Harry’s Place

Doesn’t Ealing council social services now provide the kinds of specialist services that SBS does for BME women? Why can’t SBS work closely with them on these issues? Shouldn’t we be moving towards a situation of harmonisation?

At the same time that some councils were demanding of anti-racist and feminist groups, that they take a “neutral” approach as a condition of funding, other public bodies have been providing money, influence and room to trample on human rights to non governmental organisations and pressure groups that define themselves in religious terms, apparently in the hopes of winning over a Muslim “community” believed to be homogenous. This seems a manifestly self-defeating strategy: holding out carrots for groups to coalesce precisely around narrow conceptions of religious practice, while choking off internal dynamics of dissent and disagreement within and across racial and religious groups. You’d almost think the government wanted a rigid division of society into sectarian blocks.

And doesn’t bollocks like the above belong in pseuds corner.

And doesn’t bollocks like the above belong in pseuds corner.

Makes perfect sense to me.

At the risk of sounding Thatchesque, I feel as I’m swamped with interest groups, or should I say with interest groups in which I have no interest but which I ‘m forced to give involuntary support through council or other taxes.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Problem is that I don’t have any four year old kids I can call on to explain it.

Hang on, let me have another go.

“We’re all sistas and who needs men”. Yes, Yes its coming through now. Getting clearer……. “and there’s no reason why Muslim women and other religious minorities shouldn’t also be lesbians with public bodies that nicely coalesce, while using carrots”

I got it! Or did the Chardonnay get to me?

(Sorry if its something serious - it just passes me by)

At the risk of sounding Thatchesque, I feel as I’m swamped with interest groups, or should I say with interest groups in which I have no interest but which I ‘m forced to give involuntary support through council or other taxes

Ferry Intervesting!

I don’t know what has got to you Maven, but whatever it is, it demeans you. How stereotypical of you, to see lesbians under every bed.

I don’t know what has got to you Maven, but whatever it is, it demeans you

Three glasses of Chardonnay!

BTW - how deeply do you want me to take on board that you think something demeans me?

Do you think I’ll walk into Tesco with my head bowed? I’m just a text Avatar, you’re just a text Avatar so I guess I’ll feel bad in Avatar Land.

tsk Maven.

If that’s what Chardonnay does to you, best go back to cider.

Apologies. If my team hadn’t won the Quiz Night (again, yawn) I wouldn’t have had a bottle of wine in the fridge (unusual) and quaffed it faster than my usual half and half shandy.

I was really commenting on the socio-babble nature of the statement where the only word that made sense to me was “carrot”.

I’d like to apologise to all other vegetables - and the good ladies of Peckham. (!)

I presume the undercurrent to this dispute is that the things that SBS campaign and work practically against — men regarding wives as property to be dealt with as they see fit, parents regarding daughters as property ditto — are things that the `community leaders’ the council panders to are broadly in favour of?

My prediction is that in most cities we’re going to see similar pressure on women’s groups, groups working with gay men — for some reason it’s the G in LGTB that causes the friction — and groups providing assistance for people confronted with forced marriage. White guilt-striken council officials think they can expiate their historic racism (etc) by pandering to the most reactionary elements in minority communities.

I sometimes think it’s almost approaching the parody situation in crank religions and the SWP, where you have to affect to believe nonsense as an initiation ritual. In order to work for large urban councils, you have to pretend to believe that Somali women didn’t need their clitorises anyway, to prove that you’ll go that extra ideological mile for your colleagues. Like gangs insisting you kill someone to prove your loyalty to the group over your previous moral scruples.

“Progressive, secular anti-discrimination groups are facing growing obstacles to finding political breathing room.”

I’m sorry but I just don’t see how a group which calls itself the ‘Black Sisters’ can charcterised as an ‘anti-discrimination group’. There’s a paradox in their somewhere.

“…and with a non-exclusive focus on BME women.”

Why call themselves the ‘Black Sisters’ then if their aim isn’t to attract and cater for specific racial groups with high melanin content skins? Straight out of the Alinsky playbook.

“Far from prohibiting differentiated or specific treatment of different groups to achieve substantive equality…”

I would argue that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who proscribe marriage outside of their religious community (particularly for their daughters) are racist/discriminatory, and that at least 2 of these religions are heavily influenced by ethnicity (Sikhs almost exclusively so) and by analogy any service provided by a taxpayer funded entity which caters solely for these faiths is discriminatory.

