radiofree.asia

Category: Democracy

  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib addresses Jewish Voice for Peace conference


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Reform’s new ‘manifesto’ is just catnip for the fat cats

    On Saturday 10 May, Nigel Farage published a “manifesto” in the Daily Mail. While the Mail has described Reform’s pledges as “radical”, you may be unsurprised to learn that they’ll primarily benefit wealthy individuals and large corporations (and in some instances, no one at all). In other words, it’s a continuation of the neoliberal and austerity politics which got us here.

    Reform Manifesto in the Daily Mail

    “No income tax below £20,000”

    The bulleted pledges begin with a promise which sounds like it will benefit your average working person. If implemented today, a person on £20k a year would go from earning £1,493 a month to £1,617 a month – an improvement of roughly £123 (if National Insurance remained the same). Tax would kick in at £20k, so regardless of how much you earned over that, the extra cash you’d have in your pocket would always be that additional £123 a month.

    This isn’t necessarily something to be sneezed at, but it certainly wouldn’t be life changing, and it’s the only measure which Reform have mentioned which would have a notable positive effect on low-wage workers. As other measures they’ve announced will almost certainly make life worse, however, people might not feel the benefit of this £123 at all.

    This Reform policy hasn’t come from nowhere; it’s mirroring a popular campaign which forced a response from the government after receiving over 250,000 signatories on the government’s Petitions site. In response, the Treasury said:

    The Government is committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility and so, at our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds. The Government has no plans to increase the Personal Allowance to £20,000. Increasing the Personal Allowance to £20,000 would come at a significant fiscal cost of many billions of pounds per annum.

    This would reduce tax receipts substantially, decreasing funds available for the UK’s hospitals, schools, and other essential public services that we all rely on. It would also undermine the work the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, which are critical to getting our economy growing and keeping taxes, inflation, and mortgages as low as possible.

    Reform isn’t simultaneously announcing plans to increase taxes for the rich (quite the opposite, in fact), so what does that mean? Almost certainly it means they’ll make up for any perceived tax shortfall by cutting the “essential public services” listed above.

    Communications consultant Ben Cope noted how much this could actually cost us:

    Tweet which reads: "Insane Reform policies - No.3: Raise the income tax personal allowance to £20k and the higher rate threshold to £70k. @DanNeidle 's analysis showed that this would cost £82bn (roughly the education budget). Reform last supported this proposal only three weeks ago, when an e-petition forced a Parliamentary debate taking place on 12 May."

    “Appoint a Minister for Deportations”

    The first problem with this is that we already have a ‘minister for deportations’ – namely the minister for border security and asylum, whose responsibilities include:

    • Border Security Command
    • asylum policy
    • asylum accommodation
    • returns and removals
    • irregular migration policy
    • organised immigration crime
    • foreign national offenders
    • Immigration Enforcement
    • small boat arrivals

    It’s a bit like promising a ‘minister for blackboards’ as if the minister for education wasn’t already responsible for that.

    The current border security and asylum minister is Angela Eagle, and she sits under the home secretary Yvette Cooper – another minister who has responsibility for deportations. This is something you likely already know, because Cooper is constantly out and about on the news talking about who she plans to deport next. Just this morning, in fact, she was talking about her plans to deport people who’ve overstayed their visas and to block care workers from coming here in the first place:

     

    What Reform are doing is pretending the UK has no one taking responsibility for deportations, which is demonstrably not the case. If anything, successive UK governments have been obsessed with migration and deportations to the point of derangement for years. This is incredibly ironic, of course, given that every action we take seems to make more migration inevitable:

    The UK has an ageing population and a declining birth rate; this means that if we all want to retire we have two options to keep capitalism rattling on for another few decades:

    1. Encourage people to have more children.
    2. Encourage working-age people from the Global South to come and work here.

    This is what we’re doing currently:

    1. Make it completely unaffordable to have even one child for a growing number of people.
    2. Encourage working-age people from the Global South to come and work here, but then make them feel as unwelcome as possible.

    Reform seem to be saying that they’re going to move the UK from being a superficially anti-immigration country to one which genuinely cuts off the migration taps. Some people want to see this happen, but they’re delusional if they think it’s going to benefit them. Working people will be forced into shittier and shittier jobs, and wealthy people will lose access to cheap labour and consumers with disposable incomes.

    We can actually see what a crack down on migratory workers will look like, because it’s happening right now in America, as the National Employment Law Project reported in March:

    One of the major engines still powering the U.S. economy is the labor of immigrant workers,” said Rebecca Dixon, president and CEO of the National Employment Law Project (NELP). “Immigrants and their work should be valued and respected. Yet the Trump administration is doing the opposite: Diverting agents from pursuing drug trafficking and sexual abuse to ramp up a program of deportation, putting chained up immigrants on military planes to deport them without due process, stripping hundreds of thousands of workers of their legal status, and cutting off avenues for legal migration. These moves not only harm our immigrant neighbors, they threaten to undermine job growth and pay for all workers.”

    Researchers find that past mass deportation efforts have led to job loss and lower wages for workers who are U.S. citizens. One recent study estimates that if the Trump administration succeeded in deporting 8.3 million undocumented immigrants, the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) would be 7.4% lower and U.S. employment would be 7.0% lower by 2028.

    Deportations can lead to policies that further undercut workers’ rights. For example, policymakers in Florida are now considering weakening child labor laws in order to fill jobs that had been performed by undocumented workers, allowing businesses to schedule children as young as 14 to work overnight shifts on school days.

    Let’s repeat that last part:

    policymakers in Florida are now considering weakening child labor laws in order to fill jobs that had been performed by undocumented workers, allowing businesses to schedule children as young as 14 to work overnight shifts on school days.

    To be clear, the situation in America is very different to the UK. ‘Undocumented workers’ are more common over there, and many of their industries actually rely on them completely. The similarity is that both our economies have built themselves on a foundation of cheap foreign workers, and that suddenly undoing that without putting measures in place to reverse inequality will simply lead to more inequality.

    Reform: “ditch Net Zero”

    Forgetting about the future security of the planet; forgetting about the improvements to air quality, we’re now at a point at which renewable energy sources are often cheaper to generate than fossil fuels.

    That’s right.

    RENEWABLES

    ARE.

    CHEAPER.

    ALREADY.

    AND.

    WILL.

    CONTINUE.

    TO.

    GET.

    CHEAPER.

    In other words, Reform think we should be paying a premium to have dirtier air quality – to have dirtier lungs and shorter lives. This isn’t that surprising given that Nigel Farage is the poster boy for smelling like an ashtray:

    Of course, Net Zero isn’t just about energy. For many businesses and local authorities achieving Net Zero will mean switching from petrol-powered vehicles and machinery to electric equivalents. These technological solutions aren’t as advanced as things like solar power, but they are getting there, and once again the benefits are obvious:

    • Reduced air pollution.
    • Reduced noise pollution.
    • Reduced spills and smells.

    So, why exactly would we be reversing course on the progress we’ve made to go back to being a dirtier, smellier, and less ambitious country?

    Let’s face it – it’s because shareholders want what they always want – and that’s to see a bump on their investment in the next quarter.

    Never mind that tackling the climate crisis now will actually prevent much greater costs a few decades from now – never mind that it would be our children and grandchildren who would have to deal with the worst of it.

    Ben Cope has pointed out some other reasons why Reform’s climate ideas are “insane”:

    The other thing to bear in mind is that the push for Net Zero is a global one. What will it do to our trading relationships if we abandon the pledges that our partners are maintaining? Because emissions targets include the emissions generated in supply chains; i.e. foreign countries would take a big hit to their own climate ambitions if they bought from UK suppliers should we pledge to make our operations as dirty as possible.

    Again – as we’re seeing in Trump 2’s America – when you make it harder for countries to trade with you, many will simply stop trading with you.

    “Scrap Inheritance tax under £2million”

    This is our current system in place for Inheritance Tax:

    Inheritance Tax is a tax on the estate (the property, money and possessions) of someone who’s died.

    There’s normally no Inheritance Tax to pay if either:

    • the value of your estate is below the £325,000 threshold
    • you leave everything above the £325,000 threshold to your spouse, civil partner, a charity or a community amateur sports club

    You may still need to report the estate’s value even if it’s below the threshold.

    If you give away your home to your children (including adopted, foster or stepchildren) or grandchildren your threshold can increase to £500,000.

    If you’re married or in a civil partnership and your estate is worth less than your threshold, any unused threshold can be added to your partner’s threshold when you die.

    As you can see, this is already pretty generous, with ways to get out of paying anything.

    The argument in favour of Inheritance Tax is that without it rich families will continue to get richer and richer while those of us who don’t have £2m to bequeath will see our descendants face increasing inequality. New Statesman provided some figures on this in 2023:

    If inheritance tax were abolished, almost half of the gains would go to the 1 per cent wealthiest in the population. The estates of this group, made up of people with wealth of over £2.1m at death, would benefit by an average of more than £1m each. Around half the money would also go to London and the South East, consistent with the entrenched regional wealth disparities across the UK.

    Surprise, surprise – a policy which will primarily benefit rich people in the South East – who could have predicted it?

    The problem with Inheritance Tax is that people instinctively feel that they should be free to leave their money to whoever they like, and they perceive the tax as being unfair even if they have nowhere near £325k themselves. In part this is because we live in a society which encourages everyone to think of themselves first, their immediate family second, and society not at all.

    For Labour to counter this messaging, they need to do more to tax wealth in this country so as to make people believe that they’re serious about ending inequality. Without that, Reform will continue to capitalise on issues like this.

    Oh, and let’s again point out that all the money in the world won’t mean much if our children inherit the total collapse of the climate.

    “End war on farmers and pensioners”

    The ‘war on farmers’ is just the Inheritance Tax issue again, but in this case it’s mega farms using family-owned operations as a shield to get out of paying anything.

    The ‘war on pensioners’ is a massive own goal from Labour, with Keir Starmer’s disastrous attack on the Winter Fuel Allowance making him one of the most reviled men in British politics (and deservedly so). Nothing Reform have planned will make life easier for pensioners, and yet Starmer has fumbled this issue so badly that they’re once again able to capitalise.

    Reform: “drill, baby, drill”

    This wording comes directly from Donald Trump (sort of):

    What’s interesting here is that right-wing parties in Canada and Australia were hammered in recent general elections, with their failure happening to one degree or another thanks to their close alignment with Trump. To see this in action, the red line in the following chart shows what happened to the Canadian Liberal Party’s polling after Trump began talking about annexing Canada:

    Interestingly, the UK public isn’t currently punishing Reform in the same way; this is despite Trump and his vice president JD Vance actively insulting Britain and its troops. In part, this might be because unlike his Australian and Canadian counterparts, Starmer isn’t making any effort to stand up to Trump, and as a result he’s failing to capitalise on any sentiment against the man.

    It’s also worth noting that the serious damage to the global economy which is now inevitable as a result of Trump’s actions aren’t even fully being felt yet. The next UK election will come a year after Trump has finished his second term, though, and it will be interesting to see if Reform can get away with their links to him by then.

    Beyond the links to Trump, their policy to dig up more fossil fuels is just the same nonsense as above. It won’t benefit working people in the UK; it will benefit the mega corporations to whom we’ve sold our dirtiest assets – many of which aren’t even British companies.

    What reform?

    So, what reform are Reform actually offering?

    Really, it’s all just further rightward nudges to a system that’s been lurching that way for decades.

    Don’t get us wrong, we do think that things could get much worse under Reform; we just don’t think it’s the sort of reform their voters will ultimately tolerate.

    Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Wikimedia) – image cropped to 1,200 x 900

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Wells Fargo Wants to Privatize USPS. We Should Dismantle the Mega Bank Instead.

    The United States Postal Service (USPS) is a front line in the struggle for democracy and justice against corporate power, as a memo released by Wells Fargo unveils. Published February 27, the memo outlines a plan for privatizing the USPS and enabling investors to reap the profits. The plan has been met with criticism and protest, since achieving profitability relies on selling off property…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Cutting off communications’ – did Trump really just turn his back on Israel?

    ANALYSIS: By Robert Inlakesh

    Israel is in a weak position and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremism knows no bounds. The only other way around an eventual regional war is the ousting of the Israeli prime minister.

    US President Donald Trump has closed his line of communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to various reports citing officials.

