I believe there will be a mass party of the left – whether that is an umbrella organisation that shelters all these small community independent groups that can pivot and react quickly to the needs in their community, or if that is a mass party of the left.
I think we only get that, though, by getting off our arses and doing things.
Collective is aiming to “drive the formation of a new, mass-membership political party of the left”, while Assemble is focusing on putting ordinary people at the heart of politics via local assemblies. SCI is just one of numerous locally-rooted and locally-focused groups that could eventually become the constituent parts of a new national party of the left.
Sean Halsall: trusting and listening to local people is essential
Speaking about why “up and down the country, these independent groupings are springing up”, Sean Halsall suggested its because national parties have simply let people down too often:
There’s just been a dramatic failure of actually addressing people’s needs. We’re not speaking to people anymore, and not listening, which I think is the most important thing. No one’s listening to the electorate.
And rather than sitting around waiting for people in London to form another centralised organisation, community activists around the country are getting on with local organising themselves. Halsall stressed that:
I think too much on the left we sit around, form a committee, and spend six years discussing something, rather than just going out and doing it… Join local activists, and do it yourselves!
At the launch party, the attendees participated in an assembly, highlighting the issues most important to them. And Halsall highlighted the importance of listening to members of the community and using their words to create a local democratic mandate:
This is about building something that speaks for the community, from the community. And… I’m not gonna put myself in the same vein as Keir Starmer and tear up what these people tell me that they want. It’s about delivering for the people who live here.
He added:
This isn’t about left versus right. It’s about right versus wrong. And it’s about top versus bottom, and about challenging that status quo in politics and giving people a voice. I trust the people of this country to make rational decisions when you give them the proper information they need.
Starmer only leads us to division and authoritarianism. But communities can prevent that.
Halsall also highlighted why building democratic participation locally matters at a time when Keir Starmer’s Labour government is simply pushing the country into further division and authoritarianism. The promising level of local participation at the launch party, he said:
speaks to even how far we’ve come away from democratic structures in a year. With Keir Starmer being elected, people probably falsely had hope that things would change. But we’ve just seen anti-democratic, authoritarian stuff from him. We’ve seen the ripping up of his pledges that he made when he became leader, a manifesto built on sand – there’s nothing in there that’s tangible.
If you wanna try and win an election and you’re parroting far-right sentiment, people are gonna trust the far right with that – if you allow the battleground to become their battleground, you can’t win on that…
There’s not a person in this country who’s benefited from however many thousands of people we’ve deported. What we would benefit from is a functioning healthcare system, schools that aren’t crumbling at the seams, and people not having to rely on foodbanks.
Nicaragua announced last week it is withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council, following a U.N. report that slammed the government’s human rights violations and warned the country was becoming an authoritarian state. The report by a panel of independent human rights experts adds to international pressure on the Nicaraguan government led by President Daniel Ortega and first lady Rosario Murillo, who was recently named co-president. “Nicaragua has become a country of enforced silence and surveillance for those who stay in the country, while those who dare to speak out face a life of exile and denationalization,” says Reed Brody, a member of the U.N. expert panel, who has spent decades investigating rights abuses in Nicaragua.
He speaks to Democracy Now! 40 years to the day since the release of his landmark 1985 fact-finding report Contra Terror in Nicaragua, which laid out how U.S. policy attempted to destabilize Nicaragua’s Sandinista government by funding the Contras and their campaign of torture, rape, kidnapping and murder.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Republicans in Congress are pushing forward budget plans that would cut trillions in federal spending and give trillions more in tax cuts that disproportionately benefit corporations and the ultra-rich. This week, hundreds of faith leaders gathered on the Christian holy day of Ash Wednesday on Capitol Hill to voice their opposition. “There’s no way you can do the kinds of cuts they’re talking about — it’s mathematically impossible — without touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” says Bishop William Barber, one of the participants. Barber also reflects on the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when civil rights marchers were brutalized in Selma, Alabama, and stresses that economic justice was always at the heart of the movement alongside ending segregation and winning voting rights.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.
Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.
Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.
But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
‘A declaration of war against the American people.’ Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”
One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.
Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.
AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.
Democrat Congressman Al Green (Texas) . . . “I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare.” Image: DN screenshot APR
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.
These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.
AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.
We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”
Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.
Environmentalist and consumer protection activist Ralph Nader . . . And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza. Image: DN screenshot APR
RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.
In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.
And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.
But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.
You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.
He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.
Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.
And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.
So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.
That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.
So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.
They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.
So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.
I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.
So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —
RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.
Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.
He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —
RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?
RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.
Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.
They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.
They’re leaving the American people defenseless.
And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.
They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.
That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.
That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.
We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —
RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!
The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.
Vanuatu has celebrated the reconstruction of the national council of chiefs meeting house, called the Malvatumauri nakamal, destroyed by fire two years ago.
Dozens of chiefs from across the country — and also Kanaky New Caledonia — joined the ceremony in the capital Port Vila on Wednesday, March 5, during the Chiefs Day national public holiday alongside the president, prime minister and general public.
Traditional dances, kastom ceremonies, and speeches highlighted the building’s cultural significance, reinforcing its role as a place for conflict resolution, discussions on governance, and the preservation of oral traditions.
After independence in 1980, the chiefs decided a symbol representing unity for all of Vanuatu’s peoples and customs be built in Port Vila. The nakamal was officially opened in 1990.
Ahead of the ceremony, Prime Minister Jotham Napat emphasised all are welcome at the meeting house, in the heart of the capital.
“Nakamal does not separate the people, nakamal has a place for everyone,” Napat said.
President of the Malvatumauri Council of Chiefs Paul Robert Ravun used the occasion to call for greater parliamentary consultation with customary leaders.
‘Right time to speak’
“For 44 years we have been silent, but now, in this moment, I believe it is the right time to speak,” Ravun said.
“Any bill that is to be passed through Parliament must first pass through the father’s house, the father must agree and have the final say before it can proceed,” he said, referring to the council of chiefs.
The nakamal took two years to rebuild using locally sourced materials, including natangura palm for the thatched roof and hardwood for the framework, after it was destroyed by fire in early 2023.
Volunteers including chiefs, community members, and apprentices eager to learn ancestral building techniques all contributed to its construction and it survived December’s 7.3 magnitude earthquake intact.
Vanuatu’s government and international donors France, Australia, New Zealand, and China provided financial and logistical support for its reconstruction, costing about 20 million vatu (US$160,000).
Republished with permission from BenarNews.
