Sunday 25 April 2021

Amnesty Ireland and Women

I wrote this letter to Amnesty Ireland boss Colm O'Gorman in January 2019, because he objected to the GRA reform debate in Scotland.


It looks like he was putting #TransRightsAreHumanRights before #WomensRights.

Hi Colm O'Gorman, 

I fully support Amnesty in its campaign against hatred, discrimination and abuse. However, things have become rather clouded when it comes to trans activism.

Of course, we need to stand up and defend the rights of LGBT people to live their lives as they wish, along with all other persecuted minorities. That means supporting transsexuals and intersex people too.  However, where there is a danger of undermining the existing rights of women -- lesbians in particular -- and feminists who support these rights, it is reasonable to examine and debate these issues. Where the human rights of one group impinge on those of another, it’s important to try to get the balance right, however difficult and at times awkward this may be.

While it is true that trans people suffer discrimination, it does not seem correct to refer to huge levels of discrimination. In fact, excluding domestic violence, there is no sign of this in the UK. (See the Channel 4 factsheet.)

There is however discrimination against women. Women still require protection against the male of the species and they need to discuss their rights, freedoms and protections. However, we have seen all too frequently over the past few years that any such debate is fiercely opposed and in some cases closed down by militant trans activists.

The threats made against those who express dissenting views, such as Rosa Freedman, have become a real problem. Shocking examples abound at Terfisaslur. Another victim of militant trans activists is Kathleen Stock, who recently posted an article that covers most of my arguments on this subject. As does this thread by CowardlySockpuppet.

For many years I supported the line taken by trans activists, having myself worked on a photo book on trans kids. I knew that a close friend took a completely different view and I believed her to be misguided if not transphobic. Talking to her recently, I realised that things weren’t that simple. During much of her childhood, she identified more as a boy. Beverley Jackson (once a founding member of the Uk Gay Liberation Front) changed her name, her hair and dressed to match her desire to be seen as a man. However, later she came to embrace life as a woman and is now extremely grateful not to have “transitioned” in any way. That was not an option in the 1960s. Now she is very happy to be a mother of two children, a grandmother and happily married to another woman. None of that would have been possible if she had transitioned. The universal confusion of puberty would have led to sterilisation, life-long dependency on medication and may well have left her unhappy.

As a lesbian, she feels betrayed by Stonewall, which now focuses largely on men and trans people and virtually excludes lesbians who do not go along with the transactivist line. Many of the feminists who currently challenge gender identity theory have similar backgrounds.

I do not believe that questioning and debating gender ideology is a form of hate. Nor do I believe that debate on the subject should be stifled in the way it is at present. I understand how the problem got so heated. Any debate on the issue of “gender as a spectrum” can be and often is interpreted as a personal attack on a transgender individual. This does make it very difficult to have an open and honest debate on an issue which is crucial to maintaining respect for people with a wide variety of preferences and desires.

This also means that any questioning of the conviction that “trans women are women” -- and even exploring what this means for the definition of “woman” -- is regarded as hate speech and results in massive abuse on Twitter and blocking, often by inclusion on the TERFBlocker  block list (instigated, I believe, by Aimee Challenor - see below). In Canada, things have now escalated so far that the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation blocks anyone who has ever questioned the core beliefs of those who advocate gender self-ID. That even means blocking their own members.

I personally think that the British organisations Stonewall and Mermaids have both overstepped the mark and that their attempts to protect a discriminated minority have led to even greater injustices than those they were protesting against.

One example is Aimee Challenor. In protecting her father, she exposed young people to a dangerous paedophile. Not only that, but she continues to be a trans-adviser to Stonewall. This case does reveal some of the major issues involved. Especially the fact that others around her said their “first instinct was to protect Aimee”. And hence not to warn her about imminent dangers or to think of protecting others in society.

Mermaids is also a controversial organisation that claims that gender identity is formed in very early childhood. They have been accused of encouraging young people to transition when faced with dysphoria in puberty despite evidence that, without treatment, a large majority, perhaps as much as 90%, ends up identifying with their biological sex. Anyone disputing this is accused of hate speech. The view taken by this organisation would not be such a problem, were it not that Mermaids is taken by government bodies to represent authoritative and expert views and hence invited to propagate these views in schools. No groups of feminists are invited to present different views.

