14000 Babies, 48 Hours and the Truth

We live in a world of clickbait headlines. You'll never believe what so and so has just done. 5 easy ways to change your life. 14000 Gazan babies will die in 48 hours from malnutrition.  So horrific. So damning. So outrageous. 

And, thankfully, so not true. The lie was propagated by Tom Fletcher on the BBC's Today programme. He provided no evidence for the figures which were simply made up. Later, after the announcement had made shockwaves (as, if true, it should) through social media, it turns out that there is a report that there could be 14100 cases of acute malnutrition in children between April 2025 and March 2026. Awful, still. Obviously. Just not 14000 babies will die in two days. And it matters. The truth matters. It has to matter or else we may as well just start posting whatever nonsense we want, which suits our agendas and biases.  

There are two crucial points. The first is that the situation in Gaza is bad. Of course it is. And it can be bad and something must be done without just making stuff up to make it look worse. Thousands dying can be bad without disgracing the memory of the Holocaust and baiting Jews by calling it a genocide, which it is not. Thousands of children being malnourished in a year unless more aid is distributed can be awful and tragic without clickbait articles about 14000 babies dying in two days. Exaggerating the situation helps no one. Spreading misinformation, no matter how well-intentioned and genuine, helps no one. Second, there is a real risk as a result of this misinformation. How many people will see that headline and not google it? How many people won't bother reading all the way through the BBC article I linked above? How many will take the numbers at face value? How much anger and hatred will that foster? As someone who has sat across from someone who asked me, fairly calmly, why I liked murdering babies almost as if he genuinely believed I a) murdered babies and b) enjoyed it, trust me misinformation matters and not just theoretically.

Blood libel against the Jews is nothing new. The social media age has just made it much more prevalent.

You can't even criticise Israel anymore

There is a consistent theme in discourse surrounding Israel-Palestine: claims of antisemitism are dismissed, without fail, as attempts to prevent criticism of Israel. This is stated, without qualification, across social media, in debates and in articles about the subject. It will sometimes be stated explicitly, lamenting the fact that critics of Israel are simply dismissed as antisemites (and their free speech is thus being infringed). Other times it is more implicit. One particualrly insiduous example of this was in the Financial Times Weekend Edition 15/03/2025 where Fara Dabhoiwala writes:

Meanwhile, his [Donald Trump's] administration is attacking universities and scholarship, bullying news organisations and futting the federal workforce in order to suppress voices and ideas it dislikes - criticism of Israel...

Zero context. Zero engagement. Merely the statement that Trump's administration is attempting (only) to supress criticism of Israel. 

Of course, if it were true, then we should all be concerned. No country is above criticism. Free speech must include, obviously, the right to criticise Israel and/or any other country. I may draw some conclusions about a fascination with criticising Israel over and instead of criticising any other country, but such speech should not be 'suppressed'. The only issue? That's not what is happening. Dabhoiwala knows that. He knows that the concern is violent antisemites who were intimidating, bullying and harrassing Jews. But he does not want you to know that. He does not even mention antisemitism. 

For the Pro-Palestinian activist, antisemitism does not exist. It is merely Jews, pesky Jews, attempting to deflect from criticism of Israel. Of course, the irony is that this is, itself, antisemitic. Denying Jews, and only Jews, the right to define what constitutes racism against us is antisemitic. Gaslighting Jews by claiming that you are just criticising Israel when you harrass, attack, bully, shout at Jews while insisting the right to protest past Synagogues to cause maximum distress to Jews is antisemitic. Calling the war against Hamas a 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' (it isn't) and accusing Jews of whitewashing Israel's "crimes" when we point out the historical and legal inaccuracy of this statement is deeply antisemitic. Using the terms genocide or Holocaust to cause maximum distress to Jews while engaging in soft Holocaust denial is, you guessed it, antisemitic. 

But Dabhoiwala and his ilk would have you believe it is merely criticism of Israel. Shouting 'Free Palestine' at me, a visible Jew, is not antisemitism, just expressing a genuine desire for a Free Palestine. Asking me, a visible Jew, why I like killing babies is not antisemitism, but just an attempt to engage in meaningful debate about Israel. Protesting outside a synagogue is not antisemitism, but exercising one's right to protest. Chanting from "the river to the sea" is not a genocidal slogan calling for Palestine to replace Israel from the river to the sea and the murder of all Jews, but...you get the idea. Nothing is antisemitism. Certainly nothing the Jews see as antisemitic. 

And, of course, it is not lost on me that no doubt I will be accused of attempting to shut down criticism of Israel. Let me be clear: if you need to accuse me of shutting down the debate on Israel to make your point, you are an antisemite. If you need to make your point by harrassing Jews, you are an antisemite. If you need to protest near a synagogue to make your point, you are an antisemite. 

Celebrating after October 7th

This period in the Jewish Calender is always poignant. Last week (May 6th 2024) marked Yom HaShoah, the day in the Jewish calendar chosen to remember the victims of the Holocaust. Today (May 13th 2024) marks Yom HaZikaron, the day we remember the soldiers fallen in defence of Israel. It ends tonight when Yom Haatzmaut begins, the Israeli day of celebration marking the declaration of Israel's independence 76 years ago. We are reminded in one week of the cost of not having a state; the price we pay for having one and then, immediately, often at the end of an event to commerate the fallen soldiers, celebrate having one. Except this year feels a little different. Hamas still holds over hundred hostages. Men, women, babies (...yes, babies). How can you celebrate anything, let alone the freedom of having a country when so many are slaves in Gaza, not free and living in unimaginable conditions as modern day Nazis rape, torture and murder them.

I do not know the answer. But I am reminded of the Pesach Seder. I am reminded that admist the 'Yom Tov' (literally 'good day') celebration of not being slaves in Egypt any longer; a night when we have someone else pour our wine for us and recline while drinking as visual reminders that we are free, we are commanded (Exodus 13:8): 

וְהִגַּדְתָּ֣ לְבִנְךָ֔ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּעֲב֣וּר זֶ֗ה עָשָׂ֤ה יְהֹוָה֙ לִ֔י בְּצֵאתִ֖י מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

And you shall explain to your child on that day, ‘It is because of what HaShem did for me when I went free from Egypt.’ [Emphasis added] 

How can this be? I was never a slave in Egypt; I never went free from Egypt. Yet the Torah commands us to explain the Exodus to our children in this way. This commandment is reinforced in the Hagaddah itself. Part of what is read is a story about five Rabbis who were retelling the Exodus for so long that they had to be alerted by their students that the time for the recital of the following morning's Shema had come. Those Rabbis were Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon. None of their ancestors were enslaved in Egypt (of these five rabbis, four of them were from the tribe of Levi which was not enslaved and the fifth, Rabbi Akiva, was descended from converts to Judaism so his ancestors were never in Egypt) yet so engrossed were they in retelling the story, that they nearly missed morning prayers. We can learn from this how important that commandment to remember the exodus as if we were slaves and freed ourselves; it even applies to those of us whose ancestors were actually not enslaved. 

Maybe something similar is required. Celebrate but remind our children that we are slaves in Gaza, even though, of course, we are not. However, in a very important sense, until the hostages are released, none of us are truly free. Just like in the midst of the celebration of our greatest redemption, being led out of Egypt on the way to receiving the Torah and becoming an 'am', a nation, a people we must not just remember that we were slaves in Egypt but live that experience and tell the story as if HaShem is literally freeing us from Egypt as we tell it. We can celebrate our freedom while praying for the release of the hostages; we can hold these two contradictory truths in our hearts at once. That we are free, Baruch HaShem, we are not hostages in Gaza but we are also not free, because, some of us are hostages in Gaza. 

So on this Yom Haatzmaut, may we celebrate our freedom and remember all those things we have to be grateful for but may we also remember the hostages and pray for their freedom. 

עם ישראל חי

The Simple Question

There is a simple question that I invite everyone to consider:

Do you support Hamas? 

This is not a trap. This is not an implication that anyone does or does not support Hamas. A genuine question. Yes or no. 

If yes, then congratulations, you support genocidal, racist, homophobic, Nazi, rapist terrorists. You are not a serious person and we do not need to listen to you. Your opinion is garbage, worthless and should be ignored. You are excluded from rational debate and the marketplace of ideas. I do not need to engage with you. Goodbye.

