Justin Bieber says a big FUCK YOU to women's rights

Today, in what can only be described as an ABORTION EXTRAVAGANZA, we bring to you not one, not two, but THREE news stories that should cause sighs of woe from all sensible (i.e. pro-choice) people.

First and most stupidly of all, is the worrying news that pre-teen hearthrob and Leftfield laughing stock Justin Bieber is ignorantly and vocally anti-choice. Not only is he against a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body & mental health because “it’s like, killing a baby yeah?”, he also has some very worrying views on rape too.

Speaking to Rolling Stone Magazine, J.Biebs said he didn’t agree with abortion, and was asked by the interviewer one of the obvious questions – “but what about in cases of rape?”

Instead of sticking to his bollocks “babykilling” line, The Biebs went further, saying “Um, well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason [to have an abortion].”

Bieber, listen up, or I’ll fucking abort you. Rape does not “happen for a reason”, other than the ‘reason’ that there are some disgusting men who make the choice to horrendously abuse women. Being raped is not a woman’s “fate”. The idea that “everything happens for a reason” is nonsense invented to try to force people in disadvantaged and oppressed positions to accept the abuse and discrimination that they face from privileged sections of society. Usually with some sort of religious undertone of “it’ll all work itself out when you get to heaven, so just accept your shit life and get on with it and don’t question authority”.

Women should be the only people allowed to judge whether they want to have a baby or get an abortion, and to make the vital decisions at this time regarding their physical and mental health. In an ideal world, that would be accepted as a matter of principle. However, it seems that Justin Bieber is so far behind in his social attitudes that he hasn’t yet even accepted the basic right of women who’ve been raped to not be forced to have a child that their rapist forced into their body without their consent, under violent and/or emotionally damaging circumstances. Even most right wing fuckwads generally make a wishy-washy type of exception for abortion in cases of rape, so it’s particularly disheartening to hear The Biebs hold that kind of backwards view. Get yourself a clue, Bieber.

I suppose some might say, Justin Bieber is only 17. It may sound excessive to judge the views of a stupit wee boy so harshly. However, two things are important to remember here – Justin Bieber is old enough to get a girl pregnant (and has many young girls flinging themselves at him daily, so it’s not unlikely), and therefore it’s time he grew up a bit and thought about the real issues at stake here before he opens his mouth to the media.

Secondly, Justin Bieber is inexplicably worshipped as a god by very young and impressionable girls the world over. Well, maybe it’s not so inexplicable when you hear his songs, which are designed to sound as if he is personally serenading each and every girl about how she’s his “baby” and he’ll never ever leave her. There’s something (creepy) about him that they just go batshit crazy for. His views MATTER to them, and therefore it matters when he says really really bad things. He has the ability to make a genuinely negative effect with his views, and if he’s starting to spread conservative anti-woman tropes, that’s really quite worrying. Just look at how absolutely loopy he sends girls as young as 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCm8tdHkfI

They go fucking DEMENTED for him and anything that tumbles out of his mouth. He needs to be educated, fast. On the one hand his carefully cultivated image is selling false ideas of intense and everlasting love and early sexualisation to girls as young as 3, and on the other he’s promoting outdated views of the realities of having sex and babies.

And so on to the second story. While The Biebs’s unfortunate quotes have the potential to cause fucked-up internal conflicts in future generations of women, there’s another story in the Guardian today that highlights a real and direct problem regarding early medical abortions for women in the UK today.

Early medical abortions are standard practice in most countries where abortions are legally available. When a termination is sought in the early stages of a pregnancy (which is the case in the majority of abortions), there is no need for a doctor or nurse to perform any medical procedure. Instead, a woman can visit a clinic and take a pill which terminates the pregnancy. Two days later, the woman must return to the clinic for a second pill, which causes a miscarriage to happen, so that the embryo leaves the body.

BAN THIS SICK FILTH!

In almost every country which offers this medical service, when a woman visits a clinic for the first pill, she is allowed to take the second pill home with her in order to take it at home in a comfortable environment. The main reasoning for this is that most women who take the second pill in a clinic will miscarry on their journey home, which for many women will be inconvenient, humiliating, uncomfortable or traumatic. In the UK, women are not entrusted with taking the second pill home, and must return to the clinic in order to induce miscarriage.

A high court judge on Monday ruled that, unless the Tory Health Secretary Andrew Lansley decides to change the law to state otherwise, women must continue to travel to clinics for the second pill and, in many cases, miscarry in public. The proposal, put forward by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (a charity), has been incorrectly labelled a proposal for “home abortions” – this is not true, as the actual termination of pregnancy occurs with the first pill provided, and changing the circumstances under which the second pill is taken would in reality only be a matter of creating a more comfortable environment for women during an uncomfortable time. Nevertheless, the judge ruled that it was only within the Health Secretary’s power to approve a wider remit of places under which an abortion could *technically* take place, including the home. Even though health is a devolved matter, the ruling would have applied to England, Scotland and Wales.