I have supported Amnesty throughout my life. I’m not suggesting you should swap sides and join the rebellion against this dogma, but I do suggest that Amnesty doesn’t voice support for it.

Yours sincerely

Martin Cleaver 

I have still had no answer.

"Well, an answer of sorts, in that Amnesty as an organisation continue to voice their support for gender ideology--an ideology many women and gay people find regressive, homophobic and, most of all misogynistic--loudly and often.

Rather than answering silly old letters, Amnesty prefers to make their case by repeating it over and over again. You really know someone's put a lot of thought into their position when they say it six times." (Glinner)


Amnesty is increasingly acting like misogynistic mens' rights activists. See also this piece by Still Tish.


Monday 16 November 2020

D66 stands for dehumanising women.


Dutch centrist party D66 has elected @SigridKaag as party leader. She may even become the first-ever female prime minister of the Netherlands. But some of her candidates seem determined to alienate #women from @D66. 
D66 candidate Sydney Smeets (@advocaatsmeets) makes no bones about it. (“For abortion rights and against a legal delay of 5 days. Take people with a womb seriously and don’t attack their rights to self-determination.”)Image
"Take people with a womb seriously," Sydney? Such language is degrading. Listen to Karen Davis:  https://youtu.be/w-TVPQlhEPM
What does D66 MP @SalimaBelhaj think about being described as “person with a womb” by another candidate on the list? 
At the same time, @verabergkamp liked a message from @TransNetNL which suggests that transgender people are in grave danger of violence and murder.Image
The aggressive gender identity ideology seems determined to conquer Dutch politics. What do women think about this? 




Tuesday 4 February 2020

Which Multicam video editor?

Multicam video editing

I've been trying to find a simple yet powerful new multicam video editor because I am starting to find Magix Vegas Pro old-fashioned, clunky and basic.

It should be possible to lay down more than one video track easily and allow the software to synchronise them for me.

However, it turns out not to be that easy. I tried several options before deciding to take a further look at Pinnacle Studio 23 Ultimate and Cyberlink PowerDirector 18. Both should do the job.

Working with the trial version of PowerDirector, I was able to synchronise three video streams, unfortunately, they got split to four tracks. When one camera makes several files, these should just be stuck together, but Cyberlink also decides to switch track.  This basically means that I can't use more than three devices to record.

It took a lot longer to get any result from Pinnacle Studio and ended up giving many more headaches. I thought I could try the multicam editor, but it wasn't available on the trial version. I asked support and they said I should buy the paid version, to return within thirty days if it doesn't work. I did and tried, but it still didn't work. Basically because the paid version includes Multicam Capture Lite.  So then I had to buy Multicam Capture (despite not wanting to capture anything) before proceeding.

Now I read this, I may not have needed to buy Multicam Capture, because I couldn't find the multicam editor before. And the support was frankly toe curling. Support couldn't understand me and I couldn't understand them either. I think they seriously thought I wanted to do multicam capture, while I only want to edit existing footage.

However my attempts to import the same video material as in Cyberlink resulted in a total mess. I have two continuous streams and a third one of separate shots of the same event. It was a conference with several speakers. A glance at the screen after synchronising shows each track with a different speaker. The sync was a total failure.

I would prefer Pinnacle, but it shows no signs of working and has already cost me money. Cyberlink seems only to allow three channels when I would prefer four or five.


Tuesday 28 January 2020

Stop Funding Hate is enabling hate

In early 2019, Stop Funding Hate expanded its remit to cover "transphobia". It started supporting the (now disgraced) charity Mermaids. I mailed SFH director Richard Wilson and received a thoughtful but uninformative reply which quoted Stonewall arguing that trans people face "huge levels of discrimination". My reply turned out to be strangely prophetic.