If no, then why is the solution to this conflict not a ceasefire and the surrender of Hamas? If you do not support Hamas, why must Israel accept leaving in place a terror organisation whose position is the destruction of Israel and the murder of every Jew worldwide? If you want to save Palestinian and Jewish lives, why is this not the solution? Explain to me why Hamas should be allowed to survive; why do you not call for their complete surrender as well as a ceasefire? 

If you only care for Palestinian lives, then sure. A ceasefire that leaves Hamas in place to carry out an October 7th again and again and again, as it has vowed to do, will achieve the protection of Palestinian lives. It will stop a lot of killing. There is no question about that. But do not pretend your position is pro-peace, pro-life or pro-co-existence. Your position is that Palestinian lives are worth more than Jewish lives. Which is a position, I suppose, but own it. Accept that leaving Hamas in situ is a threat, a demonstrable and real threat to Jews living in Israel and across the world. Accept that these lives do not matter to you, that you are willing to risk more Jews dying if it stops the war. 

I can almost understand that position; war is horrific. Everyone should be against it and broadly in favour of no war. This should not be controversial. But sometimes it is not quite as simple as that. Sometimes wars must be fought. Sometimes wars are just (this may help explain). If your position is war is never justified, I am afraid you do not live in the real world. Ukraine, for example, should not surrender to Russia. Anyone arguing the contrary because 'war is bad' should not be taken seriously. However, while I can understand it, I do not agree with it. A ceasefire that leaves Hamas in place is not a serious option. Or at least, it should not be. A ceasefire that leaves Hamas in place is a ceasefire that says Jewish lives do not matter. They are worth risking. They just matter less. 

And to be honest, we already knew this. Jews have learnt this the hard way throughout history. We have been failed with horrific consequences in virtually every century. Millions and millions of us have been murdered, tortured, raped, exiled, kidnapped, targeted, boycotted, expelled, discriminated against simply because we are Jews. There have been pogroms, Holocausts, forced conversions, ghettoisation, blood libel, racist show trials, and restrictions on our freedoms throughout history. The World writ large has failed the Jews and continues to fail the Jews. Nothing truly changes; we just do not matter. I make no apologies if that seems harsh. You may protest, of course, you will I am sure, that you just want the killing to stop. And I believe you. But forgive me if I do not think you want the killing of Jews to stop. And, for what it is worth, forgive me if I also think you do not care much about Palestinians; Hamas is as much a danger to Gazans as it is to Jews. They murder their opponents, murder homosexuals, murder dissidents, steal aid and much worse beyond. Caring about peace, an end to the bloodshed and prosperity for Palestinians and Jews depends on the destruction of Hamas. 

And it really is as simple (and as complicated) as that.

When is genocide not genocide?

Genocide is a relatively new term. It was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor, in 1944. Interestingly, at the time, there was concern that 'genocide', as a term, would fail to capture the full horror of such crimes because it would focus on the targeting of a group potentially at the expense of the individuals murdered. Six million Jews murdered is bad not (just) because they were Jews, but also because of the sheer number and focusing on the 'Jew' part may undermine the 'six million' part. The unique horror of the holocaust lies not just in the fact that Jews were targeted, but that six million of us were murdered. The counter-argument is that there is something uniquely awful about murdering individuals because they are members of a specific group; the Holocaust's horror is precisely because of the systematic mass murder of Jews and the attempt to exterminate every last Jew. And so 'genocide', formed by combining the Greek genos meaning race or tribe with the Latin suffix cide meaning killing, so literally, the killing of a race/tribe was coined. Its definition is codified in Article II of the Genocide Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The intent to destroy is the mens rea component and the five bullet points are the actus reus of the crime.  Both are necessary to make out the crime. In addition: 

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial. (See here)

It matters what genocide is. It matters because genocide is bad. Obviously. It is so bad that if something is genocide, debating the topic is not just futile but actively offensive; there is (rightly, of course) no justification for genocide. But I am not writing to debate whether Israel is committing genocide. It isn't, but the most sophisticated legal arguments won't convince the people who believe the contrary. Facts do not matter, it seems. It is not worth anyone's time to engage with such absurd and deliberately offensive comments. Instead, I want to spend some time considering why the accusation of genocide is levelled at Jews. It is not because there actually is a genocide. But it is also not by accident. 

It is a deliberate attempt to bait Jews; to use our past against us in the most horrific and cruel of ways. Jews, perhaps unique in our millennia of persecution, pogroms, hatred and actual genocide, know what genocide looks like. It is, unfortunately, in our DNA. So our opponents use the word genocide. They accuse Jews of genocide deliberately to undermine the meaning of the term, to rid it of any significance because they hate Jews. It is a win-win. Either Israel is found guilty of genocide (and bashing Israel is all these antisemites really care about) or they succeed in watering down the meaning of genocide. It's soft Holocaust denial, attempting to label everything you do not agree with as genocide. 

The Genocide Convention was part of the world's response to the Holocaust. It was part of the world's response to abandoning the six million Jewish victims of the Nazi regime; of the Red Cross having more compassion for Nazi soldiers than Jewish victims (oh how history repeats itself); of Western powers knowing about the gas chambers and not lifting a finger to help the Jews. It was part of Never Again; a pledge meant to protect against the crimes perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. It is now being cynically and deliberately abused by South Africa and its cabal of human rights-abusing dictatorships to attack Jews. The legacy of Nelsen Mandela, a proud defender of Zionism (and Palestinian nationalism), is being destroyed by a racist government that hates Jews. There is no other explanation. They do not care about Palestinians; this political stunt will only make their lives worse as the crimes of Hamas are sanitised for consumption by the world's useful idiots.

Let's be clear. Genocide is the brutal, systemised mass murder of six million Jews. It is the murder of between 1.5 million and 2 million Cambodians or the mass rape and murder of up to 400,000 Darfuris. The slaughter of 800,000 Rwandas. I could go on. The odd thing is none of these resulted in state accusations of genocide; I wonder why. Throwing around 'genocide' as if it has no meaning, as if it is not the most heinous of crimes, just because you do not agree with Israeli policy or attempts to defend itself against the closest thing to genocide in this entire conflict is to deliberately offend Jews. Jews must suffer the double crime; an actual genocide perpetrated against us and the constant and deliberate undermining of the horror of that genocide. 

South Africa and the Hamas cheerleaders gleefully supporting this case should hang their heads in shame. History will judge them much like it judges the Nazis; as an antisemitic rabble that added no value whatsoever to the world. 

The Jewish people, however, will live on. 

Proportionality and the numbers mistake

This is not an article about international law. Proportionality and the laws of war are clear. There is little to be gained by engaging in that debate because it is, I think, besides the point. It has the unhelpful side effect of reducing war to a brutal calculation and that is best left to those responsible for actually making it. There is a certain coldness required to engage in any war and make that calculation, no matter how just or important that war may be. Instead, this is an article about numbers. Thousands of Palestinians have died. That is a tragedy. In one sense, if more died it would be more tragic and if fewer died, it would be less tragic. But in that sense, you once again reduce war to a brutal calculation, as if each life is not equally, intrinsically and absolutely valuable. There is an idea in Jewish thought that if you save one life, it is as if you have saved the whole world and if you kill one life, it is as if you have killed the entire world. Every life is precious in and of itself. Sometimes we forget that.

This is an article about the folly of statistics, of numbers. One of Disraeli's three lies. Here is the accusation I level at those who point out how many lives have been taken: it is (mostly) irrelevant. Stop devaluing life. Even if only one Israeli and even if only one Palestinian had died, it would be a tragedy. It would be as if the entire Jewish people and the entire Palestinian people had died. The idea that several thousands of Palestinians have died and therefore Israel has acted poorly or that therefore a ceasefire is necessary misses the point. It suggests that there is an acceptable number. That, had 'only' 500 Palestinians died, Israel's response would be more okay. Or conversely, had 'only' 100 Israelis been raped and murdered and 'only' 10 hostages taken, that would be 'less' bad. 