In Wales, the Guardian points out, there are no abortion clinics outside of Cardiff, so it is a myth that abortions are easy to access in countries which supposedly care about women’s rights like the UK. There should be no problem with a woman wishing to terminate a pregnancy in a comfortable home environment. Obviously in the current climate, where women require the permission of 2 separate doctors to gain access to legal abortion services (and many doctors are very rude and judgemental about the issue which is completely inappropriate), there of course could be the worry that allowing “home” abortions could lead to women who are scared to approach unfriendly doctors or who don’t know where to turn to get adequate advice and help, being offered potentially dodgy “home abortions” which may not comply to health standards. However, this is clearly not the case in this situation, where the practice can be changed without even changing the law or the interpretation of the word “abortion”. It is important that we remove all barriers to safe and easy to access legal and free abortions. It is such a fundamental right, and anything that places pressure or anxiety on women in the situation of requiring an abortion only serves to make abortions less safe and more traumatic.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is actually on record as saying that he is in favour of home abortions and getting rid of the 2-doctor requirement, although at the same time he argued for a reduction in the time limit that abortions are legally available within, causing misery for women in some of the most desperate circumstances. Still, he has said that he thinks abortions should be easier to access for women, and that is a very positive opinion for the Health Minister to be holding while we’re stuck with a generally backward and anti-women Tory government. And yet his response to this ruling has been… silence. Hopefully he will pull his finger out soon, but Zoe Williams makes a good point when she notes that while Lansley is the only person now with the power to change this anomaly in the UK’s abortion rights policy, he’s likely to remain quiet. Sadly, this is the case too often – pro-choice politicians are forced to stay quiet about their views because the anti-choice lobby is so aggressive, dangerous and downright crazy. And so the oppression of women continues de facto.

Abortion saves lives

The third story is one we’ve been meaning to make a point about for a while, but it’s something that’s ongoing and urgently needs to be addressed by the NHS. The Daily Mail recently hailed a ‘Victory for Christianity‘ in its murky, hate-filled pages, as someone who acted inappropriately at work was allowed to return to work, even though they were never fired anyway and were always simply suspended pending review.

It’s been a tough old time for those hard done by Christians of late here in PC GONE MAD GENDER BENDING BABY KILLING Britain. What with the draconian law stating that, shockingly, people who run businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexuality (Suggestion: SSY Femi-Nazi Woofter roadtrip to Penzance?? We could descend on the town and really put the shits up them with our ceaseless arse-fucking), it’s almost as if the gay feminist mafia elite are trying to OUTLAW THE RIGHT TO HOLD BELIEFS!

Well, there’s some beliefs that should be outlawed, to be honest. The belief that it’s okay for you to use and manipulate your position as a worker in a public health service to put up blocks to or refuse someone access to an abortion that they want and need, for example.

The Mail’s “victory” was in fact the tale of an NHS worker who was suspended for distributing ideologically motivated lies in pamphlets about how abortion ruins womens lives. She never lost her job, and was in fact rewarded for not doing her job correctly by being offered a better job in a different department. She claimed she had been “bullied for expressing religious views”. But in fact it was her that was doing the bullying. She offered the misleading pamphlets to a colleague who worked in family planning, which amounts to attempting to persuade a worker who provides a vital medical service for women to either quit her “immoral” job or start fucking things up for women who came in to use the services. That’s an offensive way to conduct yourself while working for the public health service, and if there was any sense in the world the woman wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near family planning services ever again.

Thankfully, the health worker in question’s employer said:

‘The booklet implies that abortion can lead to alcohol and drug abuse, suicidal thoughts and increased risk of cancer. This could be very worrying and deeply offensive for women who may need an abortion and want balanced, sensible advice. We simply cannot allow NHS staff to distribute material that we know to be seriously unbalanced.’

Here’s a suggestion: if you don’t agree with providing medical services, DON’ T WORK FOR THE FUCKING NHS! It’s not a matter of “personal morality”, it’s a matter of you not doing the job you trained and signed up to do. If you have a fundamental disagreement with abortion, fine, no one’s forcing you to perform one. There are literally millions of other types of jobs which don’t involve administering abortion services. No one has the right to restrict the CHOICE of others to access abortions though, in any way – whether that’s murdering doctors, blocking the doors to clinics, or telling lies about abortion to women who need to have one. No one should be allowed to abuse their position of power (and that is exactly what is occurring when doctors refuse to give their permission for access to abortion services) to cause misery for women, and as a public service those who refuse to do their job or try to interfere with their opinions into the provision of and access to those services should lose their job immediately. They cannot be trusted with their power, and they should not be anywhere near the medical profession.

Hangin' out with the fun crowd. Oh yeah...

But when confronted with this new info, not a single thought of “Is this a bad idea..?” ran through my head, because of course it’s a fine idea! If you want one kid, find out you’re having two, then terminate the other. It IS just a useless blob of jelly and cells you know… Tch. (All these mental people wailing about it being a life… if you found it on your kitchen floor, you’d puke.)

The article starts like so:

Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s — and their first son just over a year old — when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins.

Stop. You need not explain yourself – You are a working mother and your partner also works. You already have a child who is basically still a baby himself and you’re pregnant. Not one baby, but two more. Three babies under two for a working mother. That’s horrifying. Who will look after them when you both need to work? What will happen to your career while you’re on maternity leave? Will your children resent you in later life for not being as involved? But you’ve got to work. You have a career ladder to climb. (Yes, I do in fact believe that a woman is entitled to pursue a career Shock, Horror). So the woman decides on a reduction. Good for her. I would have too.

Although, experts claim speculate on the “morality” or “ethics” of a woman deciding to reduce on account of how she feels the child will impact on her lifestyle, rather than medical implications for the birth or the other fetus. (re: NOT A BABY/CHILD.)

How fucked up is that?
“I don’t want twins. It will cripple my life and ruin my career,”
“Tough chips, missus.”

Although, “experts” claim that reduction has been detrimental for marriages and has cause long term angst.

I’ll tell you what would cause me long term angst – having some kid I don’t even want for eighteen fucking years! Counselling can help you with any sense of loss or grieving process you may have after a reduction or termination, but it won’t make your unwanted burden go away.
And if this decision breaks down your marriage, then maybe it just wasn’t right. Maybe your partner doesn’t want the best for you. Breaking up is probably best, you know.

