In Who’s Afraid of Gender?, Judith Butler confronts contemporary attacks on gender from right-wing movements that have undermined the rights of women, queer and trans people in areas from reproductive justice to protections against violence. The book deftly unpacks the phantasm of gender as it has been weaponised against queer and trans people and argues for countering it not with commensurate hate, but by making more desirable a way of living based in freedom and empathy, writes Elaine Coburn.

Judith Butler came to LSE to launch the book in March 2024: watch it back on YouTube.

Who’s Afraid of Gender? Judith Butler. Allen Lane. 2024.

This book is a ghost story. It is about phantasms conjured up by actors that include the Pope and the novelist JK Rowling. The ghost is sometimes “gender”, sometimes “gender ideology” and sometimes “Judith Butler.” This expansive, often contradictory phantasm is a repository for displaced fears of war, economic inequality, climate change and associated threats to existence.

Not to be confused with their phantasmagorical other, the flesh and blood philosopher Judith Butler seeks to exorcise the ghost. They do this by mobilising logic, argument and a deep care for the self and others. Amid rising fascisms and authoritarianisms, Butler maintains that what is at stake is the right to a “livable life” (264). When reasonable, justified fears of destruction are displaced onto “gender”, they warn, queer and trans people, as well as intellectuals like Butler, become targets.

Amid rising fascisms and authoritarianisms, Butler maintains that what is at stake is the right to a ‘livable life’.

Opponents are powerful figures. In 2015, Pope Francis condemned “gender theory”, because, he argued, it does not recognise the existence of men and women and therefore “does not recognize the order of creation” (6). Gender theory is contrary to natural law, as given by the Creator (79). The Pope then asserts that “Family is family!” (77), but he means only one kind of family: the heterosexual household, united in marriage. All other forms of love and kinship are disqualified.

As Butler observes, this is confused. Theories about sex and gender, including Butler’s own approach, do not argue that it is impossible to recognise sex and gender. Instead, the argument is that because sex and gender are socially constructed in different ways, in different times and places, they are mutable. Sex is variously defined: genetically, hormonally, and physically. It is not an unchanging, universal given, whether within contemporary medicine or socially and culturally.

Theories about sex and gender, including Butler’s own approach, do not argue that it is impossible to recognise sex and gender. Instead, the argument is that because sex and gender are socially constructed in different ways, in different times and places, they are mutable.

Likewise, despite colonialism, Butler observes, many genders have existed and persist today across different cultures, beyond the woman/man binary of Western modernity. The hijra in India are just one well-known example and, Butler observes, there are many languages where gender binaries are not systematically inscribed in descriptions of the human. In answer to the question, “What is my gender?”, queer theorists thus argue that there are possibilities beyond the binary statements, “I am a man,” or “I am a woman”.

The same is true for heterosexual marriages and families. Heterosexual married households exist, for some, as both a social fact and as a valued choice. They are but one reality and one possibility, however, amid more expansive understandings of kinship. The recognition of a plurality of genders and families, both in fact and as liberatory possibility, is a major contribution of gender and queer theory, as inspired by the feminist and LGBTQ+ movements that supported these intellectual developments.

Heterosexual married households exist, for some, as both a social fact and as a valued choice. They are but one reality and one possibility, however, amid more expansive understandings of kinship.

If the Pope is haunted by the ghost of “gender theory”, as the Catholic Church has resurrected it – not necessarily accurately – he has some unlikely allies. In June 2020, Rowling infamously wrote a series of texts on the social media platform X (then “Twitter”). Among her observations, she expressed empathy and solidarity with trans women. In particular, Rowling emphasised the need to support trans women against threats of male violence. “[T]he majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others,” Rowling wrote, “but are vulnerable…” (163). Such solidarity, Butler observes, unites cisgender and trans women.

Unfortunately, Butler adds, in focusing on threats posed by individual men, Rowling fails to critique patriarchal social orders that produce and sanction masculine violence. Worse, Rowling then suggests that “natal girls and women” (164) must be protected from trans women – whom she abruptly redescribes as men – in a context where men are habitually violent towards women. The evidence that Rowling offers is that many women, including herself, have suffered violence from men and that some trans women, notably Karen White in the United Kingdom, have assaulted women.

