radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 

Author: Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Colonial abuses loom large as King Charles visits Kenya

    Content warning: This article contains mention of sexual assault and abuse. 

    Charles and Camilla began a state visit to Kenya on Tuesday 31 October. It marks the king’s first visit to an African and Commonwealth nation since taking the throne in September 2022.

    The four-day trip has been billed as an opportunity to build on the now-cordial ties between London and Nairobi. However, the legacy of decades of British colonial rule is looming large – accompanied by mounting calls to make an apology over Britain’s bloody colonialism.

    The royal visit comes as pressure mounts in some Commonwealth countries to remove the British monarch as head of state. It also follows anti-monarchy demonstrations in the UK during Charles’ own coronation.

    ‘Painful aspects’

    The British High Commission said the tour will “spotlight the strong and dynamic partnership between the UK and Kenya”. However, it will also “acknowledge the more painful aspects” of Britain’s historic relationship with the country as it prepares to celebrate 60 years of independence in December.

    These “painful aspects” include the 1952-60 ‘Emergency’. Colonial authorities brutally suppressed the Mau Mau uprising, one of the bloodiest insurgencies against British rule. At least 10,000 people – mainly from the Kikuyu tribe – were killed. Additionally, tens of thousands more were detained without trial in concentration camps where reports of executions, torture, and rape were common.

    However, the British authorities made efforts to hide and destroy records of their atrocities, and some historians and rights groups claim the true figure is far higher.

    On 29 October, the Kenya Human Rights Commission urged the king to pay reparations for colonial-era abuses, and make an:

    unequivocal public apology… for the brutal and inhuman treatment inflicted on Kenyan citizens.

    Britain agreed in 2013 to compensate more than 5,000 Kenyans who had suffered abuse during the Mau Mau revolt. The deal was worth nearly GBP £20m. Then foreign secretary William Hague said Britain “sincerely regrets” the abuses, but stopped short of a full apology.

    British soldiers remain in Kenya

    Another lingering source of tension is the fact that the UK has kept around 200 troops stationed in Kenya since its independence. Some of the soldiers have been accused of rape and murder, and civilians have been maimed by munitions.

    On 30 October, Kenyan police blocked the airing of a news conference which would have aired environmental and human rights abuse allegations against British troops. Reuters reported that: 

    Residents of central Kenya’s Lolldaiga area have accused a British army training unit based nearby of causing a 2021 wildfire that destroyed much of a nature reserve, leaving behind ordnance that injured locals, and being involved in the 2012 murder of a woman last seen with British soldiers.

    The woman in question was Agnes Wanjiru. Her body was found stabbed and dumped in a septic tank attached to a hotel near the army base. As Foreign Policy reported:

    British troops had allegedly paid Wanjiru and other local women for sex on a drunken night, which was the last time that Wanjiru was seen before her body was discovered. The Sunday Times said another soldier reported the killing to senior British officers at the time­—but no action was taken. Her body was discovered nearly three months later. Reports in the U.K. media claim soldiers laughed and joked about the murder on Facebook.

    An autopsy found evidence Wanjiru had been beaten and died as a result of stab wounds to her chest and abdomen. A 2019 inquest in Kenya concluded that British soldiers were responsible for her murder and ordered further investigations. Eleven years later, no one has been charged.

    In August 2023, the Kenyan parliament launched an official inquiry into the activities of British Army Training Unit Kenya (Batuk). The parliamentary defence committee in charge sent out a call for public accounts of the UK soldiers’ crimes. The report marks the first time that the British army’s activities will be reviewed by Kenyan authorities on such a scale.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via via MSN/ITN/screenshot. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer faces backlash for pushing Tory party line on Gaza

    Labour leader Keir Starmer is once again following the Tory Party’s lead. He’s joined PM Rishi Sunak in calling for a “humanitarian pause” in Gaza. However, he appears to be increasingly at odds with his own party.

    Over 250 Muslim Labour councilors have signed a public letter to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner demanding that the Labour Party back calls for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, amid the backlash, Labour’s share of the Muslim vote has plunged from 71% to just 5%.

    ‘Humanitarian pause’ in Gaza

    Following calls from the UN and Rishi Sunak, Starmer has backed demands for what he called “humanitarian pauses” to allow aid into Gaza. Like the Tory leader, he has failed to call for a full ceasefire. This has done little to inspire confidence in the floundering party leader, who previously faced condemnation for his statement that Israel “has the right” to cut off water and power from Gaza.

    As of 26 October, some 37 Labour MPs have publicly backed calls for an Israeli ceasefire. Likewise, 19 Labour councillors have quit the party over its non-committal stance. The BBC has also reported that four shadow cabinet ministers were similarly “on resignation watch”.

    The Labour Muslim Councillors Network (LMCN) released an open letter on 25 October providing greater detail on its position. It stated that:

    Everyday we fail to call on the government and the international community to push for cessation of hostilities, Gazan children and hundreds of innocent men and women pay the price. As a party that bases it’s principles on fairness and justice, we can not sit idly by as Palestinian’s face collective punishment.

    ‘An end to the bloodshed’

    The letter added that five UN agencies, including the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO), were backing calls for a ceasefire. It also pressed the fact that the aid which Israel had allowed through the Rafah crossing was a “drop in the ocean” compared to what was needed.

    The LMCN further stated that:

    As Labour councillors elected to serve our constituents, the message we have been hearing repeatedly over the past 2 weeks is simple, people just want an end to the bloodshed and the loss of innocent life. No nation, no people or community should
    have to endure collective punishment and the same should be the case for the Palestinian people. We are also clear that hostages held captive must also be returned to their families safely.

    This seems to be an accurate reflection of the feeling among Muslim voters in the UK. On 26 October, Muslim Census released a poll of 30,000 British Muslims. The results were stark, showing an almost complete collapse in support for Labour among its formerly-staunch supporters.

    A collapse in faith

    The snapshot survey was issued on 17 October. It showed a drop of 66% in potential Labour votes, from 71% of Muslim voters to just 5%. Meanwhile, the Conservative vote dropped from 9% to a mere 0.6%.

    Muslim Census stated that:

    The Muslim vote has the potential to swing several seats across the UK… It seems the possibility of the Muslim vote having a deciding impact is now likelier than ever before.

    Both the scale and speed of response to the survey indicates an increasing political  engagement of the British Muslim community. When compared to the shift away from the Labour party following the 2003 Iraq war, our survey suggests a greater change in public mood, indicating that this may be a watershed moment in British Muslim voting history.

    Reflecting this collapse in public support, ex-Labour Councillor Shaista Aziz asked:

    If Starmer can be so reckless with his words and lacking in principle as leader of the opposition, what is going to happen when – as is expected – he becomes prime minister at the next general election?

    This rhetorical question is poignant and important for all of the voting public. Starmer was once a human rights barrister. He must know that Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians citizens in retaliation against Hamas’ attack is illegal under international law. So if the Labour leader won’t speak up now, who else can we expect him to quietly and callously disregard when the time comes?

    . Featured image via Twitter/Misra Andrews

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Sunak calls for ‘pauses’ in Gaza – but ignores demands to push for a ceasefire

    On 25 October, PM Rishi Sunak said that “specific pauses” are needed in Israel’s war with Hamas to allow aid into Gaza. However, he again stopped short of calling for a ceasefire.

    Sunak has faced strong calls from some opposition members to urge Israel to hold a ceasefire. Whilst Labour leader Keir Starmer failed to mention Gaza entirely during PMQs, the SNP’s Mhairi Black and Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi spoke up where the opposition leader would not.

    ‘Collective punishment’

    Labour MP for Bolton South East Yasmin Qureshi stated at PMQs on 25 October that the people of Gaza are being “massacred”. She said:

    This is collective punishment of the Palestine people in Gaza for crimes they did not commit.

    This wording is significant. International humanitarian law prohibits collective punishment under all circumstances. When a nation carries out collective punishment during an armed conflict, it is committing a war crime.

    However, Sunak reiterated that:

    the first and most important principle is that Israel has the right to defend itself under international law.

    Notably, such a statement completely fails to address the accusations that Israel’s actions go far beyond mere defence. Human Rights Watch, for example, identified Israel’s use of airbursting white phosphorus in Gaza City Port on 10 and 11 October. Likewise, as Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, asserted:

    In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity.

    ‘Pauses as distinct from a ceasefire’

    Sunak said that his government had consistently called for the conditions to allow aid to enter the Gaza Strip and the release of British nationals and hostages taken by Hamas. He told MPs that:

    We recognise for all of that to happen there has to be a safer environment which of course necessitates specific pauses as distinct from a ceasefire.

    The PM said representatives had discussed the pauses “with partners” at the UN on 24 October, and talks were ongoing. A Tory spokesman later told reporters that a ceasefire would “only serve to benefit Hamas”, while:

    humanitarian pauses, which are temporary, which are limited in scope, can be an operational tool.

    This again ignored that a ceasefire would also be of massive benefit to Gaza’s citizens. As of 23 October, the death toll among the people of Gaza had surpassed 5000. Women and children made up 62% of the dead, along with 35 staff members of the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA.

    Blocking the flow of aid

    Sunak visited Egypt last week, where he met Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority on 21 October. Following the visit, the PM stated that:

    I recognise that the Palestinian people are suffering terribly. Too many lives have already been lost, and the humanitarian crisis is growing.

    We welcome the limited opening of the Rafah crossing – it is important progress, and testament to the power of diplomacy. But it is not enough.

    These statements are passive – Palestinians are suffering, lives have been lost, the Rafah crossing opening is limited. What they do not acknowledge is the fact that Israel is actively restricting the aid that reaches Gaza. As Human Rights Watch reported:

    As of October 24, the Israeli military has allowed a total of 34 supply truckloads, overseen by UN agencies, to enter via Egypt’s Rafah crossing with Gaza, far fewer than the 100 daily truckloads aid agencies say are the minimum needed. Israeli authorities have also refused to allow fuel, saying Hamas diverts it for its use. Fuel is desperately needed for hospital generators, water and sewage pumping, and aid delivery. While the laws of war allow a warring party to take steps to ensure shipments do not include weapons, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.

    On 23 October, the UK government announced in a press release that it was sending an additional £20m of aid to help civilians in Gaza. This brings the amount promised to Palestinian territories since Hamas’s attack to £30m, after a £10m pledge last week.

    However, none of this matters if Israel does not allow aid into Gaza in anywhere near sufficient quantities. The UK government is doing all it can to dance around this fact – and until it learns to speak in the active voice, it will remain complicit in the murder of Palestinian civilians.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Youtube/Channel 4 News

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • “We now know where we stand in this our own country”: Indigenous Voice referendum suffers defeat in Australia

    On 15 October, Indigenous Australians grieved the collapse of a landmark push for Indigenous rights and recognition that was spurned by the country’s white majority in a binding constitutional referendum.

    Indigenous leaders called for a “week of silence” to mourn the bitter outcome of Saturday 14’s landside vote. The defeat has called into question decades-long reconciliation efforts.

    ‘This rejection was never for others to issue’

    Aboriginal advocacy groups stated that millions of Australians had ignored the chance to atone for the country’s colonial past and the “brutal dispossession of our people”. A joint statement read:

    Now is the time for silence, to mourn and deeply consider the consequence of this outcome.

    Much will be asked about the role of racism and prejudice against Indigenous people in this result. The only thing we ask is that each and every Australian who voted in this election reflect hard on this question.

    To our people we say: do not shed tears. This rejection was never for others to issue.

    The truth is that rejection was always ours to determine. The truth is that we offered this recognition and it has been refused. We now know where we stand in this our own country.

    More than 70% of ballots had been counted by Sunday 15 October. In them, around 61% of Australians said “no” when asked if the 1901 constitution should be changed to recognise the country’s indigenous inhabitants.

    In doing so, Australians also voted against creating a new consultative body. This ‘Voice’ to Parliament would have had a say on issues related to Indigenous communities. The proposal was defeated in every state of the country, despite being backed by Australia’s centre-left government.

    ‘They don’t know our history’

    Political gains have never come easily for Aboriginal Australians. They’ve had to fight tooth-and-nail over the years to secure basic voting rights, own traditional lands, and win election to parliament.

    Supporters saw the referendum as a way to address the historical injustices inflicted upon First Nations people. Instead, it has exposed the deep racism that still runs through the country more than two centuries since British colonisers dropped anchor in Sydney Harbour.

    Indigenous leader Esme Bamblett said that white voters’ unfamiliarity enabled the misinformation that dominated the referendum campaign. Social media posts spread disinformation suggesting that the Voice would lead to land seizures, create a South African-style system of apartheid, or was part of a United Nations plot.

    Bamblett said:

    A lot of people don’t know about Aboriginal people. They don’t live in our communities, they don’t work in our communities, and they don’t know what we go through. They don’t know the extent of dispossession and they don’t know our history

    ‘Reconciliation is dead’

    Prominent Aboriginal activist and scholar Marcia Langton declared that decades of work to build trust between Australians had failed. In an interview with NITV, she said:

    It’s very clear that Reconciliation is dead. A majority of Australians have said no to an invitation from Indigenous Australia, with a minimal proposition, to give us a bare say in matters that affect our lives, advice that doesn’t need to be taken by the parliament.

