Anonymity For Alleged Abusers?


Put yourself in the classy shoes of Sir Cliff Richard. Imagine how he felt on the 14th of August when the South Yorkshire Police ( SYP) raided his house while the BBC had a helicopter hovering above, filming the operation. The star had been accused of sexual abuse by four men and was being investigated. The assaults allegedly took place between 1958 and 1983. After twenty two months, he was told no charges would be brought. It didn’t have to be done in that way. Guarded Auntie had lost all sense, turned into a lurid, invasive tabloid outlet and SYP too should have behaved with some discretion. So I get it, the distress felt by the veteran pop star. And the broadcaster Paul Gambaccini, who spent twelve anxious months on bail before being told he would face no charges. Both men went to the House of Lords on Monday to lobby for a change in the current law. They want those accused of sexual abuse to be guaranteed anonymity until and unless they are charged. LibDem  peer Lord Paddick, previously deputy assistant Met commissioner backs this change. It all sounds so reasonable.

But here’s the rub: if these famous and or powerful chaps get what they want, it will become unbelievably harder for the police and courts to nail abusers. As lawyer Richard Scorer, a specialist in this area, says: ‘We have seen countless times how perpetrators isolate their victims, make them feel no one will believe them’.  Releasing names of alleged perpetrators gives courage to other victims. They then come forward. In May 2012, I received a letter from a nameless woman who claimed she had been groomed and raped by the entertainer Stuart Hall. He handed her a school prize, offered to mentor her, then repeatedly raped her over a long time. I took the anguished letter to the police and they began looking into the allegation. When news broke of this, other women came forward. Without similar, accumulated testimonies Hall’s lawyers would have got him off.  He denied it all of course, said the accusations were ‘pernicious, callous, cruel and pernicious’. He was convicted and sent to prison, still arrogant and unrepentant. When I finally got to talk to the woman who wrote to me, she described her years of silent suffering when she blamed herself. She hadn’t even told her husband about what happened to her. Knowing he did it to others helped her get over that guilt.

Cliff Richard, national treasure,  has suffered humiliation, trauma and depression. Victims feel all that and worse. Repression, inhibition, shame and pain lead to self destructive and destructive behaviours. Many are irreversibly damaged.

False allegations are rare. False allegations against the rich and famous rarer still, although their fury and sense of injustice thereafter is boundless. Even when there is a serious case to answer, in cases where a celeb stands accused, juries tend to doubt the accusers. A prosecution barrister described to me, the courtroom dynamics he has witnessed. The conversation was off the record : ‘Those elected to be on juries do often believe celebs are targeted by low life. They can be very sceptical particularly when the victims are female or from working class backgrounds. They mistrust lawyers too. So to get a conviction is hard. Victims accusing high profile men have a credibility problem not of their making. This is why so few of them dare’.

We should be far more concerned about the countless men and women who never dared to tell, who will never find closure nor heal. According to the NSPCC, ninety percent of children raped or molested know the perpetrator and around 3000 children needed protection from sexual abuse in 2014. Unknown are the numbers of those who do not come forward. These people matter more than celebs who were wrongly accused and never tried.

The law must not be changed. Anonymity will lead to fewer prosecutions because the case will depend on one person’s complaint. Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Rolf Harris ( all contemptuous of their victims) would have had their comeuppance if their identities had been protected. Sir Cliff has come through the dark days. He should now think of them who never leave the darkness and step back from  this vindictive campaign.

Edited Version I newspaper 19/10/16



Hating the Powerless


Damien Green, the Works and Pensions Secretary has a kindly manner, unlike his predecessor, Ian Duncan Smith, who acted like a slightly demented, paranoid colonel. But, as we know, appearances can deceive. Personable Mr Green has just announced yet another ‘revolution’ to modernise the disability benefits system. IDS pushed policies that were ‘fair to the taxpayer’ and intolerably unfair to lone parents, the long term unemployed, the disabled. 2,650 men and women who were declared fit for work, died between 2011 and 2014. Tales of woe abound. Linda Wooten, 49, who had serious heart disease was informed she had to get a job as she lay dying. A father whose son was murdered, was judged not to have mental health problems because his anxiety was based on something real and not fearful fantasies. (

Such claimants will now get ‘personalised’ pathways to employment. ( All those jobs waiting to be filled by the willing sick and impaired!) Oh and their Employment Support Allowance (ESA) will be cut from £105-15 a week to £73-10. The Disability Rights website lists fifteen benefits which are to capped. It’s hideously complicated. Nothing like a kick in the groin to set the juices of aspiration flowing. The powerful never have to pass such gruelling tests. They can waste eye watering amounts of public money, break rules and set new rules. The most brazen climb on the backs of the unfortunate to get fame, status and glittering careers.