    This comes amid alleged growing pressure on Israel regarding Gaza and the abrupt halt to American operations against Ansarallah in Yemen. So, is this all an act or is the US finally pressuring Israel?

    On May 1, news broke that President Donald Trump had suddenly ousted his national security advisor Mike Waltz. According to a Washington Post article on the issue, the ouster was in part a response to Waltz’s undermining of the President, for having engaged in intense coordination with Israeli PM Netanyahu regarding the issue of attacking Iran prior to the Israeli Premier’s visit to the Oval Office.

    Some analysts, considering that Waltz has been pushing for a war on Iran, argued that his ouster was a signal that the Trump administration’s pro-diplomacy voices were pushing back against the hawks.

    This shift also came at a time when Iran-US talks had stalled, largely thanks to a pressure campaign from the Israel Lobby, leading US think tanks and Israeli officials like Ron Dermer.

    Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Trump publicly announced the end to a campaign designed to destroy/degrade Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a on May 6.

    Israeli leadership shocked
    According to Israeli media, citing government sources, the leadership in Tel Aviv was shocked by the move to end operations against Yemen, essentially leaving the Israelis to deal with Ansarallah alone.

    After this, more information began to leak, originating from the Israeli Hebrew-language media, claiming that the Trump administration was demanding Israel reach an agreement for aid to be delivered to Gaza, in addition to signing a ceasefire agreement.

    The other major claim is that President Trump has grown so frustrated with Netanyahu that he has cut communication with him directly.

    Although neither side has officially clarified details on the reported rift between the two sides, a few days ago the Israeli prime minister released a social media video claiming that he would act alone to defend Israel.

    On Friday morning, another update came in that American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would be cancelling his planned visit to Tel Aviv.


    Can Trump and Netanyahu remake the Middle East?       Video: Palestine Chronicle

    Is the US finally standing up to Israel?
    In order to assess this issue correctly, we have to place all of the above-mentioned developments into their proper context.

    The issue must also be prefaced on the fact that every member of the Trump government is pro-Israeli to the hilt and has received significant backing from the Israel Lobby.

    Mike Waltz was indeed fired and according to leaked AIPAC audio revealed by The Grayzone, he was somewhat groomed for a role in government by the pro-Israel Lobby for a long time.

    Another revelation regarding Waltz, aside from him allegedly coordinating with Netanyahu behind Trump’s back and adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat, was that he was storing his chats on an Israeli-owned app.

    Yet, Waltz was not booted out of the government like John Bolton was during Trump’s first term in office, he has instead been designated as UN ambassador to the United Nations.

    The UN ambassador position was supposed to be handed to Elise Stefanik, a radically vocal supporter of Israel who helped lead the charge in cracking down on pro-Palestine free speech on university campuses. Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in order to maintain the Republican majority in the Congress.

    If Trump was truly seeking to push back against the Israel Lobby’s push to collapse negotiations with Iran, then why did Trump signal around a week ago that new sanctions packages were on the way?

    He announced on Friday that a third independent Chinese refiner would be hit with secondary sanctions for receiving Iranian oil.

    Israeli demands in Trump’s rhetoric
    The sanctions, on top of the fact that his negotiating team have continuously attempted to add conditions the the talks, viewed in Tehran as non-starters, indicates that precisely what pro-Israel think tanks like WINEP and FDD have been demanding is working its way into not only the negotiating team, but coming out in Trump’s own rhetoric.

    There is certainly an argument to make here, that there is a significant split within the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, which is now working its way into the Trump administration, yet it is important to note that the Trump campaign itself was bankrolled by Zionist billionaires and tech moguls.

    Miriam Adelson, Israel’s richest billionaire, was his largest donor. Adelson also happens to own Israel Hayom, the most widely distributed newspaper in Israel that has historically been pro-Netanyahu, it is now also reporting on the Trump-Netanyahu split and feeding into the speculations.

    As for the US operations against Yemen, the US has used the attack on Ansarallah as the perfect excuse to move a large number of military assets to the region.

    This has included air defence systems to the Gulf States and most importantly to Israel.

    After claiming back in March to have already “decimated” Ansarallah, the Trump administration spent way in excess of US$1 billion dollars (more accurately over US$2 billion) and understood that the only way forward was a ground operation.

    Meanwhile, the US has also moved military assets to the Mediterranean and is directly involved in intensive reconnaissance over Lebanese airspace, attempting to collect information on Hezbollah.

    An Iran attack imminent?
    While it is almost impossible to know whether the media theatrics regarding the reported Trump-Netanyahu split are entirely true, or if it is simply a good-cop bad-cop strategy, it appears that some kind of assault on Iran could be imminent.

    Whether Benjamin Netanyahu is going to order an attack on Iran out of desperation or as part of a carefully choreographed plan, the US will certainly involve itself in any such assault on one level or another.

    The Israeli prime minister has painted himself into a corner. In order to save his political coalition, he collapsed the Gaza ceasefire during March and managed to bring back his Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to his coalition.

    This enabled him to successfully take on his own Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, in an ongoing purge of his opposition.

    However, due to a lack of manpower and inability to launch any major ground operation against Gaza, without severely undermining Israeli security on other fronts, Netanyahu decided to adopt a strategy of starving the people of Gaza instead.

    He now threatens a major ground offensive, yet it is hard to see what impact it would have beyond an accelerated mass murder of civilians.

    The Israeli prime minister’s mistake was choosing the blocking of all aid into Gaza as the rightwing hill to die on, which has been deeply internalised by his extreme Religious Zionism coalition partners, who now threaten his government’s stability if any aid enters the besieged territory.

    Netanyahu in a difficult position
    This has put Netanyahu in a very difficult position, as the European Union, UK and US are all fearing the backlash that mass famine will bring and are now pushing Tel Aviv to allow in some aid.

    Amidst this, Netanyahu made another commitment to the Druze community that he would intervene on their behalf in Syria.

    While Syria’s leadership are signaling their intent to normalise ties and according to a recent report by Yedioth Ahronoth, participated in “direct” negotiations with Israel regarding “security issues”, there is no current threat from Damascus.

    However, if tensions escalate in Syria with the Druze minority in the south, failure to fulfill pledges could cause major issues with Israeli Druze, who perform crucial roles in the Israeli military.

    Internally, Israel is deeply divided, economically under great pressure and the overall instability could quickly translate to a larger range of issues.

    Then we have the Lebanon front, where Hezbollah sits poised to pounce on an opportunity to land a blow in order to expel Israel from their country and avenge the killing of its Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.

    Trigger a ‘doomsday option’?
    Meanwhile in Gaza, if Israel is going to try and starve everyone to death, this could easily trigger what can only be called the “doomsday option” from Hamas and other groups there. Nobody is about to sit around and watch their people starve to death.

    As for Yemen’s Ansarallah, it is clear that there was no way without a massive ground offensive that the movement was going to stop firing missiles and drones at Israel.

    What we have here is a situation in which Israel finds itself incapable of defeating any of its enemies, as all of them have now been radicalised due to the mass murder inflicted upon their populations.

    In other words, Israel is not capable of victory on any front and needs a way out.

    The leader of the opposition to Israel in the region is perceived to be Iran, as it is the most powerful, which is why a conflict with it is so desired. Yet, Tehran is incredibly powerful and the US is incapable of defeating it with conventional weapons, therefore, a full-scale war is the equivalent to committing regional suicide.

    Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle and it is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Small Party Candidates

    The post Small Party Candidates first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Tracing radiation through the Marshall Islands: Reflections from a veteran Greenpeace nuclear campaigner

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace

    We’ve visited Ground Zero. Not once, but three times. But for generations, before these locations were designated as such, they were the ancestral home to the people of the Marshall Islands.

    As part of a team of Greenpeace scientists and specialists from the Radiation Protection Advisers team, we have embarked on a six-week tour on board the Rainbow Warrior, sailing through one of the most disturbing chapters in human history: between 1946 and 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear bombs across the Marshall Islands — equivalent to 7200 Hiroshima explosions.

    During this period, testing nuclear weapons at the expense of wonderful ocean nations like the Marshall Islands was considered an acceptable practice, or as the US put it, “for the good of mankind”.

    Instead, the radioactive fallout left a deep and complex legacy — one that is both scientific and profoundly human, with communities displaced for generations.

    Rainbow Warrior ship entering port in Majuro, while being accompanied by three traditional Marshallese canoes. © Bianca Vitale / Greenpeace
    The Rainbow Warrior coming into port in Majuro, Marshall Islands. Between March and April 2025 it embarked on a six-week mission around the Pacific nation to elevate calls for nuclear and climate justice; and support independent scientific research into the impacts of decades-long nuclear weapons testing by the US government. Image: © Bianca Vitale/Greenpeace

    Between March and April, we travelled on the Greenpeace flagship vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, throughout the Marshall Islands, including to three northern atolls that bear the most severe scars of Cold War nuclear weapons testing:

    • Enewetak atoll, where, on Runit Island, stands a massive leaking concrete dome beneath which lies plutonium-contaminated waste, a result of a partial “clean-up” of some of the islands after the nuclear tests;
    • Bikini atoll, a place so beautiful, yet rendered uninhabitable by some of the most powerful nuclear detonations ever conducted; and
    • Rongelap atoll, where residents were exposed to radiation fallout and later convinced to return to contaminated land, part of what is now known as Project 4.1, a US medical experiment to test humans’  exposure to radiation.

    This isn’t fiction, nor the distant past. It’s a chapter of history still alive through the environment, the health of communities, and the data we’re collecting today.

    Each location we visit, each sample we take, adds to a clearer picture of some of the long-term impacts of nuclear testing—and highlights the importance of continuing to document, investigate, and attempt to understand and share these findings.

    These are our field notes from a journey through places that hold important lessons for science, justice, and global accountability.

    'Jimwe im Maron - Justice' Banner on Rainbow Warrior in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    As part of the Marshall Islands ship tour, a group of Greenpeace scientists and independent radiation experts were in Rongelap to sample lagoon sediments and plants that could become food if people came back. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Our mission: why are we here?
    With the permission and support of the Marshallese government, a group of Greenpeace science and radiation experts, together with independent scientists, are in the island nation to assess, investigate, and document the long-term environmental and radiological consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands.

    Our mission is grounded in science. We’re conducting field sampling and radiological surveys to gather data on what radioactivity remains in the environment — isotopes such as caesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239/240. These substances are released during nuclear explosions and can linger in the environment for decades, posing serious health risks, such as increased risk of cancers in organs and bones.

    But this work is not only about radiation measurements, it is also about bearing witness.

    We are here in solidarity with Marshallese communities who continue to live with the consequences of decisions made decades ago, without their consent and far from the public eye.

    Stop 1: Enewetak Atoll — the dome that shouldn’t exist

    Rainbow Warrior alongside the Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The Runit Dome with the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in the background. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    At the far western edge of the Marshall Islands is Enewetak. The name might not ring a bell for many, but this atoll was the site of 43 US nuclear detonations. Today, it houses what may be one of the most radioactive places in the world — the Runit Dome.

    Once a tropical paradise thick with coconut palms, Runit Island is capped by a massive concrete structure the size of a football field. Under this dome — cracked, weather-worn, and only 46 centimetres thick in some places — lies 85,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste. These substances are not only confined to the crater — they are also found across the island’s soil, rendering Runit Island uninhabitable for all time.

    The contrast between what it once was and what it has become is staggering. We took samples near the dome’s base, where rising sea levels now routinely flood the area.

    We collected coconut from the island, which will be processed and prepared in the Rainbow Warrior’s onboard laboratory. Crops such as coconut are a known vector for radioactive isotope transfer, and tracking levels in food sources is essential for understanding long-term environmental and health risks.

    The local consequences of this simple fact are deeply unjust. While some atolls in the Marshall Islands can harvest and sell coconut products, the people of Enewetak are prohibited from doing so because of radioactive contamination.

    They have lost not only their land and safety but also their ability to sustain themselves economically. The radioactive legacy has robbed them of income and opportunity.

    Test on Coconuts in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Measuring and collecting coconut samples. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    One of the most alarming details about this dome is that there is no lining beneath the structure — it is in direct contact with the environment, while containing some of the most hazardous long-lived substances ever to exist on planet Earth. It was never built to withstand flooding, sea level rise, and climate change.

    The scientific questions are urgent: how much of this material is already leaking into the lagoon? What are the exposure risks to marine ecosystems and local communities?

