A Michigan news outlet reports that a substitute teacher was fired a few days ago for uttering the word “vagina” in an art history class while talking about interpretations of Georgia O’Keefe paintings. (The vagina interpretation is pretty hard to miss.)

If you ask Allison Wint why she was fired from Harper Creek Middle School, she will tell you it’s because she uttered the word ‘vagina.’

“Yes, I did say that word however I was saying it in the context of art history; I wasn’t being vulgar,” she said.

Well you know when it’s a matter of being vulgar, “vagina” isn’t the word of choice. You’ve got cunt, twat, pussy, snatch, gash, minge, to name a few – vagina just isn’t the best one for purposes of vulgarity.

The substitute art teacher claims she said it to a room full of 8th graders trying to explain historical interpretations of Georgia O’Keefe’s paintings. But to school officials, Wint crossed the line–and violated school policy.

“I did not know about this policy, they were entirely within their right to remove me, however I was not aware of this policy beforehand; if I had known about this policy, I would have never done it without approval,” Wint said.

Are they? Are they within their rights? Can they fire her for saying elbow, tibia, eyebrow, incisor, spine, collar bone? Can they fire her for saying breast? Can they fire her for saying penis, testicles, ovaries, uterus?

No, sorry, I’m not convinced they are within their rights, assuming it’s a public school. If she had called a kid a big stupid vagina, that’s one thing, but if she pointed out the resemblance between many of O’Keefe’s flower paintings and vaginas, it’s another.

After clearing out her classroom and packing all her artwork into her car, Wint says losing her students hurts more than losing her job and she will not fight her termination.

“I harbor no ill will against them,” she said.

Wint was a longtime substitute, placed at Harper Creek through an outside agency.

She says she now plans to look for work somewhere else.

I hope she gets a good job, and I hope the Michigan ACLU files suit against the school.

Naz Shah has been suspended by the Labour party pending an investigation. Earlier today Corbyn said he had accepted her apology, but it turned out that his acceptance wasn’t the only issue.

But later in the day, Labour announced that the Bradford West MP had been suspended, “by mutual agreement,” while claims against her were investigated by the compliance committee of Labour’s national executive committee.

The allegations centre around a 2014 Facebook post, in which Shah shared a graphic of Israel’s outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States”, with the comment: “Problem solved.”

And Buzzfeed said its article about the party’s drastic editing of Shah’s apology was all wrong.

Sources close to Corbyn denied that they had edited an article in Jewish News, in which Shah apologised. It was alleged in an article on Buzzfeed that the article had been changed, to remove references to the wider challenge of antisemitism on the left but senior party sources insisted that was “categorically not the case”, and the only changes had been stylistic. Buzzfeed later accepted that this was the case and that “nobody in Jeremy Corbyn’s office or Labour HQ saw or edited the draft referred to in our [Buzzfeed’s] original story”.

Later, Shah issued a statement, by email, saying: “The statement referred to by Buzzfeed was neither drafted by me nor approved by me. This was a very personal issue which I felt required a very personal response.

“I had caused the offence, it was right that I wrote my own apology. I sent my final statement to the Labour party for information. At no point was it changed by my party.”

People are saying it’s about time Labour did something about antisemitism in the party.

John Woodcock, MP and former chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, said: “The handling of this has been a mess. But the most important thing is that the Labour leadership properly acknowledges now the scale of the antisemitism problem that is growing in the party.”

“This is abhorrent to our values as a party. It ought to transcend views on the leadership and wider party direction but unless and until it is gripped by everyone from Jeremy downwards it is going to fester and undermine everything we do.”

Shah’s suspension was the latest in a series of incidents which have raised questions about antisemitism in the Labour party. Former parliamentary candidate Vicki Kirby was recently suspended, after being re-admitted to the party following anti-semitic Tweets, including comments about Jews having “big noses”.

The latest involved the suspension of Khadim Hussain, a Labour councillor and former lord mayor of Bradford, who was put under investigation for sharing a Facebook post that complained “your school education system only tells you about Anne Frank and the six million Zionists that were killed by Hitler”. He has now quit the party.

