Category: Analysis

  • Some plays tell you where you are. Others wait for you to notice.

    Playwright Eric Bogosian’s Humpty Dumpty, now playing a limited run at the Chain Theatre (through May 3), has already garnered praise for its prescience. Nerdist’s Rotem Rusak aptly described the play as a reflection of pandemic isolation, with its aching portrayal of disconnection and unexpected transformation. That resonance is real in the COVID era. And there’s a deeper frequency humming underneath this production. It’s quieter. Stranger. And possibly more intentional than we’ve allowed ourselves to admit.

    Because Humpty Dumpty doesn’t just remind us of 2020.

    It slowly reveals that we never left.

    Humpty Dumpty: a play for post-pandemic times

    Set in the year 2000 and originally penned around that same time, Humpty Dumpty follows four friends – all creatives or creative-adjacent – who escape to a ski cabin in upstate New York. Then the blackout comes. The grid collapses. What was meant to be a retreat becomes something more brutal: a confrontation with the self, without structure.

    Under Ella Jane New’s direction, the play evolves – or mutates – into the uncanny entropy of dawning awareness. It’s not just about the past. It’s about what is still happening in the present beneath our collective attempts to move on, socially, psychologically, even biologically.

    Perhaps this is why the play’s simmering resonance with the Covid-19 pandemic in the present tense, feels less like prophecy, and more like extrapolation from an author with intimate knowledge of the hydrodynamics of collapse.

    In physical oceanography, as in epidemiology, and geopolitics, waves aren’t random, nor are they discrete events: they’re the visible shape of energy moving through water. One wave doesn’t end where the next begins; it’s all the same fluid body, disturbed in rhythm.

    Midway through the set, energy accumulates. Then comes the outlier. Often, it’s the seventh. Not always, but frequently enough that it became folklore among surfers and sailors alike.

    The seventh is the big one.

    The seventh is the one that breaks.

    That’s what Humpty Dumpty captures: the illusion that crisis comes in singular shocks, when in fact we’re always inside the churn. There’s no clear beginning or end. Just pressure. Recurrence. And the slow recognition that we’re still treading water and dry land isn’t in sight.

    Y2K’s echo: crises didn’t go away, they’ve only mutated

    This is Y2K’s echo in Humpty Dumpty in 2025, the wave that failed to crest has inevitably been succeeded by a monster one.

    The year 2000 arrived at a time when the world’s dominant political and public health crises seemed, if not solved, then contained. It marked five years since the arrival of protease inhibitors in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Nine years since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was “over”. HIV had become “manageable”. The future was open again. And yet HIV continues to devastate poorer countries, and the Soviet Union seems not to have ended so much as mutated.

    When Y2K failed to materialise as civilizational collapse, anyone who still felt the ghosts of the Cold War and the AIDS crisis in their nervous system must have wondered: when will the shoe finally drop?

    The play finds itself staged in 2025 New York at the epicenter of a real-time collapse in public health and civil society.

    The COVID crisis and Humpy Dumpty

    According to the Economist, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has claimed more than 26 million lives and, according to the WHO, an estimated 1 in 20 people worldwide now suffer from long Covid.

    Rather than mounting a coordinated response, the authorities are signaling that it’s all smooth sailing while cutting loose the life boats: eviscerating healthcare and Covid research funding, disappearing public health data, and introducing measures like mask bans, nominally for ‘public order’, but which also coincide with the installation of a mass surveillance apparatus including biometric facial recognition. And underneath it, a simmering horror that something below the surface is off. That the internal reference point that would normally stabilise the external chaos is somehow…off.

    This is the backdrop into which Eric Bogosian’s Humpty Dumpty has reemerged. And in this luminous, unsettling revival, it becomes clear: this was never just a play about Y2K. It was a warning to the future about the recurrence of collapse. It’s mathematical precision. And now, leaving the original script largely intact, this Chain Theatre production plays like the clearest portrait of the post-Covid body-mind we’ve seen onstage yet.

    Adapting to new forms of disorder

    The blackout in Humpty Dumpty kicks off a series of quiet transformations among the characters – shifts that, at first glance, might read as redemptive.

    Max (Kirk Gostkowski), who’d long since stopped writing, picked up his pen again. Nicole (Christina Elise Perry), brittle and disoriented in the dark, begins to loosen – allowing new relationships, like her connection with Nat (Brandon Hughes), to reshape her sense of control. Spoon (Marie Dinolan) finds space to drop the social role she’s been shoved into. Even Troy (Gabriel Rysdahl), who is mostly unchanged, functions as a kind of baseline, a measure against which the others’ evolutions can be felt.

    But the closer you watch, the less these arcs feel like recovery. What passes for healing is often an uneasy settling around malfunction.

    Max, with his poetic mourning of the night and rediscovery of his writing – has he grown or yielded to a private kind of looping? His creativity resurfaces, but it’s solipsism: insular, obsessive, unshared? Nicole, who at first seems to soften, may not so much have transformed as retracted into a more manageable version of herself, loosening her grip only after her previous sense of control has collapsed completely. Her friendship with Nat provides comfort, but does it restore her, or give shape to her disorientation? Spoon’s quiet emergence is framed as a kind of self-reclamation. And at the same time does her stillness also simmer with dissociation, less shedding labels than a ghost of what came before?

    What looks like adaptation at second glance is actually accommodation to new terms of disorder. The lights go out. Something rewires. And by the end, no one is quite who they were, not because they’ve evolved, but because the breakdown has settled in.

    Where Covid and the crisis in performing arts collide

    Eric Bogosian’s Humpty Dumpty never says ‘COVID’ outright. It doesn’t have to. It is one of the rare pandemic-era plays that never names the pandemic but registers its impact with clinical precision. When the audience gasped at a character’s offhand line – “But that could never happen now,” referencing the Spanish flu -it wasn’t from surprise. It was recognition. We’ve lived that moment. We’re still in it.

    Outside the world of Humpty Dumpty, these same shifts are happening in plain sight, and not just in hospitals, but in the theatre community. Last weekend, during the Broadway opening of George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck at the Winter Garden Theater, these same themes of public health, politics, and performance collided in real-time.

    A group of Covid-impacted New York artists staged a ‘Mask for Pleasure’ walk through the theatre district, handing out KN95 masks masks and flyers that spoke directly to the virus’s lingering effects on the performing arts. Their message was urgent: Covid is a multi-system illness that’s quietly ending careers for performers and dampening enjoyment of theatres for audiences.

    Their informational flyer detailed how Covid’s  long-term neurological effects can generate anhedonia, anxiety, depression, irritability and even aggression on a hardware level. If artists are noticing these trends in theatre, how might they be playing out in society, in politics?

    Humpty Dumpty: a cautionary tale about collapse

    For Eric Bogosian, whose body of work has always traced the emotional, structural, and political fault lines beneath the performance of Americanness with searing sincerity, this restaging doesn’t read as mere foresight. It feels like something stranger: a signal broadcast simultaneously behind, beyond – and within – the wave of collapse. This isn’t so much on-brand for Eric Bogosian as a culmination: a playwright who has written about collapse and now collapse writes through him.

    The blackout never fully lifts. The characters shift, but the audience is left uncertain whether this is growth or a temporary (and unstable) accommodation to malfunction. There’s a strange serenity to the ending – almost hopeful – and it lands with the weight of dramatic irony twice removed: the calm of people who believe they’ve survived something that is, in fact, still happening.

    And under New’s direction, there’s no point-scoring, no didacticism. Just a kind of eerie patience, as if the production itself understands what the audience may not have caught up to yet: that the world is reorganising itself around a new kind of human.

    One whose fight-or-flight system never fully reset.

    One whose memory of stability is now suspect.

    It was never just about the past

    Eric Bogosian’s play was never just about the past, because the past already contained the physics of the present. It has been tracking the political and epidemiological swell beneath us, calculating the rise of the seventh wave, not as climax, but as convergence. And now, as the surface breaks and the old coordinates vanish, it leaves us with questions, and not just for the characters. For the audience. For the one who writes collapse.

    When the ground gives way, when the fixed points inside us blur or go missing – can we still find motion? Can we stop looking for dry land and instead learn to move with the pattern, to attune to the medium itself?

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By Mask For Pleasure

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the UK prepares for the impending rise in state pension age from 66 to 67 and eventually to 68, concerns are growing over the adequacy of support for older workers, particularly the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) group. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has launched an initiative aimed at assisting older workers. But in reality, it amounts to little more than it telling the WASPI women to go to their Jobcentre.

    DWP: WASPI women should join the queue at the Jobcentre

    As the Express reported about the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) group:

    Labour was asked in a parliamentary question by South Shropshire MP Stuart Anderson about what support the DWP has in his region for… [WASPI women]. DWP minister Alison McGovern provided a response outlining the Government’s efforts to help people stay in work for longer.

    Her response was, in affect, ‘join the Jobcentre queue’. McGovern said:

    The DWP currently offers employment support for eligible customers of all ages, through the network of jobcentres across the UK, and through contracted employment programmes.

    A dedicated offer for older workers seeks to provide tailored support for those affected by low confidence, menopause, health and disability or caring pressures, and out of date skills or qualifications.

    Through midlife reviews, delivered in Jobcentres across the UK, and online, we support older people to assess their health, finances and skills.

    DWP minister Alison McGovern’s emphasis on employment support for older workers, including midlife reviews and an online Midlife MOT, has been touted by Labour as a solution to help individuals navigate the complexities of retirement finances and employment challenges.

    However, this approach has been met with skepticism by politicians like South Shropshire MP Stuart Anderson, who questioned the specific support available for women in his constituency facing the escalating pension age.

    Women Against State Pension Inequality

    The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) women, primarily born in the 1950s, have faced significant hardship due to previous changes in the state pension age, often without adequate notice or support. These women, who have had to work longer without prior preparation, are once again likely to be hit hard by the rising pension age.

    The DWP’s initiative has been criticized for not sufficiently addressing their specific needs or providing substantial assistance to mitigate the impacts of these policy changes.

    While the former Conservative government faces significant criticism for its handling of pension issues, the Labour Party has also been accused of failing to provide a robust alternative. Their lack of a comprehensive plan to address the systemic challenges faced by older workers, particularly in terms of employment support and pension reform, raises questions about their commitment to resolving these pressing issues.

    Moreover, Labour has actively worked against older people: cutting Winter Fuel Payments to the bone while failing to compensate the WASPI women – resulting in a legal challenge. Plus, the broader economic context, with a continued cost of living crisis, further exacerbates the challenges faced by older people – especially WASPI women.

    The DWP: putting sticking plasters on broken WASPI legs

    The DWP’s emphasis on encouraging individuals to remain in the workforce longer, without addressing the underlying economic pressures, is seen by many as insufficient. The reality is that many older workers are not merely seeking employment support but require holistic financial assistance to navigate their later years comfortably.

    For the DWP’s initiatives to be effective, they must be accompanied by more profound reforms that address the core issues affecting older workers and pensioners.

    This includes a reevaluation of the pension age increase policy, enhanced financial support for those nearing retirement, and significant improvements in employment opportunities tailored to older workers. It must also include compensation for Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) women – who shouldn’t be working, anyway.

    However, this is not what the DWP and Labour are doing. In effect, they’re merely putting sticking plasters on the broken legs of our pension system.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Jane McAdam, UNSW Sydney

    The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.

    The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.

    The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.

    Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.

    Why is this migration avenue important?
    The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.

    As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.

    As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”

    And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.

    As international development expert Professor Stephen Howes put it,

    Countries with greater migration opportunities in the Pacific generally do better.

    While Australia has a history of labour mobility schemes for Pacific peoples, this will not provide opportunities for everyone.

    Despite perennial calls for migration or relocation opportunities in the face of climate change, this is the first Australian visa to respond.

    How does the new visa work?
    The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.

    On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:

    • education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
    • Medicare
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
    • family tax benefit
    • childcare subsidy
    • youth allowance.

    They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.

    This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.

    According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.

    Reading the fine print
    The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).

    The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.

    First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.

    Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.

    But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa — a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia — this new visa is not employment-dependent.

    Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.

    This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.

    Who can apply, and how?

    To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.

    The primary applicant must:

    • be at least 18 years of age
    • hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
    • have been born in Tuvalu — or had a parent or a grandparent born there.

    People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.

    This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.

    Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.

    Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.

    And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.

    Settlement support is crucial
    With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.

    The Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:

    Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.

    That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.

    A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.

    For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.

    Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.

    Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.The Conversation

    Dr Jane McAdam is Scientia professor and ARC laureate fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

  • Donald Trump and Elon Musk have been making a right old mess of the US government. While there was always much to criticise about the country, Musk and his so called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ (DOGE) haven’t been going after the programmes which make people’s live worse; they’ve been going after the ones which make things borderline tolerable. Now, Nigel Farage is threatening to do the same thing to councils across the UK.

    DOGE: the slashing bureau

    If you listened to Musk (like Nigel Farage seemingly has) you’d believe he genuinely wanted to improve government efficiency. If you listened to anyone who wasn’t a billionaire, you’d know that DOGE was a spite-driven machine designed to cut services for regular people.

    CNN rounded up several ways Musk “misled” Americans, including:

    • Lying about a USAID-paid celebrity trip to Ukraine designed to “boost Zelensky’s popularity among Americans” (the trip never happened).
    • Sharing misinformation spread by random X users, including a graph which suggested an increase in tax credits was some sort of nefarious welfare scheme (it was actually a scheme that Trump signed into power and Joe Biden later allowed to expire).
    • Musk also claimed “They took money from FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency], meant for helping Americans in distress, and sent that money to luxury hotels for illegal immigrants in New York” (the money was from a separate scheme and the hotels weren’t luxury).

    Don’t get us wrong – we’re not saying the US government was doing good work with any of the above. USAID did benefit many people around the world, but at the same time it existed primarily to push American soft power abroad. Biden should have continued the tax credits scheme, too, and New York and the US government would actually save money by using permanent housing instead of temporary solutions like hotels.

    DOGE isn’t slashing these services to implement something better, though, it’s slashing them because Musk and other billionaires despise anything which doesn’t benefit themselves. This is why Musk is very happy to take government “contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits” for his own companies, but cries bloody murder when government money is directed anywhere else.

    Incompetent

    And let’s not forget the incompetence (something Nigel Farage needs no lessons in).

    In February, DOGE had to rush to rehire crucial workers in fields like nuclear weapons. As the Standard reported:

    Federal workers responsible for America’s nuclear weapons are being rehired after being accidentally fired in President Donald Trump’s rush to slash government waste in a whirlwind of new policies since he returned to the White House.

    Scientists trying to fight a worsening outbreak of bird flu and officials responsible for supplying electricity are also being given their jobs back after being among the tens of thousands of workers axed by Trump’s administration.

    “This shows a level of absolute incompetence in the firing process,” said Don Moynihan, a professor at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

    “They are taking a chainsaw to public services without any kind of careful review of the people being removed and the tasks they are employed for.”

    You might not agree with nuclear weapons existing, but you probably think that as long as we do have them they should at least be secure.

    Attacking MAGA

    Another element we should mention is that the promise of DOGE to Trump voters was that it would go after the enemies of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. But do you know who it actually attacked?

    That’s right – Trump voters themselves.

    In the 2024 election, nearly two thirds of veteran voters opted for Trump. How did Trump and Musk repay them? Well, as The Week reported:

    A “climate of fear” has enveloped the Department of Veterans Affairs, said Sonner Kehrt in Mother Jones. Guided by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, the Trump administration has cut 2,400 jobs at the agency over the past month. And last week, VA Secretary Doug Collins announced plans to ax 80,000 more employees this year—about 17 percent of the department’s entire workforce. Despite repeated claims from administration officials that the layoffs will not affect the 9 million vets who rely on the agency for medical care and other services, VA workers say the cuts are “already hurting” patients. Suicide prevention trainings have been canceled, and therapists who work with PTSD patients have been fired. Some vets have seen mammograms and other crucial exams delayed for months because of staff shortages. Meanwhile, VA workers are struggling to focus on providing care as they worry about whether they’ll even have a job tomorrow. “Honestly, the last time I felt this level of fear was in combat,” said one decorated veteran turned veterans’ therapist.

    One thing Musk and the Trump movement have raged against is the the idea of ‘DEI hires’, with DEI standing for ‘Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion’. As it turned out, many of the veterans employed in the federal government were hired as part of DEI initiatives to provide support for American soldiers after they return from combat. Now, these soldiers are going from an environment which provided next-to-no-support to one which is actively hostile towards them.

    And all because the guy they supported won.

    Does this sound like something we want to import to the UK? Nigel Farage clearly thinks so.