    We are here to help answer questions with new, independent data, but still, being in the craters and walking on this ground where nuclear Armageddon was unleashed is an emotional and surreal journey.

    Stop 2: Bikini — a nuclear catastrophe, labelled ‘for the good of mankind’

    Drone, Aerial shots above Bikini Atoll, showing what it looks like today, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Aerial shot of Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands. The Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior can be seen in the upper left. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Unlike Chernobyl or Fukushima, where communities were devastated by catastrophic accidents, Bikini tells a different story. This was not an accident.

    The nuclear destruction of Bikini was deliberate, calculated, and executed with full knowledge that entire ways of life were going to be destroyed.

    Bikini Atoll is incredibly beautiful and would look idyllic on any postcard. But we know what lies beneath: the site of 23 nuclear detonations, including Castle Bravo, the largest ever nuclear weapons test conducted by the United States.

    Castle Bravo alone released more than 1000 times the explosive yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The radioactive fallout massively contaminated nearby islands and their populations, together with thousands of US military personnel.

    Bikini’s former residents were forcibly relocated in 1946 before nuclear testing began, with promises of a safe return. But the atoll is still uninhabited, and most of the new generations of Bikinians have never seen their home island.

    As we stood deep in the forest next to a massive concrete blast bunker, reality hit hard — behind its narrow lead-glass viewing window, US military personnel once watched the evaporation of Bikini lagoon.

    Bikini Islanders board a landing craft vehicle personnel (LCVP) as they depart from Bikini Atoll in March 1946. © United States Navy
    Bikini Islanders board a landing craft vehicle personnel (LCVP) as they depart from Bikini Atoll in March 1946. Image: © United States Navy

    On our visit, we noticed there’s a spectral quality to Bikini. The homes of the Bikini islanders are long gone. In its place now stand a scattering of buildings left by the US Department of Energy: rusting canteens, rotting offices, sleeping quarters with peeling walls, and traces of the scientific experiments conducted here after the bombs fell.

    On dusty desks, we found radiation reports, notes detailing crop trials, and a notebook meticulously tracking the application of potassium to test plots of corn, alfalfa, lime, and native foods like coconut, pandanus, and banana. The potassium was intended to block the uptake of caesium-137, a radioactive isotope, by plant roots.

    The logic was simple: if these crops could be decontaminated, perhaps one day Bikini could be repopulated.

    We collected samples of coconuts and soil — key indicators of internal exposure risk if humans were to return. Bikini raises a stark question: What does “safe” mean, and who gets to decide?

    The US declared parts of Bikini habitable in 1970, only to evacuate people again eight years later after resettled families suffered from radiation exposure. The science is not abstract here. It is personal. It is human. It has real consequences.

    Stop 3: Rongelap — setting for Project 4.1

    Church and Community Centre of Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The abandoned church on Rongelap atoll. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    The Rainbow Warrior arrived at the eastern side of Rongelap atoll, anchoring one mile from the centre of Rongelap Island, the church spire and roofs of “new” buildings reflecting the bright sun.

    n 1954, fallout from the Castle Bravo nuclear detonation on Bikini blanketed this atoll in radioactive ash — fine, white powder that children played in, thinking it was snow. The US government waited three days to evacuate residents, despite knowing the risks. The US government declared it safe to return to Rongelap in 1957 — but it was a severely contaminated environment. The very significant radiation exposure to the Rongelap population caused severe health impacts: thyroid cancers, birth defects such as “jellyfish babies”, miscarriages, and much more.

    In 1985, after a request to the US government to evacuate was dismissed, the Rongelap community asked Greenpeace to help relocate them from their ancestral lands. Using the first Rainbow Warrior, and over a period of 10 days and four trips, 350 residents collectively dismantled their homes, bringing everything with them — including livestock, and 100 metric tons of building material — where they resettled on the islands of Mejatto and Ebeye on Kwajalein atoll.

    It is a part of history that lives on in the minds of the Marshallese people we meet in this ship voyage — in the gratitude they still express, the pride in keeping the fight for justice, and in the pain of still not having a permanent, safe home.

    Community Gathering for 40th Anniversary of Operation Exodus in Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    Greenpeace representatives and displaced Rongelap community come together on Mejatto, Marshall Islands to commemorate the 40 years since the Rainbow Warrior evacuated the island’s entire population in May 1985 due to the impacts of US nuclear weapons testing. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Now, once again, we are standing on their island of Rongelap, walking past abandoned buildings and rusting equipment, some of it dating from the 1980s and 1990s — a period when the US Department of Energy launched a push to encourage resettlement declaring that the island was safe — a declaration that this time, the population welcomed with mistrust, not having access to independent scientific data and remembering the deceitful relocation of some decades before.

    Here, once again, we sample soil and fruits that could become food if people came back. It is essential to understand ongoing risks — especially for communities considering whether and how to return.

    This is not the end. It is just the beginning

    Team of Scientists and Rainbow Warrior in Rongelap, Marshall Islands. © Greenpeace / Chewy C. Lin
    The team of Greenpeace scientists and independent radiation experts on Rongelap atoll, Marshall Islands, with the Rainbow Warrior in the background. Shaun Burnie (author of the article) is first on the left. Image: © Greenpeace/Chewy C. Lin

    Our scientific mission is to take measurements, collect samples, and document contamination. But that’s not all we’re bringing back.

    We carry with us the voices of the Marshallese who survived these tests and are still living with their consequences. We carry images of graves swallowed by tides near Runit Dome, stories of entire cultures displaced from their homelands, and measurements of radiation showing contamination still persists after many decades.

    There are 9700 nuclear warheads still held by military powers around the world – mostly in the United States and Russian arsenals. The Marshall Islands was one of the first nations to suffer the consequences of nuclear weapons — and the legacy persists today.

    We didn’t come to speak for the Marshallese. We came to listen, to bear witness, and to support their demand for justice. We plan to return next year, to follow up on our research and to make results available to the people of the Marshall Islands.

    And we will keep telling these stories — until justice is more than just a word.

    Kommol Tata (“thank you” in the beautiful Marshallese language) for following our journey.

    Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Ukraine and was part of the Rainbow Warrior team in the Marshall Islands. This article was first published by Greenpeace Aotearoa and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Encampments vs October 8 – a battle of narratives on Palestine plays out in cinema

    REVIEW: By Joseph Fahim

    This article was initially set out to focus on The Encampments, Kei Pritsker and Michael T Workman’s impassioned documentary that chronicles the Columbia University student movement that shook the United States and captured imaginations the world over.

    But then it came to my attention that a sparring film has been released around the same time, offering a staunchly pro-Israeli counter-narrative that vehemently attempts to discredit the account offered by The Encampments.

    October 8 charts the alleged rise of antisemitism in the US in the wake of the October 7 attacks on southern Israel by Hamas-led Palestinian fighters.

    A balanced record though, it is not. Wendy Sachs’s solo debut feature, which has the subhead, “The Fight for the Soul of America”, is essentially an unabashed defence of the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices.

    Its omissions are predictable; its moral logic is fascinatingly disturbing; its manipulative arguments are the stuff of Steven Bannon.

    It’s easily the most abhorrent piece of mainstream Israeli propaganda this writer has come across .

    Ignoring October 8 would be injudicious, however. Selected only by a number of Jewish film festivals in the US, the film was released in mid-March by indie distribution outfit Briarcliff Entertainment in more than 125 theatres.

    The film has amassed more than $1.3 million so far at the US box office, making it the second-highest grossing documentary of the year, ironically behind the self-distributed and Oscar-winning No Other Land about Palestine at $2.4 million.

    October 8 has sold more than 90,000 tickets, an impressive achievement given the fact that at least 73 percent of the 7.5 million Jewish Americans still hold a favourable view of Israel.

    “It would be great if we were getting a lot of crossover, but I don’t know that we are,” Sachs admitted to the Hollywood Reporter.

    Zionist films have been largely absent from most local and international film festivals — curation, after all, is an ethical occupation — while Palestinian stories, by contrast, have seen an enormous rise in popularity since October 7.

    The phenomenon culminated with the Oscar win for No Other Land.

    October 8
    October 8 . . . “easily the most abhorrent piece of mainstream Israeli propaganda this writer has come across.” Image: Briarcliff Entertainment

    But the release of October 8 and the selection of several Israeli hostage dramas in February’s Berlin Film Festival indicates that the war has officially reached the big screen.

    With the aforementioned hostage dramas due to be shown stateside later this year, and no less than four major Palestinian pictures set for theatrical release over the next 12 months, this Israeli-Palestinian film feud is just getting started.

    Working for change
    The Encampments, which raked in a highly impressive $423,000 in 50 theatres after a month of release, has been garnering more headlines, not only due to the fact that the recently detained Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil happens to be one of its protagonists, but because it is clearly the better film.

    Pritsker and Workman, who were on the ground with the students for most of the six-week duration of the set-in, provide a keenly observed, intimate view of the action, capturing the inspiring highs and dispiriting lows of the passionate demonstrations and wayward negotiations with Columbia’s administrations.

    The narrative is anchored from the point of views of four students: Grant Miner, a Jewish PhD student who was expelled in March for his involvement in the protests; Sueda Polat, a protest negotiator and spokesperson for the encampments; Naye Idriss, a Palestinian organiser and Columbia alumni; and the soft-spoken Khalil, the Palestinian student elected to lead the negotiations.

    A desire for justice, for holding Israel accountable for its crimes in Gaza, permeated the group’s calling for divesting Columbia’s $13.6 billion endowment funds from weapons manufacturers and tech companies with business links to the Netanyahu’s administration.

    Each of the four shares similar background stories, but Miner and Khalil stand out. As a Jew, Miner is an example of a young Jewish American generation that regard their Jewishness as a moral imperative for defending the Palestinian cause.

    Khalil, meanwhile, carries the familiar burden of being a child of the camps: a descendant of a family that was forcibly displaced from their Tiberias home in 1948.

    The personal histories provide ample opportunities for reflections around questions of identity, trauma, and the youthful desire for tangible change.

    Each protester stresses that the encampment was a last and only resort after the Columbia hierarchy casually brushed aside their concerns.

    These concerns transformed into demands when it became clear that only more strident action like sit-ins could push the Columbia administration to engage with them.

    In an age when most people are content to sit idly behind their computers waiting for something to happen, these students took it upon themselves to actively work for change in a country where change, especially in the face of powerful lobbies, is arduous.

    Only through protests, the viewers begin to realise, can these four lucidly deal with the senseless, numbing bloodshed and brutality in Gaza.

    Crackdown on free speech
    Through skilled placement of archival footage, Pritsker and Workman aptly link the encampments with other student movements in Columbia, including the earlier occupation of Hamilton Hall in 1968 that demonstrated the university’s historic ties with bodies that supported America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

    Both anti-war movements were countered by an identical measure: the university’s summoning of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to violently dismantle the protests.

    Neither the Columbia administration, represented by the disgraced ex-president Minouche Shafik, nor the NYPD are portrayed in a flattering fashion.

    Shafik comes off as a wishy-washy figure, too protective of her position to take a concrete stance for or against the pro-Palestinian protesters.

    The NYPD were a regular fixture outside universities in New York during the encampments during 2024 (MEE/Azad Essa)
    The NYPD were a regular fixture outside universities in New York during the encampments during 2024 Image: MEE/Azad Essa

    The NYPD’s employment of violence against the peaceful protests that they declared to have “devolved into antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric” is an admission that violence against words can be justified, undermining the First Amendment of the US constitution, which protects free speech.
    The Encampments     is not without flaws. By strictly adhering to the testimonials of its subjects, Pritsker and Workman leave out several imperative details.

    These include the identity of the companies behind endowment allocations, the fact that several Congress senators who most prominently criticised the encampments “received over $100,000 more on average from pro-Israel donors during their last election” according to a Guardian finding, and the revelations that US police forces have received analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict directly from the Israeli army and Israeli think tanks.

    The suggested link between the 1968 protests and the present situation is not entirely accurate either.

    The endowments industry was nowhere as big as it is now, and there’s an argument to be made about the deprioritisation of education by universities vis-a-vis their endowments.

    A bias towards Israel or a determination to assert the management’s authority is not the real motive behind their position — it’s the money.

    Lastly, avoiding October 7 and the moral and political issues ingrained within the attack, while refraining from confronting the pro-Israel voices that accused the protesters of aggression and antisemitism, is a major blind spot that allows conservatives and pro-Israel pundits to accuse the filmmakers of bias.