There’s one more general paragraph about antisemitism in the party, and that’s it. Nowhere in the article is the likely source of much (or all?) of this antisemitism mentioned. Why would Khadim Hussain say a thing like that?

What a mess.

The Labour Party doesn’t want Naz Shah to go overboard in apologizing, according to BuzzFeed.

Labour MP Naz Shah’s apology was edited by the party’s HQ to remove all mentions of the term “anti-Semitic”, along with references to wider problems of anti-Semitism in left-wing politics, after it was submitted for approval, BuzzFeed News has learned.

…

On Wednesday, Shah released a statement billed as a “full apology” to Jewish News.

But BuzzFeed News has seen the draft of the statement written by Shah’s team and sent to the party for approval, in which she went much further than the version that eventually was released.

For instance, the original draft included this admission by Shah: “I helped promote anti-Semitic tropes. This was totally wrong.”

But the line was dropped for the version approved by the Labour press office, along with another mention of “anti-Semitism”.

Is that normal practice? To send statements to the party for approval? Is it required practice? Are MPs required to accept the party’s edits?

The original statement – in which Shah talked at length about her personal shame regarding the comments and pledged her full commitment to fighting prejudice – also included a passage in which she said she wanted to take part in “an intersectional struggle, one where the concerns of Jewish individuals and communities are taken seriously and anti-Semitism is not dismissed out of hand or ignored”. This did not appear in the final version.

Other sentences deleted from the draft after it was sent to Labour HQ include an apparent admission by Shah of a widespread problem of anti-Semitism among left-wing campaigners and deep concerns about the spread of “toxic conspiracy theories, group-blame and stereotyping”.

So the party changed the substance of what she said…and not for the better (except possibly from their point of view, narrowly conceived).

A reference to “Nazi Germany” was also changed to “Hitler”, prompting mockery from the editor of the Jewish Chronicle.

“I accept that referencing Israel in a comparison to Nazi Germany was not only wrong, but totally inaccurate,” said Shah in the original draft statement. “My other social media posts were also deeply offensive to Jewish people.”

In the final version this appeared as “I understand that referring to Israel and Hitler as I did is deeply offensive to Jewish people, for which I apologise.”

No wonder the editor mocked – the party changed a clear statement to a meaningless garble. “Referring to Israel and Hitler” is not at all the same as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, now is it.

The Labour party stopped Shah from publishing a full apology on Tuesday night, according to sources with knowledge of the discussions, meaning she could not get her defence across in overnight editions of newspapers.

Also meaning the apology was delayed, which is not good.

What a dog’s breakfast.

Jonah Mix on Facebook:

A sign outside a Hong Kong brothel, advertising (likely trafficked) women to white male travelers on a race-based pay scale, with indigenous women at the bottom and white women at the top.

Prostitution is an industry based on colonialism, white supremacy, and male violence.

China Girl 250

Hong Kong Girl 250

Malay Girl 180

Philippine Girl 200

Russian Girl 500

No further comment needed, I think.

The New Statesman has disappointing news:

Naz Shah resigns from Labour frontbench

The Bradford West MP has stepped down following the emergence of remarks made prior to her election as an MP.

Damn. I was so happy when she trounced Galloway.

Shah has resigned as parliamentary private secretary to John McDonnell, after the political website Guido Fawkes revealed that, prior to becoming an MP, she argued that Israelis should be relocated to the United States.

Or Madagascar or Poland? That’s not fair, but…Damn, this is disappointing.

Shah released the following statement on Monday afternoon: “I deeply regret the hurt I have caused by comments made on social media before I was elected as an MP. I made these posts at the height of the Gaza conflict in 2014, when emotions were running high around the Middle East conflict. But that is no excuse for the offence I have given, for which I unreservedly apologise.

“In recognition of that offence I have stepped down from my role as PPS to the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. I will be seeking to expand my existing engagement and dialogue with Jewish community organisations, and will be stepping up my efforts to combat all forms of racism, including anti-semitism.”

