Why toilet bans protect no-one

If someone is willing to do something awful, they'd be willing to do something that's just socially unacceptable.
      
Hence if someone is prepared to rape someone, they'd be prepared to ignore a toilet ban.
      
So someone being banned from the women's toilets wouldn't stop them from raping women. (Whether the rapist is a man or a trans-women, this logic applies equally to both.)
      
Thus banning transwomen from women's toilets cannot protect women from rape/sexual crimes. 
      
All it does is discriminate against (and thus harm) trans-women. 
      
How can you protect women by causing them harm? You can't. That's why toilet bans protect no-one.

Ancient trade routes prove protoceratops didn't inspire the griffin

People cite fossils as inspiring mythical creatures. Often, they are convincing (therapod dinosaur fossils inspired dragons across the world, for example). 

Since the 1970s, people thought griffins were inspired by the fossils of protoceratops. 
      A historian pinpointed the origin of 2500 year-old Greek griffin stories to Central Asia, in areas rich with both gold and fossils. 
      This created griffin stories, the theory goes. The historian continues to say that these griffin stories were brought to Greece along trade routes.

However, a 2024 study debunked this. 
      Griffins were popular in Greece before it traded with Central Asia. This meant griffin stories simply couldn't have originated from Central Asia. 
      Also, the gold site mentioned in the ancient texts? The 2024 study claims this is nowhere near the location of the protoceratops fossils. So conflating the metal with the dinosaur was a falsity.
      
Thus it's clear to see that all the details of this story are suspect. The protoceratops fossils and griffin stories clearly couldn't have originated from the same location or at the same time. Hence protoceratops couldn't have inspired griffins.

Why would protoceratops be interpreted as a lion-eagle combo?

There are plenty of similarities between protoceratops and griffins. But does that mean those dinosaur fossils inspired these mythical creatures? 

Why bird and mammal?

First, there are very clear links to birds.  
      Both protoceratops and griffins have a beak and massive, bird-like eyes. These features don't match any modern-day mammals or reptiles. 
      So the ancients could have easily perceived the protoceratops to be avian.

Both protoceratops and griffins have legs that resemble mammal ones, not those of birds or reptiles. 
      The four terrestrial limbs are under the body, like those of mammals. Whereas all modern reptiles have their legs on the side of their bodies. Plus birds only have two legs (half the protoceratops number).
      So it would be easy for the ancients to see the protoceratops fossil and think it was mammalian.

Combined, you get a bird-headed mammal. An unusual combination, sure, but chimeric, composite creatures were considered normal to the ancient Greeks.

Why eagle and lion?

If the fossil were to inspire a made-up creature, why would the constituent parts be an eagle and a lion? Why not any other combination?
      The beak and the eyes are both raptor-like. Eagles are the best know and well-liked raptors. So the constituent bird being thought of as an eagle isn't surprising.
      Also, lions are the king of the beasts and eagles are the king of the birds. Gold is associated with both royalty and griffins. So an eagle-lion combo was perfect for the golden imagery associated with the griffin. 
      (Although this latter point only works if protoceratops were found in gold-rich areas. Which they weren't. So if gold isn't part of the myth, there'd be no reason for lions as kings of the beasts to become part of the story.)

Bodily Problems

The body parts are, on the surface, persuasive. But deeper? Unconvincing.
      Whilst the protoceratops legs do resemble mammalian legs, these dinosaurs lack the claws that felines possess. Plus the tail is vastly different. So the lion interpretation isn't a convincing one.
      Protoceratops lack wings. Modern theories, suggesting the one small protoceratops frill inspired two large griffin wings, are insufficient for believability.

Another point of contention is that the sizes of lions and protoceratops are completely off.
      After all, a protoceratops is between 1.8m and 2.5m long. This only partially overlaps with the upper end of a lion's length (between 1.6m and 2.1m).
      Their heights are quite different, too: 0.6m for the protoceratops and between 0.9m and 1.2m for lions. Yes, the protoceratops height would overlap with a lion cub height, although the length would be far too long for a cub.
      Clearly, the sizes and proportions between lions and protoceratops aren't plausible. Thus interpreting protoceratops as leonine is likewise not plausible.