National Post gets the totally neutral opinion from a totally on the fence type:

Lynda Haddon, who counsels couples over fetal losses for the support group Multiple Births Canada, said she has heard from a number of people in the past several months who were seeking twin reductions to lessen their burden as parents, something she had never encountered before. Though she strives to help them in a nonjudgmental way, she admits the trend “saddens and scares” her. “Is this a healthy thing? We have to ask these questions: Where does it stop? When do children become a commodity?”

Ayep. That looks like fun. I want five of them. All doing that at once

What a brilliant counsellor, eh? She’s totally non-opinionated about this – no wait, it SADDENS and SCARES her. These are negative reactions, yes? And she wants to know WHEN DO CHILDREN BECOME A COMMODITY?!!?!?!?!

Well Lynda, I don’t know if you’ve ever had a kid before, but as much as they are chubby, pink, gurgling angels, they also take up quite a lot of your time and can be a pain in the arse. I mean, you know, you’ve got to take out time to raise the thing, you’ve got to spend A WHOLE FUCKING LOT ON THEM. You’ve got to struggle through damning sleepless nights, any kind of awful illness they could have at any given point, bear their fall-outs with you when they get a bit older, clean their rooms, their clothes, their dishes and their stinking arses.

And I invite anyone who thinks this is all a part of the ‘beauty’ (or whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit) of raising a wean – take off your rose tinted glasses and stop lying to yourself.

However, the woman from Burlington puts it no truer than anyone could:

“I’m absolutely sure I did the right thing,” she said. “I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn’t feel any of that. Not that I’m a cruel, bitter person … I just didn’t feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to.”

The reason this woman knows she did the right thing is because she did exactly what she wanted to do. She did not allow herself to be swayed by opinions which in no way related to her life, her situation or her feelings. She looked at her life and saw no room for twins, so she opted for only having one baby. I don’t want to harp on about the time-old feminist rant about it being our bodies, our lives and our choices, but bear it in mind.

The thing is, there is little to no ethical debate over terminating fetuses if there is more than three. This is because there is an obvious risk to the health of the mother and other fetuses. So if they can do it for these reasons, why make it so demonic for the woman to make the choice of having less children to alleviate emotional pain as well as physical? Are you telling me that it’s totally cool to force women to go through years and years of horrible mental pain just some people think it’s not okay to reduce?

There is the case of IVF to think of also:

Often, those multiples are conceived because clinics transfer a number of embryos into a woman undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment, boosting the chances of pregnancy.
“It troubles me a lot because it’s avoidable,” Dr. Jon Barrett, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. “We are forcing people to make a terrible choice because we haven’t been sensible.”

IVF works this way because implanting many embryos gives the woman much better chances of conceiving one (or more healthy babies). Let’s not beat around the bush here, IVF is fucking expensive. In Scotland, if you meet certain criteria, your first treatment is free, but more often than not, it takes multiple treatment before a result. Then after that, you’re paying yourself. Fuck you, people in poverty. No family for you. So isn’t it simply logical to try your very best to get as many embryos as possible and then prune to a number wanted?

Well, the more misogynistic of us would argue that “She should just be grateful she’s getting any kids at all, never mind the amount!!”

As if already been through, more kids mean more money. And you’re already in debt from your IVF…

Good auld Lynda Haddon also has this to say about reductions with IVF:

“These poor parents are caught between a rock and a hard place,” she said. “They tried so hard to get pregnant and probably spent a lot of time, energy, emotion, money and now they have to kill some of them, now they have to reduce. Even though the child was lost through reduction, it lives on, in mind and fantasy.”

Women who are so deeply affected by reduction through IVF should be offered counselling on the state. This is not the fault of reductions themselves, but the fact that they HAD to exert so much energy and money in achieving pregnancy when these things should be free. Furthermore, for all the women who regret, there are women who benefit, but people seem to forget this.

What is worse? Having the option for all women to choose the life they lead, how many children they will have OR to force all women to go through with multiple births and the ones who would rather not should just live miserably?
Something everyone seems to forget when it comes to aborting and reducing – no one is forced to abort/reduce. It is the woman’s own choice. It’s beyond me why these “experts” act as though this is some kind of Nazi obliteration of all babies.

And finally, for some stupid, stupid reason, I read the comments. To be honest, I’d can’t be arsed quoting them. Instead I will illustrate:

Typical internet commenters. Godwin's Law? Check. Fake Sympathiser? Check. I'm a Feminist But-? Check. Bible Basher? Check. I'M A (insert relevant position here) BUT I FIND THIS DISGUSTING person? Check.

George gets defensive about how many people want him to stand

After lots of threatening to do it over the past 5 years, George Galloway looks set to finally stage a comeback attempt to Glasgow.

This weekend, his party, RESPECT, are discussing the possibility of setting up in Scotland. But before they’ve even had a chance to vote on it, George has as good as said he’s going to do it anyway, if not as RESPECT then as ‘George 4 Glasgow.’

When asked why he’s thinking of doing this, his justification has had two major points: “I am awesome” and that he’s against “separatism.” So we can expect him to run an inspired campaign about how much we need him waffling away in the Scottish Parliament, and against independence. Just check out his recent performance on Newsnight Scotland, where he managed to not mention a single socialist policy, talked about how he was a celebrity and the only piece of politics he did advocate was British unionism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6I8wwKbTFk

Scotland needs another egotistical former Big Brother contestant politician like it needs a violent dose of the runs. His intervention couldn’t come at a worse time, and will be pretty much universally unwelcome by socialists who have actually been trying to do stuff in Glasgow, while he was off on his adventures elsewhere.

When the Scottish Parliament was set up, the SSP was formed as an attempt to unify the left and make sure all socialists were working together to try and get someone elected. Of course, back then, George was still a Labour MP, and not interested in anything else going on. Until he was kicked out of the Labour party, and decided to go looking for glory in London, where he managed to get elected as a RESPECT MP in Bethnal Green and Bow.