    I think the No campaigners have a lot to answer for. In poisoning Australia against this proposition and against Indigenous Australia. They say they’re not celebrating, but let’s see how they wheel themselves out in the future.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has urged his divided nation to heal “in the spirit of unity”. He also vowed that his government will continue working to deliver Indigenous recognition. However, it is now deeply unclear what options remain. And, as Langton highlighted, Indigenous Australians are as vulnerable as ever to the political forces arrayed against them:

    this has been a cynical political exercise by the Coalition … They’ll now be pressing hard for policies that cause us harm.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Matthem McMullin, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, resized to 1910*1000. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • If Sunak scrapping the Northern leg of HS2 while keeping Euston was satire it would be too on-the-nose

    On 4 October, Rishi Sunak scrapped the Northern section of HS2, confirming reports that the axing was on the cards. Addressing the Conservative Party conference – which happened to be in Manchester – Sunak said HS2 would no longer run to the city.

    To add insult to injury, the PM also confirmed that the Old Oak Common to Euston leg of the high speed rail would go ahead.

    Yup, you read that right. The North gets snubbed, and London gets yet another shiny new transport link. If it were satire, I’d think it was a little too on-the-nose.

    HS2: Keeping it on the doorstep

    Back in July, the government paused construction of HS2’s Euston station for a minimum of two years. This shifted the predicted end date of the project to a (distinctly hesitant) 2042.

    Passengers would instead have to get off at the new Old Oak Common station in Acton, and change for the Elizabeth line. The Elizbeth line itself officially opened in 2022, and was a brand new feather in the cap of the South’s transport network. It connects the East and West of England – via London, of course.

    However, it appears that building a high speed train between Birmingham and London’s suburbs would be too embarrassing even for Sunak. Instead, his government are taking over construction in Euston from the wildly overbudget HS2 bosses. The PM also announced that the government had found £6.5bn in savings, and promised that:

    The management of HS2 will no longer be responsible for the Euston site. There must be some accountability for the mistakes made, for the mismanagement of this project.

    This miraculous cost-cutting measure is almost blindingly simple – if trains don’t go to Manchester, then fewer people will want to get on them. If fewer people want to get on the train, then the station doesn’t need to be as big. As such, only six of the eleven platforms from the original designs are actually going to be built. Truly exceptional logic, right there.

    Well the North has roads, doesn’t it?

    But what, you might ask, about the North? After all, HS2 was previously at the forefront of the government’s grand scheme to ‘level up’ the economy by providing better infrastructure to the North.

    HS2’s costs had almost trebled to more than an estimated £100bn from £37.5bn in 2013. That was even before taking into account recent ballooning inflation, making it one of the world’s most expensive lines. Then, back in 2021, faced with mounting costs, the government pulled the plug on the northernmost route linking Birmingham to Leeds.

    Well never fear – Sunak also announced the diversion funds for the improvement of existing transport routes up North. The government plans to spend the £36bn saved by scrapping the Manchester leg of HS2 on improving current road, bus, and rail networks.

    The PM stated:

    I am cancelling the rest of the HS2 project and in its place, we will reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands, across the country.

    Much as with the Northern sections of HS2 itself, I shall believe it when I see it.

    ‘How little he really cares’

    The Northern leg’s cancellation might just have come as cold comfort from an environmental perspective. After all, a 2020 Wildlife Trusts report showed that the line’s full route would partially or completely eliminate:

    • 108 ancient woodlands.
    • Five wildlife refuges of international importance.
    • 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
    • 21 local nature reserves.

    But wait right there. The PM also announced that his government would perform major upgrades on key motorways such as the M6, serving central and Northern England.

    Greenpeace UK’s head of politics, Rebecca Newsom, highlighted that Sunak’s decision:

    to divert the money into over 70 road schemes shows how little he really cares about tackling air pollution, traffic and cutting carbon emissions.

    While investment in Midlands and Northern rail may provide better value for money, the full £36 billion… should have been redirected to public transport to truly help level up the UK, protect children’s lungs, and help cut household costs.

    Money would be spent also on faster train journeys between Manchester and other northern cities, including Bradford, Hull and Sheffield under a scheme named ‘Network North’.

    First train out of here

    So there you have it. Far from ‘levelling up’ the North, HS2 has become a lengthy debacle which fizzled out into a fast-track between Birmingham and London. As usual, money is promised to everywhere outside the capital – but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting, if I were you.

    It’s almost fitting that Britain’s only completed high-speed line is the Eurostar, bearing passengers out of London and into France. European companies own most of the UK’s rail lines anyway – it makes sense that the real money is on getting out of the country as fast as is humanly possible.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    Featured image via Youtube/StopHS2

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • London Underground workers suspend planned strikes – but rail stoppages will go ahead

    On Tuesday 3 October, workers on the London Underground suspended their latest round of strike action over pay and conditions after a breakthrough in talks.

    Tube staff had been due to walk out on Wednesday 4 and Friday 5 October. This threatened to disrupt travel for millions of passengers, as the industrial action would have coincided with similar stoppages on the rail network – which are still set to go ahead.

    London Underground breakthrough

    The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said the strike by 3,000 of its members had been suspended after “significant progress” in negotiations with bosses. Talks to resolve the long-running dispute have been taking place between RMT negotiators and London Underground Limited (LUL) representatives, with the help of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service service (Acas).

    RMT announced in a press release that it:

    has managed to save key jobs, prevent detrimental changes to rosters and secure protection of earnings around grading changes.

    The significant progress means that key elements have been settled although there remains wider negotiations to be had in the job, pensions and working agreements dispute.

    ‘Unity and industrial power’

    Unions across the country have held frequent strike action since last year to push for better pay and conditions. On 3 October alone, there were strikes by bus drivers, hospital doctors and radiographers, train drivers, and refuse collectors.

    The Conservative government, which is holding its annual conference this week, has insisted that union demands are unaffordable. However, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch hailed London Underground workers’ victory as a vindication of the power of unity and industrial action.

    Lynch stated that:
    I congratulate all our members who were prepared to take strike action and our negotiations team for securing this victory in our tube dispute.
    Without the unity and industrial power of our members, there is no way we would have been able to make the progress we have.

    Despite the recent breakthrough, the threat of further action still hangs over the heads of LUL bosses. The RMT remains in pursuit of a settlement, with disputes over pensions and working agreements still ongoing.

    Likewise, UK rail passengers will still face disruption this week. Wednesday 4 October’s rail strike is going ahead, with no trains running on most routes in England. This will mark the 14th day of action from Aslef – the train drivers union – since June 2022, and coincides with the final day of the Tory Party conference.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse. 

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Steve Eason, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Biden becomes first sitting US president to join a picket line – contrasting strike-shy Starmer in the UK

    On 26 September, Joe Biden became the first sitting US president to stand on a picket line. He joined striking auto workers in Michigan in a pitch for working-class votes against likely election rival Donald Trump.

    Meanwhile, back in the UK, commenters are drawing contrasts between the US president’s pro-union stance and the lukewarm attitude of Labour’s Kier Starmer.

    ‘Step up for us’

    Wearing a United Auto Workers (UAW) union baseball cap, the Democrat used a bullhorn to tell employees they deserved:

    a hell of a lot more than what you’re getting.

    Biden urged automakers Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis to “step up for us”. He then shook hands with union workers, and agreed when asked if employees should get a 40% pay increase.

    His visit came a day before ex-president Donald Trump visited Michigan, the historic heart of the US car industry and a key battleground for the 2024 election campaign.

    On 24 September, an ABC News-Washington Post poll showed Trump beating Biden 52% to 42% in a head-to-head match-up. Whilst other polls have put them roughly even, Biden’s approval ratings remain low. This is particularly true on the economy, where high prices are blotting out favourable employment rates.

    The war for workers

    The autoworkers strike has increasingly become a political football for Biden and Trump as they head for a probable rematch next year. Biden’s trip was designed to trumpet his pro-union credentials. He’s aiming to counter growing concerns about his poll ratings, his age, and his struggles to get his economic message across. The president’s trip also went down well with unions, whose support was crucial when he beat Trump in 2020.

    Trump, meanwhile, is hoping to claw back working-class voters, who originally helped install him in the White House. However, Trump himself is far from an ally of the unions. In fact, the car parts plant he visited on the other side of Detroit on 27 September was non-union.

    A UAW source said:

    We would not consider that standing in solidarity if you are going to a non-union shop while a strike is going on.

    Instead, Trump has focused on attacking what he called Biden’s “draconian” push to fund a shift to more environmentally friendly electric vehicles. He claimed that the green policy is pushing jobs to China. Conversely, Biden says his push on electric vehicles is part of a plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and lead a global race to develop green technology.

    Starmer, take notes

    Meanwhile, back in the UK, the irony of a US president joining a picket whilst the leader of the UK Labour party can barely say a kind word on the subject of strikes hasn’t been missed.

    The Big Issue ran with the emphatic headline:

    Labour’s Keir Starmer should take inspiration from Joe Biden on strikes and picket lines

    Meanwhile, the Independant asked:

    Is Joe Biden the best Labour leader the party never had?

    Back in 2022, Starmer caught flak for refusing to back the nursing strikes. He also caused outrage in his own back benches last December by ordering MPs not to join pickets. More recently, Trades Union Congress president Matt Wrack threatened that strikes would continue if a potential Starmer government provides “austerity wearing a different colour rosette”.

    The Labour leader has gone so far as to promise that he would repeal the Tories’ anti-strike Minimum Service Levels law. If only it wasn’t too much to ask that he also clear the incredibly low bar of solidarity set by the traditionally union-shy Democratic president.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Flikr/, resized to 770*403.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Braverman sinks to a new low – attacking the 1951 Refugee Convention

    On 26 September, home secretary Suella Braverman gave a hate-fuelled tirade on the subject of asylum seekers as part of a keynote speech in Washington. In it, she stated that the United Nations Refugee Convention was not “fit for our modern age”.

    The address, which took place at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, was billed as intending to lay out an international plan to deal with the refugee crisis. However, Braverman’s answer appears to boil down to simply redefining what a refugee is.

    Braverman: ‘A completely different time’

    The 1951 Refugee Convention legally defines the term “refugee” and outlines their rights. Braverman called it “an incredible achievement of its age”. However, she went on to cite a deeply questionable study stating that the convention now gives at least 780 million people the potential right to move to another country.

    She said that it is:

    incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the Refugee Convention, and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit for our modern age or in need of reform.

    Regarding this perceived lack of reform, she stated that:

    The first [reason] is simply that it is very hard to renegotiate these instruments. The second is much more cynical. The fear of being branded a racist or illiberal. Any attempt to reform the refugee convention will see you smeared as anti-refugee

    ‘Very real danger’

    She also added that Western countries will not be able to sustain an asylum system:

    if in effect simply being gay, or a woman, or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.

    We are living in a new world bound by outdated legal models. It’s time we acknowledge that.

    The problem being, of course, that fearing discrimination should be sufficient grounds to qualify for protection. In a world with any measure of human decency, nobody should have been able to question that simple maxim without choking on their words. Unfortunately, I’m given to doubt that Braverman and her cronies have a shred of human decency to share between them.

    In a statement as part of his role at the AIDS Foundation, musician Elton John said he was “very concerned” about Braverman’s comments. He highlighted the fact that “simply being gay”, as the home secretary put it, was clearly cause to be fearful:

    Nearly a third of all nations class LGBTQ+ people as criminals and homosexuality is still punishable by death in 11 countries.

    Dismissing the very real danger LGBTQ+ communities face risks further legitimizing hate and violence against them.

    Colonialism and the refugee crisis

    Of course, this isn’t even to mention the UK’s role in the criminalisation of homosexuality in these countries. As the Migrant Rights Network put it:

    Sadly, out of the 69 countries where homosexuality is criminalised today, 36 of them are former British colonies. Many commonwealth African nations, for instance, still hold onto the colonial-era legislation and attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community.

    Likewise, another key and growing driver of refugee movement is the ever-worsening climate crisis. The non-profit Climate Refugees stated that:

    Recent trends indicate more internal displacement due to climate-related disasters than conflict, where in fact, of the 30.6 million people displaced across 135 countries in 2017, 60 percent were as a direct result of disasters.

    And, in turn, those climate disasters are driven by the Global North and its energy colonialism. As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland documented:

    industrialised colonial nations have belched out the bulk of emissions that have fueled climate warming. However, the impacts of super-charged extreme weather have disproportionately hit the less industrialised nations least responsible.

    But far from acknowledging the dire issue of the refugee crisis – let alone taking ownership of the role that the UK and the rest of the Global North played in it – Braverman has an entirely different solution. She’s looking away.

    The solution? Ignore the problem

    Braverman has previously criticised the European Convention on Human Rights for blocking the Tory government’s Rwanda scheme. Hitting back, the non-profit Refugee Council said that – rather than taking aim at the UN convention – the UK should be:

    addressing the real issues in the asylum system, such as the record backlog, and providing safe routes for those in need of protection.

    Similarly, Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, accused Braverman of having “given up on fixing the Tories’ asylum chaos” and “looking for anyone else to blame”.

