Family
Uni lecturer wins damages from ‘antisemitism campaigners’ who endangered him and family
James Wilson wins defamation case against Mendelsohn and Cantor in judgment that speaks volumes about methods and attitudes of so-called ‘campaigners against antisemitism’
University lecturer James Wilson has been awarded £30,000 in damages against James Mendelsohn and Edward Cantor for defamatory material published about him during an argument about supposed antisemitism in the Labour party. The false claim, that Mr Wilson was a ‘freak [who] takes pictures of kids’, put Mr Wilson and his partner in fear of physical danger, as well as seriously damaging his reputation. The judge had previously rejected an attempt by Mendelsohn and Cantor to quash the lawsuit.
The judgement lays bare that:
- Mendelsohn and Cantor kept private information and recycled it to the late Dr Pete Newbon – a director of the anti-left group ‘Labour against Antisemitism’ (LAAS), so that he could use it to defame Wilson – the information was untrue and based a) on statements from someone the judge found to have lied about Wilson and b) on false claims about a university disciplinary investigation. Newbon was described by the judge as ‘bullying’
- that Newbon, who committed suicided in 2022 after a row with his wife and has been lionised by so-called ‘antisemitism campaigners’ despite his awful record as a serial troll repeatedly disciplined by his employers Northumbria University for his appalling social media conduct, had not told her of Wilson’s lawsuit against him for the defamatory posts
- Mendelsohn and Cantor refused to apologise, mediate or settle, forcing the legal action to proceed to its conclusion
- a key witness for the defendants said that she had been offered £5,000 by Mendelsohn and Cantor to testify for them (though the judge did not make a finding that her claim was true)
- the defendants further abused and insulted Wilson in the course of their defence – despite, in the case of Cantor, being warned by the judge not to do so
The defendants – who represented themselves in court apart from the use of a barrister to cross-examine Wilson – wheeled out a number of figures who are well known for their attacks on the left in an attempt to shore up their defence. The judge dismissed them:
- University lecturer David Hirsh, a prominent, pro-Israel proponent of supposed ‘left antisemitism’, who wrote an unintentionally revealing elegy to Pete Newbon after his suicide. Hirsh was called to bolster the defendants’ claim that Wilson had shown ‘unwarrantedly aggressive and belligerent conduct’. The judge rejected Hirsh’s evidence that Wilson was ‘aggressive, unpredictable, persistent and irrational’ and found that Wilson’s communications with him over the spreading of a crowdfund for the defendants’ legal costs were ‘not unreasonable’
- Nathan Comiskey, another advocate of ‘left antisemitism’, who claimed that Wilson contacting him about insulting remarks was ‘highly intrusive and upsetting’ and that he had felt ‘harassed and targeted’. The judge ruled that there was nothing unreasonable in Wilson’s communications and that Comiskey’s testimony did nothing to support the defendants’ claims about supposed unwarranted aggression or belligerence
- Simon Myerson – a founding signatory of LAAS and supporter of Israel, and a part-time judge recently sanctioned for judicial misconduct for abusive social media posts. Myerson was also a vocal supporter of Newbon, trying to link Jewish author Michael Rosen to Newbon’s suicide, despite a coroner not mentioning Rosen at all in his inquest findings. Mendelsohn and Cantor put forward Wilson’s communications with Myerson, who had shared a post describing Wilson as ‘scum of the earth’, as evidence to support their claim of aggressive behaviour. The judge ruled that it did nothing of the sort
- Joanne Bell and journalist Adam Cailler – more well-known anti-left activists whose correspondence with Wilson was put forward by the defence as supporting evidence. The judge ruled, “I can find nothing in the emails which is particularly aggressive or which points to conduct of the kind said to demonstrate the pleaded propensity [to aggression]”
A Myerson attack on Michael Rosen
The findings, as well as being clearly welcome to the smeared and endangered James Wilson, illuminate much of the approach of the right-wingers who created and propagated the ‘Labour antisemitism’ smear. While so-called ‘antisemitism campaigners’ – lauded by Hirsh in his document supporting the creation of the so-called ‘Pete Newbon award’ – are ready to doxx, insult, smear and abuse those with whom they disagree, the conduct of the defence and the witnesses it put forward or quoted reveal a group that is quick to describe their supposed hurt and fear when someone challenges them and, even in the most reasonable terms, takes issue with the smears and abuse. Happily, the judge saw through such asymmetrical nonsense.
Mr Wilson, in a statement about the result, said:
The Judge has found that Mr James Mendelsohn gave Dr Pete Newbon confidential and defamatory information about me. It included a screenshot of a Facebook post that said I was “a freak who took pictures of kids” outside a school with a clear photo of me. The impression was, as the Judge decided, like a ‘wanted’ poster. When the Facebook post was published originally, there were incidents that made me fear for the safety of me and my family. The police secured its deletion within 24 hours.
The Judge found that the allegations in the Facebook post were untrue. Mr Mendelsohn took a screenshot of the Facebook post in the 24 hours it was published and, having kept it for 19 months, gave it to Dr Newbon in August 2020 knowing Dr Newbon was making abusive attacks on me on Twitter/X and so he could use the screenshot as a weapon against me.
Dr Newbon and Mr Eddy Cantor then published the screenshot on Twitter/X to, as the Judge has found, abuse and bully me. When Dr Newbon realised the screenshot he and Mr Cantor had published put the safety of me and my family at risk, he took no action. I suspect this was on the basis of advice he got from his solicitor.
Even when Dr Newbon deleted the screenshot from his feed, he sent it to other people by private message. He also invented seriously defamatory allegations about me that he sent to other people.
I did not want the litigation to start. The Defendants could have settled for zero damages and zero costs, and an agreement to delete and not to further publish the screenshot. Litigation only started because all the Defendants, presumably on advice from their solicitors, insisted that publication of the screenshot was in the public interest. They claimed this despite knowing of the intimidatory incidents.
I did not want there to be a trial. What made a trial inevitable was the conduct of the Defendants. I suspect some of the Defendants’ conduct was the result of advice from their solicitors. The Defendants’ conduct included:
- Refusing to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules on pre-action conduct.
- Refusing mediation in favour of litigation to drive up my costs and to try to bankrupt me.
