Brother K of Bloodstained Men is a legendary American intactivist, having been campaigning against MGM for 40 years. Our thanks to A Voice for Men for posting this interview (video, 9:20) of Brother K, recorded at the Alamo last month.

Our thanks to John for this. Sadiq Khan, the new London major, a Muslim male feminist – no tricky contradictions there, clearly – has nominated himself for a Toady award, by cravenly capitulating to radical feminist demands to erect another statue in honour of a prominent suffragette in central London, only days after he was elected.

The statue of Emmeline Pankhurst in central London is either not large enough, not in the right place, or… who cares, really, when all is said and done? Feminists will whine anyway, even if there’s a 200 metre high statue of Germaine Greer in solid gold in central London – we need to insert shotgun earplugs until they’ve stopped whining.

As anyone who has read Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket (2008) knows, the suffragettes delayed female emancipation, in stark contrast to feminist mythology. Still, let’s not allow demonstrable facts tarnish the reputation of these feminist heroines, shall we?

The ‘brains’ behind the campaign for the statue is Caroline Criado-Perez, a professional grievance generator, and a winner of three Lying Feminist of the Month awards. Two months ago, in recognition of her campaign, she won a Toxic Feminist of the Month award – here.

If you haven’t seen a Toady certificate before, you should treat yourself to the experience. No charge. David Cameron won our ‘Toady of the Year’ awards in 2012/3/4/5. His 2015 award certificate is here.

Our thanks to John for this piece in The Spectator.

[Notes added to previous posts:

1. Many proponents of MGM, in the Jewish community and elsewhere, support MGM partly on the grounds of alleged potential or real health benefits, to men and/or their sexual partners. Does science support that position? For the answer to that question, we refer you to a paper co-authored by Brian D Earp, a scientist and ethicist at the University of Oxford – here.]
2. On 22 March we staged the largest anti-MGM protest ever held in the UK, outside the Thornhill Clinic, Luton – the largest private circumcision clinic in the UK. 25% of the population of Luton are Muslims. Our blog piece on the matter is here, a video (9:19) of the event here.]

Tomorrow we’ll be protesting at a number of locations in Golders Green, peacefully as always, and we invite you to join us. We expect they will be our most impactful andprotests yet. People from the mainstream media will be attending, some taking video recordings and still photographs. We’ll be bringing our own recording devices, some new display materials, and new leaflets.

Please email me mike@j4mb.org.uk if you plan to join us. I need to keep the police informed of expected numbers.

The Golder Green protests are among a number taking place before the London Conference. One of the speakers at the conference will be the American researcher Tim Hammond, who’ll be giving an update of the findings of the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm.

Our last three protests have been successful, and attracted increasing numbers of supporters – the first outside the Conservative party conference (October 2015), the second in Parliament Square on International Men’s Day (November 2015), the third recently in Luton, outside the Thornhill Clinic, the leading private clinic in the UK where male minors’ genitals are mutilated on non-therapeutic grounds for financial gain. The third protest was the largest-ever anti-MGM protest ever held in the UK.

We would recommend that people in the Jewish community – and outside it – who are prepared to explore the case against circumcision visit a website with no connection to this one, Jews Against Circumcision. From the website:

We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides himself acknowledged that circumcision is done to desensitize the penis and curb masturbation.

Jews are some of the smartest people in the world. We are 1/3rd of 1% of the population, yet we hold 33% of Nobel prizes. We are smart enough to understand that mutilating a little boys’ penis is not an acceptable practice in modern times.

We shall be protesting outside at least two locations tomorrow, starting at 1pm:

– we’ll protest outside the clinic where circumcisions are performed by Dr Martin Harris, who was recently added by A Voice for Men to its Known Genital Mutilators directory. We see from his website that he charges £395.00 to mutilate baby boys’ genitals. The clinic is the Temple Fortune Health Centre, 23 Temple Fortune Lane, London NW11 7TE. A map of the area is here. The clinic is in an appropriately shabby building, despite being in a prosperous area:

– after a time outside the clinic, we’ll walk down the Finchley Road to the offices of The Jewish Chronicle – 28 St Albans Lane, London NW11 7QE – very near Golders Green tube station. A map of the area is here and the walk should take around 15 minutes. Turn into St Alban Lane, before a charity shop. The offices are visible from Finchley Road:

A more close-up image of the offices:

We plan then to protest outside Golders Green tube station, catching the rush hour, ending at 6pm.

