Social Items

TPQ
Maryam Namazie ✊The following, first published in The Freethinker, is an expanded and updated essay based on Maryam Namazie’s remarks at the launch of Steven Greer’s book, Islamophobia and Free Speech, on 15 April 2026, hosted by the Free Speech Union. 

Maryam Namazie speaking at the launch of Steven Greer’s book, 15 April 2026. Photo: screenshot from Free Speech Union’s YouTube recording.

Greer is Professor of Law at the University of Bristol. He was accused of ‘Islamophobia’ in 2021, a charge that was not upheld following a university investigation. (See here and here for an interview with Greer and a review of an earlier book of his, respectively.) The discussion included Sir John Jenkins, a former British diplomat, and was chaired by Free Speech Union’s David Rose. You can watch the discussion here.

Maryam Namazie 🪶Accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ and the like control dissent. I know this from experience. I have been labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ for criticising Islam, Hamas, and the Islamic regime of Iran; an ‘antisemite’ for criticising the Israeli state; and an ‘undercover jihadi’ for defending Muslims and migrants. The aim is always to silence dissent.

It is important to state at the outset that anti-Muslim racism is real. Whether or not Muslims are a ‘race’ is beside the point. Anti-Muslim hostility operates like racism, through name, appearance, and background, not merely belief. This reflects a broader shift in how racism operates. Biological racism has largely been discredited, but it is often rearticulated through culture and religion. Muslims are racialised not as a biological group but as a cultural one. This shift has been reinforced by a cultural relativism that treats Muslims as a homogeneous population defined by fixed ‘authentic’ beliefs and behaviours.

It is precisely because anti-Muslim racism is real that the language of Islamophobia is used to conflate the distinctions between Islam, Islamism, and Muslims. Islam is a body of ideas, subject to criticism and contestation. Islamism is a far-right political project. Muslims are diverse individuals.

‘Islamophobia’ is mobilised by authority to deflect criticism, determining what can be said, who can speak, and which forms of dissent are permissible. It protects authority by repackaging criticism of an idea or a religious-right political project as racism. In doing so, it disciplines dissent, stabilises authority, and shifts attention away from the structures of power being criticised. That is the crux of the matter: obfuscation in the service of power.

Of course, Muslims may be influenced by Islam, just as Italians may be influenced by Catholicism. But religion, even as a reactionary set of ideas, is also a lived experience. People are mainly born into it due to a lottery of birth. As Kenan Malik has consistently argued, sharia is not stitched into the DNA of every person from a Muslim background. People are not collectively good or bad.

Despite this, the default is to conflate people with the belief. The implication is that Islam is uniquely hateful and misogynistic, and this results in an inevitable ‘clash of civilisations’ narrative. But you can find similar forms of hate and misogyny in the Bible and Torah. And the same political project in other religious-right movements.

A recent example illustrates this conflation. I was misquoted on the back cover of Islamophobia and Free Speech as stating: ‘Greer’s book offers a compelling repost [sic] to the current campaign to denounce any criticism of Muslims and Islam as “Islamophobic”.’ The original statement was reduced to a sentence about ‘Muslims and Islam’, collapsing the distinction I had made.1 This is analogous to conflating criticism of Judaism into hostility toward Jews, and labelling both as ‘antisemitism’.

It is true that the failure to distinguish between criticism of Islam and Muslims is being politically weaponised to restrict free speech. But it is also true that the conflation between Islam and Muslims is used to promote hatred against people, to homogenise and place collective blame.

For me, any criticism of an idea is legitimate. It does not have to be measured, evidence-based, or polite. Free expression is an individual right, not a group right. Its limits cannot be determined by authority or claims of offence. It doesn’t even have to conform to existing law. Otherwise, how would women in Iran oppose the hijab? Expression is legitimate as long as there is no incitement to violence. Free expression is not an abstract principle; it is a precondition for all rights—a demand from those without power against authority.

Yet the institutions that claim to defend free expression do not apply this principle consistently. Organisations such as the Free Speech Union present themselves as defenders of free expression, yet their most visible interventions are in cases framed around Islam and ‘cancel culture’, even though restrictions on speech are not limited to accusations of ‘Islamophobia’. Academics face exclusion when accused of ‘antisemitism’ for criticism of Israeli state policy, and those supporting Palestine Action have been arrested under expansive public order and counter-terror frameworks. In each case, a similar mechanism operates: criticism of power is reframed as harm to a people or a nation, not to protect people, but to protect authority and manage dissent.

This is why the focus of the debate is often misdirected toward an ‘unholy alliance’ between Islamism, sections of the left, and liberal institutions, while the primary role of the state is disappeared.

The language of ‘Islamophobia’ is useful to authority. It allows the state to appear protective while controlling dissent. On the one hand, the state imposes surveillance frameworks such as Prevent, counter-terror powers, and protest restrictions, producing a chilling effect on speech. On the other hand, it co-opts and selectively recognises and funds particular ‘community representatives’, marginalising dissenting voices and managing ‘the Muslim community’ through established authority structures. Disruptive feminist dissent, which cuts across family, religion, community, and state, is consistently marginalised.

Authority benefits in multiple ways. The state manages minoritised populations through its recognised representatives. Religion is shielded from criticism. And religious-right political movements are insulated from challenge.

Moreover, the focus on the left obscures the fact that Islamism did not emerge in isolation. It was significantly shaped by Cold War geopolitics, including US support for Islamist groups to create an Islamic belt around the Soviet Union, alongside the suppression of left and secular alternatives.

Identity politics, particularly in the form of state-led multi-faith policy, reframes conflict horizontally, as communities set against each other, rather than vertically, as citizens against power. It fragments opposition and redirects anger. It obscures class and material conditions. In doing so, it displaces conflicts rooted in labour and inequality into the language of culture, where they can be managed rather than addressed.