That is why I leave the numbers to those responsible for actually making that brutal calculation. Because it is a calculation. The laws of war are clear: civilian deaths are 'permissible' (what a horrific idea) if they are not, "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated..." I cannot imagine being responsible for making that calculation, nor can I imagine how it must feel to be told that your child's death was 'okay' because it was not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Or, indeed, that you child's death was not okay because it was excessive in that context. Rather than because any death of an innocent is not 'okay' in a very real and important sense, irrespective of the context and laws of war.

Once you forget about the numbers, you can properly address the situation. A horrific, tragic situation where innocent civilians are dying. How many does not actually matter because every death would be wholly tragic even if there were no further deaths. I truly understand those clamouring for a ceasefire, who look at the numbers and immediately think, "Gosh, Israel is targeting civilians," or, "Israel must stop because so many Palestinians are dying." My previous article was about the blood libel that too many fall into when making that point, I am not going to repeat myself. I empathise, and I wish a ceasefire was the solution. The fact I happen to think that it is not, is besides the point. I am not a military strategist nor am I a politician. I am just a Jew, who cares deeply about humanity. Which means I resist the temptation to reduce Palestinian life to a number and worry 'too many' are dying and not just that a life has been lost. Which means I resist the temptation to think the situation is simple and engage in lazy, pseudo-intellectual thinking and, instead, face up to the brutal, horrific reality. It is easy to call for ceasefire without any attempt to understand or explain what happens next. Empathy, actually caring about people's lives takes real moral courage and deep thought.  

Jeannette Rankin said, "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." This is undeniably and tragically true; there will not be any "winners" when so many have died. That does not mean a war is not just or that a war is not necessary or that a war should be abandoned. We are all going to die eventually; we should not just stop living. So I will leave the calculations to the military people and the politicians. I do not envy them their job. I will not, however, make the mistake of thinking this war or any war can be reduced to the numbers. 

It is far more complicated than that.

Israel, the Diaspora and Blood Libel

I am somewhat of an anomaly amongst Jews who regularly visit and spend significant periods of time in Israel; I have never experienced a red alert. I have never had to rush to a bomb shelter. At best, I am ‘terror-adjacent’. My family has. My friends have. But I never have. Equally, I am acutely aware that I have never had a leaflet dropped on my house informing me that the place I call home is about to be the target of a bombing raid and, for my own safety, I had better leave, and leave promptly.

With those important caveats in mind, fully acknowledging that for me the war in the Middle East impacts me only tangentially, indirectly, I want to talk about something that I have experienced: antisemitism. Antisemitism that always rears its head when Israel is in the news but, of course, does not go away when Israel is having a quieter moment. I’ve had it on the streets of London when a cyclist screamed Jew at me, made a Hitler salute and pretended to shoot me. I’ve had it at football games where people have shouted ‘Yid’ at me. On the tram in Manchester when one passenger demanded that all the Jews (I was the only visible Jew) show their tickets. A tube platform when someone invited me to, “...smile and enjoy the music,” and when I didn’t immediately comply informed me that he knew, “...why Hitler had decided to kill the Jews.” I could go on, but by far and away the most common antisemitism that I have faced is online and ignoring the particularly vicious rabid Jew haters, the biggest subsect within that is from people I know or even call friends. 

Their antisemitism is of the anti-zionist variety and before you cry ‘but anti-zionism is not antisemitic’ or ‘criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitic’ or a variation thereof, I do not wish to address anti-zionism. Whether or not it is antisemitic is not the point (it is, but I cannot be bothered to argue into the void on this point) nor is it the type of anti-zionism that I find the most nefarious or, indeed, confusing. That honour goes to a particular flavour of anti-zionist sentiment: modern day blood libel. The criticism of the Israel that goes something like this: 

“Israel is using very heavy bombs to destroy what it says are military targets, without being too bothered about the fact that sometimes large numbers of civilians are killed at the same time.” - Jeremy Bowen, BBC (see here, last accessed 07/11/2023: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67339462. My emphasis.)

“Israel is murdering civilians, children, babies. Innocents and does not care” 

“But Israel is bombing Gaza indiscriminately and deliberately targeting civilians” 

“Israel is committing war crimes and disproportionately murdering Gazans. Look how many more Gazans have died!!”

Or words to that effect. People so callously, so casually, accusing Israel of targeting civilians, murdering children with impunity and deliberately. People who, some in good faith and some not in good faith, see the impact the war is undoubtedly having on innocents in Gaza who are dying and immediately rush to accuse Israel of being indifferent to human life. The truth, of course, is far less dramatic and far more simple: people, tragically, die in war. The laws of war do not, and cannot, aim to eliminate all civilian death. While, obviously, say, firebombing Dresden during WWII (an obviously just and necessary war against Nazis) clearly would not comply with the laws of war, the fact that civilians die, often in tragically huge numbers, does not mean that the laws of war are not being followed. I’ve written previously on that question of numbers, as if had more Israelis died the Palestinian deaths would be more justified or less tragic; as if the Palestinian deaths are only tragic because of their number; as if even if only one Palestinian died, it would matter less somehow. That’s not the point I wish to make here. Equally, the point is not (just) that the accusation that Israel is deliberately committing war crimes with impunity is both false and absurd (Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world; if her aim were the murder of civilians, it is monumentally bad at it).

It’s far more nefarious and dangerous than that. Jews are used to being accused of doing unspeakable things: we killed Jesus; poisoned wells during the Black Death; backed Christian children blood into Matza during Pesach/Passover; sold the Germans out at Versailles and were responsible for its ills in the interwar period; control the banks; control Hollywood; brought down the twin towers; control the media; control the world and Western governments. The list goes on and now includes deliberately murder Palestinians. Because let us be absolutely clear, the charge that Israel acts with impunity and contrary to the laws of war as evidenced by the number of Palestinians that have died (read, been murdered by Israel) is just the latest in a long line of blood libel and conspiracy theories levelled at Jews. That this preposterous accusation is repeated so casually by supposedly thinking people just demonstrates how pervasive antisemitism is, how seemingly natural the urge to blame the Jews is. It’s so easy, so obvious. Of course, Israel is targeting civilians, don’t you watch the news? Obviously, Israel is murdering Palestinian babies, haven’t you read the BBC? This is your reminder it is possible to mourn Palestinian innocents being killed without engaging in blood libel just like it is possible to mourn those murdered on 9/11 without blaming the Jews. 

But, as with most conspiracy theories, accepting it becomes a condition of entry into the discourse. Jews are not allowed to comment on Israel until they’ve condemned Israel. The price of admission to this particular circus is making it clear that we don’t agree with Israeli actions or Netanyahu. We cannot mourn our dead, pray for the release of hostages, condemn Hamas until we’ve met certain conditions. I am deliberately resisting the urge to pay this price, not because I don’t sympathise with the plight of Palestinians failed by their terrorist leaders in Gaza and the West Bank (and before you cry that the Palestinian Authority aren’t terrorists, they use aid money to pay salaries to terrorists based on how many Jews they murdered); not because I don’t mourn for every innocent lost. No, it is because I should not have to accept the terms set by those who so casually repeat blood libel. 

So no. I don’t know what it is like to have bombs dropped on my home or rockets fired at me. But I have experienced antisemitism regularly, ranging from violent threats to the more insidious blood libel I speak about here. And it has to stop. 

We need to talk about men’s mental health

No, really. We do. Too often it’s dismissed. Men are supposed to be strong. Not show weakness. Stiff upper lip, not let things affect us. The flip side of thinking women are too emotional or unstable for positions of power is not just thinking men are unemotional or stable but that they must be unemotional or stable. To be otherwise is not to be a man whatever the hell that really means. As if men can’t cry, aren’t allowed to be upset, aren’t allowed to have emotions or be affected by things or down or low or sad or. Human. Yes, human. Emotions are human. Feelings are human. Being affected by things is human. Finding things tough is human. Not having a bloody clue what’s going on or what to do next or why you’re sad is human. So we really need to talk about men’s mental health. 