Images by the VBTC
The Malvatumauri nakamal
1 of 10
Nak 1: President of the Malvatumauri Council of Chief Paul Robert Ravun Merhimba DangDang at the reopening of the rebuilt nakamal. Image: VBTC
Nak 2: The rebuilt national council of chief’s meeting house. Image: VBTC
Nak 3: Everyone is welcome inside at new chiefs’ nakamal. Image: VBTC
Nak 4: Inside the Malvatumauri nakamal ahead of its reopening. Image: VBTC
Nak 5: Ready for the nakamal opening. Image: VCTC
Nak 6: Head of State Nikenike Vurobaravu (left) and the president of the Malvatumauri Council of Chief, Ravun Merhimba DangDang, open the doors to the Nakamal. Image: VBTC
Nak 7: A traditional dance from Tanna Island during the nakamal’s opening ceremony. Image: VBTC
Nak 8: Chief Gureshaba La Roche Mare Nengone Sinewami Wakewi, president of the National Council of Chiefs in Kanaky New Caledonia (Inaat Ne Kanaky), attended the traditional ceremony in Port Vila. Image: VBTC
Nak 9: Chief Gureshaba La Roche Mare Nengone Sinewami Wakewi, president of the National Council of Chiefs in New Caledonia (Inaat Ne Kanaky ), prepares to receive a traditional preparation of kava at the opening. Image: VBTC
Nak 10: President of the Malvatumauri council of chiefs Ravun Merhimba DangDang (left), Minister of Finance Johnny Koanapo and President, Nikenike Vurobaravu (right) tour the new nakamal. Image: VBTC
The war in Ukraine is, but in reverse, the same situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable; Obama, Biden, and Trump, are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of a WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Obama, then Biden, and now Trump), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink — into WW3 — in order to become able to achieve world-conquest. This is as-if Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962 — but, thankfully, he didn’t; so, WW3 was averted, on that occasion.
How often have you heard or seen the situation in the matter of Cuba being near to the White House (near to America’s central command) being analogized to Ukraine’s being near — far nearer, in fact — to The Kremlin (Russia’s central command)? No, you probably haven’t encountered this historical context before, because it’s not being published — at least not in America and its allied countries. It’s being hidden.
The Ukrainian war actually started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.
The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, bothbefore and after the coup, in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)
Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …
The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …
The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”
NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did agree to, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, America’s recent Presidents are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (America’s recent Presidents), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.
Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022. If Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962, then the U.S. would have invaded and taken over Cuba, because the only other alternative would have been to skip that step and go directly to invade the Soviet Union itself — directly to WW3. Under existing international law, either response — against Cuba, or against the U.S.S.R. — would have been undecidable, because Truman’s U.N. Charter refused to allow “aggression” to be defined (Truman, even at the time of the San Francisco Conference, 25 April to 26 June 1945, that drew up the U.N. Charter, was considering for the U.S. to maybe take over the entire world). Would the aggression in such an instance have been by Khrushchev (and by Eisenhower for having similarly placed U.S. missiles too close to Moscow in 1959), or instead by JFK for responding to that threat? International law needs to be revised so as to prohibit ANY nation that is “too near” to a superpower’s central command, from allying itself with a different superpower so as to enable that other superpower to place its strategic forces so close to that adjoining or nearby superpower as to present a mortal threat against its national security. But, in any case, 317 miles from The Kremlin would easily be far “too close”; and, so, Russia must do everything possible to prevent that from becoming possible. America and its colonies (‘allies’) are CLEARLY in the wrong on this one. (And I think that JFK was likewise correct in the 1962 case — though to a lesser extent because the distance was four times larger in that case — America was the defender and NOT the aggressor in that matter.)
If this finding appears to you to be too contradictory to what you have read and heard in the past for you to be able to believe it, then my article earlier today (March 4), “The Extent of Lying in the U.S. Press” presents also five other widespread-in-The-West lies, so that you will be able to see that there is nothing particularly unusual about this one, other than that this case could very possibly produce a world-ending nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. People in the mainstream news-business are beholden to the billionaires who control the people who control (hire and fire) themselves, and owe their jobs to that — NOT really to the audience. This is the basic reality. To ignore it is to remain deceived. But you can consider yourself fortunate to be reading this, because none of the mainstream news-sites is allowed to publish articles such as this. None of the mainstream will. They instead deceived you. It’s what they are hired (by their owners and advertisers) to do, so as to continue ruling the Government (by getting you to vote for their candidates).
The Aotearoa New Zealand union representing many of NZME’s journalists says it is “deeply worried” by a billionaire’s plans to take over its board.
Auckland-based Canadian billionaire Jim Grenon is leading a move to dump the board of media company NZME, owners of The New Zealand Herald and NewsTalk ZB.
He has told the company’s board he wants to remove most of the current directors, replace them with himself and three others, and choose one existing director to stay on.
He took a nearly 10 percent stake in the business earlier in the week.
Michael Wood, negotiation specialist at E tū, the union that represents NZME’s journalists, said he had grave concerns.
“We see a pattern that has been incredibly unhealthy in other countries, of billionaire oligarchs moving into media ownership roles to be able to promote their own particular view of the word,” he said.
“Secondly, we have a situation here where when Mr Grenon purchased holdings in NZME he was at pains to make it sound like an innocent manoeuvre with no broader agenda . . . within a few days he is aggressively pursuing board positions.”
What unsaid agendas?
Wood said Grenon had a track record of trying to influence media discourse in New Zealand.
“We are deeply concerned about this, about what unsaid agendas lie behind a billionaire oligarch trying to take ownership of one of our biggest media companies.”
Canadian billionaire James Grenon . . . track record of trying to influence media discourse in New Zealand. Image: TOM Capital Management/RNZ
“We are deeply concerned about this, about what unsaid agendas lie behind a billionaire oligarch trying to take ownership of one of our biggest media companies.”
He said it would be important for New Zealand not to follow the example of the US, where media outlets had become “the mouthpiece for the rich and powerful”.
E tū would consult its national delegate committee of journalists, he said.
Grenon has been linked with alternative news sites, including The Centrist, serving as the company’s director up to August 2023.
The Centrist claims to present under-served perspectives and reason-based analysis, “even if it might be too hot for the mainstream media to handle”.
Grenon has been approached for comment by RNZ.
Preoccupations with trans rights, treaty issues
Duncan Greive, founder of The Spinoff and media commentator, said he was a reader of Grenon’s site The Centrist.
“The main thing we know about him is that publication,” Greive said.
“It’s largely news aggregation but it has very specific preoccupations around trans rights, treaty issues and particularly vaccine injury and efficacy.