    This attitude typifies Tory responses to social issues across the board. Rather than working to find a solution, they change definitions in order to sweep a problem under the rug. From plans to redefine child poverty, to changing targets for cancer care in order to reduce damning figures, to funneling foreign aid into investment portfolios, the Conservatives are no stranger to moving goalposts.

    So, simply defining a refugee more narrowly as someone immediately at risk of violence or death is barely even a stretch.

    Everyday cruelty

    The Guardian went as far as reporting that:

    Asked after the speech whether the UK would consider leaving the convention if changes were not delivered, Braverman said the government would do “whatever is required” to tackle the issue of migrants arriving via unauthorised routes.

    To state this simply, the home secretary appears to prefer that the UK removes itself entirely from the Refugee Convention, rather than facing up to the fact that refugees are human beings in need of help.

    Truly, I wish I could say that I was shocked – or even surprised. Unfortunately at this point, Braverman is beyond the point where her naked cruelty is anything more than an everyday occurrence.

    Featured image via the Guardian/screengrab

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Water companies ordered by regulator Ofwat to cut bills due to poor performance

    On 26 September, Ofwat – the water services regulation authority – ordered water companies in England and Wales to return a combined £114m to customers for failing to meet performance targets.

    Companies fell short in terms of basics like customer satisfaction, pollution, and improving infrastructure. The regulator’s decision also comes amid a long-running scandal over privatised water firms pumping raw sewage into waterways.

    Ofwat: water firms fall short

    Ofwat usually ranks water providers as ‘leading’, ‘average’, or ‘lagging’. However, this year no company achieved a place in the leading category. 
    Of the 17 firms in England and Wales, seven fell into the bottom rank. These were Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Dŵr Cymru, Southern Water, Bristol Water and South East Water. The list of companies ordered to give money back to customers is longer still: 
    • Affinity Water
    • Anglian Water
    • Dŵr Cymru
    • Hafren Dyfrdwy
    • Northumbrian Water
    • SES Water
    • South East Water
    • South West Water
    • Southern Water
    • Thames Water
    • Yorkshire Water
    Thames Water, in particular, was ordered to return the highest amount at £101m. This is despite having recently secured a £750m cash injection from shareholders, allowing it to narrowly dodge renationalisation. Other firms will still be allowed to put their prices up next year. 
    Ofwat chief executive David Black said in a statement:

    The targets we set for companies were designed to be stretching – to drive improvements for customers and the environment.

    However, our latest report shows they are falling short, leading to £114 million being returned to customers through bill reductions.

    While that may be welcome to billpayers, it is very disappointing news for all who want to see the sector do better.

    Government oversight?

    The government announced back in July that any company and individual polluting rivers and other ecosystems would be liable for unlimited fines.

    Regarding Ofwat’s findings, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey said:

    Today’s Ofwat report is extremely disappointing… The fact that not a single water company is classified as ‘leading’ is unacceptable.

    We have written to the CEOs of every water company in the lowest category of today’s report and my ministerial team and I will meet them in person to scrutinise their improvement plans.

    She went on to add that:

    billpayers should know we require the worst performers to return money directly to customers through their bills.

    However, at odds with Coffey’s ‘scrutiny’, the Tories themselves have a distinct track record of spending public money on waterway pollution measures. Back in April, the environment secretary announced that public money would be used to fix the sewage-dumping mess caused by these very same privatised water companies.

    Likewise, less than a month ago the government announced plans to strip back waterway protections for housing construction. This would also land the taxpayer with the bill to double investment to £280m, simply to counter the additional discharge from the new homes.

    Small comforts

    As such, Coffey’s promise of oversight and reduced bills rings somewhat hollow. Both water companies and the government have demonstrated their willingness to use public money to plug holes in privatised infrastructure.

    So, while some customers might see a reduction in their bills, it’ll be little comfort if their money is still being used to fix the water companies’ problems through taxes rather than direct payments. Either way, England and Wales still lose out every day whilst their water is in private hands.

    Featured image via Wikipedia/Ofwat, resized to 1910*1000, liscensed for the public domain. 

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Writers Guild hails “exceptional” deal in Hollywood strike – but the end is still far off

    On 24 August, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) – whose industrial action has forced Hollywood to months-long halt – announced that it had reached an “exceptional” deal with studios.

    Thousands of film and television writers downed their pens in early May as part of the industrial action. Their demands included better pay for writers, greater rewards for creating hit shows, and protection from artificial intelligence.

    The writers have manned picket lines for months outside offices including Netflix and Disney. Striking actors joined them in mid-July as part of a united show of force.

    Negotiations between studios and writers had been moribund for weeks. However, a new sense of urgency appeared to have been injected into the process in the last few days. In fact, the heads of Netflix, Disney, Universal and Warner Bros Discovery personally attended the talks.

    The apparent breakthrough has also raised hopes that striking actors can also reach terms with studios, but no movement has yet been made in this regard.

    Writers Guild: ‘Tentative agreement’

    A letter from the WGA to its members stated:

    We have reached a tentative agreement on a new 2023 (minimum basic agreement), which is to say an agreement in principle on all deal points, subject to drafting final contract language.

    We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional – with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership.

    Of course, the final say on whether to accept the offer still rests with the membership. The WGA agreement will need to be ratified first by the WGA board, then by its 11,500 members. It is widely expected to be waved through without any obstacles in the coming weeks.

    The Writers Guild added that:

    To be clear, no one is to return to work until specifically authorized to by the Guild. We are still on strike until then. But we are, as of today, suspending WGA picketing.

    A terse joint statement from the WGA and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTPT,) the umbrella group representing studios and streamers, confirmed an agreement.

    Solidarity from the Actors Guild

    At 146 days, the WGA strike is already significantly longer than the writers’ 2007-08 walkout. The previous action lasted 100 days, and cost the California economy $2.1 billion. For comparison, the Financial Times reported Milken Institute research at the start of September that put the cost of the current Hollywood standstill at $5 billion.

    The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) congratulated the WGA. In particular, it praised the writers’:

    incredible strength, resiliency and solidarity on the picket lines.

    The Actors Guild went on to say:

    While we look forward to reviewing the WGA and AMPTP’s tentative agreement, we remain committed to achieving the necessary terms for our members.

    Even if the writers’ deal is finalized, the actors’ strike would continue. There have been no known contract talks between the studios and SAG-AFTRA since that strike began. However, insiders have stated that a WGA deal could help to pave the way for a resolution to the actors’ strike.

    The WGA’s deal with studios achieved compromises on minimum wage increases, bonus payments for writers participating in hit shows, and guarantees that scripts using AI will not undercut human writers and their paychecks. Many of these issues overlap with the actors’ demands.

    The actors’ strike is still likely to take weeks to resolve. In turn, this will prevent any return to production in the immediate future. Even after that, with hundreds of film and television shoots backed up, it could take months for Hollywood to clear the logistical logjam and get fully back to work.

    ‘Huge roadblock’

    As entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel explained:

    There are presumably upwards of 1,500 productions that all want to start as soon as they can.

    And so when SAG gives the word, they’re all going to be competing simultaneously… it’s absolute chaos.

    I don’t think we’re going to see normalcy in the production process until sometime after January or February.

    Handel also warned that many of SAG-AFTRA’s demands go further than those of the writers. These include steeper pay rises to counter rampant inflation, and an actual share of revenue for hit streaming shows.

    Studios will be wary that whatever they offer to actors is likely to be demanded by other Hollywood professions. This includes movie set crews and technicians, who have their own contract renewals due next year.

    SAG-AFTRA also has its own specific demands, such as restrictions on the use of remote, self-taped auditions. These became ubiquitous earlier in the pandemic, but are disliked by many actors.

    ‘Fool’s assumption’

    The WGA deal means SAG-AFTRA negotiators could meet with unions as soon as next week. This would be the first time since the actors went on strike in July.

    Handel warned that even:

    if things go smoothly – which is a fool’s assumption – I still think it would take two to three weeks to get a SAG deal done… which takes you into October.

    Then there’s the ratification process, which takes another month.

    That means the clock is ticking for actors to be able to promote big year-end movie releases. Publicists are also desperate for their stars to start campaigning for industry events like the Emmy Awards and Oscars, which take place in January and March respectively.

    Meanwhile, film and TV workers in the UK will be waiting on the strike’s resolution with baited breath. Due to the knock-on effects of Hollywood on global film-making, recent research revealed that three quarters of freelance UK workers in the industry are currently out of a job.

    Featured image via /Wikimedia Commons/Fabebk, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, resized to 1910*1000.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New research sheds light on increase in early deaths due to cost-of-living crisis

    The UK’s inflation-fuelled cost-of-living crisis is set to “cut lives short” and “significantly widen the wealth-health gap”. That’s according to a study published by the BMJ Public Health journal on 25 September.

    Modelling conducted for the study predicted that the proportion of people “dying before their time” (under the age of 75) will rise by nearly 6.5% due to the sustained period of high prices. UK inflation unexpectedly slowed in August to 6.7% from a high of 11.1%, but remains the highest in the G7.

    Cost of living: hitting the poorest hardest

    Inevitably, the study forecast that the most deprived households will experience four times the number of extra deaths compared to the wealthiest households. The poorest will also have to spend a larger proportion of their income on energy.

    The researchers studied the impact of inflation on death rates in Scotland in 2022-3. They then added analysis with and without cost-of-living mitigation measures such as government support to help cut household bills. The collected data was used to model various potential future outcomes on life expectancy and inequalities for the UK as a whole.

    Without any mitigation measures, the model found that inflation could increase deaths by 5% in the least-deprived areas. That number shot up to 23% for the most deprived. However, it dropped to 2% and 8% respectively with mitigation.

    The overall average was around 6.5%. Life expectancy would also fall in each case.

    ‘Insufficient’ public policies

    The researchers said:

    The mortality impacts of inflation and real-terms income reduction are likely to be large and negative, with marked inequalities in how these are experienced.

    They also added that:

    Implemented public policy responses are not sufficient to protect health and prevent widening inequalities.

    The BMJ Public Health study echoed findings from earlier in 2023 from the Resolution Foundation regarding the disproportionate impact on lower earners. It found that 65% of the poorest fifth of people were left with no savings at all. This was because they spent more on everyday costs such as food and housing than higher earners.

    Those who were reliant on government support were the most affected, as successive Tory governments have repeatedly cut benefit rates in real terms. Likewise, polling commissioned by the BBC found that 32% of social housing tenants had fallen behind with utility bills in the previous six months during the cost of living crisis.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • London-based visual effects giant DNEG threatens employees with 25% pay cut – or a company loan

    As the Canary recently reported, the US writers and actors strike has had massive knock-on effects for UK film and television workers. According to research from the media and entertainment union Bectu, three quarters of British freelancers in the industry are currently out of work.

    Meanwhile, one London-based international visual effects (VFX) company – DNEG (formerly Double Negative) – is attempting to inflict 25% pay cuts on its employees. But that’s not even the worst of it.

    Company loan scheme

    DNEG is the largest employer in the VFX industry. It describes itself as:

    one of the world’s leading visual effects and animation studios for feature film and television. We have over 20 years of industry experience and we are honoured to have won seven Academy Awards® for ‘Best VFX’ in recent years.

    Some of the company’s more well-known recent works include Dune, Oppenheimer, Tenet, and Blade Runner 2049. However, despite its success and plethora of awards, DNEG is pleading poverty with its employees. On September 15, Deadline reported that the VFX company was asking 10,000 of its workers to accept a massive pay cut of 20-25% for the next seven months.

    However, for those who can’t afford the financial hit, DNEG is proposing that they take an even larger immediate cut, mitigated by joining a company loan scheme. Deadline said:

    One source gave an example of taking a pay cut of 50% before being immediately loaned back 40%, payable with no interest over the longer 36-month period.

    Both the cut and the loan would average out to a similar loss of wages, though over very different timescales. And, of course, the loan option would saddle the worker with dept to their own employer.

    Workers’ backlash

    In a statement to Deadline, DNEG asserted that:

    we are continuously and proactively reviewing all areas of our business to ensure that we can continue to deliver the highest quality work while protecting as many of our employees’ positions as possible. In order to do that, we’ve asked all employees and team members, including the most senior executives and creative leaders, to assume short-term pay cuts that will enable us to maintain the maximum number of jobs through this period.

    Understandably, the company’s employees were furious. They described DNEG as “exploiting workers” and “pushing all the weight and risk onto the employee”.

    Bectu held an emergency meeting about the situation on the night of 18 September. In a statement to the Canary, union head Philippa Childs said:

    We recognise this is an incredibly challenging time for the UK’s film and TV industry and businesses are having to make difficult decisions. However, workers should not disproportionately bear the brunt of these and it’s critical that employers commit to being transparent and maintaining open dialogue with their workforce. We encourage DNEG to engage with us to ensure that their employees’ concerns are heard.

    Many film and TV workers are already facing huge financial difficulties and this will be a very worrying time for anyone working at DNEG. Being part of a union is one of the best ways to ensure you have a collective voice at work. We encourage VFX workers in the UK to join and get active in Bectu to help bring about change.