Let’s take as our example, Dame Louise Casey, DBE, CB, previously Tsarina for preventing extremism, anti-social behaviour and whatever, then Director General of Troubled Families, now the Boudicca of integration.  This brusque and pushy woman was much admired by Blair, then Cameron. Her tough approach often failed to deliver; those she was meant to uplift stayed ground down. 1.2 billion pounds was spent on her troubled families plan. An official recent report found it had had little impact. None of that has ever prevented her rise and rise to informal power. Mrs May’s government will, no doubt, find Casey very useful for their forthcoming cold-blooded economies.

The PM has indicated that those the bottom of society will lose more cash if the economy plummets. At the party conference, she promised to make society ‘fairer for families’. It was political blether. She, who once warned her party was seen as ‘nasty’ is today pushing the cruellest of policies in an increasingly nasty nation which has no place for the the working and workless classes or the dispossessed. 48% of Britons think there should be more benefit cuts. Many believe most people who seek state help are lazy liars. Some are, but so are some MPs, lawyers, police officers, humans of all backgrounds. The Chartered Institute of Housing warns that new measures will negatively affect over 300,000 children. A local food bank I take stuff to, desperately needs toothpaste and nappies. While there I saw a little waif picking up a tissue from the ground to wipe her runny nose. Charities are alarmed, teachers too as more  and more pupils turn up hungry and bedraggled. But, hey, think of the billions that will be plucked back from the ‘feckless’ and voiceless. Mahatma Gandhi believed poverty was the worst kind of violence. How then, shall we describe state planned poverty?

I, Daniel Blake, by the globally admired director Ken Loach is on general release. It’s won prizes, had great reviews. It should awaken the indifferent and inert.  Loach’s Cathy Come Home about a homeless couple, had a huge impact in 1966. Some right wingers are seriously displeased. Damien Green, who has not seen the movie, accuses Loach of being ‘monstrously unfair; obdurate Toby Young,  son of acclaimed social reformer Michael Young, was scornful. There were no laughs, he moaned, the characters were not the roughnecks we saw on Benefits St, it reflected Victorian Britain. Too right.

In 1851, Henry Mayhew wrote in his book on the indigent of London; ‘The condition of a class of people whose misery, ignorance and vice, amidst all the immense wealth and great knowledge of the ‘first city in the world’ is …a national disgrace to us’. We are back there. Only attitudes have so hardened, that few would feel that sense of national disgrace.


Edited Version I newspaper 2/11/16



The Enemies Within Feminism


Aftershocks are still being felt around the world since the USA election. The result heralds the death of dreams, struggles, aspirations and ideals. Civil rights, social justice, economic equity  and fairness have been vanquished by reactionaries of all shades. Liberals are nonplussed, desolate and lost. They ask themselves why so many Hispanics, African Americans and even Muslims voted for an iniquitous Republican leader  who demonised and threatened Hispanics, African Americans and Muslims. We feminists are also distressed and confused. Trump openly disrespected and scorned females, their bodies and minds; he was accused by credible women of groping them; he promised to take away their reproductive rights. And yet, and yet, 53% of white female voters chose him over Hilary Clinton. Without them Trump would not have won. What were they thinking? What do we now think of such women, the enemies within?

Their perfidy seems boundless. On Monday, a West Virginia country worker Pamela Ramsey Taylor was sacked from her job after she wrote these celebratory words on Facebook: ‘It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I am tired of seeing a Ape (sic) in heels’.  That bad, real bad post, got a response from Beverly Whaling, the mayor of some small town called Clay. ‘Just Made my day Pam’, wrote Ms Whaling, under Taylor’s horrible post. These two are not exceptions. Over the past many months we have seen too many feral, antifeminist US females. Some of them made Trump sound relatively sane and civil.

We have them here too, women who seem to despise other women. Some of them are the most powerful females in the land. Theresa May is rolling out policies from various departments that are having a punitive effect on vulnerable women. The new tranche of benefit ‘reforms’ will deprive lone mums of essential cash. We are told these will encourage them to go look for jobs. But how? Childcare is prohibitively expensive. Families can help, but they too are under severe pressure. Margaret Thatcher was just as indifferent to powerless, voiceless women. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary,  is another one of those women who wants to prove she can be harder than any man. I blasphemously find myself looking back wistfully at that nice John Major, sincere Gordon Brown and the most egalitarian Home Secretary we have ever had, Roy Jenkins who got sex and race equality laws through parliament.