“…the equality duty imposed on public authorities by the law may require precisely that . The error of mistaking apparent neutrality for equality is easily illustrated by a familiar example: gay people aren’t enjoying equal treatment if they have “the same right as everyone else to form a partnership with a different-sex person.””

This doesn’t make any sense. As far as I’m aware gay people are entitled to a civil partnership just as anybody else which is a good thing. If some religious groupings don’t recognise these partnerships or object to marry gay people then this is a matter for them not the state. Of course, if they’re employed by the state to marry then this is different matter…

“But addressing them is made harder by a governmental approach to “community cohesion” rooted in sorting everyone into neat little boxes which are labelled according to “faith”, and taken as comprehensively spoken for by unaccountable “representatives””

The government’s community cohesion strategy is a sham: they and previous administrations have participated in the gradual erosion of our liberties and identity only to pay lip service to thinking about the sort of society they would create. Less government interference and taxes spent in administrative speciation in terms of communities is better. Just view how ethnicity questionnaires are devised: Black this, that and the other; Asian this, that and the other; white British and Irish. As if you could tell the difference between a Bengali from West Bengal (India) and from Dhaka (Bangladesh)…would Bengalis from these two countries be treated differently by employers?

No. The only solution is take government out of the equation. For too long they have poked, prodded and interfered, and constructed the social perception of preference where there is none and should be none.

“There is no doubt that individuals face discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, and this needs to be taken seriously in our thinking about equality.”

No. This is where problems emanate from. Do you see any post-racial or post-religious societies through the window of history or contemporarily? Why should the government get involved in deciding what relgious beliefs should and should not be observed; which practices are acceptable…it only serves to divide people and create mutually antagonistic groups of special interest. Moreover, the groupings who most vociferously demand ’special treatment’ because of perceived religious discrimination are those from the sub-continent, hardly a example of a society at ease with itself.

“You’d almost think the government wanted a rigid division of society into sectarian blocks.”

This is the society they’re in the business of creating. Colonial attitudes to ‘community leaders’ policing their ‘own’ are unlikely to work here. The legacy of Nigeria, a case study in how not to grant independence and foster a sense of nationhood, is telling for our future in the UK.

The government’s community cohesion strategy is a sham: they and previous administrations have participated in the gradual erosion of our liberties and identity only to pay lip service to thinking about the sort of society they would create

I agree. Its a waste of money because I see no better integration. The policy I think we should have had, only articulated by Blair but not made policy went something like “If our laws and freedoms are not to your liking and you believe them to be better elsewhere then I suggest you go elsewhere”.

Our mistake is to offer cultural and community cohesion (aka Muslim Integration) becuase it tells some people that their policies of beligerence are working and the way to get more is to become more beligerent and try and prove that policies still aren’t working.

I remember we had signs like “No Blacks or Irish” but have moved on by osmosis. I even remember the summer of Black riots. I don’t think we did anything special to promote cultural harmony. Maybe community leaders did most of the work with various trusts and work projects. What we didn’t do is change any laws to make it happen. Eventually it worked itself out. We didn’t do anything special to help Jews, Hindus & Sikhs to integrate. They all got on with it.

I’d like to leave the idea that if certain people don’t think our society is good enough then you may just push people to the BNP and then you’ll reap what you are sowing.

Imama Badr, I’m grateful for your comments as they have allowed me to understand what the article was about and has allowed me to comment On Topic!

Take the Government out of the equation?
Yes and No. It would seem that community leaders have played a part in Black integration. However, within the Muslim Community the Govt still have security concerns and will want to poke their noses in. We don’t want community leaders who organised the type of stuff we saw in Undercover Mosques.

““There is no doubt that individuals face discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, and this needs to be taken seriously in our thinking about equality”

- and when Islamist preachers stop disparaging the “infidel”, “Khuffar” and “Jews” then there won’t be a response by those people to being called as such.

“Why should the government get involved in deciding what relgious beliefs should and should not be observed; which practices are acceptable…it only serves to divide people and create mutually antagonistic groups of special interest”

When the Government says “We don’t want Shariah Law as a parallel Law System you should take it that THE Vast Majority of us agree!” That’s democracy by elected representatives and by popular poll.