Conclusion

So, why would protoceratops be interpreted as a lion-eagle combo, of all possible combinations?
      Some find it a convincing suggestion due to the superficial similarities between griffins and protoceratops. Under scrutiny, however, protoceratops don't physically resemble lions or eagles. 
      Thus the ancients wouldn't have interpreted this dinosaur fossil as a lion-eagle hybrid.

Could protoceratops frills be griffin wings?

A 2024 study disproved the notion (present since the 1970s) that griffins were inspired by the fossils of protoceratops. 

My biggest problem with the theory? Griffins lack frills and protoceratops lack wings. Some claim that these are the same feature: frills were deformed/damaged by geological processes, making them look like wings. But no protoceratops frill looks like a wing, so this idea lacks credence.

Besides, the ancients butchered animals and thus would've seen the bone structure of bird wings. It's utterly different from the bone structure of protoceratops frills. So the idea that the ancients mistook the frills for wings is nonsense. 

Plus, a griffin would need large wings. Even two the size of a protoceratops frill would be far too small to support something the size of the rest of the fossil. Yet they only have one frill each. Therefore the frill-to-wings theory is untenable.

The shape, the bones and the numerical differences between the frill and the wings: none of it matches. Sure, frill and wings could share a similar outline, but that's hardly enough to conclude that the frills were wings. 

It's clear: the frill clearly did not inspire griffin wings.

The Witcher Series Four Critique 3/3

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Questions

A storyteller and Nimue are reading about Geralt, Ciri and Yennifer’s journeys from a book, events that the storyteller says happened one hundred years ago.

Then Nimue points to a picture that she thinks is her, speaking of it as if it’s the future. Yet as these events are in the past, surely she’d remember them happening? How can a future event be in the path?

However, we must remember the monoliths, the stone towers that allow portals to exist. People talk about monoliths in terms of space and time. So if portals can teleport people in space, perhaps they can teleport people through time, too?

That means Nimue’s future could indeed lie in the world’s past.

 

Intriguing queries.

            After we find out Milva’s pregnant, Regis gives her silphium. A plant known to cause abortions. Later, Milva miscarries. It could be due to the stress of the journey. Or it could be caused by the silphium. At the moment, there’s no way to know.

            At the very end, Emyhr gives an unknown creature the scent of Geralt. We only see a shadow of its head and neck. It suggests a dragon or a wyvern.

 

These two things were problematic, but only if my recollection of the events is accurate. (I was hardly going to rewatch seven hours of programme to answer two questions that aren’t all that important to the greater scheme of things.)

At the start of the second episode, Jaskier wears what looks like to be a leopard-print waistcoat. Yet in future and previous scenes, this doesn’t seem to be the case. He isn’t carrying enough luggage to suggest he has a change of clothes, so if he wore the leopard-print at one time, he’d also have to be wearing it at all other times, too.

The leader of the Rats is called ‘Giz’. It’s usually said how it’s spelt. Yet I’m pretty sure it was said as ‘jizz’ at some point. This would be funny, if inconsistent.

 

 

Problems

 

A few things didn’t make sense.

Geralt and co always slept on bedrolls. But this convenient tent appears in the forest for when Yennifer gets there? That isn’t sensible. Besides, the couple clearly teleport to a different location to spend the night. They had a tub and candles, things that the group didn’t carry with them; they also had a bed bigger than the tent they’d originally entered. Not to mention we could see the street outside with buildings (which the forest lacked). So the forest tent was completely unnecessary! All they had to do was show Yen taking Geralt through a portal.

Rusalka are water creatures. Yet these rusalka are not only made out of vines but can control them, too. Sure, rusalka haunt the waterways where they die, and these waterways are covered in vines, but that doesn’t translate into plant-controlling water monsters.

 

There were a few instances where the behaviour of the characters didn’t make sense.