    One could be asking too much from a film directed by first-time filmmakers that was rushed into theatres to enhance awareness about Mahmoud Khalil’s political persecution, but The Encampments, which was co-produced by rapper Macklemore, remains an important, urgent, and honest document of an event that has been repeatedly tarnished by the media and self-serving politicians.

    The politics of victimhood
    The imperfections of The Encampments are partially derived from lack of experience on its creators’ part.

    Any accusations of malice are unfounded, especially since the directors do not waste time in arguing against Zionism or paint its subjects as victims. The same cannot be said of October 8.

    Executive produced by actress Debra Messing of Will & Grace fame, who also appears in the film, October 8 adopts a shabby, scattershot structure vastly comprised of interviews with nearly every high-profile pro-Israel person in America.

    The talking heads are interjected with dubious graphs and craftily edited footage culled from social media of alleged pro-Palestinian protesters in college campuses verbally attacking Jewish students and allegedly advocating the ideology of Hamas.

    Needless to say, no context is given to these videos whose dates and locations are never identified.

    The chief aim of October 8 is to retrieve the victimisation card by using the same language that informed the pro-Palestine discourse

    Every imaginable falsification and shaky allegation regarding the righteousness of Zionism is paraded: anti-Zionism is the new form of antisemitism; pro-Palestinian protesters harassed pro-Israel Jewish students; the media is flooded with pro-Palestinian bias.

    Other tropes include the claim that Hamas is conspiring to destabilise American democracy and unleash hell on the Western world.

    Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas co-founder who defected to Israel in 1997, stresses that “my definition of Intifada is chaos”.

    There is also the suggestion that the protests, if not contained, could spiral into Nazi era-like fascism.

    Sachs goes as far as showing historical footage of the Third Reich to demonstrate her point.

    The chief aim of October 8 is to retrieve Israel’s victimhood by using the same language that informs pro-Palestine discourse. “Gaza hijacked all underdog stories in the world,” one interviewee laments.

    At one point, the attacks of October 7 are described as a “genocide”, while Zionism is referred to as a “civil rights movement”.

    One interviewee explains that the framing of the Gaza war as David and Goliath is erroneous when considering that Hamas is backed by almighty Iran and that Israel is surrounded by numerous hostile countries, such as Lebanon and Syria.

    In the most fanciful segment of the film, the interviewees claim that the Students for Justice in Palestine is affiliated and under the command of Hamas, while haphazardly linking random terrorist attacks, such as 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting to Hamas and by extension the Palestinian cause.

    A simmering racist charge delineate the film’s pro-Israel discourse in its instance on pigeonholing all Palestinians as radical Muslim Hamas supporters.

    There isn’t a single mention of the occupied West Bank or Palestinian religious minorities or even anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza.

    Depicting all Palestinians as a rigid monolith profoundly contrasts Pritsker and Workman’s nuanced treatment of their Jewish subjects.

    The best means to counter films like October 8 is facts and good journalism

    There’s a difference between subtraction and omission: the former affects logical form, while the latter affects logical content.

    October 8 is built on a series of deliberate omissions and fear mongering, an unscrupulous if familiar tactic that betrays the subjects’ indignation and their weak conviction.

    It is thus not surprising that there is no mention of the Nakba or the fact that the so-called “civil rights movement” is linked to a state founded on looted lands or the grand open prison Israel has turned Gaza into, or the endless humiliation of Palestinians in the West Bank.

    There is also no mention of the racist and inciting statements by far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

    Nor is there mention of the Palestinians who have been abducted and tortured and raped in Israeli prisons.

    And definitely not of the more than 52,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza to date.

    Sachs’ subjects naturally are too enveloped in their own conspiracies, in the tightly knotted narrative they concocted for themselves, to be aware of their privilege.

    The problem is, these subjects want to have their cake and eat it. Throughout, they constantly complain of being silenced; that most institutions, be it the media or college hierarchies or human rights organisations, have not recognised the colossal loss of 7 October 7 and have focused instead on Palestinian suffering.

    They theorise that the refusal of the authorities in taking firm and direct action against pro-Palestinian voices has fostered antisemitism.

    At the same time, they have no qualms in flaunting their contribution to New York Times op-eds or the testimonies they were invited to present at the Congress.

    All the while, Khalil and other Palestinian activists are arrested, deported and stripped of their residencies.

    The value of good journalism
    October 8, which portrays the IDF as a brave, truth-seeking institution, is not merely a pro-Israel propaganda, it’s a far-right propaganda.

    The subjects adopt Trump rhetoric in similarly blaming the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies for the rise of antisemitism, while dismissing intersectionality and anti-colonialism for giving legitimacy to the Palestinian cause.

    As repugnant as October 8 is, it is crucial to engage with work of its ilk and confront its hyperboles.

    Last month, the Hollywood Reporter set up an unanticipated discussion between Pritsker, who is in fact Jewish, and pro-Israel influencer Hen Mazzig.

    The heated exchange that followed demonstrated the difficulty of communication with the pro-Israeli lobby, yet nonetheless underlines the necessity of communication, at least in film.

    Mazzig spends the larger part of the discussion spewing unfounded accusations that he provides no validations for: “Mahmoud Khalil has links to Hamas,” he says at one point.

    When asked about the Palestinian prisoners, he confidently attests that “the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners” — hostages, as Pritsker calls them — they have committed crimes and are held in Israeli prisons, right?

    “In fact, in the latest hostage release eight Palestinian prisoners refused to go back to Gaza because they’ve enjoyed their treatment in these prisons.”

    Mazzig dismisses pro-Palestinian groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and the pro-Palestinian Jewish students who participated in the encampments.

    “No one would make this argument but here we are able to tokenise a minority, a fringe community, and weaponise it against us,” he says.

    “It’s not because they care about Jews and want Jews to be represented. It’s that they hate us so much that they’re doing this and gaslighting us.”

    At this stage, attempting for the umpteenth time to stress that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not one and the same — a reality that the far-right rejects — is frankly pointless.

    Attempting, like Khalil, to continually emphasise our unequivocal rejection of antisemitism, to underscore that our Jewish colleagues and friends are partners in our struggle for equality and justice, is frankly demeaning.

    For Mazzig and Messing and the October 8 subjects, every Arab, every pro-Palestinian, is automatically an antisemite until proven otherwise.

    The best means to counter films like October 8 is facts and good journalism.

    Emotionality has no place in this increasingly hostile landscape. The reason why The Bibi Files and Louis Theroux’s The Settlers work so well is due to their flawless journalism.

    People may believe what they want to believe, but for the undecided and the uninformed, factuality and journalistic integrity — values that go over Sachs’ head — could prove to be the most potent weapon of all.

    Joseph Fahim is an Egyptian film critic and programmer. He is the Arab delegate of the Karlovy Vary Film Festival, a former member of Berlin Critics’ Week and the ex director of programming of the Cairo International Film Festival. This article was first published by Middle East Eye.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Tyre Nichols Case: Shock & Anger in Memphis as 3 Cops Acquitted on State Murder Charges


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • “We Are Not Living. We Are Enduring.” Gaza Mother on Struggle for Food Under Israeli Blockade


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Priest Sexual Abuse Survivors Demand Accountability from New Pope: “Open Up Those Archives”

    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

  • Top U.S. & World Headlines — May 9, 2025


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • After the local elections, why are politicians still not listening?

    Leafleting for Majority, I stopped a bloke in Newcastle city centre.

    Late thirties, Geordie accent, carrying a plastic bag with his shopping in, he said:

    Oh, I’ll definitely be voting in the next council election.

    I asked:

    Who are you thinking of voting for?

    “Re Form,” he pronounced, as two separate words.

    You get a lot of that these days. Loads of media commentators and Westminster bubble people expound their theories why. Few of them actually go and find out for themselves.

    Local elections: breaking through the Westminster bubble to find out what voters really think

    I asked him if he thought Reform will fix anything after the local elections. Yes, partly as a leading question, but I was genuinely interested to hear his thoughts.

    “Well, erm, aye,” then a short pause, “Farage is the man isn’t he?”

    I followed up with:

    What do you think needs fixing?

    “Homelessness.” No hesitation this time. He continued:

    Like, you see people sleeping in shop doorways. And begging, and if people give them money it goes on drugs.

    I asked him his name: Ryan.

    Then, I told Ryan a story.

    A few years ago I visited HMP Northumberland and spoke to some of the inmates there. When I was mayor we funded courses so inmates could get skilled up and get an interview and have a job arranged all before they were released. So they came out with an income and with a life plan. I asked some of the lads what they thought would be an improvement. And they told me something I never thought I would ever hear a prisoner say.

    They said:

    The sentences are too short. You get lads with 3 month sentences, they serve like 5 weeks, and the drugs are barely out of their system and they’re released. But wherever they were staying has gone when they get out. And who’s nice to them? The drug dealers. So they go straight back on it.

    I’m not sure longer sentences are the answer, but they were right about the problem. I explained the ‘Housing First’ policy. Giving people somewhere to live that they know can’t be taken off them. Where if they miss an appointment with a job coach they still have their home. With that foundation, they start to feel in control of their lives. They start to turn their lives around.

    Working class voters have lived austerity’s devastating reality

    Ryan was nodding along:

    Aye, and they can get proper rehab and stuff, and they’ll turn up because they have somewhere to live. You know I struggled when I came out of prison.

    I had no idea – I’d never met him before. For privacy I’ll skip over the details of Ryan’s youth he shared with me. But it struck a chord with him. The fact that I’d listened to people with his life experience. Not just listened, but heard them, and learned from them too. In return, he listened to me.

    We spoke about the Newcastle Assembly where the people will develop their own manifesto. That we’ll be running in next May’s local elections for a progressive coalition to take control of Newcastle city council. Would Ryan vote for us?

    Well I was just saying Re Form because there was no one else. Labour just lie.

    He paused for a moment. Then, he said:

    You know, if I was prime minister, I could fix this country in six months.

    I was impressed. Even I’m not that confident, and I’ve ran an arm of government. I asked him what he would do. Ryan said:

    You’ve got all people, like working, but they haven’t got any money, and they’re struggling to pay their bills and buy food and that. The government could support them with a bit money. And you wouldn’t have as much crime. You wouldn’t have people sleeping in doorways. And things like tourism would improve. Who’s going to come and visit here if there’s people sleeping rough?

    One working-class lad with a tough history spoke more economic sense in one five minute conversation than Rachel Reeves has since she was elected, despite her Nobel Prize in economics, or whatever her CV says these days. Ryan got anti-austerity politics because he lived it. And not one word about immigration passed his lips.

    Honesty and integrity: what’s missing from politics

    I spoke to Alison. She also had a broad Geordie accent, and works two jobs, one as a cleaner, one as bar staff. She’s helping her daughter get through university, who’s training as a nurse.

    Referring to Reform’s local elections landslide in County Durham last week, she asked me:

    What do you think of them getting in in Durham, then?

    I asked her if she thought they’d fix anything. Alison replied:

    Nah. They’re just all talk like the rest of them. They won’t fix nowt. They’re going on about people working from home now. But who can you vote for? Labour have gone back on everything they’ve said. Everything.

    She told me about her daughter, and how expensive her accommodation is. My son’s at uni too, and it’s eye watering. I told her about the assembly, about having a manifesto where the people get to take part in setting policy. Would she vote for us?

    I will pet, I will.

    Once you get out of the social media bubble, people just want things to work. We chose the name Majority because the majority of people agree with our politics. Making sure everyone has a secure home. Public utilities run for the good of the public. A wealth tax on the very rich. Every poll shows between 70% and 80% of people want these things to happen.

    It’s also about integrity. We can’t slam the Tories for VIP WhatsApp lanes and Labour for freebies unless we’re better. The most effective line in my mayoral campaign was, “In five years I claimed £0 expenses”.

    Integrity means being honest. We stick firm to our values of anti-racism, anti-ableism and LGBTQ+ inclusion. Honesty gets you respect. It wasn’t Labour’s stance on immigration that lost them these local elections. It was their stance on truth.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The climate fallout from Farage and Reform’s rise at the local elections has begun

    Nigel Farage’s party is on the rise. In the local elections, Reform took 31% of contested seats to Labour’s 14%. In fact, Keir Starmer managed to lose 65% of the up for grabs seats that Labour held, the most of any new prime minister. Of course, this would be a resigning matter if Jeremy Corbyn were still leader of Labour, but we hear barely a peep over Starmer’s historic losses.