Economic insecurity, austerity, housing inequality, lack of local resources, and low wages are recast as problems of culture or demography. The result is that structural issues are left untouched while the most vulnerable are made the focus of political ‘solutions’. We see this clearly in anti-immigration and anti-Muslim narratives. When structural inequality is reframed as a problem of demography or culture, the solution becomes exclusion, deportation, community management, or surveillance rather than redistribution, housing, wages, and democratic rights.

The most powerful restrictions on speech come from the state, through law, surveillance, and protest controls, but the focus of this debate is only on the left and ‘cancel culture’. State controls are rarely described as censorship, precisely because they are embedded in law and governance rather than framed as cultural conflict.

This has material consequences for how harm itself is understood.

Take the example of the ‘grooming gang’ scandals. Of course, fear of being labelled Islamophobic could have played a role. But official inquiries document decades of institutional failure rooted in victim blaming, contempt for working-class girls, and systematic failures of safeguarding. The same report that documented ethnic patterns in certain regions also concluded that the ethnicity data across the UK was not sufficient to support statements about the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level.

Data on child sexual abuse shows that most identified perpetrators in the UK are white and that abuse is not confined to any one ethnic or religious group. Most violence against women and girls is committed by someone known to the victim, often a partner or former partner. The focus on ethnicity has been used to externalise male violence, treating it as something that arrives with particular communities rather than something structural that cuts across all sections of society.

When abuse is committed by white men, whether by the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile or within the Catholic Church and elite institutions, it isn’t treated as a problem of ‘Christian culture’ or ‘Western culture’. A Guardian investigation found that 41% of those arrested during the Southport riots had prior domestic abuse reports. In these circumstances, it is analysed in terms of male violence, power, misogyny, and institutional failure. But when perpetrators are racialised minorities, violence against women and girls is instrumentalised and the frame shifts to culture, religion, and ‘community’.

During the panel discussion, a member of the audience associated with the Restore Britain party responded to the fact that most perpetrators are white men by stating that Britain is a ‘white country’. If demographic majority explains why most perpetrators are white, then it cannot also explain the disproportionate focus on minorities. Violence is analysed structurally when it is associated with white men, but culturally when it is associated with minoritised men. Her remark made explicit what often remains implicit in debates on Muslims and migrants: that the purpose is not safeguarding women or protecting free expression, but reinforcing the false assumption that violence is inherent in minority populations and to defend whiteness and the Christian right. Britain is, as I said then, not a ‘white country’, but a country with a diverse and plural population.

Misdiagnosing violence as ‘Muslim culture’ is politically useful. It externalises the problem, shifting responsibility away from institutions and toward communities, while reinforcing narratives that justify exclusion and control. It provides cover for racist movements that promote white nationalism by presenting minorities as inherently criminal. At the same time, it obscures a feminist analysis: that violence against women is not a cultural aberration imported from elsewhere, but a structural feature of society. This fails victims and survivors. Addressing it requires investment in services, legal reform, and accountability.

The same dynamic operates in debates on migration. The right to asylum is recognised under national and international law, and those fleeing persecution often have no choice but to travel without documentation. Yet they are increasingly labelled ‘illegal’, transforming vulnerability into criminality.

In each of these cases, social and political problems are reframed through identity, allowing power to present itself as protective while exercising control.

Religion is central to this process. It is not just belief, but a system of authority, one of the oldest and most effective in human history. It organises social reproduction, regulating women’s bodies, labour, and sexuality in ways that sustain existing social and economic hierarchies. It shapes law and governs dissent. And this is not unique to Islam. When religion is fused with state power, whether in Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other contexts, it shapes society in similar ways.

What we see today is not new but a modernised form of older mechanisms of blasphemy, heresy, and sedition, translated into the language of identity and harm. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a case in point. Like older mechanisms, it does not protect people but religion and, through it, the structures of power. The issue, then, is not simply speech, but the organisation of power itself: how criticism is reframed, how populations are managed, and how structural problems are disappeared.

Any serious position must insist that no belief system is beyond criticism and that no people are subject to collective blame. Where that distinction is erased, criticism is not merely discouraged; it is made structurally impossible. That is how power reproduces itself, and it is why the demand for free expression must be, at its root, a demand against power.This is the original quote I sent to Greer:

Steven Greer’s book is of special relevance to those of us who have faced accusations of ‘Islamophobia.’ Islam, like all religions or beliefs, must be open to criticism. The right to blasphemy is a cornerstone of free expression. It is not limited to or dependant [sic] on one’s ‘identity’ or lottery of birth. In fact, it matters most to those living under or fleeing from totalitarian and theocratic states where it can be punishable by death. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan, being a woman in and of itself is an act of blasphemy—her hair, voice and body; being an atheist, gay, apostate or ex-Muslim and opposing a religious state or the rule of clerics are all blasphemies. The struggle to blaspheme is a struggle for the right to be fully human. Conflating blasphemy with bigotry only serves the fundamentalists in imposing de facto blasphemy laws and further vilifies dissenters whilst doing nothing to combat racism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry.

Greer told me that he sent me the edited version of the endorsement and, not having received a reply, assumed I was content with the changes. This is not the case. I did not respond because I did not agree to the revised wording. I had already provided a quote reflecting my position and did not want one written for me that departed from it. The edited version alters the meaning of my original statement by collapsing a distinction I consider essential. Greer responded that the distinction between criticising Muslims and criticising Islam is ‘subtle and not well understood’.

First published: ‘Islamophobia’, identity politics, and free speech, The Freethinker, 30 April 2026.

Maryam Namazie is a  is a British-Iranian secularist,
communist and human rights activist, commentator, and broadcaster.

‘Islamophobia’, Identity Politics, And Free Speech

People And Nature ☭ Russian-Speaking Leftists, a group based in Germany, on 19 May published this interview with a socialist activist living in Russia who, they write, “stands for revolutionary defeatism”.[1] I translated it and added the footnotes. SP.

Q: Please tell us a little about yourself.