We see a memory of Yennifer and Geralt. She accuses him of only thinking of himself because he left her at the inn for two days. But Geralt was explaining that he couldn’t get there because he was busy fighting monsters. You know, so that people don’t die. Yen is smart enough to put two and two together. Thus Yennifer’s criticism didn’t make sense.

Mistle stops Kayleigh (for some reason, a guy has this name) from forcing himself on Ciri. Yet Mistle thinks it’s an appropriate time to make a pass at Ciri. Come on! Repeating a situation that’s just been negative isn’t on.

In Episode Two, Geralt said, “Hmm” too many times. It was excessive to the extreme.

Milva leaves the company. Yet within a few minutes of the group being under attack, she saves the day. For her absence to be this short made little sense. The only explanation was that the show makers removed her in order to give the situation some jeopardy. But that’s an explanation of why the writers made that decision, not why the character made that decision. Without justification for the latter, Milva’s behaviour simply wasn’t believable.

 

Other things were problematic.

All the sorceresses that Yen recruited fit perfectly around the table. How convenient that they just had the exact perfect table available! The desire for a perfect shot shouldn’t interfere with a realistic, probable portrayal.

Regis speaks with an English accent. But for some reason, he says ‘herbs’ like an American. That isn’t consistent.

The storyline of the Rats was so bloody boring. It just felt like they were filler scenes because they lacked substance.

Ximer, a female dwarf, had a beard. However, it wasn’t applied convincingly: it was obviously fake. If men can have fake beards added that look convincing, those same techniques can be applied to women, too.

 

Finally, the way Ciri rode a horse was ridiculous.

She was all shoulders and elbows, the movements way too accentuated. She looks like she’s never ridden a horse before and, for the heir of a royal house, there’s no way Ciri wouldn’t be able to ride.

Yes, Ciri’s actor might not be comfortable on the horse, but that’s literally what stunt doubles are for. Besides, most shots of Ciri on a horse are from behind or from the air: this means there’d be zero chance of people realising it’s a stunt double.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Like I said before, this is my second favourite series of the Witcher.

None of the mistakes affected the plot. Ciri’s actor really blossomed in this series: she’s always been a good actor but her confidence really shone through. The humour was delivered well and clever details were peppered throughout.

What a roaring success!

 

 

The Witcher Series Four Critique 2/3

 

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Emiel Regis

 

In a graveyard, Geralt and co meet Emiel Regis. He says he’s the most fearsome thing in the graveyard. They’d just encountered a deadly wraith so, if taking Regis at his word, he is very powerful. The show gives plenty of hints as to what.

Regis keeps Geralt’s soiled bandage and later sniffing it. So, he likes blood. Combine this with being the most fearsome thing in the graveyard, he’s a fearsome, undead, blood-loving creature. Witcher is based on Slavic mythology so there’s one major candidates: vampire.

Later, there’s a trial of ordeal: someone needs to pick up a red-hot horseshoe without coming to harm. Regis manages this, showing he’s impervious/resistant to damage. Like a vampire.

After this, Regis demonstrates his speed and also his strength (ripping the chains of Geralt and Jaskier). Again, like a vampire.

The final clue is that Regis put guards to sleep with nothing more than a touch. This isn’t a direct reference to folklore. However, vampires could mind-control their victims, and mind-control can be used to put people to sleep, so Regis sending people to sleep is a more subtle hint than the previous ones.

A few people think Regis is a mage for having done this stuff. But once Regis saves Geralt and Jaskier, Geralt doesn’t like Regis and says they shouldn’t meet again. As Regis has only done nice things for Geralt and co, the only reason Geralt could dislike Regis is if he were a monster.

Then yes, he confirms he’s a vampire.

Plot

 

The recap at the start of this series was really good and thorough. For a show like the Witcher that has such a long gap between each series, a good recap is essential.

 

Many interesting details of plot emerged this series, too.