Groups like MPAC UK and even MCB are antagonistic. We don’t like Dr Bari telling us that we are behaving like Nazis when MCB couldn’t bring themselves to observe Holocaust Memorial Day which was perpetrated by the Nazis. David T has exposed several Islamists and their sick support for suicide bombings.

The more I write the more I realise that you are blaming US. How about sorting yourselves out and decide which society you prefer to live in that doesn’t require that society to change. We can’t have 3% of a population demanding that 97% of teh population are to blame for their lack of integration. Other religious and minority groups made it without moaning.

“The more I write the more I realise that you are blaming US” - Maven

Eh?? Where did you get that from? As far as I can tell, Imam Badr has NOT mentioned the US. No wild assumptions, please.

Oops, disregard my above comment. US => NOT THE USA. Sorry then, Maven. Hangover here.

Anyway, I can’t see where he is blaming you [I take it you are talking about the 97% of population].

Pierrot, I should have written “Us”.

He’s blaming the Government. That means Us.

He’s blaming society for some perceived racism and religious persecution - that’s Us.

When he says “Why should the government get involved in deciding what relgious beliefs should and should not be observed; which practices are acceptable…it only serves to divide people and create mutually antagonistic groups of special interest” - he’s blaming Us because We are the Government, they represent Us. We voted them in.

The reason why Govt should get involved is because they are responsible for a cohesive society and that means Us again.

When push comes to shove it would be better for a cohesive society if 3% didn’t piss off the 97% with demands while harbouring terrorists in their midsts. Yes, I said it and mean it. There are Islamist Terrorists inside the Muslim Community.

Why not address why around 200 Muslims have been convicted of Terrorism related offences since Sep 2001 (check the Home office figures and answers in Hansard).

Looks like I’m getting a bit harder on this. (unfuelled by anythng more than coffee (Nespresso of course) and a slice of toast)

HP’s championing of any group no matter how diverse who would take away the rights of Muslims is truly inspiring

You won’t find me apologising for bigoted, extremist, narrow-minded and authoritarian Muslims be they of the jamaat-e-islaami or ikhwaan persuasion or others.

I take a great deal of pride in supporting the US as much as possible. You certainly could not identify with Americaphobes of any creed.

By government, I refer to the insidious poking Byzantine bureacracy foisted on us by administration after administration, year after year. I support the right of special interest groups to organise but not their right to milk my taxes.

A question. Maven, are you a comic book superhero? No. But your avatar…

Another question. Imam, are you a Zaydi cleric partly responsible for the Sa’dah uprising in Yemen? No. But your avatar…

Yes. My. Avatar.

“The reason why Govt should get involved is because they are responsible for a cohesive society and that means Us again.”

Question. Would you characterise Britain as a cohesive society pre-1960? If so, why was it cohesive? Because of the government or a combination of social mores and the relatively uniform ethnicity of the populace?

I defy you to give me one initiative originating at Westminster level that could be objectivally considered to have enhanced community cohesion? Community cohesion is yet another anticoncept dreamed up by this government or imported which doesn’t really mean anything.

With apologies to the scriptwriters of Blackadder III:

Edmund: Very well, sir, as you wish. Let’s start, shall we? First: ‘community cohesion’. How would you define ‘community cohesion’?

Baldrick: Ohh…..’community cohesion’ (continues this in background)

Prince George: Oh, I love this! I love this: quizzes….Errmmm, hang on, it’s coming… ooohh, crikey, errmm, oh yes, I’ve got it!

Edmund: What?

Prince George: Well, it doesn’t really mean anything, does it?

Edmund: Good. So we’re well on the way, then ‘community cohesion’; abstract noun…doesn’t really mean anything. Right! Next: ‘racism’….

HP’s championing of any group no matter how diverse who would take away the rights of Muslims is truly inspiring

So I take it you feel Muslim males are losing controle of ‘their’ women.

If you want to breed them properly you cannot let them out of your sight for even a second, otherwise they’ll bolt.

And become pole-dancers!

“The reason why Govt should get involved is because they are responsible for a cohesive society and that means Us again.”