From the You have got to be kidding department:

The head of a Cleveland police union said the family of a 12-year-old black boy shot dead by a white police officer while playing with a pellet gun should use money from a $6 million settlement to educate children about the dangers of handling real and replica firearms, while an attorney representing the boy’s family blasted the comments.

You cannot be serious.

A Cleveland cop killed Tamir Rice, not out of malice but out of grossly reckless incompetence, and the police union chief thinks it’s a good idea to tell his family how to spend the settlement money? And not only that but to imply in the “advice” that the kid or his family or both did something wrong? And not only that but to put the onus of educating kids about how not to get killed by cops in parks on the surviving victims? And not only that but none too subtly hint that the Cleveland police are in no way at fault in the death of Tamir Rice?

Good grief.

“Something positive must come from this tragic loss,” said Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association. “That would be educating youth of the dangers of possessing a real or replica firearm,” he said.

At the expense of the very people left mourning their dead boy. Something positive must come from the reckless way the cop opened fire seconds after they drove up, and it’s the family who has to make that happen – not the people who did the killing, but the family of the boy who was killed.

Are you serious??

H/t Cam

You get your ideological beheadings, and then you get your cash beheadings. A Canadian man who was beheaded yesterday represents a failed transaction.

The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has condemned the beheading of a Canadian hostage kidnapped by Islamist militants in the Philippines.

John Ridsdel, 68, was taken from a tourist resort with three others by the Abu Sayyaf group in September 2015.

In November, the Islamist militants released a video showing Mr Ridsdel and three other captives, and demanded a ransom of $80m (£55m).

Now, ideology gets a look-in too, since it was Islamists demanding the cash to buy back John Ridsdel, but it’s still a matter of no-pay no-return.

A Philippines army spokesman said Mr Ridsdel’s severed head was found on the remote island of Jolo, hours after the Abu Sayyaf ransom deadline expired.

They have to pay for the guns and machetes somehow.

Sarah Ditum and Julie Bindel were on Victoria Derbyshire’s chat show this morning to talk about free speech and no platforming. Behold a clip:

Student tells feminist Julie Bindel why her comments on transgender people are offensive #VictoriaLIVEhttps://t.co/WXVAMr2Isr

— Victoria Derbyshire (@VictoriaLIVE) April 25, 2016

I haven’t seen the rest of what they say yet, assuming Derbyshire kept her promise to return to Julie after the news, but this on its own is worth discussing.

There are people, there are people who are incredibly vunnerable [sic] who do feel very specific types of harm. Tell the family of trans people, the families of queer people who have committed suicide because of the likes of people who have invalidated their identities – Julie Bindel.

That claim is contemptible moral blackmail. No, feminist women talking about gender do not cause trans people to commit suicide, and it’s sheer bullying to claim they do. No, people don’t get to silence feminist women who need to talk about gender more than anyone by accusing them of causing suicides. No, trans activists don’t get to declare a monopoly on talking about gender while women are still viewed as and treated as the subordinate, stupid, frivolous sex.

The BBC reports:

Police in Bangladesh say two people including a leading gay rights activist and editor at Bangladesh’s only LGBT magazine have been hacked to death.

The US ambassador to Bangladesh condemned the killing of Xulhaz Mannan, who also worked at the US embassy.

Another person was also injured when the attackers entered a Dhaka flat.

People who like violence and murder have that advantage over people who like better things.

BBC Bengali Service editor Sabir Mustafa said staff at Roopbaan, which had not been condemned by the government and received some support from foreign embassies, had been careful to protect their identities but had not believed their lives were at risk.

Suspected extremists in Bangladesh are gaining a sense of security that they can carry out killings with impunity, he says.

A British photographer who knew Mr Mannan and the other victim, known as “Tonoy” and named in Bangladeshi media as Tanay Mojumdar, said they and other friends had set up Roopbaan with the aim of spreading tolerance.