            Yennifer asks Fringilla to join her against Vilberfortz (the bad side) because Fringilla can’t hide anymore. She even looked convinced. Then the next scene with Fringilla is her joining Vilberfortz! So Yen convinced her of the danger, but not of which side to join. Fringilla joining the winning/bad side is hardly a surprise. But then it turns out Fringilla is a spy for Yennifer, turning expectations on their head.

Everyone is after Ciri. Emhyr wants to get her pregnant (his own daughter) to fulfil a prophecy. The elves want her because she’s the long-awaited descendent of a powerful elf, allowing Ciri to take the elves to their celestial paradise. Then there’re Geralt, Yennifer and their allies, all who want Ciri back with her family.

The emperor’s spy tells Leo to find the Rats, with Falka being especially important to the emperor. Leo assumes the spy wants them alive. The spy tells Leo to instead kill them all. Earlier, the spy was plotting with other nobles against the emperor. Getting Leo to frustrate the emperor’s plans let us see the spy’s plans in action.

When Milva tells the boys that she’s pregnant, everyone else starts discussing how they can manage her safety and nutrition. Then Milva shouts, “I did not ask for opinions!” The men just took Milva’s control and agency over the issue. The men most likely thought they were being helpful but, unless help is asked for, it’s just interference and not respecting boundaries.

The Queen of Rivia knights Geralt as ‘Sir Geralt of Rivia’. Which, minus the ‘sir’, has always been the title he’s been known by. It’s come full circle.

 

 

Humour

 

The most consistent source of humour came from Jaskier.

            My favourite line from Jaskier is: “I hope you like the taste of leather because you’re going to have his boot so far up your arses that you’ll be biting buckles.” Wowza.

            During the musical scene, Jaskier is looking at a portrait of himself and blows it a kiss. I love how even Jaskier’s story about himself plays up on the full-of-himself theme.

The dwarves ask Geralt, Jaskier and Milva questions. Each time, Jaskier starts to answer truthfully, but Geralt always interrupts with something like, ‘Nothing’. The bard then repeats it with a question mark, like he’s been scolded or chastised like a naughty child.

Someone mentions they can smell a cow. Jaskier says, “You can’t possibly smell a cow from…” then a cow moos. So Jaskier says, “Oh, look, a cow.” He went from derision to wonderment in a moment.

Zoltan asks if the whole story will be a song, clearly exasperated. Jaskier looks at Zoltan and, with a straight face, says, “Yes, bitch.”

Jaskier encourages Geralt to take his time walking away. But when the screaming starts behind them, Jaskier whisper-shouts, “Limp faster!”

Geralt and co keep saying no when the dwarves ask them to join. But as soon as the dwarves mention they have food, Jaskier declares, “We’re in!”

 

The dwarves are another source of amusement.

            Yarpen declares, “Boil my balls and call it tea.”

           A priest had tried to burn two girls for witchcraft. He even had a trial by ordeal planned (pick up a burning horseshoe). Once the girls are saved, two dwarves hold this priest down and Zoltan moves the burning horseshoe to between the priest’s legs. One end would touch his groin and the other his arse. A creative punishment.

        One dwarf says, “And leeches. I hate blood suckers,” with disgust. Regis the vampire coughs and the dwarf adds, “Sorry.”

 

Leo, the Witcher-killer, has three hilarious moments due to his lack of a filter.

            He says of the emperor’s spy, “You’re far from the emperor’s cunt.” I’ve never heard ‘never far from their side’ said so creatively before.

            Leo says to a grieving widow, “Let’s see if he’s still alive.” Then cheerfully adds, “Oh, no, he’s dead.”

            Asse, a large member of the Rats, tells Leo, “You’ll have to go through me first.” Leo responds with, “That’s a lot to get through.”

 

The women have funny moments. For characters with more serious plotlines, the humour was managed so as not to diminish the tone.

            Whilst battering an enemy with a levitating weapon, Assire (in the tone of a school mistress telling off naughty children) says, “You are not nice!”