Hi Richard, Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my query. I fully support Stop Funding Hate in its campaign against hatred, discrimination and slurs in the British press. This mainly concerns the likes of the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express. However, things have become rather clouded when it comes to trans activism.
It is true that some newspapers still push a line close to the Nashville Statement, which came back into the news last week in the Netherlands because right-wing Christians, including the Parliamentary leader of the SGP, support this condemnation of all forms of homosexuality and trans-identity. Of course, we need to stand up and defend the rights of LGBT people to live their lives as they wish, along with all other persecuted minorities. However, where there is a danger of undermining the existing rights of women -- lesbians in particular -- and feminists who support these rights, it is reasonable to examine and debate these issues. Where the human rights of one group impinge on those of another, it’s important to try to get the balance right, however difficult and at times awkward this may be.
While it is true that trans people suffer discrimination, it does not seem correct to refer to “huge levels of discrimination”. In fact, excluding domestic violence, there is no sign of this. (See the Channel 4 factsheet.)
There is however discrimination against women. Women still require protection against the male of the species and they need to discuss their rights, freedoms and protections. However, we have seen all too frequently over the past few years that any such debate is fiercely opposed and in some cases closed down by militant trans activists.
The threats made against those who express dissenting views, such as Rosa Freedman, have become a real problem. Shocking examples abound at Terfisaslur. Another victim of militant trans activists is Kathleen Stock, who recently posted an article that covers most of my arguments on this subject. As does this thread by CowardlySockpuppet.
For many years I supported the line taken by trans activists, having myself worked on a photo book on trans kids. I knew that a close friend took a completely different view and I believed her to be misguided if not transphobic. Talking to her recently, I realised that things weren’t that simple. During much of her childhood, she identified more as a boy. She changed her name, her hair and dressed to match her desire to be seen as a man. However, later she came to embrace life as a woman and is now extremely grateful not to have “transitioned” in any way. That was not an option in the 1960s. Now she is very happy to be a mother of two children, a grandmother and happily married to another woman. None of that would have been possible if she had transitioned. The universal confusion of puberty would have led to sterilisation, life-long dependency on medication and may well have left her unhappy. Many of the feminists who currently challenge gender identity theory have similar backgrounds.
I do not believe that questioning and debating gender ideology is a form of hate. Nor do I believe that debate on the subject should be stifled in the way it is at present. I understand how the problem got so heated. Any debate on the issue of “gender as a spectrum” can be and often is interpreted as a personal attack on a transgender individual. This does make it very difficult to have an open and honest debate on an issue which is crucial to maintaining respect for people with a wide variety of preferences and desires.
This also means that any questioning of the conviction that “trans women are women” -- and even exploring what this means for the definition of “woman” -- is regarded as hate speech and results in massive abuse on Twitter and blocking, often by inclusion on the TERFBlocker  block list (instigated, I believe, by Aimee Challenor - see below). In Canada, things have now escalated so far that the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation blocks anyone who has ever questioned the core beliefs of those who advocate gender self-ID. That even means blocking their own members. I personally think that both Stonewall and Mermaids have overstepped the mark and that their attempts to protect a discriminated minority have led to even greater injustices than those they were protesting against. One example is Aimee Challenor. In protecting her father, she exposed young people to a dangerous paedophile. Not only that, but she continues to be a trans-adviser to Stonewall. This case does reveal some of the major issues involved. Especially the fact that others around her said their “first instinct was to protect Aimee”. And hence not to warn her about imminent dangers or to think of protecting others in society. Mermaids is also a controversial organisation that claims that gender identity is formed in very early childhood. They have been accused of encouraging young people to transition when faced with dysphoria in puberty despite evidence that, without treatment, a large majority, perhaps as much as 90%, ends up identifying with their biological sex. Anyone disputing this is accused of hate speech. The view taken by this organisation would not be such a problem, were it not that Mermaids is taken by government bodies to represent authoritative and expert views and hence invited to propagate these views in schools. No groups of feminists are invited to present different views.
I have supported Stop Funding Hate precisely because of your well-founded criticism of parts of the British press which attack diversity, demonise Remainers and support the extreme right and its desire for Brexit.
I’m not suggesting you should swap sides and join the rebellion against this dogma, but I do suggest that Stop Funding Hate doesn’t voice support for it.
Yours sincerely

Martin Cleaver

SFH celebrated a year later by blocking me on Twitter for questioning their campaign against an academic calling out "trans trolls". At the same time, on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Rosa Friedman was subject to anti-semitic abuse for her gender-critical views and de-platformed at the University of Essex. Total silence from Stop Funding Hate which should be protesting this instead of supporting the abusers.
And now Stop Funding Hate is campaigning against the LGB Alliance, compounding the libel that it is a hate group. By siding with hateful gender identity extremists, Stop Funding Hate is betraying its excellent work calling out the far right. And as soon as anyone questions this, they get blocked on Twitter.