A: I am a communist. I worked in various proletarian and quasi-proletarian jobs. I support the Left For Peace Without Annexations coalition.

Q: Tell us about the coalition.

A: For me and some of my comrades, the full-scale war that started in February 2022 did not come as a surprise. But all the same, the war disrupted the left-wing movement. Not everyone took a correct position.

Pretty quickly, a “left” that supports Russian state power took shape. Moreover, it was the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) that had initiated a vote in the Duma [parliament] calling on Putin to recognise the Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics” as independent states.[2]

The anti-war movement is semi-underground. In October 2025 the St Petersburg street singer Naoko hit the news, after being arrested for referring obliquely to the war in a song. Photo: Mediazona / screenshot from a Telegram video

A few days after the all-out invasion, a declaration by “Socialists Against the War” appeared. It was fairly abstract, and many centrist organisations, such as the Trotskyist Workers Revolutionary Party signed it. (Note by Russian-Speaking Leftists (RL): “centrist” here signifies left-wingers, taking a mid-way position between revolutionaries and opportunists.) There were even a few members of the CPRF who signed it. But it did not lead to any serious joint activity.

After the first wave of repression came the designation of the Russian Socialist Movement as “foreign agents”,[3] and many activists emigrated. Practical anti-war activity by leftists in Russia ground to a halt, having hardly got started.

This situation was reflected in attitudes and policies – with the emergence of a tendency that equated Russia and Ukraine, and considered that there was no need to support Ukraine. As a rule, these organisations and activists did not consider the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia to be acceptable.

These centrists simply abandoned the anti-war declarations they had made at the start, and were completely separated from the anti-war movement. (An exception was the honest centrists of the Russian Communist Party (Internationalists).)

For myself, I was convinced from the start of the all-out war that Ukraine was waging a just, defensive war against revanchist Russian imperialism.

I tried to make contact with other defeatists in the Russian Federation. But the situation was such that we were unable to do anything effective. And then I was annoyed to learn that the left-wing centrist émigrés [in November 2024] were organising a forum of the left emigration in Köln [Cologne, Germany]. They wanted to present themselves as representative of the whole Russian left, including the defeatists. But at the same time I realised that this forum presented an opportunity to the revolutionary defeatists, to make our presence known and to join together.

And so the open letter by the Left for Peace Without Annexations appeared, addressed in the first place to the forum in Köln. Some activists inside the country, and some who had emigrated, both participated in putting it together. [See below for a translation of some key points. SP.]

It was important for us to show that, among leftists, there is a significant group who consider Russia’s war to be unjust, who do not accept annexations and who believe that Ukrainians have an immutable right to defend themselves.

The Left for Peace Without Annexations alliance brought together people from a range of political traditions, activists who are more or less radical. What unites us is the conviction that we will not connive with “our” imperialism, and that the struggle of an oppressed nation against aggression is a just one.

Q: Why did you decide to amplify the voices of people in Russia with regard to the supply of weapons to Ukraine? After all, Russian activists have practically no influence on European politicians.

A: The open letter was not really about weapons supply. Or to be accurate, weapons supply was mentioned, but that was not for us the main point. The letter was in the first place about solidarity – which means working people in Russia accepting Ukrainians’ pain and suffering as their own pain and suffering. It means the left in the oppressor nation recognising the rights of the oppressed nation to its own separate state and to defence of that state.

For those in emigration, that way of putting the question might seem a bit abstract, while in Russia – for obvious reasons – it is impossible to make public statements along those lines. So for activists in Russia, the [Köln] forum and the open letter gave us a way to present our position – for resistance to the Putin regime and support for the Ukrainian people – “from inside”.

To comrades in other countries we signalled that: in Russia there are left wingers who recognise that defeat is the best outcome; that the left in the west should not think that everything in Russia is fine and dandy; and that people should not think that in the Russian left unanimous support for, or acquiescence in, the so-called “special military operation”, holds sway.

And of course all this is important in explaining the situation to working people in the western countries.

Q: What processes going on in Russian society currently do you think are important to highlight?

A: In Russia there is a process of mounting contradictions, and to some extent a thaw (of political life, on the basis of increasing economic problems, the lack of progress at the front and the authorities’ crude interference with the internet – RL).

Instability is mounting. And that has started in the Z-osphere (the active supporters of the war – RL), which, it seems, can in the fifth year of all-out war no longer envisage victory built on mountains of dead bodies.

Ilya Remeslo (a well-known enemy of the opposition, who recently sharply criticised Putin – RL), Igor Strelkov-Girkin and Pavel Gubarev (leaders of the so-called “Russian spring” of 2014 in the Donbass, who are now blaming the Kremlin for its failure to win the war – RL)[4] have all had their say. And now we are hearing political and quasi-political statements from public figures who previously stayed out of politics, such as the blogger Victoria Boni, the actor Dmitry Nagiev and others.

The blocking of the internet and restrictions on the use of Telegram are causing serious discontent throughout society. And the authorities have clamped down brutally on attempts to protest – not only by forbidding public gatherings, but also by arresting those who announce their intention to organise such gatherings on trumped-up charges (for example, “disobeying police officers”).

Another big scandal resulted from the large-scale slaughter of farm animals in Siberia, conducted without any clear explanation. In other words, the state is allowing, or creating situations – quite apart from the war – that cause dissatisfaction across the whole of society.

Putin’s popularity rating consequently fell in the first months of this year, before VTsIOM (a state agency that conducts opinion polls – RL) changed the methodology of their surveys.

Q: How has Russian society reacted to the more frequent attacks by Ukrainian drones, for example those that we saw recently in Tuapse, Perm and the Moscow region?

A: There wasn’t much of a reaction. Such attacks are not new. And of course the state gives the impression that everything is fine. After the escalation of drone attacks in mid-May, one could hear people talk about the fact that they were not going to change their plans and did not feel threatened.