    DNEG responds

    DNEG was clearly rattled by the intense backlash from both its workers and the entertainment media. On 18 September, it provided a statement to Cartoon Brew on its latest offer. Unbelievably, this still included the same loan scheme.

    With the new offer in place, DNEG expects a decision from all of its employees by 29 September. The reductions would then take effect immediately on 1 October. However, even if every employee accepts, the company has still failed to rule out redundancies.

    Cartoon Brew reported that employees could now:

    • Take a salary reduction of 20-25% for seven months, based on a sliding scale. Higher-earning employees would take a higher percentage cut. This option also includes 30 days of paid leave over three years to compensate for the salary reduction.
    • Opt for a temporary 50% salary reduction, with a three-year company loan that would put the worker at 90% of their previous salary. This option also includes 30 days paid leave.
    • Reduce their hours to a three-day week for seven months, with no deduction of their hourly rate.

    Ultimatum

    The new addition of a possible reduced working week was previously unpopular with DNEG bosses. They claimed that it:

    would not be sustainable for the crew from a financial and productivity standpoint.

    The inclusion of “productivity” here exemplifies the attitude that DNEG has taken throughout this whole mess. A loss of productivity would impact the company’s bottom line – which can never be allowed to happen.

    Massively cutting wages but retaining staff is not a benevolent action, and it is not motivated by a desire to protect employees’ jobs. This was amply demonstrated back in July 2023, when the company laid off dozens of its London workforce despite a 33% increase in revenue the previous year.

    Instead, wage cuts mean that the company’s output remains the same whilst spending less and less. Meanwhile, the employee is left to suffer – a convenient human shield between the US strikes and DNEG’s bank balance.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/DNEG Animation, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • As the US writers and actors’ strike continues, three quarters of UK film and TV workers are out of a job

    In mid-July, American actors joined the Writers Guild of America (WGA) on the picket line in the first industry-wide walkout for 63 years. This effectively brought the US film and TV business to a standstill. However, the Screen Actors Guild’s (SAG-AFTRA) industrial action is also having a massive knock-on effect on British industry workers.

    In the US, there’s no end to the joint strike in sight. Hollywood’s major studios and streamers have made no contract overtures to the striking actors since they walked off the job in July. That’s according to the performers’ chief negotiator, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, who negotiates on behalf of the 160,000 actors who belong to SAG-AFTRA.

    Meanwhile, back in the UK, Bectu (the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union) has surveyed almost 4000 freelance film and TV workers. This included ‘behind-the-scenes’ crew such as stylists, background artists, and camera operators. The results of the research outline the stark effects the US strike action has had on their livelihoods.

    Film and TV workers in jeopardy

    All told, three quarters of the freelancers surveyed were out of work at the time. This is highly significant in an industry that relies heavily on temporary contracts and intermittent workers, who will often work on a single production at a time. This is then followed by indefinite periods with no money coming in before the next job starts up.

    Worries about financial security affected 9 in 10 of the survey respondents. 8 in 10 said the US strikes had a direct impact on their employment. 6 in 10 also reported that their work issues were impacting their mental health.

    One respondent lamented:

    I lost my job while pregnant and I don’t qualify for maternity pay either. The loss of my job has put great stress and anxiety on my first pregnancy. I am so disheartened by the industry and how disposable we are to productions. We have not heard anything from the production since our last day of work in July.

    Among other results, the Bectu survey also found that:

    • 35% of respondents are struggling with household bills.
    • Almost 25% couldn’t see themselves remaining in the industry for five years.
    • 15% had taken on debt in order to pay bills.
    • 10% were forced to consider moving back in with family.

    ‘Falling through the cracks’

    To make matters worse, many of the freelancers the UK film and TV industry relies on were only just starting to recover from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Like other PAYE freelancers or newly self-employed workers, many of them were not eligible for furlough payments.

    Similarly, the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme was based on income from the year 2018-2019. This was a massive disadvantage for film and TV workers, whose intermittent employment meant that their income from one year alone wasn’t representative of their average situation.

    Head of Bectu Philippa Childs said:

    This is a workforce that has already faced incredible hardship throughout and following the pandemic, and has now been hit by a second crisis in just a few years. Many of our members have been laid off from productions under ‘force majeure’ clauses with little notice or pay, and with 6 in 10 respondents telling us they are struggling with their mental health, it’s clear the impact also extends beyond financial insecurity.

    As one survey respondent echoed these sentiments. They said:

    After being one of the forgotten many who fell through the cracks during the pandemic and received absolutely no financial support from the government, to now be in an even worse financial position is mind blowing and infuriating. I’ve spent so long surviving instead of thriving, and I’m tired.

    Solidarity with the US strike

    Despite the effects on her industry, Childs nevertheless offered solidarity to her striking US counterparts. She stated that:

    This is a fight with many of the same employers who frequently undervalue crew in the UK, and therefore our solidarity with US actors and writers is important for raising standards domestically and globally. However, there is no getting around the very real and devastating impact on UK workers.

    Instead, the union leader focused her ire where it belonged, highlighting the bosses’ abdication of their responsibility towards the workers, and the complete lack of government support for an industry it supposedly cherishes. She closed by saying:

    The government is vocal about the huge cultural and economic value of the creative industries; it must put its money where its mouth is and look after those who work in the sector. Likewise urgent industry collaboration and commitment from employers to support the freelance workforce is critical if we want to UK to remain a cultural hub.

    The film and TV industries across the world are international by their very nature. It’s little wonder that the strikes in America have had such a profound effect on the UK. However, given no recourse by an uncaring industry, British workers are now left hoping for a swift resolution to the Hollywood disputes – for everyone’s sake.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/NickErizo, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, resized to 1910*1000.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • The Trades Union Congress is reporting the Tories to the UN over new strike law

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has announced that it’s reporting the government to the United Nations workers’ rights watchdog over the “unworkable” new law on strikes.

    TUC: coming out swinging

    The Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act requires minimum levels of service during walkouts by various workers. These include healthcare staff, firefighters, and railway employees. The Tory government imposed the Strikes Act in late July following months of industrial action across the UK, amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

    In a 10 September press release, the TUC stated that it was lodging the case with the International Labour Organization (ILO) because the legislation “falls far short” of international legal standards. The TUC – an umbrella group of 48 unions comprising more than 5.5 million members – is currently holding its annual conference in Liverpool.

    A government spokesperson said:

    We believe there needs to be a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike with the rights of the public, who work hard and expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them.

    However, TUC general secretary Paul Nowak came out swinging against this line of argument. On 11 September, he told the congress that:

    The right to strike is fundamental. Without the right to withdraw our labour, workers become disposable, replaceable and exploitable.

    This new law isn’t about preserving services for the public. It’s about telling us to get back in our place and to not demand better.

    Strikes Act: ‘a fundamental attack’

    The government also attempted to draw comparisons between the Strikes Act and similar laws in wider Europe. However, European Trade Union Confederation general secretary Esther Lynch said:

    The Strikes Act is a fundamental attack on the right to strike and will make the UK an international outlier on trade union rights and labour standards…

     Let me by crystal clear. It is already harder for working people in the UK to take strike action than in any other Western European country.

     Now your government wants to restrict the right to strike even further.

    In July, trade unions won a High Court battle with the government over law changes they said allowed agencies to supply employers with workers to plug gaps left by striking staff. Now, they seek to repeat that success on a larger scale, undermining the Strikes Act itself.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/John Wood, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • New report exposes high number of anonymous UK property owners

    Over two-thirds of properties in the UK held by overseas shell companies still do not publish information about the identity of their owners. That’s according to new research from the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Warwick (UoW), and the Centre for Public Data (CPD). The damning research came just one day before parliament refused to close gaps in the law allowing these anonymous property owners to flourish.

    Anonymous property owners

    The report found that law enforcement agencies didn’t even know the true identities of 35% of the owners. Anna Powell-Smith, director of the Centre for Public Data, stated that:

    We still don’t know who really owns tens of thousands of properties in the UK. The government should act to close these loopholes.

    The report said the identity of property owners was hidden for 109,000 out of 152,000 properties held via overseas companies. That’s around 70%. The main reason for “missing or inaccessible information” was the use of trusts. These accounted for 63% of the overall figure. In 25% of cases (39,000 properties), essential information wasn’t reported.

    The register of owners of UK companies itself is known as the People with Significant Control (PSC) register. The report also highlighted how shortcomings in the PSC could allow corrupt practices. At present, nominees and trustees owning shares are not required to tell UK authorities who they are acting for.

    ‘Self-inflicted’ problems

    César Poux, research officer at LSE’s International Inequalities Institute, stated that:

    The striking thing is that most of the problems with the register are self-inflicted.

    There certainly is some rule-breaking, but most of the problems are because the legislation is flawed.

    The government has previously committed itself to cracking down on the anonymous ownership of UK property. To this end, it created the Register of Overseas Entities (ROE). However, the report found that for 15,000 properties (10%) the company was absent from the ROE altogether.

    On 4 September, parliament debated amendments to the Economic Crime Bill aimed at closing some of the loopholes. In the Commons debate, ex-justice secretary Robert Buckland supported the amendments, stating:

    We do not want to be a jurisdiction where it is too easy to commit fraud that benefits corporates.

    Where there is a criminal legal framework that is clear, certain and stable, that can only encourage investment into the United Kingdom.

    However, MPs struck down several key amendments to the Bill. The proposed changes would have placed the onus on all companies to prevent fraud, rather than law enforcement. The previous rules only applied to large businesses, leaving small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) off the hook. Crucially, excluding SMEs means that the law applies to just 0.5% of businesses. MPs also voted against improving the transparency of company and property ownership.

    ‘Burdens on business’

    Business minister Kevin Hollinrake argued that the amendments would:

    pose significant and disproportionate burdens on business.

    And there we have it: ensuring that they are not committing property fraud is an undue burden for business.

    The Bill itself will continue on through parliament. However, with MPs who take a distinctly lax attitude toward transparency and money laundering at the helm, anonymous overseas property ownership looks set to remain in the UK for quite some time.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/TobiasSchumann(WMDE), licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Braverman’s new review is blatantly trying to manipulate the narrative around police prejudice

    On 2 September, home secretary Suella Braverman commissioned a review into “activism and impartiality in the police”. However, if you were at all worried that this means the government will take the culture of far-right extremism in the police seriously, you can rest easy.

    Hell, she’s not even talking about issues like homophobia and racism in the force. Quite the opposite, in fact. Braverman specifically listed critical race theory, gender identity politics, and even climate activism as areas where the police need to appear more impartial. Of course, she also put scare quotes around “gender identity”.

    Anyone remember Casey?

    Not that anybody needs reminding, but the Casey Review of the Met came out in March 2023. It followed the abduction, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer. Casey found the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. She also stated, unambiguously, that:

    The Met can now no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them.

    But what has Braverman, in her infinite wisdom, decided is the problem with our police? Not the cultures of “blindness, arrogance and prejudice” cited by Casey, no. Rather, the home secretary clearly thinks the police are losing public faith because some of them take the knee or use trans people’s pronouns.

    In her letter to HMCI Andy Cooke, Braverman stated her expectation that the police should focus on crime, rather than involving themselves in political matters. So, she commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to review police involvement in such activities, and how this affects the legitimacy of policing in England and Wales.

    Maintaining ‘neutrality’

    In particular, Braverman pointed to cases where she felt like public confidence had been damaged by police engaging in contentious issues. Specifically, she mentioned policing “gender critical” views on social media, and participation in social campaigns.

    The HMICFRS review will cover:

    • Policies and processes that go beyond Equality Act 2010 obligations.
    • The neutrality of training on such policies and processes, and the organisations delivering it.
    • The selection and expressions of groups consulted on revisions to policy, and “what “consideration is given to other groups that may be impacted as a result”.
    • The involvement of staff networks in policy development, and these networks’ involvement in “contested political matters”.
    • The communication of these issues with the public.

    The home secretary expects the report by March 2024. Coincidentally, this is exactly one year after the Casey report was published. I’m not sure exactly what Braverman is expecting to happen here – there hasn’t been some great reversal in police prejudice over the last twelve months. We can’t be expected to believe that, actually, police are now too friendly towards black and queer causes, surely.

    Braverman: virtue signalling

    However, that’s not Braverman’s motivation here either, is it? For all that her letter hand-wrings about accusations of virtue-signaling in the police, she’s doing some signaling of her own. She wrote:

    The British people expect their police to focus on cutting crime and protecting communities – political activism does not keep people safe, solve crimes or support victims, but can damage public confidence.

    The review I’ve commissioned will explore whether the police getting involved in politically contentious matters is having a detrimental impact on policing.

    There is a very specific facet of the public whose confidence in the police is damaged when an officer dances at a Pride parade or kneels as a symbolic gesture against racism (ignoring, for a moment, the people who are annoyed at police making these gestures because they’re two-faced snakes in the grass). It is the same facet who are not opposed to racism and who are angered by those Pride parades.

    Braverman is signaling, and quite unsubtly at that, to these members of the public that she is on their side. As ever, the cries for neutrality aren’t neutral – they’re for the side of the status quo; that is, prejudice.