Because too many of us kill ourselves instead of talking about our issues. Afraid we’ll get shut down. Told to stop complaining. Told to just get on with it. Or, how awful, told we’re being a bit of a woman about it. Or a bit gay. As if that’s an insult. As if women or homosexual men have a monopoly on legitimate feelings. As if you need a vagina or not to like them to be allowed to talk about those feelings. That we all have. Or we’re praised for being in touch with our feelings. As if that’s a compliment rather than normal. But then. In this world it is. Because we’ve been conditioned to shove them down, far away from the light of day, from the air they need to breathe before they suffocate you. So, yes. Well done for having feelings. You weren’t supposed to, but you do. Pat on the back. And you were brave enough to speak up, say something, to someone, anyone. Despite everything around you telling you not to do that. Not to be that man. Because men are not supposed to have feelings. 

But really, shush now. We get it. That was upsetting. But you're a man so get on with it now, you've had your moment, you've made your point, that's enough now. Don't you know men aren't supposed to have feelings, no really, they aren't. It's time to move on and face the next difficulty, but maybe this time do it with fewer feelings, less noise, more silence. Bonus man points if, when it happens, you can shake your head, tut quietly to yourself, say it is what it is and pretend to everyone, including yourself, like it hasn't just ripped your world apart. Because that's what it means to be a man right? Right? 

Obviously not. But that's what we're told. That's what we see. Hear. Read about. Women have feelings. They're too emotional. Too unstable. Too soft. Men. Well, men don't. And we need to talk about it. Because men, obviously, of course, duh, have feelings. Get sad. Are down. Are emotional. Lie awake at night wondering where it all went wrong before a small voice comes to them saying 'This is going to take more than one night' (with a nod in the direction of Charlie Schulz). If only we spoke about this more. Lived in a world that encouraged that instead of shutting it down, dismissing it. There is strength in being vulnerable. Knowing that it's okay not to be okay. Articulating how you feel even when it's hard. 

If you're struggling, know you can speak up. Please do. To a friend. To me. To a therapist. To anyone. And if someone comes to you. Please. Listen. Try your hardest not to judge. If you've got your own stuff going on (and we all do) that's okay too. Be patient with others but most importantly, with yourself. It gets better. But we need to talk about it.

The Politics of Judging

Something has been missed in all the furore surrounding the leaked Supreme Court opinion - and that is that it's completely mad that in any democracy the judges are picked by the president. Judges are supposed to be fearless arbiters of the law, unswayed by outside pressure and, crucially, independent of the legislature and the executive. They cannot do their jobs properly if they are beholden to outside interests nor will they be seen to be doing their jobs properly - as the old adage goes, judges must not just be independent but must be seen to be independent. Trust in the judiciary and the rule of law depends on it. Perhaps it's easy to worry about judicial independence when you live 4000 miles away and will never have the ultimate decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy. But it matters. And it matters not just because of philosophical principle, but because of precisely what's happening in America now. 

Some housekeeping. This is not a legal opinion. This is not an argument for or against abortion or even, really, about abortion. Yes, I know the opinion leaked is just a draft. No, I do not pretend to understand the legal reasoning for that draft opinion. Indeed, it may well be the correct "legal" decision. That's not the point. Instead,  ever since the court's balance swung back in favour of the conservatives, this decision (and, one fears, more like it) has been coming. The formula was simple: a State passes a bill prohibiting abortion contrary to Roe v Wade. The Bill is immediately challenged (as intended by the State) as contrary to the constitutional protections guaranteed by Roe v Wade. The law ends up before the Supreme Court who are asked to decide, in essence, whether Roe should remain good law. If it does, the State's bill is struck down. If it does not, Roe is overturned. 

In theory, this should not be a problem. A country's highest court should be the final arbiter of the interpretation of that country's laws. Leaving aside the merits of being able to strike down law and intepreting a codified constitution, if the law states that abortions are permissible it is the duty of the highest court to faithfully intepret and apply that law, interpret its boundaries and any limits etc. If individuals or organisations bring challenges against that law or aspects of it, those challenges must be given due attention and the arguments heard. This does not change whether the law protecting the right to abortion was judge-made in the first place (as in the US) or on the statute books (as in the UK). If a challenge was brought against the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK, I would expect the Supreme Court (or whichever was the highest court the appeal ended up before) to hear the appeal, the legal arguments and pass judgment in accordance with that legal reasoning. There is nothing, in principle, wrong with a court of law determining whether or not a law permitting abortion is good law.

Where the problem lies is when the judges sitting on the highest court are, with respect, not selected (just) because they are great lawyers and would be great judges, but (also) because of their political opinions. I am sure, as legal minds go, the nine US Supreme Court justices possess good ones but there is absolutely no denying that at least part of why they were picked is because they could be trusted to decide cases, when it mattered, in accordance with the picking-president's political beliefs. Those justices that Trump selected could be trusted to lean towards overturning Roe v Wade should the opportunity arise. Judge Jackson was selected, in part, because she considers Roe v Wade good law and supports a women's right to choose. This is not to undermine any of the justice's legal credentials - they are, I am sure, great legal minds as well as believing the correct things as far as the president was concerned. But that latter point is important. To some degree, their political leanings will have been part of why they were picked and picked by that president. There is a serious problem when one can predict, with almost certainty, how the court will decide a certain case based on knowing their political opinions and which party's president picked them. There is a reason why conservative-leaning States were so keen for Roe v Wade to be challenged under the Supreme Court as currently constituted: there is a 6-3 conservative, anti-abortion majority. 

Whichever way you slice it, the US Supreme Court cannot be said to be an properly independent instution committed to upholding the rule of law - because the rule of law demands that judges be independent of the political establishment, not picked by it. And that should concern everyone. Give it a decade or two and a few conservative justices ending their tenure under Democrat presidents and exactly the same case will be decided in the opposite way. The legal reasoning won't matter so much as the political leanings of the judges. That's not the rule of law. That's not an independent judiciary committed to upholding the law of the land and faithfully intepreting the legal arguments in accordance with existing precedent. Private political opinions should play zero part in how judges are selected. Judges with a well-founded reputation for upholding certain social policies or espousing certain political opinions should be excluded from selection for any judicial role, not actively courted (forgive the pun) precisely because of that reputation. 

The Mental Health Stigma

A broken leg is not the same as anxiety; a heart attack different from depression. Aside from the obvious, a more subtle difference presents itself. We know what to do when someone turns up on the tube in a cast (offer them our seat) or when someone clutches their chest and collapses to the ground (call 999). But if a friend started displaying signs of struggling with their mental health, many of us have no idea how to respond. We probably mean well, but it's not immediately obvious what to do. Being anxious does not just go away after a few weeks. Depression isn't cured because your friend bought you a stuffed animal. 

Part of the problem is, of course, ignorance. What having anxiety or depression or mental health issues means. How it affects people. How it comes in waves. How there's nothing 'wrong' one minute and then, all it once, absolutely everything is wrong. How what helped last time, may well be the worst thing in the world this time. How everyone experiences their struggles differently. How it's impossible, sometimes, to put your finger on quite what is wrong but dammit, somthing is wrong. And if you knew, you'd tell someone, of course you would, but you just don't know. When your leg hurts, you can point at it. Tell someone your leg hurts. But how do you explain that your brain hurts. That your mind hurts. That voices inside your head won't shut up or go away. That you do not feel anything or that you feel everything and that sometimes it's somehow both. At the same exhausting time. 

How are you supposed to help in such circumstances? I think it's a fair question. I don't have the answer. I write only as someone who has struggled, and continues to struggle, with mental health. Who has tried - and sometimes failed spectacularly - to help others with their own struggles. I know it starts with going easy on yourself. As someone struggling - you do not need to be okay all the time or even trying to be okay. It's okay not to be okay. As someone trying to help - making mistakes is okay. In my experience being there for someone is littered with errors, words said better left unsaid and actions done regretted almost instantly. Don't be discouraged. You never know when a hug offered makes the world of difference or a letter written changes the course of someone's day. Sitting in silence near someone is often the best thing you can do and requires nothing but time and patience.

If you're struggling, reach out. To me, to your friends, to someone. Or don't. Just know that you could. If that would maybe help. Especially then. But even if you're not sure. The world needs more people talking about their mental health. If you can manage it. 

Shamima Begum, Citizenship and Judicial Oversight

 "But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind"

So Lord Reed writes in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamima Begum's case. Simple words that go to the core of many struggles that judges have in all manner of cases: there, very often, is no 'perfect solution'. 