Obviously, even though the Ukrainian drones aim for military targets, and targets related to Putin’s war economy, there can be, and have been, civilian victims. The three deaths resulting from the drone strikes in Moscow region were, of course, a tragedy. But in Kyiv at the same time more than 50 people were killed.

There is a massive difference between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, not only in the logic, but also in the precision, of drone strikes behind the front lines. Russia pays no attention to “collateral damage” to the civilian population; it actually flaunts it and uses it as an instrument of terror.

We all saw how the Russian government, having demanded from Ukraine the right to hold its military parade on 9 May[5] undisturbed, threatened to bomb Kyiv if this demand was rejected. And, so that there could be no doubt as to the criminality of such bombing under humanitarian law, they added that the population of Kyiv would need to evacuate.

Podil’ shopping centre in Kyiv after Russian shelling in March 2022.
Photo: State Emergency Service of Ukraine

Q: Are you not worried that your position on the supply of weapons to Ukraine might alienate even those Russians who are against the war?

A: In my view, excessive attention to this question of weapons supply to Ukraine is an intra-left and émigré phenomenon. For those in emigration, it is indeed a real political issue: we see European populists, centrists and pro-Putin elements using the narrative about weapons supply to win electoral support from reactionary voters.

Q: What do you think of sanctions? In my view, this is a complex issue. On one hand, there is an inter-imperialist trade war, which hits ordinary Russians hard; on the other, sanctions is a way of weakening Russia’s military capability.

A: I think that sanctions should, above all, be focused on the military industrial complex. But sanctions on other parts of the economy is also not a simple question. If propaganda can link people’s deteriorating living standards to sanctions, and not to the war, to bad policies, and to the capitalists’ greed, then dissatisfaction can to some extent be used [by the state] to strengthen anti-western prejudices.

Moreover, sanctions that “disentangle” the Russian and western economies from each other could increase the danger of a large-scale war. And this problem could get even more serious if there are restrictions on travel by Russian citizens to EU countries, further complications in receiving visas, and so on. Instead of undermining xenophobia, this could drive Russians further into isolation.

“Slow” sanctions, to which the Putin regime is successfully adapting, are of little use. I think that the EU is preparing for a situation in which it is necessary to wage war with Russia, rather than increasing aid to Ukraine to a level sufficient to end this war.

The problem is that neither the USA nor the EU wants a Ukrainian victory. They want to preserve the Russian Federation. Being afraid of a serious confrontation with Russia and of Russia drawing closer to China, Ukraine’s western allies are actually bringing such prospects closer, with their half-measures.

Q: What is the state of the anti-war movement in Russia?

A: It is in an illegal, or semi-underground, state. On one hand, the majority of people who pay at least some attention to politics are against the war. On the other, the left has been rendered impotent. It has been crushed. It can not organise anything substantial. But there remain hopes in the emergence of new generations of activists, who are able to work even in these conditions.

The liberals are relying on the prospect of a high-level coup in which those elites that want to make peace with the west stop the “special military operation”. If you compare that prospect to the continuation of the war and of Putin’s rule, that would be some sort of improvement from a left-wing point of view too.

But the only serious chance of the left movement developing is to find a way to connect with the mass of people who are dissatisfied and disillusioned as a result of the impoverishment, the deaths and injuries and the shame of a lost war.

Q: Are activists in Russia ready for a complete shutdown of the internet? How could activists in emigration help?

A: We are not ready. Convince [Pavel] Durov [the owner of Telegram] to enable messaging via Telegram with bluetooth and wi-fi direct? Use Starlink in some way that it is not blocked for activists?

If you consider the possibility of a complete shutdown, then support could mean: we need good VPNs, and good agitators on social media who are not at risk of prosecution; we need spaces in which activists inside Russia can safely speak out; and we need spaces for the publication of material that is illegal in Russia.

Maybe a Youtube channel could be set up. Money is needed too, because it is difficult to combine active political work with earning money full time. In my opinion, providing these conditions for activists in Russia is the duty of émigrés, who of course live in relative safety.

Q: What else should Russian-speaking activists in Germany do?

A: Collect donations and send them to those in struggle, and to support political prisoners. Undertake a consistent battle against the centrists and pro-Putin elements. Explain to German people that, today, the solidarity of working people means supporting the resistance by Ukrainians, and supporting Russia’s left-wing anti-war opposition. And inform people of the real state of affairs in Russia.

==
Our decisions and actions

Excerpt from the open letter by the Left for Peace Without Annexations, 31 October 2024.

🔴Russia started this war, and ending it depends on Russia withdrawing its forces from Ukrainian territory.

🔴 Therefore Russian leftists must concentrate on bringing about this end to the war. A real struggle for peace by Russians must consist, in the first place, of the struggle to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine, for Russia to stop this war.

🔴 It is impermissible to demand from the Ukrainian people a ceasefire, capitulation or surrender of any part of Ukrainian territory, even – or rather, all the more – under cover of slogans about a speedier peace.

🔴 We recognise, unconditionally, the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves from Russian imperialism. Only the Ukrainian people have the right to decide how, and how long, they will continue the struggle.

🔴The left must not obstruct aid for Ukraine (including armaments). We should criticise the USA and the European Union for their inadequate support, for their readiness to surrender Ukraine for their own benefit, for secret diplomacy with Russia behind Ukraine’s back.

🔴The left and the working people of the west should increasingly check on the delivery of aid to Ukraine by the labour movement, by society, with the aim of making it more effective and to obstruct the profiteering by capital from these deliveries.

🔴 The left must demand the cancellation of all Ukraine’s debts and the payment of reparations by the Russian Federation, in the first place at the expense of capital, which was involved in unleashing this war.

🔴 We fight to bring down Putin’s dictatorial state-monopoly regime.

🔴 We work among all Russia’s citizens to bring them into anti-war, left organisations, by explaining the reasons for this war and the way to end it.