- Making repeated threats to bankrupt me, explicitly referring to the impact this would have on my employment and children.
- Making false allegations of anti-Semitism to try to get me to abandon my claim.
- Making misogynistic allegations about my partner and falsely accusing her of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and breaching professional conduct rules.
- Taking the case to trial having stated: (a) they had no money and I would not recover any costs or damages; (b) they did not care about the outcome (they were “blasé about the result”); (c) they saw what they were doing as some sort of revenge (they “regard this as payback time”).
- Refusing to engage sensibly in negotiations to settle the whole claim when both Dr Newbon’s widow and I wanted to quietly and cheaply settle the claim and avoid further publicity after Dr Newbon’s tragic death.
The Defendants received encouragement on social media and financial help in pursuing their
defences. The crowdfunding claims made by the Defendants were outrageous. The most distasteful aspect was using Dr Newbon’s death to raise money (“One of us is now sadly silent. Those remaining must today come together and fight”).
The reality was that, having used Dr Newbon’s death to raise money, no serious effort was made to defend Dr Newbon at trial. I tried to protect Dr Newbon’s posthumous reputation by settling the claim without a trial and judgment. Mr Cantor rejected in principle a settlement for nominal damages and zero costs in November 2021. Rather than getting Mr Cantor out of the litigation for a nominal sum, [his lawyer] insisted I would have to pay him money before Mr Cantor would settle the claim. I do not know whether Mr Cantor himself knew about this, given his subsequent expressions of bemusement about being involved in the proceedings at all.
Both Defendants refused an offer to settle before trial for just a quarter of the damages the Judge has awarded. When the trial started, I avoided seeking a finding of harassment against Dr Newbon. It is unfortunate that detailed information about Dr Newbon’s conduct has been put in the public domain after his death.
In my opinion, the Defendants and/or their solicitors tried to cause me devastating reputational and, through the costs of the proceedings, financial harm because they disagree with my views on the State of Israel. The Defendants’ conduct was encouraged by others who share their views.
Dr Newbon also brought a separate defamation claim [against author Michael Rosen, who had complained about the antisemitic editing of an image showing one of his books]. He had intended to apologise for the conduct which was the subject of that case, but seems to have received dreadful advice to sue rather than simply say sorry. He ended up involved in two completely unnecessary and hopeless legal cases.
As the Judge found, it seemed the Defendants were motivated by an intense dislike if not hatred of me. For my part, I have no antipathy towards the Defendants despite their conduct and its impact on me and my family. I have never published confidential or defamatory information about the Defendants. I have never been abusive to them. I never retaliated to the Defendants’ abuse and bullying. It is ironic that while the Defendants are convinced that I am motivated by prejudice against them, it is they who had an obsessive and irrational dislike of me. I find it sad that the Defendants, their former legal advisers, and others believed that defending the State of Israel from criticism justified their conduct to me and my family.
It is my hope that what has happened to the Defendants and their families, and me and my family, never happens to anyone else again. Please do not use the judgment in my case as a reason to attack or abuse others on social media. Mr Mendelsohn and Mr Cantor definitely do not deserve to be attacked or abused and I urge people not to do so.
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.
50th birthday
The reason I travelled all this way was for my little brothers 50th birthday party. I pretty much never go home and do this stuff. I had an awesome night and just love my clan so much.
I danced with a lot of people and every second person seemed to have a cold. A short visit to my Mum in Pocklington and a long train ride south was enough to let the lergies perculate. I am now in Totnes recovering at my Mum’s house. It’s been good to have a day or so of alone time to let my body catch up with all the abuse.
I’m feeling a bit better today so will head over to visit Dan my brother this afternoon.
Here are some mangled pictures. My website is not trying to compete with the assets of the Silicon Valley Tech Bros. I am just messing around. It’s not so slick at pics.
A technical/anthropological explanation of my motivations for such a broken looking slide-show/carousel thingy
I am using the recent influx of pics to think about revisiting that hacky bit of Carousel CSS I was tinkering with a while back
I have this code in my publishconf.py
IMAGE_PROCESS = {
"article": {
"type": "image",
"ops": ["scale_in 720 1440 True"],
},
"thumb": {
"type": "image",
"ops": ["scale_in 100 133 True"],
}
}
I also have imgfy.py kicking around. Not sure what I was doing here, something involving Image Process I suspect… ah the class name of the image is involved. I remember now. This really is imperfect.
article and thumb above get used when an image has the class name image-process-thumb or image-process-article
The slides below only really work for portrait pictures otherwise they get zoomed in and cut off. I mean, compare this one with the one displayed in the Carousel
Me and my lovely family
Dan and I get cut off entirely. An unintentional improvement some may say.
NYT ‘journalist’ who co-wrote ‘Hamas rape’ piece is IDF propagandist with ‘no journalism experience’
Anat Schwartz found to have liked racist and violent posts about Palestinians
Image: Wikipedia
A huge scandal has broken out in the US after the New York Times (NYT), one of the United States’ leading newspapers, was found to have run a major front-page story smearing Palestinian resistance fighters as using ‘systematic’ use of sexual violence co-written by an Israeli film-maker with no journalism background who served as a in Israeli military intelligence – and had ‘liked’ social media posts featuring racism and violence toward Palestinians.
Anat Schwartz co-wrote the already-discredited article titled ‘Screams without words’, which made lurid, unevidenced claims about rape and mutilation by Palestinians during the 7 October raid – claims that have already been furiously denied by the family of the victim who took up around a third of the piece, who further claimed that the authors had misled them about the purpose of their article and never mentioned supposed the rape of their daughter, which they say did not take place and for which there is no evidence.
Scrutiny of Schwartz’s record revealed shocking facts about her background and that of her second co-author, who is her nephew by marriage:
Quick bio I found: pic.twitter.com/WWMZqRh1py
— Esha K (@eshaLegal) February 24, 2024
Now let's get to her co-author, who also didn't write beforehand Oct 2023… pic.twitter.com/x9gkZwIlv7
— Esha K (@eshaLegal) February 24, 2024
It is her nephew!