However, in the last election he didn’t manage to get back in when he stood in a different area, and he’s now casting around looking for something else to do. Hence the brainwave he’s had now – “I can get in up there!”

The problem is, he’s took the decision without actually consulting the existing Scottish left. In the amendment going to RESPECT’s conference, it says:

“Respect has not organized in or contested elections in Scotland in the past because of the hegemony of other parties to the left of Labour. This hegemony no longer exists.”

So speak a bunch of people based in England, who have no idea about the left in Scotland. All the signatories are English based people, because RESPECT doesn’t exist in Scotland. But yet again, English socialists think they know best what will work up here.

People from down south just don’t seem able to get their heads round the idea that Scotland is a different country, with a different political situation. Pretty much all the organised left in Scotland, at least on paper, is in favour of independence. They realise what a farce it would be if there was an independence referendum and socialists were arguing for keeping the imperialist, war mongering British state. If George is aspiring to be the voice of the left in the Scottish Parliament, he needs to realise that he’s totally out of step with Scottish socialists on this issue. But then, we shouldn’t be surprised if a London based organisation, that thinks it’s ok to turn up and plant their flag like modern day colonialists, don’t get it.

You would think though that people in RESPECT would have at least the common courtesy to talk to people before they announced they were coming to enlighten the northern barbarians. The arrogance of just declaring this is the way things are going to be without consultation is amazing.

Socialists in Scotland were able to get elected when they were united. But in 2006, Tommy Sheridan and his supporters decided to leave the SSP and set up another celebrity ego project, Solidarity. Since then we’ve had the even more obscure Scottish Trade Union and Socialist Coalition set up by those same folk. The result is that there’s likely to be at least 2 organisations battling it out for left wing votes in Glasgow next year (SSP and Solidarity/No2EU/STUSC). What this situation calls for is – MOAR PEOPLE STANDING!!!

George and Tommy: best pals, but for how much longer?

In the past, George vehemently supported Tommy (with such bizarre statements as “Let the monkeys shriek in their trees, the lion walks on by. The Lion is Tommy Sheridan.”) Apparently now though he thinks that’s not a runner any more, and thinks what Scotland needs is . . . HIM. He’s even gone as far as saying he thinks there haven’t been any big hitters in the Scottish Parliament, conveniently forgetting his former bromance with Tommy.

What this will actually mean is an incredibly divisive move at a time when the left in general needs to be thinking about the ways we can work together. There’s no existing organisation that will support him, given that his antics down south have alienated most of the other socialist groups away, and there’s no way the SSP will be able to support him. He claims he’s under “intense pressure” from “football fans” and “the city’s Asian community.” We don’t buy it. We think the only pressure he’s under is the pressure to find a new elected position and continue his political career. It’s as if when the SSP was at its height, we’d decided we were going to take England in hand and set up the ‘Scottish Socialist Party – England.’

So consider this a plea to members of RESPECT to live up to their party’s name, and not blunder into a difficult situation and make it much much worse. Three lists standing for parliament almost certainly guarantees that no socialists will be elected, and there’s no way RESPECT can be a unifying force for socialists up here. Yet another “socialist” group getting set up would be a disaster for Scotland.

But it doesn’t look like George is going to listen to reason on this one, he seems determined to plough on anyway. So, for when the day comes that he announces he’s standing, here’s a few of the reasons that SSY won’t be flocking to his banner, in advance:

1. Like we said, he’s against independence. He’s described Scotland as “the country with the highest number of junkies, alcoholics and religious bigots in Europe.” As opposed to the majority of the Scottish left, George thinks the best idea for Scotland is to stay part of Britain. He justifies it with sophisticated arguments:

“The seas are rough out there. Getting out of a liner and into a Para Handy puffer on the storm-tossed seas just for the pleasure of shouting ‘och aye the noo’ as loud as we like doesn’t strike me as all that smart. How about you?”

Independence is pretty fundamental to how we see social progress for Scotland. There’s currently half-a-state in Scotland, and we need to make it a fully independent democratic republic with the power to really tackle Scotland’s social problems. We also need Scotland to be withdrawn from a state that was set up specifically to be a stronger imperial power, and continues to be one today, with Scottish soldiers dying in Afghanistan. There’s just no way we can support electing yet another unionist MSP.

2. He insists on taking the full salary as an MP/MSP. When the SSP had people elected, we made sure they only took the average wage of a skilled worker, so that they could really represent the people who elected them, rather than becoming a well off part of the establishment. This is a well established socialist principle that goes back to the Paris Commune. Not for George though – he says he “couldn’t live on three worker’s wages,” and that he spends his money on “the things I need to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system.”

George lets "page 3 trollopes" know where he stands

3. He’s against a woman’s right to choose. This is another pretty basic political fundamental for us: women have the right to control their own bodies, and restricting abortion would cost untold lives in Scotland – we know this because around the world 200 women die every day due to not being able to access safe and legal abortion services.

To be fair to the RESPECT party it prominently states that its position is pro-choice. It’s just not one shared by their most prominent member, who in the past hassn’t turn up at any time it’s voted on to get out of voting against. But if GG ends up running some kind of independent campaign (‘George 4 Glasgow’), will he even have that restriction placed on him? For us, it would be pretty much impossible to support an anti-abortionist for the Scottish Parliament.