    A world of her own

    Beyond this, Braverman’s letter points to a larger problem with our government. It will commission endless reports and reviews in a vain attempt to prove that the world acts precisely as the Tories want it to. When the reports come back stating that the public have lost confidence in the police because of their racism and misogyny, well, the government knows just what to do. We’ll have another report, asking ‘Are the police too woke?’

    This is a transparent attempt to manipulate the narrative around police failures. For a year, we’ll have breathless mainstream media reports on cops getting too friendly towards activists – and never mind the beatings. We’ll hear that, in order to maintain neutrality, the police must break away from organisations like Stonewall, and root out Black Lives Matter sympathisers. The cynic in me wants to say that it might even work.

    However, even I’m not sure that could happen this time. Braverman is living in a world of her own if she thinks that we’ll just roll over and forget the prejudice and fascism in the force. She might persuade her supporters and client journalists, but there are too many people beyond them who have had enough this time. They will not be silenced so easily.

    Featured image via screengrab/Guardian

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Junior and senior doctors to strike together in England for the first time

    On 31 August, the British Medical Association (BMA) announced that junior and senior doctors in England will go on strike together for the first time in the history of the NHS. This makes a new escalation in the workers’ long-running dispute with the government over pay and working conditions.

    Junior doctors have already staged several days of strike action in recent months, and will walk out again in September. The BMA stated that they’ll strike on September 20-22, with one day coinciding with a strike by consultants. Then, junior doctors and consultants will also strike at the same time on October 2-4.

    98% of junior doctors voted in favour of continuing industrial action, with a 71% turnout. This has renewed the mandate through to 29 February 2024 – a further six months.

    ‘No further negotiations’ with BMA

    The Tory government has warned that there will be no further negotiations. They offered junior doctors a pay rise of just 6%, along with an additional consolidated increase of £1,250. Consultants also received an offer of 6%. This would do little to counter the fact that doctors’ take-home pay has been eroded over the last 15 years as salaries have failed to keep pace with inflation.

    Health secretary Steve Barclay urged the BMA “to call an end to this callous and calculated disruption”. He claimed that nearly 900,000 appointments have been cancelled due to strike action, adding:

    I fear the BMA’s hardline stance and threat of indefinite action means this number will only keep rising.

    However, the NHS professionals reminded Barclay that the government could end the strike at any time. As a representative of the junior doctors stated:

    We are prepared to continue with our industrial action, but we don’t have to – the prime minister has the power to halt any further action by making us a credible offer that we can put to our members.

    An untenable position

    Rob Laurenson and Vivek Trivedi, co-chairs of the BMA’s junior doctor committee, highlighted the fact that the NHS has already lost around £1bn due to strike action. This is roughly the same amount it would have cost to award the junior doctors their original demands.

    The two stressed that:

    There can be no more delaying, no more wasting time with impositions of pay deals, no more declarations that strikes must end before even stepping in the room with us.

    If he does not come to the table with a credible offer on pay, he will face another six months of strike action. And another six months after, and after that, if [Sunak] continues to ignore us.

    He knows the stakes, he knows our ask, and now he knows our resolve. The prime minister faces a profession united in its determination to address pay erosion.

    Echoing Laurenson and Trivedi’s emphasis on the doctors’ united front, chair of the BMA consultants committee Vishal Sharma added:

    Now, facing the prospect of six months’ more action, including days of both junior and consultant walkouts, surely the severity of the situation with doctors’ pay could not be clearer?

    Our message is simple: work with us, negotiate with us both and we can look forward not to months of more walkouts but instead to a bigger, better valued and more effective medical workforce fit for the future.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via British Medical Association

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tory proposals to scrap EU water pollution rules are not the answer to the housing crisis

    On 29 August, the Tory government tabled an amendment in the House of Lords that would strip back EU-era water pollution restrictions. Housing secretary Michael Gove proposed the change, stressing its necessity in order to boost housebuilding.

    However, given that private water companies are already heavily polluting our waterways, such proposals show a willful disregard for our embattled environment. Naturally, the move angered green campaigners.

    Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, asked:

    Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules? No one, and that should include our government.

    What’s more, the taxpayer is – of course – set to foot the bill for the environmental damage.

    Nutrient neutrality

    The ‘nutrient neutrality’ rules bar new developments from adding harmful nutrients to nearby waters. Under these laws, developers have to prove that their housing wouldn’t release nitrates or phosphates – often from sewage – into our rivers. The areas protected include Somerset, Norfolk, Teesside, Kent, Wiltshire, and the Solent.

    Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, stated that:

    The government has made repeated pledges that they won’t weaken environmental standards and committed just eight months ago to halve nutrient pollution by the end of the decade…

    This is another broken promise and makes clear that the prime minister would rather look after the interests of developers than the environment – money talks.

    A government spokesperson said:

    Over 100,000 homes held up due to defective EU laws will be unblocked between now and 2030, delivering an estimated £18 billion boost to the economy.

    They added that nutrients entering rivers “are a real problem”, but the contribution made by new homes is “very small”.

    Private profit, public problem

    However, that “very small” contribution is belied by the cost to fix it. The UK will have to double investment in its nutrient mitigation scheme to £280 million “to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge” from the new homes.

    Government ministers have already conceded that this cost would fall at the public’s feet. As such, the Tories are essentially removing regulations which protect the environment, enriching private companies and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.

    If all of this sounds a little familiar, it should. Back in April, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey likewise announced that public money would also be used to fix the sewage-dumping mess caused by privatised water companies. 

    The proposed changes to housing regulations come at a time of of increasing demand for houses but declining supply. The Home Builders Federation claimed earlier this year that housebuilding in the UK could fall to its lowest level since World War II. However, simply building new houses is far from a holistic solution.

    Housing in crisis

    Campaign group Action on Empty Homes reported that, earlier this year, over a million UK homes were standing empty. This figure included the 250,000 buildings that the government has declared empty for over 6 months.

    However, it also factored in 200,000 homes that the government didn’t count due to council tax exemptions. Add in 257,000 ‘furnished empty’ second homes, and 70,000 ‘second homes paying business rates as short-term lets, and the empties quickly pile up.

    The choice to enrich house-building firms – and the landlords who buy from them – also has an environmental cost in itself. As the Big Issue reported:

    building a new home has a carbon footprint of 80 tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to building five brand-new cars. But refurbishing an old house carried much less of a carbon footprint, equating to just eight tonnes in comparison.

    Building new homes is already a dicey prospect for the environment, even without removing pollution safeguards. The new proposals will create just 100,000 new homes, whilst endangering our waterways in the process. Considering that fact in the light of the hundreds of thousands of UK homes just standing empty quickly exposes the bogus nature of the government’s stated reasoning.

    However, the push to build new houses at ever-greater costs to the environment is perfectly in line with the motivations of a landlord class of politicians hellbent on private profit. And, as ever, the public will have to pick up the tab for the this pollution nightmare.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Philafrenzy, resized to 770*403,  licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • BMA Consultants begin two days of strikes in England – and announce further action to come

    On 24 August, British Medical Association (BMA) consultants in England began two more days of strikes, and announced further industrial action in October. They’re striking to force the government to fix their rate of pay and improve the retention of these highly trained NHS professionals.

    BMA consultants committee chair Dr Vishal Sharma said in a press release:

    No consultant wants to be striking and we head out to picket lines today with heavy hearts. We would much rather be inside the hospital seeing our patients. But we cannot sit by and watch passively as we are persistently devalued, undermined and forced to watch colleagues leave – much to the detriment of the NHS and patients.

    Plummeting take-home pay

    The strike started at 7am on 24 August. It’s set to end at the same time on Saturday 26 August. The next round of action will then take place on 19 and 20 September.

    What’s more, without significant progress on talks with the government, consultants will also strike 2-4 October. This would mark their longest period of industrial action so far.

    This outcome looks increasingly likely, given that it’s now been 150 days since the Health Secretary met with the consultants committee. For its part, the BMA announced these new dates so far in advance in order to allow their colleagues to prepare for the impact of the strikes.

    Since 2008/9, consultants’ take-hope pay has plummeted by more than a third. As such, the BMA committee is pressing the government for a “credible offer”. They want to see an end to the pay cuts, along with a commitment to reforming pay reviews into a truly independent  process.

    ‘An insult to consultants’

    However, the Government has instead chosen to add insult to injury. Last month, it imposed another real-terms pay cut with an uplift of just 6%. The BMA branded this below-inflation increase “an insult to consultants”.

    Dr Sharma raged that our government is “not serious about the NHS”:

    First the Prime Minister blamed COVID and now he attempts to scapegoat doctors for his failure to bring down waiting lists. The reality however is that we had record waiting lists before the pandemic and before any periods of industrial action, and they were due to the Government’s failure to properly invest in the NHS and its staff. The waiting lists can only be brought down by recruiting and retaining doctors. This starts with valuing them properly – not by subjecting them to further real-terms pay cuts, as the Government did last month.

    He went on to state that:

    Our message to the Prime Minister is that we are serious about protecting the consultant workforce and thereby the NHS and patients. We are striking today, and will do so again in September and October, but the Prime Minister has the power to avert any further action at all, by getting around the table and presenting us with a credible offer.

    As Government ministers gather in Manchester in the first week of October wouldn’t Mr Sunak rather be telling his colleagues and the public that he has resolved this dispute by offering consultants a deal that truly values the work we do, rather than apologising and making excuses for why he’s forced us out on strike once more?

    The consultants have made it abundantly clear that they’re prepared to take regular action. The Tories should be in no doubt that this dispute cannot be resolved without them coming to the table to negotiate seriously. What’s more, the strikes certainly won’t end without a credible pay offer.

    The BMA’s message is a simple one: “We will not be ignored”. Now, it remains to be seen if and when the government will take notice.

    Featured image via screengrab X/BMA Consultants

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Global warming predicted to cost Australia billions

    Global warming could cost Australia’s economy hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades if workplaces cannot adapt to soaring temperatures. That’s according to a new report from its own government. Working conditions will become so difficult in the already scorching continent that officials predict a drop in output of Aus$135-423bn.

    An ‘economic imperative’

    The forecast assumes global temperatures will increase by three to four degrees Celsius by 2063. Measures such as tree planting and changing how buildings are designed would only help sweltering workers “to some degree”, the report said.

    However, the estimate doesn’t include the cost to agriculture or tourism. Of course, fewer visitors could be expected to come due to natural disasters and the degradation of natural attractions.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated that:

    Dealing with climate change is a global environmental and economic imperative.

    He added that billions must be spent to meet the country’s net zero by 2050 target. This is needed to decarbonise heavy industries and build a clean energy economy. The minister also insisted the clean energy transition provided an opportunity to businesses and to a country replete with minerals needed to produce green energy technologies.

    Commenting on the report, Kathryn Bowen – professor of environment, climate and global health at the University of Melbourne – said measures aimed at helping people adapt to climate change needed to “rapidly accelerate”.

    A vicious cycle

    However, Australia is also one of the world’s largest producers of coal and gas. Coal is used to meet as much as 80% of the country’s energy requirements. As such, Australia is acting as a driving force of its own downfall.

    As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland has been documenting, many poorer countries in the Global South are experiencing vicious cycles of fossil fuel extraction. Sharland explained that:

    Without adequate funds from wealthy nations, the Global South is forced to turn to its fossil fuel reserves. The revenue from the exports of these reserves then finances the growing costs of climate impacts.

    Now, Australia’s relentless pursuit of coal and gas is having a similar effect on this far-more-affluent nation. The profit made from fossil fuel extraction is an illusion. In reality, the costs of dealing with the dire consequences of climate disaster will always loom behind the easy money offered by extraction companies.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Andrew Xu, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Hollywood set for first shutdown strike since 1960

    Hollywood actors are poised to join writers in the first industry-wide shutdown in 63 years after last-ditch talks failed. As such, nearly all film and television production will likely to grind to a halt.

    The Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) represents 160,000 performers, including A-list stars. It said negotiations on late 12 July had ended without a deal on their demands over dwindling pay and the threat posed by artificial intelligence.

    Its negotiators have unanimously recommended a strike to its national committee, who are expected to vote today, 13 July.

    The vote opens the door to a “double strike” with writers, who have already spent 11 weeks on the picket line. This would trigger the first Hollywood shutdown since 1960.

    Popular series set to return to television this year would face lengthy delays. And, if strikes continue, future blockbuster films would be postponed too.

    Eroding compensation

    Actors, like writers, are demanding better pay and protections against the future use of AI in television and films.

    A SAG-AFRTA statement said to actors:

    As you know, over the past decade, your compensation has been severely eroded by the rise of the streaming ecosystem. Furthermore, artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to creative professions.

    It continued to say that industry executives have:

    refused to acknowledge that enormous shifts in the industry and economy have had a detrimental impact on those who perform labor for the studios.

    The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers said early on 13 July:

    We are deeply disappointed that SAG-AFTRA has decided to walk away from negotiations. This is the Union’s choice, not ours.

    Hollywood studios had called in federal mediators to help resolve the deadlock. SAG-AFTRA described the move as a “cynical ploy.”