    Musk’s finger puppet Nigel Farage being fingered by Laura Kuenssberg

    On her Sunday morning politics show, Laura Kuenssberg suggested the upcoming council elections could be a “big breakthrough” for Nigel Farage and his Reform Party, asking him:

    councils have been strapped for cash for a long, long time. We know that. And there are many issues. Let’s look at a couple of them.

    There’s already an overspend of £3bn for children with special needs. Councils aren’t able to give people the help that they need. They haven’t got enough money to meet it. So if Reform was to be running any council, would you increase Council Tax, or would you cut back services even further?

    You could argue these are the only two options, sure; you could also argue that Reform could use their growing electoral heft to bully Labour into sending more money to councils (money we’d like to see them generate through wealth taxes). Kuenssberg doesn’t even consider this to be an option, of course, because she’s one of the many ideology-brained austerity psychos that make up the British media.

    Farage responded:

    I’ve looked at the numbers. We did thousands of FOI requests to have a look where money was being spent. I’m gonna say this. We probably need a DOGE for every single county council in England.

    Yep, because DOGE is working out great in America.

    It’s really making people’s lives better.

    It isn’t just a scam to funnel more money to the rich.

    Nigel Farage blamed the shortages on things like councils spending money on ergonomic chairs. Undoubtedly there are instances of excessive spending which you could point at, but let us be clear – when a politician rises to power with a focus on what they can cut and not what they can improve, they really have no intention of improving anything.

    Kuenssberg did push back, saying:

    if you look properly at how local councils spend their money, nearly 80% of it is on education, police, children and adults social care, and the vast majority of it does not go on things like ergonomic chairs in the office. There are serious shortages.

    The problem is that she’s not saying this because she thinks the point about chairs is silly; she’s saying it because she wants Farage to commit to cutting things like education and adult social care.

    Little America, thanks to Nigel Farage

    With America fucking up so fantastically right now, you’d think UK politicians would want to distance themselves from the ongoing catastrophe. Sadly, it seems like our political class want to go down with the Titanic success Trump is having – with Nigel Farage cheering the pack on.

    Featured image via BBC and Wikimedia (Gage Skidmore – background removed from image)

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Three students at Paul Revere Middle School in Houston have been violently attacked in a likely Islamophobic attack. Three hijabi Afghan girls were attacked by a group of 20 fellow students. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that:

    One student was reportedly beaten so severely that she became unresponsive to teachers and was taken to Texas Children’s Hospital in the Medical Center, where she remained for four days.

    She is now required to wear a neck brace and continues to suffer both physical and emotional trauma from the assault.

    The Houston chapter of CAIR have spoken to the families of the attacked students, and then explained:

    The girls were allegedly attacked based on their ethnicity and discriminated against because they wore the Islamic headscarf (hijab) when the group wrongfully targeted them for what was believed by the families to be a case of mistaken identity over middle school drama in the school.

    However, the girls school district doesn’t appear to have their back.

    Houston attack at Paul Revere Middle School

    Houston Press, a local paper, referred to an unnamed spokesperson of the administrators of the school, Houston Independent School District (HISD). They reported:

    This spokesperson also said that this was not a case of mistaken identity as the families thought might be the case. Instead, it was it due to an underlying conflict not because she was wearing an Afghan wearing a hijab. [sic]

    Presumably, they meant ‘an Afghan girl wearing a hijab.’ And, the spokesperson from HISD contradicts many of the details from the girls parents and CAIR themselves. They said:

    While some of the details shared in CAIR’s press release do not match the facts of the investigation, the district shares CAIR’s belief that the incident warranted both consequences for the aggressors and care for the victim. 

    HISD also insisted that there was one victim, not three:

    Although the CAIR report alleged that three Afghan girls wearing hijabs were attacked, beaten and stabbed with pencils, the HISD spokesperson said it was only one victim — she was taken to the hospital where she stayed for several days and was placed in a neck brace. The mother of that girl, when meeting with school officials, asked that not only her daughter but the other two girls be moved to another school.

    Regardless of how many children ended up in hospital, it is clear that three students were attacked. In a video posted by CAIR a large group of students can be seen attacking the three Afghan girls.

    The attitude of the district’s spokesperson is a disappointing and damning display of hostility towards the attacked girls. Instead of listening to CAIR’s expertise and testimony from the girls and their parents, they chose to debate details and insist that the girl who was hospitalised:

    was not targeted because of her identity but because of previous conflict with the group of seven girls who attacked her

    ‘Traumatised’

    In a report from local news station KPRC 2 Houston, two of the girls and a parent spoke to reporters. One of the girls, who have been anonymised for her safety, explains that a large group of students forcibly pulled off their hijabs and beat them. Another girl recounts how she was beaten and bloodied.

    However, the journalist at the scene notices contradictions from HISD in response to the horrific attack. Jaewon Jung reports that:

    We reached out to HISD, and the district gave us a conflicting statement. District officials told us there was only one victim and seven aggressors although you can clearly see more than seven students in the cell phone video.

    William White, director of the Houston chapter of CAIR, responded:

    It is absolutely unacceptable for any student to be allegedly violently assaulted and then abandoned by the very institution that is supposed to protect them.

    These students came to this country in search of safety and stability—what they endured instead is a complete failure of accountability and compassion. HISD must act immediately to ensure their safety, support their healing, hold the students responsible accountable, and send a clear message that violence and bias will not be tolerated in our schools.

    Islamophobia in Houston

    The fact that the district chose to challenge testimony from the girls and their parents, and experts at CAIR is abhorrent. There are reports that the girl’s requested transfers to other schools were a protracted process.

    The fact is, it’s only CAIR’s advocacy that has drawn further attention to the case. It’s deeply unfortunate that their intervention was necessary for the district to do the bare minimum for their students.

    HISD’s refusal to acknowledge the Islamophobia and racialisation behind the attacks is disappointing but typical of a hostile environment for Muslims. It’s entirely possible that the students involved had their own interpersonal issues in addition to this being a racialised attack against visibly Muslim children.

    A refusal to consider the attack an Islamophobic one is dangerously short-sighted and shows how unsafe the Houston district is for Muslim students.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Keir Starmer has done next to nothing to address the Conservative Party-led austerity cuts that decimated Birmingham city council between 2010 and 2020. The maintenance of George Osborne’s legacy under Labour is austerity 2.0. This is the root cause of the Birmingham bin strike over the removal of a role.

    It amounts to a pay cut of up to £8,000 per year for some. Through comparisons with that role, the council owed £250 million in equal pay claims from workers that were assessed to be doing the same job for less pay. But instead of using equal pay to raise wages, the council wants to bring wages down to end the claims.

    Birmingham bin strike: austerity, continued

    It’s clear Birmingham council’s cuts to staff, wages and children’s social services stem from central government austerity. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, the government forced the council to make £736 million in austerity cuts. And the council’s spending power decreased by over 36%. This has also led to a council tax rise of 7.5%, even though Starmer pledged to freeze that very tax. In February, Starmer issued £180 million for the council. That’s far less than the Conservative cuts, and it is in the form of loans that the council must pay back.

    Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has drawn ire through urging the bin workers to take a new deal to end the dispute. But Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham said the offer was only “a partial deal on pay protection for a few”.

    And one Unite union member made quite the observation:

    The council are saying that we should share the pain but not one councillor, including the leader of the council, has been asked to give up a quarter of their pay. We thought when Labour came in they would stop what was happening, we were wrong.

    Workers taking part in the Birmingham bin strike have been demonstrating just how necessary their work is. Footage shows large piles of rubbish on streets of Birmingham attracting flies, foxes and other animals.

    An idea to consider

    One option to avoid situations like the Birmingham bin strike, which would also increase people’s stake in the public sector, is that more of us could dedicate a portion of their time to public sector work. If the UK’s 10.7 million unemployed and ‘economically inactive’ people spent ten hours a week doing a public sector job, half of the total public sector work would be covered. That’s without considering the current public sector workers, where roles could be job shared. And if everyone of working age dedicated five hours a week to public sector work, the entire public sector would be sorted.

    46% of public jobs are specialist like police officers, teachers, nurses etc, and require more dedication and practice. But it is an idea of how we could address at least some of the more menial work without people committing a 40 hour week to such a role. It could also address the fact that some people are working long weeks and some people are unemployed and ‘economically inactive’.

    In Birmingham, equal pay should mean a rise, not a decrease. But it’s clear legacy austerity is to blame for the Birmingham bin strike – and Labour’s ushering in of austerity 2.0.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Lakenheath Alliance for Peace are returning to the US-controlled RAF Lakenheath to stop the threat of US nuclear weapons coming to Britain. Activists will set up a peace camp and vigil from Monday 14 to Saturday 26 April. Their actions will then culminate in a blockade of the base on the final day to call on the government to refuse the siting of these nuclear weapons in Britain.

    Lakenheath documents revealed

    This protest comes after the Mirror ran an exclusive investigation revealing a shocking government cover up about the new US nuclear weapons deployment. Legal letters from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) to the Ministry of Defence resulted in the declassifying of a document exempting US Visiting Forces in Britain from meeting nuclear safety regulations. This blanket exemption not only applies to troops stationed at RAF Lakenheath, but across all US bases in Britain.

    This means that Suffolk County Council will never be informed of the US nuclear bombs arriving at RAF Lakenheath. The council would therefore be under no obligation to have emergency plans in place in the event of a nuclear accident at the base.

    CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    Nuclear weapons are the most destructive in the world. They put us all at risk every day. Whether they are from the dangers of accidents involving Britain’s own nuclear weapons or US ones deployed at RAF Lakenheath. Far from keeping people safe, all these nuclear weapons make Britain a target. Yet the government is more concerned about its special relationship with the US than people’s safety.

    Planned activities

    The new camp will see a ramping up of activities since the last peace camp in July 2024. Alongside the 24/7 vigil, there will be a programme of events and actions taking place at the base and in nearby towns and villages including:

    • 17 April, Greenham Women’s Day: Women who protested US nuclear weapons at RAF Greenham Common in the 1980s will lead the demonstration at the main gate.
    • 21 April, War Crimes & Genocide Day: Solidarity groups and activists, including a doctor who has volunteered in Gaza, will gather to protest at RAF Lakenheath’s involvement in war crimes being committed by US/UK/NATO forces and its military support which enables Israel to commit genocide in Gaza. 
    • 24 April, International Peace Conference: Members of peace campaigns from across the world will join local and national speakers for a one-day conference in Bury St Edmunds. Participants will challenge US militarism and the drive to never- ending wars, the build-up of US controlled NATO bases in Europe and how these impact the environment and people.
    • 26 April, Base Blockade: The final day of the camp will see activists engage in a blockade of the main gate of the base. CND will organising a stunt in reference to the British government’s nuclear secrecy.

    You can find a full programme and timetable on LAP’s website here.

    Lakenheath: risk and destruction

    Bolt also said:

    The peace camp comes just as we learn that Britain’s cover-up of a US nuclear weapons deployment has been in the works for at least four years, alongside proof that people living close to any US base in this country, not just in East Anglia, are at great risk.

    We encourage everyone to get involved with this camp, whether its attending one of the vigils, joining the blockade on the final day, or taking part in the international peace conference.

    Meanwhile, Lakenheath Alliance for Peace co-founder Angie Zelter said:

    It is horrifying and shameful that USAF Lakenheath, on British soil and with the connivance of the UK government is involved in war crimes and genocide. Pilots from Israel and Saudi Arabia are trained at Lakenheath and US planes and bombs go out to take part in the bombings in Gaza and Yemen.

    We are here to say this is not in our name and to warn service personnel in the base that they should never obey illegal orders and refuse to take part in the never ending wars that are destroying people and planet.

    Zelter explained:

    To mark the Genocide and War Crimes Day, we will hold a symbolic death march with baby shrouds, Red Rebels, and hanging baby clothes on the fence of the base. This is to remind everyone of the impact of these planes on babies and children. It is blood on their hands and from their planes.

    Greenham Common Woman Ginnie Herbet said:

    Women who protested at Greenham in the 1980s are now protesting at the return of US nukes to Lakenheath. The cruise missiles left Greenham Common, international law changed and the Common was handed back to the people. Forty years later and here we are protesting again as secret decisions are made and US nuclear weapons return to Lakenheath. Not in our Name!”

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Activists with the campaign group Youth Demand were met with violence and abuse from members of the public on Friday 11 April, as they staged a peaceful protest in central London to draw attention to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. At one point, a lorry driver could be seen accelerating his vehicle directly into activists – until the police finally intervened.

    So, in the face of this repression – what does the Telegraph do? Poke fun at Youth Demand and side with the abusive public (and of course, Israel).

    Youth Demand facing increasing aggression

    Activists, who temporarily blocked traffic in Moorgate at Farringdon Road and Fenchurch Street,, were pelted with eggs by bystanders in a disturbing show of public aggression:

    It seems odd that passers by in the middle of the City of London would be carrying enough eggs just to do this on the spur of the moment. As the Canary previously reported, earlier Youth Demand actions this month were targeted by the organised far-right and Zionists.

    The protest was part of a sustained campaign by Youth Demand, a growing youth-led movement calling for the UK government to end arms sales to Israel and to take meaningful action against what they rightfully term a genocidal war on the people of Gaza. Demonstrators also demanded that MPs cease taking donations from pro-Israel lobby groups.

    At one point on 11 April, a lorry driver was filmed trying to run over Youth Demand supporters:

     

    View this post on Instagram

     

    A post shared by Youth Demand (@_youthdemand)

    This is not the first time the public have assaulted Youth Demand supporters. As the Canary previously reported, just yesterday a bystander attacked a non-violent activist, knocking her out and causing her to have two seizures.

    MSM complicity with genocide

    However, rather than addressing the substance of the protest—the UK’s complicity in Israel’s military actions—the Telegraph chose to mock the young campaigners, dismissively likening them to “Just Stop Oil 2.0” and focusing disproportionately on traffic delays.

    This tone reflects a broader media trend of minimising or obscuring the devastating human cost of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

    At the time of writing, Israel has killed more than 50,000 people in Gaza since October 2023. This includes over 15,000 children, a harrowing statistic that is too often left unmentioned in mainstream UK media coverage.

    Yet, instead of engaging with these shocking figures or the evidence of war crimes—including the targeting of civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and journalists—outlets like the Telegraph continue to centre discomfort to commuters over the mass deaths of civilians.

    Youth Demand: courage in the face of repression

    Youth Demand’s actions are part of a proud tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience. Faced with a government that has shown little inclination to act, and a media environment more concerned with demonising dissent and propping up Israel than reporting on mass atrocities, these young activists are stepping into the moral vacuum.

    Their bravery contrasts starkly with the response of those who assaulted them, egging young people for daring to care about a genocide. Such hostility—enabled and amplified by an irresponsible press—is a reminder of the steep social cost activists face for standing on the right side of history.

    As Israeli bombs continue to fall on Gaza, and as the death toll rises daily, the actions of Youth Demand should not be ridiculed—they should be applauded.

    Rather than throwing eggs, we should be throwing our weight behind their urgent call for justice.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A new set of figures showing the scale of suspected illegal fox hunting and the havoc being inflicted on rural communities by fox hunts has been released today by national animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports.

    Fox hunting: still rife across England and Wales

    Nearly 1,600 incidents – consisting of 474 reports relating to suspected illegal hunting, which include 397 reports of foxes being chased, and 1,117 reports of hunt havoc – were recorded in the League’s end of season fox hunting report.

    Emma Judd, head of campaigns at the League Against Cruel Sports, said:

    These shocking figures underline why the government has announced it will launch a consultation to ban trail hunting later this year, something we are urging them to publish without delay.

    But, more than that, the Hunting Act also needs to be strengthened by removing its loopholes, which are exploited by hunts to avoid prosecution for illegal hunting, and for custodial sentences to be introduced for those who persist in breaking the law.

    The League’s figures reveal that the west of England was a particular fox hunting hot spot, with Gloucestershire, Dorset and Somerset recording the highest figures of all the counties in England and Wales.

    The worst of the worst

    Dorset and Somerset’s Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt, four members of which were convicted of illegal hunting this week, was the worst offending hunt in the country – with 61 reports relating to suspected illegal hunting, including 48 reports of foxes being chased and 83 reports of hunt havoc.

    The Warwickshire Hunt, a member of which was convicted of illegal hunting last month after the court dismissed his claim that the hunt was following a trail, was also one of the worst offending hunts, with reports of the hunt chasing 20 foxes.

    The figures cover the cub season, which began in August, and then the main fox hunting season, from November 2024 to the end of March 2025.