“A lot of the time it’s aggregating from mainstream news sites but there’s a definite feel that things are under-covered or under-emphasised at mainstream news organisations.
“If he is looking to gain greater control and exert influence on the publishing and editorial aspects of the business, you’ve got to think there is a belief that those things are under-covered and the editorial direction of The Herald isn’t what he would like it to be.”
The Spinoff founder and media commentator Duncan Greive . . . Investors “would be excited about the sale of OneRoof”. Image: RNZ News
Greive said the move could be connected to the NZME announcement in its annual results that it was exploring options for the sale of its real estate platform OneRoof.
“There are a lot of investors who believe OneRoof is being held back by proximity to the ‘legacy media’ assets of NZME and if it could be pulled out of there the two businesses would be more valuable separate than together.
“If you look at the shareholder book of NZME, you don’t image a lot of these institutional investors who hold the bulk of the shares are going to be as excited about editorial direction and issues as Grenon would be . . . but they would be excited about the sale of OneRoof.”
Wanting the publishing side
Greive said he could imagine a scenario where Grenon told shareholders he wanted the publishing side, at a reduced value, and the OneRoof business could be separated off.
“From a pure value realisation, maximisation of shareholder value point of view, that makes sense to me.”
Greive said attention would now go on the 37 percent of shareholders whom Grenon said had been consulted in confidence about his plans.
“It will become clear pretty quickly and they will be under pressure to say why they are involved in this and it will become clear pretty quickly whether my theory is correct.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Markela Panegyres and Jonathan Strauss in Sydney
The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.
While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.
It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.
The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.
The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.
Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.
Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.
Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.
Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.
Intensify repression The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.
By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.
It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.
As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.
UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.
In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.
By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.
The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.
Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.
Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.
Sweeping claims The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.
But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.
Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.
Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.
According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.
While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?
The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.
The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.
What these are is not defined.
Anti-racism challenge Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.
With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?
The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.
UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.
It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.
All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.
Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.
We will not be silenced on Palestine.
Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.
Churches in the Cook Islands are pushing for the country to be declared a Christian nation following the discovery of a mosque in Rarotonga.
The Religious Organisation Special Select Committee has heard submissions on Rarotonga and plan to visit the outer islands.
It was initiated by the Cook Islands Christian Church, which has proposed a constitutional amendment to recognise the Cook Islands as a Christian nation, “with the protection and promotion of the Christian faith as the basis for the laws and governance of the country”.
Select committee chair Tingika Elikana said it was the catalyst for the proposal.
Signatory to human rights conventions
He said the country was a signatory to several human rights conventions and declaring the Cook Islands a Christian nation could go against them.
“Some of the questions by the committee is the impact such an amendment or provision in our constitution [would have] in terms of us being parties to most of these international human rights treaties and conventions.”
Elikana said the committee had received lots of submissions both in support and against the declaration.
Cook Islands Christian Movement interim secretary William Framhein is backing it.
“We believe that the country should be declared a Christian country and if anyone else belongs to another religion they’re free to practise their own religion but it doesn’t give them a right to establish a church in the country,” he said.
Tatiana Kautai, a Muslim Cook Islander living in Rarotonga said the country was already considered a Christian nation by most.
However, she was worried that if the proposal became law it could have practical implications on everyone who was not a Christian.
“People have a right to practise their religion freely, especially people who are just going about their day to day, working, supporting their families, not causing any harm, not trying to make any trouble.
Marginalising people ‘unfair’
“To marginalise those people just seems unfair, and not right.”
Framhein said he also wanted to see the Cook Islands reverse its 2023 decision which legalised same sex relations. He said this was a “Western concept”, acceptable elsewhere in the world but not in the Cook Islands.
Tatryana Utanga, president of rainbow organisation Te Tiare Association, said it was not clear what the Christian nation submission was trying to achieve.
However, she is worried that it would sideline minority groups.
“Should this impeach or encroach on the work that we’ve been doing already, it would be a complete reverse in the wrong direction.
“We’d be taking steps backwards in our advocacy to achieve love and acceptance and equality in the Cook Islands.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Pink Floyd had it right on with their 1973 song “Money”:
Money, get away
Get a good job with more pay and you’re okay
Money, it’s a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four-star daydream
Think I’ll buy me a football team
Money, get back
I’m alright, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it’s a hit
Don’t give me that do-goody-good bullshit
I’m in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money, it’s a crime
Share it fairly, but don’t take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise it’s no surprise
That they’re giving none away
Away, away, away
Away, away, away
Here we have it about who represents us (or do they?): Half of the members of Congress are millionaires, when about 18% of Americans are millionaires. Meanwhile, how many of the folks reading this are in reality but a few paychecks from being in financial turmoil? Bottom line, you can forget about the famous noblesse oblige, whereupon it is the divine duty of the Super Rich to help their fellow man. And how much do they really help? Remember, it was Jesus in the New Testament who encountered the rich man. The guy asked “Rabbi how can I follow you?” Jesus knew this dude had lots of bread and said “Give all your possessions to the poor and come follow me.” The guy walked away.
The crux of things for this writer is to break from the negative influence of mega money. Let’s stop calling our country a Democracy. That is bullcrap! As long as we allow private money into political campaigns we lose that title… period! Only with complete Public Funding of all electoral politics can we dismiss the Super Rich from the discussion. I recall when I lived in Indianapolis in the mid 1990s. At the time I was writing for a local populist newspaper. Attorney Ed Garvey, once the lawyer for the NFL Players Association, was involved with the Maine Clean Election Act campaign. This was a new law in Maine to allow candidates to run with only public funding for state wide offices. Because of the 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo that determined “Money to be free speech in political campaigns,” the state of Maine passed this new law. It could not keep private money out of campaigns, but at least the voters would know who refused it and who didn’t. As it transpired, with the first such Clean Election Law being used, around a bit less than 1/3 of those winning seats were publicly funded. So, when Ed came to Indianapolis I interviewed him for my piece. He explained a lot to me and I became a bit hopeful.
Fast forward to a year later in the state Capitol, which happened to be right in downtown Indy. The state government put together a blue ribbon committee to discuss this idea for public funding, using the Maine Clean Elections Law as a foundation. The committee was made up of legislators, media people and union representatives. I went down to their first public meeting and was on the list to speak. When it was my turn I made it short and sweet:
“I’m originally from Brooklyn, NY, where we believe the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You want true democracy, then NO private money in politics. With total public funding of all campaigns you wouldn’t need lobbyists. Anyone giving money to a politician for his or her campaign would be arrested for bribery. We would see regular working stiffs given the chance to seek office. Truck drivers, schoolteachers, office workers, laborers could have a shot of being elected once you take private money out OR allowing, as with Maine, the voters knowing who didn’t take the private funds and who did.” I then had a few members of that committee eager to engage me. One man, who owned a small town newspaper, was vehement against it. He said he made revenue from publishing political ads. I challenged him with the idea that every candidate should have access to the public through such free ads, and not those who get money from rich donors, especially corporations. Why not have the state subsidize some of the free ads for each candidate equally? Then I had a committee member challenge me saying shouldn’t anyone have the right to spend their money as they see fit while running for office? I kept calling him Senator while we debated.