This is a post from her husband. pic.twitter.com/Sgtz4B6wlL— Esha K (@eshaLegal) February 24, 2024
Lead author Jeffrey Gettelman fares little better under scrutiny:
He admitted to it. pic.twitter.com/zibbbEby31
— Esha K (@eshaLegal) February 24, 2024
Schwartz, for her part, Schwartz reportedly ‘liked’ a post that talked about turning Gaza ‘into a slaughterhouse’ including the summary execution of prisoners and ‘violat[ing] any norm’:
Schwartz also ‘liked’ a post about the quickly-debunked ’40 beheaded babies’ claim – and the woman who took the photo of the ‘woman in the black dress’ that the article claimed falsely had been raped, said that the NYT’s authors had told her they needed to speak to her because it was ‘important for Israeli advocacy’, not for accurate journalism:
Lead author Gettelman said it was ‘not his job to gather evidence’ for the claims his article made:
Mondoweiss reported that Schwartz had served in Israeli military intelligence. The NYT has ‘launched an investigation’ and the paper’s staff are said to be split, with many outraged at the abandonment of journalistic standards.
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.
Video: protests for Assange as British justice goes on trial in extradition case
Up to 2,000 gather for ‘last chance’ to stop disgraced US case allowed so far by courts – but system seems stacked against Wikileaks founder, press freedom and public’s right to know
Protestors outside the court on Tuesday
Up to two thousand protesters gathered to demonstrate outside the Royal Courts of Justice today in London, where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his legal team are fighting in what may be their last chance to avoid his extradition to the US, where the Biden administration wants to lock him in a high-security prison for the rest of his life for the ‘crime’ of exposing the actions of the US military.
Wikileaks embarrassed the US by revealing the wanton slaughter of Iraqi civilians – and the US wants its vengeance. To the UK’s shame, successive UK governments and courts have been all too eager to let the Americans have their way, despite the US case collapsing in disgrace when its main witness to Assange’s supposed ‘hacking’ of US systems admitted he had been lying the whole time – and plots by senior US officials to assassinate him. The admission should have seen the US laughed out of court, but UK judges granted its request anyway.
Protesters massed to show their solidarity with the Australian journalist, who has been imprisoned in Belmarsh prison since 2019 after a long effective incarceration in the Ecuadorian embassy while the UK and US governments conspired against him and even bugged supposedly sacrosanct meetings with his lawyers:
Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson gave the protest crowd a lunchtime update on the ‘absurd’ proceedings, which kept observers down to a handful despite the importance of the case, preventing even human rights groups from attending:
As with all the hearings so far, the case against Julian Assange appears to be stacked. After the farce of the collapsed US case being granted anyway, Assange’s appeal was denied by a judge with deep security service connections.
In the current case, one of the two judges was a lawyer for the Secret Intelligence Service and the Ministry of Defence, with clearance for access to ‘top secret’ information – and the other judge is the twin sister of right-wing former BBC chair Richard Sharpe, who resigned after an inquiry into his arrangement of an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson before his appointment.
Activist Steve Price, who represented Skwawkbox at the demo, summarised the day:
On a cold day thousands gathered to lobby the court and raise public awareness of this situation. This morning at the RCJ, the chant of the day was “There’s only one decision – no extradition!” The demo was noisy, very colourful, with a visible but low-key police presence and many passing drivers honking horns in solidarity.
Speakers included three Labour MPs – Richard Burgon, Zara Sultana and Apsana Begum, alongside Chris Hedges, Andrew Feinstein, Stella Assange and Julian’s brother and father, as well as lawyers, Reporters without Borders (RwB) and Wikileaks’ editor-in-chief. John Pilger, the great Australian journalist, was remembered with great affection.
Julian’s brother said the Australian Parliament voted by two thirds criticising the UK and USA and demanding he be released and returned to his home country. Two of the lawyers, as well as RwB noted that this case has enormous implications for freedom of the press globally and there are obvious parallels with how journalists have been deliberately targeted by Israel in Gaza.
The magistrate back in January 2021 decided Julian should be released solely on the grounds that he might kill himself, but this was overturned by the Home Secretary. There are a number of legal grounds his team will advocate for refusing the extradition. He has been detained in Belmarsh (in solitary confinement) for nearly 5 years, spent 7 years before that confined in the Ecuadorian Embassy. His health has deteriorated, it’s a form of torture, they’re slowly killing him. He is believed to be too ill to attend court today?
They want to extradite him for the crime of journalism, for exposing their hypocrisy, their dirty secrets, their war crimes.
Keir Starmer, the ‘human rights lawyer’, as he never tires of reminding everyone, has never spoken in Assange’s defence. As Director of Public Prosecutions, his actions are murky – because the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) destroyed its records of them and destroyed notes of what it destroyed. However, it is known that in the case of another extradition the US wanted – that of autistic hacker Gary McKinnon – Starmer flew in a rage to the US to apologise to his US government contacts as soon as then-PM Theresa May quashed the extradition on humanitarian grounds. The CPS and Sweden also destroyed records of their communications when the CPS was pressuring Sweden to continue to pursue Assange’s extradition there – no doubt a stepping stone to getting him to the US – on discredited rape allegations. Despite the destruction of evidence, it is known that the CPS told Swedish counterparts not to ‘dare’ drop its request and refused Sweden’s offer to come and interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Assange’s family and team have asked everyone who can make it to the court to continue demonstrating throughout the duration of the hearing to try to keep up pressure on the authorities. The Establishment’s relentless assault on Julian Assange is a war not just against him, but against press freedom and the right of the public to know what its supposed representatives are doing and to hold them to account.
The UK justice system has a last chance to show it is fit for purpose. If it happens, it looks as though justice will have to be wrung out of it. Absolute solidarity with Julian Assange and all persecuted journalists everywhere.
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.
Palestinian ambassador’s 7yo niece killed, left hanging from building by Israeli bomb
Eight of Husam Zomlot’s wife’s family murdered, including 7yo twins, in Rafah attack as Israel’s genocide continues. Starmer silent
Israel has murdered an entire family group of Palestinian ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot, leaving the mutilated body of Sidra, the seven-year-old cousin of Zomlot’s wife hanging, mutilated, from the outside of a building after she was flung from her home by the force of the blast. Sidra’s twin sister Suzan, her baby brother and five other members of their family including their parents and grandparents were also murdered in Israel’s war on Palestinian civilians and its assault on Rafah in south Gaza, where it had told the Palestinian people to flee for safety.