(In addition, he’s not above spouting some really cringeworthy Swiss Tony style remarks about women. Check out some of the belters from his book:

“Air-headed blow-dried telly-dollies”

“fragrant rose”

“all folded arms, chins and bosoms”

“wives of the elite” wouldn’t “get a spot in Sex and the City”

or indeed these two particular offerings from his Record coloumn on key issues of the day: ‘Check out the hot M&S underwear ads‘ and ‘Pirates of the Caribbean boobs‘.  Or the way he ganged up on Jodie Marsh in the Big Brother house using language like “page 3 trollope”. The point about this stuff is its really embarassing and reflective of a lack of engagement with feminism which is essential for socialists. Which leads us on to our next point . . .)

4. We just don’t need another cheesy, Big Brother “lefty” celebrity in Scotland, we’ve had quite enough of the main one (who George used to love)!

No article like this would be complete without talking about the cat thing. I’d actually forgotten he’d done that, until I was reading about him again the other night and burst out laughing. See if you can actually bear to watch it all the way to the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU

Leave all politics aside, that is just 1 and a half minutes of wrongness.

There’s lots of other reasons people on the left have criticised Galloway, such as the fact that he’s a bit too friendly with certain Middle East governments who do lots of nasty stuff. However, I’m trying at this stage to steer clear of things Galloway fans would argue about, and stick straight to some of the reasons we could never support his candidacy for Glasgow. Things that Galloway himself accepts are his views that are fundamentally different from ours. Three of the above four points are things that George himself accepts, and that we feel are pretty much matters that we couldn’t compromise on, and the 4th is just an undisputable fact: CBB was an embarassing mistake, and it would make us cringe to go out and tell people to vote for that guy.

However, the main point here isn’t to bash George Galloway, but to appeal to members of RESPECT to get some common sense. You have no organisation in Scotland. Trying to impose it up here will cause further alienation and division in a country that’s had quite enough of that on the left. We quite like some of the folk in RESPECT. Please don’t be so arrogant as to support this move, as it will do ZERO good for anybody.

"I'm looking at you funny cos I am a bit funny"

Nadine Dorries is the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire. She’s a corrupt liar. She’s one of the greatest threats to reproductive rights in the UK through her attempts to get parliament to reduce the term limit for abortion. And she also exploits the very real problem of stalking and abuse to try and avoid criticism – in fact she doesn’t like people looking into her activities as an elected representative one little bit.

Nadine has been in the news this week because of a public spat with blogger Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads. He and some others have been working to document the frequent lies she tells and her flagrant corruption. She has responded by accusing him of being a stalker, but also by admitting that what she writes on her own blog is “70% fiction.”

Nadine was criticised in a Commons report last week for using her blog to try and make it look as if she was living primarily in her constituency, and lying to her constituents about how much time she was spending locally. She had been under investigation for her expenses claims, because she was claiming for her home in Bedfordshire as a second home, meaning she got about £24 grand from the public purse for it. But she was cleared of wrongdoing because although she wasn’t staying mainly in London, she also wasn’t staying in Bedfordshire – she actually lives in the picturesque Cotswolds in Gloucestershire!

Defending her lies on her blog about where she was at any particular time, she said:

“My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.”

She has previously attacked the media for “bullying” MPs over the expenses scandal (God forbid that journalists would look into how they’re spending our money!), famously saying on her blog that MPs were all checking up on each other because “everyone was fearing a suicide” (a post she later deleted when she realised how bad it made her look.) She again developed this theme to account for her blog lying:

“In the light of the bullying onslaught of the Daily Telegraph I used my blog to its best effect in reassuring my constituents of my commitment to Mid Beds. My commitment is absolute and is always my first consideration regardless of where I sleep at night. However, I have always been aware that should my personal domestic arrangements become the knowledge of my political opponents, they would be able to exaggerate that to good effect. Hence the reason for my blog and my need to reassure my constituents.”

Reassure them by lying?

She also went on to claim that she had been lying about her whereabouts to conceal them from the aforementioned blogging “stalker” Tim Ireland. However, the lies on her blog date back to before Ireland had even taken any interest her, and yet again she is trying to make herself look like a victim when she has been uncovered doing wrong, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention.

The story of how she came to be targeting Ireland is a complicated one, that he explains in full on his blog. However, it dates back to some investigative journalism he did that exposed some of the extremely dodgy activities of a group of Tory MPs and their associates. In January last year, he uncovered that a man called Glen Jenvey, a professional associate of the Tory MP Patrick Mercer (who btw is chair of the Commons sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism), was going round the internet pretending to be an Islamic extremist. His aim was to create tabloid headlines and whip up anti-Muslim racism, based on lies.

When Ireland exposed this, he made himself a target for the Tory lie machine, who got hold of his (ex-directory) home address and started publishing it around the internet claiming he was a convicted paedophile and in league with Islamic terrorists. They handed this information to people who they thought were hostile, including members of the BNP. When Ireland began contacting Tory MPs to demand this stopped, they began the story that he was an “electronic stalker” who was bombarding them with emails and phone calls. This is a real misrepresentation of what happened, and I know if I was in his shoes I would be going considerably more ape shit than he appears to have done. From this however emerged the allegation that he was stalking a number of MPs, including Nadine Dorries.

One of the main people responsible for the attacks, a man called Charlie Flowers, said he was acting on behalf of Nadine Dorries. When this was brought to her attention, she claimed she had taken action (another lie) and then claimed she had reported Ireland to the police for stalking.

Ireland has responded to the allegation by asking for any evidence of the abusive emails she claims he sent, or even any evidence she has spoken to the police, as he has had no contact from them. She can’t even produce a crime number for her supposed report because it’s bollocks. Since then the cabal of Tory liars of which she has part have also initiated false allegations against Ireland’s children that they were guilty of criminal damage.

When a constituent tried to challenge Nadine on her smearing of Tim Ireland, she went on to launch a venomous attack against her as well. The woman in question blogs and tweets as Humphrey Cushion, and also has arthritis meaning she has had to give up her job as a carer temporarily while she waits for a foot operation. She does not qualify for benefits for disability, however, Dorries and chums decided to go all out describing her as a “benefits cheat”.