I defy you to give me one initiative originating at Westminster level that could be objectivally considered to have enhanced community cohesion? Community cohesion is yet another anticoncept dreamed up by this government or imported which doesn’t really mean anything.

Off to watch the footy. Whoosh! Cape flutters in the wake.

I think I’ve found an example of the sort of statist interference you have in mind Captain Maven; in spite of being a detractor of Islam, this doesn’t preclude a certain amount of synergy when it comes to your respective motifs of ‘interference trumps reason’ with another aficionado of beadle and bumbledom:

“Islam regards knowledge and science as the common heritage of mankind and Muslims have absolute liberty to learn them and their practical uses from whatever source they can. But as far as the question of culture and the way of life is concerned, it forbids them to imitate the modes of living of other peoples. The psychology of imitation suggests that it springs from a sense of inferiority and abasement and its net result is the cultivation of a defeatist mentality. Cultural aping of others has disastrous consequences on a nation; an; it destroys its inner vitality, blurs its vision, befogs its critical faculties, breeds an inferiority complex and gradually but assuredly saps all the springs of culture and sounds its death-knell.”

Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam.

“But as far as the question of culture and the way of life is concerned, it forbids them to imitate the modes of living of other peoples”

We should define the concept “culture” then ;)

“a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group ; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time”

First of all, note that I don’t like the inclusion of the concept “race” since that is pseudo-scientific concept.

I’m more interested in the “b” definition. And especially about the “social group”.

You are making a strong statement here… You are basically saying that according to the holy book there must be ghettos.

I think it should be clear: it’s either the state or religion… We are supposed to live in societies in which religions ARE a private affair. But yet you suggest that you must NOT be part of a society (Mongolia, UK or Papoua-New Guinea for that matter) in which you may be living er, because a book says so. A strong statement… I’m not talking about drinking alcohol or smoking by the way. That’s a rational choice. I’m talking about being part of a society (as opposed to us vs the others). This per se should be obvious, don’t you think?

In an sense, I admit the idea is coherent. Just because it reflects the vision of a culture alien to the nation-state concept (and to other concepts: separation of religion and state for example).

The only little problem is: it’s quite strident when those who claim that DO live in these nation-states. Even more strident when they are ignoring that these concpets are aliens to these [decadent?] societies. We already had the funny euro-centrism. Now we have the islamic-centrism. More extravagant stuff, I see.

I prefer the sino-centrism. At least it is backed by solid facts… rising power, they are supposed to surpass the USA soon or late. But of course that is only possible in a religion FREE state. The day you will understand that (and I hope you will, this religious fetish is an obstacle for you), then maybe you’ll be on the right way. Although you will not catch up the Chinese in minimum 2 hundred years :P

Ealing Council wanted a single, borough-wide organisation providing support and services to victims of domestic violence. But SBS and Lord Moses upheld the progressive cause by insisting on the principle of “separate but equal”. With apparently no irony intended Brett the anti-apartheid South African cheers the decision of the court. Priceless posting, comrades!

Im fascinated that the writer says Muslim “community” in quotation marks particular when we read numerous references on HP to the Jewish community:

“At the beginning of April 2002 MEP Hannes Swoboda asked Europe’s Jewish communities”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/27/anti-semitism-and-the-austrian-left/

“You will remember that it is Mr Justice Eady who decided that the spiv and self publicist, George Galloway MP, was entitled to £15,000 from a small Jewish community radio station,”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/10/up-to-a-point-paul-dacre/

“Unity, with backers of Islamist hatred who constitute a tiny, strange, extreme and widely reviled component of the Jewish community?”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/28/islamism-and-labour-fail/

“David described the difficulties this new community experienced in getting the growing Fascist threat recognised by the more established and prosperous Jewish community which had set up its institutions further west”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/17/harrys-place-big-day-out/

“She didn’t denounce him, as many members of the Jewish community did at the time for his doubts about America’s”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/29/palin-backed-buchanan-in-1999/

So why is it acceptable to refer to the Jewish community but not the Muslim one ?

Monsieur Pierrot,

Si vous etes francais de souche, quelquechose qui n’est pas de tout evident, puis vous avez entendu du concept de laicite, n’avez vous pas? Donc, je suis totalement en accord avec ce concept…il semble que nous reconnaissons qu’il y a une certaine synthese entre nos avis…

You are making a strong statement here… You are basically saying that according to the holy book there must be ghettos.