    Farage: you best “give up” on tackling the climate crisis

    Reform’s local election success is already putting a lot at risk. Deputy leader and multi-millionaire landlord Richard Tice said Reform-led councils will block renewable energy infrastructure:

    We will attack, we will hinder, we will delay, we will obstruct, we will put every hurdle in your way. It’s going to cost you a fortune, and you’re not going to win. So give up and go away.

    Yet analysis shows that in Greater Lincolnshire renewable industries contribute £980m to the economy and provide 12,209 jobs.

    While renewable projects are subject to national oversight, Reform can delay or block smaller projects. Alex Wilson, a Reform member of the London Assembly, has said renewables are “absolute lunacy” and are “sacrificing our economy”. He continued:

    It’s making our bills more expensive. We have the highest electricity costs in the Western world, that’s had a huge impact on industry, it’s why the automotive industry is on the floor, it’s why the chemicals industry is suffering. The impact of net zero on energy prices, on industry, on people’s bills, is absolutely catastrophic. It’s a big part of the contribution to the results we had on Thursday’s elections, ten councils we now control and another four that we’re the largest party in them.

    The idea renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels is the real source of lunacy. Government contracts for offshore wind energy have been under 5p per kilowatt hour. That’s less than a quarter of typical household electricity bills that consumers are facing. A renewable energy transition would not only address spiralling climate disaster, it would greatly bring down our energy bills.

    But it’s no wonder Reform are taking such a stance. DeSmog research shows Farage’s party has accepted £2.3 million from fossil fuel interests, big polluters and climate deniers since 2019.

    Wilson also said:

    What we are against is giving up vast swathes of prime agricultural land for these huge solar farms. We want to make better use of our own natural resources to continue to provide the cheap and reliable and secure energy supplies going forwards, so oil, gas, going to keep using those.

    Gas is not cheap. On top of that, Common Wealth notes we have spent £12.5 billion through bill payments to fossil fuel firms for them maintaining their ‘capacity’ in the last ten years. In other words, we rent gas companies for their existence for literal billions – just for them being ‘available’ to sort out supply issues.

    Solutions?

    Starmer, meanwhile, isn’t taking the opportunity to deliver a publicly owned Green New Deal. And he opposed landmark legislation that would make the UK’s targets to tackle the climate crisis emergency legally binding. He’s also investing almost three times more in carbon capture schemes that don’t work than he is in actually funding renewable energy.

    Still, it’s better than Reform who are accelerating rapidly in the completely wrong direction.

    At the same time, Green Zack Polanski is standing to be Green party leader. He wants to challenge Farage on a platform of ‘eco-populism’. All the best to him: it could be the only way out of the political hellscape.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Kiwi heart surgeon, his wife and the film maker in Palestine

    RNZ Nine To Noon

    Auckland film maker Paula Whetu Jones has spent nearly two decades working pro bono on a feature film about the Auckland cardiac surgeon Alan Kerr, which is finally now in cinemas.

    She is best known for co-writing and directing Whina, the feature film about Dame Whina Cooper.

    She filmed Dr Kerr and his wife Hazel in 2007, when he led a Kiwi team to Gaza and the West Bank to operate on children with heart disease.

    What started as a two-week visit became a 20 year commitment, involving 40 medical missions to Gaza and the West Bank and hundreds of operations.

    Paula Whetu Jones self-funded six trips to document the work and the result is the feature film The Doctor’s Wife, now being screened free in communities around the country.

    20 years of inspirational work in Palestine

    Pacific Media Watch reports that Paula Whetu Jones writes on her film’s website:

    I met Alan and Hazel Kerr in 2006 and became inspired by their selflessness and dedication. I wanted to learn more about them and shine a light on their achievements.

    I’ve been trying to highlight social issues through documentary film making for 25 years. I have always struggled to obtain funding and this project was no different. We provided most of the funding but it wouldn’t have been possible to complete it without the generosity of a small number of donors.

    Others gave of their time and expertise.

    Film maker Paula Whetu Jones
    Film maker Paula Whetu Jones . . . “Our documentary shows the humanity of everyday Palestinians, pre 2022, as told through the eyes of a retired NZ heart surgeon, his wife and two committed female film makers.” Image: NZ On Film

    Our initial intention was to follow Dr Alan in his work in the West Bank and Gaza but we also developed a very special relationship with Hazel.

    While Dr Alan was operating, Hazel took herself all over the West Bank and Gaza, volunteering to help in refugee camps, schools and community centres. We tagged along and realised that Dr Alan and his work was the heart of the film but Hazel was the soul. Hence, the title became The Doctor’s Wife.

    I was due to return to Palestine in 2010 when on the eve of my departure I was struck down by a rare auto immune condition which left me paralysed. It wasn’t until 2012 that I was able to return to Palestine.

    Wheelchair made things hard
    However, being in a wheelchair made everything near on impossible, not to mention my mental state which was not conducive to being creative. In 2013, tragedy struck again when my 22-year-old son died, and I shut down for a year.

    Again, the project seemed so far away, destined for the shelf. Which is where it sat for the next few years while I tried to figure out how to live in a wheelchair and support myself and my daughter.

    The project was re-energised when I made two arts documentaries in Palestine, making sure we filmed Alan while we were there and connecting with a NZ trauma nurse who was also filming.

    By 2022, we knew we needed to complete the doco. We started sorting through many years of footage in different formats, getting the interviews transcribed and edited. The last big push was in 2023. We raised funds and got a few people to help with the logistics.

    I spent six months with three editors and then we used the rough cut to do one last fundraiser that helped us over the line, finally finishing it in March of 2025.

    Our documentary shows the humanity of everyday Palestinians, pre-2022, as told through the eyes of a retired NZ heart surgeon, his wife and two committed female film makers who were told in 2006 that no one cares about old people, sick Palestinian children or Palestine.

    They were wrong. We cared and maybe you do, too.

    What is happening in 2025 means it’s even more important now for people to see the ordinary people of Palestine

    Dr Alan and his wife, Hazel are now 90 and 85 years old respectively. They are the most wonderfully humble humans. Their work over 20 years is nothing short of inspiring.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • USP World Press Freedom Day warnings over AI, legal reform and media safety

    By Niko Ratumaimuri in Suva

    World Press Freedom Day is not just a celebration of the vital role journalism plays — it is also a moment to reflect on the pressures facing the profession and Pacific governments’ responsibility to protect it.

    This was one of the key messages delivered by two guest speakers at The University of the South Pacific (USP) Journalism’s 2025 World Press Freedom Day celebrations this week, the UN Human Rights Adviser for the Pacific, Heike Alefsen, and Fiji Media Association’s general secretary, Stanley Simpson.

    In her address to journalism students and other attendees on Monday, chief guest Alefsen emphasised that press freedom is a fundamental pillar of democracy, a human right, and essential for sustainable development and the rule of law.

    “Media freedom is a prerequisite for inclusive, rights-respecting societies,” Alefsen said, warning of rising threats such as censorship, harassment, and surveillance of journalists — especially with the spread of AI tools used to manipulate information and monitor media workers.

    Ms Alefsen, Dr Singh and Mr Simpson
    UN Human Rights Adviser for the Pacific Heike Alefsen (from left), USP Journalism programme head Dr Shailendra Singh, and Fiji Media Association’s general secretary Stanley Simpson . . . reflecting on pressures facing the profession of journalism. Image: Mele Tu’uakitau

    AI and human rights
    She stressed that AI must serve human rights — not undermine them — and that it must be used transparently, accountably, and in accordance with international human rights law.

    “Some political actors exploit AI to spread disinformation and manipulate narratives for personal or political gain,” she said.

    She added that these risks were compounded by the fact that a handful of powerful corporations and individuals now controlled much of the AI infrastructure and influenced the global media environment — able to amplify preferred messages or suppress dissenting voices.

    “Innovation cannot come at the expense of press freedom, privacy, or journalist safety,” she said.

    Regarding Fiji, Alefsen praised the 2023 repeal of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) as a “critical turning point,” noting its positive impact on Fiji’s ranking in the RSF World Press Freedom Index.

    World Press Freedom Day at The University of the South Pacific
    World Press Freedom Day at The University of the South Pacific on Monday. Image: USP — the country rose four places to 40th in the 2025 survey.

    However, she emphasised that legal reforms must continue, especially regarding sedition laws, and she highlighted ongoing challenges across the Pacific, including financial precarity, political pressure, and threats to women journalists.

    According to Alefsen, the media landscape in the Pacific was evolving for the better in some countries but concerns remained. She highlighted the working conditions of most journalists in the region, where financial insecurity, political interference, and lack of institutional support were prevalent.

    “Independent journalism ensures transparency, combats disinformation, amplifies marginalised voices, and enables people to make informed decisions about their lives and governance. In too many countries around the world, journalists face censorship, detention, and in some cases, death — simply for doing their jobs,” she said.

    Strengthening media independence and sustainability
    Keynote speaker Stanley Simpson, echoed these concerns, adding that “the era where the Fiji media could survive out of sheer will and guts is over.”

    “Now, it’s about technology, sustainability, and mental health support,” he said.

    Speaking on the theme, Strengthening Media Independence and Sustainability, Simpson emphasised the need for the media to remain independent, noting that journalists are often expected to make greater sacrifices than professionals in other industries.

    “Independence — while difficult and challenging — is a must in the media industry for it to maintain credibility. We must be able to think, speak, write, and report freely on any matter or anyone,” Simpson said.

    According to Simpson, there was a misconception in Fiji that being independent meant avoiding relationships or contacts.

    “There is a need to build your networks — to access and get information from a wide variety of sources. In fact, strengthening media independence means being able to talk to everyone and hear all sides. Gather all views and present them in a fair, balanced and accurate manner.”

    He argued that media could only be sustainable if it was independent — and that independence was only possible if sustainability was achieved. Simpson recalled the events of the 2006 political upheaval, which he said contributed to the decline of media freedom and the collapse of some media organisations in Fiji.

    “Today, as we mark World Press Freedom Day, we gather at this great institution to reflect on a simple yet profound truth: media can only be truly sustainable if it is genuinely free.

    “We need democratic, political, and governance structures in place, along with a culture of responsible free speech — believed in and practised by our leaders and the people of Fiji,” he said.

    USP students and guests at the 2025 World Press Freedom Day event. Picture: Mele Tu’uakitau

    The new media landscape
    Simpson also spoke about the evolving media landscape, noting the rise of social media influencers and AI generated content. He urged journalists to verify sources and ensure fairness, balance and accuracy — something most social media platforms were not bound by.

    While some influencers have been accused of being clickbait-driven, Simpson acknowledged their role. “I think they are important new voices in our democracy and changing landscape,” he said.

    He criticised AI-generated news platforms that republished content without editorial oversight, warning that they further eroded public trust in the media.

    “Sites are popping up overnight claiming to be news platforms, but their content is just AI-regurgitated media releases,” he said. “This puts the entire credibility of journalism at risk.”

    Fiji media challenges
    Simpson outlined several challenges facing the Fiji media, including financial constraints, journalist mental health, lack of investment in equipment, low salaries, and staff retention. He emphasised the importance of building strong democratic and governance structures and fostering a culture that respects and values free speech.

    “Many fail to appreciate the full scale of the damage to the media industry landscape from the last 16 years. If there had not been a change in government, I believe there would have been no Mai TV, Fiji TV, or a few other local media organisations today. We would not have survived another four years,” he said.

    According to Simpson, some media organisations in Fiji were only one or two months away from shutting down.

    “We barely survived the last 16 years, while many media organisations in places like New Zealand — TV3’s NewsHub — have already closed down. The era where the Fiji media would survive out of sheer will and guts is over. We need to be more adaptive and respond quickly to changing realities — digital, social media, and artificial intelligence,” he said.

    Dr Singh (left) moderates the student panel discussion with Riya Bhagwan, Maniesse Ikuinen-Perman and Vahefonua Tupola. Image: Mele Tu’uakitau

    Young journalists respond
    During a panel discussion, second-year USP journalism student Vahefonua Tupola of Tonga highlighted the connection between the media and ethical journalism, sharing a personal experience to illustrate his point.

    He said that while journalists should enjoy media freedom, they must also apply professional ethics, especially in challenging situations.

