Monday, 24 October 2016

What would a rapist's past sexual history look like? Would that be pleasant?

The day after the Ched Evans trial verdict was grim. Women were contacting me in sheer agony. Most had listened to the graphic details of the case in horror. The callous, indifferent treatment of Woman X during the night in 2011 and the treatment of her in that courtroom, where her sexual history was paraded for the world; unbearably painful to hear. How painful must it have been for that poor woman? Women wept for her. Women are still crying.

A few women said we should do something. They wanted me to front it. I said I would. I have taken abuse before and another round would make little difference. So I took a deep breath and started the fund. I very deliberately chose to list the target as £50,000 as this was the amount of "reward" offered for evidence by the website of Ched Evans. Surely we could try our best to raise that amount for a decent cause instead?

What happened has been overwhelming. The messages of support for Woman X are heartbreaking. I have cried many times this past week listening. Women talk of their own experiences and how this verdict left them on their knees and feeling hopeless that anyone would ever care about their experience. Men are quieter in their expression, but they are donating in support of women they know and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Every £5 is a gesture of love, kindness and understanding that this woman and other women need their solidarity and support. Some of those women donating are going hungry to do so. It matters more to them than food that women get justice from our courts. That thought makes me weep. With misery at what has probably happened to them and joy that they have such compassion for others.

The reporting rate for rapes has doubled over the last five years whilst convictions have halved. This probably means more rapes and less rapists in jail. It means that women are disbelieved, in very large numbers, by juries. Or before that stage, by police who take the initial report. It means that we have a serious failure to help women at every step of our justice system.

Few rapes are reported. Of those, only 11% result in a conviction. The women who report them are still 100% raped. The men who raped them are still 100% on our streets.

The problem that has now been raised by the use of past sexual history via the hideous loophole of section 41, means fewer women than ever will dare to report. The thought of that happening to them is terrifying. It isn’t a precedent legally. It has been in existence and frugally used since 1999. But, this case has amplified the awareness of it for victims and for rapists. That will potentially have a disastrous effect.

A woman’s sexual history is irrelevant. Raped women react in a vast variety of ways. Women who enjoy sex can be raped just as easily as women who have never had sex. The rapist is the common denominator here. His past sexual history would probably be a lot more revealing.

Women are helped by rape crisis after the most horrific invasions of their body and their spirit by men. It can often be the first point of contact and it can go on long after the incident and any attempts to seek justice. Rape Crisis England And Wales have agreed to accept half the fund. I am pleased about that. Women will be helped by this fund in a very practical way.

Woman X has asked why people are doing this? She can’t believe there are people who care after what she went through in court. She is comforted to hear the answer. The answer is simple. Women love women. We help women. I’m told Woman X is drawing strength from reading the messages. The police officer involved in liasing with her said the fund has restored his faith in humanity. This is not just money. This is people behaving very, very, decently.

Thank you to the men who have helped too. You are lighting the way for other men. There are lots who remain very dark. They shout on Twitter. They don’t help anyone.

Men who rape women are subhuman. Women who help women overcome those rapes are being the very best humans they can be.

JH x

Friday, 14 October 2016

What Ched Evans Told Women

Of course Ched Evans himself didn't tell women that much. He sometimes doesn't talk to women he has sex with. He doesn't talk to feminists at all.

I really mean what the Ched Evans case told us.


That's the message from this whole sordid mess.

Manifesto For Women According To The Courts, The Football 'Industry', The Main Stream Media, Social Media, The Blokes In The Pub, The Blokes In Some Women's Beds, The Blokes In Some Women's Heads.

DON'T go out after work
DON'T get drunk
DON'T have sex
DON'T enjoy the sex you have
DON'T move around whilst having sex
DON'T get into "positions" whilst having sex
DON'T refuse to suck a man's penis especially if he asks in a funny voice
DON'T wear high heels
DON'T fall over
DON'T expect a famous footballer to pick you up off the floor like a reasonable human would
DON'T order pizza in a takeaway
DON'T drop your pizza
DON'T drop your handbag
DON'T ever have sex with more than one man in your entire life
DON'T text the man you have had sex with or consider them friends who might help you
DON'T have sex with the man you have been dating more than once
DON'T tell anyone if you wake up and don't know where you are
DON'T groan or squeal if you are in a room in a hotel drunk
DON'T go into a hotel room and assume no one else will come in and access it and your vagina
DON'T tell your friends if you think your drink has been spiked
DON'T tell the police anything
DON'T seek help if you wake up covered in bruises and don't know where you are
DON'T ask a man for help in the street he might "get" you
DON'T have sex with footballers. They are from the Planet Football with special rules about sex.
DON'T get raped
DON'T speak out
DON'T stay quiet. Even if you are too drunk to speak. Or unconscious. Or asleep.
DON'T go to court
DON'T go to court again
DON'T seek justice
DON'T carry on living if the courts let you down as they let down women every day
DON'T expect anything has changed since the days our grandmothers were raped
DON'T believe that women matter
DON'T fight the system. It is male and it will break you

Here is my response.