Download this article as a PDF

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Russian Socialists 🪶 “Solidarity Means Accepting Ukrainians’ Pain And Suffering As Our Own”

Christopher Owens 🔖 Northern Ireland noir.


Bemoaned by the likes of Rosemary Jenkinson, the market for such work has only grown over the years. And for good reason as our society is ripe for such exploration. Going from the historical battlefield of the Falls Road, through to the leafy suburbs of Dundonald and the grim, decaying streets of the Shore Road, there is a lot of scope here for writers to explore.

A lot of people just think noir means 'dark', but it's so much more than that. The best noir conjures up an amoral world where supposed heroes are more corrupt than the supposed bad guys and cynicism runs through every page. Hence why we’re the perfect place for the genre.

And with writers like Simon Maltman, the genre is in great hands.

On the go for over a decade, Malman has been prolific. With ten books to his name (a variety of short story collections as well as stand-alone novels and ones with recurring characters) he has made a name for himself in the ever-growing NI noir scene.

I’m of the view that good short story collections should be something that can be dipped into at leisure and enjoyed in isolation. The best ones, however, have a flow and rhyme to them that connect all the stories, no matter how disparate the writing style, and make the reader feel they're reading a proper novel. There are examples of such a thing: The Informers by Bret Easton Ellis, War All the Time by Charles Bukowski, Dubliners, Metamorphosis and Other Stories. It's an art form in itself, and a highly underrated one.

Therefore it gives me great pleasure to report that Short Grift is an excellent collection of tales that demonstrate that the best is yet to come from Maltman. Rich in atmosphere, in characters that both fascinate and repel as well as ideas, this is an exciting read.

Take the following example from ‘The Rider’ which opens the collection:

With the other hand, The Rider swiftly produced a Stanley knife and dug it into the man’s neck. He ripped it back out- the man’s face torn between shock, terror and pain. Blood spurted from the gouged hole. The Rider dug the knife in again.

Twice more.

Three times.

The man crumpled to the ground, clutching his spurting artery.

Soon he stopped moving.

The Rider walked off, back to the motel and to bed.

Notice how clipped and hard boiled the writing is, as if the narrator was trying to sound both bored and nonchalant at the same time? It’s a great combination and extenuates the brutality on the page.

Yet the next story is very different. Lush, philosophical and with a menacing undertone, ‘Under the Rowan Tree’ reflects its nature-oriented setting:

Rory spun around, his pulse quickening further. It had come from behind him, from up the bank. From where other local folk might have been digging a century ago. People digging for peat, digging for a way to keep themselves warm, to keep their families safe. Those people wanted to protect their families, just the same as people always have. Just like Rory wanted. Some things never change. Yes, those may have been simpler times, but had their hopes and dreams been any less important? Are we not all destined for the same fate? Will we not all make our way into the ground, one way or another?

This differing approach to writing styles may sacrifice consistency for individuality but it works in the collection’s favour as each story guarantees a different setting, a different perspective and a different adventure. And what adventures!

From deranged phone calls to sociopathic killers to ruminations on the past and much more, Short Grift has it all. Another welcome addition to NI noir.

Simon Maltman, Short Grift, 2026  Stone of the Hound Publishing. ISBN-13: 9798198542181

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Short Grift

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 3180

Mark Hayes ✍ I am going to keep this short because I am far too depressed about it to do otherwise. 


The recent tragic death of Henry Nowak at the hands of a knife-wielding maniac, and the inept response of the local police, has created serious inter-racial tension in my city. This is new territory for us. Southampton is a merchant port and racial conflict has been (and is) exceedingly rare. Oswald Mosley’s Fascists got run out of town in the 1930s, the city took in Basque refugees during the Spanish Civil War and I can remember Southampton dockers refusing to handle cargo from Apartheid South Africa. Racism never really gained any traction here (it has a far more natural home in the Royal Navy port up the road).

Recent events have therefore been shocking. Unfortunately, genuine grief and consternation about the dreadful murder of a young man have been exploited (against the explicit wishes of the family) by national far-right figures like Nigel Farage. It was a perfect opportunity for cynical, racist politicians to exploit a tragedy, and their efforts attracted the usual assortment of knuckle-dragging neanderthals (see above). In effect certain politicians gave this social dross a free pass to express their venomous rage at “immigrants”. However, there are a number of interrelated aspects to this event which require some attention.

The first point is straightforward. The perpetrator, Vickrum Digwa, was not an “immigrant” because he was born in Britain and he was punished with a life sentence (minimum 21 years). He deserved it, and more. However, there are many people killed in hideous circumstances every day at the hands of “white” people, but they do not usually precipitate performative posturing in public by the criminal underclass. Those identified above are nothing more than sadistic bullies, jumping on a bandwagon in the hope of inflicting pain on people who cannot fight back. Clearly, these people are part of the despicable detritus who blight working class communities across the country. I hope they rot in jail with Digwa. Good riddance. That part is relatively uncomplicated.

However, there is something far more dangerous at work here because many ordinary people actually sympathise with these cretins. In essence this is because the issue of immigration has become so irredeemably toxic. Reason and clarity have diminished in the context of a moral panic manufactured and manipulated by the far right, aided and abetted by a complicit media. Obviously, the leaders of far-right organisations, like Rupert Lowe (a racist reptile who once owned Southampton FC) are culpable. Calling people “third world savages” and threatening to open “detention camps” is the kind of rhetoric we have not heard since the days of old-style Nazis like John Tyndall and Nick Griffin. The ghosts of the NF and the BNP have returned to haunt us – fascism is now mainstream and racism is respectable.