And tolerance is seen as a deadly enemy by fanatics. If there is tolerance, then fanatics are not in charge, and fanatics think that fanatics must be in charge.

Both men were openly gay and believed that if more gay Bangladeshis came out then the country would have to accept them, the photographer said.

Which I think is broadly true, if other conditions are right – if there is tolerance and peace and a general rejection of violence. That of course does not describe Bangladesh right now.

They were also were behind the annual “Rainbow Rally”, held on Bengali New Year, 14 April, since 2014. This year’s rally was banned by police as part of widespread security measures.

“Both were extremely gentle, non-violent and aware that being openly gay and active in their work was a personal danger,” the photographer said.

Fanatics don’t like gentle and non-violent – except in so much as it makes it easy for them to pick off the gentle and non-violent with their machetes.

Meanwhile Bangladesh’s best known blogger said he had received a death threat on Sunday.

Imran Sarker, who led major protests by secular activists in 2013 against Islamist leaders, said he had received a phone call warning that he would be killed “very soon”.

And that’s not a joke. Could someone invite him to London or Stockholm today please?

In case the murder of Professor Rezaul Karim Siddique wasn’t enough, there was also the murder of a provincial Pakistani minister for minority affairs.

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN:  A provincial Pakistani minister for minority affairs was shot dead in his car by on Friday [by] men on motorbikes in the country’s restive northwest, officials said.

Sardar Soran Singh, who was a Sikh, had held one of several seats reserved for religious minorities in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial assembly.

“Gunmen riding on two motorbikes came in front of the car and started indiscriminate firing which killed the minister on the spot,” Khalid Hamadani, district police chief told Agence France Presse.

All gunmen all the time.

Meghan Murphy says no, Prince was not trans. Prince was a guy who defied gender stereotypes. Defying gender stereotypes ≠ trans.

As Prince is mourned by millions across the world, his life and artistry are rightly being embraced as unconventional and as boundary-pushing in many ways, including in terms of gender. But, whereas 10 or 20 years ago, a man like Prince would have been celebrated, in death, as someone who did not conform to gender norms, today he is instead being transed. And this is a problem.

Well, to be precise, he would have been celebrated for that by some and ridiculed or excoriated by others. It’s not as if defiance of gender stereotypes was universally celebrated 10 years ago. But I think she means celebrated, by those who celebrated him, as someone who did not conform to gender norms.

It’s not a problem, to be clear, because people who suffer from sex dysphoria or who don’t conform to the gender binary are a problem, but because we need to allow people to push past gender stereotypes without being forced out of their sex. It is not progressive to say that a male who does not act like a stereotypical man must actually be a woman — it is regressive.

Emphasis added.

If we start to say that anyone who refuses or isn’t able to perform gender in the way society teaches them to is “trans,” we assume that the gender binary is real — that a person who is big and tall and hairy and who acts aggressively or pursues sex with women is a man and a person who wears heels and dresses and is gentle and polite and is objectified by men is a woman. Anyone who strays from these norms is, then, proclaimed “trans,” leaving no room for the rest of us to exist outside of these stereotypes.

We need both options. People who want to live as the other sex should be able to do that, and be happy and unmolested doing so. People who want to exist outside the stereotypes without switching sex should be able to do that. Both options.

Let’s celebrate men like Prince and David Bowie and women like K.D. Lang and Patti Smith for refusing to fit into the stereotypical boxes patriarchal society laid out for them, not assume that those who rebel must, naturally, be the opposite gender or trans.

Yes let’s do that.

Yesterday Samantha Power visited the refugee camp in Yola, Nigeria for women and girls fleeing Boko Haram. Here’s one story from one refugee:

When the boy next door joined Boko Haram, Mummy Ibrahim knew she had to run.

For the past few months, her next door neighbor had been telling everyone in their village just outside of Maiduguri that he was going to force Mummy, a soft-spoken girl with large eyes, to be his bride.

And, she said, he had finally figured out the way to do it: by pledging allegiance to Boko Haram and then taking, by force, the girl he had watched grow up into a gorgeous 15-year-old.