The facts of Ms Begum's case do not really need repeating. She left the UK to join ISIS along with two friends in 2014. She had three children, all of whom died. She announced her intention to return in 2019, which sparked fierce debate in the UK and culminated in her citizenship being revoked and entry into the UK denied. It is worth starting by pointing out that I find the Secretary of State's ("SoS") initial decision to revoke Ms Begum's citizens troubling, to say the least. Relying on her entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship (an entitlement that, to my knowledge, she has never taken up and one that Bangladesh rejected), Sajid Javid decided that he could revoke her citizenship ("the revocation decision") without leaving her stateless as a result (which would be contrary to international law). Leaving aside the absurdity of treating an entitlement to citizenship as the same as actually having that citizenship for one moment, Mr Javid's decision, with respect, set a dangerous, and racist, precedent. Do you know who else is entitled to another country's citizenship? Anyone with just one Jewish grandparent - whether or not they are themselves Jewish. As it happens, so is anyone who has one grandparent born on the island of Ireland. Allowing Home Secretaries to revoke citizenship based on entitlement to another should concern everyone. Should Jews be forced to revoke their right to Israeli citizenship and affirm their "Britishness"? Enough has been written on Mr Javid's decision, but to be clear I firmly believe it was the wrong decision (irrespective of whether it does as a matter of fact or law render Ms Begum stateless) and should never have been made. 

Leaving that aside, not only was Ms Begum's citizenship revoked, but she was been prevented from entering the country to challenge that decision. Mr Javid cited 'national security' concerns as the justification for that subsequent decision. Ultimately, the question before the Supreme Court was whether preventing her from entering the country, in turn, meant that Ms Begum was unable to effectively challenge the revocation decision. The Court decided that it did mean that, but that the "imperfect" solution, therefore, was that her appeal against the revocation decision should be stayed until such a time as she could participate in it effectively - without any idea as to how that might be possible, when that may be possible, or even if it will ever be possible. 

The Supreme Court's judgment runs to 137 paragraphs, but it can be summarised succinctly: 

1. The SoS decided that Ms Begum would be a threat to national security should she be permitted to enter the country.

2. The Court is not appropriately placed to interfere with that assessment made by the SoS. 

3. Therefore, Ms Begum should not be allowed to enter the country.

A fairly simple point is being made: the SoS is best placed to determine when someone is a risk to national security and, absent statutory basis to do so, it is not for the Court to substitute its judgement for that of a politician. Part of the justification is politicians are democratically elected and ultimately, in theory, accountable to the people for their decisions. Of course, to even begin to accept this line of reasoning we must leave aside the deficiencies in our political system which renders it impossible to actually hold individual politicians accountable for individual decisions, especially when they relate to deeply unpopular individuals who happen to be ethnic minorities. The entire system operates under the illusion that the democratic process is an effective means of holding politicians to account for decisions that will remain unknown to the overwhelming majority of people. Ultimately, however, given the Court accepted that Ms Begum could not participate effectively in her appeal and given it seems almost trite to point out that cannot be an automatic trump card over any other consideration, the question is simple: who is best placed to make determinations concerning national security risks and what judicial oversight, if any, is appropriate for those determinations. 

I do not dispute that questions of national security are ultimately questions for politicians, not judges, but the Supreme Court appears to have abdicated any responsibility for ensuring proper scrutiny of those determinations. To put it bluntly, it is clear that Mr Javid was going to find a way to ensure Ms Begum remains in Syria and to ensure she is denied proper redress against the revocation decision because of the political capital it brings him and the Conservative party. The Courts are the only way of preventing such abuses from occurring - it is a complete nonsense to suggest that those of us who oppose Mr Javid's decision should find a solution in the democratic process. Aside from anything else, there won't be an election for three years by which point Ms Begum could well be dead. Judges are supposed to be protectors against human rights abuses, best placed to ensure minority rights are upheld - especially the rights of those who society has turned its back on and rejected and for whom the democratic process offers no prospect of redress. In other words, people like Ms Begum. 

Without straying into answering the question of whether the revocation decision itself was the "correct" one (or, indeed, a lawful one) - a question which was categorically not before the Court - it seems to me that the Court has shirked its responsibility in scrutinising determinations made by the executive. The Court seems to have operated under the assumption that two extremes exist: either the Court of Appeal was correct that judicial oversight involves "stepping into the shoes" of the executive and remaking the determination from scratch or, at the other extreme, that decisions concerning national security cannot be touched except with the Wednesbury reasonableness barge pole. I am not arguing that the Court of Appeal was correct, but rather than this assumption seems to me, with respect, to be fallacious. There is, usually, a middle way where judges respect the role of the executive in making certain determinations but subjecting them to more intense scrutiny than "so unreasonable no reasonable decision-maker could have come to that decision". 

I suppose it comes back to what sort of judges and what sort of judicial oversight do we want and need in a democracy. This is a question to which there may be no "perfect" answer.

Matzah, Tefillin and Time-Bound Mitzvot

In Pesachim 43b, we learn that women are obligated in the mitzvah of eating matza. The reason, however, is a tad complicated. Since women are, normally, not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot (i.e. positive mitzvot that are performed at a designated time), it should follow that women are not obligated in the mitzvah of matza - after all, the mitzvah is performed at a designated time (Passover). However, matza is one of the exceptions to the oft-repeated rule that women are not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot.

But why? From where do we derive the general principle that women are not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot in the first place? 

Mishnah Kiddushin (1:7) states:

כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה אנשים חיבין ונשים פטורות

For all positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt

In the Gemara at Kiddushin 35a:

ומנו רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך הוקשה כל התורה כולה לתפילין מה תפילין מ"ע שהזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות אף כל מ"ע שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות ומדמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות מכלל דמ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות

The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to tefillin: Just as donning tefillin is a positive, time-bound mitzvah and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzvah in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzvah, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzvah that is not time-bound.

The argument is that: 

1. Women are not obligated in tefillin, a time-bound positive mitzvah 

2. Tefillin is compared to the entire Torah

3. Given Tefillin's importance, we can learn from tefillin about the entire class of mitzvot that are time-bound and positive

4. Therefore, as women are not obligated tefillin, they are not obligated in any time-bound mitzvot (with, of course, as noted, some exceptions)

The question remains begged: why, then, are women not obligated in tefillin - from where do we derive that? It is stated as much in Mishna Brachot:

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִלִּין, 

"Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and putting on tefillin"

The argument so far seems circular: women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot. Why? Because women are not obligated in tefillin. Why? Because women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot. 

The Talmud Yerushalmi offers an answer at Brachot 14b:

נשים מניין (דברים יא) "ולמדתם אותם את בניכם" - ולא את בנותיכם. את שהוא חייב בת"ת חייב בתפילין, נשים, שאינן חייבות בת"ת, אינן חייבין בתפילין.

From where do we know that women [are exempt from Tefillin]? [It is written in (Deuteronomy 11)] 'And you should teach it to your sons [בניכם]' - [and this implies] not to your daughters. [So] one who is obligated to learn Torah is obligated [to wear] Tefillin, [but] women, who are not obligated to learn Torah, or not obligated [to wear] Tefillin.

I am not intelligent or learnèd enough in Torah to make much more of a comment on this, I merely present some of the sources that I have attempted to understand. Instead, I merely note that both Sefaria and the Stone Edition of the Chumash from Artscroll translate בניכם as children, not sons. If we can learn anything from this (and it is not clear that we can learn women are not obligated in Torah from it), then surely it must be that words and meaning really do matter.

Schrödinger's Kosher Meat

In Pesachim 9b, which happened to be yesterday's (30/11/2020) Daf for Daf Yomi, the Gemara is discussing what we do if we see a marten dragging leaven into a house that has already been checked for leaven before Passover when such products are forbidden. Part of the problem becomes what do we in situations of layered certainty and uncertainty - we saw the marten dragging the leaven, but we cannot be certain the marten did not eat the leaven, in this case. Having moved through numerous examples trying to ascertain what we do in such situations, the Gemara returns to a previously discussed example:

דִּתְנַן: תֵּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת, כּוּלָּן מוֹכְרִין בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה, וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וְלָקַח מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח — סְפֵיקוֹ אָסוּר.

"The Gemara elaborates. As we learned in a Baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person took meat from one of them and he does not know from which one he took the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited."