    SAG-AFTRA represents A-list stars such as Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence and Glenn Close. All members had pre-approved industrial action if a deal was not struck. The last time the union went on strike, in 1980, it lasted more than three months.

    Premieres and parties

    A strike would immediately prevent stars from promoting some of the year’s biggest releases. This would come right at the peak of the movie industry’s summer blockbuster season.

    In London, a premiere for Christopher Nolan’s ‘Oppenheimer’ was brought forward by an hour, so that cast including Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon and Emily Blunt could attend without breaking union rules, Variety reported.

    But a strike would derail the much-hyped film’s US premiere, due to take place in New York on 17 July. It would also hit a red-carpet launch this weekend at Disneyland for the new ‘Haunted Mansion‘ movie.

    And the annual Comic-Con pop culture gathering in San Diego next week could also be stripped of its stars.

    Even the Emmy Awards, which are due to take place on September 18, are reportedly mulling a delay to November or even next year.

    Screen Actors Guild

    While the writers’ strike has already dramatically reduced the number of movies and shows in production, an actors’ walkout would shutter almost everything. Only some reality TV, animation and talk shows could continue.

    On 12 July, Hollywood unions representing directors, behind-the-scenes film workers, and writers issued a statement of “unwavering support and solidarity” with the actors. It said:

    While the studios have collective worth of trillions of dollars, billions of viewers globally, and sky-high profits, this fight is not about actors against the studios.

    Workers “across all crafts and departments” stand together:

    to prevent mega-corporations from eroding the conditions we fought decades to achieve.

    Actors and writers are demanding higher pay to counteract inflation and guarantees for their future livelihoods.

    In addition to salaries when they are actively working, actors earn payments called ‘residuals’ every time a film or show they starred in is aired on network or cable. This is massively helpful when performers are between projects.

    But today, streamers like Netflix and Disney+ do not disclose viewing figures for their shows and offer the same flat rate for everything on their platforms, regardless of its popularity.

    Muddying the waters further is the issue of AI. Both actors and writers want guarantees to regulate its future use – for example, to avoid having their likenesses used – but studios have so far refused to budge.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured Image via Wikimedia Commons/Jaguirre2192, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UN fails to agree Syria aid lifeline extension

    On 11 July, the UN Security Council failed to reach consensus on extending a key Syria aid route. This threw into doubt a vital mechanism that provides life-saving support to millions of people.

    Russia vetoed a nine-month extension of the agreement authorising the operation of the conduit during a vote at the UN headquarters in New York. It then failed to muster enough votes to adopt just a six-month extension.

    Russian veto

    The UN-brokered deal that allows for the delivery of aid from Turkey into rebel-held areas of Syria expired on 10 July.

    Many council members – including the US, the UK, and France – have called for a full-year extension. However, they backed a nine-month compromise put forward by Switzerland and Brazil.

    The proposal was vetoed by Russia, whose six-month offer only secured China’s support.

    US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield called Russia’s veto “an act of utter cruelty”.

    Russian representative Vassili Nebenzia said that Western countries had a “complete disregard” for the interests of the Syrian people. On top of this, he accused them of “artificially” provoking Moscow into vetoing.

    He also threatened to “close down” the aid route if support for his country’s draft was not forthcoming.

    Syria aid corridor halted

    The 15 members of the Security Council had been trying for days to find a compromise to extend the deal. Since 2014, it has allowed for food, water, and medicine to be trucked to northwestern Syria without the authorisation of Damascus.

    Humanitarian convoys wrapped up their operations the night of 10 July. Now, the future of the aid corridor is unclear. It cannot resume operations until the UN reauthorises it.

    UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said he was “disappointed” by the failure to reach agreement. He called on all council members to “redouble their efforts to support the continued delivery” of the assistance.

    The Swiss ambassador to the UN said diplomats would “get back to work immediately to find a solution”.

    ‘Needs, not politics’

    Floriane Borel of Human Rights Watch said “aid delivery should be based on needs, not politics”. She added that:

    Russia’s cynical veto of a cross-border aid lifeline for millions of Syrians is a painful reminder that the Security Council should not be entrusted with decisions about humanitarian assistance.

    The crossing provides for more than 80% of the needs of people living in rebel-controlled areas. This included everything from diapers and blankets to chickpeas. The government in Damascus regularly denounces the aid deliveries as a violation of its sovereignty.

    Russia has been chipping away at the deal for years. The accord originally allowed for four entry points into rebel-held Syria. More recently, this was reduced to one: the Bab al-Hawa crossing.

    The aid mechanism comes up for renewal every six months due to pressure from Damascus ally Moscow.

    An ‘intolerable’ situation

    UN humanitarian affairs chief Martin Griffiths called again last week for the opening of more crossing points, for at least 12 months.

    He added that the situation:

    is intolerable for the people of the northwest, and those brave souls who help them to go through these ups and downs every six months.

    He also pointed out that humanitarian agencies have to bring pre-positioned stock into the country every time access is threatened, in case the crossing is closed.

    According to the UN, four million people in Syria depend on humanitarian assistance to survive. Years of conflict, economic strife, and devastating earthquakes have only exacerbated the situation.

    An earthquake in February killed tens of thousands of people in the country. Following it, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad agreed to the opening of two more crossings.

    These remain open despite the Security Council’s failure to reauthorize the use of Bab al-Hawa. The authorization for these two other corridors is set to expire in mid-August.

    ‘That door is shut’

    Guterres’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric said those two crossings “cannot match” Bab al-Hawa, which handles 85% of aid.

    Since the earthquake, more than 3,700 UN trucks carrying aid have passed through the three checkpoints. Most have passed through Bab al-Hawa, including 79 on Monday.

    However, Dujarric warned that:

    That door is shut right now.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Patrickneil, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Black youth worker Tasered by police loses court battle for damages

    A Black youth worker who was Tasered by police has lost his fight for damages in court. Edwin Afriyie was stopped for alleged speeding whilst driving in Central London. Officers claimed that Afriyie took up a “fighting stance” before they tasered him. This was later shown to be an outright lie.

    Afriyie made a malfeasance allegation against Central London Police. He also claimed to have suffered back, head and knee injuries during the incident. Police body-worn camera footage clearly shows Afriyie falling backwards after being tasered. He landed with his head against the hard edge of a stone ledge. Medical evidence suggested that he suffered a head injury and was knocked unconscious.

    The judge, Henrietta Hill, declared that the police were “objectively reasonable” in their belief that the use of the taser was necessary.

    Police lied

    In a common occurrence with our corrupt police force, the officers’ original claims regarding Afriyie’s behaviour toward them turned out to be a fabrication. Police statements held that he had been “steeling himself to attack officers”.

    However, body camera footage showed Afriyie was standing with his arms crossed. Officers had encircled him at some distance, and were shouting orders. City of London Police denied liability for Afriyie’s claims of assault and battery. They also claimed that the use of force was “necessary and reasonable”.

    Hill ruled that the footage showed Afriyie had done “no such thing” as adopting a fighting stance. Looking at the footage, he didn’t do so “at any point in the incident”. In turn, she said that this warranted “justifiable concern” that the officers colluded to overstate Afriyie’s aggression.

    Reasonable belief

    However, and in spite of acknowledging that the police had fabricated their reasons for tasering Afriyie, Hill still ruled to dismiss his claims of assault and malfeasance.

    David Hughes, Afriyie’s barrister, argued that the use of the taser was not in response to an “identified threat”. He also argued that the use of tasers should be proportionate and lawful.

    In return, the judge stated that:

    Mr Hughes submitted that I should find as a fact that nothing was about to happen that necessitated the use of force.

    He may be right that nothing would, in fact, have happened had the Taser not been discharged.

    However what matters is whether [the officer’s] belief in what might happen, so as to justify the use of the Taser, was objectively reasonable.

    Let’s be clear here. Afriyie was stood with his arms crossed. He made no move against the officers, nor did he look set to “at any point”. Instead, the police lied in their statements. They did so to cover up the fact that they tasered a stationary Black man.

    Still, the judge ruled in their favour.

    Racism in action

    White supremacy primes Western society in the belief that a motionless Black man surrounded by police is “steeling himself” to attack. Likewise, because of this belief, police can be sure that – even when they know they’re recording themselves – their claims of aggression will be tolerated.

    As this case so aptly demonstrated, we are also primed for the belief that the preemptive use of force is reasonable. And, if all the police have to do is prove their “belief in what might happen” in order to justify the use of force, they will continue to win their cases. It will always be a justifiable belief that a Black man might attack if standing whilst being Black is an act of aggression.

    This is one among many reasons why Black men are seven times more likely to die following police restraint. Tasers are dangerous weapons, and they are in the hands of racist and unaccountable officers of the law. As we saw in Afriyie’s case, even if the weapon’s discharge doesn’t cause injury – which it can – then an uncontrolled fall can.

    We know already, and have seen over and over again, that our police force is racist at its core. Afriyie’s case was a clear demonstration of the way in which our justice system aids and abets the police in their racism. Root and branch, this system is beyond reform or redemption.

    Featured image via screengrab Guardian.com/Guardian

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hollywood braced as actors’ deadline looms to join writers’ strike

    Hollywood’s summer of industrial action now looks set to escalate, with actors ready to join the writers’ strike in a massive movement that would bring nearly all US film and television productions to a halt.

    The Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) is locked in last-minute negotiations with the likes of Netflix and Disney. The deadline is fast approaching at midnight on 30 June.

    The labour union’s 160,000 actors have pre-approved industrial action if a deal is not struck in time.

    Writers’ strike – plus actors?

    Should negotiators walk out, it will be the first time that all Hollywood actors and writers have been on strike simultaneously since 1960. Back then, actor and future US president Ronald Reagan led a showdown that eventually forced major concessions from the studios.

    Writers have already spent nine weeks on the picket lines. Now, actors are demanding higher pay to counteract inflation, and guarantees for their future livelihoods.

    Rebecca Metz, who has starred in FX’s Better Things and Showtime’s Shameless, spoke to Agence France-Presse (AFP). She said that it’s “massively harder” for actors – even established ones – to earn a living in Hollywood these days. Metz continued:

    People who aren’t in this industry, and even some who are, vastly overestimate how much money actors make — you just assume that if you see someone on TV, they must be rich.

    But it has been extremely not the case in the last few years.

    I know lots of people at my same level who are taking second jobs, trying to come up with ways to keep themselves afloat until hopefully things come back.

    Dwindling residuals

    In addition to salaries when they are actively working, actors earn payments called ‘residuals’ every time a film or show they starred in is aired on network or cable. This is particularly helpful when performers are between projects.

    But today, streamers like Netflix and Disney+ do not disclose viewing figures for their shows. They also offer the same paltry flat rate for everything on their platforms, regardless of its popularity.

    Metz revealed:

    When we’re not working for a good stretch, all of a sudden we’re worried about qualifying for our health insurance.

    Whether a strike will go ahead is currently anyone’s guess. A media blackout on the talks has been imposed by both sides.

    ‘Productive negotiations’

    Last Friday, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher released a video message telling members of “extremely productive negotiations” and promising a “seminal deal”.

    However, union chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland warned there is a “very narrow window” to achieve a deal. This is fuelling speculation that both sides could agree to a temporary extension of talks.

    While the writers’ strike has already dramatically reduced the number of movies and shows in production, an actors’ walkout would shutter almost everything.

    Some reality TV, animation, and talk shows could continue. However, even high-profile events like television’s Emmy Awards, set for 18 September, would be at risk.

    Popular series set to return to television as soon as this fall would be delayed. And further down the line, blockbuster films could be postponed too.

    Artificial intelligence and auditions

    Muddying the waters further is the issue of artificial intelligence. Actors want guarantees to regulate its future use.

    Metz said:

    There’s currently no protections around a producer taking our voice, our likeness, asking us [to] do things that we wouldn’t consent to do.

    Inputting our previous performances and building a performance off of it that we don’t have to get paid for – these things sound wild and fantastical, but they’re very real.

    Disney’s Secret Invasion, in particular, recently drew fans’ ire for its inclusion of an AI-generated opening sequence.

    Another grievance for actors is the rise of ‘self-taped auditions’, which SAG-AFTRA is attempting to regulate.

    Used before the pandemic on occasions when in-person auditions were not possible, the practice has become ubiquitous in Hollywood.

    It places logistical and technological burdens on actors, and it robs them of feedback from casting directors.

    Perhaps most importantly, performers do not even know if their audition has been watched.

    Metz said:

    Acting is a collaborative craft, at the end of the day.

    Talking into a camera in your house, and knowing you’re never going to get any response, is several steps further removed from what acting really is.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Thomas Wolf, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Just Stop Oil issues ultimatum for London’s Pride

    On the evening of 29 June, protest group Just Stop Oil posted on its Twitter account stating that it had been “in negotiations with the organisers of Pride in London”. The climate activist group is demanding that Pride “return to its protest roots”, and align itself with the demand to halt oil production:

    Around an hour later, Just Stop Oil posted a list of their three demands:

    A 30 June press release from the group stated that:

    We are a group of LGBTQ+ supporters of Just Stop Oil. We have been taking action against the licensing of new oil, gas and coal in the UK, repeatedly putting our bodies and our liberty on the line, in resistance to a government which has been bought by corporations and fossil fuel capital. We take action because the government is continuing to develop new fossil fuel projects in 2023, even though the world’s climate scientists agree that this threatens the collapse of our food systems and the breakdown of ordered society.