Throughout history, female advancement has been opposed by misguided, stubborn or traditional females. In the early decades of the 20th Century, when indomitable suffragettes fought tenaciously and bravely to get votes for women, they were resolutely opposed by the Anti-women’s Suffragette League. The novelist Mrs Humphrey Ward ( 1850-1921), for example, was convinced that ‘ …the emancipation process has now reached the limits fixed by the physical constitution of women’. Today, as more women get into top jobs, more of them tyrannize females underlings. A Canadian research study found that female workers suffered from more emotional and physical problems under female supervisors than male supervisors. The American Management Association reported that in another study, 95% of women felt undermined by other women (…/management-issues-workplace-forbes-woman-views-worst-bosses…)


Some such put upon workers have gone to Industrial tribunal courts. A few won their cases and huge compensations. In 2006, for example, Helen Green of Deutsche Bank was awarded £800,000 after proving that four female colleagues had bullied her depleted her confidence. In too many girl’s schools, female heads create a cutthroat culture. Some girls break down and never recover.

So tell me sisters, was it all for this? Or has feminism lost its way and purpose?

These uncomfortable questions are mostly avoided by today’s most active feminists. They prefer to blame everything on men, or find spurious excuses for oppressive women or glorify femaleness as  divine and flawless.  These comforting myths cannot sustain us any longer. We did not walk the long, tiring road just to get the right to behave even worse than men. Or to become inside agents for sexists and misogynists.

Trump’s babes and post Brexit female political leaders have shaken up everything. Feminism needs to get tough, self critical and truthful if it to survive this turbulent, regressive new age.

Edited Version I newspaper 17/11/16

Hardline Muslim Sisters


Brexit, Trump’s victory and populism pose an existential threat to westernised Muslims. These are  testing, volatile times. Blameless believers are caught between unbending Islam and an extremist political right. We will have to get smarter and more strategic.

Islam was once diverse, flexible, wise, essentially kind and unthreatening. In 1887, William Quilliam, a convert, opened the first Islamic prayer house in Liverpool. Hundreds, including Lord Stanley of Alderley Edge, converted to the faith. Queen Victoria was delighted when a traditional mosque was built in  Woking in 1888. Regent’s Park mosque is constructed on crown land which Churchill presented to Muslims, thousands of whom had fought with the allies in both world wars. It was never easy, but early Muslim settlers fought hard to belong, to keep their faith without aggressively pushing it.

Those were the soft old days, before Saudi Arabia and other rich, conservative Arab nations spread their fanatical doctrines. London, the worlds’ most dynamic and mixed city,  is the centre of British Salafism and Wahabism. Successive governments have been totally relaxed about this religious takeover. Remember, all the 9/11 attackers were linked to Saudi Arabia, Britain’s good friend. Focus on many years has been on terrorism, less on the ideological base, the punishing, puritan form of Islam which denigrates non-Muslims, Muslims who are seen as deviants, and  females. Bewilderingly, millions of women are drawn to this hard core credo. Veils are the visible symbols of obscurantism and segregation.

Like many Muslims worldwide, I get caught up in a vortex of ire and incredulity when I see fully niqabed ( veiled) British Muslim women or little girls whose hair and bodies are already covered up. In Shepherd’s Bush market you can buy stretchy hijabs ( head coverings)  for six month olds. Sometimes I ask the ladies why they live as tribes within a nation or where it says in the Qur’an that female children are dangerously carnal. Most refuse to engage. A few do, and say things like: ‘ We must train the girls to be good Muslims’ or ‘You non-hijabis will not go to paradise’. Well, frankly, paradise would be joyless  if only hooded, self-righteous sisters are permitted through the gate.

In 2014, I wrote a book Refusing the Veil ( Biteback), in which I described early feminists in Egypt and Iran and my own family who threw off the wretched shrouds. After publication, I had some of the worst hate mail I have ever had from Salafi women. When I appeared on a Channel4 programme on the niqab, angry, noisy bats cornered me and physically pushed me around. You cannot question them, because they are, like cult members, unquestioning.

In Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, females are forced to cover up completely; in Iran, they cannot go out without a headscarf. Savage punishments are meted out to those who accidentally or purposely reveal a bit of flesh or lock of hair.  Meanwhile ultra-purist females in free countries follow these oppressive dress codes. Why? This is the burning question.