So far, so simple. The Gemara continues:

וּבַנִּמְצָא — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב.

"This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority."

By follow the majority, the Gemara means follow the majority of the stores in the city - in other words, one can assume the meat found outside is Kosher because nine of the 10 stores sell Kosher meat. 

The Gemara moves on to discuss another case without addressing what I think is an inconsistency. Consider a situation where I buy some meat from one of the stores in this city and forget from which store I did so. The meat is presumed unkosher - "וְלָקַח מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח — סְפֵיקוֹ אָסוּר" In this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. Having realised I am in possession of meat that is now prohibited to me, I drop it to the ground keen to forget about the entire situation. A friend of mine later finds the meat and picks it up, knowing that there are a majority of kosher stores and therefore the meat is presumed kosher: "וּבַנִּמְצָא — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב". The meat, suddenly, is presumed both kosher (for my friend who found it) and unkosher (for me, who forgot which store I bought it in) at the same time. 

I am later invited round for dinner at my friend's house (covid rules permitting, of course) and he proclaims: 

"Great news, Raphael, one my way to buy food for dinner, I found this meat outside at [spot where I dropped it on the ground]. Free steaks for dinner!" 

Can I eat the steaks? Or are they forbidden to me?

THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM TRUMP

It should be quite clear to all SANE AND CLEVER people that the election was STOLEN from Donald J Trump!!!! It is OBVIOUS that the DEMOCRATLIARS have not won but they LOST!!!!! FRAUD ON MASSIVE SCALE!! It's so obvious but WE WILL PROVE IT. DON'T WORRY!!!! BIG COURT CASES soon. CLICK HERE FOR THE EVIDENCE!!!!! 

Institutional Incompetence

Institutions and organisations have a little trick when they screw up. They like to deny responsibility, blame literally everyone they can think of but themselves and then wait. Wait for enough time to pass for everyone to forget about what happened or to lose energy fighting them. They know they have enough power to do that and experience tells them it often works. People move on or give up because what else can they do, they are one person and this massive institution is, well, massive. And it happens again and again and again. Personally, it happened when I was at Cambridge and it's happening right now with the Bar Standards [sic] Board ("BSB"). 

The pandemic has thrown the world out of sync. That is undeniable. No one at the BSB, obviously, is to blame for the pandemic and the government regulations that followed. However, we will always be judged on how we respond to difficult situations. That's when we show our true colours, the principles we really hold dear and will stand up for. Our response when things go wrong will always be the true test of our character. So when uncertainty was all the rage back in March, the BSB had an opportunity to act decisively and proactively in response. They chose to stick their heads in the sand and hope for the best, somehow under the naive impression the pandemic would be over by August and we'd all be returning to mass gatherings in exam halls. Forget that we had our last classes for these exams in February. Forget that many of us were self-isolating or shielding because of our own health concerns or those of relatives. Forget how stressful this entire situation has been for young people. We were asked to put our lives on hold until at least August, if not beyond, rearrange summer plans (and I'm not talking about holidays, I'm talking about jobs that many students need to survive week to week) and attempt to sit down and revise without any idea what was going to happen. The BSB's response was, well, non-existent. It was not a good start. 

It only got worse from there. It soon became clear to even the BSB that the exams would not be in a traditional exam hall setting and that provisions for their online delivery would have to be made. Eventually, it was confirmed the exams would take place via Pearson Vue's 'OnVue' online proctoring system. The BSB described it as follows:

OnVUE uses a combination of artificial intelligence and live monitoring to ensure the exam is robustly guarded, deploying sophisticated security features such as face-matching technology, ID verification, session monitoring, browser lockdown and recordings.

Such robust security measures provide assurance to students (both past and present), the profession, and the public who will rely on the services provided by these future barristers, that the 2020 cohort of BPTC graduates will have been assessed to as high a standard as those in previous years as they will have taken the exams that they were intended to take in a secure environment. The revised arrangements are fully supported and endorsed by the BPTC providers. 

Further explanation of the system was forthcoming. The system would detect noises and had the power to terminate the examination if it felt those noises warranted it. You could not leave your seat or look away from the screen. Immediately, the concerns were obvious to everyone except the BSB. What about those who do not live alone? Those with reasonable adjustments? Health conditions? Those who need and are entitled to rest breaks? Going to the toilet? The problems were numerous and apparent to anyone who thought about it for more than 5 seconds, which begs the question exactly how long did the BSB think about it before deciding this was all necessary in the name of their much-vaunted but remarkably vague "rigour". Anyway, don't worry, because there was another option: anyone could book into a test centre where reasonable adjustments could be accommodated. 

Except, no you couldn't. Some locations did not have test centres. Some people lived too far away from their nearest centre for it to be a viable option. Others had reasonable adjustments but were shielding and/or isolating because of vulnerable relatives and could not (or understandably did not want to) go out in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Others did not have reasonable adjustments but are normal human beings who need to go to the toilet more regularly than once every 3-4 hours. Others did not have good/reliable wifi or could not ask roommates to just leave their flats or parents working from home to just not work from home. Others had the wrong laptops or had the right laptops that then became the wrong laptops. Others had reasonable adjustments and booked test centre slots only for those slots to be cancelled without warning. Others had reasonable adjustments but couldn't book test centre slots to accommodate those reasonable adjustments. Others still had reasonable adjustments but could only book test centre slots very early in the morning or very far away directly contrary to their reasonable adjustment. Others, like me, did not have reasonable adjustments because we ignore them because part of our condition means we feel like a burden and do not always stand up for what we deserve and decided not to book test centre slots because our peers with 'actual' reasonable adjustments need the slots more. The problems go on, and on, and on. Others actually had to forgo their reasonable adjustments. 

What had begun as a poorly thought out attempt to ensure 'rigour', transcended into a farce. And the problems escalated from there. Despite being told about all of this. Despite students forgoing legally guaranteed reasonable adjustments. The irony of a legal regulator forcing us to forgo those adjustments we are legally entitled to, believe me, is not lost on us. Despite the BSB apparent "commitment" to access to the Bar being clearly a principle that it was willing to ignore. It does not care about access to the Bar. It does not care about disabled students, or any students. It does not care about our concerns. It has treated us with utter contempt. It is quite clear that the BSB does not care. If anything has caused the public to lose trust and confidence in our profession it is the regulator acting in such a disgraceful, potentially unlawful manner. Despite the fact that students repeatedly highlighted concerns the exams went ahead. 

Except, no, they didn't. Not for many of us who sat in front of a blank screen only for it to be terminated because of technical issues. This was despite the fact we had religiously done system tests before our exams to ensure the system would work. The rest of us: spent hours waiting to be let into exams with locked screens and no explanation; navigated stifling conditions in test centres; weren't allowed water even if it was part of a reasonable adjustment in the middle of a heatwave; faced a choice between dehydration and needing the toilet; had proctors who were rude to us; had proctors who hung up on us when we called about issues; couldn't reschedule exams if they were terminated; peed on-screen whilst being recorded and maintaining eye contact with the camera despite following the BSB advice to "just pee before the exam"; took exams with bags, bottles and buckets of piss next to us; were lied to about available slots for rescheduling exams; all took different exams making moderation impossible. I, and my cohort, have littered twitter with our experiences. They have to be read to be believed, experienced to be truly understood. 

And now the BSB roll out their statistics about "successful" completion of the exams, using the most elastic definition of "successful" I have ever encountered. An exam is not completed "successfully" if you spent the last two hours of it severely dehydrated but scared that if you drank anything you'd have to go to the toilet and terminate. An exam is not completed "successfully" if you sat around for hours agonising over whether you would be given the test paper, receiving it when your nerves are shot and you've been uncomfortable sat at your desk for most of the day waiting. An exam is not completed "successfully" if you were forced to pee in a bucket and sit with that bucket of pee next to you. An exam is not completed "successfully" if you experienced technical difficulties that cut your time in half/deleted your answers/forced you to repeatedly restart the programme and any other myriad of issues we faced. An exam is not completed "successfully" if your reasonable adjustments were denied to you. The list goes on. This is another little trick institutions use. Statistics. Look, 89% of students completed their exams, or whatever the stat might be. Well, as Benjamin Disraeli tells us, there are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics. The BSB should know better than to roll out meaningless stats that ignore the real picture, but they do so to knowingly mislead and deceive the public. It's an utter disgrace.