As Butler observes, in Rowling’s narrative, “Suddenly, the figure of the trans woman attacker seems to stand for all trans women, and the category of “trans women” is replaced simply by ‘men’” (164), deemed to be permanent threats. Rowling does not justify her argumentative moves, from a focus on an individual trans attacker to all trans women and from trans women to the supposedly unitary, naturalised category of men. Nor does she defend her ahistorical characterisations of men, or, in Butler’s broader description, “someone who has a penis” (157), as inevitably violent. These are givens.

Whatever the logical inconsistencies and despite Rowling’s unjustified argumentative moves, her rhetoric achieves its aim. The purpose, Butler argues, is to induce panic at the expense of trans women, cast as perpetrators of violence.

Whatever the logical inconsistencies and despite Rowling’s unjustified argumentative moves, her rhetoric achieves its aim. The purpose, Butler argues, is to induce panic at the expense of trans women, cast as perpetrators of violence. In so doing, among other harms, Rowling and her followers deny trans women’s existence. Butler emphasises the violence of the erasure:

“Imagine if you were Jewish and someone tells you that you are not. Imagine if you are lesbian and someone laughs in your face and says you are confused since you are really heterosexual….Or imagine you are Palestinian and someone tells you that Palestinians do not exist (which people do).” (151).

For Rowling and others like her, Butler observes, “their right to define you is apparently more important than any right you have to determine who you are” (151). Confronted with denials of your very existence, Butler remarks, “at some point you will feel and express rage, and you will doubtless be right to do so” (151, italics in original). Rage is justified when your self-determining right to assert your existence is purposefully undermined.

The strength of Butler’s approach is that they do not begin and end with anger. They unequivocally condemn bullying, especially online harassment, including the targeting of Rowling by trans activists. “I will not condone that kind of behaviour,” they emphasise, “no matter who does it” (151). They refuse “cancel culture” instead, carefully if unrelentingly critiquing the arguments of those with whom they disagree. Against the ghostly invocation of gender theory, “We need a better conversation” (150), Butler argues. Butler models what that better conversation might look like.

The ‘anti-gender’ elite undermines understandings of gender that ‘let many of us live’ (151). More broadly, they distract us from world concerns, including inequality, hunger, war and climate change, that require our urgent attention.

In the conclusions, Butler reminds us that the stakes of these conversations are high. Most immediately, the “anti-gender” elite undermines understandings of gender that “let many of us live” (151). More broadly, they distract us from world concerns, including inequality, hunger, war and climate change, that require our urgent attention. The immediate and broader stakes are linked, because we all have an interest in creating “equality and freedom within a livable world” (260). We will not get there, Butler warns, if rising authoritarian nationalism and “rights-stripping” (54) fascisms displace real threats onto the phantasmagorical spectre of “gender theory”.

As I write, the ghost of “Judith Butler” stalks contemporary right-wing rhetoric. In Who’s Afraid of Gender? the real Judith Butler is doing critical work. They remind us not to be distracted by phantasmal evils but to turn to each other. Against the spectral fears of the far right, they write, we must make ethical ideals of freedom, desire and love “so compelling that no one can look away” (264). Only then will we be able to end the all-too-material injustices and violence that haunt our present.

Note: This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: Pixel-Shot on Shutterstock.

‘Resistance Street’ film premieres in London this week – but not in Unite buildings, against the wishes of Unite officers and reps

The Unite union has continued its trend under general secretary Sharon Graham of banning left-wing films and books by blocking showings on its premises of a new documentary by Richard David – despite its equalities directors first offering maximum help.

‘On Resistance Street’ trailer

The film was shot over a two year period in England, Belfast and New York and features renowned musicians, bands, writers and commentators looking at the role music plays in the fight against Fascism and racism. Siobhan Endean, Unite’s equalities director, initially responded to David’s approach:

Thank you for your email that you sent to our Executive Council. My role is working in the field of equalities within unite and I would be very keen to help you as much as I can. You asked for an email address for our general secretary it is [redacted]  I would also be very grateful if you could share a link to your film, and I will see what can be done to support the film.