Ambassador Zomlot announced the tragic news on his social media:
This is 7 year old Sidra, the cousin of my wife. The impact of the Israeli missile was so powerful it flung her out, leaving her mutilated body dangling from the ruins of the destroyed building in Rafah 48 hours ago. My wife’s aunt Suzan, her husband Fouzy Hassouna, two of their… pic.twitter.com/0RFgyPUdzu
— Husam Zomlot (@hzomlot) February 14, 2024
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Andy McDonald, who was suspended by Keir Starmer for wishing for both Palestinians and Israelis to have peace, responded:
My dear Husam and family, i am shocked angry and appalled at your loss and the thousands more in this dusgusting onslaught on the Palestinian people. You do so much good to represent Palestine despite the terrible pain of such loss.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) February 14, 2024
Husam, I am so so sorry to read this truly appalling news.
This is beyond unbearable.
All the words have been said over and over again, yet still the killing of the innocents continues.
In the name of God and in all humanity, the killing has to stop now.— Andy McDonald MP (@AndyMcDonaldMP) February 14, 2024
‘Labour’ ‘leader’ Keir Starmer, who has supported Israel’s ‘right’ to commit war crimes but put out a far too late call for a ceasefire after learning that pro-Palestinian, Jewish former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein plans to stand against him in the next parliamentary election, has not commented as of the time of writing.
Neither has Starmer’s Shadow Home Secretary David Lammy, nor Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Skwawkbox offers heartfelt sympathy and solidarity to Husam Zomlot and his family.
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.
Israel and media ‘Hamas rape’ claims collapse under scrutiny
‘Eye-witness’ accounts contradict evidence – and earlier claims of the eye-witnesses – as yet another atrocity propaganda campaign falls apart. Warning: potential triggering or distressing content
The outraged reaction of the family of an alleged ‘Hamas rape’ victim to a newspaper’s con is just one of the ways in which the ‘Hamas rape’ narrative now being pushed hard by the Israeli regime and its apologists has fallen apart hard – like every other piece of atrocity propaganda Israel has tried to use so far to justify its genocide in Gaza.
The New York Times has published an article claiming to have evidence of the weaponisation of rape by Hamas during the 7 October raid, but the centrepiece of its claims was supposed ‘evidence’ that Israeli woman Gal Abdush was raped and murdered by Hamas fighters, quoting extensively from an interview with her family.
But her family has furiously insisted that there is no evidence that Ms Abdush was raped – and slammed the paper for misleading and manipulating them by telling them the interview was for a memorial about her and her husband and not mentioning anything about rape.
Speak Up, which fights violence against women, condemned the NYT investigation as ‘disgraceful’ ‘weaponisation’ of sexual violence for propaganda
The family – who appear to be hardline right-wingers perfectly prepared to propagate the already-discredited Israeli lines about beheadings and dismemberments, and therefore not inclined to discredit the rape report out of support for Palestinians – responded after the article was published. They pointed out, among other things, that there were only a few minutes passed between one message from their sister’s husband that they were at the Gaza border and another saying she had been shot – no time for the rape claimed by Israeli authorities and the NYT:
Gal Abdush’s family’s statement (translation by David Sheen and Electronic Intifada)
In fact, the family’s comment – though they don’t seem to have joined the dots – suggests that Ms Abdush and her husband were killed by Israeli forces determined, under the ‘Hannibal directive‘ of killing potential hostages rather than allowing them to be taken, since ‘at the border’ the Hamas fighters would only have been interested in getting them into captivity – and Hamas had no weapons capable of leaving bodies ‘totally burned’, while Israeli planes and helicopter gunships armed with missiles did and it is now well known in Israel, if ignored by UK and US media, that IDF forces killed Israelis in their determination to eliminate Hamas fighters holding them.
Another element of the atrocity propaganda to collapse are the lurid tales from supposed eye-witnesses who claimed that Hamas fighters – while trying to flee with their captives or fight Israeli troops – stopped to rape and dismember a woman and play catch with her body parts.
The ‘eyewitnesses’ have changed their stories. One was interviewed earlier and neglected to mention the claims of beheadings and games; another – coincidentally an Israeli ‘security consultant’ – had earlier admitted that he saw nothing because he was hiding with his head down the whole time, yet now claims he saw the same as the other witness.
Haaretz, 8 Nov 2023
Not only that, but Israeli lists of victims and their means of death do not claim to have found people at the site in question who had been beheaded or mutilated.
Another ‘eyewitness’ to a different supposed rape, Raz Cohen, happens to have recently been in the Democratic Republic of Congo, training DRC soldiers. While he claims to have seen the rape and to be haunted by the victim’s ‘screams without words’, shortly after the Hamas raid he filmed himself talking about the incident and published it on TikTok – where he seems upbeat and doesn’t mention any of the claims now attributed to him. Journalist Max Blumenthal analysed the changes in Cohen’s testimony:
While much of the NYT “mass Hamas rape” report relies on innuendo, it also purports to contain several credible eyewitness testimonies. One was delivered by a survivor of the Nova electronic music festival named Raz Cohen, who also happens to be an Israeli special forces vet who trains Congolese soldiers. Since his first interview on October 9, Cohen has altered his testimony several times.
Cohen told the NYT he personally witnessed a white van filled with Hamas militants pull up a mile from the Nova music festival, gather over a woman, and gang rape her: “I saw the men standing in a half circle around her. One penetrates her. She screams. I still remember her voice, screams without words.” He said they then butchered the woman with knives.