    The havoc caused by hunts includes anti-social behaviour and activities inconsistent with trail hunting, the discredited excuse used by people since the ban in which they claim to claim to follow pre-laid trails.

    These activities included hounds being struck on a busy road or railway line where no trail would have been laid, digging up badger setts to get to foxes that have fled underground, trespass – including in people’s private gardens – and causing harm or distress to other animals, such as family pets.

    Fox hunting must be properly outlawed

    Trail hunting has been described by Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, the national lead on these crimes, as a “smokescreen for illegal fox hunting”. He has also described illegal hunting as “prolific”.

    The figures are compiled from the charity’s confidential Animal Crimewatch service and monitors’ reports by the League’s intelligence team, which is staffed by former police officers and civilian analysts.

    Emma added:

    These figures show the fox hunts have an appalling disregard for the law and are chasing and killing foxes as they did before the ban and inflicting misery on rural communities.

    The time for change is now. New stronger fox hunting laws are needed to consign this barbaric activity to the history books.

    Members of the public can contact the League’s Animal Crimewatch service on 0300 444 1234, email crimewatch@league.org.uk or WhatsApp at 0755 278 8247.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In case you didn’t know, our NHS has a landlord. Yes, our supposedly public health service is renting hospitals from a private company. And now that company, Assura, has made £1.61 billion selling off its assets like GP surgeries to a US private equity giant.

    The NHS: robbed in plain sight

    Assura was established in 2003 and owns over 600 healthcare buildings, the majority of which it leases to the NHS. Despite such a large portfolio, it only has 79 members of staff further showing the whole thing is a con job.

    Documentary the Great NHS Heist exposes Conservative Research Department documents from 1977. They outlined that privatisation of the NHS should go ahead “by stealth”, “fragmenting public monopolies” to allow the “sale of assets”. But Labour under Tony Blair and now Keir Starmer have continued the Tory privatisation agenda.

    Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and Stonepeak Partners will now be renting our healthcare infrastructure to us. What’s almost funny – if it wasn’t people’s healthcare being played with – is that bosses said they bring “deep pockets and an understanding of UK infrastructure and real estate”.

    Investors don’t bring deeper pockets than the government, which has the entire country’s tax bill as its security and the ability to generate new money through quantitative easing. They also don’t bring an “understanding” of so-called “real estate” – workers such as builders, electricians, painters and plumbers do.

    It makes no sense for the NHS to rent hospitals from the private sector. When the NHS previously built new hospitals like the expansion to district general hospitals in the 1960s, the government funded the buildings. There was no rent-extraction from companies like Assura. For the 2023/24 year, Assura’s passing rent roll was £150.6m and it’s net profit was £143.3m.

    Underfund it, then privatise

    In 2023, around 431,000 people from the UK sought medical treatment abroad, a five times increase from a decade ago, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This corresponds with successive governments starving the NHS of funding and then increasing privatisation.

    According to the British Medical Association (BMA), there has been a real terms cumulative underspend of £425bn in public health spending since 2009/10. And Starmer announced a 20% increase in private provision of NHS services in January.

    That same month, 5,000 nurses came forward to expose the ‘corridor care’ crisis in the NHS. That’s quite literally staff treating people in corridors across the health service because of systematic overcapacity.

    The NHS would have more money for frontline services if it wasn’t paying rent to companies like Assura, now owned by US private equity.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In a landscape often marred by disinformation, recent social media chatter has ignited concerns around a rumour involving US president Donald Trump and the potential declaration of martial law. Specifically, a number of users have shared a prediction claiming that on April 20, 2025, Trump may invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, effectively allowing for military control over civilian governance during times of unrest.

    Martial law/marshall law…

    The origins of this rumour can be traced back to a series of articles on the publishing platform medium. The author, who goes by the handle Aletheisthenes, has put forward alarming projections of future events, warning that this declaration could lead to a cascade of oppressive state measures, including the arrest of journalists and politicians, restricted movement at state borders, and postponed elections.

    Aletheisthenes outlined concerns in their writing, stating:

    On April 20, 2025, the United States may initiate its final steps into authoritarian rule.

    This echoes other fears that have permeated discussions during Trump’s presidency, especially in light of his previous comments suggesting he considered invoking martial law during times of social upheaval.

    These anxieties resurfaced prominently in communications that highlighted an executive order issued by Trump on January 20, 2025, which declared a national emergency at the southern US border and required reports from the secretaries of defence and homeland security within 90 days. This timeframe points directly to 20 April, leading some to speculate that the day will mark a significant turning point in U.S. governance.

    Trump: no word as yet

    However, as of 10 April there has been no official confirmation or substantive evidence supporting these claims from the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, or the White House, which raises questions about the credibility of the rumour. Inquiries sent to these entities have gone unanswered as of the current reporting.

    These discussions are not merely rooted in speculation; they tap into a broader narrative of fear and distrust cultivated throughout Trump’s time in office. There is an irony in the fear-mongering coming from a space often associated with conspiracy theories.

    One reader reached out to Snopes, voicing concern over the rampant discussion online regarding Trump’s supposed plans for martial law. Another noted the potential for the executive order to set the stage for drastic legal changes.

    Yet, it is worth noting that previous analyses by legal experts, such as Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice, clarify that the Insurrection Act does not give the authority to declare martial law, which is typically understood as military oversight over civilian governance.

    In his response to the examination of these predictions, Aletheisthenes brushes aside legal objections, asserting:

    Trump has a history of testing what he can and can’t do.

    This highlights a prevailing sentiment among those wary of Trump’s disregard for established norms that govern democratic processes.

    Martial law: not too far from the truth…?

    Reality may differ from the predictions made by Aletheisthenes, as the author openly acknowledges the shifting language in their writings. “I decided to tone it down,” reflecting a tactical pivot in communication, as accusations of inciting panic circulate.

    This begs the question of how much fear is justified in a political climate where the former president has previously flirted with ideas akin to martial law.

    In historical context, the Insurrection Act of 1807 was created to allow presidential authority in quelling insurrections. Its last invocation was in 1992, during unrest provoked by police violence against Black communities.

    Today, discussions around the Act arise amid a broader conversation about civil rights, racial justice, and the preparedness of American governance to respond to internal crises equitably.

    As 20 April looms closer, the rumour of even harder authoritarian governance lingers, with detail and conjecture fuelling the anxiety surrounding Trump’s already far-right administration.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in the city of Belém, it stands before the world as a self-declared leader in clean energy. The Amazon rainforest, often described as the lungs of the planet, has been at the heart of this vision, seen as a source of nearly limitless hydropower potential. For decades, Brazil has promoted hydroelectricity as a clean, sustainable, and cost-effective solution to boost economic growth and fulfil its climate commitments. But while hydropower now constitutes over 60% of Brazil’s energy matrix, this narrative of progress has come at a deep and often irreversible cost, one paid by ecosystems and communities that have long existed in harmony with the rivers now being harnessed for power.

    Brazil’s hydropower dams: a story of displacement and destruction

    The Brazilian government, energy companies, and mainstream media have long presented hydropower as a national achievement, a keystone of development and environmental responsibility. Yet, beneath the surface, scientific research and the lived experiences of countless displaced people tell a different story.

    Since the 1960s, Brazil has invested heavily in dam construction, increasingly targeting the Amazon basin, one of the most ecologically rich and water-abundant areas on Earth. These gigantic projects have not only disrupted sensitive ecosystems but have also led to the mass displacement of Indigenous and traditional communities, disrupted their food sources, such as fishing, triggered widespread deforestation and environmental pollution. Worse yet, these dams contributed to the release of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

    Furthermore, the influx of workers to dam sites often drives rapid urbanisation, placing stress on existing infrastructure and contributing to a surge in violence, crime, and both mental and physical health issues, leaving deep scars on communities that are already struggling to survive.

    Belo Monte dam – a monumental loss

    One of the most impactful projects, with significant irreversible socio-ecological consequences, was the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric complex in Pará, the host state for COP30.

    Igor Cavallini Johansen, professor in the demography department of the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), said:

    We must reckon with the persistent inequalities created by large hydropower dams – both in the Altamira region and across the Amazon basin. This legacy of uneven development, where local communities bear the environmental and social costs while distant urban centres reap the energy benefits, demands urgent redress.

    Built between 2010 and 2015 during Dilma Rousseff’s administration, and completed just before her impeachment, Belo Monte has a capacity of 11.2GW and a cost of around $13bn. It stands as Brazil’s second-largest hydropower plant, operated and managed by Norte Energia.

    In June 2022, prior to his election, Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, stated that he had no regrets about supporting Belo Monte in the past, and that he would make the same decision to build the dam again if given the chance. He has consistently expressed his strong support for the Belo Monte project.

    Belo Monte is made up of two dams: an upper dam, Pimental, which diverts water to the canal, and lower dam, Belo Monte, where the powerhouse is located, along a 130-km river stretch of the Xingu River, known as Volta Grande.

    For many, Belo Monte symbolises tragedy, rather than triumph

    The construction of Belo Monte forcibly displaced around 40,000 people, including riverside communities (Ribeirinhos) and a quarter of Altamira’s population, who were relocated to remote resettlements on the city’s outskirts.

    For those who stayed, the consequences were equally devastating. Indigenous people and Ribeirinhos lost access to their primary food source – fishing – as fluctuating water levels led to the extinction of fish species. The river’s flow was reduced by an alarming 80%, all due to the diversion of its natural course.

    Maria Francineide Ferreira dos Santos lost her paradise to silence. Her home in Paratizinho was taken from her after she dared to speak against the destruction caused by the Belo Monte dam. In 2016, armed men invaded her house and threatened to kill her if she didn’t back down, but she stood her ground. Soon after, while away for medical treatment, her home was demolished. Forced into the city, she never stopped fighting. Today, she lives in Volta Grande do Xingu, not just as a survivor, but as a fierce guardian of the river and its people.

    Francineide spoke out about the lasting harm Belo Monte has brought to her life and the lives of countless others:

    All the impacts we’ve had are irreparable. The first impact was the biggest crime that Belo Monte committed in the Xingu, the death of the fish and with the displacement of its people who were born and raised in this region, who lived on the islands, without rights, without being heard, without respect, having their houses ripped out and burned, violating our rights.

    Another impact was seeing our people, who didn’t understand anything, lose their homes, being moved to the city where land had exorbitant prices, not giving us the conditions to survive. The government does what it wants. This has been a losing fight. No justice has been done.

    Rodolfo Salm, ecologist, activist, and lecturer at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), who lives in Altamira, spoke about some of the impacts of the project:

    The Belo Monte hydroelectric project stands as a clear example of environmental, social, and economic failure. While presented as a symbol of progress, it has instead triggered widespread destruction in the eastern Amazon. The social consequences have been equally severe, marked by displacement, violence, and unfulfilled promises. Despite the billions spent on compensation, these efforts fall far short of addressing the loss of livelihoods, natural beauty, and vital ecosystem services once provided by the preserved Xingu River.

    Far from bringing prosperity, the project has left the region economically weakened and environmentally damaged. Energy production at Belo Monte is unreliable, with the Xingu River running too low for most of the year, a flaw that was well understood before construction even began.

    Food insecurity: stripped of a fundamental human right

    A study published in the Environmental Research and Public Health journal highlights concerning levels of food insecurity in the region impacted by Belo Monte. Rather than enhancing quality of life, the project triggered a series of negative outcomes: displacement, loss of homes, and the disruption of essential food sources like agriculture and fishing. As a result, food security deteriorated, contributing to increased poverty.

    Johansen, one of the authors of the study, explained:

    The long-term food insecurity faced by communities displaced by Belo Monte is one of the most alarming consequences of the dam’s construction. Our research shows that, nearly 70% of households reported increased difficulty accessing enough food or the types of food they wanted after Belo Monte was built. For more than half of them, this struggle began even before the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning the dam’s impacts – not just external crises – are a relevant driver of this problem.

    One of the most revealing findings is that people officially recognised as ‘impacted’ by Belo Monte – and thus relocated to government resettlement neighbourhoods – were significantly more likely to face hunger. This suggests that the resettlement process itself, rather than improving lives, has maintained or deepened vulnerabilities.

    The resettled communities were stripped of a fundamental human right: access to adequate, nutritious food.

    Deepening dependence on distant supply chains has been a disaster

    Miquéias Freitas Calvi, professor of forestry engineering at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), and one of the authors of the study, said:

    The disruption of the river’s natural balance deeply affects the Indigenous and riverside communities whose lives are rooted in it. Fishing, their primary source of sustenance and income, is under threat, placing food security, health, and cultural survival at risk. As the river fades, so does their self-reliance. More families are forced to abandon their ancestral lands, relying on government aid to survive. Traditional diets give way to ultra-processed foods, compromising their health and identity. What begins as environmental damage quickly becomes a social crisis, eroding generations of sustainable living in harmony with the river.

    In just two years, the city of Altamira’s population (urban area) doubled as thousands arrived from across Brazil, drawn by the promise of work, not only on the Belo Monte dam, but in the web of opportunities it created. With such rapid growth, the most basic human need, food, became a pressing challenge. Yet instead of preparing to sustain a growing city and strengthen the local economy, the region scaled back its food production and deepened its dependence on distant supply chains.

    Johansen explained some of the impacts that go far beyond nutrition:

    The loss of traditional food sources like fish has had devastating impacts that go far beyond nutrition – it’s severed a vital connection to cultural identity and community health. For Indigenous and riverine populations around Belo Monte, fish weren’t just protein; they anchored entire systems of knowledge, social bonds, and spiritual practices.

    Generations developed intricate fishing techniques tied to the Xingu’s seasonal floods, passing down this wisdom through stories and shared labor. The act of fishing itself was communal – a space where elders taught youth, where myths were retold, where social ties were reinforced. With the dam’s disruption of river ecology, we’ve seen not just declining catches but a rupture in this intergenerational transmission.

    Public perceptions of hydropower in Brazil

    A study published in the Energy Research & Social Science journal explores how communities living near major hydropower dams perceive this form of energy, in sharp contrast to the broader national population. Focusing on the Altamira region, deep in the Amazon and heavily impacted by the Belo Monte dam, the study offers a glimpse into the lived reality behind Brazil’s hydropower narrative.

    Although Altamira is not located directly beside the dam, it served as a central hub for its construction. As a result, the city experienced significant negative impacts, including the rise in crime, prostitution, drug use, public health challenges such as increased dengue fever cases, and social disruption.

    Having lived through these changes, Altamira’s residents perceive the social and environmental consequences of hydropower far more critically than the general population. Still, 60% of residents continue to express support for hydropower, a complex and conflicted relationship with a project that has profoundly altered their daily lives.

    This contradiction reveals the harsh reality of “sacrifice zones”, areas like Altamira and its neighbouring communities that are left to absorb the full cost of national development while receiving little in return. The psychological cost is profound: some residents appear to cope by believing their hardship is a necessary contribution to the nation’s progress.

    Perhaps most heartbreaking is the widespread frustration over energy costs. A staggering 84% of Altamira’s population say they are dissatisfied with the affordability of electricity, despite living in the shadow of one of the world’s largest hydropower projects.

    The ‘narrative of progress and modernity’

    Johansen further explained:

    There’s the powerful narrative of progress and modernity that dominates media coverage and political discourse. Hydropower is consistently framed as “clean energy” and a driver of national development, with stories appearing almost exclusively in economic sections of newspapers. This selective coverage emphasises job creation and energy security while minimising reports about displacement, ecological damage, and cultural loss. The result is a skewed public perception where the benefits feel abstract and national, while the costs remain hyper-localised.

    In addition, there’s the entrenched notion of sacrifice zones – the idea that certain regions must bear the burden of development for the greater good. Many in Altamira express a resigned acceptance that “someone has to pay the price” for Brazil’s energy needs. This sentiment is reinforced when they see the electricity from Belo Monte, which is connected to the national grid, primarily powering distant urban centers in the southeast while there are local communities in the Amazon facing energy poverty.

    The stark reality of Altamira – sitting in the shadow of one of Brazil’s largest hydropower plants yet struggling with expensive electricity – exposes a fundamental injustice in our energy system. This isn’t just poor planning; it’s a systemic failure that treats local communities as infrastructure sites rather than equal beneficiaries.

    As Brazil prepares to welcome the world at COP30, it faces an urgent question: can a nation truly claim climate leadership while ignoring the voices of those sacrificed in the name of energy?

    We can ‘no longer justify sacrificing’ the Amazon for hydropower in Brazil

    Johansen’s shared a powerful message to Brazil and the world about the irreversible consequences of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon:

    The construction of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon has taught us several hard lessons that should fundamentally reshape future energy planning. First and foremost, these projects cause irreversible ecological damage – flooding vast areas of pristine rainforest, destroying unique habitats, and potentially driving species extinction.