At the end of it all, two things stick out like red thumbs. Ignoring all the disregard for disabled students and non-disabled students, ignoring the inhumane requirements and the potential breaches of human rights. Ignoring it all. First, if we wanted to cheat, we could have done. The photos we had to take of our rooms had blind spots. It is impossible to remotely invigilate an exam and it is truly concerning that our future regulator went to such lengths to try and ensure the integrity of the exams when their efforts could have been defeated by a tactically positioned piece of paper. It is laughable that they pursued this course of conduct instead of accepting that the solution was open-book exams. Let's not forget that as practitioners we will never be tested on our memory of various codes and regulations, but instead our understanding of them and the ease with which we can locate what we need within the practitioners' texts and/or online. Second, and most frustratingly, this is a profession where integrity and honesty is one of the required virtues. We've passed numerous hurdles to prove that we possess those virtues, that we can be trusted to be unleashed on the public. We've secured at least a first degree. We've secured membership of an inn and the obtained the necessary character references that go with that. Many of us have secured scholarships granted, in part, because we have demonstrated our integrity and suitability for the profession. In short, we are becoming barristers because we have integrity and should have been trusted to act with integrity when taking these exams. Instead, we have been treated as if we were bound to cheat and could not be trusted and the only way to ensure we did not do so was to be recorded, forced to pee on camera and forgo our reasonable adjustments. What sort of message does that send to the public? 

This was all done to maintain "rigour" and 

Such robust security measures provide assurance to students (both past and present), the profession, and the public who will rely on the services provided by these future barristers, that the 2020 cohort of BPTC graduates will have been assessed to as high a standard as those in previous years as they will have taken the exams that they were intended to take in a secure environment.

I've checked and students, the profession and the public did not need these reassurances. In fact, by insisting on these conditions students, the profession and the public are outraged at our inhumane and potentially unlawful treatment. Students, the profession and the public are not reassured by the fact that I am willing to pee in a bag on camera to take an exam. Students, the profession and the public are not reassured by the fact our regulator forced us to forgo our reasonable adjustments. Students, the profession and the public are not reassured by the utterly disgraceful way this has been handled. And, after all this, what has the BSB's response been? Apologise? Act with integrity and admit it got things wrong? Try and put it right? No. It has doubled down because those in charge lack integrity. Those in charge have abandoned their principles and demonstrated incompetence and an inability to respond to difficult circumstances. With respect, it's not good enough. The test, as I stated above, is how you respond to difficult circumstances because life is not easy. It's a test the BSB have failed on numerous occasions. It's a test, by contrast, my cohort has passed with flying colours. We've struggled through a pandemic to revise for and take exams, both the BSB assessments and those organised by our providers. We've ignored anxiety and stress. We've forgone our reasonable adjustments and tried our very best to complete these exams. We've spent our own money calling PearsonVue and the BSB to try and organise rescheduled exams. We've taken exams damp with our own piss. We've had panic attacks and carried on. We've stared at blank screens for hours to try and take these exams. We've navigated technical issues that were not our fault. We've continued to revise through this all despite not knowing if our exam will even happen. We've done everything within our power to try and take these exams to the best of our abilities despite the BSB trying to make conditions as difficult as possible and making it worse every single time they open their mouths to make an ill-advised, ignorant statement. We've come together on twitter to support our peers struggling. We've written open letters and coordinated responses. We've spoken up. And we've done all this whilst still attempting to revise for and take these damned exams.

The BSB have not apologised. They have buried their heads in the sand in the hope we will just go away, forget about the fact we were forced to revise for exams under immense stress and anxiety, forced to forgo lawfully guaranteed and required reasonable adjustments, forced to piss in bags and buckets. Because that's what institutions do. What the BSB, however, did not count on is that I, and my cohort, are entering this profession because we care deeply about justice and human rights and we've overcome seemingly insurmountable barriers before. We are a resilient bunch because becoming a barrister demands resilience. We won't allow those who are disabled to be at a disadvantaged by ignorance and incompetence on behalf of our future regulator because becoming a barrister demands a belief in equality. We won't allow our future regulator to treat us with contempt because becoming a barrister demands a desire to stand up for our principles. We won't give up because becoming a barrister demands fighting for justice and against injustice wherever it rears its ugly head. We never expected to be fighting our future regulator for basic human rights, but we are where we are.

The BSB have started a battle they cannot win, against students motivated by a desire for justice. They will not be allowed to get away with this one. 

Update: This post was updated on 19/08/2020 to include paragraph 10 beginning "And now, the BSB..."

I like quiet

I like to be quiet. Many people would not necessarily have guessed that, because I'm 'loud-presenting'. In fact, I can be quite loud. I've never liked it about myself. But being loud always seemed to be easier than being quiet, because if you're loud the worst that people will think is that you're a bit obnoxious. And I can handle that because maybe I am a bit obnoxious. But if you're quiet, people worry that something's wrong because that's what being quiet means, right? It means something is wrong and then they won't leave you alone because they think something is wrong. Because you're quiet. And the one thing I like less than being loud is people thinking that I'm quiet and that, therefore, something is wrong. So maybe I don't like being quiet, I like being left alone and sometimes it feels like the only way to be left alone is to be the centre of attention. Hiding in plain sight, I suppose.

I saw a tweet recently trying to put a positive spin on lockdown and coronavirus. It asked what were those things from lockdown we would want to keep. I quite like the fact that people don't really touch me now. Walking is also fun. But mainly, not being expected to go anywhere or see anyone. Because I like to be quiet. I like to stay at home and read and write blog posts and scroll through Twitter. I like knowing that no one is judging me for that or worrying, "...because you seem quiet, is everything okay, you're not normally like this," except I am because that's me and it's just impossible to be quiet in a world that's so fucking loud. All the time. So I am loud because I have to be, not because I want to be but you think it's just who I am and then when I get so tired of pretending to be loud to fit in and I just shush for a bit. Because I just want to be quiet but it's not quiet if everyone is sort of worried about you, that's lots of noise and I don't like noise. I like quiet. Maybe it's because inside my head is loud enough. Maybe it's easier. Less performative. Just simpler. To be quiet. Don't have to worry about saying the wrong thing in the wrong way at the wrong time.

When I lost my voice, I was quiet all the time. Obviously. And yes, it was humiliating trying to order coffee with a note on my phone. Thanks for asking. But it was also great because no one expected anything from me. I could just sit. And be quiet. No one worried that I was sad or upset or that anything was wrong. Ironically, of course, because this big thing was wrong, I couldn't fucking speak. But no one worried, because they knew that and therefore didn't have to ask what was wrong, so they just let me be quiet.  And I liked it. No one worried. I could just be. I didn't have to do anything. Which made more sense to me, I think, because, after all, we are human beings. Not human doings. Sometimes we just need to be. Quiet, yes, but also just be. And I think it's okay. It's hard, but it's okay. To be quiet.

I don't really know the point of this post. I guess it doesn't matter. Sometimes being quiet is a sign something is wrong. Sometimes, often, usually, most of the time it isn't. It's just being quiet.

Three men walk in a desert

Yesterday's Daf (Shabbat 92b) ended with  a new Mishna¹ which stated:

  מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹצִיא כִּכָּר לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — חַיָּיב. הוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם — פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם — חַיָּיבִין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.

  MISHNA: One who carries a large mass out to the public domain on Shabbat is liable. If two carried it out together, they are exempt because neither performed a complete prohibited labor. However, if one person is unable to carry it out alone, and therefore two people carried it out, they are liable. And Rabbi Shimon deems them exempt even in that case.