When Cohen was interviewed on October 9 about the attack on the music festival, however, he did not mention any act of sexual assault committed by Hamas militants. See here: https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/sta… And here: http://tiktok.com/@lior.shapira9…
A day later, Cohen began to introduce vague suggestions of sexual assault into his testimony, but did not indicate that he witnessed any such acts taking place. “The terrorists captured women and hurt them in any way possible, and when they were done with them, they started butchering them in front of their friends,” Cohen told an Israeli publication: http://ashkelnayes.co.il/%D7%97%D7%A8%D…
Cohen was also interviewed by Canada’s CBC on October 10, but was not quoted about witnessing any rape: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/20…
The same day, Cohen offered lurid new details to PBS, claiming that “the terrorists” not only slaughtered women after raping them on October 7, but engaged in necrophilia as well: “The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that.” http://pbs.org/newshour/show/…
Testimony he provided to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on October 11 differed slightly, and remained vague: “We see from there a lot of people and girls screaming and murdered by knives. And the girls, the terrorists rape them,” he stated abruptly and without apparent emotion. http://tiktok.com/@abcnewsaus/vi…
By this point, no Israeli media had reported that any rapes occurred on October 7. Cohen quickly fell off the media’s radar. He would not be heard from for over two months, when the Israeli government launched an international propaganda campaign accusing Hamas of mass rape in a transparent bid to maintain international support for its genocidal military assault on Gaza.
At this point, when the NY Times’ Jeffrey @gettleman interviewed Cohen, likely reaching him with assistance from the Israeli government, the “IDF” special forces soldier summoned for the first time a vivid account of a shocking gang rape on October 7.
How and why did Cohen’s story transform so dramatically over time, providing explosive new details at a moment of political urgency for the army in which he served? Was it plausible that a group of hardened Hamas commandoes suddenly paused their surprise attack, which was focused on taking as many captives as quickly as possible, stood in a circle and gang raped a woman, one after another, while Israeli forces mobilized to attack them?
Why did Hamas militants use knives to kill their victims, as Cohen alleged, when they carried rifles and grenades? Why did he drop his earlier allegation of necrophilia when speaking to the Times? And why did he mention seeing “a lot of people and girls” being raped to the ABC on October 11, but alter his testimony to refer specifically to a single female victim when interviewed by the Times?
Perhaps most importantly, why did Cohen’s friend, Shoam Gueta, who took shelter with him on October 7, not describe witnessing a gang rape when interviewed by the Times?
In his very first interview, with a US news station only two days after the Hamas raid, Cohen appeared mostly relaxed – and didn’t mention anyone being raped, as this clip aired recently on Grayzone shows:
Other Israeli mouthpieces have tried to bypass the eyewitnesses altogether, claiming it would be wrong to expect eyewitnesses to come forward and that ‘the corpses tell the story’. But they don’t, because the bodies were buried without evidence being taken, using Jewish burial practices to justify the failure to collect evidence – just as the huge number of cars incinerated by weapons Hamas does not possess were scrapped and buried without collecting evidence. Not one piece of actual evidence appears to have been put forward by Israel, yet the atrocity propaganda continues to be repeated by the so-called ‘mainstream’.
Yet again, Israel’s attempts to demonise Palestinian resistance to justify genocide have fallen apart under scrutiny – scrutiny that the so-called ‘mainstream’ press and broadcasters are simply not doing, or even reporting facts that media in Israel have already acknowledged, such as the mass killing of Israelis during the raid by Israeli media.
For full analysis and more video highlighting the collapse of yet another Israeli atrocity propaganda narrative, watch this video by Electronic Intifada and this by Grayzone.
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.
Gina Rinehart Books The Federal Court For Her Families Christmas Lunch
Australia’s favourite billionaire, according to low rating news channel Sky News Australia, Gina Rinehart, has booked the Federal court for her families Christmas lunch.
”The Federal court is a wonderful place to hold an event,” said a friend of the family. ”It has everything you could ever need for a lovely day,”
”Whether it be, salt, pepper, a restraining order, you name it, they’ve got it.”
When asked why Gina and her children were estranged, the family friend said: ”Oh, they’re not estranged they just don’t see each other that often.”
”Besides, Gina’s house is so big that you could walk around for a year without seeing anyone. Who knows, maybe her kids are just lost.”
”Now, if you’ll excuse me, Gina’s car needs a wash I must call Peter Dutton to come over and do it.”
@MWChatShow
You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.
The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:
Seven items to discover in LSE Library exhibition “Resistance, Rights and Refuge: Britain and Chile 50 years after the Chilean coup”
Tanya Harmer and Gloria Miqueles first had the idea of an exhibition to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Chilean coup in the summer of 2022 over coffee in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Over the next year, the idea took on a life of its own. Their research in LSE’s archives and library collections and the Documenting Chile Archive at the University of East London’s Living Refugee Archive revealed Chilean refugees’ experiences coming to Britain as well as the enormity, creativity and breadth of the British solidarity movement that developed after 1973. From campaigning against repression and human rights violations to welcoming refugees, people around Britain, including at LSE, worked tirelessly to promote a more just, democratic society in this country and in Chile. Chilean refugees were central to the struggle for rights and resistance against the dictatorship, at while simultaneously navigating a new life in Britain.
Here, Tanya and Gloria reflect on some of the highlights of the exhibition, Resistance, Rights and Refuge: Britain and Chile 50 years after the Chilean coup.