    Tupola noted that the insights shared by the speakers and fellow students had a profound impact on his perspective.

    Another panelist, third-year student and Journalism Students Association president Riya Bhagwan, addressed the intersection of artificial intelligence and journalism.

    She said that in this era of rapid technological advancement, responsibility was more critical than ever — with the rise of AI, social media, and a constant stream of information.

    “It’s no longer just professional journalists reporting the news — we also have citizen journalism, where members of the public create and share content that can significantly influence public opinion.

    “With this shift, responsible journalism becomes essential. Journalists must uphold professional standards, especially in terms of accuracy and credibility,” she said.

    The third panelist, second-year student Maniesse Ikuinen-Perman from the Federated States of Micronesia, acknowledged the challenges facing media organisations and journalists in the Pacific.

    She shared that young and aspiring journalists like herself were only now beginning to understand the scope of difficulties journalists face in Fiji and across the region.

    Maniesse emphasised the importance of not just studying journalism but also putting it into practice after graduation, particularly when returning to work in media organisations in their home countries.

    The panel discussion, featuring journalism students responding to keynote addresses, was moderated by USP Journalism head of programme Dr Shailendra Singh.

    Dr Singh concluded by noting that while Fiji had made significant progress with the repeal of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA), global experience demonstrated that media freedom must never be taken for granted.

    He stressed that maintaining media freedom was an ongoing struggle and always a work in progress.

    “As far as media organisations are concerned, there is always a new challenge on the horizon,” he said, pointing to the complications brought about by digital disruption and, more recently, artificial intelligence.

    • Fiji rose four places to 40th (out of 180 nations) in the RSF 2025 World Press Freedom Index to make the country the Oceania media freedom leader outside of Australia (29) and New Zealand (16).

    Niko Ratumaimuri is a second-year journalism student at The University of the South Pacific’s Laucala Campus. This article was first published by the student online news site Wansolwara and is republished in collaboration with Asia Pacific Report.

    USP Journalism students, staff and guests at the 2025 World Press Freedom Day celebrations at Laucala campus
    USP Journalism students, staff and guests at the 2025 World Press Freedom Day celebrations at Laucala campus on Monday. Image: Mele Tu’uakitau

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • What happens now Reform has ‘taken back control’ in Durham?

    Less than one year ago, the people of County Durham returned six out of six MPs for Labour. Northumberland voted Labour in four out of four. On Thursday, Northumberland Labour dropped from 21 seats in 2021, to just eight. In Durham, from 53 seats to just four. Four. Yes, there are fewer seats with the boundary changes, but this is beyond defeat. It is obliteration. And Reform has taken control.

    Labour’s vote collapsed because people are rightly angry

    How can a party collapse so quickly?

    Well, it didn’t. Durham voted Brexit. People at bus stops weren’t discussing the intricacies of the European Central Bank. They were bemoaning the price of buses. Boarded up shops. No school places nearby. Youths on noisy motorbikes intimidating pedestrians.

    One resident of a former pit village told me:

    We haven’t even got a supermarket here.

    The Brexit vote was a howl of pain.

    In 2019, the land of the Durham Miners’ Gala returned three Tory MPs. This year, just one of 24 Tory councillors survives from the 2021 local elections. The people gave them a chance. They failed to deliver. So the people voted them out.

    In July last year, the people gave Labour a chance. Boy, were they betrayed quickly. Winter fuel allowance. Impoverishing disabled people. Still no buses. Still the shops are boarded up while the prices keep going up.

    Reform has 65 of 98 seats on Durham County Council. Its vote is a coalition of two angry groups. Those who are angry at life. At immigrants. Trans people. Vaccines. Tofu. Recycling. Green energy. To them I say, haters gonna hate.

    And a much larger group who are angry with supermarket prices. At working long hours and still slipping into debt. At paying in all your life, then having your Winter Fuel Allowance taken away.

    To them I say, you’re right to be angry. But Nigel Farage is not on your side. He’s part of the same snake-oil selling establishment who has been selling you out for a long, long time. Helping the rich get richer, while delivering a reality of ill health and insecure work.

    Reform has taken back control, so what now?

    What happens now that Reform has taken back control? Will they fix Durham? Or just blame someone else? Voters don’t like that. They expect you to fix something. They know you can’t fix everything everywhere, all at once. But if your park is still covered in glass after four years, they will hold you to account.

    What Brexit broke was not the tradition of voting Labour. It broke the tradition of voting by tradition. Will Reform even hold together? Its four MPs have managed to start suing each other. Will they be falling out before the leaves fall off the trees?

    Newcastle has all-out council elections in 2026. Labour has already lost overall control through resignations. It has a £40m debt liability for the Crowne Plaza hotel. It has cost us £7m through the failed profit-making parks trust, implemented by now North East Mayor Kim McGuinness. Child poverty is up. The new Metros are not in service. No one seems to be in charge, or capable of delivering anything. The Gateshead flyover is still closed. And no one takes responsibility.

    Instead, all we get are slavish repetition of national talking points:

    Everything is fine, and it’s all the Tories’ fault.

    We need people who will stand up for our region. Who are not terrified of telling the truth for fear of being politically executed by party apparatchiks. We need a credible alternative.

    Exactly one year ago, I polled 25,000 votes in Newcastle compared to Labour’s 26,000 votes. There is a desire for better politics and higher standards. I want to see a coalition that will actually represent the people, not the parties. I want independents involved, and Greens if they are up for it. For the people leaving Labour – and there are many – to be part of it. To use citizens’ assemblies to set policy priorities.

    We need politicians who will put local people first, and who are not beholden to party HQs or toeing the party line. Our first assembly is on Sunday 18 May in the Discovery Museum. You can book on the Majority website. Get yourself along.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

  • Fiji media’s Stan Simpson blasts ‘hypocrites’ in social media clash over press freedom

    Pacific Media Watch

    Barely hours after being guest speaker at the University of the South Pacific‘s annual World Press Freedom Day event this week, Fiji media industry stalwart Stanley Simpson was forced to fend off local trolls whom he described as “hypocrites”.

    “Attacked by both the Fiji Labour Party and ex-FijiFirst MPs in just one day,” chuckled Simpson in a quirky response on social media.

    “Plus, it seems, by their very few supporters using myriads of fake accounts.

    “Hypocrites!”

    Simpson, secretary of the Fiji Media Association (FMA), media innovator, a founder and driving force of Mai TV, and a gold medallist back in his university student journalist days, was not taking any nonsense from his cyberspace critics, including Rajendra, the son of Labour Party leader and former prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

    The critics were challenging recent comments about media freedom in his speech at USP on Monday and on social media when he took a swipe at “pop-up propagandists”.

    “I stand by my statements. And I love the attention now put on media freedom by those who went missing or turned a blind eye when it was under threat [under Voreqe Bainimarama’s regime post-2006 coup]. Time for them to own up and come clean.”

    Briefly, this is the salvo that Simpson fired back after Rajendra Chaudhry’s comment “This Stanley Simpson fella . . . Did he organise any marches [against the Bainimarama takeover], did he organise any international attention, did he rally the people against the Bainimarama regime?” and other snipes from the trolls.

    1. FLP [Fiji Labour Party]
    At a period 2006-2007 when journalists were being bashed and beaten and media suppressed — the Fiji Labour Party and Chaudhry went silent as they lay in bed with the military regime.

    Rajendra Chaudhry's criticism
    Rajendra Chaudhry’s criticism. Image: APR screenshot

    “They try to gloss over it by saying the 1997 constitution was still intact. It was intact but useless because you ignored the gross human rights abuses against the media and political opponents.

    “Where was FLP when Imraz, Laisa, Pita and Virisila were beaten? Where were they when Netani Rika, Kenneth Zinck, Momo, Makeli Radua were attacked and abused, when our Fiji Living Office was trashed and burnt down, and Pita and Dionisia put in jail cells like common criminals?

    “It was when Chaudhry took on Fiji Water and it backfired and left the regime that they started to speak out. When Aiyaz [Sayed-Khaiyum, former Attorney-General] replaced him as No. 2. By then too late.

    “Yes FLP — some of us who survived that period are still around and we still remember so you can’t rewrite what happened in 2006-2007 and change the narrative. You failed!”

    “2. Alvick Maharaj [opposition MP for the FijiFirst Party]
    “The funny thing about this statement is that I already knew last night this statement was coming out and who was writing it etc. I even shared with fellow editors and colleagues that the attacks were coming — and how useless and a waste of time it would be as it was being done by people who were silent and made hundreds of thousands of dollars while media were being suppressed [under the draconian Fiji Media Industry Development Act 2010 (MIDA) and other news crackdowns].

    Troll-style swipes
    Troll-style swipes. Image: APR screenshot

    “Ex-Fiji First MPs protecting their former PR colleagues for their platform which has been used to attack their political opponents. We can see through it all because we were not born yesterday and have experience in this industry. We can see what you are doing from a mile away. Its a joke.

    “And your attacks on the [recent State Department] editors’ US trip is pathetic. Plus [about] the visit to Fiji Water.

    “However, the positive I take from this — is that you now both say you believe in media freedom.

    “Ok now practice it. Not only when it suits your agenda and because you are now in Opposition.

    “You failed in the past when you governed — but we in the media will continue to endeavor to treat you fairly.

    “Sometimes that also means calling you out.”

    USP guest speech
    As guest speaker at USP, Simpson had this to say among making other points during his media freedom speech:

    The USP World Press Freedom Day seminar on Monday
    The USP World Press Freedom Day seminar on Monday. Image: USP/APR

    “Journalists today work under the mega spotlight of social media and get attacked, ridiculed and pressured daily — but need to stay true to their journalism principles despite the challenges and pressures they are under.

    “Today, we stand at a crossroads. To students here at USP — future journalists, leaders, and citizens — remember the previous chapter [under FijiFirst]. Understand the price paid for media freedom. Protect it fiercely. Speak out when it’s threatened, even if it’s unpopular or uncomfortable.

    “To our nation’s leaders and influencers: defend a free media, even when it challenges you. A healthy democracy requires tolerance of criticism and commitment to transparency.”

    • Fiji rose four places to 40th (out of 180 nations) in the RSF 2025 World Press Freedom Index to make the country the Oceania media freedom leader outside of Australia (29) and New Zealand (16).

  • NZ Māori Council, PSNA appeal for urgent action over Gaza starvation

    Asia Pacific Report

    The New Zealand Māori Council and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa made a high profile appeal to Foreign Minister Winston Peters over Gaza today, calling for urgent action over humanitarian supplies for the besieged Palestinian enclave.

    “Starving a civilian population is a clear breach of international humanitarian law and a war crime under the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court,” said the open letter published by the two organisations as full page advertisements in three leading daily newspapers.

    Noting that New Zealand has not joined the International Court of Justice for standing up to “condemn the use of starvation as a weapon of war”, the groups still called on the government to use its “internationally respected voice” to express solidarity for humanitarian aid.

    The plea comes amid Israel’s increased attacks on Gaza which have killed at least 61 people since dawn, targeting civilians in crowded places and a Gaza City market.

    The more than two-month blockade by the the enclave by Israel has caused acute food shortages, accelerating the starvation of the Palestinian population.

    Israel has blocked all aid into Gaza — food, water, fuel and medical supplies — while more than 3000 trucks laden with supplies are stranded on the Egyptian border blocked from entry into Gaza.

    At least 57 Palestinians have starved to death in Gaza as a result of Israel’s punishing blockade. The overall death toll, revised in view of bodies buried under the rubble, stands at 62,614 Palestinians and 1139 people killed in Israel.

    The open letter, publlshed by three Stuff-owned titles — Waikato Times in Hamilton, The Post in the capital Wellington, and The Press in Christchurch, said:

    Rt Hon Winston Peters
    Minister of Foreign Affairs
    Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz

    Open letter requesting government action on the future of Gaza

    Kia ora Mr Peters,

    The situation in Occupied Gaza has reached another crisis point.

    We urge our country to speak out and join other nations demanding humanitarian supplies into Gaza.

    For more than two months, Israel has blocked all aid into Gaza — food, water, fuel and medical supplies. The World Food Programme says food stocks in Gaza are fully depleted. UNICEF says children face “growing risk of starvation, illness and death”. The International Committee of the Red Cross says “the humanitarian response in Gaza is on the verge of total collapse”.

    Meanwhile, 3000 trucks laden with desperately needed aid are lined up at the Occupied Gaza border. Israeli occupation forces are refusing to allow them in.

