religion or belief necessarily includes the freedom not to be religious and the freedom to criticise religion. She argued that secularism is essential precisely because it protects both religious and non-religious people from the imposition of belief through the state.

Haram Doodles spoke about art, visibility and the importance of ex-Muslims being able to tell their own stories. The discussion emphasised that leaving Islam is often about much more than changing one’s mind about belief: it can raise questions about authority over women’s bodies, sexuality, clothing, relationships, mobility and futures.

The conference also screened a Human Rights Tattoo film on Betty and an extract from Inna Shevchenko’s Gods and Girls, bringing film and art into the wider discussion about women confronting religion, patriarchy and political power.

A new song for Betty, Hurriyah (Freedom), produced by singer-songwriter Shelley Segal and SA’s Simhala Foundation with Motown legend Lee Garrett and Betty Lachgar, was premiered during the conference. Participants also took part in filming for the music video during the break.

The same questions of freedom, coercion and consequences continued throughout the afternoon. Giulia Tranchina, Senior Associate Solicitor at Wilson Solicitors LLP, spoke on asylum and women’s apostasy, drawing on her experience representing refugees, apostates, political activists and LGBTQ+ people. Her contribution examined what happens when questioning or leaving religion makes it impossible for someone to live safely in their country of origin, and when the right to disbelieve becomes inseparable from the right to seek asylum.

The conference also paid tribute to the late Marieme Hélie-Lucas, the Algerian feminist, internationalist and founder of Women Living Under Muslim Laws who later co-founded Secularism Is A Women’s Issue. In a tribute delivered by video, feminist and human rights activist Yasmin Rehman reflected on Hélie-Lucas’s insistence that women’s rights could not be subordinated either to religious fundamentalism or to communal and identity politics.

The tribute recalled Hélie-Lucas’s insistence that it must be possible to oppose racism and religious fundamentalism at the same time; to defend minorities from hatred without handing religious or community leaders ownership over the women within those minorities; and to defend a woman’s right to practise her religion while defending just as fiercely another woman’s right to leave it.

Writer, journalist and feminist activist Rahila Gupta, a trustee of Southall Black Sisters, then spoke with counselling psychologist Savin Bapir-Tardy about Leaving to Live: A Psychoeducational Guide for Ex-Muslims. Their discussion explored the process of rebuilding identity, safety, trust and relationships after leaving a high-control religious environment. As the session introduction put it, leaving Islam is “not necessarily the end of the story.” For many people, it is the beginning of working out who they are without beliefs, rules and identities that previously shaped their lives. As Bapir-Tardy stressed, “There is no such thing as a successful recovery or a linear process.”

That discussion continued in the final panel, chaired by Gupta, with Daisy, Esme, Lamah Al Saif and Bapir-Tardy. The panel brought lived experience directly into the discussion.

Saudi-born ex-Shia Muslim activist Lamah Al Saif described coming to the UK as an asylum seeker as an ex-Muslim and queer woman, and spoke of actively seeking out ex-Muslim support groups because of the loneliness she experienced. “I feel the most comfortable joining the women’s support group because our issues — we can relate more to each other… the shame that was instilled in us women is far beyond anything that I think a Muslim man or an ex-Muslim man would ever think about.” Esme similarly spoke of the importance of finding support after years of navigating life as an ex-Muslim and ex-hijabi. “When you tell somebody that you are an ex-Muslim, they think you just decided one day. It was years and years and years of questioning and going back and forth,” she said.

A statement from Daisy, who could not speak publicly under her own identity, was read to the conference. She described remaining closeted about her disbelief because she fears her child could be used to pressure her back into Islam and damage their relationship. “I am closeted about my disbelief. Nobody in my life knows,” she said.

These experiences placed Betty’s case within a wider continuum rather than in a separate category. Betty faces prison and the possibility of devastating consequences for her health. Other women may face shunning, surveillance, family rejection, loss of housing or financial support, forced dependence, threats, concealment or the possibility of having their children or relationships used against them.