1. Violeta de Nuestra America (2 April, 1982), Living Refugee Archive
This poster, featuring Violeta Parra, one of the founders of the Nueva Canción movement struck us as historic and significant the minute we saw it. The R on the red of the Chilean flag in the background was a symbol of Resistance during the dictatorship and was painted on walls in Chile during the time. Violeta’s guitar and the poster itself, inviting people to attend a cultural evening of Chilean music, theatre and poetry at South Bank Polytecnic University, speaks to the power of cultural resistance to the dictatorship. At the bottom of the poster, you can see the entrance fees (£2) to raise money for the solidarity campaign as well as a list of those involved, including the artists performing, such as the folk group, Mayapi, and the principal solidarity organisations in Britain sponsoring the event – the Chile Solidarity Committee (CSC), the Chile Committee for Human Rights (CCHR), the Joint Working Group for Refugees from Chile (JWG), CARILA (a cultural committee for Chile) and the Latin American Society at London’s South Bank University. – TH
2. CCHR, “Minutes,” October 1977 – UNA/28/2/8
These minutes, found within the United Nations Association records in LSE’s archives, record a meeting of the Chile Committee for Human Rights (CCHR) in October 1977. They reveal the extensive networks that the CCHR, founded in Britain in 1974 to campaign for human rights in the context of brutal repression in Chile, had with international governmental and non-governmental organisations like Amnesty International, the United Nations and the European Human Rights Committees. It also reveals the variety of strategies CCHR used to raise awareness of what was happening in Chile and to raise funds, from concerts, to art, to articles about arpilleras in the feminist publication, Spare Rib, to lobbying government ministers and producing information leaflets recording abuse. As with other items in the exhibition, the minutes reveal the tireless work that went into recording abuse and visibilising what was happening in Chile. This work, as the exhibition notes, contributed to the global human rights revolution of the 1970s. – TH
3. LSE Students’ Union, “NUS Motion No.5,” 14 February 1975 – COLL MISC 0649/6/3
Once I saw how much coverage of Chile there was in The Beaver, I knew that it was likely to have also come up in LSE Students’ Union Debates and Meetings. Although originals, like the one displayed in our exhibition, are housed in the LSE Archives, the minutes of union meetings have all been microfilmed to preserve them. So, to find references on Chile involves scrolling through reams of records of lively exchanges and debates at the LSESU in the wonderful reading room of The Women’s Library. As well as resolutions to condemn the coup in 1973, these minutes of a meeting in the Old Theatre on 14 February 1975, caught my eye. They record an National Union of Students (NUS) Conference resolution to expand and develop solidarity with Chile, including raising funds to aid refugees arriving in Britain and organising committees to find housing, jobs and English lessons for them. Despite current government rhetoric, it is important to remember solidarity for refugees has historically been important to British people and students who have fought for refugees’ rights and continue to do so. – TH
4. Maria Eugenia Bravo, Prayer at The National Stadium, Katabasis, 1992 – TWL@LSE Books – “On exile and Defeats” available online at resistancerightsandrefuge.uk/chileansinbritain
“On Exiles and Defeats,” is a poem by Maria Eugenia Bravo Calderara from her book Prayer in the National Stadium. In Part 2 of the book, there are a number of poems about her experiences as an exile in England. All of them are so relatable to all of us Chilean exiles, but “On Exiles and Defeats” caught my attention. The poem is poignant to me in its analysis of what has had the greatest impact on her life what one could call: “defeat by exile”. I think that all Chileans at some point in our exiled lives have felt this defeat. It is a poem that should be mandatory in schools, universities and other public settings, especially in today’s Chile where an increasing denialism is reviving the “Golden exile” narrative, a false image of exiles created by the Pinochet regime that ignored the traumatic impact of exile on Chileans. – GM
5. Letters & envelopes between exiles and their families in Chile – Nelsa Silva and Paty Pons Private Collections
The content of Pedro’s letter in the exhibition from his mum is all too familiar to Chileans who have experienced exile. It includes wishes, concerns and daily-life accounts common to all letters shared between family members of all walks of life: “I hope that when this letter reaches you, you will be well, despite the cold weather.” The letters reminded me that, for those of us who fled to the UK, staying connected with our loved ones in Chile was difficult. When Chileans started coming to the UK in the 1970s, the only means of communication with family was by post. During those years, before easy phone communication and social media, letters were a lifeline for Chileans. They helped us to shorten the distance which the civic-military dictatorship forced between us, in this new, cold and distant land, and our loved ones in Chile. – GM
6. Photograph of Sara De Witt leaving Chile, Private Collection
This photo in the exhibition conjures for Chilean refugees the moment when they had to flee the country for a life of exile, some alone, others with extended family, many never to return. The photo shows Sara trying to smile to her family as she says goodbye from the airport terrace, attempting to comfort them by hiding her sadness at having to leave behind her country, life and family. Enforced exile was central to Pinochet dictatorship’s strategy for consolidating and retaining control of Chile for his 17 years in power. He never thought that these exiles would immediately start organising to wage political resistance to his dictatorship. – GM
7. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, “Travel Document” – Private Collection
Chileans fleeing the country arrived in the UK with a “Letter of consent” provided by the British Embassy in Chile. Once granted a declaration of refugee status, Chileans were able to get a refugee travel document, like the one in the exhibition that resembles a blue passport. This Home Office travel document is sometimes referred to as a 1951 Convention Travel Document or Geneva Passport, which allowed Chilean refugees to travel outside the UK and come back. Although getting this document was an important event for us, it brought with it the sad realisation that the “Except Chile” restriction meant we were expressly forbidden from returning home, which made separation from home more painful and harsh. – GM
Note: This post gives the views of the authors, and not the position of LSE Review of Books or the London School of Economics and Political Science. Images are provided courtesy of LSE Library/London School of Economics and should not be reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder.
The Women Who Made Modern Economics – review
In The Women Who Made Modern Economics, Rachel Reeves highlights the work and ideas of women including Mary Paley Marshall, Janet Yellen and Beatrice Webb whose influence on modern economics is often underappreciated. Written from the point of view of the Labour Party’s policies and of Reeves’ own “securonomics”, the book takes a selective approach to the economists and policymakers it includes and the economic policies it champions, writes Tanushree Kaushal.
The Women Who Made Modern Economics. Rachel Reeves. Basic Books. 2023.
Rachel Reeves spoke at a public LSE event, The women who made modern economics, at 6.30pm on Monday 06 November. Watch it back on YouTube here.
Find this book: 
The Women Who Made Modern Economics starts with Rachel Reeves’ encounter with a family in Worthing, a town on the south coast of England. The mum and dad worked five jobs between themselves and still struggled to make ends meet and raise their kids. Reeves, current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and Member of Parliament for the Labour Party, weaves together stories and contributions of women economists along with anecdotes from her personal life and Britain’s political history to make a case for what Labour and Reeves herself would do differently if elected in the next British elections so that families’ lives and futures can be improved.
[Reeves] takes the reader through the works of women economists in ten chapters to show the different ways in which they tackled fundamental economic questions of their times and how they remain relevant even today.
Putting the focus of economics on the “family”, Reeves sets on a journey to argue for her own policy of “securonomics”, which rejects tax cuts and deregulation of the financial sector, and instead argues for strengthening infrastructure, education and labour supply. She takes the reader through the works of women economists in ten chapters to show the different ways in which they tackled fundamental economic questions of their times and how they remain relevant even today. In engaging with the life worlds and contributions of these women, Reeves traces the roots of the current Labour agenda in a long and rich intellectual history.
[Reeves] brings to light women’s unique scholarship, particularly in paying attention to the family and ordinary people’s lives in ways that few other economists were able to do.