    Starving a civilian population is a clear breach of International Humanitarian Law and a War Crime under the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court.

    At the International Court of Justice many countries have stood up to condemn the use of starvation as a weapon of war and to demand accountability for Israel to end its industrial-scale killing of Palestinians in Gaza.

    New Zealand has not joined that group. Our government has been silent to date.

    After 18 months facing what the International Court of Justice has described as a “plausible genocide”, it is grievous that New Zealand does not speak out and act clearly against this ongoing humanitarian outrage.

    Minister Peters, as Minister of Foreign Affairs you are in a position of leadership to carry New Zealand’s collective voice in support of humanitarian aid to Gaza to the world. We are asking you to speak on behalf of New Zealand to support the urgent international plea for humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza and to initiate calls for a no-fly zone to be established over the region to prevent further mass killing of civilians.

    We believe the way forward for peace and security for everyone in the region is for all parties to follow international law and United Nations resolutions, going back to UNGA 194 in 1948, so that a lasting peace can be established based on justice and equal rights for everyone.

    New Zealand has an internationally respected voice — please use it to express solidarity for humanitarian aid to Gaza, today.

    Nā

    Ann Kendall QSM, Co-chair
    Tā Taihākurei Durie, Pou [cultural leader]
    NZ Māori Council

    Maher Nazzal and John Minto, National Co-chairs
    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)

    The NZ Māori Council and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa advertisement
    The NZ Māori Council and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa advertisement in New Zealand media today. Image: PSNA


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • New Caledonia’s political talks – no outcome after three days of ‘conclave’

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific Desk

    After three solid days of talks in retreat mode, New Caledonia’s political parties have yet to reach an agreement on the French Pacific territory’s future status.

    The talks, held with French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls and French Prime Minister’s special advisor Eric Thiers, have since Monday moved from Nouméa to a seaside resort in Bourail — on the west coast of the main island, about 200 km from the capital — in what has been labelled a “conclave”, a direct reference to this week’s meeting of Catholic cardinals in Rome to elect a new pope.

    However, the Bourail conclave is yet to produce any kind of white smoke, and no one, as yet, claims “Habemus Pactum” to say that an agreement has been reached.

    Under heavy security, representatives of both pro-France and pro-independence parties are being kept in isolation and are supposed to stay there until a compromise is found to define New Caledonia’s political future, and an agreement that would later serve as the basis for a pact designed to replace the Nouméa Accord that was signed in 1998.

    The talks were supposed to conclude yesterday, but it has been confirmed that the discussions were going to last longer, at least one more day, probably well into the night.

    Valls was initially scheduled to fly back to Paris today, but it has also been confirmed that he will stay longer.

    Almost one year after civil unrest broke out in New Caledonia on 13 May 2024, leaving 14 dead and causing 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.2 billion) in damage, the talks involve pro-France Les Loyalistes, Le Rassemblement, Calédonie Ensemble and pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), UNI-PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party).

    Wallisian ‘third way’
    Éveil Océanien, a Wallisian-based party, defends a “neither pro, nor against independence” line — what it calls a “third way”.

    The talks, over the past few days, have been described as “tense but respectful”, with some interruptions at times.

    The most sensitive issues among the numerous topics covered by the talks on New Caledonia’s future, are reported to be the question of New Caledonia’s future status and relationship to France.

    Other sensitive topics include New Caledonia’s future citizenship and the transfer of remaining key powers (defence, law and order, currency, foreign affairs, justice) from Paris to Nouméa.

    Valls, who is visiting New Caledonia for the third time since February 2025, said he would stay in New Caledonia “as long as necessary” for an inclusive and comprehensive agreement to be reached.

    Earlier this week, Valls also likened the current situation as “walking on a tightrope above embers.”

    “The choice is between an agreement and chaos,” he told local media.

    Clashing demands
    On both sides of the discussion table, local parties have all stated earlier that bearing in mind their respective demands, they were “not ready to sign at all costs.”

    The FLNKS is demanding full sovereignty while on the pro-France side, that view is rejected after three referendums were held there between 2018 and 2021 said no to independence.

    Valls’s approach was still trying to reconcile those two very antagonistic views, often described as “irreconcilable”.

    “But the thread is not broken. Only more time is required”, local media quoted a close source as saying.

    Last week, an earlier session of talks in Nouméa had to be interrupted due to severe frictions and disagreement from the pro-France side.

    Speaking to public broadcaster NC la 1ère on Sunday, Rassemblement leader Virginie Ruffenach elaborated, saying “there had been profound elements of disagreements on a certain number of words uttered by the minister (Valls)”.

    One of the controversial concepts, strongly opposed by the most radical pro-French parties, was a possible transfer of key powers from Paris to Nouméa, as part of a possible agreement.

    Loyalists opposed to ‘independence-association’
    “In what was advanced, the land of New Caledonia would no longer be a French land”, Ruffenach stressed on Sunday, adding this was “unacceptable” to her camp.

    She also said the two main pro-France parties were opposed to any notion of “independence-association”.

    “Neither Rassemblement, nor Les Loyalistes will sign for New Caledonia’s independence, let this be very clear.”

    The pro-France camp is advocating for increased powers (including on tax matters) for each of the three provinces of New Caledonia, a solution sometimes regarded by critics as a form of partition of the French Pacific territory.

    In a media release on Sunday, FLNKS “reaffirmed its . . . ultimate goal was Kanaky (New Caledonia’s) accession to full sovereignty”.

    Series of fateful anniversaries
    On the general public level, a feeling of high expectations, but also wariness, seems to prevail at the news that discussions were still inconclusive.

    In 1988, the Matignon-Oudinot peace talks between pro-independence leader at the time, Jean-Marie Tjibaou and pro-France leader Jacques Lafleur, were also held, in their final stage, in Paris, behind closed doors, under the close supervision of French Socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard.

    The present crucial talks also coincide with a series of fateful anniversaries in New Caledonia’s recent history — on 5 May 1988, French special forces ended a hostage situation and intervened on Ouvéa Island in the Gossana grotto, where a group of hard-line pro-independent militants had held a group of French gendarmes.

    The human toll was heavy: 19 Kanak militants and 2 gendarmes were killed.

    On 4 May 1989, one year after the Matignon-Oudinot peace accords were signed, Jean-Marie Tjibaou and his deputy Yeiwene Yeiwene were gunned down by hard-line pro-independence Kanak activist Djubelly Wea.

    Valls attended most of these commemoration ceremonies at the weekend.

    On 5 May 1998, the 27-year-old Nouméa Accord was signed between New Caledonia’s parties and then French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

    De facto Constitution
    The Nouméa pact, which is often regarded as a de facto Constitution, was placing a particular stress on the notions of “re-balancing” economic wealth, a “common destiny” for all ethnic communities “living together” and a gradual transfer of powers from Paris to Nouméa.

    The Accord also prescribed that if three self-determination referendums (initially scheduled between 2014 and 2018) had produced three rejections (in the form of “no”), then all political stakeholders were supposed to “meet and examine the situation thus generated”.

    The current talks aimed at arriving at a new document, which was destined to replace the Nouméa Accord and bring New Caledonia closer to having its own Constitution.

    Valls said he was determined to “finalise New Caledonia’s decolonisation” process.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Columbia must pay millions in settlement to survivors of sexual abuse


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Survivors, Who Were Sexually Assaulted by Columbia Gynecologist, Win $750 Million Lawsuit


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Rodney Scott, Trump’s CBP Nominee, Accused of Covering Up Death of Mexican Father in CBP Custody


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • “Columbia Knew”: Survivors Win Historic $750M from University & Hospital in OB-GYN Sex Abuse Case


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Media Democracy Festival 2025 will see Sangita Myska, Zack Polanski, and others take on the MSM

    On Saturday 31 May at London’s Fyvie Hall, leading commentators from UK media and politics will take the fight to Big Tech billionaires, expose the roots of disinformation and online toxicity, blow open the doors on revolutionising the BBC, and build the movement for a better media for all.

    The Media Democracy Festival is an annual free public event that brings together journalists, activists, researchers and members of the public to debate how to collectively transform the media into a more independent, accountable, and democratic system that serves the public interest.

    The Media Democracy Festival: a prestigious line-up

    Ava Evans of PoliticsJOE, former BBC newsreader Karishma Patel, former Spectator editor Peter Oborne, Byline Times editor Hardeep Matharu, Declassified UK’s Mark Curtis, Novara Media’s Aaron Bastani, and Bristol Cable journalist Priyanka Raval are just some of the highlights in a prestigious line-up from UK journalism, politics, and activism.

    This year’s Festival programme features radical and challenging discussions on:

    • Big Tech vs. The People
    • The wars you don’t see: the media’s failures on global conflict
    • The state and the media: Resisting the new McCarthyism
    • Oligarchs Inc: Who owns the UK media?
    • Fighting isolation & bitterness in the online world
    • Take back control: Building a media commons
    • As well as workshops and training sessions on ethical journalism, media activism, and fighting the far-right hosted by Red Pepper Mag, shado and News Club UK.

    Britain’s broken media: fighting back against Big Tech billionaires and broadcasting barons

    Broadcaster and journalist Sangita Myska, who will provide the Festival’s opening keynote address, said:

    I’m absolutely thrilled to be speaking at this year’s Media Democracy Festival to discuss Britain’s broken media and what we can do to fix it.

    This is a dangerous moment for our democracy, with so much of the UK’s media dominated by Big Tech billionaires, unaccountable press and broadcasting barons, and online influencers spreading hate and disinformation.

    We urgently need to confront the undemocratic concentrations of power that are distorting our media system, dividing our communities and harming the public interest.

    The Media Democracy Festival will be an important event for exposing the biases and failures in the media, as well as a space for bringing people together to build a truly independent and trustworthy media that will hold the powerful to account.

    The Media Democracy Festival is organised by the Media Reform Coalition, the UK’s leading campaign group for building a more independent, accountable, and democratic media. Previous Festival speakers include Jeremy Corbyn MP, Ash Sarkar, Michael Crick, Zarah Sultana MP, Owen Jones, Clive Lewis MP, the NUJ, Impress, the Public Interest News Foundation, and openDemocracy.

    The Media Democracy Festival is organised in collaboration with University of Westminster’s Communication and Media Research Institute (CAMRI), with support from Impress Media Services.

    You can book your tickets for the event here. 

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Financial Times: The West’s shameful silence on Gaza – do more to restrain Benjamin Netanyahu

    EDITORIAL: The Financial Times editorial board

    After 19 months of conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and drawn accusations of war crimes against Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is once more preparing to escalate Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

    The latest plan puts Israel on course for full occupation of the Palestinian territory and would drive Gazans into ever-narrowing pockets of the shattered strip.

    It would lead to more intensive bombing and Israeli forces clearing and holding territory, while destroying what few structures remain in Gaza.

    This would be a disaster for 2.2 million Gazans who have already endured unfathomable suffering.

    Each new offensive makes it harder not to suspect that the ultimate goal of Netanyahu’s far-right coalition is to ensure Gaza is uninhabitable and drive Palestinians from their land. For two months, Israel has blocked delivery of all aid into the strip.

    Child malnutrition rates are rising, the few functioning hospitals are running out of medicine, and warnings of starvation and disease are growing louder. Yet the US and European countries that tout Israel as an ally that shares their values have issued barely a word of condemnation.

    They should be ashamed of their silence, and stop enabling Netanyahu to act with impunity.

    In brief remarks on Sunday, US President Donald Trump acknowledged Gazans were “starving”, and suggested Washington would help get food into the strip.

    But, so far, the US president has only emboldened Netanyahu. Trump returned to the White House promising to end the war in Gaza after his team helped broker a January ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

    Under the deal, Hamas agreed to free hostages in phases, while Israel was to withdraw from Gaza and the foes were to reach a permanent ceasefire.

    But within weeks of the truce taking hold, Trump announced an outlandish plan for Gaza to be emptied of Palestinians and taken over by the US.

    In March, Israel collapsed the ceasefire as it sought to change the terms of the deal, with Washington’s backing. Senior Israeli officials have since said they are implementing Trump’s plan to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza.

    On Monday, far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said: “We are finally going to occupy the Gaza Strip.”

    Netanyahu insists an expanded offensive is necessary to destroy Hamas and free the 59 remaining hostages. The reality is that the prime minister has never articulated a clear plan since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack killed 1200 people and triggered the war.