DON'T listen.

Get up from this knockdown. Stay on your feet.

Have sex where you like. Have sex with who you like. Move around. Move your own body. Move it away from men you find repulsive. Drink what you want. Wear what you feel like. Talk to who you want to. Talk loud. Talk soft. Talk often. Say yes. Say no. Say something. Say something else. Shout. Ask for help. Stay quiet for a while. Or forever if it helps. Cry. Laugh. Dream. Fight. 

Women are humans. Women have a voice. Women are 52% of the population of this world and women will not let men make rules for them forever. Women will keep fighting to keep other women safe. Women will fight for women who can't fight themselves. Women are loved by other women. That makes us very, VERY special. It makes us terrifying and beautiful.

Love to the sisters who keep other sisters strong

JH x

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Green Party Women and Blockbot

I just want to share this with you.

I contacted Caroline Lucas to ask her position on Green Party  Women endorsing the Blockbot blocking of feminists who have a varying view of gender identity issues to the Blockbot owners and administrators.

I asked if she endorsed this silencing.

I can't share the full response as it is a protected email. The summary of the Green Party response is approximately this...

"We are looking into this. Please give evidence that the Blockbot is run by Men's Rights Activists....."

This is not something I asserted at all.

Here is my response.


I don't assert that the Blockbot application is run from the perspective, or even by, Men's Rights Activists. I think the problematic issue here is that an aggressive transgender rights group of self-identifying women and their biological counterparts are unwilling to allow the free voice of those women who may have a dissenting or oppositional view. They have therefore devised an application that effectively prevents those women from being heard. This is a deeply aggressive action against women whether it is perpetrated by other women or by men.

It is not just or fair that biological women should be denied the opportunity of connecting with other women, or men, via online communities at the behest of those with a differing ideological view of key feminist issues such as gender identity.

For the Green Party to endorse such no-platforming and silencing of women, many of whom work increasingly hard, on ever-dwindling resources, in a variety of ways to end violence against women is staggering and frankly savagely misguided.

The term "TERF" is both offensive and categorically untrue. No such thing exists and the bigotry and misogyny intrinsic within that term - used against biological women by self-identified women - is the thing that should be condemned rather than legitimised and encouraged by the Green Party.

I do hope that this can be addressed with Green Party Women who seem to be happily aligning themselves against women who are vehemently devoted to protecting safe women's space and advocating for the abolition of all violence against women and girls. Perhaps Caroline can explain how she makes sense of that and whether she endorses it.

Kind regards,

Jean Hatchet 
I await a response from Caroline Lucas but meanwhile perhaps she should really be considering the legal challenges that are being made against the Blockbot. Like this one....

Have the Green Party really thought through their alignment with something so obviously insidious and libellous as this thing is?


Saturday, 8 October 2016

She's gotta have it....

Women MUST have sex. 

That is the message implied by this.

Full piece here....

Why? Why does a woman need a "new lease of life" that obviously involves her having sex. There is no mention of sex with another woman or sex with herself mentioned here by the way.

The report helpfully and sympathetically points out that..... 

This might sometimes coincide with this......

Women who don't want sex with men don't need shaming into it. They don't need to be made to feel that there is something medically wrong with them. 

Let's make it nice and medical though....

Except for the last bit "relationship issues". Like the fact that a woman, functioning autonomously might just not want sex with a man?Her "relationship issues" could be with a man who is coercing her into sex. A man who is raping her within the relationship? Those kind of issues. 

The statistic of men who use sexual control, as part of relationship where a man is abusing a woman, is largely hidden and possibly the issue least discussed by women, because women are ashamed and embarrassed.   Even amongst other women. Women don't want to discuss this particular depth of their past abuse at the hands of a male partner. This is the point in the relationship where they are being used as a receptacle for his sperm as well as his hatred.