Finally, the woman who went after me was with Common Cause and the daughter of a small town mayor. She was focused only on “transparency” and not at all wishing to get private money out of politics. I shrugged as she went on and on like a little Miss Muffin thankful that they allowed her to speak. When the meeting was over, I went over to the guy from South Bend who I had been calling Senator. We shook hands and that is when he informed me that he was not a State Senator, but a union official with the Teamsters. Oh boy! Two reporters from the Associated Press asked me for an interview, and I was happy to give it. After me, Little Miss Muffin was also being interviewed by the press. I turned to this fellow from Hoosier Environmental Council, who came in with me, and said “She’ll get in the paper tomorrow, not me.” And that’s how it went down. You confront the empire and they deny you were even there.
The Marshall Islands has become the 14th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) member state to join the South Pacific’s nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaty.
“By becoming a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, the Marshall Islands has indicated its intention to be bound with a view to future ratification,” the PIF said.
“This reinforces the region’s collective stand towards a nuclear-free Pacific as envisaged by the Rarotonga Treaty and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.”
PIF Secretary-General Baron Waqa, who is in Majuro, welcomed the move.
“This step demonstrates the nation’s unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament,” he said.
‘Marshall Islands bears brunt of nuclear testing’
“Marshall Islands continues to bear the brunt of nuclear testing, and this signing is a testament to Forum nations’ ongoing advocacy for a safe, secure, and nuclear-weapon-free region.”
The Rarotonga Treaty was opened for signature on 6 August 1985 and entered into force on 11 December 1986.
It represents a key regional commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, contributing to global efforts to eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation.
The decision by the Marshall Islands to sign the Rarotonga Treaty carries profound importance given its history and ongoing advocacy for nuclear justice, the PIF said.
Current member states of the treaty are Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
‘We are committed’, says Heine “In our commitment to a world free of the dangers of nuclear weapons and for a safe and secure Pacific, today, we take a historic step by signing our accession to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Rarotonga Treaty,” President Hilda Heine said.
“We recognise that the Marshall Islands has yet to sign onto several key nuclear-related treaties, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), largely due to our unique historical and geopolitical circumstances.
“However, we are committed to reviewing our positions and where it is in the best interest of the RMI and its people, we will take the necessary steps toward accession.
“In the spirit of unity and collaboration, we look forward to the results of an independent study of nuclear contamination in the Pacific,” she added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Manurewa Local Board is developing its first Pan-Pacific strategy in Aotearoa New Zealand to amplify Pasifika voices in local decision-making.
A recent community workshop brought leaders and residents together to develop a strategy that will help guide how the board engages with Pasifika communities. The plan will then be presented in June.
Akerei Maresala-Thomson, an Auckland Council partner and facilitator of the workshop at Manurewa Library, described it as a listening session.
“A lot of work has gone into reaching this stage, with investment from both past and present board members. This will be the first Pasifika strategy for the board-a win for our community.”
The strategy aims to amplify Pacific voices in local decision-making, promote cultural recognition, improve access to services, and encourage Pasifika participation in governance.
Maresala-Thomson facilitated a similar workshop in 2019, laying the groundwork for this initiative.
The strategy, expected to be presented in June, will be informed by feedback from the workshop and an online community survey.
According to the 2023 Census, Pasifika make up nearly 40 percent of Manurewa’s approximately 39,450 residents. The consultation process involved gathering demographic information and identifying key priorities for the community.
“There was a diverse mix of expertise and perspectives in the room,” said Maresala-Thomson. “Some smaller Pasifika communities weren’t represented, and our youth were largely absent.
Notes from the workshop will help shape the final draft of the Pan-Pacific strategy, set for presentation in June. Image: LDR/Mary Afemata
“However, many contributed via the online survey, which helped guide our discussions.”
The local board wants a Pan-Pacific approach — not just input from the larger island groups but representation from all the diverse Pacific communities, he said.
“More often than not, and this is no fault of our own, our Samoan, Cook Island, and Tongan communities naturally make up the larger share of our population.
“But they wanted to make sure we also reached our smaller community groups, like our Niuean, Tuvaluan, Solomon Islands, and even Rotuman communities.”
The group received great representation from the Tuvaluan, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Niuean communities, in addition to the larger, traditional networks from Samoan and Tongan communities, he said.
‘Great networking opportunity’ One attendee, Kate*, who asked not to be identified, said she joined the workshop to understand how local boards align with Pasifika priorities.
“It was a great networking opportunity, but ultimately, I wanted to know how I can best support the community,” she said. “The issues raised today aren’t new. We’ve been talking about them for years.”
Kate believes many Pasifika families struggle to engage with local government because they don’t see the impact of their input.
“There’s access to these spaces, but people don’t know where to go or why it matters. We need better ways to bring the conversation into people’s homes,” she said.
Engaging Pasifika youth was another key discussion point.
“There are youth in different spaces, and we need to find the champions — whether through youth councils, community groups, or other networks-who can help share the message among their peers.”
Community educator Kathleen Guttenbeil-Vatuvei . . . “When you hear ‘strategy,’ you want to be involved in shaping solutions.” Image: Facebook/TP/LDR
Kathleen Guttenbeil-Vatuvei, a community educator and financial mentor at Vaiola Pacific Island Budgeting Service Trust, said she attended the event to ensure financial capability was part of the discussion.
“When you hear ‘strategy,’ you want to be involved in shaping solutions,” she said. “What is the local board going to do about these issues? Are they listening? How do we fit into this strategy, and do we have a voice?”
She stressed the importance of youth involvement.
“Youth should be equally represented. But sometimes, they feel intimidated around elders or community leaders. It’s important to create spaces where they feel comfortable contributing.”
Angela Dalton, Councillor for Manurewa-Papakura and former chair of the local board, received a message from Maresala-Thomson thanking her for initiating the strategy years ago.
“I always felt we weren’t turning words into tangible outcomes for Pasifika,” Dalton said.
“I was determined to build strong relationships to ensure we deliver projects that meet the needs of our growing Pasifika population.”