Another protest will be over 1pm – 6pm on Wednesday 1 June, outside the Home Office – 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF – because the Home Office is responsible for the police, and the police (acting with the CPS) aren’t bringing prosecutions against the people carrying out the criminal offence of MGM. In the Home Office response to our FOI request last year, the department didn’t deny MGM is illegal, but evaded the question of why it doesn’t prosecute the criminals carrying out the procedure. A map of the area is here.

The final pre-conference protest will be over 1pm – 6pm on Wednesday 15 June, outside the Head Office of the NSPCC – Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH. A map of the area is here. An email exchange in our possession proves that the NSPCC couldn’t care less about this unnecessary, cruel, and illegal procedure being inflicted on so many male minors in the UK every year.

Our thanks to David for pointing us to this piece in The Spectator. David writes:

No tax advantages – “personal safety” is the reason for the offshore account (translation – if you question it, you are a misogynist).

Hopefully we will hear less in future from this particular Special Snowflake.

Brian D Earp is a highly respected scientist and ethicist, a Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. We regularly cite his paper Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse?

Some brief details on Brian Earp, from the paper we’re about to link to:

Brian D. Earp is a scientist and ethicist who holds degrees from Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge universities; the last of these degrees was in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science and medicine, focusing on male and female genital surgeries. Brian has served as a Guest Editor for the Journal of Medical Ethics, editing a special issue on the topic of infant circumcision, and has published widely in the leading journals in his field.

A new paper by Brian (and Robert Darby, an independent researcher at the University of News South Wales) has come to our attention – Does science support infant circumcision? It’s 26 pages long, the following extracts from the start and end of the paper should give you the essence of it:

Introduction
According to Brian Morris (2013), “Science supports infant circumcision” and “so should skeptics.” It would be more accurate to say that ‘Brian Morris supports infant circumcision,’ and that skeptics can think for themselves. In this paper, we critically assess the arguments and evidence presented by Morris in his recent article, and draw some general lessons for the ongoing debate about the science and ethics of infant male circumcision.

Brian Morris and the case against the foreskin
For over a decade, Professor Brian Morris of the University of Sydney has been waging a quixotic campaign against the foreskin. Although he has “no involvement in clinical medicine,” and “cannot claim any more expertise on the topic of male circumcision than any other scientist,” Morris has nevertheless sought to demonize the humble prepuce.

So dangerous, according to Morris, is this particular part of the normal male anatomy—in terms of both personal and public health—that it should be routinely removed from children’s bodies before they can form their own opinion…

Conclusion
In this paper, we have covered just a few of the distortions, misrepresentations, and inadequately referenced claims in Morris’s hymn of praise to childhood circumcision; and we have assessed just one of Morris’s recent publications. To pile on more examples would lead us away from the central point. The most one can say about the medical evidence concerning circumcision is that it is contested and inconclusive. On a global scale, there is a strong balance of opinion among experts in paediatric medicine that the foreskin is not inherently harmful to health, and that the circumcision of infants is entirely unnecessary.

In 2011 alone, nearly a dozen infant boys had to be treated for “life threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis” as a result of their non-therapeutic circumcisions at a single children’s hospital in Birmingham. This information was made public due to a specific freedom of information request, and so would not otherwise have been reported. It is clear, then, that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in terms of risks and complications.

Since circumcision does carry risk, therefore—as with any surgical procedure—and since it removes a healthy, and indeed private, part of the body, the individual who must wear the lifelong consequences of the intervention should be the one to make the decision.

Brian Morris has a different view, and he is entitled to express it. But he does not speak on behalf of ‘science.’ As historians of medicine remind us, since the mid-nineteenth century all sorts of dubious theories about the nature of the foreskin (and the “health benefits” of infant circumcision) have been advanced and then later debunked. The appropriate attitude for a skeptic is not to swallow these claims unblinkingly, but rather to approach them with suspicion and subject them to a rigorous critique.

 

 

Our thanks to Russell for pointing us to a dreadful article on Andy Murray’s split with his female coach – written by a female journalist, what are the chances? – in the Telegraph. Claire Cohen has nominated herself for a Whiny Feminist of the Month award.

Russell writes:

Poor Murray is misguided. When choosing a coach to support him at the highest level of world tennis, he takes into account their availability and ability.

Does the man not realise he should be making his selection based on what’s best for feminism?

Patrick Smyth has just reported some tragic news, the suicide of well-known American intactivist Jonathon Conte, at the age of 34. Another American campaigner, Marilyn Fayre Milos, reported the news on her Facebook page – here.