This book claims three main purposes: one, to rewrite women into the history of economics as they have been repeatedly erased despite their many contributions to the discipline. Two, in addition to this recognition, she brings to light women’s unique scholarship, particularly in paying attention to the family and ordinary people’s lives in ways that few other economists were able to do. And three, she uses these works to advocate for more women in economics because of women’s unique decision-making skills. As Claudia Goldin’s recent Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on the gender wage gap shows, concerns around the family can no longer be delegated to a subset of “women’s issues”. Rather, these are central concerns of economics and reflect Nobel Laureate Esther Duflo’s appeal for economics to not be “removed from any real person’s life” (183).
Economists such as Beatrice Webb are a significant influence on Reeves’ own thought and policy, particularly her work on chronic unemployment and underemployment that recognise the ‘structural problems that meant men who wanted to work were denied the opportunity.’
Economists such as Beatrice Webb are a significant influence on Reeves’ own thought and policy, particularly her work on chronic unemployment and underemployment that recognise the “structural problems that meant men who wanted to work were denied the opportunity” (46). This theme returns in the chapter on Joan Robinson and her work on “disguised unemployment” that came three decades later. The work of Mary Paley Marshall, who was married to economist Alfred Marshall, revealed why firms and industries cluster in specific geographical regions due to economies of scale that emerge from congregation of manufacturers, suppliers and financiers in one area. Innovation of any kind is dependent on pre-existing infrastructures and specialisations that require long-term investment and development. Mary Paley Marshall’s input went into shaping Alfred Marshall’s publications but she remained vastly under-recognised, a theme that courses through the lives of several other women in the book. At the same time, Marshall herself belonged to a cluster of women who bolstered and facilitated each other’s thought and practice. In fact, all the women that Reeves discusses in this book found support and belonging in other women and shared solidarity.
The chapters on more contemporary women in economics bring women in economic leadership positions in conversation with each other. Reeves shows a clear preference for the policies of Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury under the Biden administration, for her policy agenda of growth by fostering new industries such as electric vehicles. The chapter on developmental economics shows different perspectives on the question of aid, with some such as Zambian-born economist, Dambisa Moyo arguing for a wholesale rejection of development aid and instead calling for greater reliance on capitalism to “lift people out of poverty” (177). In contrast, UN economist Sakiko Fukuda-Parr focuses on improving aid effectiveness instead of rejecting development assistance altogether. Finally, Nobel Laureate Esther Duflo looks for answers to questions of problems such as effects of aids in specific, social realities. She brings fieldwork into economics and grounds each research question in empirical case studies.
The book is written from the point of view of the Labour Party’s policies and of Reeves’ own “securonomics”, which also shapes the complexity rendered to each of the women economists.
The book is written from the point of view of the Labour Party’s policies and of Reeves’ own “securonomics”, which also shapes the complexity rendered to each of the women economists. For instance, while the chapter on Beatrice Webb, founder of the Fabian Society of which Reeves herself has been a member, is elaborate and overall largely positive, the chapter on Rosa Luxembourg, who was a communist-revolutionary, is less forgiving. Luxembourg’s internationalist-socialist argument is that capitalism did not collapse despite Marxist predictions because capitalists could always find new markets and exploit these through imperialist expansion. However, Luxembourg’s revolutionary response to this crisis of capitalist-imperialism is criticised in the book on grounds that revolutions more often than not have “led to a decline in the quality of life of ordinary workers” (96), and Reeves instead advocates for change to come through parliamentary elections such as that of Joe Biden in the US. This anti-revolutionary position prevents a more in-depth reading of Luxembourg’s scholarship and a careful assessment of her diagnosis of capitalism’s ailments. Another remarkable aspect of this chapter is the absence of any discussion on Britain’s own imperialist history in shaping its capitalist present. This stands in contrast with other chapters that discuss Britain’s contemporary politics and economy in much more detail.
Feminist readings will question the choice of the economists and those that weren’t picked, or even the politics of some of these women economists and if their proposed policies were indeed pro-women or not.
As the book balances multiple goals, the writing is often clunky and lacks transitions between different stories. Feminist readings will question the choice of the economists and those that weren’t picked, or even the politics of some of these women economists and if their proposed policies were indeed pro-women or not. Nevertheless, the fact that “there has never, in the eight hundred years that the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer has existed, been a woman in the role” (4), points to what most would characterise as a long-running and undemocratic inequality informing politics even today.
Note: This review 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. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image credit: Left to right, images of Joan Robinson (via Punt, Anefo /Nationaal Archief, Netherlands), Mary Paley Marshall (via University of Bristol on Flickr) and Beatrice Webb (via Gregorysilva on Wikimedia Commons).
Social Policy for Women in Pakistan – review
In Social Policy for Women in Pakistan, Sara Rizvi Jafree analyses challenges Pakistani women face in aspects of their lives from family, housing and food security to education, employment and health. Drawing on survey data and qualitative interviews to make strategic policy recommendations, Rizvi Jafree’s book shows why gender equality must be prioritised to increase social inclusion, quality of life and economic growth, writes Syeda Sakina Riaz.
Social Policy for Women in Pakistan. Sara Rizvi Jafree. Palgrave Macmillan. 2023
Find this book:
Sara Rizvi Jafree’s groundbreaking work, Social Policy for Women in Pakistan, expands the traditional purview of social policy beyond the realms of state and economy. It crafts a multifaceted discourse that encompasses not only the state and the economy but also the often-overlooked domain of the family. The book is structured into eleven chapters which deftly traverse theoretical perspectives, a broad spectrum of disciplinary approaches, and pressing policy concerns. These concerns span from education and healthcare to economic equity and the environment, offering historical context to employment and family policies. The author scrutinises the formation and execution of contemporary policies while uncovering the critical silences within Pakistani public policy discourse.
The chapters provide an incisive analysis of the prevailing conditions faced by women in Pakistan, bolstered by the latest secondary data drawn from nationally representative surveys.