A new study, The Making of a Salafi Woman, by Anabel Inge, a white academic, tries to find some answers. This is an under-researched subject and so any credible information is very welcome. Inge clearly gained the trust of these usually reticent and wary women. Many are troubled and find solace in rules and certainties. One young interviewee, raised by her relatives, said: ‘ Instead of asking my mum or dad I didn’t have, I turned to God from a young age’. For Warda, bad GCSE results felt like punishment from Allah. She had been a ‘bad Muslim’, so she sought religious purification. Some interviewees hold odious views. All of them accept male dominance, express religious supremacy  and relinquish pleasures- including birthdays, music and dancing. Inge claims none of them are coerced, but I know there is both soft and brutal coercion pushing the thoughtless ardency.

The new world order will push more Muslims towards Salafism or Wahabism, which will whip up more hatred and right wing nationalism. An all- out culture war looms. This, as Obama told his daughters, is no time to take up a foetal position and hide.  Good liberals and progressive Muslims must wake up and together confront the emerging forces of darkness.

Edited version I newspaper 26/11/16

Social Care


My mood darkens every December. Another birthday rolls along too, too fast, bones ache a bit more, the skin feels as thin and fragile as a butterfly’s wing. Mortality shuffles closer, brings quiet terror. But for me, far worse , is fear of infirmity and dependence, a long wait for the end, of being lonely and incontinent in some institution, of becoming a burden on society and my family.

Too many people in the west are now living too long – an unintended consequence of cumulative improvements in medicine and diets. NHS hospital services are under severe pressure as increasing numbers of very old and helpless people are kept on wards because local authorities cannot provide adequate social care. The NHS gets national funding while social care comes out of council budgets which have had budgets slashed mercilessly by first, the coalition government now the Tories. The LibDems, to their eternal shame, backed George Osborne’s maniacal drive to cut, cut, cut, welfare costs. That led to the present crisis, though admittedly the problem has been neglected or sidelined by all our political parties for a very long time.

Governments set up sober committees and commission weighty reports, but recommendations are quietly shelved. Till the next time. Just as individuals dread thinking about getting old, ministers dread producing policies to deal with the burgeoning ageing population. The powerful do not follow expert advice, and have chosen the path of least resistance. Their inaction and hesitancy comes out of political expediency and feebleness.

Here is what I think would help transform social care. First, taxes for all those except the low paid must be raised substantially. In Sweden, for example, where workers and bosses pay very high taxes, the elderly are exceptionally well looked after. Recently 4.3 billion Swedish krona to further improve provision. Our nationals are encouraged to think taxes are iniquitous or state theft while Scandinavians believe  paying taxes is a duty for socially responsible citizens. In almost all international surveys Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland come top when it comes to the well being of the young and old. GB needs to get less vain and learn from these nations on how to create good societies.

Next, politicians should stop being defensive about migrant workers and tell the public that social care provision depends on them. In her last few years, my mother was washed and sometimes fed in her own flat by Nigerian, Lebanese and  Rumanian care workers. I looked after her, but needed supplementary help which the council was happy to provide. She was lucky. Those days are gone. Councils can no longer pay for these services. Furthermore, care homes are closing as immigration rules harden. A childhood friend who runs a number of these homes told me that she is thinking of pulling out of the sector because excellent Filipino and Indian nurses are denied visas. The anti-immigrant hysteria which is leading to draconian new regulations will leave the most vulnerable without assistance. Has Mrs May told her people that fact? Have Gove or Boris or Fox or  any of the hard Brixiters? No. They do not attend to such inconvenient truths.

Thirdly, those of us who own our homes can no longer expect to keep those assets intact when we grow old and need physical assistance. We will have to remortgage, downsize or sell up. The poorest in our country must get free and good care. The middle classes must make more of a contribution towards the costs. Of course they will hate the very thought and their friends in the media will kick up a storm, without offering solutions. The huffy, self righteous, entitled middle classes, of whom I am one, must now adapt to new realities.

We should also allow old people of sound minds to choose to die with dignity. I hope, when my time comes, I can see myself off. Parliamentarians have too long dithered over this fundamental human right.

Finally, tax the rich properly and give big tax breaks or cash to the many Britons who are looking after frail old relatives. They provide an essential service and yet remain in the shadows, unacknowledged and unrewarded.

Our MPs and ministers need to adopt radical ideas and bold interventions before the crisis in social care turns into a catastrophe. Will they step up? Or are they too scared to dare?