This is what I’m always saying – religion is such a useful tool for men who want to treat women as livestock belonging to them. Boy next door wanted to fuck Mummy Ibrahim, so he joined a murderous religious group that would give him “permission” to do just that, never mind what Mummy Ibrahim thought about it.

Mummy fled. In the middle of the night, she and her family crept out of their house and ran. It took two days to get to the village of Wuba, where friends hid them for two weeks, and then another week to make it to this town, where the United Nations has set up a refugee camp populated primarily by the women and children Boko Haram has driven from their homes.

On Friday, as Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, toured the camp, she was confronted by hundreds of those women and girls, standing over coal pots, sitting on mats, playing with babies. Ms. Power, who has been touring the region most affected by Boko Haram this week, promised them that President Obama had not forgotten them, that the United States would not rest until all the thousands of women believed to have been kidnapped by Boko Haram have been freed.

The whole thing is just so damn heartbreaking.

There was another Mummy: Mummy Jabula, 16, standing at the outdoor kitchen and looking curiously at the delegation of Americans. Boko Haram militants killed her parents four months ago, in their village not far from Maiduguri, she said. Mummy Jabula, the oldest of her parents’ six children, had grabbed her little sister and her four younger brothers and fled.

“I am the mother now,” she said. Asked about her parents, she started to cry and said something in Hausa. A woman standing nearby translated: “It pains her heart,” she said. “She can’t talk anymore.”

…

A few miles down the road, Christiana Joel, 14, said she was at church for a children’s day in April 2015 when Boko Haram fighters attacked her village of Lassa, in Borno State. Her father hustled her and her eight brothers and sisters back to their house, told them to leave only when it started looking really bad, grabbed his gun and took off to fight the Boko Haram militants. When the children eventually bolted from their house, Christiana’s oldest brother, Levi, disappeared in the melee. She has not seen him since, and seemed overcome when she spoke of him. She said he was her favorite brother.

Homo homini lupus.

Paul Fidalgo and Michael De Dora wrote a piece for CNN the other day on the murders of atheists in Bangladesh. It’s good to see them on such a mainstream site.

An innocent young man is brutally hacked to death in the street by marauding thugs with machetes, and the government’s response is to effectively blame the victim. This is the outrageous and absurd situation in the supposed democratic state of Bangladesh, where a bloody campaign of terror is being waged against secularists and atheists who have criticized radical Islam. But rather than act to protect the rights and safety of its people, Bangladesh’s leaders are coddling the killers and chastising the dead.

…

One would expect in a civilized world to see the government stand up for the rights of its people and unify the country against this kind of violence based on religion. But that’s not what has happened. Rather than condemn the killers, Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan scolded the victims, telling CNN: “The bloggers, they should control their writing. Our country is a secular state. … I want to say that people should be careful not to hurt anyone by writing anything — hurt any religion, any people’s beliefs, any religious leaders.”

This is only the latest shameful example of the Bangladesh government doing exactly what the terrorists want: to make people terrified that if they have something critical to say about religion, they could pay for it with their lives.

And lest we feel smug – the US and UK governments have done the same thing in the past, especially during the uproar over the Motoons. Both of them talked nonsense about respecting people’s cherished beliefs.

And now we have Nazimuddin Samad, a bright, promising young law student, brutally slaughtered in public for exercising his basic human rights to freedom of belief and expression. Appallingly, as Samad’s blood still stained the street, Home Minister Khan said that part of the investigation would be “to see whether he has written anything objectionable in his blogs.” This is not how a democratic state should respond to the killings of innocent civilians.

Since the beginning of this emergency, our organization, the Center for Inquiry, has been working with the U.S. State Department, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and other nongovernmental organizations to find ways to protect or bring to safety at least some of the secularists who fear for their lives, and urge the Bangladesh government to stand strong for human rights. We have also worked to see pressure placed on Bangladesh by the United Nations, and supported a U.S. House resolution introduced by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, that demands Bangladesh affirm its secular constitution, protect minorities, and prevent the growth of extremism.