Diminutive dimwit “Tommy Robinson” is worthy of a mention here too. It cannot be denied that this Zionist grifter has a considerable following. Of course, “Tommy” is (literally) a fraud, and so spectacularly stupid he would struggle to find his own arse with both hands, but it matters not. He touches a very raw nerve, and is now in contact with the Musk family. Once the world’s only trillionaire starts funding the likes of Yaxley-Lennon we should take notice. All “Robinson” needs to do is wave a Union Jack and disparage Muslims in vitriolic tones and the usual drunken cohorts can be relied upon to clap like seals and launch plastic bins at the police. He really has become the pied-piper of the English lumpenproletariat. However, it is unlikely to stop there. The fact is that chancers like “Robinson”, Lowe and Farage are simply exploiting a favourable political environment, but they did not create it. Yes, they are dangerous people, and they fully deserve our opprobrium, but what else would you expect from them?

The reality is that the horrendous troglodytes of the British far-right are not the cause of this particular political conundrum, they are a secondary consequence but its primary beneficiaries. One of the deeper sources of the current crisis actually lies in the fact that the British “left” has completely abandoned the working class. The current Labour government has no intention of dealing with the vast inequalities which now characterise British society. It is capitalism which creates the poverty and division upon which racists and fascists feast. Yet Starmer clings resolutely to his neo-liberal economic orthodoxies. Ordinary people continue to be cast adrift in a storm of free-market chaos, while Starmer’s government focuses on eliminating jury trials and arresting pensioners who protest against genocide. Far from pursuing any kind of egalitarian agenda, the authoritarians in the Labour party are preparing the way for the fascists. This is not an exaggeration. At one time Britain had a strong trade union movement which provided a genuine sense of collective identity for working class people, and a Labour Party that offered an alternative perspective on political possibilities. That seems like a very long time ago. The working class in Britain has never been so atomised and alienated, and they can now be easily radicalised by the far-right on social media.

The fact that this is actually happening at an alarming rate reflects the absolute failure of the “left”. In recent years the “left” has transformed itself from an (albeit imperfect) mechanism aiming to mobilise and manifest working class agency, into a lobby group for a variety of disparate “causes”. It has moved from the council estates and factories to the leafy suburbs and University vestibules. Obsessed by the narcissism of post-modern identity politics, the “left” has not only ditched the meta-narrative of class conflict, it has relinquished any kind of competent plan for practical, progressive social transformation. Of course I am over-simplifying to emphasise a point, but the reality is that this new “left” has been infected with a fatal dose of liberal individualism. It has no effective ideological compass and it is heading for political oblivion.

One of the most egregious consequences of this process has been the complete inability of this new “left” to have an honest conversation about immigration and its consequences. And the far right has filled this void. The fact is that many of the deepest concerns that ordinary people have about immigration are rooted in resource-scarcity rather than racism. People are understandably anxious about the implications for their own future welfare. The “left” does not seem to have a serious impulse to discuss this let alone a plan to resolve it. Rather than recognising these concerns, allaying fears and mobilising against racism within the relevant local communities, the field has been left open to the fake radicals of the far-right. Apparently access to toilets and the debate over whether a woman can have a penis are pressing problems that require urgent attention. There has been a systematic perversion of priorities here. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking tragic.

I would also like to add a note, if I may, about recent events in Belfast. Loyalists have always constituted a nasty parochial version of fascism. They are racist by definition, and their recent paroxysm of rage, which was orchestrated by thugs, produced scenes reminiscent of Bombay Street. This has surprised absolutely no-one who possesses a Republican cast of mind. Loyalists be loyalist. Let’s face it, anyone actively supporting the genocidal fanatics in Israel must be pretty comfortable with the idea of slaughtering innocent people. In fact, many of them openly celebrate Zionist barbarism. This fact does precipitate a couple of pertinent observations. The idea that armed Republican resistance was not necessary to confront their nasty sectarian state is completely exposed as utterly absurd (it always was). Given the opportunity, those ignorant gobshites burning houses last week would undoubtedly do far worse to their Catholic neighbours (and of course those of similar ilk have done so in the past). Those Republicans who resisted such evil are owed a debt of gratitude which should never be forgotten. Moreover, that kind of resolve will undoubtedly be required in the future struggle against “Irish fascism”. That phrase should really be an oxymoron, and anyone on the far-right using Republican iconography to promote their poisonous political ideology should have manners put on them. No exceptions! It is always worth remembering that fascism doesn’t start with the camps – that’s where it ends. Fight them now, before it’s too late. No pasaran!

⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.

Regarding Recent Events In Southampton

Enda Craig ⬟ Governments aggressively chase inward investment through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) because it creates jobs, drives technological advancement, and boosts tax revenues.
 
To attract global capital, national and regional authorities offer highly competitive incentives, including tax breaks, streamlined regulatory approvals, and financial grants.

Governments use a variety of aggressive tactics to secure this investment.

Financial Incentives
 
State and national agencies frequently offer direct cash grants, subsidized land, and infrastructure development to lower the upfront capital costs for large corporations.

Tax Relief

Many regions utilize corporate tax exemptions, reduced tariffs, and specialized economic zones (such as enterprise zones or freeports) to guarantee higher long-term profit margins for investors.

Dedicated Investment Agencies
 
Entities such as Select USA act as concierge services for multinational corporations, helping them navigate local labor laws, fast-track building permits, and bypass bureaucratic red tape.
 
Workforce Subsidies

Governments often fund custom training programs or directly subsidize employee wages during a company’s initial launch phase to ensure a ready and skilled local workforce.

While this aggressive pursuit generates substantial economic activity, it can also create "bidding wars" where governments offer increasingly expensive packages of subsidies, occasionally leading to intense international rivalries over major manufacturing or tech projects.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Stormont MLAs And The Part They Played In Enticing Dalradian To Mine The Sperrins

Caoimhin O’Muraile ⚽ I have been a football fan all my life as far back as I can remember, though international football has never carried the same level of interest as the football league. 

Even though my support for international football is at best lukewarm, in the past I have looked forward to the World Cup and have great memories of top-class competitions. I remember very vaguely the 1966 competition and the well-deserved England victory, beating the then West Germany in the final 4-2. I will not claim to recall the football in that competition, I was only five years old, but I do recollect the street parties which became a natural progression of the tournament. The grown-ups celebrated to a greater or lesser extent England’s victory as some of them over exaggerated their joy using the event as an excuse to remain permanently pissed despite never having attended a football match in their lives. 