            “You did not put the Elf Queen in your cleavage,” a sorceress says as Yennifer indeed pulls Francesca (as a figurine) out of her clevage.

            The Rats are robing a noblewoman. Ciri opens the door and asks in the most polite voice possible, “Apologies, milady, but can you step out of the carriage,” before yanking the noblewoman out. Ciri’s voice matched neither the situation nor the actions.

             

Men provided other funny moments.

Regis informs the ferryman that he’s a vampire. The ferryman calmly says, “Oh,” before leaping into the river.

Milva punches a guy in the face. Later at the witch trial, this man calls Milva a witch and asks, “Can we burn her first?”

Just before the group start to eat, someone asks, “Any words?” Jaskier, a bard who loves words, says, “Fuck, no, let’s eat.” So that by itself is funny. But then Regis adding, “Your best poem yet”? Burn.

Jaskier hears a bunch of soldiers insulting each other. One of the common themes was calling each other ‘seed-waste’, literally ‘you’re so bad that the sperm used to make you was wasted’. Never heard anything like that before.

 

New Geralt

 

Geralt had a new actor. This transition was handled well (even with me who didn’t know about it in advance).

            In this series, Geralt is introduced from behind, the side, at boot-level. In other words, his face wasn’t shown for a good amount of time. So, it allowed the audience to know it was Geralt without confusing them with the new face. A great way to ease in the character’s new actor.

         The new Geralt looked scarily like the original actor. Sure, a few angles of the face accentuated the new actor’s longer face. But for the most part, the face caused no hiccoughs.

          When this new actor talks, he sounds just like the old Geralt. He perfected the all-important ‘hmm’. However, when he shouts, he is clearly a different person. But as most of the lines are spoken, not shouted, the new actor focusing on talking was the sensible decision.

            Finally, Geralt has a persistent leg injury that affects life and fights. This means that a new face isn’t the only thing different about Geralt. This had the benefit of drawing attention away from the new face.

            Clearly, there were few instances where the new actor for Geralt was noticeable. Hence this transition was handled perfectly.

The Witcher Series Four Critique 1/3

This has been my second favourite series of the Witcher (beaten only by the first). They handled Geralt’s change in actor really well.  

  

*****SPOILERS*****

Clever

 

Four of my favourite decisions are as follows.

Geralt enclosed himself in a dome shield then heated up his sword. This increased the pressure, creating an explosion. This was an intelligent, creative decision.

There are very few monsters in Series Four. Initially, this was disappointing. However, the reason for this decision was very clever. The main enemies for the main characters were all Nilfgaard-affiliated: its emperor for Geralt, its law-enforcers for Ciri, and its mage (Vilberfortz) for Yennifer. Nilfgaard has behaved monstrously throughout all the series. Plus its emperor was to impregnate his own daughter, making him a monster. So I suppose this series does have monsters after all: human monsters.

Geralt is suffering because he won’t take a break to rest his leg. (After all, he wants to get to Ciri as quickly as possible.) Then, when he does take a day off, his leg is all better. In managing any chronic condition, people are told to pace themselves, i.e. don’t do too much, because it will actually slow you down overall. It was nice to see that reflected here.

Emperor Emhyr originally thought his Ciri was the real one. However, when she isn’t ruthless with a punishment, he suspects her to be an imposter. So initiates a swordfight and, due to her failure, Emrhy knows she is a fake. This was a clever way to figure this out. (Usually shows would either have the imposter admit it, or someone sees the real one, or someone else finds out about it then shares it.

 

The way Emperor Emhyr finds out he as an imposter Ciri was clever.

            Imposter Ciri wasn’t ruthless with a punishment. This makes Emhyr suspicious. So he initiates a swordfight and, due to her utter lack of skill, Emhyr knows she’s a fake. This demonstrated Emhyr’s intelligence.

            Usually shows make the imposter admit they are one, or the person being deceived sees the real one, or the deceived receives intelligence about a betrayal. So the show makers using this novel way demonstrates their creativity.

 

There were many moments that had an emotional tole.