The Freedom Programme produced a wonderful video to highlight the techniques of the sexual controller. It is here....

A man might say to a woman a variety of these things...

          If you love me you will want to have sex with me...

          A man has to have sex... it is unhealthy if he doesn't...the pressure 
          builds up in his balls

          My friends have sex with their women at least five times a week

         What am I supposed to do if you won't have sex with me? Go to a prostitute? 
         Do you want that?

         I'll go elsewhere and it will be your fault....

This could of course be skipped in favour of....

     I own you. I am having sex with you whenever I like. Particularly when you don't want it as I don't really care what you want."

This is called rape. It does happen within a marriage. It has been illegal in the UK since 1991 and the case of R v R October 24th 1991.

So really...stop shaming women into thinking that if they don't want sex they are deficient or abnormal. A woman who is ready will let a man... or another woman... or her own fingers know. If none of that works then she can find a doctor and his man drugs without fear or shame. 

Linked to this are the rather desperate actions of men's rights activist Ben Froughi, who this week went to extraordinary lengths to stop women hearing how they might be able to say no to sex they don't want. He went to the measure of handing out leaflets to students at York University before a lecture on consent. The leaflets were deliberately misleading in that he had printed the York University logo at the top and they instructed students that the lecture was not compulsory. So... subtly suggesting they shouldn't stay. His complaint is with York University Women's Student Union. Or "man-hating feminists". He is annoyed that they have a voice on consent. He is annoyed that they wish to stop women being raped and men raping them. What he wants is for women to remain ill-informed about their rights around the law and their own bodies. He doesn't want young men educating that they do not have the right to those female bodies. So Ben Froughi is very keen that there are a supply of young women who don't know how to say "NO!" and young men who don't know how to hear "NO!" 

Campus rape is a problem and not just among the student body. This report in the Guardian shows that male academics also feel entitled to a woman's body if he is well-endowed enough with academic credentials.

The outstandingly loud message is that women have to have sex with men. They need to be taught less, drugged more, ignored more frequently and coerced more often by men and in some cases the medical profession funded by the government. What is now to stop a man who is already coercing a woman from marching her to a doctors to get her "fixed"?

I leave you with this thought which many coerced women have.... or just me?

Love yourselves women. Take that as you will.


JH x

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Coercive control. Let me tell you about you.

A dialogue.

[Woman enters and sits. Sure she is somebody. She is certain that she exists. She can feel herself breathing]

[A man enters and stands behind her chair.]

Man : Did you pay the cheque in?

Woman : Which cheque?

Man : The cheque! The bloody cheque!

Woman : I'm sorry. I don't know what cheque you are talking about.

Man : [Draws in breath] It is always the fucking same. I come home after working my arse off to keep this roof over your head and you can't do the one thing I have asked you to do. One thing! What have you been doing all day? This house isn't clean. Look at this!

[She looks at the table. She can see nothing. She is sure there is nothing]

Woman : I don't know what I'm looking at.

Man : That's the thing. You never do. Let me tell you about you. You came here to this house with nothing and you treat it like the hovel you came from. Just like your mother. Sponging off your father all her life. You eat my food and take my money. I do everything for you and you just whine and moan. My life isn't worth living some days. What do you do for me? I'm depressed that's what I am and no wonder with you to come back to sucking the life out of me. My friends think you take the piss. They laugh at me. Their wives have a meal on the table when they get home. Where's mine? You've been off doing your crappy things again haven't you? Sooooo glad you get to have such a good time while I'm out at work. Well that can stop. You aren't going there any more. My friends say you're mad. They say that you need help. And don't think I don't know about you throwing yourself at the barman last week because they told me. You slag. Never have sex with me. Not that there's any point. You're terrible any way. Think you're clever. Read all the books. Can't deliver a decent blow job though can you? Not like a normal woman would. No wonder I feel like this all the time. Men get angry when they don't get enough. No wonder I'm always angry. Don't give me that look! I suppose that stupid cow Jenny has been talking to you again? Telling you how horrible I am? Yeah well, she would. She's got 3 kids by 2 different dads. She's a slag too. She uses you. She talks about you behind your back you know? Only wants you because you lend her stuff. Who else would be friends with you? All your friends think you're mad. Because you are. You are a fucking mad bitch. I'm going out and I'll be back when I'm ready.