The chapters provide an incisive analysis of the prevailing conditions faced by women in Pakistan, bolstered by the latest secondary data drawn from nationally representative surveys. This data is stratified across socio-demographic parameters such as regional and provincial affiliations, literacy levels, occupational profiles, and wealth statuses. This approach ensures representation of the diverse realities experienced by different groups of women. In addition to secondary data, the author incorporates primary data gathered through qualitative interviews and presented as case studies spanning the eleven chapters. These case studies prove instrumental in identifying protection gaps and elucidating the nuanced life circumstances of women in Pakistan. Rizvi Jafree supplements her findings with pertinent policy recommendations grounded in the actual challenges confronting women, endowed with the advantage of regional contextuality.
Rizvi Jafree delineates the patriarchal obstacles to social protection for women
The first chapter, provocatively titled “Protection and Patriarchy: Can They Coexist?” dissects the conundrum of effecting change within the existing system or opting for a complete system overhaul. Rizvi Jafree delineates the patriarchal obstacles to social protection for women and locates women’s issues within the broader context of Pakistan through a thorough review of the relevant literature.
Chapter two delivers a comprehensive exposition on the extant social protection services in Pakistan. It offers a meticulous exploration of these services (23 to 25). Rizvi Jafree rigorously analyses the political conditions underpinning Pakistan’s democracy and its entrenched patriarchal political culture. This examination leads to a critical appraisal of government welfare programs in its Poverty Reduction Strategy such as the Benazir Income Support Program (on social protection for women). The chapter also sheds light on state initiatives and programmes targeting vulnerable population segments. It presents a compelling case study on the ineligibility for cash transfers, an issue faced by individuals experiencing extreme poverty and food insecurity. The author further investigates the challenges confronted by non-beneficiaries of cash transfer programs, such as women working in the informal economy and women who do not meet the proxy means testing system eligibility criterion.
Food insecurity and homelessness […] has contributed to a surge in violence and harassment experienced by homeless women and girls.
Chapter three delves into the status of women within the family and their relationship with family dynamics, housing and social policy. Rizvi Jafree articulates the quest for gender equality within Pakistani families, including a discerning discussion on the minimum legal age for female marriage. Within the housing context, she navigates issues stemming from the shortage of housing and not only delves into the causes of housing destruction resulting from natural disasters and flooding but also illuminates the intertwined impact of food insecurity and homelessness. This complex interplay has contributed to a surge in violence and harassment experienced by homeless women and girls. The chapter provides a wealth of statistical data pertaining to marital statuses of women, property ownership and land deeds in Pakistan, revealing that most women in the country do not own property. It is important to mention here that the Household Integrated Survey lacks pertinent details concerning women’s familial composition and marital status. Notably, it omits statistics pertaining to marital dissolution or separation and indicators of marital strain, such as polygamy by husbands, geographical separation, or women not receiving economic sustenance from their spouses. The author astutely contends that this deficiency complicates the identification of distinct female cohorts requiring policy assistance, including those who are single, widowed, divorced, and are the sole providers for their child(ren).
A case study detailing the housing and living conditions of a woman from rural Sindh further enriches the chapter, followed by a discussion on the state’s limitations and housing provision for elite groups. The chapter concludes with a set of eighteen pragmatic recommendations for family and housing policies geared toward the welfare of women in Pakistan, including basic income and nutrition for education of girl-child, and tax credits for families with daughter(s).
Rizvi Jafree navigates issues concerning women’s employment in the informal and agricultural sectors, delving into the complex policy landscape of income, employment, care and family policies.
Chapter four examines the issues surrounding food security, nutrition, and the profound inequalities between men and women in Pakistan. Rizvi Jafree navigates issues concerning women’s employment in the informal and agricultural sectors, delving into the complex policy landscape of income, employment, care and family policies. The chapter incorporates descriptive statistics illustrating the prevalence of underweight women in Pakistan and their healthcare-seeking behaviours, followed by a compelling case study. It culminates with a comprehensive summary of the prevailing challenges faced by women in Pakistan concerning food security and nutritional well-being, making it an essential read for scholars and policymakers alike.
The subsequent chapters continue to explore critical and less considered areas such as environmental challenges, disaster risk, literacy, skill development, employment, and healthcare. Rizvi Jafree employs both primary and secondary data to illuminate the multifaceted challenges that women encounter in these areas, offering a comprehensive understanding of the complexities faced by women. Each of these chapters underscores the necessity of strategic policy interventions and recommends regionally appropriate social protection for females.
Chapters nine and ten demonstrate the importance of meticulous planning for pilot projects and collaborative efforts within South Asia to bolster social protection for women. These chapters demonstrate Rizvi Jafree’s commitment to extensive literature review and offer valuable insights for policymakers on taking social policy forward in the country in a rational and strategic manner.
[The book] not only explores the role of social policy but also exposes the diversity and missing links within women’s struggles
The final chapter, titled “Sustainable Comprehensive Social Policy for Women in Pakistan: The Way Forward with Religion, Social Media, Finances, and Governance,” delves into the role of religion in endorsing social policy for women. Rizvi Jafree introduces various strategies aimed at securing sustainable and comprehensive social policies, underlining her forward-thinking approach, with the most important being the role of local governance and efforts for financial sustainability.
The book makes a thorough assessment of the myriad challenges Pakistani women encounter in their daily life. It not only explores the role of social policy but also exposes the diversity and missing links within women’s struggles. Rizvi Jafree’s contribution is marked by its rich analysis of Pakistan’s history, culture, and economic landscape, offering an incisive examination of gender and social policy on both regional and national scales. The inclusion of relevant case studies and qualitative narratives from women in Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab, and Sindh provides a deeper understanding of the challenges and needs faced by women.
This timely work represents a significant contribution to the study of gender equality as a central facet of social policy and economic growth.
This timely work represents a significant contribution to the study of gender equality as a central facet of social policy and economic growth. While the bibliography is adequate, the addition of detailed supplementary information or substantial endnotes/footnotes related to social welfare legislation and government progress on these issues could have enriched readers’ understanding of the subject matter. Nevertheless, this book is an invaluable resource for advanced students, postgraduate students, and scholars in fields such as social work, sociology, political science, women’s studies, public administration, and policy studies. It also holds immense relevance for policymakers, social activists, and social work practitioners. Those seeking up-to-date insights into how gender shapes the contours of social policy and politics will find this book indispensable.
Note: This review 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. he LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image credit: thsulemani on Shutterstock