Edited Version I newspaper 15/12/16





White, Middle Class and Mine


The hoo-hah continues. Talented Mr Jon Holmes,  a comedian loved by many, who appeared on the Now Show on BBC Radio 4 for eighteen years, was politely informed by a female producer: ‘ I’m afraid, for the next series, we’re not inviting you back. We are recasting it, with more women and diversity’ . He was aggrieved. Outraged even. Understandably. I think Holmes is very funny. So too countless other women and diverse folk. The seat he sat on probably had the shape of his bum imprinted on it after so long. He will be missed. Some tabloids now claim, Shock! Horror! that other Caucasian male presenters have privately told the jilted Mr Holmes that they too have been shoved aside for second rate individuals who happen to have the x chromosome or dark pigmentation. I feel their pain. But can they feel the pain of ace women and people of colour who have never been regularly gifted choice gigs and jobs by broadcasters? Eighteen years is a long time not to notice white privilege. To give him credit, Holmes does concede that it is important to represent Britain’s multicultural society. Apparently, important to say that, but to cry foul it when it starts to happen. Cos dammit, that means he has to step aside for a while. There will be plenty of other offers I’m sure. I hope.

If such difficult decisions are not made, pray how will change happen? There can be only three reasons why women, who make up more than half the population, and people of colour- now into the third generation- are still not breaking through the triple glazed glass ceiling. One: they abjure big success, prefer to stay safe and lowly. Two: they are not good enough and never can be. Three: they are kept down and out by the boss class, still predominantly white and male. Call me paranoid, but I am inclined to believe the last explanation. The powerful and influential don’t consciously plot systemic exclusion in secret turrets, but most of them trust and feel comfortable with their own types. Their assumptions and decisions naturally exclude those who are different. Involuntary, unrecognised bias are almost more pernicious than overt sexism or BNP chants.

In 2007, in a radical move, the sparkling, witty Sandi Toksvig was given the chance to chair the News Quiz on Radio4. Until then, producers had only ever picked slick and droll white men. Toksvig left in 2015 ( interestingly to co-found the Women’s Equality Party) and they have reverted to the ‘norm’. Miles Jupp, her replacement, is brilliant, just like Holmes is. But why they didn’t  give the spot to another sharp and funny woman? Someone, say, like the Scottish comedian Susan Calman or smart Samira Ahmed or quirky Sue Perkins? Just when you think there is a breakthrough, traditional forces come in, like angry waves, and wash away the hopeful signs. This happens in politics, the media, business and all the professions.

And all the time, peeved men ( and sadly some successful women too)  moan about ‘unfairness’, the lowering of standards and tokenism. Or they claim that Britain is now truly meritocratic and that equality campaigners are indulging in special pleading. The rise and rise of Theresa May will be used by these deniers. The Canadian feminist Charlotte Whitton  ( 1896-1975) wrote: ‘Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought to be half as good.’ For black and Asian women the burden of proof is even harder and for our men the odds are stacked so high it’s a wonder any of them make their mark.

For over thirty years, the BBC and other channels too have been bleating on and on about diversity and inclusion. They have hired special tsars, spent money on conferences and training, talked the talk.  I remember being paid a tidy sum to do some of this training. A few exotic individuals and dauntless women were admitted to the club but, as Lenny Henry tirelessly points out,  the culture remained stubbornly resistant. Remember how the irascible John Humphreys asked Mishal Hussein if she got the job on News at Ten because she was good looking?  Some of those who managed to get in, left, because they were ghettoised or humiliated, or barely tolerated.

In the last five years, some sectors are getting serious about diversifying their workforce. The advertising industry has transformed itself. High tech firms have no gender or race hangups. Some media outlets are becoming more diverse and inclusive, partly because Ofcom is now  pushing hard for that to happen. In this new landscape, Jon Holmes et al will not be guaranteed jobs for life. But they will still survive and thrive. So please guys, let’s see less self pity and more munificence. You’ve had it really good. Give someone else a turn.