[He leaves]

[A child enters. Dressed as a fairy. She has wings and a wand and a pink sparkly dress. ]

Child : Mummy! Guess what I am!

Woman : I don't know darling. What are you?

[The woman sits on the chair and doesn't know what she is. She isn't sure she exists. She isn't aware that the police exist]

The police are going to need a lot of funding and a lot of training to give this woman back her life. I hope they get it. I hope they don't tick boxes and move on whilst a woman dies inside her own body.

JH x

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

The History Of Hobbling Women.

Along with two of my dearest feminist friends, Camilla Mills and Sue Veneer I visited this exhibition in Bowes Museum last week titled "Shoes - Pleasure and Pain". It is a touring exhibition from the V&A Museum. It will be going around the world subsequently and the message it gives to women and men is damaging and unacceptable.

The curator is Helen Persson. We are surprised by this because we all assumed it would be a man. A man who found the pain of women amusing. A misogynist. As we know ....some women internalise men's misogyny. Helen.... step forward for your cookie.

The presentation of the opening to the museum itself gives it context.... that context is a sex show. This is how men are enticed to view women who are sexually exploited is it not?

Because it looks very much like this and that is not a random choice by the curator....

And that normalises the exploitation of women and the acceptability of shoes as a uniform worn for that exploitation. The entrance is reminiscent of a portico to a venue where women may have been trafficked. The title of the exhibition suggests that there will be some sort of analysis of the painful aspect of all this. The blood red that bathes the exhibition would tend to suggest that there will be a balance. There isn't.

The exhibition celebrates and admires footwear which has inflicted upon women pain, degradation, suffering and control. It celebrates whilst offering virtually no criticism. This should be a history of the horrors that have existed throughout time to disfigure the feet of women. An effort to destabilise them, to sexualise them and to stereotype them. This should be a comment on binding women for male pleasure. This should be a comment on the need to disempower them by literally "wrong-footing" them. It isn't. There is absolutely zero of critical value in the presentation of these oppressive symbols.

The shoes themselves as historical artefacts are not the problem. The imposed narrative is. Let's have a look....

"Stripper Heels"....

"Strippers" are sexually exploited women and the shoes they wear as uniform are a symbol of that oppression. The V and A... a well-respected museum will surely offer a balanced view of that?
It seems that the V&A think that being an exploited woman is something we should emulate. We should mimic a woman who is being paid for by men. It can't be a bad idea. Helen Mirren does it? The term "stripper" itself trivialises the process of exploitation. It makes it "entertainment" and not objectification and degradation. 

Surely there can be a critique of the historical element of oppressing women via shoes? Something that makes the systematic oppression of women, including that embedded in the clothing they have been forced to wear, obvious. Surely...?

"The Naughty Nineties"

 Not a word of criticism from the V&A. The shoes are "naughty" as are the times. But in a sexually provocative way. Words like "fetish" and "pornographic" go unchallenged. The word "naughty" implies exciting deviance. It does not discuss the accompanying oppression and manipulation. The word "eroticise" is used about the heel. This is something a woman must balance on, often painfully, in order to sexually please a man's desire to see her leg displayed at its most aesthetically pleasing. To him.

Tight Laced

This is often used to suggest sexual repression. It is frequently presented as an unattractive characteristic in women who should of course make themselves sexually available to men.

 Again there is a lack of any challenge to the obvious message of the binding of women. Women are bound in order to tantalise males. The description of the way the shoes mimic corsets is fine with the V&A. Big tick. The fact that corsets disfigured women. Made them faint. Stopped their periods and changed their spines. All totally ok. Doing that to feet? Its just a massive turn on. Look at the words and how positive they are.... "excites" "desire" "promise" "daring" "flashed" "tantalisingly". Not one word about the constraint. The pain. The restriction of women's freedom. Not a word of it. Which brings us on to one of the cruellest types of footwear.....

Fashionable Binding....

One of the cruellest and most barbaric practices to be inflicted on women in history was the binding of the feet of Chinese girls. It was a breathtakingly brutal practice. The feet of young girls were tightly and very painfully bound to stop them growing. This led to disability. They were hobbled. Unable to walk without pain. This was seen as "beauty". By whom? For whom did young girls need to remain young girls in order to be beautiful? For men. This is how a damaged foot would actually look. The bottom of the foot shows toes. Not blisters. The 2 images below i have selected. They were not included in the exhibition. They were conspicuously absent.

These images make me sob. The V&A chose to present it thus......