    Pride is a protest

    Now, first things first, Pride is – or at least should be – a protest. This is at the core of its history. Pride originated as the Christopher Street Liberation Day March. In turn, the march marked the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall riot.

    In the riot, queer patrons of the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village neighbourhood of Manhattan rose up in response to aggressive and repeated police raids. The first Pride was, very literally, about throwing rocks at cops.

    Some modern Prides – and especially London’s – have drifted away from that spirit of protest into one of celebration. Now, with rising homophobic hate crimes and a government-led crackdown on trans lives, we could surely do with a return to “protest roots” – just as Just Stop Oil is asking.

    Seeking clarity

    Likewise, the first point on Just Stop Oil’s list of demands seems laudable. The group stated that it requires:

    Clarity on where Pride sources its money from, what floats are included and what ethical considerations are taken when deciding where to accept money from

    Pride in London is somewhat notorious for its poor attitude to social justice issues more broadly. Just Stop Oil offered “some context” of the event’s deplorable sponsorship deals. In particular, the Green London Assembly criticised Pride’s choice of headline sponsor – United Airlines.

    Beyond that, London’s Pride has a history of both racism and being overly cosy with police. Despite the Met’s well-documented homophobia, it was only last year that uniformed officers were only told not to march.

    So, I’m all for transparency on the parade’s funding and ethical considerations. Great so far.

    Climate is an LGBT+ issue

    Then, onto Just Stop Oil’s second demand:

    Pride makes a statement to demand an end to new oil and gas.

    Again, all good! Any new oil and gas extraction scuppers our planet’s chances of remaining within the tolerable limits of the 1.5C warming set by the Paris Climate Agreements, or even its 2C upper bounds.

    The climate, without an attempt at hyperbole, is a queer issue. In the Global North, poor people are disproportionately impacted by climate change – and LGBT+ individuals are disproportionately likely to be poor. Furthermore, in the Global South, climate change drives forced migration – and LGBT+ people are more likely to be mistreated by border security forces.

    This being the case, Pride – and queer movements more broadly – have a moral duty to stand in solidarity with climate defenders. However, this is where the problem with Just Stop Oil’s threat creeps in. To me, what they’re doing doesn’t look much like solidarity.

    Just Stop Oil: Solidarity – or else

    That brings us to Just Stop Oil’s third and final demand:

    Pride to set a public meeting for it’s volunteers about joining in civil resistance against new oil and gas, and why the climate crisis is the biggest threat to LGBT+ rights, due to societal collapse.

    Along with the list, they set an ultimatum:

    We will wait 24 hours, as of 4pm today (28/06), for Pride to respond to our demands and the actions Pride will take. Beyond this time or not meeting these demands will mean we may or may not take action at this weekend’s events.

    The ultimatum’s time limit has now elapsed. However, at the time of writing, neither Pride nor Just Stop Oil had confirmed whether any response had been issued. It’s this last demand – and accompanying threat – where I feel the climate group has overstepped its mark.

    Is this your solidarity?

    Now, solidarity between progressive movements is hugely important. Chances are, at any given Pride in the UK, you’ll see a handful of people wearing “Pits and Perverts” t-shirts. These refer to a slogan used by Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM):

    a political activist group of gay women and men that formed in a spirt of solidarity with the striking miners in 1984. Mark Ashton, one of the founders, saw the struggle of the miners as the same faced by gay people fighting for their rights against a government that would not listen.

    LGSM supported the Neath Dulais and Swansea Valley Miners mining communities during the 1984 strikes. Its fundraisers generated £20,000 for direct aid. This is what queer solidarity looks like at its best.

    What Just Stop Oil are demanding is nothing like this. It’s not a hand across a divide. To put it bluntly, they’ve issued a vague threat in an attempt to co-opt what should be a queer protest space.

    ‘Help us make your activists into our activists… or else’ is not a way to foster community – which isn’t even to mention the greater threat to queer people that accompanies being arrested as part of a climate protest or elsewhere.

    Learn it, and come back

    Let me be completely clear. I want Pride to be a real protest again, and especially London’s corporate, pinkwashed parody. Fuck knows we need it now. Oil money has no goddamn place within 100 miles of a queer march. Hell, I don’t particularly think any corporations belong in Pride – half of them scarper as soon as the winds of public opinion change.

    That said, Just Stop Oil can – for now – sling its hook right along with United Airlines. Go away and learn what solidarity and community building actually look like. I know you can manage it.

    Hell, I’ll even take a statement of support for any of the numerous actual queer protests in the UK. If Just Stop Oil has ever made one, I couldn’t bloody find it.

    Happy Pride.

    Just Stop Oil had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Raphael Renter

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 280 Pakistani families fear relatives died in boat disaster off the coast of Greece

    More than 280 Pakistani families fear they had relatives who drowned when a migrant boat sank off the coast of Greece last week. The rusty trawler packed with travellers capsized in the Ionian Sea on June 14. It had set sail from Libya towards Europe on the world’s deadliest migrant route.

    The death toll stands at 82, with 104 survivors pulled from the water. However, witness accounts suggest many hundreds more went down with the ship. Their remains are still missing at sea.

    Forced below deck

    Pakistani interior minister Rana Sanaullah told parliament that:

    so far 281 Pakistani families have contacted us and said that their children may be victims of this accident.

    Twelve Pakistanis were among the survivors. Sanaullah estimated that “about 350 Pakistanis were on board”. He added:

    Perhaps there has never been such a large toll in any incident before, even in terrorist incidents.

    Furthermore, the Guardian reported that:

    According to leaked testimonies told by survivors to coastguards, Pakistanis were forced below deck, with other nationalities allowed on the top deck, where they had a far greater chance of surviving a capsize.

    The testimonies suggest women and children were effectively “locked up” in the hold, ostensibly to be “protected” by men on the overcrowded vessel. The Observer has learned that Pakistani nationals were also kept below deck, with crew members maltreating them when they appeared in search of fresh water or tried to escape.

    Unanswered questions

    Beyond the toll of human lives, questions are mounting regarding the role of the Greek coastguard in the disaster. The Greek government claimed that the vessel made no cry for help because the crew wanted to reach Italy.

    However, the testimony of Nawal Soufi – a Moroccan-Italian activist and social worker – directly contradicts this claim. Soufi said passengers cried for help as much as a day before the vessel sank:

    I can testify that these people were asking to be saved by any authority.

    Further compounding the likelihood of distress cries, survivors claimed that the boat’s engine failed a full three days before it sank. Six people had already died on board due to lack of fresh water.

    Greek authorities have also denied claims that the capsizing of the boat was caused directly by the coastguard. The coastguard initially maintained that it kept a “discrete distance”. However, a government official later revised the story, stating that the authorities threw a rope to “stabilise” the distressed vessel.

    Maurice Stierl, a scholar of migration at Osnabrück University, said:

    The Hellenic coastguard speaks of a sudden shift in weight. So what caused the sudden shift in weight? Was there a panic on board? Did something happen during the attempt to provide them with something? Or was it towed? And due to this towing, did the boat go down?

    Pakistan: DNA sampling

    Pakistan is currently in the grip of a staggering economic downturn, leaving many families struggling desperately. In turn, this leads many – mostly young men – to seek jobs in Europe, hoping to send money home.

    The routes they take vary greatly. Some pay for legal transport to North Africa and take their chances from there, voyaging onwards by sea. Others attempt to go over land through Iran and Turkey.

    Dodging border guards and police and moving through different jurisdictions with limited funds means that communication with families is often patchy. This makes it difficult to determine their exact movements.

    Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is collecting DNA samples from the families. It hopes to link them to the remains recovered from the wreck. To this end, 193 blood and hair samples have been taken so far.

    Dwindling hope

    However, the number of missing far outweighs the number of bodies recovered. This is diminishing hope for grieving families who are overwhelmingly from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the eastern Punjab province.

    Zafar Iqbal reported losing two nephews in the incident. From Bandli village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, he told Agence France-Presse:

    We should at least get the dead bodies so that the parents and relatives can get peace of mind.

    He continued:

    The government should at least complete the investigation as soon as possible.

    Featured image via screengrab cbsnews.com/CBS News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hospital doctors in England to stage five-day strike

    On 23 June, hospital doctors in England announced the longest strike in the 75-year history of the NHS. As ever, it’s part of the ongoing row over pay and working conditions.

    The British Medical Association (BMA) stated that Junior doctors – those below consultant level – will stage a walkout. They’ll start on 7:00 on July 13, and continue until the same time on July 18.

    The stoppage follows a 72-hour strike earlier this same month. It was in opposition to the government’s refusal to budge on its offer of just a 5% pay increase.

    Rock-bottom real-terms pay

    Medics have seen a 29% real-terms pay cut in real terms in the last 15 years. Salaries have completely failed to keep pace with runaway inflation.

    They want pay restored to 2008-2009 levels. However, the government says this would mean an average pay award of about 35% this year. This, they claim, would be too costly.

    Robert Laurenson and Vivek Trivedi, who jointly chair the BMA junior doctors’ committee, echoed the by-now familiar warning that the government seemed intent on letting the NHS “decline to the point of collapse”.

    They highlighted a BMA survey that said 53% of the nearly 2,000 junior doctors who responded had received offers to move abroad in the past four months. The government of South Australia state had even paid for advertising trucks to be sent to picket lines offering better pay if doctors emigrated, they claimed.

    Laurenson and Trivedi said the government was refusing to reopen talks on pay. In turn, this is forcing them to stage their record-breaking strike. They added that:

    With the 75th birthday of the NHS just days away, neglect of its workforce has left us with 7.4m people on waiting lists for surgery and procedures, 8,500 unfilled doctors’ posts in hospitals, and doctors who can barely walk down the road without a foreign government tempting them to leave an NHS where they are paid £14 per hour for a country which will pay them properly.

    The government could avert the strike if it comes up with a “credible offer” on pay restoration, they added.

    NHS: 75 years of service

    The government’s refusal to budge is playing a dangerous game with the public’s health. The inevitable strikes have hit patient care, forcing the cancellation or rescheduling of appointments.

    Health officials say this has disrupted services during the ongoing battles to clear a huge backlog in treatment caused by years of under-funding and under-staffing, and by the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    The BMA has stated that junior doctors feel:

    their patients are behind them in their fight for fair pay, with 82% reporting they had found their patients supportive of industrial action.

    As Laurenson and Trivedi stressed, the government could easily halt the industrial action with a credible pay offer. They finished by saying that pay restoration would:

    lead to a future 75 years of doctors being paid fairly, in a rebuilt workforce and NHS that this country can continue to be proud of.

    The NHS has protected Britain’s health for 75 years. It remains to be seen whether the Tory government will, in turn, move to protect the NHS.

    Featured image via Flikr/Garry Knight, public domain, resized to 770*403.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cycling Time Trials issues new rules for trans competitors – that also affect cis women

    Cycling Time Trials (CTT) – the national governing body for time trial events in England, Scotland, and Wales – has issued new, stringent rules for trans competitors. Now, anybody wishing to compete as any gender other than that assigned to them at birth must participate in the ‘open’ category. This was, until recently, known as the men’s category. However, the new rules will also prevent a good deal of cis women from competing in the women’s category.

    The rules

    CTT’s rebrand of the men’s category as ‘open’ follows a similar move from British Cycling in May. In its FAQ section, CTT stated that it issued the new rules:

    Because we are convinced that after undergoing male puberty a rider will retain strength, stamina and physique which will give them a permanent advantage over someone who has not.

    However, this given motivation is belied by the list of people affected by the rules. Trans men, trans women, and non-binary people are all required to compete in the open category. This makes no reference to male puberty, or taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT). It simply shifts all trans people into the open category.

    As such, a non-binary athlete who was assigned female at birth, who has never taken testosterone, is now required to race against men. This is clearly not a requirement motivated by a belief in the advantages of male puberty. It is a requirement that trans people – any and all trans people – be denied the opportunity to compete against cis women.

    Massive overreach

    However, the new rules don’t stop with trans people, either. They state that a competitor in the women’s category must satisfy all of three requirements:

    they must have been assigned the sex female at birth, they must never have gone through any part of male puberty and they must not have had a testosterone result in serum above 2.5 nmol/L level before competing even if they satisfy the other two requirements.

    The last requirement is extraordinary. Testosterone (T) is often spoken of as the ‘male sex hormone’. However, it’s also produced naturally in the bodies of cis women. What’s more, it can vary for a number of reasons, including polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Around one in ten people with ovaries will develop PCOS at some point in their lives.

    Research has shown that higher T levels in male athletes can produce better performance. However, there are comparatively few similar studies for women. That said, elite female athletes tend to have higher T levels than the general population – making CTT’s new rules more likely to affect them.

    What’s more, the NHS considers the reference range for serum T in women to be anything below 2.7 nmol/L. So, CTT’s rules aren’t even in line with a ‘normal’ T range. Any attempt to define an ‘acceptable’ hormone profile for an athlete will be arbitrary. CTT’s ruling pushes past that into the pointlessly punitive.