“Do you know of anyone else who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it’s someone you know is on benefits, contact the DWP . . .

Twitter all day, every day about claiming disability benefit in one tweet whist arranging a night out in the pub in the next. If you tweet about claiming six months rent from the social fund whilst tweeting how bad your hangover is . . . then don’t expect someone like me not to a) inform the authorities and b) tell you to get off your Twitter and get a job.”

The hand of hope - on Snopes and everything

All this bizarre behaviour shouldn’t surprise us given some of Nadine’s wackier political outbursts. She’s most well known for her attempts to lower the abortion term limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, based on totally made up science and yet more lies. In the last parliament she put a private member’s bill up, which was defeated. In the debate she lied that polls show that 75% of women back her position (the real figure is 15% and only when it’s fed to them as an option.)

She also repeated the ‘hand of hope’ hoax. This is a photo that was taken during surgery on a fetus that it was claimed showed it reaching out to hold the surgeon’s finger, proof, claim anti-abortionists, that fetuses are fully formed little people and killing them is murder. Except it’s bollocks, the surgeon says what happened is he accidentally pulled the hand out of the womb, after which he tucked it back in. It’s an anti-abortion urban legend – it’s on Snopes and everything. (She does back up her scientific credentials however by being one of the MPs that backs homeopathic hospitals becoming part of the NHS.)

She also campaigned against what she claimed was an attempt by unions to “ban high heels at work.” The origin of the story was that the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists had submitted a motion to the Trades Union Congress asking employers (many of whom force women to wear high heels as part of a dress code) to consider the serious ill health wearing them all day can cause to the feet, legs and back. No call to ban, but that didn’t stop Nadine from smearing this perfectly sensible appeal as political correctness gone mad.

It's political incorrectness (lying) gone MAAAD!

And then there’s Channel 4 documentary, Tower Block of Commons, in which MPs were invited to live for a couple of days with people on welfare. Nadine took part, and managed to alienate the women she was staying with so much they set up a Twitter page called ‘I hate MPs’. They claim that she’d hidden 50 quid in her bra to avoid the reality of living on their income, and that she offered them temazepam!

“South Acton hates Nadine ­Dorries. Get her off the estate . . . Nadine Dorries is a lying two-faced bitch. I know first-hand,” they wrote.

All in all, Nadine is a bit of a train wreck of an MP, and if she was under proper media scrutiny rather than individuals on the internet being left to expose her she would have been forced to resign. Apart from being comedic in how much she lies, it’s good to read up on her as a cautionary tale as what we are up against in the Tories. And when it comes to the investigation that sparked all the trouble for Tim Ireland, it’s yet another warning that if we want to counter the politics of the SDL/EDL and the BNP, we should understand that the lies they tell about Islam and Muslims don’t just originate with them, but as much with members of UKIP, Labour and the Tories as well. In this case, there was in fact direct collusion with the BNP to promote a shared agenda.

Bonus: Check out the dedicated blog, The Nadine Dorries project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEFWDYB0rWo

The man in the above clip was going with his wife to a women’s health centre in Boston for surgery. It followed the devastating news that their unborn child had been diagnosed with Sirenomelia, otherwise known as ‘Mermaid Syndrome.’ The child had both legs fused together and no bladder or kidneys – there was a zero chance of survival. The surgery was so the woman involved would not have to give birth to a stillborn baby.

On there way to what they describe as “the worst day of their lives”, they were accosted by two anti-abortion protesters, shouting “You’re killing your baby!” and holding up pictures of aborted fetuses. In his article, Aaron Gouveia describes what happened next:

Running on pure adrenaline, and without even a hint of a plan, I grabbed my cell phone and crossed the street. I didn’t know what to say or how to say it, I just knew I wanted to make public the cowardice of these protesters . . .

I learned a few important things from this encounter. First, these people aren’t used to being confronted. They prey on the weak and they pounce on the wounded. It’s easy to berate people and shame them when they’re too beaten down to fight back. But I chose to do just that, and you can see what happened.

They spout the same tired rhetoric passed out at rallies and subway stations. They don’t have one salient response to any of my questions . . .

Consider this my plea: stop terrorizing women. Stop adding trauma to their trauma. If you’re able, stand up to these bullies in nonviolent ways. Speak out. And if you have a camera, use it.”

Bonus: Check out SSY’s confrontation of anti-abortionists earlier this year, and their hilarious/horrendous responses.

First and foremost, as pointed out by Sarah, if you’re at the age where you had Pokemon in your childhood, you’re not fucking old enough to preach anything to anyone about “When I was your age”. “When I was your age is reserved for when you’re an actual established adult. (which is debatable if you’re over 18 and still joining facebook fan pages dedicated to laying hate on an opressed group)

I don't remember him being branded a 'slut'. I DO remember the girl being SLAUGHTERED by the media, while the wee guy was branded a 'victim' and pitied.

Where’s all the hate-filled groups about teenage dads? It takes two to fucking tango, and do you not think it’s enough punishment to have to squeeze a screaming brat out of your fanny and then take care of it for 16 years without your pretentious bastard scrutiny and mockery? Most girls who end up pregnant as teenagers end up with the entire burden as the guy goes off to live his life. I think losing your opportunities, hopes, dreams and freedom is a big enough punishment from the patriarchal had of society without a generation of deely-bopper snooty CHILDREN trying to look down on them.

It’s a total ploy to make non-pregnant FAILED teenagers feel better about themselves.