My memories of football became clearer two years later when Manchester United won the European Cup in 1968, having lifted the league championship in 1967. Those two years between 1966 and 1968 made a huge difference as I was developing. The 1970 World Cup I remember very well and by this time I was welded to the game, its culture, and, in particular Man Utd. One outstanding moment on the 1970 tournament was the great Brazilian, Pele, meeting a cross to head down to the bottom of the lefthand post, as he looked, in a game against England the holders. Gordon Banks, the English keeper, got down to the ball at his righthand post as he looked, a world-class save from a world-class keeper against the world’s number one, Pele. Argentina 1978 and the performance of Mario Kempes of Argentina is another competition I recall greatly and who can ever forget Italia 90 and the Irish team marching onto the top eight on the planet? I was in Dublin for the Irish team’s homecoming which was electric to say the least.

As soon as I heard this World Cup, 2026, would be played in the USA – as well as Mexico and Canada – with Trump in the White House I knew immediately it would become a farce. The United States under Trump who, in my view is deranged, should never have been given the tournament. Ask yourself, would the sycophants of FIFA have used Germany in 1942 - a would have been World Cup year - as a venue with Hitler in charge? Perhaps don’t answer that question because nothing them half-wits come up with would surprise me. The USA are in a state of war, unless they have altered the definition of war, with Iran. The US were holding talks with the Iranians over that country’s nuclear programme when Trump, along with the other war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, began bombing the crap out of the country. It was unnecessary and in all probability illegal under what remains of ‘international law’. From then on the US should not have been considered as a venue and things could and have, from a footballing point of view, get worse. There are those who, not unreasonably, demand that politics should be kept out of sport which is, unfortunately, not really possible because politics is a wide and deep subject. Parliamentary politics and geopolitics maybe should be kept out of sport but Trump has just smacked that theory right down.

The modern game, such as it is, has already been systematically degenerated by the ‘International Football Association Board’ (IFAB) with their daft rule changes and the detested, by fans, VAR. The IFAB have made it virtually impossible for defenders to tackle in the once time-honoured way without being in danger of sending off. The England team who conquered in 1966 would have stood no chance today with defenders like Jack Charlton Centre Half, Nobby Stiles, shifting from fullback to defensive midfield, and was described as a “tough tackler”. Today the likes of these players would be sent off within the first twenty minutes so downgraded has the game become. The price gauging at this World Cup has attracted criticism from supporters particularly those of England and Scotland. English players are reportedly being given priority to purchase up to 1,000 tickets per game which has angered many fans and understandably so. Despite all these negatives imposed by the so-called powers that be within the game the White House has also thrown its arse into the ring. They have made it almost impossible for an impartial competition to take place as teams representing a country the egotistic Trump does not like receive special treatment.

Iran, the USAs adversary in the middle eastern conflict, have been told they cannot enter the US except on the day of their match immediately returning to their base in Mexico after the final whistle. The Iranians must therefore commute on matchdays to and from their venue in the US. They must train and sleep in Mexico or any other country apart from the USA. This is discriminatory treatment on a par with that received by Jewish Athletes by the Nazis at the Berlin Olympics of 1936. I would imagine such discrimination against one team is against FIFA rules, putting the Iranians clearly on a different disadvantaged playing field from the rest in the competition. To rub salt into the wound the Trump gang have refused visas for at least fifteen of the Iranian backroom team, trainers, kitmen and others. Why did FIFA allow the USA to continue being a venue with this administration at the helm? They could argue, with some justification, that fans had already booked up accommodation and it would cost them a fortune to relocate to another country. That is true but when did the supporters become of any concern to FIFA? Why are the world governing body not showing the same support for fans over ticket gauging? When Trump was elected to the Presidential Office FIFA knew an unstable nutter would be in charge in the White House for the tournament. At that point, knowing what an unpredictable entity Trump is, and while time still permitted, they should have pulled the rug on the USA as a venue, possibly using Mexico and Canada without the USA. However logistical problems in this plan are obvious, the USA lies between Mexico and Canada. Therefore a completely new venue or venues could have been selected, England and Ireland for example, or Scotland, Norway and Iceland maybe. FIFA, if they had any balls at all, which they have not, should have organised a relief scheme to assist fans who had already coughed up inflated amounts for accommodation in the US. Back in 2024 that number should have been minimal because the qualifying games were still on so fans expense would not really have been a valid excuse for not relocating.

The Trump gang have stuck the boot in again this time with a match official. Somali referee Omar Artan has been denied a visa to enter the US according to early reports. The US authorities, Trump and his cronies, have raised concerns over vetting, citing “derogatory information, including association with suspected members of terror organisations” which, they claim, made him a “national security threat”. Further reports say Artan was stopped at Miami International Airport on his way to a mandatory, under FIFA rules, pre-World Cup training camp. This was despite the referee “holding a valid visa and FIFA accreditation” so reports he was denied a visa cannot be true because he already had one. This makes the interference worse because it now, visa or no visa, means any person can be denied entry at the whim of Trump or one of his cowboys. FIFA required all match officials to stay at the Florida training hub and because Artan cannot fulfil this he was “completely removed from officiating at the tournament”. It is, of course, the US governments right to refuse entry as it would be any government but knowing the likelihood of the deranged Trump, if for no other reason than he could do it, would take this to extremes FIFA should have pulled out back in 2024.