    Equally troubling is the consistent pattern of human rights violations. Indigenous and traditional communities repeatedly face displacement without proper consultation or fair compensation, as starkly demonstrated by the Belo Monte project. These aren’t isolated incidents but systemic failures in how such projects are approved and implemented.

    The climate calculus for tropical dams has also proven flawed. Rather than being clean energy solutions, their reservoirs become methane factories as submerged vegetation decomposes – in some cases making them worse climate offenders than fossil fuel plants. This challenges the very rationale for prioritising hydropower in rainforest regions.

    Perhaps the most crucial lesson is that we can no longer justify sacrificing the Amazon’s ecological and cultural wealth for questionable energy gains. The evidence clearly shows that in biodiversity hotspots, the costs of large dams nearly always outweigh the benefits – a reality that demands a fundamental shift in energy policy.

    When asked for comment, Norte Energia issued to following statement:

    Screenshot
    Screenshot
    Brazil hydropower
    Screenshot

    By Monica Piccinini

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East, has asked questions about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans for people on Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and received an outrageous answer. As the Canary’s most recent coverage has demonstrated, Labour have shown nothing but contempt for disabled people when it comes to policy on disability benefits. The announcement of these policies has caused untold distress for disabled people. And, to add insult onto injury, Labour’s insistence on overhauling DWP PIP is pushing up against a 0% fraud rate with almost a 50% rejection rate for applicants.

    Now, the response of Stephen Timms, Minister of State for Social Security and Disability, on DWP PIP restrictions has shown just how terrifying these proposed reforms are for disabled people.

    DWP PIP restrictions

    In a written question Burgon asked why people with the following needs are to no longer be eligible for DWP PIP:

     (a) assistance to be able to cut up food

    (b) supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe

    (c) assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist

    (d) assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower

    (e) supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs

    (f) assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body

    (g) supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage medication and, or, to be able to monitor a health condition.

    Before we get to Timms’ response – let’s establish something. The needs Burgon is describing form the basic requirements for dignity in any person’s life. They’re not extra requirements – they’re the absolute basic fundamentals of existing as a person. They are a right.

    The reason we’re at pains to point this out is because the media reporting of disability has been so abhorrent that it is simply not a given that disabled people who require support with eating and cleaning themselves are full human beings with the same right to dignity and respect as anybody else.

    What was the response?

    When Timms’ response to Burgon’s question did come, it showed just how callous and cruel Labour’s approach to disabled people is. Timms said:

    A high number of people get PIP by having multiple but low-level functional needs across several activities. These could individually be managed with small interventions or the addition of aids or appliances. This change will focus PIP more on those with the greatest needs, ensuring those who are unable to complete activities at all, or who require more help from others to complete them, still get support.

    Here, Timms is saying that of the various needs Burgon listed in his question, it is the Labour party’s belief that they could be considered “low-level functional needs.” That includes cutting up food, washing your hair and body, and using the toilet.

    Timms is instead saying that these kinds of needs won’t qualify people for DWP PIP anymore. Instead, these needs will be “be managed with small interventions or the addition of aids or appliances.”

    Timms didn’t clarify precisely which magical aids and appliances can be used for the above needs without money being spent. His assertion that “this change will focus DWP PIP more on those with the greatest needs” is an incalculably cruel and ignorant assessment of what disabled people’s lives are actually like.

    And, on social media Burgon was similarly blunt:

    I asked the Government why people will no longer get PIP who need help to go to the toilet, cut up food or wash themselves.

    The response is appalling. It claims these disabled people just need “small interventions or the addition of aids or appliances.”

    No, they need PIP!

    What’s the point of DWP PIP?

    In parliament, Burgon made another important point:

    The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP.

    Given DWP PIP has a 0% fraud rate, and almost half of claimants have their applications rejected nothing in the data points to any kind of fraud or misuse of PIP on the part of applicants. PIP isn’t means tested, and isn’t a benefit designed to get people into work. It is designed to assist people with the additional cost of living whilst disabled.

    Timms characterisation of the needs Burgon listed as “low level” is an absolute disgrace. Nobody, never mind a minister for disabilities, should be making such embarrassing and ignorant assertions. People who struggle to wash and feed themselves need the funds to be able to survive. Disabled people aren’t off on a jolly – though fuck knows we could do with one – using DWP PIP.

    There is an answer

    Burgon wasn’t done there, though. In another response in parliament he said:

    Making cuts instead of taxing wealth is a political choice, and taking away the personal independence payments from so many disabled people is an especially cruel choice.

    A disabled person who cannot cut up their own food without assistance, cannot go to the toilet without assistance and cannot wash themselves without assistance will lose their personal independence payment.

    Have not the Government taken the easy option of cutting support for disabled people rather than the braver option, which would be to tax the wealthiest through a wealth tax?

    As ever, disabled people are at the sharp end of government reforms. Labour are trying to look like they’re tough on fraud, and somehow a conservative option in a red tie. The reality is that their plans for DWP PIP will make life immeasurably difficult for disabled people. These plans mean disabled people will die without the basic support they need for “low-level functions.”

    Labour could have chosen to tax the unfathomably wealthy. Instead, they’re using disabled people as an easy target.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is under mounting pressure after campaigners representing millions of women born in the 1950s officially filed a judicial review application, accusing the government of failing to right decades of pension injustice. The details have now been released, with the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) women claiming the DWP acted ‘irrationally’ in its decisions.

    And, the group seem confident – as the crowdfunder for the legal action has passed £180,000.

    The DWP: ongoing WASPI scandal still sees no justice

    The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) group submitted legal papers on Tuesday 8 April, challenging the DWP’s gross mishandling of state pension age changes which left many women with no time to adjust their retirement plans.

    After years of bureaucratic stonewalling and political neglect, WASPI women are fighting back with the backing of leading public law experts—and they are not backing down.

    At the heart of the legal challenge lies the DWP’s failure to properly notify affected women of a major change: the rise in the state pension age from 60 to 66. For thousands, the news arrived late—far too late to make up for the financial shortfall it would cause.

    Many lost jobs, homes, and life savings as a result.

    However, despite repeated findings that the DWP had failed in its duty, including a damning Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) report, the government has refused to pay compensation.

    “The PHSO has already confirmed that maladministration occurred. The DWP broke its own rules and failed to communicate with the very women it was affecting. But still, no justice,” said a WASPI spokesperson:

    We’ve been forced into this legal action because this government simply refuses to accept accountability.

    Irrational, irrational, irrational

    The DWP Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) legal case is being brought by Bindmans LLP and supported by Landmark Chambers, specialists in public law and human rights.

    It seeks to review the DWP’s inaction following the Ombudsman’s final report in March. It recommended compensation at Level 4. This is the equivalent of between £1,000 and £2,950. WASPI and many MPs have slammed this as insultingly low, calling for payments more reflective of the scale of the harm done.

    As the FT Adviser reported, the WASPI case against the DWP has two grounds – the first being its decision over compensation was “irrational”:

    The first argument the WASPI group has made is that the government’s rejection of the PHSO’s findings about injustice was not based on “cogent or even rational reasons”.

    In the government’s decision to not award compensation, the DWP said it was because the PHSO’s decision contained a “logical flaw” and it failed to take into account the fact that sending letters was “often not an effective way to change levels of awareness”.

    Secondly, WASPI argues that:

    The government’s rejection of the PHSO’s recommendations on remedy, on the basis that there was no injustice and no justification for the provision of a remedy, was not based on “cogent or even rational reasons”.

    Within the government’s decision to not award compensation, it states “the substantial majority of the group of women who were not informed of the change to their state pension age cannot have suffered injustice because they were aware of their state pension age”.

    However, in a move that has outraged campaigners and opposition MPs alike, the government has continued to sideline the issue.

    The DWP must pay up for Women Against State Pension Inequality

    Ministers have yet to commit to any form of redress, let alone the compensation levels demanded. Meanwhile, the affected women—now in their 60s and 70s—are dying at the rate of one every 13 minutes, according to Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) estimates.

    “This is not just an administrative oversight. It’s an act of institutional cruelty,” said Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey:

    The DWP owes these women not just an apology, but a meaningful, immediate remedy.

    The judicial review application argues that the DWP’s failure to act breaches the principle of good administration. Therefore, its failures constitute a denial of justice.

    Ultimately, the WASPI women want the government to right these wrongs. As the FT Adviser reported:

    The WASPI group is requesting the High Court to declare that the government’s decision to not award compensation is “ vitiated by irrationality and/or an absence of cogent reasons”.

    As well as quash the government’s decision in whole or in part and award the group its costs.

    So, as the case proceeds campaigners are urging the public to support the fight for justice. “We will not be ignored any longer,” said one WASPI member:

    The DWP may hope we’ll just go away—but we’re not going anywhere.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Families are now waiting more than 100 years for social housing in some areas of the UK, according to analysis from the National Housing Federation (NHF), Crisis, and Shelter. Waiting times for at least a three bedroom social home exceed life expectancy in the London boroughs of Enfield at 105 years, Westminster at 107 years and Merton at 102 years.

    Only 100 years later… and you can get social housing

    And it’s still ridiculous in other local authority locations. In 32 council areas across England, the wait time is more than 18 years, outpacing an entire childhood. Since 2015, the number of overall families on waiting lists in England has increased by 37%.

    This is a housing crisis. At the sharpest end of it, there are 164,040 homeless children in temporary accommodation, according to Shelter. That’s a 15% increase on the previous year and no doubt exacerbated by Labour keeping the Tories’ two child benefit cap. On top of that, there are 4,667 people sleeping rough on a give night, which is a 20% increase on the year before.

    Then there’s the extreme levels of rent and high house prices people are paying. From 2000-2019, housebuilders profit per house sale rose by £75,000, according to research from Brunel University. And landlords made £56.2bn in rent from young people alone in 2024.

    Social housing boosts the economy

    While the Labour government has committed to building 1.5 million new homes, it has so far only pledged for 1.2% of them to be affordable, let alone social housing. That’s just 18,000 new homes people can actually, you know, afford to buy. A drop in an ocean of profiteering through the common essential of shelter. And this is on the back of a net loss of social housing: other analysis from Crisis shows that there are now 180,000 less social homes than 10 years ago through sales and demolitions exceeding builds.

    That’s despite council homes contributing at least £77.7 billion a year to the economy through savings for the NHS, councils, government and the opportunities it provides residents.

    And analysis from Shelter shows that investing in social homes at 90,000 per year would add over £50 billion to the economy, including savings for the taxpayer and a boost to the construction industry. That includes £4.5 billion in savings for housing benefit and £3.3 billion in savings for universal credit. That makes total sense, given 88% of the UK’s housing budget currently goes into the pocket’s of landlords through benefits compensating for high rents. In the 1970s, only 4% of the housing budget went to benefits.

    “Ludicrous “

    44 year old Angie has been on the waiting list in Tower Hamlets for 16 years and the new figures show its a 40 year wait time for the borough. She said:

    We might be on low income, and we might be on benefits, and we might be stuck in a system, but we still have the right to the quality of life that everybody else does

    Matt Downie, Chief Executive of Crisis, said:

    The consequences of failing to build anywhere near enough social homes are tens of thousands of children growing up homeless, restricted life chances and people trapped in poverty across generations. It’s ludicrous that in some areas of the country the wait for a social home is more than average life expectancy. This must spur action at the upcoming Spending Review. Government must commit to building social housing at scale and provide the necessary investment so that we can create a stronger society where everyone has the foundation of a safe home. With political will and ambition, we can end homelessness.

    Mairi MacRae, Director of Policy and Campaigns at Shelter, said:

    Decades of failure to build genuinely affordable social homes has left our housing system in tatters and trapped families in a relentless cycle of insecurity and homelessness. No child should grow up without a safe, stable home, but today, more than 164,000 children are spending their formative years in damaging and often dangerous temporary accommodation.

    We shouldn’t treat housing as an asset and instead guarantee it at cost price for ownership, paid in affordable monthly sums. Short of that, social housing is a much better option than the private sector for many people.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Tuesday 8 April, the White House confirmed Donald Trump’s desire to have US citizens deported to El Salvadorian prisons.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump was looking at “if there is a legal pathway” to deport US citizens who are “heinous, violent, criminals”.

    Trump: deporting… US citizens?

    As Reuters reported:

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Donald Trump to pursue deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime as part of the Republican president’s hardline approach to immigration, but with certain limits.

    The court, in an unsigned 5-4 ruling powered by conservative justices, granted the administration’s request to lift Washington-based U.S. Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order that had temporarily blocked the summary deportations under Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act while litigation in the case continues.

    Moreover, as it detailed:

    Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 to swiftly deport the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, attempting to speed up removals with a law best known for its use to intern Japanese, Italian and German immigrants during World War Two.

    Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor spelled out what this really means:

    So now, the court has effectively greenlit Trump’s administration deporting US citizens for imprisonment, under wartime laws because – *checks notes* – it feels like it:

    US citizen already trapped in an El Salvadoran mega-prison

    Only a few days ago, Trump said during an interview with Newsweek that:

    If they can house these horrible criminals for a lot less money than it costs us – I’m all for it. . .

    Why should it stop just for people who cross the border illegally? We have some horrible criminals. American grown and born

    And the kicker with this Supreme Court ruling? Trump has already sent a US citizen one a one-way ticket to the maximum security ‘Terrorism Confinement Center’ of the repressive El Salvadoran regime.

    Last month, the US deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia from his home in Maryland. He was taken into custody, and eventually found himself in El Salvador – at a prison notorious for housing gang members. Since then, the US government have said that he was deported due to an ‘administrative error’.

    Even so, he is still locked up and unable to return home to his young son. According to the BBC, Trump officials are now claiming they cannot force El Salvador to return Garcia.

    Call it what it is… fascism

    However, this is also just the tip of the iceberg – or – the immigration enforcement ICEberg if you like. This is because the so-called “land of the free” under Trump’s steer has been literally kidnapping citizens and non-citizens alike. 

    If you’re a student speaking out against Israel’s genocide in Palestine – the state will nab you. A scholar criticising the US for its complicity in Gaza? Prepare to be detained. Maybe you’re a British backpacker – detained for weeks by ICE. Or perhaps a British punk rock band or a French scientist who has made anti-Trump comments: denied entry.

    The point is, if you say something Trump doesn’t like, the violent policing arms of MAGAland can silence you – by literally spiriting you away to wherever the felon president fancies. 

    Let’s call all this what it is: authoritarian fascism, plain and simple:

    Trump and Biden: two sides of the same coin

    But let’s be real – the UK and US right now are two sides of the same coin.

    And perhaps it’s little wonder that spineless Starmer eyeing up a trade deal with the US, has made not even a mealy-mouthed attempt at calling out Trump’s repressive administration. After all, the state here has weaponised anti-terrorism laws to go after journalists and activists speaking against Israel. 

    In fact, only today the Canary’s Steve Topple has reported on the preposterous draconian ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance’ powers the Met Police wielded to nick Youth Demand protesters. 

    Ultimately, none of this is a far cry from Trump’s disappearing of citizens. The deportation to El Salvador’s human rights violating detention facility might be a step further down the line towards fascism, but the parallels are scarily similar all the same. 

    What democracy with Trump?

    The Supreme Court ruling upends any notion that the US is a democracy. Before the fascist felon president, US administrations operated in some pseudo-democratic fashion – though arguably, the corporatisation of the US had long been in play.

    Now, Trump has blown this blatant myth wide open. What the Supreme Court ruling and Garcia’s case has shown is that the US is rapidly careering into full-blown fascism. If a government can simply ignore all the checks and balances that prevent it from authoritarianism, gone should be any sense that it is a bastion of democracy.

    However, the US has been treating marginalised communities like this since time immemorial. To Black and brown communities, chronically ill and disabled people, migrants, and others, it never really was anything but a playground for the fascistic corporate capitalist tendencies of the rich.

    The US elected a convicted felon as a president. Now, that criminal is getting away with sending US citizens to what amounts to foreign concentration camps – and keeping them there despite false charges.

    Welcome to Trump’s America. The land of the free market predatory billionaires, but certainly not the land of the free.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Content warning: This article contains personal accounts of child sexual abuse and domestic abuse that some readers might find distressing. 

    In Poland, a patient can’t even get a diagnosis of a devastating and debilitating disease, despite it rendering him bed-bound for the past several years. This is because, there, the healthcare system doesn’t recognise the chronic illness in question – severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) – at all.