However, within a short time this willingness to help was withdrawn, prompting the film’s creators to write directly to Sharon Graham:

Dear Sharon,
I am writing to you as the writer-director of the new British feature-length documentary ‘ON RESISTANCE STREET’, which received its sold-out international premiere in Belfast, at the Queen’s Film Theatre on October 19th 2023.

The film was a two year independent production, shot in England, Belfast and New York. It is an in-depth examination of the role which music has played historically in the fight against Fascism, racism, bigotry and Right Wing ideology.

As such it contains contributions from a wide array of musicians, Trade Union leaders, activists, authors, historians and commentators. These include members of The Sex Pistols, Steel Pulse, Aswad, Stiff Little Fingers, The Levellers, The Men They Couldn’t Hang, The Defects and The Outcasts. There are also contributions from contemporary British artists such as the East London based Grime Star Lady Shocker, who performs individually but is also a founder member of the
ground-breaking ‘Female All-stars’ Grime collective.

Other contributors include: Matt Wrack FBU Leader, Weyman Bennett, national co-ordinator of ‘Stand Up to Racism’, Chris Salewicz, biographer of Joe Strummer and Bob Marley, Anti-Fascist author and historian Rick Blackman, feminist historian and author Louise Raw, Clash ‘Rude Boy’ movie star Ray Gange, leading female Black Lives Matter activist Chantelle Lunt, Terri Hooley, founder of ‘Good Vibrations Records in Belfast, Mexico City Trade Union leader Fernando Luna, New York State Union organiser Dan Gniewekei and others.

The film also shows as to how a new Trade Union, was created in Mexico City, with between 3-400 members, this after a year of online video call consultations, between British, American and Mexican members of an online Clash fans group named ‘Clash Fans Against The Right’. The members involved were full-time Union officers in their own countries. That group was founded by myself and Robin Banks, in direct response to Boris Johnson’s ludicrous and deeply cynical claim that The Clash were one of his ”Two favourite bands”, that obscene announcement contained inside an official Conservative Party political broadcast in November 2019.

That social media group has since evolved into a real life Anti-Racism organisation named ‘Resistance Street’, which has staged live music events in London, Liverpool, New York and Belfast over the last two years. These events also featured many political speakers including Trade Union leaders like Matt Wrack. In its third section, ‘On Resistance Street’ traces that evolution and shows how social media can be harnessed and utilised powerfully on behalf of the Left, when people pool their intellectual and creative strengths.

The film was produced by myself and Robin, the lifelong friend of The Clash’s Mick Jones, who was immortalised in the band’s song ”Stay Free”. A song written by Mick himself and about their friendship. Robin and I were both friends of the late Joe Strummer, whose lyrics and quotes appear at various stages of the film.

This letter is sent in direct conjunction with a recent proposal which originated via friends of mine who are Unite Officers and Shop Stewards in Southampton, the city in which UK production was based. This followed another sold-out Southern regional premiere screening at Solent University Film Theatre on November 17th. The proposal was that there would be a special screening of the film for Unite members, Anti-Racism activists and other members of Trade Unions at the Unite-The Union HQ in Southampton.

I have personally attended previous Anti-Racism documentary screenings at the HQ, which were well supported and successfully received, audience-wise. Secondly, it was proposed that following that initial event, this could act as springboard for a series of special screenings in Unite HQ’s across the country.

Both Robin and myself were only too delighted at this proposal, given it had always been our hope that special political screenings could materialise via agreements with Trade Unions.

Many people who have seen ORS, have commented on its in-depth educational value. The film not only chronicles music’s role in this battle as stated, but charts the entire drift towards the political Right in America, Europe and Britain, as we confront the present. As such, the ascendancy of Trump, the Brexit campaign and the British and European Far Right are all documented, with emphasis on the now alarming authoritarian stances of the current Conservative government in Britain.