Working Class has a high concentration of teenage pregnancies because shitty state schools do NOT offer adequate sex education (And for Catholic Schools, none at all). Young girls AND BOYS aren’t taught responsibility and the repercussions of having unprotected sex. This is not their fault. The only people who would see teenage pregnancy as the mother’s fault would be those so uneducated themselves, that they fail to see what wrong has been done to the young woman.

Young women in working class areas are vulnerable and in a bad position to begin with. This is due to the Capitalist way of Britain (And most of the world). You have insanely rich people, who have access to the right kind of education and amenities (and yes, I’m saying birth control is an AMENITY) to avoid that kind of situation, and SHOULD a well off woman get pregnant, she will NOT have to struggle along for the next 16-18 years. She’ll be well looked after and have all the supplies she needs.

“

A GRAPH TO PROVE MY POINT! Click to Enlarge

People WILL get pregnant during their teenage years. It’s a fact. It’s always been happening. It’s not some new epidemic, it only seems that way to teenagers now because it’s around them and they were too young to notice before. Plus, remember when you were wee, and teenagers of like 14 were basically big adults to you? Well, yes, if they got pregnant, in your tiny mind, it was okay back then.

Now, you see everything in a different light, and it’s all “She’s such a <insert misogynistic term here> cause she’s pregnant,”. Well, it could have easily happened to anyone. People forget birth control it sometimes fails or any other kind of unfortunate circumstance. What I’m saying is, shut your fucking mouth until you know the reasons behind teenage pregnancy.

People use misogyny as the nice, acceptable fascism to scapegoat on people. Racism is less acceptable now and they’re young people themselves. Women are the only way out. they’re getting all our housing cause they’ve got kids, they use all the benefits.

Naw mate. Go up the town and have a wee look at the bank buildings. RBS? Lloyds TSB? Aye, THAT’S where all your fucking (not well earnt cause you’ve never been taxed in your fucking life) tax money went. Fucking benefits, don’t kid yourself. If benefits were that high, we wouldn’t be in this position, but you wouldn’t really know because all you listen to is The fucking Daily Mail and old people going on about shit they don’t know anything about.

Do yer fucking research mate.

Get it up yeese. (Excuse the pun.)

The document was apparently the result of a “brainstorming” session, where staff tried to come up with a scenario for an ideal visit by the Pope. You can see at least some of the text here, including suggestions that the Pope should launch a ‘Benedict’ brand of condoms, visit an abortion clinic and bless a civil partnership.

This has led to a storm of condemnation of the memo, branded “offensive” and “vile”. Many revealed that this in fact may not have been a serious planning session, but in fact an attempt to take the piss. Paralysed in shock, the nation gradually came to realise that someone had dared to mock a man who promotes views which we all know to be total nonsense.

The government has apologised and been desperate to smooth things over. Meanwhile, the Vatican itself spoke of “dark forces” at the heart of the British government.

It’s difficult to find a full text of the memo online, and there’ve been differing reports of what it contained (which makes you wonder how many of the people rushing to condemn it have actually read it), but based on what has been mainly reported, is it a case of outrageous prejudice?

Is it outrageous to ridicule the church’s mental position on contraception, sex education, homosexuality etc.? Is deliberately misinforming school pupils about abortion and their sexuality really a set of views that we should just respect? Or is it ok to poke fun at reactionary craziness, even if it is supported by lots of religious believers?

When I was in Catholic school we were taught that two thirds of condoms failed, given no education on different kinds of contraception and any discussion of abortion was solely focused on it being traumatic and wrong for the woman in all cases. We never got to see “The Silent Scream”, a disturbing anti-abortion video, but other pupils did, and it had a major effect on how they view abortion. The film is riddled with inaccuracies and downright pish, Leftfield will be coming back to why it’s nonsense in a later post.

I found it offensive that the Catholic Church was allowed to promote their one sided view of the world in schools, and I wasn’t allowed to hear about anyone’s rights regarding sex education, contraception or abortion – and not only was it offensive, it wasn’t even funny unlike the memo done by hard working civil servants, who no doubt had to take their work to the pub with them.

Some people, including some on the Left, say the memo was out of order because it was an attack on a religious minority and have compared it to the attacks you get on Muslims from the far-right, some evangelical Christians and some very confused ‘secularists’. What’s happening to Muslims today is much, much worse though – nobody is denying the Catholic Church the right to build spires on Churches, enforcing legal restrictions on what Catholic women can wear, or talking about Catholic birthrates destroying Western civilization.

The Pope gets into the spirit of things after blessing a gay wedding

Also, while there is no Islamic equivalent of the Pope, if for example the King of Saudi Arabia were to visit the UK we probably would find it quite funny if people took the piss out of his regime for its interesting stances on community restorative justice (i.e. beheadings for witchcraft) or its unique plan to encourage use of public transport by not letting women drive cars – which has won it plaudits from the Top Gear presenters, including fellow Islamist Jeremy Clarkson.

If the Pope doesn’t like being mocked he should either abandon his views or try and defend them against attack. When I was in RE classes it was pretty obvious to most if not all of the people in the class that the Church’s position on many of the issues in the memo were patently ridiculous – and very few of the people at my school were atheists or agnostics. Most of them would still have described themselves nominally as Catholics, and ignore all the nonsense bits of it, like banning condoms etc. If the Catholic Church had spent half as much time attacking poverty in Scotland and the world, opposing climate change, or other kinds of injustice in society as they did attacking homosexuality and sex education then it’s likely a lot more people in my school and in Scotland would have a lot more respect and time for the Catholic Church.

As it stands today, if the Pope wants to argue that gays are as big a threat to humanity as climate change then he shouldn’t expect people not to say that’s mental.

(Additional reporting and images by Jack.)