These are also central themes of Leaving to Live: A Psychoeducational Guide for Ex-Muslims, which has now been published by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Written by Savin Bapir-Tardy, the book draws on CEMB support groups, clinical work and psychological research. It addresses coercive control, concealment, shunning, shame, fear, sexuality, bodily autonomy and identity, before turning to practical questions of safety, self-trust, boundaries, grief, relationships and rebuilding a life shaped by personal choice. CEMB runs several monthly groups led by Bapir-Tardy, including mixed, women’s, psychoeducation and pre-joining sessions, providing regular spaces for ex-Muslims to access support, share experiences and rebuild their lives.

The book does not assume one ex-Muslim experience or present public disclosure as the measure of freedom. It explicitly recognises that some people leave openly while others must remain closeted for reasons of housing, finances, immigration status, family relationships, physical safety or access to their children. Its central concern is whether people are genuinely free to question, disagree and leave without serious consequences. That distinction was fundamental to the conference.

Some women resist publicly, as Betty Lachgar has done, confronting religious authority through civil disobedience. Others resist privately, sometimes saying nothing because disclosure would put their safety, children, housing or relationships at risk.

As Maryam Namazie, spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, said in her opening remarks, Betty may be imprisoned by the Moroccan state while another woman sitting in London may be imprisoned by her family. “They are not the same, of course,” she said, “but both enforce the same system of control, teaching the same lesson: If you leave, if you speak up, you will pay.”

That is also why public apostasy and blasphemy matter. As Namazie argued, “Apostasy makes hidden dissent visible. Blasphemy makes sacred authority contestable.”

The conference ended with Shelley Segal’s Find Our Way to Freedom.

As CEMB approaches its twentieth anniversary in June 2027, the closing message was that the need for ex-Muslims to organise, support one another and speak publicly has not disappeared. The movement has grown precisely because people who were once told they did not exist have made themselves visible.

As Namazie said in closing, despite the difficulties, Cwe are fighting back. We are demanding our right to live and love and think the way that we want.”

Leaving to Live made clear that the right to leave religion cannot be reduced to the private freedom to stop believing. It must also mean the right to live after leaving: without imprisonment, coercion, forced silence, shunning or fear, and with the freedom to build a life on one’s own terms.

That is the freedom at the heart of the struggle for Betty, for ex-Muslims and for all those who refuse to let religion, the state, family or community decide the terms on which they live.

The conference was supported by Awards for All, the National Secular Society and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Support our work

As CEMB approaches its 20th anniversary, we are raising funds for our Celebrating Dissent conference in London on 19 June 2027, marking twenty years of organising for the right to leave religion and live freely. Donations will also help us put printed copies of Leaving to Live into the hands of people attending our support groups and enable us to continue our support, campaigning and public activities.

Please donate and help us continue this work.

Notes

1. Videos of the conference can be viewed here.

Leaving To Live 🪶Women Defy Religious Control And Claim Right To Freedom

Heartlands Tribune ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs.

NHS Single-Sex Guidance: Why Did It Take So Long?

NHS England has finally ruled that hospital wards and changing rooms must follow biological sex. The scandal is not the decision. It is the six years, the two court cases and the million pounds of public money it took to arrive at it.

At three in the morning on an acute medical ward, dignity is not an abstraction. It is a curtain that closes properly. It is a nurse who knocks. It is the knowledge, as you lie in a backless gown with a cannula in your arm and no strength to argue, that the person on the other side of the thin partition is not a man. Women have understood this forever. It took the National Health Service the best part of a decade, two employment tribunals and a Supreme Court to catch up.

Yesterday, NHS England published two guidance documents, one covering same-sex accommodation for patients and one covering physical facilities for staff, confirming that single-sex provision must follow biological sex. Trusts are told to audit their estates for gender-neutral and single-occupancy alternatives, to record in writing any departure from the rule, and to report it as a breach through the Strategic Data Collection System.

Continue @ Heartlands.

Biological Sex Returns To NHS Wards

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)