We emphasise that given our own political convictions formed over a lifetime, we were absolutely perfectly happy to see this screening and the proposed series across the country, take place with us making not a single PENNY of profit from it all.

We have now been informed that this proposal is not possible, in direct relation to a relatively recent motion passed by the Unite-The Union National Executive.

As you are well aware, that motion has forbidden the screening of any documentary films in Unite-The Union buildings, unless they are specifically to do with working conditions, wage disputes and industrial relations.

The officers and Shop Stewards concerned were truly shocked by this motion. So are we. Firstly, such films are few and far between and are only likely to be made if they were commissioned by Unions individually or the TUC.

Secondly and more importantly, this decision was taken without consultation of your regional political education officers, general membership or indeed the Unite-The Union Community section. As such, we believe this amounts to a Stalinist-style decision and one which stands directly at odds with the overall principles and history of Anti-Fascism and Anti-Racism in Britain.

It is a decision which consequently denies workers/members the opportunity to watch a film like this inside a recognised Union environment. It is a decision which raises serious questions concerning your Union’s commitment to Anti-Racism in general and which constitutes a gross act of cultural censorship.

Working class cultural activism and creativity should be an absolutely integral part of any genuine political education programmes. Particularly when it is based inside energies challenging racism in Britain.

The Shop Stewards and officers all voiced that belief and it is one we share and endorse completely. We are of course aware of the furore caused via screenings or potential screenings of the Jeremy Corbyn film ‘The Big Lie’.

We shall not comment further on that, other than to say until we hear differently, we have to assume that this motion was passed as a knee-jerk, supposedly politically expedient reaction, to all that. If you are of the view that there are other bona-fide reasons behind the motion, we would very much like to hear what they are.

In light of all this, we are now requesting the following:

• That your National Executive convenes to formally re-assess this decision.

• That in doing so, the Executive democratically consults fully with your regional political education officers and only reaches a final decision after such consultations.

If this does not happen, we believe it makes an utter mockery of their supposed role and programmes. We also believe strongly that there should be further extended consultations with appropriate representatives of Unite The Union-In The Community, this also on a regional basis.

It is our conviction that the current decision cuts right to the heart of supposed ‘democracy’, as related to fundamental ethics and principles of Trade Unionism within ‘Unite-The Union’. We believe this decision should be reversed. We believe that these matters will attract widespread attention and public interest within the public domain. With that in mind, we request a formal response from yourself at the earliest possible point.

In Solidarity.
Richard David
Robin Banks

The pair received a response from Sarah Carpenter, Unite’s newly-promoted (without proper process, according to union insiders) ‘Executive head of operations’. The reply, while anodyne in its language, confirmed that Unite has no intention of reversing its ban – and did not address any of the makers’ concerns about the political motivations behind it:

Dear Richard and Robin,

Thank you for your letter which you sent to the General Secretary on 18 December. The GS is currently involved in industrial disputes and has asked me to respond.

Your letter rightly refers to a decision made by the union’s Executive Committee (made up of lay members, elected democratically by and from the wider membership), which was debated and agreed by them at their meeting in September 2023. This decision was ‘That Unite should not use its premises or resources to show or promote any external films or other content that does not relate to our industrial agenda to support the pay, terms and conditions of our members and/or support existing Unite policies. In this context the Union should be especially careful to avoid appearing to endorse any material which causes unnecessary offence to members.’

This would mean that we cannot show any films unless there is a clear link to our industrial agenda. The film you have produced looks fascinating and I am pleased to see that you have found venues where this can be shown. However, from the information you have sent I do not see that there is a link to our industrial agenda, and so we are not able to use Unite premises or resources to show or promote this film.

Carpenter has been accused, acting on Sharon Graham’s behalf, of threatening a soon-to-retire regional official with the loss of his pension bonus if he did not cool his support for the people of Palestine against Israel’s genocide – and of cancelling showings and readings of films and books showing the pro-Israel lobby’s sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party and exposing abuse by Starmer’s Labour toward left-wing party members.