Auckland Council partner and facilitator Akerei Maresala-Thomson . . . facilitating a discussion on strengthening the relationship between the Manurewa Local Board and Pasifika communities. Image: LDR/Mary Afemata
Feedback will shape final draft
Feedback will shape the final draft of the strategy. A subcommittee will refine the document before it is presented to the Manurewa Local Board.
The goal is to align its implementation with the 2025-2026 Local Board Plan, ensuring Pasifika priorities are embedded in decision-making.
A steering committee will oversee the project, ensuring it reflects the aspirations of Manurewa’s Pasifika communities and fosters meaningful engagement with local government.
Maresala-Thomson said: “What we get from today, from your feedback, which has been amazing, this will help to draft the strategic plan specifically for Pacific and Manurewa.”
Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a community member of the LDR project.
Gaza’s remaining journalists, who had survived 15 months of intensive bombardment, continued to face immense challenges despite the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that came into effect on 19 January 2025 with the first stage expiring last weekend.
Humanitarian aid, filtered by the Israeli authorities, is merely trickling into the blockaded territory, and Israel continues to deny entry access to foreign journalists, forbidding independent outlets from covering the aftermath of the war and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
Exiled Palestinian journalists are also prevented from returning to the Gaza Strip.
“We urgently call for the blockade that is suffocating the press in Gaza to be lifted,” said RSF editorial director Anne Bocandé.
“Reporters need multimedia and security equipment, internet and electricity.
“Foreign reporters need access to the territory, and exiled Palestinian journalists need to be able to return.
“While the ceasefire in Gaza has put an end to an unprecedented massacre of journalists, media infrastructure remains devastated.
“RSF continues to campaign for justice and provide all necessary support to these journalists, to defend a free, pluralist and independent press in Palestine.”
Reporters face the shock of a humanitarian catastrophe
Working amid the rubble
“The scale of the destruction is immense, terrifying,” said Islam al-Zaanoun of Palestine TV.
“Life seems to have disappeared. The streets have become open-air rubbish dumps. With no place to work, no internet or electricity, I was forced to stop working for several days.”
Journalists must also contend with a severe fuel shortage, making travel within the country difficult and expensive. Like the rest of Gaza’s population, reporters have to spend long hours in queues every day to obtain water and food.
Israeli fire despite the ceasefire
“Entire areas are unreachable,” Al Jazeera correspondent Hani al-Shaer told RSF.
“The situation remains dangerous. We came under Israeli fire in Rafah.”
The journalist explained that due to an unrelenting series of crises, he was forced to choose which stories he covered.
“The destroyed infrastructure? The humanitarian crisis? Abandoned orphans?” he wondered.
Witnesses and targets: the double trauma of reporters
With at least 180 media professionals killed by the Israeli army in the course of 15 months of war, including at least 42 killed on the job, according to RSF figures, surviving journalists must face their trauma while continuing their news mission.
Gaza media sources put the journalist death toll at more than 200.
“We covered this tragedy, but we were also part of it. Often, we were the target,” stressed Islam al-Zaanoun.
“We still can’t rest or sleep. We’re still terrified that the war will start again,” adds Hani al-Shaer.
The suspended lives of exiled journalists
From Egypt to Qatar, journalists who managed to escape the horror continue to live with the consequences, unable to return to their loved ones and homes.
“My greatest hope is to return home and see my loved ones again. But the border is closed and my house is destroyed, like those of most journalists,” lamented Ola al-Zaanoun, RSF Gaza correspondent, now based in Egypt.
The Gaza bureau chief of The New Arab, Diaa al-Kahlout is one of many who watched the Israeli Army destroy his house.
“When they arrested me, they bombed and set fire to my house and car. I’ve lost everything I’ve earned in my career as a journalist, and I’m starting all over again,” he told RSF.
A refugee in Doha, Qatar, he is still haunted by the abuse inflicted by Israeli forces during his month-long detention in December 2023, following his arbitrary arrest at his home in Beit Lahya, a city in the north of the Gaza Strip.
“No matter how many times I tell myself that I’m safe here, that I’m lucky enough to have my wife and children with me, I have trouble sleeping, working, making decisions,” confided the journalist, whose brother was killed in the war.
Sunday 2 March saw the launch party event for the new grassroots community groupSouthport Independents, with more than 250 in attendance. The group will host a series local Assemblies to to put local people in the heart of British politics for the first time, with funding and support from Assemble. The planned outcome is rapid progress on local and national issues where politicians are failing.
Assemble launching in Southport
Andrew Feinstein and Jeremy Corbyn attended to show support for the grassroots community organisation, and before the event visited sites in town including the Mosque, to show respect.
Corbyn, the independent MP for Islington North who is running Assemblies in his constituency, gave a speech, saying:
I always wanted the Labour Party to become a community based organisation… And that’s what we’re about, building a community force, in the unions, in the communities, that will bring about that social justice and that social change.
You’re doing it here in Southport, we’re doing it in North Islington, Andrew’s doing it in Camden, and it’s happening in Newcastle, it’s happening in Liverpool, it’s happening all over the country. These are exciting times, let’s work together, united together, with our vision of a better world, a peaceful world and a more just world, and do you know what? It’s all possible.
Assemble is a grassroots organisation with a plan to upgrade British democracy, stating: “The mission is to have local people like us making the important decisions about our country and our communities”.
Assemble is supporting 15 communities from Cornwall to Glasgow to host open meetings (called Assemblies), each writing a Community Charter of five areas where politicians are failing them. Local concerns can be addressed by collective action, while national priorities will be handed up to the House of the People – a new democratic institution, open to the British public, meeting for the first time in 2025 to create a democratic mandate for the country.
Rising from communities
Andrew Feinstein, a peace campaigner who halved Keir Starmer’s majority when he ran against him in Holborn and St Pancras last year, said:
So delighted to have been at the launch of the Southport Independents yesterday: a new politics is rising up from communities across the country, organising themselves to take on the UK’s corrupt, mendacious, broken politics.
Bertie Coyle, an Assemble spokesperson, said yesterday:
Communities own Britain. People should have a say in how their country is run – none of us voted for crumbling services, cold homes, and poisoned rivers. Assemble is supporting local communities to meet up and agree on what needs to change, and figure how to make those changes happen fast.
A public-led institution like a House of the People will produce fairer, more effective, and more democratic outcomes than the existing parliamentary system, which is not fit for purpose. The recent election saw the lowest turnout and vote count for two decades, yet produced a prime minister with the strongest majority.