    As a result of this, to date, he has been unable to access Polish social security for support. This has left him in the ‘care’ of his abusive mother. Now, he is urgently seeking a Poland-based advocate to help him navigate the country’s medical and social support systems. With their help, he hopes to acquire the financial means for a local care-giver, and gain independence away from her abuse.

    Karol: Severe ME/CFS patient in Poland

    Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) is a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease which affects nearly every system in the body. It causes debilitating symptoms. These typically include influenza-like symptoms, cognitive impairment, multiple forms of pain, and heart, lung, blood pressure, and digestive dysfunctions.

    In particular, post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark feature of ME. This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion.

    Karol – who lives in Poland – developed ME at the age of ten. This was after contracting a serious “stomach bug” for five days. He hasn’t been able to confirm the virus, but he remembers that the sickness, characterised by fever and severe gastrointestinal problems, made him feel “so exhausted”, that he “thought he was gonna die”. He now wonders if it might have been an Epstein-Barr infection – a common viral trigger for ME.

    After this sickness episode, his undiagnosed ME was mild at first. However, at the age of 13, his symptoms started getting worse:

    my head started, went kind of lax, started bobbing, couldn’t hold it up straight, basically. And at the same time – migraine with aura, really bad headache and brain fog.

    The symptoms Karol described are typical of a common ME co-morbidity known as craniocervical instability (CCI). This involves increased mobility at certain junctions in the neck.

    Now, age 28, Karol lives with severe ME. For several years, he has been entirely bedbound and functionally blind. The latter is down to his extreme light sensitivity – meaning that he must wear an eye-mask 24/7 to block out the light, which otherwise causes him intense headaches and agonising pain.

    At least 25% of people live with severe ME. In these cases, people living severe ME are mostly, if not entirely permanently bed-bound or hospitalised. On top of this, they are often unable to digest food, communicate, or process information and are fully dependent on others for their care.

    Karol also lives with Coeliac disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic autoimmune polyneuropathy. The latter is a neuromuscular disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system. He also has small fiber polyneuropathy (SFN). It involves damage to the small nerve fibers outside the central nervous system that regulate autonomic functions such as heart rate and blood pressure. It is common in both Coeliac disease and POTS.

    No recognition for ME/CFS in Poland

    Throughout all this time, Karol has been unable to get a formal diagnosis for his severe ME/CFS, and has only started getting diagnoses for the majority of the other chronic health conditions he clearly lives with as he has become progressively ill. However, a majority of clinicians still do not recognise these regardless. He told the Canary that he first learned of ME himself at the age of 17. However, he soon found out that Poland’s medical system does not have it listed as an official disease entity:

    when they check out their medical system, whatever they use for the information, I told them ‘encefalopatia mialgiczna’, which is a literal translation of myalgic encephalomyelitis, and they couldn’t find that in their system. So they think for days that I’m bringing up this disease that doesn’t even exist, but they only tell that to me much later. So they think I’m entirely cuckoo.

    What this has meant in practice for Karol has been a catalogue of catastrophic care at the hands of Poland’s medical professionals.

    When Karol initially approached the hospital for answers, he explained that clinicians had entirely dismissed him, and put it down to the serious bullying he was experiencing at school. A child there had been beating him, but nobody was intervening to stop this. It meant clinicians passed off his symptoms as psychological, suggesting he had agoraphobia on the basis of him:

    not wanting to leave the house and not wanting to go to school.

    Consequently, instead of taking his debilitating symptoms seriously, they committed him to a psychiatric ward for three and half months.

    They threatened this again at the age of 23 when he became dangerously unable to eat. He went into hospital requiring a jejunostomy tube (J-tube) – a feeding tube directly into the small intestine – for nutrition:

    I end up in the hospital because my weight is so low – I believe I was 43 kilos and I’m a tall guy, 196 centimetres tall. So I end up in the hospital and my weight was so low because after the stomach reduction and with the ME, I couldn’t get enough food in.

    The hospital ultimately refused to set up the J-tube, and sent him home without any help.

    Atrocious ableist abuse from hospital staff

    Like many arrogant and uninformed medical professionals overseeing severe ME/CFS patients, his healthcare team was convinced it had a psychological basis. Often, clinicians erroneously apply anorexia or other eating disorder diagnoses to severe ME patients. Unsurprisingly then, this is exactly what doctors did to Karol as well.

    Of course, this is palpable nonsense in terms of Karol’s inability to orally consume adequate nutrition. This would have come down to a combination of gastrointestinal causes and other symptoms restricting his ability to eat. People with severe ME often don’t have the physical energy to do so, and are suffering a suite of pain and gastro-intestinal symptoms, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Meanwhile, his POTS would have inhibited him sitting upright. It’s also likely Karol could have a number of undiagnosed commonly co-occuring conditions affecting all this further.

    And during this hospital stay, the chief nurse leaned into this dangerous psychologisation of his physiological illnesses. While in charge of his care, she verbally and medically abused him.

    Karol told the Canary how she would raise his regularly mechanized bed:

    just because I didn’t want it to be, just because I wanted it to be flat, she would put it up.

    Forcing his bed up and sometimes into “almost” sitting position would trigger episodes of his POTS.

    On another shocking occasion, she removed Karol’s eye-mask while he was signing some papers. He explained that:

    So, they gave me a pen and I started writing my name and she made some unpleasant noise, like I guess my writing was crooked or something. And this woman just took my mask off. And I experienced such pain, such headache.

    I was screaming. I turned my face towards the bed. I begged them to put it back on. They wouldn’t. And then eventually they did.

    For Karol, with his extreme light sensitivity, this amounts to nothing less than atrocious ableist abuse.

    Gaslighting, disbelief, and domestic abuse

    All the while, Karol’s health has only continued to deteriorate across the board. And this has left him not only vulnerable to the healthcare system’s torturous treatment, but also abuse from his primary care-giver: his mother.

    From the start, Karol’s mum denied and dismissed Karol’s chronic illnesses. He told the Canary that early on, she had treated his health like it was “really inconvenient”. When he first started getting tests at the hospital, she spent:

    that entire time anti-advocating for me, saying I’m insane and that I’m probably just making it all up to get out of school.

    His mum’s denial of his health conditions continued across more than a hundred doctors visits between the ages of 13 and 18. Karol told the Canary that:

    It’s all kind of like a script where we go there and my mum is anti-advocating, saying I’m crazy and psychologically ill. And this kind of functions in the way of just this constant humiliation where the doctor is the authority figure here. And my mum does let me go there and takes me there because she’s like, well, if you could prove it that you’re actually ill, then, you know, by getting the doctor to side with you and say that there is a disease like that, then maybe things would start happening for you.

    But since you can’t, you know, it’s just this constant psychological torture for me. And I feel like I have to keep submitting myself to this because, you know, how else am I going to get help? And I was ill, I couldn’t function properly with life at school. I was very tired.

    He described how his mum put him in a “constant barrage of situations” gaslighting him to:

    believe that I’m just a bad fella, you know, a bad person.

    Severe ME has meant no escape from sexual abuse

    However, the psychological abuse was only part of it. Karol is a survivor of child sexual abuse (CSA). Abhorrently, his mum was the perpetrator, and Karol told the Canary that she has continued to abuse him into adulthood. Horrendously, she had restarted abusing him when he became bed-bound with severe ME/CFS:

    At that time, my mum was beating me again, just like in childhood, and hurting me, touching. Basically, she started doing that again when I became bed-bound, but she was abusive all along.

    With Karol’s consent, his friend detailed more about the disgusting abuse his mother regularly subjects him to:

    She pulls at his hair, sits on his feet (he has polyneuropathy so this is very painful), will lift his blanket to grab his testicles and pull on them, will turn off the heat in his room, and will withhold his medication.

    Karol has Celiac disease, and his mom weaponizes this against him by refusing to let him adhere to a gluten-free diet.

    Of course, this has led to serious health complications for Karol, as his friend described:

    This has led it to progress to the point where his bowels are very damaged, he doesn’t absorb nutrients nearly as well, he has rectal bleeding, and has Dermatitis Herpetiformis (chronic itchy skin rashes made of bumps and blisters) all over his body. He says he currently has around 30 holes in his skin because of this, whereas before when he could adhere to a gluten-free diet, he had only one or zero at a time.

    Obviously, the likely intestinal damage from his forced gluten diet also goes some way to putting his weight loss and malnutrition in context too.

    Karol bravely opened up about all this because in his own words:

    abuse feeds itself on the silence.

    Dangers for disabled people unable to leave DV

    Karol isn’t the first person living with severe ME/CFS trapped in an abusive situation that the Canary has reported on. In May 2024, we first spoke to severe ME patient Anna who lives in Australia, trapped in an abusive household. As it stands, Anna’s family still continues to mete out abuse, and neglect her basic needs on a daily basis.

    Then, in September, 26 year-old Katiana told the Canary about her parent’s psychological abuse, gaslighting, and denial of her severe ME. She is also still living with her abusive parents, because no in-country help has been forthcoming since.

    Research has shown that disabled people are more likely to experience domestic abuse than non-disabled people. For example, UK Office for National Statistics data found that rates of domestic abuse from 2019 to 2020 were nearly three times higher for disabled people.

    What’s more, disabled people can have added hurdles getting away from their abusers. For one, their dependency for daily care means that without alternative care support waiting, they are unable to leave.

    Moreover, disabled survivors of domestic abuse often face a number of additional barriers getting out of abuse. This includes for instance, access to transport, finances, and safe, supported accommodation.

    All this once again applies to Karol. Without formal recognition of his severe ME and other conditions, Karol has not been able to access Poland’s social security system. And without the financial means to employ a new carer, he can’t get out of this abusive situation either.

    Karol needs an advocate for ME/CFS in Poland – can you help?

    Right now, Karol feels his only recourse is to find an advocate. It’s why he reached out to the Canary with his story. His friend explained to the Canary that while:

    Karol has online friends from around the world trying to help him, but without proximity to him, the requisite language skills, or knowledge of Polish support systems, we are mostly powerless to help.

    So, ideally, he hopes that someone will come forward to help him navigate the Polish government, medical, and social security systems. He lives in the Natolin district of Warsaw, so is looking for a caring advocate based in Warsaw. However, he would be grateful for support from anyone in Poland, or who understands Poland’s various government and healthcare infrastructure.

    If you are someone, or know of a person matching the above description who can help Karol, please reach out to him at his email address: kopczynskikarol1@gmail.com

    It’s appalling that in 2025, a healthcare system, anywhere, still doesn’t recognise ME/CFS as a formal diagnosis. Moreso given that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified it as a neurological disease since 1969.

    Of course, Poland is hardly the only country playing catch-up. Plenty of other healthcare systems across the planet continue to trivialise the disease, and push harmful treatments on patients.

    Moreover, diagnosis for many people living with severe ME has often made little difference – as evidenced by cases of severe ME patients in the UK and elsewhere. Clinicians the world over continue to dismiss, disbelieve, and neglect severe ME patients and those with related chronic illnesses. Overall, psychologisation persists – and that’s tragically the case wherever in the world a person with ME happens to be.

    What’s more, as Karol’s situation demonstrates, medical abuse and gaslighting invariably feeds domestic familial abuse through a vicious cycle of psychiatric stigma. Karol’s story is another harrowing reminder that it’s not just the chronic illness itself, or the lack of curative or therapeutic treatment putting severe ME patient lives at extreme risk. Sometimes, abusive family, friends, or care-givers are doing this too. And an uncaring state and healthcare system that leaves people with nowhere else to turn is often invariably, largely to blame.

    Featured image supplied

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tell MAMA, an anti-Islamophobia monitoring group, is facing fresh accusations after having its government funding cut last month. Now, peer and chief executive of Muslim Women’s Network UK, Shaista Gohir has accused Tell MAMA of under-reporting instances of Islamophobia, not offering support to certain MPs, and of potentially being used as a Tory monitor for so-called extremism.

    Gohir’s remarks come just a month after Tell MAMA had its funding pulled by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), as reported by the Observer. However, Tell MAMA then announced that MHCLG were in fact funding them for 2025/26. Now, Gohir’s continued questioning of the organisation is bringing up further questions.

    Emerging questions for Tell MAMA

    Gohir has raised questions over Tell MAMA several times, including during a debate in the House of Lords when the group initially appeared to have lost their funding:

    I am really glad that the Tell MAMA funding has been reviewed. I had been raising red flags and concerns about the Tell MAMA project for one year, with a 10-page letter and 30 questions—Oral Questions and Written Questions. I am glad that has now resulted in an open bidding process.

    The open bidding process that Gohir refers to is a MHCLG funding opportunity where the department have established a new Combatting Hatred Against Muslims Fund. Interestingly, MHCLG have also launched a new working group that will build a working definition of Islamophobia. Given MHCLG have committed to funding Tell MAMA for another year, it’s unclear how the latter organisation fit into the coming reshuffle of government ties to Muslim organisations combating Islamophobia.

    In fact, the Guardian reported that MHCLG told them that the department:

    would “soon be opening a call for grant applications to ensure we can meet the challenges communities face today”, to which Tell MAMA is welcome to apply.

    However, this is at odds with the fresh competition the government is introducing in a field previously dominated by Tell MAMA. Faith minister Wajid Khan has asserted that:

    ministers do not have concerns about financial, structural or governance issues in respect of Tell MAMA.

    Whilst this may be the official line, doubts are growing over Tell MAMA’s ability to connect with Muslim communities during a period of rising Islamophobia.

    Relationship to government

    The Guardian reported that Gohir:

    has also accused Tell MAMA of failing to provide detailed data on anti-Muslim hate crimes, being “silent” when politicians have targeted Muslims, and questioned whether the Tories used it as a vehicle to monitor extremism.

    In the House of Lords debate Gohir asserted that Tell MAMA is not a charity and therefore subject to different financial requirements. She has also called for an inquiry:

    We need an inquiry because, if you look at the questions, they’re very simple: how much was spent on salaries? How much was spent on consultancy fees?

    The organisation has had £6 million in government funding since 2012, and Gohir isn’t the only one asking questions. Sayeeda Warsi has also spoken out against the group, writing:

    I was there at the outset of Tell MAMA and despite opposition from my government colleagues at the time fought for it to be funded in government, however sadly over the years too many questions have arisen which in my view make the organization unfit for purpose.

    Worryingly, Warsi has also raised concerns as to the motivations and links behind Tell MAMA:

    There are deep concerns about its finances, governance, associations and connections, including with the now-defunct Quilliam Foundation—which has associations with think tanks in the United States that are peddling anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia—and with people whom successive Home Secretaries have excluded from the United Kingdom. These are really serious allegations about an organisation that is there to protect Muslims in the United Kingdom.

    Structural Islamophobia

    An immediately post-9/11 landscape saw a ratcheting up of surveillance and detainment of Muslims. Over 20 years since 9/11, that hostile environment for Muslims is a cornerstone of British society and culture. The fact Tell MAMA has operated on government funding thus far is reason enough to be concerned. Governments, of any party, simply cannot be on the side of British Muslims – foreign and domestic policy has been built on the subjugation and surveillance of Muslims and nowhere near enough has been done to address that.

    Warsi is quite correct to bring up whether Tell MAMA is even able to connect to British Muslims anymore:

    On a personal anecdotal note – too often my regular engagement with a hyper diverse British Muslim community has shown that large sections simply do not trust or chose TM to report their experiences of anti Muslim racism and attacks. This at a time of rising anti Muslim hate is unacceptable.

    Government policy has never been able to encompass the diversity and complexity within British Muslims as a community. In 2024, Byline Times reported that during the period 2017 to 2022, Tell MAMA under-reported Islamophobic hate crimes by more than a whopping 90 percent.

    Muslims will never be able to trust governments, and whilst Warsi and Gohri’s comments are welcome, they are both firmly embedded in government. Continuous governments have ignored the Muslim Council of Britain for decades, and the establishment of a new British Muslim Network (which Warsi has praised) will not herald the change it promises.

    Funding is incredibly difficult for organisations to secure, but when it comes to combatting Islamophobia, accepting government funding severely compromises any Muslim organisation’s capacity to serve its communities. State involvement is never in the interests or safety of Muslims.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Although I had seen Benjamin Zephaniah before on TV, the first time I saw him and actually listened to him was on the Parkinson show in 2002. I was completely fascinated as Benjamin performed Talking Turkeys and I remember thinking this isn’t like the poetry I hated having to learn in school. This was brilliant and funny. It was a massive eye opener.

    Not just a poet, Benjamin Zephaniah was also an actor, author, activist, and one of this country’s greatest inspirational figures in advocating for justice, equality, and compassion during his lifetime. With his works touching so many and having the profound impact that they still do, as a celebration of his life and works there will now be a day of remembrance.