Thursday 11 July 2019

Volt: optimistic, but not naive


Volt: optimistic, but not naive
Convinced Europe
Europe is a given for them, they campaigned without mediagenic actions and engage in conversation with people who curse them on social media. Volt. A young generation. Heading for 25 European seats
10 julJuly 2019 – published in De Groene Amsterdammer - no. 28-29



Leader of Volt, Reinier van Lanschot (centre), at the party office. Amsterdam, 13 May © Michel Utrecht / HH













Europe still needs to go to the polls. In the run-up to the European elections, Volt Nederland is campaigning in the Glass House at Central Station in The Hague. No DJs raising money for a good cause (the usual function of the Glass House), but young people who want to discuss the European Union with passers-by. Volunteers from this first pan-European political party are lugging furniture from the adjacent building of The Hague Campus of Leiden University. Visitors to the Glass House will not have to stand. A laptop is installed so they can make videos for the website. Everyone helps, nobody is in charge.
"We are Europe" is a common slogan for Volt. They come from all over Europe. They study, work or fall in love here in the Netherlands. Just as the Dutch volunteers studied, worked or fell in love elsewhere in Europe. These are members of the generation for whom the Union is not a question but a fact, who know no better than that you can travel the EU without a passport; that you can study with EU scholarships in Lisbon, London or Leiden; and that in many EU countries you no longer have to exchange your money.
During the pleasant, fairly disorganized start of this campaign meeting, a young woman enters the Glass House. She looks around searching and says to no one in particular: "Unfortunately I can't help campaigning today, but I have some goodies for you." And she’s gone. She has to catch a train.
Jason Halbgewachs, party secretary, recognizes that expression of commitment to the party. In the weeks just before the elections in Amsterdam at the party office, he sometimes worked sixteen hours a day, and often someone dropped by with a bite to eat. Spontaneous, not pre-arranged, let alone sent from higher up. Many a Party Tiger from established political parties will probably now think: yes, that is still possible if you are building the party, but just wait.
Reinier van Lanschot, Volt Nederland's party leader in the European elections, has to laugh when I tell him. He knows the theory about the standard cycle that an organization has to go through. But he has been warned about all these phases. One of them said: watch out, it’s most difficult at the start. Someone else contradicted by warning about the expansion phase: then the momentum is gone, then tough reality takes over.
I speak to Van Lanschot and Halbgewachs a few weeks after the polls. They first went on holiday to rest from the intensive campaign. The party leader went to Lebanon to meet a friend who works in Dubai. Halbgewachs travelled via Vienna, to meet a cousin there, to Slovakia. They do not turn their backs on making journeys inside and outside of Europe. This generation is also a sign of this.
Volt Netherlands did not receive enough votes for a seat in the European Parliament. But when someone walks past our table and makes a comment about it, Van Lanschot says quietly: “We now have one seat in Parliament and two local representatives.” Volt Germany's party leader, Damian von Boeselager, is in Brussels and two municipalities in Germany now have Volt candidates on the local council. As representatives of a pan-European party, Van Lanschot and Halbgewachs also view the result as pan-European.
Volt was founded two years ago. The Italian Andrea Venzon was the initiator and chairman of Volt Europe. Volt participated in the European elections in eight countries and in thirteen countries there are now official political parties with that name. Venzon started Volt because he felt that nobody in Europe represented the values ​​with which he had been brought up. He thought of an open society, social justice and a strong Europe. According to him, the middle parties hardly mentioned that anymore. He blamed them for joining the populist jargon against Europe.
Volt wants to stay away from the adage that throwing mud generates attention
Look at Brexit and how Brexiters like the British politician Boris Johnson talk about Europe. Look at how the Forum for Democracy in the Netherlands rails against the European Union as the PVV did before. Remember that a majority in the Dutch parliament wants to get rid of the phrase "an ever closer union" in the Treaty of Europe. And also how Brussels is often blamed for everything that goes wrong in France, Italy or Hungary. Taking the initiative for a pan-European party is then like rowing upstream against a strong current. That takes a dose of optimism, otherwise you won’t survive.
But we are not naive, Van Lanschot adds immediately. He jokes that Volt sometimes resembles the European Union. He then refers to the differences he sees between how volunteers from different countries think and act. He dares to admit that these are cultural differences that go back far into history. In the months that he worked hard to get a seat for Volt Nederland, he also acquired a better understanding of the tension between national and European, between what is good for his own country and what is good for the Union.