Edited Version I newspaper 5/10/16

IVF and Feminism


Sometimes, a few well articulated words can make you question your own settled, sometimes congealed views.  It happened to me on Thursday morning, while I was listening dozily to  the Today Programme on BBC Radio4. One report was on IVF. Apparently,  in some areas of England, health care trusts had surreptitiously withdrawn this service because of budgetary pressures. The National  Institute for Health and Care Excellence ( Nice) backs these treatments and has extended the age limit for women entitled to get three free IVF cycles. Yet now, if you live in some parts of England, you have to go private, go abroad, or remain childless. Claire Thomas, a young mum interviewed on the programme, was refused IVF because her husband already had two children from a previous marriage. They had to spend over four thousand pounds, go to the Czech Republic to have the baby they craved. Until this broadcast, I, a mother of two, was either turned off by  IVF sob stories or simply not that bothered.  But Claire’s lucid testimony shook up my complacency, compelled me to look into the subject . Call it an epiphany.

According to Sarah Norcross, co-chair of the Fertility Fairness campaign group, the number of people getting NHS infertility treatment is at its lowest since 2004. Some area clinical commission groups are withdrawing access because, says, Norcross, it is a soft option. I think she is right. It’s easier than, say, denying drugs to cancer patients or closing down facilities for premature babies. These matters are as much about emotion as cost and priorities. Many Britons believe IVF is a luxury, a lifestyle choice for those who must have it all. I used to think that too. I wrote, as if I knew it all, that having kids was not a right but a privilege, that couples should adopt or adapt to their circumstances.

Claire described how isolated she felt, the depression she fell into. How would I have coped if I had been unable to have children naturally? It would have been unbearable.  Yet over the years, I became cruelly indifferent to women and men who longed to be parents and had to seek medical interventions to get there. Maybe some of this was the influence of earlier manifestations of feminism. In the late seventies, feminist theorists were highly critical of marriage, penetrative sex, female procreation and the duties of motherhood. I wore loose dungarees to hide my pregnancy from the radical sisters in my feminist group, then discreetly left. Those were the bad old days.

Feminism is worthless if it only engages with politics, power, inequality and economic parity. Biological needs and human desires  must be part of the struggle too. Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon successfully challenge the way childless women used to be stereotyped  in our society- pitiable and not quite female. However, women desperate to have kids who then opt for medical interventions can still be seen as pathetic and spoilt even. Few know or care about the arduous processes, the toll on the body, the disappointments when the treatments fail.  Campaigners try their best, but this cause still does not stir most Britons. It should. Women now have to work and so wait longer than their mums did to start families. As you get older, it becomes harder to conceive or carry a baby.

Childbearing is a fundamental human right. I would go further: spending on IVF makes more sense than spending good money on drugs for people who only have months to live or indeed keeping the very old and sick ticking over, waiting for death. Decision makers in the NHS have to make tough judgements. But they must act fairly too. Cutting free IVF provision means those on modest incomes can never have the child they yearn for. They can in Scotland. Whatever happened to universal healthcare based on need and not ability to pay?

Edited Version I newspaper 23/9/2016


Muslim Women and Discrimination


Muslim women are the most economically disadvantaged group in our society. They are three times more likely than other British women to be unemployed or looking for work and twice as likely to be economically inactive. Those who have the same educational qualifications and skills as white Christian women are 71% more likely to be unemployed. These bleak findings appear in an MPs report published this Thursday. This is bad news for Muslims, feminists, anti-racists and for the nation. Britain cannot be highly productive, functional, inventive, internationally competitive  or properly meritocratic while so much human potential remains dormant or suppressed. Muslim families and communities with unemployed females cannot be hoisted out of privation and hopelessness. So why is this happening? Why now?

British Muslim women have come a long way since the eighties. Many have then been dragged or tossed back from where they might have been. Forty five percent more of them are in work than were in 2011. That is a remarkable figure. In 1894 a seminal Government study, Black and White Britain, was published by the Policy Studies Institute. The author, Colin Brown, is now my husband. He found that though vastly fewer Asian females than black or white females were in the workforce, among those in employment only 18% were Muslim. Today he has a senior job in financial regulation and his boss is a young, smart Muslim woman. Eight Muslim women are in parliament, several are Peers. More British Muslim women are getting degrees than Muslim men. (Until 1990, such women never got into higher education). I am a part time professor at Middlesex University where many of my students are feisty young Muslim women. One of them, Saira ( not her real name), told me recently: ‘ My mother can’t read or write. They got her married at 12, when she was a child. But she pushed me and my five sisters, stopped my father arranging our marriages. She is like a lioness. He used to hit her’. Sharmin was a young, incredibly bright, Bangladeshi mum in Bethnal Green. I used to teach her English. After her husband left her and married a younger wife. She enrolled at a further education college. She is now a social worker.