Zoltan, leader of the travelling dwarves, stole from other travellers so he could feed his companions. He gives this whole speech about doing good where it counts and, somehow, this makes robbing people sound like the right thing to do.

The Rats’ induction ceremony was good. They’d say, “You don’t have anything,” before giving her a gift. Nice touch.

Jaskier says that Geralt hasn’t been the same since he lost the ones he loved. The dwarf responds, “If he has lost his love, he shouldn’t be the same.” Very poignant.

 

Jaskier isn’t portrayed as the brightest candle in the inn. But his character is often used to demonstrate that the show makers are.

Jaskier mentions something was fifty years and Regis adds, “Half a century sounds better.” Later, Regis says he was buried in the mud for fifty years and Jaskier quips, “Half a century sounds better.” This was a good turnaround.

Jaskier sings a song recounting a past adventure. This story is visualised on screen like a musical, with singing, dancing and actions all done to music. (It was done in a village square, making it reminiscent of the opening scene from ‘Beauty and the Beast’.) As a bonus, Jaskier has short hair in this scene (FINALLY).

 

 

Character Design

 

The monster designs were incredible.

            The greylock was a lion-sized cat. It had golden, glowing tentacles coming out of its mouth, along with similar tendrils wriggling around in its eyes. It was so completely unexpected and beautiful (making a parasite pretty is sickening but clever).

            The rusalka was perfection. Vines twisted around themselves to form her torso and limbs. They also composed her hair. All along the rusalka’s bodies, a few vines were moving. Finally, her make-up had been done to a high quality, making the vineless face mesh well with the vine-full body.

            The wraiths animation was another good example. It was made of smoke and dust billowing in the wind. Its shape had some skin, some rotting flesh, and even some bone showing (such as parts of the ribcage).

 

Human designs were interesting.

            Ciri’s wears her hair loose. Every other time we’ve seen Ciri, she has had her hair in complicated braids. This visual distinction of her situational distinction, between being a princess and being a Rat, was a nice touch.

            Mistle’s hair was magnificent. She wore it in dip-dyed braids, most piled on her head in a visually appealing manner. (Although she later changes her hairstyle which is naff in comparison.)

           The fortune teller of the emperor had a long, spiralling bangle on each arm. To see a bangle of that length was unique.

            Assire is a witch. Arriving on a broomstick, she wears a pointy hat, wears black, and does potions. Actual witches have been absent in the Witcher so seeing the witchiest witch to ever witch was a great piece of visual entertainment.

 

 

Visuals

 

There were many, many good shots.

            Yennifer ruthlessly reads the mind of a prisoner. Their eyes explode, covering Yen’s lower face in blood and gunk. It made her look like she’d eaten something raw, giving her a ruthless look, too.

            Jaskier gets sucked into a tomb. Milva shoots arrows into the ground so that Jaskier can pull himself along, hauling himself towards safety. Usually arrows are for ending life, so it was nice to see them used for saving life.

            Mistle walks away from Ciri. The camera focuses on Ciri, making Mistle’s image go out of focus. This fuzziness on Mistle’s blonde hair makes it look like Mistle is surrounded by a halo. Mistle’s angelic appearance reinforces her angelic behaviour towards Ciri.

           The camera watches the Rats riding horses into the distance. Most of them have their arms hidden by their cloaks. Ciri is all elbows, looking bad. Then Giz, their leader, rides ramrod straight, one arm held down at this cocky angle.

 

The title screens were the typical black, each episode having its own silver emblem.

            One episode is set in a swamp. The title screen isn’t the usual black but is instead underwater, complete with plants and eels. It was a shock to have such a drastic change after four series of black-and-silver openings.

            The final episode returned to the black-and silver. However, the viewpoint starts by travelling along the emblem’s side before panning out to the normal position. Then each separate element of the emblem merged together in an artful fashion. There was great attention to detail, making use of all three dimensions.

            The emblem for the final title had a bird. Then it started to flicker, like it was on fire. Later, Yen talks about them being reborn. A fiery bird and rebirth both indicate a phoenix.