That is not a reason for Van Lanschot or Halbgewachs to stop believing in Europe. On the contrary. They are convinced that countries of Europe can only work together if they want to combat emerging superpowers like China. Van Lanschot is reading Grand Hotel Europa by Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer. Europe as a huge amusement park and museum and the Chinese as our colonizer: that is a brief summary of what the author outlines in his novel. And Van Lanschot, Halbgewachs and their generations are the new forced labourers, they joke afterwards.
To protect Europe from this, Van Lanschot has resigned from AHold and Halbgewachs took a number of months of unpaid leave from the consultancy where he works. There were people in their area who did not understand this. Halbgewachs tries to explain to me what he has received in return in the form of experience, encounters, the pleasure of working together for a focused goal, what you learn from it. But as he talks, he realizes that this sounds as if he only did it for his resumé. He tries to correct that. He and many of the Volt volunteers want to get rid of the pressure to perform that is also characteristic of their generation.
For Van Lanschot, commitment to a goal like Europe means giving meaning to life. He can’t imagine that, after his studies, he would get a job, possibly get some promotion every few years and start earning more, maybe have children - and that’s that. Halbgewachs has peers who work, go home, sit on the couch in the evening watching series and think they are busy. Everyone has a choice, he wants more.
But helping set up a new party, isn't that the opposite extreme? Van Lanschot recalls that Prime Minister Mark Rutte called them naive during the election campaign. Rutte apparently saw no potential, Van Lanschot thinks. That is why he is all the prouder that Volt has gained a seat in the European Parliament. It does not seem to bother them that a newcomer in the Netherlands, such as the Forum for Democracy, immediately plays a leading role with several seats. On the contrary. They have gained that one seat, the two men emphasize, by conducting a campaign that was devoid of eye-catching stunts. Volt wants to keep its distance from the adage among campaign gurus that throwing mud and playing the man generates attention.
Volt members remain polite on Twitter and Facebook. During the election campaign, however, they often had plenty of mud flung at them on social media. Volt responds to those messages that curse them. Their experience is that the sender is often shocked when he receives a polite message back from them, sometimes even apologizes and wishes them success. Halbgewachs compares it to swearing at other road users in the safe cocoon of a car. A pedestrian on the pavement wouldn’t tend to do that. He is vulnerable. That is what it is all about, on social media and in politics. They are strengthened in their resolve by the fact that a Dutch celebrity and actress like Katja Schuurman let them know publicly in advance that she was voting for Volt.
After his unpaid leave, Halbgewachs has since returned to work as an externally hired consultant with the government. Van Lanschot is looking for a job now that he has not been able to get a seat in the European Parliament. Both remain committed to Volt. They hope that their party can participate in the next European elections in all the member states. And then get more seats. Preferably 25, then the Volt delegates can form their own group in the European Parliament. They aren’t that far yet, so Volt has become a member of The Greens/EFA in Brussels for the time being.
Volt also wants to get a foothold nationally. Van Lanschot says that within the party they realize that, in order to gain influence in Brussels, you also have to have influence in the member states, so here in the Netherlands in The Hague. That is where decisions are taken about what the Netherlands wants to achieve in Brussels. And yes, they are contributing to further fragmentation in parliament. They often hear that reproach.
But they have no choice, they think. Even the political party that is the strongest advocate for Europe in the Dutch parliament, D66, does not express their ideal for them. Volt wants a Europe with a parliament with groups of purely pan-European parties. A parliament that has just as much power as Capitol Hill in the United States of America. They are therefore striving for a federal Europe, for a United States of Europe. At a time when the words "an ever closer union" are already contaminated for many, the f-word is taboo and others even argue for a departure from the Union, this is a sign of optimism. Although their opponents will gladly continue to frame that as naive.
 Aukje van Roessel has been working as a political editor for De Groene Amsterdammer since 2004. For her weekly chronicle In The Hague she received the 2015 Anne Vondeling Prize for political journalism. Before she started at De Groene, she worked as a journalist at Brabant Pers, de Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad. She was a guest lecturer at the School for Journalism in Utrecht, gave courses in writing to employees of communication departments and was a panel member of the radio programme Villa VPRO Media