Polls show that nearly one in four British people are in favour of replacing the House of Lords with a permanent rolling citizens’ assembly.
Whilst the majority of viewers yelped at the saluting hand of alt-right granddaddy Steve Banon, it was easy to miss the more interesting array of speakers at this month’s conservative conventions, ARC and CPAC. One who has largely gone unnoticed is associate editor of the Spectator, Douglas Murray.
Once the golden boy of the neoconservative right, he’s taken an odd turn in his output over the last few years. In this, he is a representative of a wider plague amongst once “moderate conservatives” who have taken the plunge into something much more vulgar.
Murray delighted the crowd with his comments that either implicitly or explicitly slagged off various groups including Palestinians, migrants, and trans people. He pulled out all of the right’s best tools, such as the infamous “what are men and women?” query.
Ultimately, this residue from the culture war is mostly nonsense. But what is perhaps most striking is this turn in ideology Murray has solidified, namely his more far-right approach on every issue – economic, cultural, and other. The man clearly sees himself to be our generations answer to Bill Buckley, but better resembles a bloated Brownshirt.
Douglas Murray: part of the intellectual dark web
Douglas Murray began his, admittedly, quite prominent career as a descendent of the neoconservative political movement, choosing to dedicate his first book on the subject. Emerging from this committee, he modelled his style of oration on his elder contemporaries, embarrassingly being seen to imitate the exact phraseology of famous leftist-turned-neo imperialist Christopher Hitchens.
He wrote a rather wet eulogy for the old war-monger in a 2011 edition of the Spectator and clearly took a lot from his persona – portraying a bombastic and thick-skinned character. This has obviously aided him in the transition he’s made from neoconservative missionary to podium-thumping far-rightist.
In 2012, Murray became associate editor of the Spectator which is far more of an important detail than at first it may appear. The Spectator is a large publication from the right in the UK and has a circulation two-fold bigger than the New Statesman, its historic (though desperately turncoat) competitor. It reaches a tremendous audience and had significant links to the annals of authority in the Conservative governments of the last 15 years. Murray’s reach, just in regard to his day job, then, is not to be underestimated at all.
Sheltered from a storm
The growing “intellectual dark web” sheltered him from the right-wing storm against neo-conservativism in the mid 2010s and he hasn’t really gone back. Disgraceful figures from this period like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson slowly became fellow travelers on this journey of his.
This group, for the blessedly unaware, constituted a group of intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals writing and speaking on subjects which had little to do with their field of study or experience. And if one took a critical lens to what they were claiming in their tweets, podcasts, and sad excuses for books, you wouldn’t be stunned to know that they and Murray have taken their flags and driven them far into the ground of the Euro-American Far-right.
Immigration – as always
Of course, at this time Douglas Murray was still adjusting his scope to take shot at Europe’s recent immigrant and refugee populations, in light of the contemporary shifts like the Syrian Refugee Crisis. These arguments are one’s he’s devoted serious thought to and uses in almost every slapdash diatribe published under his name.
Those seemingly coherent lines about how multiethnic migration into “The West” – by which he means the white world – has watered down our culture have become more explicit. This is seen in his recent ARC speech, in which he failed to quite hit the register of humour (even in that sweaty locker room of fascists) as he compared “western culture” to the complexities of vanilla ice-cream. For a man who built his lot on identity politics, he’s more than happy to rile up “Westerners” with their own notions of identity.
It is on the immigration issue that Murray first seemed to take his more overtly right turn. His casual Islamophobia is clear, yet what he has attempted to shelter under an auspice of “skepticism” is his flirtation with the most right-wing of the British conservative movement.
The race riots
In his famous article on the subject of the 2024 race riots, Murray states correctly that one of the causes of the unrest was the unemployment in Northern Towns, inflated by the Conservative government post-2008. He on the one hand slams those who undertook class analysis on the 2011 riots, stating that he was “reluctant” to “assume that unemployment and the resultant hopelessness were factors” in that year’s violence. But he then undertakes the precept as the key factor of analysis in the case of the post-Southport riots.
In her recent book, Ash Sarkar points out that many journalists, and in this I would include Murray, only deign to care about the working-class when they’re white and can be crow-barred from their black and brown neighbours.
Douglas Murray: a mid-life radicalisation crisis
As is to be expected from a right-winger like Douglas Murray, he takes on absolutely no critical class analysis whatsoever, as I’m sure he would claim this as a facet of “cultural Marxism”. He doesn’t blame unemployment on deindustrialisation, or on austerity imposed on the North by Conservative governments, but instead on immigrants.
The real “uncomfortable truth” is that wages and jobs are not cut by immigrants, but by bosses and boards of directors, incentivised by the financialisation of our economy and by the British government.
Murray will likely not stop in his swing further and further right. But the story of his trajectory is perhaps an interesting example of what happened to many moderate conservatives. In the late 2010s, those “right-of-centre” commentators were given a wink and a nudge to say what they truly think by powerful far-right political leaders.
Hundreds of supporters of the leftist party Die Linke gathered in a former film studio overlooking Berlin’s Tempelhof airport last weekend, following a significant federal election in Germany that saw a notable rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The election results revealed that the AfD had doubled its support, securing approximately 20% of the overall vote, while Die Linke achieved over 21% in Berlin, marking a moment of mixed emotions for the attendees.
Die Linke: bittersweet election results
The event took place in Neukölln, a diverse neighbourhood in south-eastern Berlin. The victorious Die Linke candidate, Ferat Koçak, a Kurdish-German leftist, led a grassroots campaign that distinguished itself by door-to-door outreach, a strategy not commonly seen in German politics but reminiscent of tactics in the UK and US.
“For several years, the left has been in a kind of shocked paralysis about what to do with the rising right,” described 30-year-old activist Isabelle, emphasising the success of grassroots efforts in rejuvenating leftist appeal.
Die Linke’s recent resurgence comes after a challenging period marked by the split of former co-leader Sahra Wagenknecht, who attempted to create a new political coalition blending leftist economic ideals with social conservatism. That bid, however, failed to gain traction in the elections.
Fellow activist Johanna noted that “young people are more attracted to connecting leftwing economics with antiracism and feminism, and not putting them against each other,” highlighting the shifting priorities among the party’s electorate.
Attracting younger voters
Historically, Die Linke found support mainly among older voters from the former East Germany, who experienced the social upheaval following deindustrialisation. However, the recent electoral results indicate a demographic shift, with West German youth gravitating towards the left. Notably, female voters constituted over a third of Die Linke’s support, while a quarter of male voters opted for the AfD.