I think it should be clear: it’s either the state or religion… We are supposed to live in societies in which religions ARE a private affair. But yet you suggest that you must NOT be part of a society (Mongolia, UK or Papoua-New Guinea for that matter) in which you may be living er, because a book says so. A strong statement… I’m not talking about drinking alcohol or smoking by the way. That’s a rational choice. I’m talking about being part of a society (as opposed to us vs the others). This per se should be obvious, don’t you think?

Bear in mind my distinguished colleague that I totally reject Mawdudi’s exposition of the Islamic attitude towards different cultures. Like much of what Mawdudi wrote, it was completely hypocritical. Were it not for his study of Greek philosophy, Christian theology and the Vedas, he would never have had the wherewithall to formulate such narrow-minded, dogmatic and insane prescriptions for the lives of Muslims everywhere. Characteristically, just as when a cleanshaven Mawdudi excoriated Muslims for not growing facial rhododendrons, he ended his life enjoying the fruits of Western science whilst receiving treatment in a Washington hospital.

I think I’ve found an example of the sort of statist interference you have in mind Captain Maven; in spite of being a detractor of Islam, this doesn’t preclude a certain amount of synergy when it comes to your respective motifs of ‘interference trumps reason’ with another aficionado of beadle and bumbledom:

Please accept that I don’t NEED to understand Islam. To use Forrest Gump “Islam is as Islam does”.

No-one ever cared about Islam until Islamist Terrorism arose from the Community. I think we all assumed Islam took care of itself and Muslims just evolved into the culture and ethics of the country they lived in. We probably thoughtt that since all other minorities aspire to be British then so did Muslim immigrants. It seems we were right about most and wrong about some.

No-one asks Muslims to ‘understand’ Judaism or Christianity even though the UK is based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, morals and law. Those things don’t keep our daily attention because they become amalgamated into what we call “living in Britain”. It tells we are liberal, like fair-play and we queue nicely.

But we don’t ask Muslims to know anything about Judaism and Christianity either. Please don’t try and make us take on-board the concerns of Muslims because it frankly bores us. Which is why (I believe) why we get Islamist Big Mouths telling us how terrible we are and Islamic inspired Terrorists from the Muslim Community.

I feel sadness at being so candid when I relate so well with who I call Joe The Muslim, the Average Joe. We both just want to live our lives in peace and many Muslims don’t have a problem at all. Problems that you suggest we have.

As for China, given the legion of internal problems not least the two thirds of the country’s population eking out a miserable subsistence living in the countryside, the increasing internal disorder and mass of manufacturing workers fleeing to the countryside, I’d say any prognostication about Chinese domination is rather foolish.

So nobody can tell me which services SBS provides that Ealing Social Services also provide? Surely if there is duplication there can at least be an question over how resources are best targetted? In the past when local government social services were not attuned or aware of particular stresses and issues SBS were nessecary. It’s not wrong to question this now.

But we don’t ask Muslims to know anything about Judaism and Christianity either. Please don’t try and make us take on-board the concerns of Muslims because it frankly bores us. Which is why (I believe) why we get Islamist Big Mouths telling us how terrible we are and Islamic inspired Terrorists from the Muslim Community.

Maybe we should do a better job of communicating what those values are…

Please don’t try and make us…

Who’s this US?

I feel sadness at being so candid when I relate so well with who I call Joe The Muslim, the Average Joe. We both just want to live our lives in peace and many Muslims don’t have a problem at all. Problems that you suggest we have.

Imam Badr doesn’t seem to be doing any suggesting at all. From a gaonian perspective I’d say he just has a fetish for using outlandish posting names and is really an Islamosceptic.

From a gaonian perspective

Help!!! I’m trapped in Pseuds Corner. They drew me in with sociobabble. Lead me to make obscene precis of the words I was able to understand and now they are throwing words at me that I never heard or used before.

It clearly an attack on the use of plain English and an attempt to exclude me because I can’t keep up with it. They might as well write serbo-croat or Finnish (very close to each other)

I’m outta here!

Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi, oui, j’ai bien sûr pensé que le paragraphe [écrit par un autre auteur: Mawdudi] n’était pas nécessairement votre opinion. C’est-à-dire, vous étiez en train de montrer les différentes visions du problème, les perspectives des différents acteurs (et il y en a pas mal, ça c’est ceratin). En fait la lecture de vos commentaires suggère cette idée.

Mais je ne pouvais pas être complètement sûr. En tout cas, ma réponse s’adresse aux points de ce paragraphe.

“As for China, given the legion of internal problems not least the two thirds of the country’s population eking out a miserable subsistence living in the countryside, the increasing internal disorder and mass of manufacturing workers fleeing to the countryside, I’d say any prognostication about Chinese domination is rather foolish”

Iman, just remember Great Britain on the 1800s… We are talking about a hegemonic power… and yet many many things which you describe (in China, and which are true) DID happen in Great Britain: extreme poverty… This did not stop them from being a World Power. I think you got it wrong. China is on the right way (much to America, Europe, Russia, India or Japan chagrin). I very much doubt it will derail. In fact, if I am not mistaken, that’s what most of experts predict…

Okay mon old pot (he types standing in for the temporarily engaged and self-flagellating Imam al-Huthi). Your English is a damn sight better than my French.

I’ll concede that China is and will likely be THE dominant economic global power. I will also concede that the British Empire had its share of internal problems (they were principally diplomatic rather than structural). However, that said, China still has a long way to go to give even a fraction of its citizens the opportunities enjoyed by those in the West. In terms of quality of life, I’d choose London over Beijing any day. Not least because the Chinese are so bloody xenophobic!

I prefer the sino-centrism. At least it is backed by solid facts… rising power, they are supposed to surpass the USA soon or late.

I’ll concede that China is and will likely be THE dominant economic global power

China have long way to go to be THE dominant economic global power, amassing dollars made in USA that America can print at will is a fragile base. GNI per capita: China $2,360, USA $46,040. China spend 2% on military, US 4,2%. US lack some strategic minerals for advance steel production but in general have US have pretty good energy supplies on the continent, i.e. Canada and Venezuela. No matter what anti US spectacle Chavez put up there is no interruption in supplying US with oil and neither will it happen in the foreseeable future. US can more than well feed it self and be the major supplier for the global market of grain. China have a looming water crises, and probably so also to be self-sufficiency in feeding it self. Major environmental problems, real environmental problems that makes people sick and die her and now. Acid rain, air pollution, water issues and so on. US geographical position is exceptional, presides on a twin continent that it dominate with major oceans surrounding it. It can supply it self from ether east or west, no one could blockade US.

US is an “empire” on a shoe string budget on the cheep no one have ever before dominated the globe as they do. They control the global water ways by roundabout 15 nuclear armed battle groups (something any other nation could only dream of), have bases all around the world conducting a couple of “wars” or rather “police” actions and this on a fraction of its economy by some governmental agencies among others. E.g. someone does challenge US and they mobilize put the economy on war foot it will the ball game will be quite different. China a nation that have problem to be self-sufficient to feed it self is a very long way from challenging USA. No one will be THE dominant economic global power if they dint have the protection (military).

It almost looks like US is playing good cop bad coop with the world. Bush the bully advance the positions with more or less violent means and now we will get the “good” cop that consolidates the advancements. Similar with Reagan-Bush/Clinton.

That China should be THE dominant power in any foreseeable future is pure fantasies, leftist “anti” imperialistic dreams and probably also a tool from the right to instill some fear of the yellow menace in the western working class. It comes to mind how Japan was pumped up as the next global dominant in the 1980’s, miles of articles and books was produced on the subject. Very little talk of that these days.

Maven: UK homogenous before 1960.

Yeah right. Perhaps you’d like to give us an example of two languages near the Atlantic seaboard of Europe that have less in common than English and Welsh?

“Ealing Council wanted a single organisation providing support to victims of domestic Violence”

Well that should help all the varied women of Ealing to life their own lives, including getting free of violent men.

Southall Black Sisters have done a serious job for years. And it would be quite wrong to think that their Committee and staff is full of women who reject contact with men from othe cultures.

I know the partner of one and he has her picture behind his desk.

Yeah right. Perhaps you’d like to give us an example of two languages near the Atlantic seaboard of Europe that have less in common than English and Welsh?

Portuguese and Basque

True. But I think that helps to make my point.