Note the choice of vocabulary that is prominent and the absence of words of cruelty and oppression. Words like "wishes", "aspiration", "desirable" are not balanced with any criticism of this appalling practice. This was sickening to observe and the V&A should be thoroughly ashamed of the neglect of criticism which acknowledges the suffering of Chinese women.

What of the men who design the shoes?

Sexy Soles....

Emma Thomson notoriously and visually criticised Christian Louboutin at the Golden Globe awards by showing the soles of his shoes, which are "humorously" blood red by taking them off, holding them up to the audience and saying "See this? It's my blood." before throwing them over her shoulder. Louboutin is the king of high heels. Here is a shot of some of his shoes. You know the things we wear to keep our feet protected from the elements.

Or is it so that we can be "supremely sexy" while we navigate the "dramatic pitch" (have our arches painfully angled) over a "superfine stiletto heel" (balance our wide heels on a needle) ? The blood red soles are a "joke". An in joke by a man who hates women. There is nothing funny about convincing women to spend hundreds of pounds in order to please men while in extreme pain. Look at this sketch from the exhibition. He obviously enjoys the thought of a pool of a woman's blood beneath his shoes.

The V&A however are comfortable celebrating his continued abuse of women both physically and financially. Likewise the way they present shoes from cinematic history.....

For the V&A to accompany the description of shoes which disable women and force them to crawl with the adjective "erotic" is offensive to women everywhere. The use of "impossibly" is not offered with any trace of irony. It is impossible to wear the shoes so a woman is forced to crawl at which point a man can see her vulnerable. He can see her sole/soul. She is powerless, weak and open to sexual assault. The accompanying pornographic image is freely on display for children at eye-level.

Further on the subject of pornography and shoes, and much of this exhibition focuses on how lovely it is for women to be sexually available and shaped for the pleasure of men right down to their toes, the V&A calls it "naughty". It likes the word "naughty". There is nothing "naughty" or "mischievous" about pornography. It is degrading, dehumanising and is currently ruining the potential sex lives of boys and girls up and down the land. Ask them. The V&A however think it is "chic". Possibly in a trendy, cute way. A woman being repeatedly anally raped on camera isn't cute.

Inspired by the footwear of a "certain clientele". Prostitutues then? That would be women whose bodies are bought by men. Slaves some might say.

Dangerous Heels...

Then comes a nice little venture into victim-blaming. "Women eh? You sell em ridiculous and dangerous shoes and they wear em and then their feet hurt and they can't walk properly. Silly women." Might I also take the time to remind the V&A that women who have been conditioned into wearing high heels are also unable to run away from predatory men. Missing a bus is really the least of our worries. We need to fight off misogynist shoe designers first.

Cinderella Shoes....

The V&A is very proud of having on display the glass slipper from the latest Cinderella film. As a piece of cinema history this is indeed interesting.

but let's look at the accompanying message.

So the message is very much that there is "no margin for error" if you want to be the perfect woman and find the "prince" who will free you. You need to be able to wear a shoe which is made of the hardest of materials and is unforgiving and painful. This is the perfection women should aspire to. 

This gets worse. This is a museum where young girls were happily wandering and this is the message the V&A were happy with. 

There is no criticism of this narrative offered. True love awaits a perfect girl. Shoes can "transform" her from her imperfect self so that she can be married and become the possession of a rich man. Is this really something we want to "teach" our girls? The final line of this is editorial. It is not tongue in cheek or dripping with sarcasm. It is offered as fact!

The Men..... 

So what was there available for comment on men's footwear?

Here's some trainers. They are comfy. They come in different colours. Crack on. 

The V&A should be ashamed of the curation of this exhibition. 

[The Bowes Museum itself is very beautiful and I recommend anyone to visit it. It displayed a fine collection of paintings by Josephine Bowes. Unfortunately the Bowes website describes her as a "talented amateur" despite some extremely skilful and striking landscapes and works of cliffs and the sea which were stunningly moving. She wasn't a man though. Just a woman with a box of felt tips or something. ]

Doffing my cap to a "talented amateur" with a few felt tips. #JosephineBowes  

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Apply the law.

Bear with me on this. I'll get onto Trump and his vile incitement.