Sharon Graham has been alleged by Unite insiders to have:

• banned Unite officials and national banners from pro-Gaza protests
• banned and smeared films and books exposing the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam
• placed an official under investigation who refused to cancel a Palestine solidarity fringe event at Labour’s 2023 annual conference
• told her chief of staff to threaten a soon-to-retire official with the loss of a pension bonus if he did not soften his support for Palestinians

Her supporters also prevented debate and votes on Gaza at a March meeting of the union’s elected executive.

Apart from the issue of Gaza, her tenure as Unite boss has also been marked by a string of other allegations – which neither she nor the union has denied – including destruction of evidence against her husband in threat, misogyny and bullying complaints brought by union employees. She is also embroiled in both an employment tribunal for discrimination and a defamation lawsuit brought by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle for the union’s treatment of him and comments made about him by Graham and her close ally Tony Woodhouse.

‘On Resistance Street’ will receive its London premiere at The Gate Picturehouse Cinema in Notting Hill on
Wednesday April 17th. That will be followed by a short theatrical run across Britain. The film will then feature in a wide number of national and international Film festivals.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

Students demand divestment and an end to academic ties

Bristol University students have taken control of one of the university’s Wills Memorial Building in a protest to demand an end to its ‘complicity with arms companies’ and to call for a series of actions on its part to ‘support Palestine and Palestinians’:

The demanded actions include:

• an end to cooperation with weapons manufacturers
• protection for Palestinian students and special consideration for those taking exams who have been affected by Israel’s slaughter in Gaza
• protection for anti-Zionist beliefs among staff and students – an issue on which Bristol university has a shameful record and has been the scene of intense pressure campaigns by pro-Israel groups claiming that anti-Zionism, opposition to the settler-colonial state that has displaced Palestinians and treats them as inferior
• recognition of the existence of Palestine – an existence denied by hardcore supporters of Israel
• scholarships for Palestinian refugees

Israel has killed over forty thousand Palestinian civilians, more than two thirds of them women and children, and injured twice as many, in its genocidal assault on Gaza and has ignored orders from the International Court of Justice to cease its slaughter and allow food, fuel and medicines into Gaza immediately. Gaza is now in famine, with experts predicting that more will die in the coming months from hunger and disease than from Israel’s bombs, missiles and bullets, with children again worst affected.

Palestinian flags can be seen through the Wills building’s doors. The figures in the second image have been blurred to protect identities.

The group is also demanding an end to the use of a ‘check-in’ system that tracks the location of students.

Wednesday’s action is not the first by Bristol students demanding justice for Palestinians and an end to discrimination against them and their supporters. Four months ago, students protested in the university’s ‘profits from genocide’:

And earlier this month, a group occupied Bristol University’s Victoria Rooms in a pro-Gaza protest.

The British government has mounted a pressure campaign against universities, threatening to defund them if they allow ‘extremism’ or ‘antisemitism’ in the form of pro-Palestinian speech and activism. Shamefully, a number of universities have capitulated to pressure from the UK state and from pro-Israel groups claiming that speech against Israel’s crimes and occupation of Palestinian land infringe on their rights and constitutes ‘hate’ toward Jews, even though many UK Jews oppose Israel’s actions and oppression of Palestinians.

Last month, former Bristol professor David Miller won a landmark employment tribunal case against the university, which had sacked him after pressure from pro-Israel groups, despite lawyers it appointed to run two investigations finding that he had said nothing antisemitic. The win set a precedent that anti-Zionist political beliefs are a protected characteristic under equalities law and cannot be used as grounds for dismissal. Skwawkbox understands that Prof Miller is not involved in the students’ protest.

Solidarity with students in Bristol and elsewhere who are demanding an end to complicity in war crimes.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

Labour under control freak Starmer has no respect or inclusivity, says former Crewe and Nantwich MP Laura Smith, who also cites Starmer’s Gaza stance as a driver for her decision

Former Crewe and Nantwich MP Laura Smith has quit the Labour party with a blistering attack on Labour’s lack of standards and inclusivity under Keir Starmer, after being suspended from the Cheshire East council Labour group for refusing to vote in support of a package of swingeing Tory cuts.