We had a successful and peaceful day of highlighting our opposition to their anti-woman views. Unfortunately, although we only wanted to show the members of SPUC that their views would not go unopposed and make them think about exactly what their anti-choice ideas mean in reality (such as the fact that over 200 women die every day because they can’t access legal abortions), they seemed to be a bit timid and chose not to venture beyond their hotel, which was insensitively placed right beside a hospital.

Protestors begin to gather

SSY thinks it’s important to continue to defend a woman’s right to control her own body. If the potential next Tory government thinks that they can get away with eroding women’s rights over the coming years, we hope you’ll stand with us in defence of choice and safety for vulnerable women.

On a related note, American filmmaker Michael Moore, a pro-choice Catholic, has written this piece condemning his anti-choice Michigan Democrat Congressman who has attempted to halt the Obama administration’s health bill on the basis that it doesn’t erode women’s rights quite enough for his liking.

It contains some pretty shocking facts about the state of abortion rights in America – such as that regardless of it being technically legal, in 71% of American counties it is impossible for a woman to find a doctor who will be willing to perform an abortion, such is the strength of the anti-choice Right in America. You can read it here.

SSY standing up for choice

With the Tory fist of power soaring across our skies thick and fast as crazy people decide to take a rebel move and vote the fuckers in, women should know that Nadine Dorries’s stupid Bill for reducing the time limit for an abortion from 24 weeks to 20 is coming back when Cool ol’ Cammy takes his throne… I mean seat.

According to Nadine I-Hate-Women Dorries, the UK will become the “abortion captial of the world”. Here’s a few things that would ACTUALLY work, just for your benefit, Nadine:

• Sex education for all! Not just those lucky enough to live near an non-denominational school. To be frank, no one gives two damned fucks about ‘God’s Plan for Life’ – We want to know what are the implications of unsafe sex and how the hell you prevent babies! And you know what? Not all of us have the money to travel miles away to go to a non-religious school, but I tell you what, you give me the travel money, and I will.
• Free condoms in all secondary schools. Nothing prevents a baby like a wee rubber bag to catch sperm! It’s a brilliant idea, innit? Well, you should slap a sexual health room and counsellor in each school to hand ‘em out and give the kiddies advice about this new, fancy sex stuff. Oh! Oh, what’s that you’re saying? It’ll encourage them to have sex too young? Well, here’s some news for you, Tories – Sex is pretty much the most awesome thing LEIK EVAR. If people want to have sex, they’re going to whether there’s someone to get safe sex advice from or not. Why not keep ‘em safe, eh?
• Have a wee pop at ending poverty. One of the reasons people don’t want kids is because WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEM. If you’re dirt poor already, who the hell wants another mouth to feed, skin to clothe and body to warm. Not any of us. Give people more money and people will not have to worry about this. They can keep a child and care for it properly without living your whole life in desperate need of money, sinking further and further into depression, with your kid having a shoddy life too.
• Protect women. Go to greater lengths to cut sexism. There are predatory men because women are portrayed so heavily by the media as being completely available for the taking. Pathetically, only 1 in 20 of reported rape cases in Scotland end with a conviction. Many, many more cases go even with report because women know themselves that they will not find justice this way. Do not let our women suffer at the hands of these monsters and as a result. Futher more, they will not need abortions from non-consented conceptions.

Following these simple steps will reduce the amount of abortions needed each year by helpless women. The effects of simply reducing the available time period will only be that more women will resort to ‘back alley’ abortions and cause serious damage to themselves. Sure, the RECORDED abortion rate will drop, but the actual rate will not. Women will become ill and possibly die from what the Tories have forced them to do. That’s blood on your hands, Nadine.

I mean, JEEZE we even supplied a diagram!

Women are entitled to the rights that men have, to do exactly what they want with their bodies whenever they want to. Who is anyone to say that a woman should keep/give birth to a baby she does not want? That is up to the woman, if you ask me (Or indeed any sane person). To deprive women of this right is just tyranny. It’s just another way to ‘put her in her place’. Imagine if old Div Cam could get preggo? Just imagine with me for a second that he did. His belly swelled and the doctor said.

“Hold up old chap! You seem to have a little bundle of joy on the way! Since you apparently don’t have a vagina, you’ll just be having it by C-Section. That’s alright, isn’t it old bean?!”

And he’d say “Of course! I mean, I WAS stupid and slutty enough to have sex! DUH! Wouldn’t want to contribute to the abortion rates! I should just go back home and quit my job to prepare to dedicate at least 16 years of my life to raising my new child. Forget my flourishing career! I’m ready to be a mummy!”

Naw. He’d be legging it down to the abortion clinic screaming

“BY JOE! MY IMAGE! MY MONEY! IT’S ALL AT RISK! GET THIS THING OUT OF ME!”

Aye, what’s your answer to that, Na-demon Dorries?

We’ve fought the racists and fascists on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh – now it’s time to fight the woman-haters.

SPUC not only want to stop women getting abortions – they’re also against condoms, the pill, and sex education. WTF?!

A woman’s right to control her body is a fundamental human right. Women should have total control over their reproductive system, being able to make free and informed decisions about how they live. Every undermining of a woman’s right to choose whether, when and how to have children is an attack on all women.

Every day, 200 women die because they couldn’t access a legal abortion.

After the general election in May there’s the very real prospect that abortion rights will come under heavy attack. Tory MPs want to make it more and more difficult for women to access abortion. If enough of them are elected there could be a majority in the Westminster parliament for gradually taking women’s rights to control their own bodies away piece by piece. That means we need to get organised now, and start undermining the ability of anti-abortionists to meet and organise against women. Just as we do with racists, we also need to do with misogynists.

Women’s abortion rights need to be defended.

FUCK SPUC!

Protest! Saturday 20 March, outside Beardmore Hotel, Clydebank. 8.30am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCgCu9zCOIQ