Patrick took a ‘selfie’ with Jonathon during a protest in Denver, Colorado, in July 2014. Jonathon is on the right:

A photograph of Jonathon during a protest in 2012, drawn by Patrick from his Facebook page:

We covered the issue of male suicide in our 2015 general election manifesto (pp.46-8). The male:female suicide differential more than doubled in the 30 years between 1983 and 2013, from 1.7:1 to 3.5:1. In the manifesto we reported that the taxpayer is funding six research studies into male suicide, at a cost of £1.5 million. None of them have a remit to consider male suicide specifically. In the meantime, the government is spending £30 million encouraging more women into engineering.

The primary driver of male suicide is reactive depression, brought on by overwhelming life events. My article on the matter for the International Business Times is here. In most cases the state is the cause of that reactive depression, through its responses (or lack of responses) to:

– access to children following family breakdowns
– male victims of domestic violence
– homelessness
– MGM (failing to enforce the law, by prosecuting the criminals who carry out the mutilations)

I don’t have an estimate of the number of men who commit suicide as a result of MGM, but I’d be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases the men aren’t anti-MGM campaigners, they’ve suffered in silence. MGM as the direct cause of the mental anguish which led to them committing suicide will have been lost to posterity.

Of course men should talk to professionals about their depression, but talking won’t restore foreskins, deliver access to children, or solve homelessness… or solve most of the other problems impacting so heavily on men, that they decide death is preferable to life.

On Thursday, in two days time, we’ll be having the fourth of a series of six anti-MGM protests, in Golders Green, London. Details of all three remaining protests before the London conference are here. I urge you to join us, in part for the memory of Jonathon Conte, yet another fine man lost through the consequences of MGM. Patrick Smyth will, of course, be there. His dedication to the cause of intactivism knows no bounds, and we salute him.

We end with the start of our manifesto section on suicide:

Anyone with suicidal inclinations is strongly advised to seek help, perhaps by calling the Samaritans. Their website is http://samaritans.org, phone 08457 909090 (Republic of Ireland – 116 123), email jo@samaritans.org.

Our thanks to Martin for this.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is a large public body (7,000+ employees) charged with deciding which charges, if any, are to be brought against those believed to have broken the law.

In deciding which cases are to be pursued, ‘public interest’ is purportedly one of two deciding factors for the CPS, the other being the likelihood of a successful prosecution. Some time ago we sent a FOI request to the CPS concerning MGM, including proof that it’s long been illegal in the UK. The CPS didn’t deny that MGM is illegal, but it still refused to bring prosecutions. Apparently there is no ‘public interest’ in stopping the mutilation of the genitals of male minors.

There is also no ‘public interest’ in charging women with the egregious crime of paternity fraud, a crime under the Fraud Act 2006, as well as earlier legislation. There is, however, public interest in bringing charges against men in areas such as sexual assaults of women, regardless of the weakness (sometimes, as in the case of Mark Pearson, who’ll be speaking at the London conference, the non-existence) of evidence against them, and regardless of the fact that those men’s identities are made public, while women suspected of having made false sexual assault allegations are rarely prosecuted. When they are prosecuted, and found guilty, they can generally expect to receive suspended sentences, i.e. no punishment.

The CPS is, of course, far from alone within the criminal justice system in having a strong anti-male bias. In a renowned blog piece we’ve linked to many times, William Collins explained – here – that if men were sentenced as leniently as women by the courts, five out of every six men currently in British prisons wouldn’t be there. The perennial prison overcrowding crisis could be solved speedily through introducing gender equality in prison sentencing. We raised the matter in a FOI request sent to Michael Gove, Justice Secretary. His department’s response displayed an utter lack of interest in the matter.

Alison Saunders is the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service. She took up the post on 1.11.13, and a defining feature of her term in office has been her relentless pursuit of radical feminist agendas. A few months ago she won one of our Toxic Feminist of the Month awards.

On 20.9.15 we sent a FoI request to Alison Saunders, here. The request:

– Please disclose whether any correspondence exists from 23.7.13 onwards between you and organizations advocating for victims of domestic abuse and/or domestic violence and/or sexual offences. [Note – we didn’t specify the gender of the victims.] For the avoidance of doubt, these organizations should include but not be limited to (a) Women’s Aid, (b) Refuge, and (c) Rape Crisis. Please include organizations with titles which include those terms, and similar ones.