In a public statement about her decision to resign, Smith said that she:

entered mainstream politics back in 2017 after years of activism in social justice
movements after growing up in a family of trade union and socialist values. I stuffed
leaflets In the Labour Party envelopes and served tea and biscuits at the meetings of the local group as a child, and some of my earliest memories were of Saturdays spent In the car with my dad as he drove Gwyneth Dunwoody, the MP at the time around the constituency. I knew my core values from a very early age and I knew from the feeling in the pit of my stomach that my fight was always going to be equality and social justice. I experienced many things growing up that further shaped my beliefs and that feeling only grew as I became an adult.

Being supported by my local Labour party and then becoming an MP representing my home towns was something that I couldn’t ever have Imagined. As someone from a challenging background and always struggling to make ends meet, it wasn’t a future that I felt was possible. But it did happen In a whirlwind of political change and hope for an alternative in the snap general election of 2017. I was elevated into a position where I felt that I could make a difference and my motivation was always the same. Those same values that I had harboured since being a little girl.

That two and half years in Parliament was an experience that I will always cherish and struggle with, in equal measures. The stark reality of our political system is one that I cannot pretend hasn’t made me more cynical, less hopeful for a real alternative and unfortunately more worried for the future. When I was elected, I hoped that I could prove to young girls and women who had been just like me that their voices could be heard, that they could make a difference and that they could be the changemakers and creators of a better world. The sad reality is that the system itself hampers the opportunity for real progress.

I would love to say that politics is a safe space for women. It isn’t. I would desperately like to say that debate and conflict is healthy and respectful. It’s not. I wish I could say that the old tropes that politics is a dirty corrupt business were untrue. But sadly it is. And that is from the top of our system all the way down to local politics.

More than anything I would like to say that the Labour Party itself sets a standard of
inclusivity and respect but that would be untruthful in my experience. It has become a place where to have a thought in your head that differs to the Labour leadership and the officials behind the scenes is an offence that can lead to suspension or even expulsion. At a local level it is a space where judgment is felt because as a full-time working mother juggling multiple caring responsibilities as well as often working Saturdays, you can’t sit in meeting after meeting or knock on doors in your rare free hours. I have heard the tutting and watched the finger wagging and listened to the comments and I think that it unfortunately remains the case that to be valued in the party you need to have lots and lots of free time. Naturally that means being either retired, not have caring responsibilities, being healthy both physically and mentally, and more often then not financially secure. Equality right? This Is before even
touching on the factional aspects that rage through the party, manifesting Itself through bullying, belittling, a culture of fear and a general lack of respect.

I am not perfect. I don’t have all of the answers. But one thing I am not is a hypocrite. It is for that reason, and after much consideration, I have decided to resign my membership of the UK Labour Party, rather than appeal my recent suspension letter by the local labour group at Cheshire East Council. I was suspended for not voting In line with the whip, but as I stated at the council meeting on the 27th of February I cannot support an austerity budget that places local councillors as the punching bag tor a Tory Government determined to destroy public services. This has not been an easy decision, but it is on balance the right one for me.

The reasons that I have stated combined with the position the Labour Party leadership is taking on international policy as well as domestic issues is now completely at odds with my personal beliefs and unfortunately, I feel that an alternative voice is no longer respected within the party structures. I would like to thank the great many friends that I have within the party who I hope will continue to value and respect me as I value and respect them. I will continue to serve my ward of Crewe South as an independent socialist councillor on the political values that I have always openly and honestly shared and was elected on.

I remain dedicated to fighting for true equality and Justice for the people in this country who quite simply are not receiving anywhere near the service and quality of life that they deserve. There is a complete void of honesty, decency, ambition and leadership from those with the true power to change things. Talk is cheap and the dishonesty that I have encountered on a daily basis in politics is something that I simply could not have imagined.

Bravery is required in desperate times, and democracy can only really work when fear and desire for power is not the driving force behind people’s motivations. It is our actions that define who we are and we owe it to ourselves to be true. I will be true to the little girl I once was and not allow my voice to be erased and my opinions silenced.

Smith was re-elected last year as councillor for Crewe South and will continue to serve, but as an independent.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.