 

Fringilla provided a treat for visual moments.

            Vilberfortz knocks Fringilla out. Then he pulls one of her braids from base to tip in an almost-loving caress. Even though he just hurt her. This juxtaposition was a good detail.

            A snake slithers around Fringilla’s upper body. Her whimpers, shakes and grimaces were so believable that it created an emotional response.

        At one point, Vilberfortz had all of Fringilla’s hair shaved off. This is a common violation used to humiliate a prisoner. It makes the audience really feel for Fringilla.

 

 

Fights

 

The choreography for the fights was really creative. The previous Witcher series also had this advantage, so one might presume they’d run out of new ways to do things. But nope, they’re still delivering.

            A bunch of soldiers were about to rape a girl. Geralt uses one of her farm tools to stab a soldier in the groin (fitting, considering what this twat wanted to do). Pinning another soldier to a wagon, Geralt then slides the soldier to the side, slicing him in half along the way.

            The tentacles of the greylock’s parasite wrap around Ciri’s sword. So Ciri does a flip, pulling the greylock off balance.

            Leo cuts open Kayleigh’s torso, puts one of Kayleigh’s bombs inside the wound, and then the bomb explodes. Killing someone with their own weapon is a good enough detail, but to do it in such a gruesome, creative way? Brilliant.

            The rusalka didn’t fight Geralt in the traditional sense. Rather, her vines restrained him and then pulled him under the water. It stopped Geralt from attacking her and it stopped Geralt from defending against her.

Leo stabs his sword into the dirt. Then he gets his enemy’s head and bashes it down on the sword pommel.

            An enemy is turned into a toad and then Vesimir stomps on this toad. Slime and blood splattered all over the screen, not just the environment. That really brings the audience into the scene.

            Geralt headbutts a soldier, pauses for a moment, then headbutts the soldier three more times in quick succession. This second headbutt came as a surprise, as did the fast repetition.

            Other sword fights were noticeable. Yennifer training with Vesimir was amazing. Then later came the incredible display of swordplay between Ciri and Leo.

 

Magical details are notable.

            The novices hold hands to create a shield. In most shows, when mages hold hands, it’s palm-to-palm with finger curled all the way in to be interlocking. But here, the novices put their palms on the back of the other person’s hands, fingers minimally sliding together just enough to stay together.

            Vilberfortz controls a floor portal surrounded by small stone structures. His mages jump through. There’s a burst of a black cloud with the mages dropping down from it. The Witcher (including this series) has always had horizontal portals that worked at ground level, so having a vertical portal at sky level was an interesting twist.

            To break the novices’ shield, Vilberfortz bashes his floor portal with his metal staff. This resulted in the shield having visible cracks, like when thick glass is repeatedly hit.

Michaela School, Wembly: Ban on Muslim Prayer

Last year, the High Court upheld this school's ban on Muslim prayer rituals.

The statements made by the legal professionals in this case baffled me:
     *Allowing prayers 'undermines inclusion'
     *Enrollers accept religious restrictions
     *Students can pray at home
     *Only Muslims impacted
     *Banned during breaks, also

Allowing prayers 'undermines inclusion'

This secular school said allowing Muslim prayers 'undermined inclusion'. Excluding prayers of a minority is what undermines inclusion!

Inclusion is about (hear me out) including people. 
      That is, people aren't excluded. Being female, gay, disabled, a religious minority... all are welcome when inclusion is valued. This includes accomodating people's different needs. 
      Women need the freedom to leave to change period products. Wheelchair-users need ramps. Autistic people need to be able to rock/stim without being shouted at to 'sit still'. 
      These things are important to an individual's life and wellbeing. Hence these things are also important to their overall performance at school/work (if basic human decency wasn't enough of a reason).

Saying someone can't do something that's an important part of their minority status? 
      That's saying the minority isn't welcome unless they modify their behaviour, the thing that makes them a minority/disadvantaged group. Basically, it's saying they're only welcome if they act like the majority. 
      Including the people but excluding the identity/behaviours does not count as inclusion.