Some Muslim leaders have been calling for these transformative developments for a very long time. Back in 1924, our worldwide imam, the Aga Khan, instructed his believers to educate daughters because they would then go on to raise educated children and, in time, prepare congregations for a future they could not even imagine. As a child in the sixties, I remember the first time I saw women doctors in our mosque surgery in Kampala, Uganda and teachers clip-clopping in high heels in our schools. Aid agencies today focus on female education and aspirations for the same reasons given by our imam. Some British working class Muslim families finally got that message and did defy cultural norms to educate their daughters. According to this report, ‘ the impact of Islamaphobia cannot be underestimated’ and there is now a ‘chill factor’ which stops them applying for jobs and promotion. What a blow that must be. All that faith, all that money invested in what turned out to be a false promise, a chimera.

Just when things were getting better, they got worse. Attitudes towards migrants, minorities and refugees have noticeably hardened since Ukip and other hard right wing politicians, moved from the fringes to the heart of British politics. Islamicist terrorist cells are undeniably operating here and some have support from British born Muslims. Muslim self segregation is also an evident and serious issue. So too Pakistani grooming gangs in many small towns whose heinous activities were kept hidden for too long. These behaviours play into the narratives of racists and have also turned fair minded people against Islam and Muslims. The most ‘integrated’ of us are insulted, abused or attacked. You can’t fly, walk, talk, use public transport or use public spaces without fear of being seen as a terrorist. Since the late 1960s when the race relations laws were passed, most native Brits accepted the difference between private prejudices and civic or illegal behaviour. Not anymore.

There is another terrible injustice silently endured by Muslim females. Misogynistic Wahabi values are now embedded across the UK. Malignant literature, well produced and written in English, is found in many of our mosques. The books insist women are congenitally deficient and must be beaten and controlled. Farhat Hashmi, who got her PhD from Glasgow university, is one of the most influential internet female proselytisers ever. She orders middle class women to stay at home and give in men’s demands. They obey.

The report does recognise that discrimination and internal oppression both keep Muslim women in their airless, hopeless places. Governments can tackle the first, but who would dare challenge the second in a liberal society?

Edited version published in The Guardian, August 2016


Saudi Arabia


Practising Muslims have only five fundamental religious obligations: we must commit to monotheism, pray, give to charity, fast during the month of Ramadhan and go on pilgrimage to Mecca. I try my best to discharge these duties but will not go to Mecca. Our sacred city, unfortunately, is in Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by a base, cruel, corrupt, absolutist, tyrannical, filthy rich, destructive, ungodly clan. They have even bulldozed precious historical and religious sites. I hope God will forgive me for my small rebellion against this evil empire. Many other Muslims are similarly revolted by the Saudi regime. Yet for successive UK governments as well as our biddable royals, powerful elites in the US, France and other western states, these worst of Muslim rulers are the best of friends. The loyalist nations are complicit in abominable  human rights abuses within the kingdom as well as catastrophic Saudi funded Islamofascism, wars and terrorism the world over. It can’t go on. Our citizens need to hold politicians to account for aiding and abetting these crimes against humanity and political integrity.

On Monday, Oxfam issued a stark statement about the hidden war in the Yemen where the Sunni leadership is fighting Shia rebels. We sold the arms to Saudi Arabia now being used against the Yemenis. We are violating the Arms Trade Treaty we backed and signed up to. Yes, that old, shameless British hypocrisy again. ( This trade has brought in 6 billion pounds!!!)  Indiscriminate bombing has killed over 8000 people. 82% of Yemenis are now dependent on international aid. Our government remains intensely relaxed about this military adventure. The US too, has unconditionally backed the Saudi rulers. But, unlike here, influential Americans are getting uneasy, more wary and outspokenly critical of this diplomatic love-in.

Toby Jones is associate history professor at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. In February this year, he wrote a grim paper for the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank: ‘The kingdom has become increasingly violent, beholden to dangerous pathologies and unpredictable.’ The US government knows all this.  In 2009,  Hillary Clinton wrote in a leaked email: ‘Saudi Arabia remains a critical support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups’. Yes, and Isis since then. Key parts of an official report on Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 killers have been redacted. Not one of them was an Iraqi, but Americans were directed to blame Iraq. Soon after the attacks, 144 Saudis living in the USA were flown home before they could be interrogated. US activist Medea Benjamin in her new book,  (Kingdom of the Unjust Behind the US-Saudi Connection) tells it how it is , how it has been for too long:’ It is not hard to connect the dots between the spread of Saudi intolerant ideology of Wahabism, the creation of Al Qaeda and Islamic State and the attacks in New York, Paris, Brussels and San Bernadino. You can also connect the dots between Saudi Arabia and the failure of some of the historic democratic uprisings associated with the Arab spring, since the Saudi monarchy did not want calls for democracy to threaten its own grip on power’. ( Did you know that Harry St John Philby, father of spy Kim Philby, was a colonial operator and Wahabi convert who helped to create Saudi Arabia?  I have written about him in my book, Exotic England )