– Please provide copies of any and all such correspondence, without redactions.

– Please disclose whether any meetings took place from 23.7.13 onwards, attended by yourself along with representatives of organizations advocating for victims of domestic abuse and/or domestic violence and/or sexual offences. For the avoidance of doubt, these organizations should include but not be limited to (a) Women’s Aid, (b) Refuge, and (c) Rape Crisis. Please include organizations with titles which include those terms, and similar ones.

– Please provide copies of minutes and/or notes relating to these meetings, without redactions.

In the absence of a timely response (20 working days is the official limit for FOI responses), we published weekly blog posts pointing to the delay, and emailed the CPS FOI unit accordingly.

The eventual CPS response was dated 29 March, 23 weeks overdue. The CPS claimed to have received the letter on 20.11.15. Even if this were the case, the response would still have been 14 weeks overdue.

We weren’t surprised by the contents of the letter. The CPS declined to provide the information on the grounds it would cost over £600 in staff time to gather. Fortunately, however, under Section 16 of the FOI Act, public bodies are obliged to advise what, if any, information may assist enquirers with their requests. I’ve highlighted the relevant section of the letter.

We responded that we would like to take up their offer of providing information relating to (a) Women’s Aid, (b) Refuge, and (c) Rape Crisis, and that was provided in a letter and associated papers on 27.4.16. The key section is highlighted in yellow. The CPS are claiming exemption under sections 17 and 36 of the FOIA, and provided this in relation to Section 17.

The information that was released by the CPS is important, however – perhaps surprisingly, given their dogged determination not to help us. It consists of 21 pages of correspondence between Alison Saunders and organizations including Refuge, Women’s Aid, and SERICC (South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre).

What does the correspondence tell us?

On 8.11.13 – one week after taking up her post at the head of the CPS – she wrote to the three aforementioned organizations in relation to a meeting to be held 12 days later. She stated she was ‘keen to continue the commitment of the CPS to further improving the response to violence against women and girls. I therefore plan to host a meeting from 16:30 to 18:00 at CPS HQ… on 20 November with key stakeholders to discuss the matter further.’

She visited Refuge’s HQ on 20.11.13, and was thanked in a letter the same day from Sandra Horley CBE, Chief Executive, ‘with warmest wishes’.

She was due to hold another meeting at Refuge’s HQ on 29.1.14. In her letter, Sandra Horley provided an agenda including ‘Refuge’s track record in (and proposed strategies for) increasing conviction rates for gender-based violence including domestic violence, sexual violence, trafficking and FGM’. The Refuge letter was accompanied by the text of a keynote speech given by Cyrus Vance Jr, District Attorney for New York County, at a conference earlier the same month, which Ms Horley attended. It’s basically a rehash of the thinking behind the Scandinavian legal model in the area of prostitution, in which women are always victims, men always exploiters.

She invited the three organizations to another meeting at CPS HQ on 28.2.14.

On 4.2.14 she writes to an organization – the details are redacted, but the letter opens with ‘Dear Sandra’. It starts, ‘Thank you for taking the time to meet with me last week and allowing me to spend time with your National Domestic Violence Helpline. I was really impressed by the helpline and the way in which it provides a vital source of support for women [my emphasis] affected by abuse.’

An exchange of letters between Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, and Alison Saunders, following Saunders’s delivery of the keynote speech at the WA National Conference. Saunders ends, ‘I look forward to working together in the future.’

In the final letter, dated 17.10.14, Saunders thanks an organization for meeting her the previous month, for their hospitality, and ‘the tour of your centre was very interesting’. The details of the organization are redacted. It is seemingly not in the ‘public interest’ to know which organization Ms Saunders visited on 29.9.14.

No correspondence is provided from the 20 months following the last letter released by the CPS.

The CPS in general, and the Director of Public Prosecutions in particular, are required to not pursue political agendas, yet the evidence of Alison Saunders pursing gender political agendas is overwhelming in this area, as in others (notably sexual abuse).

Starting just a week after taking up her post, Alison Saunders has been personally driving a radical feminist agenda in the area of domestic violence, engaging with well-funded feminist-driven organizations that still tout the long-discredited Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, while she has – if the released documents are anything to go by – made not the slightest effort to proactively engage with organizations campaigning for support for male victims of domestic violence, such as the Mankind Initiative.

We call for the resignation of Alison Saunders. Her overwhelming concern for women and girls, and utter lack of concern for men and boys, make her deeply unfit for the important office she holds.