This week "it seems" that a man has encouraged other men to kill me. As far as those who love me can see, there's no ambiguity. Legal colleagues have checked the law and think it could confidently be applied in court to the statements he has published. The focus of the relevant CPS legislation is the crime of "encouraging or assisting a crime". It is a piece of legislation in the Serious Crime Act 2007. It replaced the now obsolete one of incitement. It is different. It is an inchoate offence. This means a crime has been committed whether or not the crime it is "encouraging or assisting" actually takes place. If it can be determined that the intent of the perpetrator is that it should, then they have committed that crime. 

Mostly I ignore this man. I have tried every tactic possible over the years. Ignoring is a good one and means I get on with my life doing the things I love with the people I adore. Unfortunately, sometimes, feminists who care about me have to show me his stuff as they are worried about me and about how real the threat of him is. 

I pushed him recently I think. Just one mistaken tweet. That's all it took. I used mention of the old pre-2007 law. It was a slip. A slip he didn't miss and within minutes was all over his blog and multiple twitter accounts leaping up and down about it. Here is the tweet.

I won't show you his tweets or direct you to his blog as that would promote his attacks on me and give him credence. It is also essential that I am not seen to engage with him. He is a worryingly obsessed man and I ignore him most of the time as any attention makes him worse. This will make him worse. How much worse? Who knows. I can either write or not write. It is irrelevant. He is still watching me constantly and I know it. He will still be back on Twitter directing people to the piece where this encouragement is. I have never made any threat against him. I have at worst laughed at him or hoped he will be caught and jailed. He isn't just any old troll. It is a whole other level to that. You have to have been a target to understand. 

For example.... here is one of the comments below the blog piece. It is most likely the obsessed man himself as he probably has multiple accounts which talk to himself. 

Regarding the threat to my safety? It is real. A man who stalks your every word and move for more than 2 years? A man who harasses anyone who you come into contact with? A man who posts about ejaculating on your body? This is impacting on your safety. This is a man who could kill you. This is a man who knows no boundaries. This is a man who is a danger to himself and to society generally. He is certainly a danger to me. If he manages to convince someone else to come and kill me, or if he is actually so dangerously obsessed he may do it himself, is irrelevant. I am facing that threat. 

How do I deal? I work. I write. I get out on my bike. I have dinner with friends. I chat, laugh and drink a glass of wine in the sun with my best friend. I curl up listening to Radio 4 and eating chocolate with my lover. What else can I do? I like to think that getting on with my life is the biggest revenge for the hell he tries to inflict on my life. 

Donald Trump is a much "bigger" version of "my" man, though I consider them both small and low. 

Donald Trump has encouraged a whole section of the gun-owning American public to consider taking a gun as a way to stop Hilary Clinton. 

Here is what he said - bear in mind that the second amendment is the right to bear arms.....

Hilary  wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
There is no ambiguity there. Trump has very clearly said that a way to stop Clinton from preventing Americans bearing arms is to use the right to bear arms against her. If someone did this that would involve shooting her. Possibly until she was dead. 
The defence he advocates will be free speech and the ambiguity of the threat. 

The American test of Free Speech v Incitement is the 'Brandenburg Test'. This is from a test case in Ohio where a member of the Ku Klux Clan was charged with inciting violence. The decision to convict him was overturned and left the precedent in US law as this....

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

The key feature of this is the degree to which it is believed the provocation might be acted upon and whether that is "imminent".

I think it is. I think that some Americans feel so strongly about the second amendment that it is something they will kill and die for. We see this every time a Black life is taken by police officers. We see it in the comments online. We see the racial hatred. We see the political hatred. We see the systemic hatred and how that spills over when people have guns. 

Here in Britain we see how strongly people feel when a crucial political issue is debated. Brexit brought out strong enough hatred that a man killed the MP Jo Cox. He brutally murdered her in the streets because of her political views which clashed with his own. 

4 American presidents have been assassinated. Hilary Clinton is not yet President but Donald Trump knows very well that with a historical track record like the American one shows.... the potential for someone to assassinate her is real and imminent if the provocation is there. If that provocation comes from the Republican Presidential Candidate ... then the risk is significant and undoubtedly imminent and I would like to see that tested by the Supreme Court. 

This is male violence. This is a man inciting others to murder a woman. The words "incitement", "encouragement" "suggestion" "implication" are synonymous in the case of this law. This is a man who would like his opponent dead. Not least because she is a woman. 

Someone get him before a judge and let the Brandenburg v Ohio judgement be replaced by a judgement against Trump.

This man must be stopped by law not the second amendment. And soon. 

JH x