The European governing body, UEFA, have stepped in with a sop. They have offered the highly qualified Somali referee the 2026 UEFA Super Cup played between the European Cup winners and the UEFA Cup winners on 12th August in Saltzburg, Austria. Omar is regarded as the best referee on the African continent and has reportedly returned to Somalia, fuck knows how he must feel! All FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, told critics was to “chill and relax” when he was asked about FIFAs failure to resolve the situation “to enable Artan to enter the US”. Instead of saying the obvious that it was a mistake to use the US under Trump as a venue and admitting he is shit scared of the tyrant, he tells everybody to “chill and relax”. There have been no reports of evidence backing up the Trump administration’s claims about Artans links to terrorists but, like the Nazi SS, they do not need evidence to expel people on the grounds, if they are honest, of race and/or ethnicity. Before the 1936 Berlin Olympics the German Olympic committee selected one Jewish athlete to draw attention away from their anti-Semitism, then, citing a dip in the athlete’s form, dropped the Jew from their Olympic team. This was despite the Jewish athlete, Gretel Brgmann, performing some of her personal bests and equalled the German women’s high jump record. Nazi officials dropped her from the team. This was a nonsense excuse by the Nazis just as the reasons behind Omar Artan’s connections to terrorism is an opportunistic excuse to refuse a Somali entry to the US. This is in common with most of the dangerous political fantasies emitting from the White House these days.

The regime governing Iran is little if any better than the Trump Gangsters. Like Trump who has people shot for anti-government protests in the street so too do the authoritarian religious autocracy in Tehran. Perhaps the major difference is the scale of the murders carried out by both. The Trump Mafia tends to gun down individuals, whereas the regime in Iran do the same thing en masse. The religious gang in Iran kill people demonstrating against them and their authoritarianism in the name of Allah, Al Malik, God , call it what you wish and Trump also invokes God from time to time to justify his actions. 

The sympathies here are not with the Iranian administration but the country’s footballers, backroom team, and supporters who have worked hard to get to the World Cup Finals and have had treatment meted out to them which is undeserved. FIFA and their President, still no doubt ‘chilling and relaxing’ could and should have done more to counter Trump and his unsporting actions. The truth is Gianni Infantino is terrified of Trump or, perhaps more apt, the money which upsetting the tyrant could cost not only FIFA but business in general. What a fucking state of affairs this once great game is in, tragic!

The US authorities have under a sweeping travel framework restricted nationals from 39 countries from entering the country. Visa processing has been paused or heavily limited for officials from another 75 countries, significantly reducing the number of people able to enter the USA. There has, however, been some protests though not from FIFA or its “chill and relax” President. At the open ing ceremony in Toronto Canadians booed the USA flag, showing their disapproval at the ruination of what could and should have been a great tournament. 

For the next six weeks or so the FIFA President will be probably seated on the toilet, “chilled and relaxed”, crapping himself in case he says the wrong thing and upsets Trump! All things considered this tournament instead of being a classic (by today’s standards) is turning more and more by the day into a farce. The main motivator in this competition is not the game, but money. Once again, the interests of football have been “sacrificed on the altar of big business” and geopolitics, according to Donald Trump.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

World Farce 2026

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Six

 

A Morning Thought @ 3179

Jim Duffy ✍ writing on the demise of The Phoenix magazine.


Its standard of journalism was poor, its fact-checking almost non-existent. 

It might have a kernel of truth somewhere but would drown it in biases and the prejudices of its owner and writers.
 
I featured in it a few times. It might have one correct line but drown the rest is falsehoods and bile. It trotted out its owner's prejudices as facts. One of the most laughable ones was hinting I was the grandson of Éoin O Duffy.

1. O'Duffy never married and never had children, so how could I be his grandson?
2. As was known in the circles the people in the publication moved in, Éoin O Duffy was gay. One of his lovers was Micheal MacLiammoir, a fact Micheal was open about.
3. There was a clue in the name. He had an O in his name. I don't.
4. He was from Monaghan. I have no relations born in Monaghan.
 
All they had to do was ask and I could have told them, but fact checking was an inconvenience with it.
It also wrote that my father was a "major landowner in Meath". Lol He had thirty acres. It was that size because my real great grandfather, Patrick Duffy, inherited his first cousin's next door farm that first cousin was unmarried and the McDonagh family had all died unmarried so the farm was inherited by his closest living relative, his next door neighbour. Arthur McDonagh's mother, Mary Duffy, was the sister of Patrick's father, Thomas. By no stretch is a thirty acre farm major.
 
They also used the story to trot out the falsehood that O'Duffy led the Blueshirts to fight for Franco. He went to Spain in 1936. The Blueshirts had been disbanded in 1934. O'Duffy led the Greenshirts, the paramilitary wing of his National Corporate Party, to fight for Franco. The rag couldn't even get basic history correct.
 
I stopped reading The Phoenix when I realised it was a poisonous unreliable rag. About the only thing I will miss is its front pages. They were often funny, much funnier than the front pages of Private Eye.
 
One front page embarrassed a friend of mine. He had been chubby and had dieted and lost a lot of weight. He was proud of his new thin figure - only to find a picture of his chubby self appearing on the front page of the magazine as he was in a photo beside a politician. He was furious at seeing his old self on the shelves of all newsagents.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

In The Ashes

Walter Ellis ★ I've been reading a lot of persuasive, beautifully written, well-informed commentary in the last week on the subject of the massive corruption at the heart of the Trump administration.

The sums of money involved are staggering, running into many billions of dollars, much of it accruing to the President and his family. Just today, I was struck by the revelation in the Financial Times that not one penny of the $17 billion pledged to Trump's so-called Board of Peace has thus far been received by the World Bank, which was supposed to oversee the accounts. Instead, money is said to have poured into a previously undisclosed account with the New York bank JP Morgan, beneficiary unknown.

All of the plump, well-fed commentators I follow are agreed that the extent of the corruption goes far beyond anything previously experienced. Trump is stealing not only from taxpayers, but from foreign governments, while at the same time extracting cash for pardons as if he were a medieval bishop flogging indulgences. And he doesn't care who knows it. He glories in his crimes.

The broadcasters, podcasters and columnists might as well be pissing in the wind.

Continue @ Walter Ellis.

Trump 🪶 Like A Medieval Bishop Flogging Indulgences

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)