 The context is carrying an object on Shabbat, which is prohibited in Jewish Law, but it got me thinking about a common philosophical problem in criminal law:

 Consider a man, Bob, in a desert. Two people, John and Smith, want to kill Bob. John decides to poison Bob's water supply and Smith pokes a hole in his water bottle so the water trickles out. John and Smith have acted without knowing the other had also attempted to sabotage Bob's water bottle. Bob is both drinking poisoned water and then runs out of water. Eventually, he dies. It is impossible to determine which of the poisoning or dehydration was the cause of death. For the sake of argument, he drank just enough of the poisoned water to poison himself but also ran out of water such that dehydration killed him at exactly the same time that the poison took effect. It is also accepted that had either John or Smith acted alone, Bob would have died of the poisoning or dehydration alone at the same time as he died in the present scenario. Either act was sufficient to kill Bob. However, in deciding what was Bob's cause of death, it is impossible to say either the poisoning or the dehydration killed him because Bob would have died either way.

 The question is: Has either committed murder? The problem exists because, in English law at least, to be convicted of a murder you must be shown to have caused a person's death. If the person would have died without your intervention (and I mean in a temporally relevant way, obviously we are all going to die), then you are not guilty of murder. For example, if I shoot at a man who actually dies of a completely unrelated sudden heart attack that kills him instantly and, crucially, before my shooting caused a (for the sake of argument, definitely fatal) bullet wound, I have not committed murder. I may have committed attempted murder but simply put, I was not the cause of the man's death and therefore cannot be guilty of murder. So, if we cannot say whether the poisoning or the dehydration caused the death, who murdered Bob?

 Perhaps our Mishna can provide an answer. I should, before I continue, point out that I am taking this Mishna and Gemara completely in isolation. I am sure that the Rabbis have a specific opinion on and answer to precisely this sort of case. I look forward to reading it, if only because I can be almost certain that it will be far more complicated, complex, sophisticated and ultimately interesting than the extrapolation I have drawn here to answer the question, but nonetheless, let's go back to our Mishna. We learnt that if two people carried out a mass on Shabbat, they are exempt but if one person is unable to carry it out alone, and therefore two carried it out, they are liable.

The Gemara exapnds:

  זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה יָכוֹל — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטְרִים. זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיְּיבִים וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב.

With regard to an action performed by two people, when this person is capable of performing it alone,and that person is capable of performing it alone, Rabbi Meir deems them liable, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon deem them exempt. If both this person is incapable and that person is incapable of performing the action alone, and therefore they performed it together, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir deem them liable, and Rabbi Shimon deems them exempt. If this person is capable, and that person is incapable, and they performed it together, everyone agrees that he is liable.

To apply this reasoning to our case, we need to ask: What are we dealing with here? (Dad Yomi fans will appreciate, or shake their head at, my play on Gemaric phrases) Given the terms outlined above, it is clearly a case where each person is capable of performing it alone - if Bob's water bottle had only been poisoned or had there only been a hole in his bottle, he still would have died. Thus John and Smith could have performed the action of murdering Bob alone. In such a case, Rabbi Meir deems them both liable, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon deem them exempt. And why?

It is based on a line from Leviticus where, in the context of committing a sin, the Torah uses the word "בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ" which means "by performing it". "By performing it" is interpreted to mean:

 הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶת כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה מִקְצָתָהּ. 

One who performs a transgression in its entirety is liable, and not one who performs only part of it.

The reason Rabbi Meir, who accepts this understanding of the verse, believes where two people are capable of performing the action alone but perform the action together they are liable is based on his interpretation of what the verse is applying to, and is not entirely helpful for answering the question of who murdered Bob. So we have an answer, sort of. What's perhaps most interesting, however, is the Rabbi's acceptance that "by performing it" comes to exclude performing only part of a transgression. To a lesser or greater degree, therefore, this means that you are only liable for those transgressions you complete in full.

This is most interesting when you consider the Gemara's application of it to cases where one is capable and the other incapable:

 אָמַר מָר: זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב. הֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ מִיחַיַּיב? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֶה שֶׁיָּכוֹל, דְּאִי זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — מַאי קָא עָבֵיד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע בַּהֲדֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְסַיֵּיעַ אֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ

 We learned earlier that the Master said: In a case where this person is capable, and this person is incapable, and they performed it together, everyone agrees that he is liable. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Which of them is liable? Rav Ḥisda said: The one who is capable of performing the act alone is liable, as if it was the one who is incapable of performing the act alone that was liable, what is he doing that would render him liable? His efforts are inadequate to perform the task. Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: He is doing quite a bit, as he is assisting him. He said to him: The assistance provided by one who assists another to perform a task that the other could have performed himself is insubstantial.

The Gemara goes on to delineate numerous examples where assistance is deemed insubstantial, in a bid to demonstrate this point. Can assistance provided by one who could not have performed the action themselves to one who could have performed it themselves, really be considered 'insubstantial'? If I'm physically incapable of boring a hole in a water bottle but I am so determined that Bob is murdered that I give my power drill which I give to Smith, am I really exempt because Smith owns his own power drill and can bore the hole? These are not points the Gemara is making, but I think they are worth pondering.

---

1 For those of you who are wondering what I am going on about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daf_Yomi and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah ^↩

And Solskjaer has won it

Today is May 26th. To a United fan, even one too young to remember the season itself such as myself, that date will forever be etched on our minds as the date Solskjaer won it with virtually the last kick of the final. The game sums up everything that fans love about sport. The rollercoaster that following your favourite team can involve. Drama. Emotion. Coming back from the brink of disaster. Winning. One of the absences I have felt most keenly during lockdown is that of football, both its absence from my TV screen and the absence of travelling to watch it in person. I don't miss the two and a half hour train journey to Manchester or being cramped in an overstuffed tram whilst other fans drunkenly chant sexist songs all around me. But, and forgive me for being cliché about it, that feeling I get when Old Trafford comes into view and when I step out into the stadium and see the pitch makes it all worth it.

That season, 1998/99, was the starting point for me. I often ask my Dad whether I watched any of the games, was I a fan during that season. He can't remember. But I was addicted to watching the 'Treble' video in the years that followed. I learnt the commentary off by heart and walked around reciting it, over and over again. I recreated the goals, alone, in my garden (quite hard to do but five-year-olds have a way of imagining these things). I watched the video again. And again. And again. The worst punishment was being banned from watching the United game that weekend. I used to try and sneak downstairs and peak into the TV room when my Mum (it was always my Mum) was otherwise engaged. I remember running into my parents' room the morning after a midweek game to ask my Dad what the score had been. I remember when I was old enough to watch the first half when a game was on in the evening. Dancing around our kitchen when we beat Chelsea on penalties in 2008. All I wanted to do when I was younger was go to Old Trafford. To watch United. Just once would suffice. I do not remember when I found out my dream was coming true. But I remember that the journey was over eight hours because of traffic, my Dad nearly gave up and turned around to go home and all that stopped him was how excited he knew I was. He couldn't do that to me. I remember we played Spurs. I remember standing on my seat to see Ruud Van Nistelrooy score the only goal of the game. I remember David Beckham taking a throw-in directly in front of me. I remember loving every single second.

Nearly 20 years on from my first game, I've been a season ticket holder for the majority of that time. I've been incredibly lucky to have been to Old Trafford more times than that little kid who thought 'Sheringham' was called 'Cheerio' (I still have no idea where that came from) could ever have imagined. I have seen United legends such as Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Ronaldo and Rooney live. Great footballers such as Messi and more recently Mbappé. I was there when we beat Arsenal 8-2, and when we lost to City 6-1. I've seen us win trophies with late goals and wonder strikes. I've also seen us struggle. I've watched United in the freezing cold lose to a club from Romania that no one had ever heard of. I've shivered through a game in Ukraine barely watching because all I wanted to do was focus on staying warm. I would not trade a second of it for anything. There's just something about sport. About football. About United.

So yes, its absence is felt keenly. I am excited for when it is safe for fans to return. Football is not a matter of life or death and no, it is not more important than that, Mr Shankley. But it is important. Going to games is a shared experience that rivals any other. I have daydreams about my children coming with me. About going abroad for a game, like I have done with my Dad, and witnessing a great spectacle (beating PSG 3-1 with a last-minute penalty springs effortlessly to mind). There really is nothing quite like it. And May 26th 1999 will forever be the date that started my love affair with football. I didn't watch the game live. But I didn't have to. Not to understand what sport meant, what sport could do. We'll be back soon, arguing about VAR and offsides. Hoping that our rivals don't win any trophies. Winding our friends up when their team loses.

Until then, I'll just watch the moment United won the Treble on repeat.