Despite Koçak’s victory in Neukölln, he expressed concerns regarding the political climate, stating “dark times are upon us” while addressing the prevalent discussions surrounding deportation and migration.
When asked about the AfD’s growing popularity, he attributed it to socio-economic factors, stating:
They’re gaining strength in a social environment where people can no longer afford to live.
His interactions during campaigning revealed the level of financial strain faced by many, with one constituent indicating that her single shopping bag cost €50, a drastic increase from what previously might have filled two bags.
The economic situation in Germany has become increasingly dire, exacerbated by inflation driven by the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. More than half of Germans express concern over rising costs affecting their ability to pay bills, a sentiment that resonates with 75% of AfD supporters.
Long-standing issues within the German economy, such as insufficient public and private investment over the last two decades, further fuel discontent. Carolina Ortega Guttack, an economist at FiscalFuture, emphasised that a “debt brake” introduced in 2009 has discouraged necessary investments, resulting in a real-term contraction of the economy over the past five years.
Disenchantment
The backdrop to these developments and the rising popularity of Die Linke includes a general sentiment of disenchantment with the political establishment.
With Germany’s economy needing migrant workers to offset an ageing population, rhetoric has increasingly scapegoated immigrants, particularly exacerbated by the AfD’s influence. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) had previously welcomed over a million refugees, but has since shifted rightward regarding migration policy, recently supporting stringent measures against asylum seekers in collaboration with the AfD. This marks a departure from the post-war consensus that maintained a firewall against far-right politics.
Helena Marschall, an activist who opposed the CDU’s recent motions, explained that political parties across the spectrum are engaging in divisive language. “My deportation plans are better than your deportation plans,” she summarised, reflecting the trend of mainstream parties adopting far-right rhetoric in attempts to neutralise their appeal, a strategy that has only served to legitimise these perspectives.
The AfD’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, has cited Hungary’s Viktor Orbán as a model for their approach. Orbán’s administration has been noted for undermining democratic structures while maintaining a façade of democratic processes, echoing strategies seen in repressive regimes like that of Vladimir Putin in Russia.
The potential for such an approach gaining traction in Germany raises alarms amid the current political landscape, as frustrations over economic conditions and anti-migrant sentiments create fertile ground for far-right ideologies.
Die Linke: regrouping to face down the AfD
As the election results foster a complex political environment, many, including Jamil, a Syrian-German refugee who arrived in Germany in 2015, stress the importance of collective memory. “I think our collective memory is very short,” he observed, recalling the welcoming reception refugees once received compared to the current mood of discontent.
With a new coalition of centre-right and centre-left parties expected to form the government, the AfD appears poised to capitalise on the escalating disillusionment within the electorate. However, Die Linke is preparing to counter that.
Hundreds of supporters of the leftist party Die Linke gathered in a former film studio overlooking Berlin’s Tempelhof airport last weekend, following a significant federal election in Germany that saw a notable rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The election results revealed that the AfD had doubled its support, securing approximately 20% of the overall vote, while Die Linke achieved over 21% in Berlin, marking a moment of mixed emotions for the attendees.
Die Linke: bittersweet election results
The event took place in Neukölln, a diverse neighbourhood in south-eastern Berlin. The victorious Die Linke candidate, Ferat Koçak, a Kurdish-German leftist, led a grassroots campaign that distinguished itself by door-to-door outreach, a strategy not commonly seen in German politics but reminiscent of tactics in the UK and US.
“For several years, the left has been in a kind of shocked paralysis about what to do with the rising right,” described 30-year-old activist Isabelle, emphasising the success of grassroots efforts in rejuvenating leftist appeal.
Die Linke’s recent resurgence comes after a challenging period marked by the split of former co-leader Sahra Wagenknecht, who attempted to create a new political coalition blending leftist economic ideals with social conservatism. That bid, however, failed to gain traction in the elections.
Fellow activist Johanna noted that “young people are more attracted to connecting leftwing economics with antiracism and feminism, and not putting them against each other,” highlighting the shifting priorities among the party’s electorate.
Attracting younger voters
Historically, Die Linke found support mainly among older voters from the former East Germany, who experienced the social upheaval following deindustrialisation. However, the recent electoral results indicate a demographic shift, with West German youth gravitating towards the left. Notably, female voters constituted over a third of Die Linke’s support, while a quarter of male voters opted for the AfD.
Despite Koçak’s victory in Neukölln, he expressed concerns regarding the political climate, stating “dark times are upon us” while addressing the prevalent discussions surrounding deportation and migration.
When asked about the AfD’s growing popularity, he attributed it to socio-economic factors, stating:
They’re gaining strength in a social environment where people can no longer afford to live.
His interactions during campaigning revealed the level of financial strain faced by many, with one constituent indicating that her single shopping bag cost €50, a drastic increase from what previously might have filled two bags.
The economic situation in Germany has become increasingly dire, exacerbated by inflation driven by the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. More than half of Germans express concern over rising costs affecting their ability to pay bills, a sentiment that resonates with 75% of AfD supporters.
Long-standing issues within the German economy, such as insufficient public and private investment over the last two decades, further fuel discontent. Carolina Ortega Guttack, an economist at FiscalFuture, emphasised that a “debt brake” introduced in 2009 has discouraged necessary investments, resulting in a real-term contraction of the economy over the past five years.
Disenchantment
The backdrop to these developments and the rising popularity of Die Linke includes a general sentiment of disenchantment with the political establishment.
With Germany’s economy needing migrant workers to offset an ageing population, rhetoric has increasingly scapegoated immigrants, particularly exacerbated by the AfD’s influence. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) had previously welcomed over a million refugees, but has since shifted rightward regarding migration policy, recently supporting stringent measures against asylum seekers in collaboration with the AfD. This marks a departure from the post-war consensus that maintained a firewall against far-right politics.
Helena Marschall, an activist who opposed the CDU’s recent motions, explained that political parties across the spectrum are engaging in divisive language. “My deportation plans are better than your deportation plans,” she summarised, reflecting the trend of mainstream parties adopting far-right rhetoric in attempts to neutralise their appeal, a strategy that has only served to legitimise these perspectives.
The AfD’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, has cited Hungary’s Viktor Orbán as a model for their approach. Orbán’s administration has been noted for undermining democratic structures while maintaining a façade of democratic processes, echoing strategies seen in repressive regimes like that of Vladimir Putin in Russia.
The potential for such an approach gaining traction in Germany raises alarms amid the current political landscape, as frustrations over economic conditions and anti-migrant sentiments create fertile ground for far-right ideologies.