    ‘Promoting inclusivity’

    Chair, Andrea Parish, said of the new rules:

    Here at CTT, we are committed to the promotion of inclusivity and a fair competition in sport. This decision underpins these such values and shows our collective support for women’s sport.

    However, we have got to ask: is this what inclusivity looks like to you? These are rules on women’s sport which exclude any trans person, of any body type or hormone profile. They exclude women with common conditions that cause even mildly elevated T.

    CTT’s new rules are part of the widespread reaction to trans participation in sport. They also continue the campaign of exclusion waged against intersex athletes like Caster Semenya. If you wanted a demonstration of how such policing of womanhood hurts far more than just the trans people it claims to target, look no further.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Coen van de Broek

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Equality Act debate Part 2: Which lesbians count?

    On Monday 12 June, MPs held a debate in response to two petitions, for and against changing the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act. This followed advice from the EHRC stating that such a change could “bring clarity” to the law. It would also serve to remove protections for trans women as women, and vice versa for trans men.

    In part one of this series, I spoke about how the debate was a proxy for questioning trans existences more broadly. People react to trans people’s statements about themselves with either acceptance or rejection. Neither side has objective reasons for its reactions. Rejection of the possibility that someone can be trans means that the trans person can’t be trusted – either they’re deluded, or lying.

    In part two of this article series, I’ll examine more closely the arguments and assertions that the MPs made. I’ll also talk about how this acceptance or rejection informs the ways the MPs spoke in the debate.

    Equality Act: Which lesbians count?

    One of the central topics of the debate was the relationship between transness and queer sexuality. In particular, a great deal of focus fell squarely on lesbians and lesbian spaces. This is understandable: if you reject what trans people say, then trans women aren’t women, and their presence in lesbian spaces is read as a violation.

    For example, Tonia Antoniazzi opened the discussion by stating:

    I heard how, for the lesbians I met, biological sex is fundamental to understanding their rights as same-sex-attracted people, so the grey area that we have is creating ongoing problems for lesbians

    Likewise, the SNP’s Joanna Cherry rejects trans people’s statements that they are who they say they are. She repeated the sentiment which Antoniazzi relayed:

    In the short time I have, I want to focus on the right of lesbians and gay men to be same-sex and not same-gender identity attracted, and on our right to freedom of association. The protected characteristic of sexual orientation is contingent on the definition of sex as meaning biological sex. Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people all experience same-sex attraction—that is, attraction based on biological sex, not gender identity.

    However, there are a few problems here. First, if the “protected characteristic of sexual orientation is contingent on the definition of sex as meaning biological sex” in the Equality Act then we wouldn’t be having this debate in the first place.

    That aside, it’s undeniable that there are lesbians who don’t date trans women. There are also gay men who don’t date trans men and straight people who don’t date trans people of the opposite gender, for that matter. And, besides that, there are bi people who don’t date trans people full stop. Some, not all, of these groups are vocal about these facts.

    However, they’re not the only people out there. What’s more, it’s deeply disingenuous to speak as if that’s the case. There are cis lesbians who date trans women, and cis gays who date trans men. I know because I’ve met them, seen them, spoken to them. I know happy couples of cis and trans people of many different sexualities, and I’d wager that anyone active in a modern queer scene that isn’t explicitly trans-exclusionary could say likewise.

    Sexuality is complex

    Then, that’s not even to mention the fact that there are lesbians who date trans men and mascs, and a thriving trans femme scene on Grindr. This is because sexuality is complex.  You can embrace this or deny it, but you can’t stop it. Yet this is what people like Cherry are doing when they state that queer attraction is based on “biological sex, not gender identity”.

    As an aside, people don’t tend to check up on someone’s chromosomes – or whatever other sex marker you set store by – before becoming attracted to them. Unless people can tell with 100% certainty who is trans and who isn’t – and, as came up later in the debate, most people can’t – then there is some component of attraction that isn’t simply based on biological sex.

    People of whatever sexuality who don’t want to date trans people are welcome not to. That’s their deal, it’s valid. However, Cherry and the lesbians who spoke to Antoniazzi are not arguing this alone. In fact, they’re going much further.

    They also seek to redefine the sexuality of anyone who does love trans people. If, as they say, sexuality is based on ‘biological sex’, then any gay or straight person who loves a trans person is suddenly redefined as bisexual, or similar. This is, to put it bluntly, unacceptable.

    Cherry and her like gave no reasons why they get to speak for all lesbians, and why they get to redefine the sexuality of people who disagree. Individuals know best about their sexuality, just as they do their gender – Cherry doesn’t get to speak for them.

    Trans-affirmation

    What’s more, there are plenty of lesbians who are dog-tired of being used as a political tool for transphobic ends. Among them, Angela Eagle spoke with passion in favour of trans people in the Equality Act debate. She said:

    I am also a lesbian. I was only the second out lesbian ever to sit in this place, and the first ever out lesbian Government Minister, so I have had some experience of bigotry, prejudice, misogyny and homophobia—and I recognise a politically induced moral panic when I see one. I also recognise a discredited Government unleashing a culture war for their own divisive ends when I see it.

    Here, Eagle recognised the distinct similarities between the homophobic and transphobic movements. To elaborate, both are replete with quickfire accusations of pedophilia, rejections of the ‘natural role’ of the body, and dogwhistles about ‘slippery slopes’. This is why many view transphobia and homophobia as inextricably linked. Quite apart from anything else, no-one ever stopped to check if I was a flamboyant gay or a trans femme (hint, it’s both) before yelling abuse at me.

    Likewise, when Cherry attempted to slip in a casual insinuation that lesbians were being “forced to include men in our groups and our dating pool” to date trans women, Eagle was having none of it:

    I do not recognise anywhere in the Equality Act that there is a mandate on anyone’s dating pool and who should be in it.

    Cherry relied on her fellows disbelieving trans women. She referred to them as “men” and conjured up the spectre of coercion. Eagle, quite correctly, called it out for what it was – a ridiculous exaggeration of the law.

    Who speaks for whom?

    I would ask why Cherry and her side have to rely on such exaggerations – deliberate or simply mistaken – in order to make their point. If it is such astoundingly common sense, why lie or reach?

    In answer, I’d point out that they – the trans-denying – are attempting a linguistic trick. It’s they who are trying to speak for everybody, who are denying the sexualities of trans-inclusive lesbians, gays, and straights. They have to appeal to the idea of the predator because they need their audience to fear trans people. If we are feared, it’s easier to ensure that we are not believed when we say who we are.

    Cherry and her side – those who argue in favour of trans-denying lesbians – don’t need to prove that they exist. That much is clearly true. What’s more, their sexuality isn’t being denied.

    What Cherry’s side needs to do is prove that trans-affirming lesbians don’t exist, or at least, why it is the trans-denying lesbian alone who deserves protection under the law.

    Until they can, their arguments will be obvious in their weakness. What’s more, they’ll continue to be rejected by the community they try so desperately to speak for.

    In part three of this series, I’ll speak on the appeals to fear and silencing in the Equality Act debate.

    Featured image via UK Parliament/YouTube

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • The Equality Act debate served to highlight a deep division in UK politics and society

    On Monday 12 June, MPs gathered to debate changing the definition of ‘sex’ in the equality act to mean ‘biological sex’. This was in response to e-petitions 623243 and 627984 – for and against the change, respectively. Both received over 100,000 signatures.

    As I’ve already reported for the Canary, the potential change would remove a swathe of legal protections from trans people. And, as UN independent expert Victor Madrigal-Borloz recognised, it would offer the government:

    a formula through which it could carry out discriminatory distinctions currently unlawful under UK law, and that will remain so under international human rights law.

    In part one of this article series, I want to talk about three things that are hovering behind this current culture war – honesty, belief, and complexity. In turn, these inflect and inform a great deal of what was said in the debate.

    ‘Trans men are men’

    First, a bit of background. I’m trans. I’ve always been trans – a core part of me, even before I had the words to articulate it properly. This meant that people looking at me, assuming I was a man, and treating me as such were incorrect. The deep distress this causes is part of what we call gender dysphoria.

    My transness is, fundamentally, something that I can’t prove to you. There’s no objective test. I can only tell you that I’m not a man, and this is central to my knowledge about myself. In my day-to-day life, everybody I know takes my word for it.

    In the Equality Act debate, several MPs began by stating some variation on ‘trans men are men, trans women are women’. Transphobes and gender critical people have referred to this as a mantra or as dogma. This is incorrect.

    Rather, it’s a statement that takes trans people, and their information about their experience of themselves, at their word. It doesn’t discount the other person’s belief about themselves – you still have your gender, I still have mine. Instead, it broadens it, adding new ways in which a person can be a given gender.

    Equality Act: Confronting complexity

    When someone hears about trans people for the first time, they’re faced with complexity where there was simplicity. Something that they previously held to be true – the body is identity – is now apparently false.

    A person can then take the trans individual at their word in their description of their own internal life – a trans woman is a woman, she’s described herself. The world has cis women and trans women – it’s complex.

    Again, this isn’t conclusively provable. That’s not to say it’s not hugely important, though. Our society and our interactions as people run on these unprovable statements about ourselves. For example, I have no way to prove to you that I’m gay, but most people are inclined to take my word for it, perhaps influenced by their observation of the way I live my life.

    This assumes that people are, for the most part, honest when they tell you about who they are.

    However, if you choose to reject my statement that I’m gay, there’s nothing I can really do. Maybe you think no gay people exist, or that I’m a liar. You’re simply incorrect. What’s more, a society which pretends that one can test whether someone is actually gay is likely to do something horrific – see the UK government’s foul and invasive treatment of queer refugees, for example.

    Rejection and consequences

    Alternatively, someone can reject this newfound complexity. They insist that the world is as simple as it was previously assumed to be – people are who they appear to be at birth, and always will be. 12 June’s debate was full of this kind of rejection. For example, Tory MP Jonathan Gullis insisted that:

    Someone is not assigned their gender at birth; they are born male or female. A man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female. We should not be disputing those facts in the 21st century—these are the basics of biology that we talk about in our classrooms.

    This, then, carries several assumptions. The trans woman who stated that she is a woman is one of two things: deeply deluded, to the point of apparent insanity, or else for some reason deliberately lying.

    The former, here, is deeply infantilising. Other people can be trusted to make statements about themselves, but a trans person can’t. If you categorically insist that trans people can’t exist, then the simple assertion that I’m trans becomes proof that I’m deluded or insane, even if I give absolutely no other signs.

    This relies on a circular assumption – people are always who they appear to be born as, so anyone who believes otherwise must be deluded. But then, the assertion that trans men are men is equally circular. However, and crucially, the assertion that trans people can’t exist is someone else making a claim about my life, whereas the opposite isn’t true.

    Lying

    Alternatively, if the trans person isn’t assumed to be deluded, then they must be lying about themselves. In this case, the belief is that the trans woman ‘knows’ that she is a man, and is simply lying about it. Then, suddenly, hostility and paranoia set in. If the trans woman is lying, she must to trying to achieve something nefarious.

    It was abundantly clear that this was a central assumption of many of the speakers in the Equality Act debate. And, although Tonia Antoniazzi opened by calling for “respectful, adult conversation”, the tone was frequently anything but. Several MPs casually insinuated, or else outright stated, that trans women are predatory in nature.

    The Conservatives’ Miriam Cates contended that:

    While academic elites cave in to aggressive and misogynistic trans activism, ordinary women are frightened to go to hospital, ordinary men fear for the safety of their daughters in public toilets, ordinary children are subjected to a psychological experiment in which they are told they can choose their gender, and ordinary toddlers are used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticised women.

    Likewise, Tory Nick Fletcher implored:

    Let us do what we need to do to clarify the Equality Act and ensure that no biological male can enter that six-year-old girl’s changing room. To me, that would be excellent legislation, and a must—a near miss reported to stop tragedy happening.

    In both examples here, the central assumption is that a trans woman is a man. More specifically, she’s a man who should always be assumed to have a predatory nature.

    Deeply held ideologies

    Going forward into part two, the assumptions listed above will inform my coverage of the debate on the potential change to the Equality Act. People either react to trans people’s statements about themselves with either acceptance or rejection. Rejection, in turn, means that the trans person can’t be trusted – either they’re deluded, or lying.

    The Equality Act debate was about whether ‘sex’ in the Equality Act should always mean ‘biological sex’. However, it was clear that the division in the House was not purely legislative. Instead, it became a matter of deeply held ideologies. As Cates blustered:

    It is extraordinary that in 2023—a time of unprecedented knowledge—we are arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time. The most contentious question of our day has famously become “What is a woman?”—a question that no previous society has felt the need to answer.

    Of course, this pretends that the world is always as simple as we want it to be. Societies are frequently wrong, paradigms shift, knowledge of the world about us expands. It’s fundamentally conservative – small ‘c’ or capital – to see a world that is complex and messy, and despise it for failing to lie still in its proper place.

    Personally, I believe that complexity is part of being human, and beautiful too. I can’t prove that to you, but my life is all the richer for it.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/David Woolfall, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000

    By Alex/Rose Cocker