    Benjamin Zephaniah: a festival of rhythm, unity, and revolution

    On Saturday 12 April at the Brunel University of London, there will be the first “Festival of Rhythm, Unity, and Revolution, Honouring Benjamin Zephaniah”. The event falls on what would have been his birthday weekend.

    Even though Benjamin died in 2023, he, his activism, and his poetry tackling racism, classism, the climate crisis, and the dehumanising effects of inequality remain just as powerful and continue to live on to this day.

    With the event set to be a moment to mobilise in his spirit of activism, along with a blueprint for building a kinder, more inclusive society, the event organisers hope it will inspire meaningful dialogue.

    Are you a warrior or a bystander for change…?

    The event, which is currently being promoted by Lenny Henry, Judi Love, and Akala to name but a few, is a tribute and celebration from the many people that Benjamin Zephaniah and his words have touched and influenced:

    On inspiring that many people with his words, I found myself wondering what he would have said about our current society and where it seems to be heading. With so much of his work being incredibly relevant today I asked the organisers of the event what they thought. They told me:

    If Benjamin were here, he might highlight the urgency of today’s crises from the climate emergency to rising xenophobia and political divisions. His poem “The British” celebrated multiculturalism, while “Dis Poetry” reclaimed art as a tool for liberation. He would likely challenge us to confront complacency, asking as he often did ‘Are you a bystander or a warrior for change…?’

    Be a human being, not a human doing…

    With this celebration happening for the first time this year, I asked the organisers how important it was to preserve and remember Benjamin Zephaniah’s work, including how inspirational it still is to others. They told me:

    Benjamin’s work critiqued a world prioritising profit over people and planet. He might lament our continued drift from community-centric values urging us to reconnect with empathy. His refusal of an OBE, rejecting ties to empire and oppression, speaks volumes about his stance on institutional hypocrisy; a lesson still vital in holding power to account.

    And that:

    To honour Benjamin is to keep his words alive. His call to be a human being, not a human doing, resonates in an age of burnout and disconnect. By revisiting his poetry, we reignite conversations about resistance, sustainability, and solidarity – ensuring his voice guides future generations.

    But most importantly the organisers told me that:

    Rather than presuming his words, let us amplify the ones he left us. His legacy is a compass, not a relic.

    Which is something that we can and should all be doing – whether it’s his call to activism or his inspirational words on inequality and fighting for human rights.

    Celebrating Benjamin Zephaniah

    In this spirit of inspiration, and also from the pure honour of working with the organisers of Benjamin Zephaniah’s celebration, I’ll end with a poem by me:

    If only we could really see

    The roots, the leaves and the wood from the trees.

    If only we could really taste

    The fruits of our labour, not a bitter waste.

    If only we could really smell

    The scent of roses and what they really tell.

    If only we could really hear

    The sounds of resistance, getting louder in our ears.

    If only we could really feel

    The urge to unite and stand heel to heel.

    If only we could really do…

    Wait, hold on, so what’s stopping you?

    So, what is stopping us from not only amplifying Benjamin’s words, but taking these words and using them to creating that kinder, more inclusive society he dreamed of? If you agree then hopefully I’ll see you on 12 April.

    You can find out more about the festival and book tickets here.

    Featured image supplied

    By Nicola Jeffery

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Israel has targeted and killed yet more Palestinian journalists. The strike on a media tent in Khan Younis comes after Israel has been accused numerous times of targeting journalists specifically. Al Jazeera reported that:

    Israel’s attack burned Palestine Today reporter Hilmi al-Faqaawi to death along with another man named Yousef al-Khazindar.

    Journalists Hassan Eslaih, Ahmed al-Agha, Muhammad Fayek, Abdallah Al-Attar, Ihab al-Bardini and Mahmoud Awad were also injured.

    Journalist Ahmad Mansour was filmed in excruciating footage that showed him burning alive. Ahmad has since died from his injuries.

    Israel’s horrific scenes

    Journalist Motasem Dalloul shared the harrowing footage of Ahmad burning to death:

    In the clip, Ahmad can be seen sitting on a chair as flames engulf him, trapped under debris. People nearby are screaming for help, trying to throw water on the fire, and many try to reach Ahmad.

    Many on social media, despite abject silence from mainstream media, expressed their horror and grief at Israel continuing to brutally murder journalists.

    Omar Suleiman said:

    Sarah Wilkinson shared an image of Ahmad in the hospital:

    The Cradle posted heartbreaking footage of Ahmad’s loved ones, including his wife and young children, mourning his brutal murder:

    Ahmad’s body is covered in a shroud, with his press vest laying on top as mourners gather.

    Call for international support

    The Gaza Government Media Office said:

    We condemn the occupation’s targeting, killing, and assassination of Palestinian journalists. We call on the International Federation of Journalists, the Federation of Arab Journalists, and all journalistic bodies worldwide to condemn the systematic crimes against journalists.

    The International Federation of Journalists has called for an investigation into the media tent attack. Meanwhile, the Federation of Arab Journalists made it clear why Palestinian journalists continue to be targeted by Israel:

    In a statement issued by the federation today, it affirmed that the Israeli occupation deliberately targets Palestinian journalists because they are fulfilling their professional duty to report the truth and expose the crimes committed by Israel to the world.

    Al Mayadeen reported:

     The International Committee to Support the Rights of the Palestinian People denounced the attack, calling it a war crime aimed at silencing the press and obstructing the documentation of Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

    Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said:

    This incident is part of a broader, deliberate campaign by Israeli forces to suppress independent reporting from the Gaza Strip by targeting those who document and expose the reality on the ground, especially amid the ongoing genocide.

    The glaring lack of any international accountability mechanisms or legal consequences has emboldened Israeli forces to continue committing these crimes with impunity, making the Strip the deadliest zone in the world for journalists.

    Media blackout on Israel’s latest atrocity

    Israel has now deliberately killed hundreds of journalists. It couldn’t be clearer that Israel is hunting down Palestinian journalists for daring to report on their own genocide.

    However, human rights organisations, Arab journalist collectives, and more have been speaking up about Israel’s war crimes against Palestinian journalists. But, mainstream media in the West doggedly refuses to report with any kind of humanity or journalistic diligence on Israel burning Palestinians alive.

    At the time of publication, not a single British mainstream media outlet had covered Ahmad Mansour’s murder. Independent outlets like Skwawkbox did so, and Arab outlets like Al Jazeera did so. Smaller outlets like the Cradle, Palestinian News Network, Quds News Network, and Sinar Daily reported on Ahmad’s death.

    What’s it going to take? Ahmad isn’t even the first Palestinian over the last year to be filmed burning to death while an uncaring world does nothing. Journalists in the West, and here in England where the Canary reports from, have repeatedly chosen the side of genocide. Those journalists are a disgrace to the profession.

    The terrible truth is that Western institutions do not care about Palestinians burning to death in front of their eyes. Israel is able to act with impunity because of this carefully chosen indifference. Israel will kill more Palestinian journalists, and mainstream media still won’t care.

    May Ahmad’s memory be a blessing.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A chronically ill, disability rights activist has launched a vital new petition. It’s to urge the Labour Party government to “halt” the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) brutal benefits cuts to disabled people unable to work.

    What’s more, it’s with some irony that the call to stop these cruel cuts comes straight from the heart of none other than DWP boss Liz Kendall’s own constituency. That is, the chronically ill activist behind the petition is Kendall’s constituent. And, she fears – like countless others – that the work and pensions secretary’s plans will strip her of the disability benefits she relies on.

    DWP benefit cuts: a vital new petition

    In March, DWP boss Liz Kendall finally laid out the government’s sweeping catalogue of plans to ‘reform’ disability and health-related income-based benefits. It set this out in its Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working green paper.

    Broadly, this made for a callous combination of catastrophic cuts that will harm chronically ill and disabled claimants.

    The government is now consulting on some of these DWP plans until 30 June. You can respond to this here. Scandalously however, it isn’t consulting on many of its most dangerous proposals. Of course, this is those that will hit chronically ill and disabled people hardest.

    So now, one chronically ill disability rights activists has taken action against the government’s atrocious plans.

    ‘Support, not hardship and deprivation’

    Chronically ill and disabled Leicester West resident Abi Broomfield has started a parliamentary petition.

    This demands that the Labour Party government stop the cuts it has set out. In particular, Broomfield has honed in on some of the worst, most damaging proposals. Notably, these are largely cuts that will leave chronically ill and disabled people unable to work worse off. Or, it will otherwise deny people benefit entitlements entirely.

    Notably, the petition reads:

    We want the Government to halt all planned benefit cuts for disabled people unable to work. Instead of reducing benefits, we want them to rise in line with inflation. We want support, not hardship and deprivation, for those who cannot work.

    We feel that disabled people who cannot work should not have their benefits cut. Acquired Disabilities can end careers, and we feel that those who previously contributed to tax deserve support. We also believe that people born Disabled need steady support without cuts.

    Alarmingly, the government’s own Impact Assessment has already revealed the devastating impacts of these cuts on vulnerable populations. For households with disabled members, this is arguably the most stark.

    By 2029/30, 3.2 million families (some current, some future claimants) who will lose average of £1,720 per year from DWP benefits in real terms. Of these, a staggering 96% (3.1 million) have at least one family member who is disabled. This equates to 20% of all households with disabled family member.

    Households with at least one disabled family member also lose £100 more on average per year than households without a disabled family member. But by comparison, just 1.8 million (48% of total affected) households with a disabled family member purportedly gain from the changes. It means that just 12% of households with disabled family members benefit from the changes.

    Disabled people ‘should not be punished for being unable to work’

    To top it all off, the government has manipulated its own figures. Specifically, it has deliberately misrepresented the number its cuts will push into poverty. So while it has estimated that it will throw 250,000 – including 50,000 children – into poverty, the reality is likely much higher.

    The assessment doesn’t differentiate how many of these are chronically ill and disabled people unable to work. Nonetheless, it’s likely many of those losing out will be those in the LCWRA category. In other words, it will be people who can’t work.

    None of this is to even mention the compounding impacts of fourteen years of Conservative class war on welfare. Nor does it take into account repeated below inflation benefit rises and the lingering after-effects of the partly pandemic-induced cost of living crisis. So, as the petition continues:

    We feel the pandemic widened the gap between current financial support and the extra cost of living for Disabled people; these proposed cuts will worsen this. We think forcing people to work will strain the fragile NHS and that Disabled people should not be punished for being unable to work.

    DWP cuts will only cause more harm and deaths

    Broomfield told the Canary what compelled her to set up the DWP-based petition. Firstly, she highlighted that:

    Not everyone can work, and this Labour government is penalising Disabled people because of this very fact.

    And notably, the government’s plans will directly affect her too:

    As it currently stands, I, along with hundreds of thousands of others, will be losing my PIP entitlement. I rely on mine to help pay for some of the additional costs I face due to my disabilities.

    Moreover, Broomfield spelled out the brutal reality of these DWP cuts as entirely contrary to Labour’s ‘back-to-work’ claims:

    These cuts won’t get Disabled people into work; instead, they will cause serious physical and mental harm, and even deaths within our community. Plus, it’s going to seriously damage an already vulnerable NHS and care sector as Disabled people facing these cuts will inevitably have to rely on them more.

    On top of this, Broomfield took the decision to launch the petition because the government has left chronically ill and disabled people with no other participatory democratic recourse:

    Another crucial reason why I started this petition is that the government is ignoring us and has conducted little to no research about the benefits they’re cutting and the devastating outcomes this will cause. As parliamentary petitions are the only ones that the government has a legal obligation to respond to and listen to, I’ve gone down this route.

    Plus, Broomfield has the unfortunate disadvantage of living in the constituency of one particular parliamentary representative: Liz Kendall. Needless to say, she’s one MP who won’t be convinced to challenge the cuts:

    I want to challenge this government, especially my own MP Liz Kendall, to not enforce these Draconian measures but to actually uplift Disability benefits to match the actual real-life costs associated with being Disabled.

    Sign the petition and send the Labour Party the message it can’t get away with it

    Now, the petition needs as many people as possible to sign it. Currently, the petition is just shy of 1,000 signatures. At 10,000, the government must issue a response. If more than 100,000 people sign it, the government will have to consider it for a debate in parliament.

    Together then, signees can send a strong, uncompromising message to the Labour Party government. In no uncertain terms, they can tell it that the public overwhelmingly opposes its callous DWP cuts.

    To date, Labour ministers’ response to the outcry hasn’t engendered much to be hopeful about. So far, they have only exhibited the government’s glaring wilful obtuseness.

    However, the petition could at least expose this government for the scapegoating neoliberal charlatan it really is. It will ensure that never again can the Labour Party claim to listen to and champion the rights of chronically ill and disabled communities across the UK.

    You can add your name to the petition here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Lately, conversations around Africa’s energy future have been quite polarised. African leaders appear to be debating a range of strategies. But with the Donald Trump administration pushing for greater coal usage to power African nations, a number of critics are raising alarms about this direction.

    As Al Jazeera reported:

    Trump’s administration has recently taken to urging African leaders to burn more planet-heating fossil fuels, and in particular coal, the dirtiest of all of them.

    However, critics are pushing back – and it might be that African leaders send a resounding ‘FU’ do Trump.

    The US: ruining the Motherland

    Many voices are emphasising the harmful effects that a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, can impose—not just on the environment, but also on the economies of various African countries. The reality is that the climate crisis is hitting Africa particularly hard, bringing with it severe weather events like floods and droughts that have wrecked countless livelihoods – and killed countless people – across the continent.

    Interestingly, these Trump-era proposals come just as USAID funding is being slashed, funding that has historically helped millions of people in vulnerable positions throughout Africa.

    Al Jazeera points out that about 25% of historical carbon dioxide emissions—which have contributed significantly to global warming—originated from the United States. Don’t tell Trump that, obviously. But this context really highlights some major hurdles for the continent.

    For instance, there’s a report from the charity Christian Aid that suggests if things keep on their current path, Africa could see its economic growth drop by as much as 64% by the year 2100 – largely thanks to the US. And as the Canary previously reported, cities like Lagos could be all but wiped out by then thanks to flooding, too.

    Africa is resisting coal – even though Trump thinks differently

    Even with some global leaders pushing coal, many African countries are rapidly switching gears toward renewable energy sources, largely due to urgent environmental and economic considerations. The climate crisis is becoming a big motivator for this shift, prompting various nations to consider cleaner renewable energy options.

    For example, Kenya is really making waves as a leader in renewable energy, generating around 90% of its electricity from renewables. President William Ruto is outspoken about the incredible potential for Africa’s green growth, calling for a serious focus on harnessing the continent’s ample renewable resources.

    South Africa meanwhile, which has historically leaned heavily on coal, is part of an ambitious $8.5 billion collaboration aimed at getting rid of coal by 2035. Even though there’s pushback from coal supporters, the government is sticking to its decarbonisation goals, because they see the long-term perks of moving to cleaner energy.

    African leaders are increasingly stressing just how crucial it is to transition to renewable energy sources in order to foster sustainable economic development without worsening climate change issues.

    Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI) is all about promoting homegrown initiatives in renewable energy, which is drawing both substantial international investment and support. This just goes to show a solid commitment to clean energy, with exciting plans to boost generation capacity through diverse renewable sources like solar and wind.

    There’s also a growing insistence from African leaders for more climate financing from wealthier nations to back their switch to renewable energy. This includes calls for new global taxes and debt relief, highlighting just how essential financial support is in achieving climate objectives.

    Voices against coal investment

    Across the continent, there’s a chorus of voices pointing out the economic and environmental dangers tied to coal investments, urging decision-makers to take a long, hard look at the many benefits renewable energy brings for sustainable development. Indirectly, they’re also telling Trump to effectively ‘do one’.

    While coal is often touted as a low-cost energy option, in reality, critics are quick to bring attention to its considerable hidden costs, like the impacts on health and environmental damage. As the global energy scene shifts toward sustainability, investing in coal now seems riskier than ever.

    Figures like Amy G Thorp and Lazarus Nanzala have linked choices about sustainable energy to broader themes around economic sovereignty. They highlight how vital it is for African nations to regain control over their agricultural futures and food systems, which aligns nicely with the continent’s broader push away from coal in favour of renewables.

    Trump: Africa is sending you a FU

    The sentiment among African leaders is pretty clear: the path ahead lies in renewable energy – not Trump and his coal plans.

    Given the significant climate challenges at hand, the focus on clean energy signifies a strategic choice aimed at ensuring sustainable growth and resilience. Despite outside pressures urging a move towards fossil fuels – like from the Tangerine Tyrant – Africa’s journey toward a sustainable energy future seems firmly on track, boosted by local initiatives along with international partnerships.