Oil and arms trade and business interests explain the tolerance of Saudi Arabia in the west. But now that Islamicists are here among us, causing mayhem, public opinion will shift, is shifting. Saudi Arabia is not only sponsoring violence in the east and south, it is fomenting extremism in Europe, the US and UK. Two British Muslim men are currently being tried for the murder of Jalal Uddin, an elderly imam in Rochdale. Allegedly, they were Isis groupies who, according to the prosecution, hated Uddin’s ‘un-Islamic’ beliefs. Clerics sponsored by Saudi Arabia tacitly back the new unholy holy war against outside and inside ‘infidels’.

Our country is full of angry young Muslim men and women. I have talked to a few reformed Jihadis and can see how intelligence, religiosity, identity clashes and duplicitous  geopolitical games can lead to a nihilist mind set, set off furies. A good number turn to Wahabism  because, like Bin Laden, they want the west to get out of their holy lands. But the majority cannot endure the lies, deceit and western support for dictators. Some fantasize about savage acts while others carry them out and end up in prisons. Now the government wants to separate extreme Jihadis from those who are not that hardened. Again the government prefers to act rather than think. If ministers did stop to consider the factors that produced violent Islamicists, they would have to accept that they are the bastard children of Saudi Arabia and British ‘diplomacy’. How could they bear that responsibility?

Published in the International Business Times August 2016

A Plague On Those Who Brought Us Here

Brexit Win

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown


On Wednesday morning a talented young, black musician was beaten up in a park in South London and told to ‘get back on the boat’. He was born here, so too his parents, my friends, both of whom worked for many years in the NHS. On Tuesday an email arrived from Albert Persaud, director of a prestigious psychiatry research centre. Doctors in his team are concerned about the breakout of racial hostility and it effect on black and Asian patients. In another email, Sheila Melzak, a consultant child psychotherapist who works with young asylum seekers and refugees, claimed the children have been severely bullied in the last four months. I was recently spat at and abused on a bus in High Street Kensington by a woman in her fifties: ‘ Fuck back off Paki. This is my country’. This squalid referendum campaign has released the stench of chauvinism, the germs of infectious bigotry.  Prejudice is irrational and intoxicating, emotive and powerful. Throw in introverted nationalism, nostalgia and reassuring lies and you get a seriously potent narcotic. Farage et al cynically doped millions of voters and here we are, a small, mean, nasty, divided, vicious, boorish and also deluded Britain.  

In 1963, In Smethwick, Tory Peter Griffiths overturned a massive Labour majority by repeatedly using one simple slogan: ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour’.  Lamentably, we have returned to those dark old days. The unspoken Brexit slogan was ‘If you want a migrant for a neighbour, vote remain’. Those trapped in austerity poverty, many working class grouches, middle class jingoists and  anti-elite, anti-intellectual populists all ganged up against the hapless, hard working EU worker. I doubt they really believe that once this lot has been seen off, jobs will go ( or be taken up) by the true-born, hearts of oak men and women. But realism has no place in this fantasy land.  

They say they want their country back. Which country would that be? Not the one that was reflected in the upbeat, optimistic Olympics. As A.A Gill observed in a magnificent tirade: ‘ We all know what they mean. Back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future…’ Even though it smelt like, looked like and sounded like racism, Brexiters insist that the vile anti- immigration rhetoric reflected genuine, nativist anguish. On Friday night, even Ukip’s Douglas Carswell expressed his dismay at the way refugees and migrants were demonised by his party.  I share his dismay. Worse still, many of those who turned paranoid and xenophobia had once themselves been refugees and economic migrants. I am an exile, forced out by Idi from my homeland Uganda. Thousands of my people voted for Brexit, some because they are obnoxiously selfish, others because they pathetically think this gives them brownie points for patriotism.

On Friday morning my working class English husband and I said we both felt sorrow, terror and shame. Is this what we have become? Has Nigel Farage replaced Jessica Ennis as the face of Britain? Yes. A plague on those who brought us here.

 Published GQ magazine 25th June 2016