Inclusion is intended to stop discrimination, not encourage it. Yet this school uses 'inclusion' as an excuse to actively persecute those that should be protected by inclusion. Then, for some reason, the court validated this!

Enrollers accept religious restrictions

The student's case is that the school discriminates against Muslim. After all, discrimination against religions (such as Islam) is illegal. 
      The High Court judge said that students accepted the religious restrictions when enrolling at this school.
      With the above statement, the judge has decided that the illegality of discrimination is acceptable because the students accepted it.

This idea does not apply to other areas of the law.
      Any illegality contained within a contract invalidates that contract, for example. In fact, it dissolves the enforceability of said contract. Whether that's a work contract or an NDA.
      That's why a Non-Disclosure Agreement can't be used to conceal illegal activity. (So a signer can't be prosecuted for breaking the NDA. Plus withholding such info from police is still obstructing justice.) 
      After all, the law is superior to criminal activity. (Which is, after all, the whole point of the judicial system.)
      
Thus there is a precedent that illegality is illegal no matter the circumstances. Thus the judge deciding that the illegality of discrimination is negated by student agreement? Nonsense.

Students can pray at home

The judge said the student could do Qada prayers at home, justifying the banning of prayers at school.

The judge is saying that, as the school isn't stopping Muslims being Muslims at home, the school isn't acting in a discriminatory way. 
      That's like saying a school not putting a ramp in for disabled people isn't discrimination because the disabled person has a ramp at home. 
      That using mysogynist, racist or homophobic language isn't discriminatory because they aren't discriminated against at home. 
      But discrimination if about how people/institutions treat disadvantaged groups. What happens elsewhere isn't relevant. Students having qada prayers at home doesn't absolve the school of its legal obligations.

[If Muslims miss one of their five schedules prayers (or three for Shia), they can make up for it with a Qada prayer later in the day. Hence yes, Muslims can catch up on missed prayers.]

Only Muslims impacted

The student's lawyer said the school's policy only stopped Muslims from prayer because only Muslim prayer is external, not internal.

This shows how little the lawyer understands religion.
     All religions have external prayer (from chanting to body movements). If any religion tried external prayer at this school, they too would be banned. So saying external prayer bans only impacts Muslims is wrong. 
     All religions have internal prayer, including Islam. So if Muslim students (or anyone else) practice internal prayer, the school can't really stop that. 
     As such, the lawyer is clearly mistaken in thinking Muslims alone are stopped from prayer at this school.

What would be a better approach?
     Yes, Muslims externally pray more times a day than in other religions. So an external prayer ban does affect Muslims more than other religions. 
      That's not the same as it only affecting Muslims. So 'this ban discriminates against Muslims more than other believers' would a much better angle for this student's lawyer to take!

Banned during breaks, too

This ban extended to prayers performed during breaks and lunch. 
     A ban on prayer during lessons makes sense. Not only does it interupt the education of those praying but all other students, too. (One person leaving for/returning from the toilet is distracting enough. Hence a group of students leaving/returning from prayer would disrupt others even more so.) 
     But to prohibit prayer during breaks, when prayers adversally affects no-one? That doesn't make sense.

Bans on break time prayers is destroying inclusion in the most discriminatory way possible.
     

Conclusion

All-in-all, the thoughts of the legal professionals (the judge and the lawyers) remain worrying. Their statements didn't reflect reality, illustrating their ignorance on these topics and concepts. This was disappointing: people can do much better than this.

The student's lawyer argued it's discrimination (which I agree with) but the lawyer's explanation failed to fit this label. As the conclusion and explanation didn't mesh, that made the lawyers credibility fall through the gaps. The judge's ruling suffered in the same way.

It's taken this long to write because I am utterly gobsmacked by the departure from logical argument. Plus the knowledge gaps were huge (if the knowledge wasn't plain wrong!) Truly an embarrassment of the judicial system.