    As climate change and food insecurity keep ramping up, African nations now find themselves at a pivotal crossroads regarding their futures.

    Sticking to outdated fossil fuel strategies could really hold back progress, while embracing renewable energy alongside food sovereignty might lead to greater resilience and self-sufficiency.

    It’s important that the actions taken by African leaders are tailored to their unique national contexts, ultimately strengthening local economies and focusing on environmental sustainability as they tackle pressing global challenges. Ergo – they should ignore anything Trump says.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The UK government has reviewed the rules for its petrol and diesel vehicle sale ban and decided that posh cars will be exempt. Luxury vehicles McLaren, Aston Martin and Bentley will no longer have to follow the electric vehicle (EV) mandate and can continue making fossil fuel chugging cars beyond 2030.

    As long as rich people are doing it, it’s fine to drop the EV mandate

    A Labour government statement said that they are “preserving some of the UK car industry’s most iconic jewels for years to come”. But that doesn’t add up given these companies can make electric versions of such cars and are in the process of doing so. It looks like Labour are actually feeling gooey eyed over posh people’s toys and in the process ensuring it’s one rule for the rich and one for the rest.

    What’s more, Aston Martin and McLaren have previously engaged in lobbying activities with their own cooked ‘evidence’. These companies previously used a sock puppet public relations (PR) firm to lobby the former Boris Johnson-government against EVs. The ‘study’ used found that EVs were not quite so green, but the PR firm behind it was registered to the wife of a director of Aston Martin.

    More broadly, multiple reports show that rich people generally emit more CO2 than normal income people. And for billionaires, they have higher emissions in just half an hour than normal income people do in their entire lives.

    A striking example is Jeff Bezos and his two private jets. They spend around 25 days in the air over a 12 month period. During that time, Bezos emitted 2,908 tonnes of CO2, which is more than an Amazon employee would in 207 years. Or, for someone from the global poorest 50%, it would take 2,000 years to produce that much carbon. And that’s before you consider super rich investment in fossil fuels, a huge driver of CO2 emissions. Then there’s a study that found 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions.

    Indeed, supercars like McLaren and Aston Martin follow suit, emitting much more CO2 than affordable makes.

    What about the energy sector?

    While the EV mandate still phases out the sale of single petrol and diesel cars by 2030, Keir Starmer’s government has also further relaxed the rules so that companies can sell hybrid cars up until 2035.

    The incoming removal of fossil fuel vehicles (other than some posh people’s) may be a welcome move, but it ignores the wider energy sector. Also Labour inherited the meat and bones of this policy from the Conservatives. So it’s hardly like we’ve finally found an example of the significant ‘change’ Starmer keeps going on about.

    When it comes to the overall economy, Labour reduced its policy of £28bn per year of public investment in renewable energy to just £8bn for Great British Energy to ‘crowd in’ private investment. A much more efficient policy would bring in a renewable energy system through state funding, delivering cheaper bills through public ownership in one fell swoop. In 2023, the average price per unit of electricity in the UK was £127 per MWh. A renewable energy system could deliver the same at costs as low as £55 per MWh. Over time, a Green New Deal would pay for itself and remove profiteering from an essential service.

    As well as cheaper bills, research suggests renewables with a level of public control delivers lower inflation. A report from Positive Money, entitled ‘Inflation as an Ecological Phenomenon’, has found that countries with high energy security and strong price controls had relatively low levels of inflation during the global crises of recent years.

    Gas guzzling rich people and corporations should not be given a break from the EV mandate. Yet again, that shows this government’s priorities.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Scientists at a U.S. biotech firm are falsely claiming the ‘un-extinction‘ of dire wolves – which died out around 12,500 years ago.

    Dire wolves? Nah, bro.

    Colossal Biosciences – which is a Dallas start-up specialising in de-extinction, used advanced genetic engineering to replicate the features of dire wolves. Many news outlets are naming it ‘worlds first true de-extinction event’.

    However, it is not what it seems.

    Scientists are calling it out for what it is – BS.

    According to the firms website, they are also attempting to revive the wooly mammoth, using experiments on mice. Where are these (pretend) Woolly mammoths going to live when all the ice has melted due to the climate crisis?

    Extinction means extinction

    Scientists broadly agree that ‘de-extinction’ is not possible – especially not of dire wolves. According to Yale Environment 360:

    The challenges begin with accurately mapping the extinct species’ genome. DNA starts to break down as soon as an animal dies. Any genetic blueprint from a museum specimen or from tissues found in permafrost will always be fragmented. The chances of perfectly recreating it are slim. A second problem is that animals have DNA in both their cell nuclei and in the cytoplasm outside the nucleus. This other type of DNA, mitochondrial DNA, is inherited from the mother during gestation. De-extincted animals don’t have mothers of their own species.

    Other factors compound the difficulties. The microbial makeup of the surrogate womb would differ from the past. An infant mammoth or thylacine would be raised without siblings and by parents of a different species. Thanks to climate change, temperatures would be warmer. A new set of microbes and invertebrates would crawl over its skin. The behaviors and social environments that shaped the original species would be absent. The de-extincted animal may have visual similarities to the missing creature, but it would be far from the same thing.

    The site also warns that de-extinction technology could divert funding from vital conservation work, create ‘new vectors for pathogens’ (hello global pandemic V2!), and make extinction less of a threat.

    Earlier this year, Colossal announced that it had raised an additional $200m – taking the total they have raised to $435m.

    In theory, analogue for species gone extinct could help drive ecological processes that benefit the broader ecosystem. Nevertheless, imagine how much useful conservation work could be done with that amount of money.

    What’s more, a study found that diverting funds to ‘de-extinct’ species, reintroduce them, and conserve them, could in fact endanger existing species as well. Crucially, it identified that:

    For every other species considered for de-extinction, reintroduction would at best be neutral but at worst harm up to 14 existing species

    So, it might give people the fuzzy feels of righting a moral wrong, but the reality is that it could actually exacerbate the threats species face today.

    Scientific hubris of mammoth proportions

    More than 47,000 species are threatened with extinction. Yet tech bros are more interested in bringing back the ones that went extinct thousands of years ago, instead of protecting the planet and limiting future damage:

    Living in Earth’s sixth extinction event be like:

    Could ≠ should: I’ve seen this film before…

    So here we are. Scientists really grew up on the 90s pop culture diet of dino-de-extinction disaster cautionary tale, and thought, let’s go God-mode:

    Where does this end? Am I going to be fighting both tech bros and T-rex’s in 20 years?

    Dire wolves eating tech bros? Sounds familiar.

    Putting the future of the planet in the hands of tech-bros is a recipe for disaster.

    If Ian Malcolm were writing God Creates Dire Wolves, the opening would go something like this:

    God creates dire wolves. God destroys dire wolves. God creates tech bros. Tech bros destroy God. Tech bros create (fake) dire wolves. Dire wolves hopefully eat tech bros. Women inherit the Earth.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • An alarming new interactive map has revealed the extent of ‘fuel poverty’ in England, exposing a grim reality for many households across the country. The research indicates that almost three-quarters of homes in some of the country’s most deprived neighbourhoods are falling below the fuel poverty threshold, highlighting the pressing crisis affecting millions.

    Fuel poverty: hitting 71% in some areas

    As of 2024, 2.73 million households, or approximately one in ten, are classified as living in fuel poverty. This is defined by officials as homes that possess a poor energy efficiency rating of band D or below, where the disposable income after housing and fuel costs is less than around £20,700. Birmingham has been identified as a particularly hard-hit area, with significant concentrations of fuel poverty.

    This dire situation is exacerbated by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, where families are facing relentless increases in utility bills, making already struggling households even more vulnerable. Recent estimates suggested that ‘Awful April’ could see a staggering £233 increase in water and energy bills on average, adding to the financial strain.

    Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, emphasised the human impact of these statistics, noting that many individuals will be suffering without even realising they are in fuel poverty:

    This shows just how devastating the ongoing cost of living crisis is,” he said in his remarks to the Daily Mail. “The sad reality is that, behind these figures, many people will be suffering in fuel poverty and won’t even know it.

    An analysis breakdown revealed that 3.17 million households spend more than 10% of their income on energy bills, which is a metric used by the National Energy Action (NEA) charity to assess fuel poverty in contrast to the government’s definition.

    Astonishingly, seven of the ten worst-affected areas are located within Birmingham, specifically in the Bournbrook and Selly Park ward, where a shocking 71.2% and 63.5% of households respectively fall below the fuel poverty line.

    This area has a high student population, raising concerns about the struggles faced even by younger generations.

    The wider West Midlands region is the hardest hit, with 19 of the top 20 areas for fuel poverty clustered there. Stoke-On-Trent’s Hanley Park, Joiner’s Square & Shelton region follows closely, with 70.7% of its households struggling to meet fuel costs.

    A national scandal

    In light of these findings, Francis urged action from the chancellor to reform energy markets and provide immediate assistance to those in fuel poverty:

    We need a government willing to invest in the long-term solutions to the cost of living crisis – and the future of the country.

    The Labour Party government’s track record on addressing fuel poverty has been scrutinised, with Adam Scorer, the NEA chief executive, highlighting a lack of progress under the previous administration:

    These statistics show little progress was being made by the previous government to reduce the numbers in fuel poverty and therefore to meet its legal obligations.

    Scorer added that solutions need to address both immediate support and long-term prevention.

    Despite numerous households already feeling the impact of rising bills, the government will soon be unveiling a new fuel poverty strategy for England, alongside its Warm Homes Plan, reviewing how energy bill support can be managed in the winter.

    Criticism of Chancellor Rachel Reeves is mounting due to perceived punitive energy cost increases.

    Reports show that households on variable tariffs are facing a 6.4% increase in their annual energy bills from April 2025, which translates to an average rise of £111 a year, pushing the average household bill to £1,849. This rise is attributed to recent surges in wholesale prices as monitored by energy regulator Ofgem.

    Fuel poverty for us, not for them

    Importantly, these concerns over rising energy costs have not affected leading political figures like the chancellor and prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who only pay a small portion of their utility costs from their salaries. The fixed caps on their ministerial expenses mean they are insulated from the financial strain felt by ordinary citizens as energy prices continue to rise.

    Moreover, all this is against the backdrop of Labour cutting winter fuel payments for millions of older people. It also comes as public anger around standing charges grows.

    As the government prepares to address fuel poverty with its new strategies, questions remain about whether these measures will adequately tackle the urgent needs of those most affected.

    With many households left to navigate the harsh realities of fuel poverty, the unfolding situation calls for a robust response to alleviate this growing burden on the nation’s vulnerable citizens.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • When it comes to BBC coverage of assisted suicide – or anything, really – the foremost UK public broadcaster should rebrand itself the British Bias Corporation and be done with it. This is because, any claims to impartiality the BBC could claim to uphold, has been well and truly demolished once again. This time, it’s over its news site’s stacked coverage of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill.

    BBC bias on assisted suicide

    Journalist Dan Hitchens dug into the BBC’s output across its news site in the last six months. He looked at the period between October 2024, and the end of March 2025. Specifically, he analysed news stories for their inclusion of different representatives and groups.

    And what he found was blatant bias in favour of the pro-assisted suicide lobby:

    The “single campaign group” Hitchens flagged is none other than the opaquely funded Dignity in Dying. The organisation has spearheaded lobbying efforts to push MPs to back the bill in parliament.

    Ahead of the vote at second reading in the House of Commons, the group spent vast sums peddling the bill to the public on social media.

    So, Hitchens essentially revealed that the BBC has platformed the lobby group in a whopping nearly 60% of its stories on the bill.

    By comparison, it has given over its coverage to groups/individuals against assisted suicide in only a third of its articles.

    If that weren’t bad enough, Hitchens noted the pitiful excuse the BBC had previously made for this staggering disparity:

    In short, to the BBC, it doesn’t give a shit about amplifying the voices of those the assisted suicide bill could impact most. As the Canary has consistently articulated, this will be chronically ill and disabled people.

    BBC bias: we’ve been here before, we’ll be here again

    Of course, none of this is out of step with the public broadcaster that’s anything but ‘impartial’ in reality. The notion that the BBC is a trustworthy, non-partisan source of information is about as believable now as a Labour cabinet minister refusing to drink to a round of “Never have I ever taken vast donations from sleazebag corporate lobbyists”.

    What it passes off as impartiality is really just a complicit client media. It unabashedly maintains the status quo of the establishment and corporate capitalist classes. That is, the BBC has long laundered the agendas and reputations of the neoliberal right. In doing this, it has kept them soundly in power. Political editor, Boris Johnson suck-up, and all-round slimy Conservative grifter Laura Kuenssberg is a case and point of precisely this.

    Throughout Israel’s abhorrent genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, its disgusting capitulation to the war-criminal-led state has been nothing if not obvious and relentless.

    So the BBC really is no stranger to laying cover for the perpetrators of unconscionable deaths either. Be it the Covid fatal “let it rip” legacy of Tory administration past, or genocidal Israel, it’s a blatant vehicle for this type of establishment-sustaining propaganda. In that sense then, its overt lean into the lead org of the assisted suicide lobby, is arguably right at home.

    Not its first time promoting assisted suicide with DiD’s help

    Nor is this the BBC’s only foray into sanitising assisted suicide either. Dignity in Dying’s own annual accounts detail how in 2023, it:

    provided consultancy support on Casualty and Coronation Street storylines

    That is, the lobby group input into two of the broadcaster’s most popular programmes. As the Telegraph highlighted:

    In September last year, a major plot line in BBC medical drama Casualty revolved around Jan Jenning, a paramedic played by Di Botcher, helping Gethin West – a Motor Neurone Disease (MND) sufferer portrayed by Robert Pugh – to end his life in Switzerland.

    Two months earlier, Coronation Street showed Paul Foreman, another MND sufferer, asking his boyfriend Billy Mayhew, an archdeacon, to help him die.

    Of course, the effect of it normalising assisted suicide in two prominent soaps, cannot be overstated. These stories promote assisted death, over provision of genuine support assisting people to live.

    Now, Hitchens has blown open the BBC’s broadscale bias over this once again. Who it chooses to amplify speaks volumes. This is especially the case when it has put out this coverage amid parliamentary and committee votes on the bill.

    It should be a scandal that a vested lobby group has such enormous monopoly over its output on such a contentious issue. However, it should also be no surprise from the establishment stooge that is the BBC.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • “Freeports represent a significant threat to the well-being of Britain” – Richard Murphy, tax expert and political economist.

    “I think that for the most part, these zones are used quite candidly by political leaders to create areas of unaccountability or to accelerate economic activity for their own interests” – Quinn Slobodian, author of Crack Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy.

    Freeports: complex entities carving up the UK for corporations

    Freeports and Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are variations on the same thing: deregulation, privatisation, tax evasion, and corporate governance.

    Freeports and SEZs are complex entities. Complexity is their camouflage, and we must understand what they are, because they are carving up the UK into regions where corporations are protected from parliamentary and public scrutiny under secondary legislation.

    A Freeport is privately owned, whereas a port is publicly owned.

    Ports are traditionally used for container freight transhipment operations. Freight comes into a port area, and it is stored and/or processed before being re-exported. However, a Freeport can also be a warehouse, an inland location, or an airport.

    Freeports carve out sections of the country by establishing a border around them. Within that border, companies have exceptional legal status, distinct from the rules and regulations applied to their surroundings.

    Goods going into a Freeport are not subject to customs and tariff duties. After US president Donald Trump’s latest global tariff attacks, this begs the question, will the UK’s 12 free ports be exempt from Trump’s tariffs when exporting goods to the US?

    BlackRock’s fingerprints all over Freeports, naturally

    Blackrock has bought three British Freeports. In partnership with Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), a subsidiary of the shipping line MSC, it has acquired an 80% stake in Felixstowe, Harwich, and Thamesport, as part of a larger $22.8 billion deal with CK Hutchison.

    This transaction, announced in early March 2025, involves Hutchison Port Holdings, which includes 43 ports across 23 countries. The deal encompasses the UK’s Port of Felixstowe, the country’s primary container hub, along with Harwich and Thamesport, as well as significant terminal operations in Europe, such as Rotterdam.

    The agreement was finalised with an expected signing date of 2 April 2025, transferring control of these key UK freeports to the BlackRock-TiL consortium. This move has been noted in trade and freight industry reports, though broader mainstream media coverage has been limited as of the current date, 7 April 2025.