    Instead, he repeats his maximalist mantra of “total victory” while seeking to placate his extremist allies to ensure the survival of his governing coalition.

    But Israel is also paying a price for his actions. The expanded offensive would imperil the lives of the hostages, further undermine Israel’s tarnished standing and deepen domestic divisions.

    Israel has briefed that the expanded operation would not begin until after Trump’s visit to the Gulf next week, saying there is a “window” for Hamas to release hostages in return for a temporary truce.

    Arab leaders are infuriated by Netanyahu’s relentless pursuit of conflict in Gaza yet they will fete Trump at lavish ceremonies with promises of multibillion-dollar investments and arms deals.

    Trump will put the onus on Hamas when speaking to his Gulf hosts. The group’s murderous October 7 attack is what triggered the Israeli offensive.

    Gulf states agree that its continued stranglehold on Gaza is a factor prolonging the war. But they must stand up to Trump and convince him to pressure Netanyahu to end the killing, lift the siege and return to talks.

    The global tumult triggered by Trump has already distracted attention from the catastrophe in Gaza. Yet the longer it goes on, the more those who remain silent or cowed from speaking out will be complicit.

    This editorial was published by the London Financial Times under the original title “The west’s shameful silence on Gaza: The US and European allies should do more to restrain Benjamin Netanyahu” on May 6, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘Under no illusions’ about France, says author of new Rainbow Warrior book

    Pacific Media Watch

    The author of the book Eyes of Fire, one of the countless publications on the Rainbow Warrior bombing almost 40 years ago but the only one by somebody actually on board the bombed ship, says he was under no illusions that France was behind the attack.

    Journalist David Robie was speaking last month at a Greenpeace Aotearoa workship at Mātauri Bay for environmental activists and revealed that he has a forthcoming new book to mark the anniversary of the bombing.

    “I don’t think I had any illusions at the time. For me, I knew it was the French immediately the bombing happened,” he said.

    Eyes of Fire
    Eyes of Fire . . . the earlier 30th anniversary edition in 2015. Image: Little Island Press/DR

    “You know with the horrible things they were doing at the time with their colonial policies in Kanaky New Caledonia, assassinating independence leaders and so on, and they had a heavy military presence.

    “A sort of clamp down in New Caledonia, so it just fitted in with the pattern — an absolute disregard for the Pacific.”

    He said it was ironic that four decades on, France had trashed the goodwill that had been evolving with the 1988 Matignon and 1998 Nouméa accords towards independence with harsh new policies that led to the riots in May last year.

    Dr Robie’s series of books on the Rainbow Warrior focus on the impact of nuclear testing by both the Americans and the French, in particular, on Pacific peoples and especially the humanitarian voyages to relocate the Rongelap Islanders in the Marshall Islands barely two months before the bombing at Marsden wharf in Auckland on 10 July 1985.

    Detained by French military
    He was detained by the French military while on assignment in New Caledonia a year after Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior was first published in New Zealand.

    His reporting won the NZ Media Peace Prize in 1985.


    David Robie’s 2025 talk on the Rainbow Warrior.     Video: Greenpeace Aotearoa

    Dr Robie confirmed that Little island Press was publishing a new book this year with a focus on the legacy of the Rainbow Warrior.

    Plantu's cartoon on the Rainbow Warrior bombers
    Plantu’s cartoon on the Rainbow Warrior bombers from the slideshow. Image: David Robie/Plantu

    “This edition is the most comprehensive work on the sinking of the first Rainbow Warrior, but also speaks to the first humanitarian mission undertaken by Greenpeace,” said publisher Tony Murrow.

    “It’s an important work that shows us how we can act in the world and how we must continue to support all life on this unusual planet that is our only home.”

    Little Island Press produced an educational microsite as a resource to accompany Eyes of Fire with print, image and video resources.

    The book will be launched in association with a nuclear-free Pacific exhibition at Ellen Melville Centre in mid-July.

    Find out more at the Eyes of Fire microsite
    Find out more at the microsite: eyes-of-fire.littleisland.co.nz

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Samoa down in RSF media freedom world ranking due to ‘authoritarian pressure’

    Talamua Online News

    Samoa has dropped in its media and information freedom world ranking from 22 in 2024 to 44 in 2025 in the latest World Press Freedom Index compiled annually by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    For the Pacific region, New Zealand is ranked highest at 16, Australia at 29, Fiji at 40, Samoa ranked 44 and Tonga at 46.

    And for some comfort, the United States is ranked 57 in media freedom.

    The 2025 World Press Freedom Index released in conjunction with the annual Media Freedom Day on May 3, says despite the vitality of some of its media groups, Samoa’s reputation as a regional model of press freedom has suffered in recent years due to “authoritarian pressure” from the previous prime minister and a political party that held power for four decades until 2021.

    Media landscape
    The report lists independent media outlets such as the Samoa Observer, “an independent daily founded in 1978, that has symbolised the fight for press freedom.”

    It also lists state-owned Savali newspaper “that focuses on providing positive coverage of the government’s activities.”

    TV1, is the product of the privatisation of the state-owned Samoa Broadcasting Corporation. The Talamua group operates Samoa FM and other media outlets, while the national radio station 2AP calls itself “the Voice of the Nation.”

    Political context
    Although Samoa is a parliamentary democracy with free elections, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) held power for four decades until it was narrowly defeated in the April 2021 general election by Samoa United in Faith (Faʻatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi, or FAST).

    An Oceania quick check list on the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom rankings
    An Oceania quick check list on the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom rankings. While RSF surveys 180 countries each year, only Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Tonga are included so far. Image: PMW from RSF

    The report says part of the reason for the HRPP’s defeat was its plan to overhaul Samoa’s constitutional and customary law framework, which would have threatened freedom of the press.

    Championing media freedom
    The Journalists Association of (Western) Samoa (JAWS) is the national media association and is press freedom’s leading champion. JAWS spearheaded a media journalism studies programme based at the National University of Samoa in the effort to train journalists and promote media freedom but the course is not producing the quality journalism students needed as its focus, time and resources have been given the course.

    Meanwhile, the media standards continue to slide and there is fear that the standards will drop further in the face of rapid technological changes and misinformation via social media.

    A new deal for journalism
    The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by RSF revealed the dire state of the news economy and how it severely threatens newsrooms’ editorial independence and media pluralism.

    In light of this alarming situation, RSF has called on public authorities, private actors and regional institutions to commit to a “New Deal for Journalism” by following 11 key recommendations.

    Strengthen media literacy and journalism training
    Part of this deal is “supporting reliable information means that everyone should be trained from an early age to recognise trustworthy information and be involved in media education initiatives. University and higher education programmes in journalism must also be supported, on the condition that they are independent.”

    Finland (5th) is recognised worldwide for its media education, with media literacy programmes starting in primary school, contributing to greater resilience against disinformation.

    Republished from Talamua Online News.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Martial Law Disguised as Law and Order: The Oldest Trick in the Authoritarian Playbook

    “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

    We are being frog-marched into tyranny at the end of a loaded gun. Or rather, hundreds of thousands of loaded guns.

    Let’s not mince words: President Trump’s April 28 executive order is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: martial law masquerading as law and order.

    Officially titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” this order is a “heil Hitler” wrapped in the goosestepping, despotic trappings of national security.

    Don’t be fooled by Trump’s tough-on-crime rhetoric, cloaked in patriotic language and the promise of safety.

    This is the language of every strongman who’s ever ruled by force.

    The White House claims the order will “empower state and local law enforcement to relentlessly pursue criminals and protect American communities.” But under this administration, “criminal” increasingly includes anyone who dares to exercise their constitutional rights.

    The order doesn’t merely expand policing—it institutionalizes repression.

    It sets us squarely on the road to martial law.

    If allowed to stand, Trump’s executive order completes our shift from a nation of laws, where even the least among us had the right to due process, to a nation of enforcers: vigilantes with badges who treat “we the people” as suspects and subordinates.

    Without invoking the Insurrection Act or deploying active-duty military forces, Trump has accelerated the transformation of domestic police into his own paramilitary force.

    With the stroke of his presidential pen, he has laid the groundwork for a stealth version of martial law by:

    • Expanding police powers and legal protections;
    • Authorizing the DOJ to defend officers accused of civil rights violations;
    • Increasing the transfer of military equipment to local police;
    • Shielding law enforcement from judicial oversight;
    • Prioritizing law enforcement protection over civil liberties;
    • Embedding DHS and federal agents more deeply into local policing.

    All of this has occurred without congressional debate, judicial review, or constitutional scrutiny.

    For years, we have watched as the government transformed local law enforcement into extensions of the military: outfitted with military hardware and trained in battlefield tactics.

    However, this executive order goes one step further—it creates not just a de facto standing army but Trump’s own army: loyal not to the Constitution or the people but to the president.

    This is the very danger the Founders feared: a militarized police force answerable to a powerful executive, operating outside the bounds of the law.

    This is martial law without a declaration.

    Today, law enforcement is equipped like the military, trained in battlefield tactics, and given broad discretion over who to target and how to respond. But these are not soldiers bound by the laws of war. They are civilian enforcers, wielding unchecked power with minimal oversight.

    And they are everywhere.

    Armored vehicles on neighborhood streets. Flashbang raids on family homes. Riot police in small towns. SWAT-style teams deployed by federal agencies. Drones overhead. Mass surveillance below.

    We are fast approaching a reality where constitutional rights exist in name only.

    In practice, we are ruled by a quasi-military bureaucracy empowered to:

    • Detain without trial;
    • Punish political dissent;
    • Seize property under civil asset forfeiture;
    • Classify critics as extremists or terrorists;
    • Conduct mass surveillance on the populace;
    • Raid homes in the name of “public safety”;
    • Use deadly force at the slightest provocation.

    In other words, we’ve got freedom in name only.

    It’s the same scenario nationwide: in big cities and small towns alike, militarized “warrior” cops—hyped up on power—ride roughshod over individual rights by exercising almost absolute discretion over who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

    This nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence has already ensured that unarmed Americans—many of them mentally ill, elderly, disabled, or simply noncompliant—will continue to die at the hands of militarized police.

    From individuals shot for holding garden hoses to those killed after calling 911 for help, these tragedies underscore a chilling truth: in a police state, the only truly “safe” person is one who offers no resistance at all.

    These killings are the inevitable result of a system that rewards vigilante aggression by warrior cops and punishes accountability.

    These so-called warrior cops, trained to act as judge, jury, and executioner, increasingly outnumber those who still honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public.

    Now, under the cover of executive orders and nationalist rhetoric, that warrior mentality is being redirected toward a more dangerous mission: silencing political dissent.

    Emboldened by Trump’s call to reopen Alcatraz and target so-called “homegrown” threats, these foot soldiers of the police state are no longer going to be tasked with enforcing the law—they will be deployed to enforce political obedience.

    This is not a theory. It is a reality unfolding before our eyes.

    We are living in a creeping state of undeclared martial law.

    The militarization of police and federal agencies over recent decades has only accelerated the timeline toward authoritarianism.

    This is how freedom ends—not with a loud decree, but with the quiet, calculated erosion of every principle we once held sacred.

    We’ve come full circle—from resisting British redcoats to submitting to American forces with the same disdain for liberty.

    Our constitutional foundation is crumbling, and with it, any illusion that those in power still serve the public good.

    For its part, Congress has abdicated its role as a constitutional check on executive power, passing sweeping authorizations with little scrutiny and failing to rein in executive overreach. The courts, too, have in the past sanctioned many of these abuses in the name of national security, public order, or qualified immunity. Instead of acting as constitutional safeguards, these institutions have largely become rubber stamps.

    Indeed, the president, Congress, the courts, and the police have come to embody the very abuse the Founders fought to resist. Only now are the courts beginning to show glimmers of allegiance to the Constitution.

    This is not about partisanship. This is about power without restraint.

    As tempting as it is to place full blame on Trump for this full-throttle shift into martial law, he is not the architect of this police state. He is its most shameless enabler—a useful frontman for the Deep State in its ongoing war on the American people.

    As we warned in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

    We ignore these signs at our peril.

    The post Martial Law Disguised as Law and Order: The Oldest Trick in the Authoritarian Playbook first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Starvation, siege & bombings: Volunteer nurse on healthcare crisis in Gaza


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trump’s crypto corruption


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.