    Freeports: the playgrounds of predatory capitalism

    Freeports are bad news for the UK. They are playgrounds for predatory corporations, which are free to indulge in all manner of illegal and illicit activity, such as modern-day slavery, private banking, fraud, the suspension of corporate taxes and custom duties, discarding environmental protections, erosion of worker’s rights, the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and people, hoarding of stolen art, installation of private security forces, extreme worker surveillance, acceleration of land-grabbing, and the trashing of regulations in favour of all-out deregulatory frameworks.

    Freeports are tax havens; they contribute nothing to local communities, they thrive on extraction of public wealth and resources, and have to be maintained at astronomical cost to the taxpayer.

    The RMT and TUC have stated they are both opposed to Freeports because they threaten worker’s rights. However, I have yet to see any follow-up from trade unions as the UK’s 12 Freeports and 74 SEZs rapidly become operational.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Freeports contribute to economic growth.

    Keir Starmer keeps lying about Freeports and SEZs. One minute they’re terrible, and the next minute they’re a deregulated capitalist paradise for economic growth.

    In 2021, Starmer said that:

    Freeports are not a ‘silver bullet’ for economic success

    Following this, in 2022, he stated:

    In recent months the drivers of growth have been hotly debated in the UK. The Conservatives have suggested – with almost all mainstream academic evidence opposing them – that tax cuts and deregulated free ports and investment zones are a critical driver to growth.

    Then, once Labour were in office, something odd was announced that contradicted Starmer’s previous position on free zones at the Labour Investment Summit in 2024.

    Angela Rayner said:

    I am delighted to announce today that we will move forward with two Investment Zones – creating high-quality jobs in advanced manufacturing in the West Midlands and life sciences in West Yorkshire.

    More deregulation and more investment zones…

    Relaxed regulations mean relaxed enforcement of regulations.

    This allows businesses setting up in a Freeport to ‘self-regulate’ and work for their own interests and not those of society in general.

    The UK Freeport model is simply extending tax and customs advantages to businesses that are or will be active mainly in serving the domestic UK market.

    The free zone is not, and never can be, the local community’s friend. It is not the protector of the environment; it is the destroyer. It is not the source of collective decision-making; it is an authoritarian stifler of the social commons, and it does not have livelihoods or worker’s rights as a priority. Free zones are all about turbo-capitalism, a post-Brexit wrecking ball that will lead to an economic boom for the investor classes, but will absolutely eviscerate and impoverish those entrapped in ‘the zone’.

    Did you vote for this?

    Freeports are part of a process through which libertarian ideologues are installing a global push to reconfigure nation-states, to reverse and dismantle democracy in the 21st century. The zone is a harbinger of offshoring wealth with no checks and balances, no rights, just raw corporate power.

    Free zones are experimental by nature, which, according to US right-wing libertarian Tom Bell: “may or may not work”.

    It goes like this: break up a nation, subdivide the land, invite foreign venture capitalists in, and hand over powers of governance to them while reducing elected government oversight.

    This means tailoring private laws (as opposed to the often negatively-framed ‘statist’ laws) to corporate demands, legalising the breach of hard-won rights and freedoms.

    The benefits of freeports are as illusory as those of Brexit. Take this analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS):

    The government and the freeports appear to be much more optimistic: for example, the English freeports themselves expect to create more than 200,000 additional jobs between them. The government has, to date, not published a full assessment of the effects it expects freeports to have, which makes it difficult to scrutinise and evaluate these competing claims.

    There are 12 Freeports in the UK:

    • Eight in England
    • Two in Scotland
    • Two in Wales

    Each Freeport sits inside a much larger Special Economic Zone (SEZ), of which there are 74 in the UK:

    • 48 SEZs in England
    • 18 SEZs in Scotland
    • Eight SEZs in Wales

    In March 2023, first minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, said:

    I am pleased to confirm the Celtic Freeport in Milford Haven and Port Talbot and Anglesey Freeport have been selected as Wales’s new freeports.

    Meanwhile, the UK government website states:

    Enterprise Zones are a devolved matter and there is no obligation for the devolved administrations to adopt them

    The UK’s SEZS range in size from 34km to 75km in diameter:

    Freeports

    These are expansionist projects that will magnify the deregulatory framework by applying it to entire regions. This represents a next-level attack on the commons.

    Faustian Freeports

    Green Freeports are a form of greenwashing. Offshore wind farms were already happening around the UK, so why was Freeport status deemed necessary? This is also part of the myth of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a ploy by the fossil fuel industry to convince people that this (as yet unproven) technology shows their caring face about the inevitable destruction of the planet.

    The grift of deregulated SEZs is that they are set up to help developing countries achieve a stable economy and alleviate poverty. State aid (which is public money) is used to kickstart a country’s economy:

    The EU has 82 SEZs but these are strictly regulated to stop governments of member states from giving state aid as profit motives to corporations. The European Commission enforces this to ensure a level playing field in the EU’s single market, preventing member states from distorting competition by favouring their own industries.

    State aid under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules provides a mechanism for members to challenge them if they harm trade interests, often through dispute settlement or countervailing duties.

    Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says that if state aid distorts competition or the free market, it is classified by the European Union as illegal state aid.

    The UK now has 74 deregulated SEZs plus 12 Freeports initiated by Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, signed off and fully backed by Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party.

    Brexit ensured that the UK left the EU’s regulatory orbit for a laissez-faire approach to economic growth by installing a corporate political model which allows companies to self-regulate under Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’. This is crucial to understanding why the UK’s public infrastructure is being absorbed by corporations such as Blackrock who have launched an ‘Infrastructure Imperative’, and are making serious incursions into the public sector.

    The neoliberal playbook in a nutshell

    On 21 November Keir Starmer casually announced on X a government ‘partnership’ with Blackrock:

    Freeports

    During a webinar with 700 corporate lobbyists, Lord Evermore (with Starmer’s backing) told them that “governance powers” were to be handed over to them while the UK government would take a “secondary position”.

    This was music to the lobbyist’s ears, as for decades think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), The Heritage Foundation, Policy Exchange, and the Atlas Network (a right-wing think tank that creates right-wing think tanks) have sought to dismantle big government by breaking it down into more ‘manageable pieces’, and where better to do this than in deregulated free zones?

    Free zones carve out regions of a country and set up a deregulatory framework within their boundaries, which is tailored specifically for total corporate hegemony, and in the most extreme cases with separate laws from the host country. These are branded as ‘localised freedoms’.

    Devolution in this context is synonymous with deregulation, collective sovereignty (people power) is replaced with corporate sovereignty (the asset classes’ power).

    When Starmer, Reeves, and Rayner talk of removing the “regulatory burden, stopping the blockers, and cutting red tape”, they are following the neoliberal playbook to the letter.

    Economic growth for the 1%

    It should be noted that the UK’s 86 free zones, unlike Thatcher’s SEZs, are now embarking on something they couldn’t do when the UK was an EU member: dishing out public money to their corporate friends to facilitate economic growth for the 1%.

    Each Freeport receives £25 million seed capital. That is private investment multiplied by 12, equaling £300m.

    Sunak’s flagship Brexit Teesside Freeport has spent £560m of taxpayers’ money, and profit share is split 9/10 in favour of the private sector.

    Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA), led by Mayor Ben Houchen, has been put into special measures. The government has issued a Best Value Notice (BVN) to the TVCA. The lack of transparency comes as no surprise to anyone who has sent questions to the TVCA. Just last week Mayor Houchen branded the public “idiots” for doing so.

    Each SEZ receives £160 million in state aid multiplied by 74, totalling £11.84bn.

    A template for UK government corporatisation

    The fact that those on benefits, those struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck, those juggling two or more jobs, those facing council tax rises, and astronomical energy bills, will be expunged in the same way that the left were expunged from Starmer’s changed Labour Party is anathema to these neoliberal ghouls.

    Public services are deemed ‘small potatoes’ by libertarians, their goal is ‘countrypreneurship’. The UK government, just like the US government, is being hollowed out from within, and it will eventually be replaced with a ‘Sovereign Corporation’.

    The UK is going to be privatised and Zone Fever is the template for doing just that.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By David Powell

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Horse racing is once again under scrutiny after the death of Celebre d’Allen, a 13-year-old gelding who was fatally injured during Saturday’s Randox Grand National at Aintree. Despite the pageantry and glamour often associated with the event, behind the scenes remains a brutal reality: the continued suffering and death of horses in the name of entertainment and profit.

    Celebre d’Allen, trained by Philip Hobbs and Johnson White, fell at the second fence in the 30-fence, four-mile-plus steeplechase and was subsequently euthanised due to the severity of his injuries. The horse’s death is controversial because of his age – with critics arguing he should not have been ridden in the first place.

    While the industry was quick to offer tributes, calling the horse “lovely” and “kind,” the tragedy highlights the inherent dangers these animals face, often without meaningful reform to protect them.

    His death comes after Willy De Houelle died on the first day of the Aintree Festival.

    Celebre d’Allen shows Aintree is unnecessary carnage

    The Grand National has long been criticised for its exceptionally high risk to horses. Its oversized fences, long distance, and overcrowded fields create a perilous cocktail that regularly results in serious injury or death. While racing authorities boast of improved safety measures, such as fence modifications and reduced field sizes, horses continue to die.

    The British Horseracing Authority and Aintree Racecourse insist they are committed to animal welfare, but incidents like this undermine their claims. In truth, the fundamental nature of events like the Grand National — pushing horses to their physical limits for the sake of gambling and spectacle — makes serious injury almost inevitable.

    Celebre d’Allen is not an isolated case.

    67 have lost their lives at Aintree in recent years. The racing industry, despite its wealth and influence, has failed to sufficiently address the core issues that lead to these tragedies. While tributes may pour in from trainers and owners, many animal welfare advocates argue that genuine respect for these animals would involve retiring events like the Grand National entirely.

    These deaths are not accidents — they are the foreseeable consequences of an industry that prioritises human enjoyment and financial gain over animal lives.

    Time for real reform – or abolition

    Nina Copleston-Hawkens, Animal Aid Campaigns Manager, said:

    It is absolutely heartbreaking that after being ridden in the Grand National Race until he had “no more to give”, Celebre d’Allen has died. To allow a horse of this age to be ridden in the most gruelling race in the country is disgraceful – and the responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the British Horseracing Authority.

    It is staggering that the racing industry continues to weave its dishonest fairytale that horses are ‘lucky’ to be born into the racing industry and that they live ‘the best life’. Horses born into this industry live quite the opposite – a dystopian existence where they must exchange their speed on a racecourse or ability to reproduce in order to stay alive. Lives in training are restricted, exploitative and bleak. Once no longer of use, they become vulnerable to an uncertain or horrifying end. If you are against animal-cruelty, then it logically follows that you are against horse-racing – and the Grand National is one of the most disturbing displays of this cruelty.

    As long as the racing industry continues to treat deaths like Celebre d’Allen’s as unfortunate but acceptable losses, horses will continue to suffer and die. While the public is urged to mourn the fallen, the broader system that endangers their lives goes largely unchallenged.

    Critics argue that if the sport cannot exist without the routine destruction of the very animals it relies upon, then it should not exist at all.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A University of Greenwich study for We Own It has found a “privatisation tax” of 35% on our water bills. In other words, we’re spending over one-third more than we need to every time we turn on the taps.

    Water privatisation = costly failure

    The latest research found that the UK public would save £5 billion per year on water bills if the government brought water into public ownership. And that figure would be higher once it didn’t include paying off nationalisation costs.

    Shareholder compensation may not be necessary. Financial ratings company Moody has stated:

    the level of compensation would fall within the wide discretion of parliament

    The government could take into account the mismanagement of the environment, debt, and politically the amount of profit already made. Water and sewage companies have paid out £73 billion in dividends since Margaret Thatcher initiated privatisation. Additionally, the average pay for water and sewage company CEOs in England is around £1.7m. And they have received £25m in bonuses and incentives since 2019.

    Water companies have failed to invest to increase capacity for sewage treatment and deal with sewage and rainwater separately. So, at a total of 3.614 million hours, last year saw a slight increase on the outrageous amount of time water companies spent spilling sewage into our rivers and the sea throughout 2023.

    This means the government could place the companies holding the essential utility under ‘special administration’ for environmental or (debt related) factors. The government would not compensate shareholders through this existing legal framework.

    We Own It further points out that, for the sake of argument, even at a worst case scenario of compensating shareholders at market value, public ownership would still be worth it. That’s because of the obvious: humans need water everyday, so it’s a valuable utility for the people to own. It’s a risk free money maker.

    “Systemic exploitation” via our water bills

    What’s more, the problem with ‘market value’ here is that water is a natural monopoly: there is no market.

    A consumer cannot rearrange the water pipes and connect to a competing company. And besides, a publicly owned utility can provide high quality water across households and the economy. It’s the same with sewage. Building competing sewage facilities wouldn’t work because it would take up too much space and waste resources.

    Labour MP Clive Lewis’ Water Bill is under discussion in parliament. It would bring water under the control of citizens’ assemblies – with part of the goal being to reduce people’s water bills. The MP has called privatisation:

    a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Browsing the corporate and social media, you’d be forgiven for thinking chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people were as sunny as the current British weather. Because apparently, they’ve all got (to quote the Sun) a “pay rise”. Of course, in reality what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has actually given them is a real-terms pay cut – not a benefits increase

    DWP benefits increase – for who?

    As BBC News reported, the DWP on the face of it has put in place a benefits increase:

    The standard allowance of universal credit, the most common benefit, for a single person aged under 25 has gone up by £5.30 a month to about £317.

    For a couple aged over 25, the rise is £10.50 to £628 a month.

    Other benefits rising by 1.7% include all the main disability benefits, such as personal independence payment, attendance allowance and disability living allowance, as well as carer’s allowance.

    However, is this really the case?

    Of course it isn’t. As the House of Commons noted, “benefits increase lag behind real-time inflation figures, with the CPI rate of inflation rising by 2.8% in the 12 months to February 2025“. This is because the government sets the April DWP benefits increase at the rate of inflation (how much prices of things increase by) from the previous September. So, in the six months between those two points anything can happen with inflation; it actually just has, and often does, too.

    The House of Commons showed that actually, chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people will be at least £4.68 a month worse off from today:

    benefits increase DWP

    Moreover, with so many other bills having just gone up – the benefits increases are more than cancelled out.

    Awful April hitting benefit claimants the hardest

    As the Canary previously reported, from 1 April households saw a noticeable hike in several key areas:

    Energy Costs: The energy price cap, regulated by Ofgem, has increased, which translates to an added £9.25 monthly, or £111 annually, for the average household relying on direct debit payments. The cost of gas has surged from 6.34 pence per kilowatt-hour to 6.99 pence, while electricity has jumped from 24.86 pence to 27.03 pence per kilowatt-hour. With energy bills already reaching an average of £1,738, these increases will contribute significantly to the financial strain many families face.

    Or, as Dr Jay Watts put it regarding the benefits increase:

    Water Bills: In what has been described as “extortionate” by concerned advocacy groups, households across England and Wales can expect their water bills to increase by an average of £86 in just the next year—a staggering rise of 20%. Companies like Southern Water and Severn Trent will see increases soaring upwards of 47%, pushing many families deeper into financial difficulty.

    Council Tax: The anticipated surge in council tax will leave millions of households grappling with an increase. The projected new annual figure for a typical Band D property is set to reach £2,280. All councils across Merseyside, for instance, are imposing the maximum allowed increase. Families are encouraged to investigate any available support options from their local councils to help mitigate this financial hit.

    It continues…

    Mobile and Broadband: Added to the financial burden, broadband and mobile contracts are also seeing price hikes, with average increases of £21.99 and £15.90 respectively. Households that are locked into inflation-link contracts could be particularly affected, witnessing bills rise significantly without warning. There are suggestions that consumers should actively check their contracts to explore potential savings through switching providers.

    TV Licence Fee: In today’s increases, the standard price of a TV licence has risen by £5 to £174.50, further impacting household budgets. It remains crucial for eligible claimants, particularly those over the age of 75, to remember that they can still apply for exemptions under specific conditions, ensuring they do not miss out on necessary financial support.

    Car Tax: Lastly, an increase in car tax adds to the woes. New standard rate taxes for cars registered post-April 2017 will go up by £5, while owners of electric vehicles will no longer enjoy exemption from car tax. This is a notable shift, especially for those who switched to electric cars with the promise of being free from tax burdens.

    Benefits increase. What benefits increase?

    Citizens Advice has issued a stark warning, stating that even prior to these changes, individuals and families with the lowest incomes were already spending around 41% of their earnings on essential bills including water, energy, broadband, and car insurance.

    In contrast, those in the middle-income bracket were spending only 11%, and the wealthiest households a mere 5%.

    So, no – a 1.7% benefits increase is not going to make any difference to anyone claiming these – regardless of what the corporate media say.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.