Die Linke: regrouping to face down the AfD
As the election results foster a complex political environment, many, including Jamil, a Syrian-German refugee who arrived in Germany in 2015, stress the importance of collective memory. “I think our collective memory is very short,” he observed, recalling the welcoming reception refugees once received compared to the current mood of discontent.
With a new coalition of centre-right and centre-left parties expected to form the government, the AfD appears poised to capitalise on the escalating disillusionment within the electorate. However, Die Linke is preparing to counter that.
Proposed salary increases for local council bosses, averaging 12%, have provoked a backlash among community members and council workers. Amidst financial strains and rising council taxes, critics describe the plan as insensitive, while concerns grow over NHS staffing shortages and operational challenges.
Council bosses want even more money
In Scotland, there is growing discontent regarding proposed salary increases for council bosses. According to the Daily Record, council leaders are contemplating average pay rises of approximately 12% for these high-ranking officials, which could translate to an average increase of about £19,000 each.
This proposal has sparked considerable concern among community members and local workers, particularly as many council employees agreed to a modest wage rise just last year amidst cuts to essential services.
The context of this discussion lies in a persistent financial crisis affecting local authorities across Scotland. For over a decade, councils have faced significant resource constraints, prompting public outcry over essential services like education and infrastructure, which have been underfunded.
The freezing of council tax rates has been a focal point of criticism, with local authorities describing their financial situations as dire. However, the juxtaposition of these claims against potential pay raises for the highest-paid council staff has left a bitter taste among taxpayers and ordinary council workers.
A slap in the face
Critics argue that the proposed salary increments are grossly insensitive, particularly as council taxes have been raised to their highest levels in two decades, evidencing financial strain on households.
The Daily Record highlighted that this plan would be perceived as a “slap in the face” to council workers and taxpayers who have made sacrifices during hard times, suggesting that executive pay should align more closely with the raises afforded to general council staff instead.
In a parallel issue, Scotland’s National Health Service (NHS) continues to come under scrutiny as operational challenges persist. Patients are reportedly facing long waits in Accident and Emergency departments, with some waiting days for treatment. Concurrently, hundreds of thousands of individuals remain on waiting lists, and the ambulance service has been grappling with known difficulties.
Public services under strain – yet council bosses want even more cash?
Experts are now sounding alarms regarding the inadequate number of GPs within the Scottish health system. Both the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of General Practitioners have indicated that Scotland currently lacks about 800 GPs.
However, Dr Chris Black, a member of the campaigning group Rebuild General Practice, suggests that the actual shortage could be closer to 1,800. He attributes this shortfall to declining funding for general practice, stating that bolstering the number of GPs could facilitate increased appointment availability and ultimately drive improvements in patient care.
The ongoing dialogue concerning both local governance and healthcare highlights significant issues facing Scottish communities, with experts and residents alike calling for equitable treatment and resources in both public service sectors. The future of these proposals and their impact on community members remains to be seen.
It’s well known in labor circles that the 2020’s opened with a tremendous resurgence of rank-and-file activism in the workplace. Beginning with 2021’s “Striketober” and sparked initially by the hardships of the pandemic and emboldened by the labor shortages that followed, that upsurge targeted union and nonunion workplaces alike. Among the collective bargaining breakthroughs in already unionized workplaces, two of the most important involved the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the United Auto Workers (UAW). In 2023, the IBT won a historic contract with its largest employer, UPS, without having to follow through on its threat to strike.
Peace activists who scaled the roof an an international weapons company operating from Christchurch yesterday say the company links New Zealand to the deaths of children in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
Barricaded by protesters, the building nestled in the outskirts of the city’s suburb of Rolleston, appeared eerie yesterday. Silhouetted on the rooftop two protesters passionately shouted about the deaths of child after child in Gaza.
They were supported by protesters holding banners and chanting “NIOA supplies genocide”.
Joseph Bray, one of the fresh-faced Peace Action Ōtautahi activists who scaled the roof, later said the group was protesting against a “sinister company” trying to establish an extensive presence in New Zealand.
The action which resulted in two arrests, had been undertaken by the concerned citizens after months of planning.
“The killing of civilians, and especially children, with weapons from the NIOA, should be a cause of extreme concern for the people of Canterbury where NIOA’s headquarters have recently opened,” Bray said.
Watched in horror
Globally, people have watched in horror as children who once laughed and played were robbed of life.
A muscular police squad arrived at the protest with an arrest van and moved in a line towards the protesters, striding over chalk drawings depicted flowers and the names of Palestinian children killed by Israeli snipers.
Police manhandled John Minto, co-chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA), during the peaceful protest outside the NOIA New Zealand headquarters.
“Please get your hands off me,” Minto responded.
A Peace Action Ōtautahi activist at yesterday’s NIOA protest with a message for police. Image: PAO/APR
NIOA is an Australian armaments and munitions company, headquartered in Brisbane, Queensland. Owned by the Nioa family, the company supplies arms and ammunition to the sporting, law enforcement and military markets.
It supplies weapons to military forces around the globe. In 2023 the global munitions company acquired Barrett Manufacturing, an Australian-owned, US-based manufacturer of firearms and ammunitions.
According to the company’s website, its weapons are sold to 80 countries across the world.
‘More civilian casualties’
The company’s New Zealand base signals another cause for public concern, said the Peace Action Otautahi spokesperson.
“If the New Zealand Police force carries arms we can expect to see more civilian casualties.”
Peace Action Ōtautahi has called for the NIOA to terminate any partnership with the company “Leupold and Stevens,” whose scopes are reportedly used by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and implicated in violations of international law, and war crimes, said Bray.
The group also urges the company to voluntarily evict itself from the premises at 45 Stoneleigh Drive, Rolleston, stating that this proximity to Christchurch jeopardises the title of “Peace City” granted to the city in 2002.
It seeks the termination of distribution of any product manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing within New Zealand, a company which NIOA owns and supplies the IDF with three different types of sniper rifles.
Surgeons in Gaza have testified in court about seeing bullet holes between the eyes, and in the chests of children. IDF snipers have also been seen clambering over rubble to kill children at close range in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Lancet study used death toll data from the Health Ministry, an online survey launched by the ministry for Palestinians to report relatives’ deaths, and social media obituaries to estimate that there were between 55,298 and 78,525 deaths from traumatic injuries in Gaza up to 30 June 2024.
Reporting on livestream, PSNA’s John Minto said that it was “unconscionable” that New Zealand had allowed a company that produced sniper weapons to Israel’s military — an army responsible for genocide — to operate from the “humble suburbs of Christchurch”.
“The PSNA 100 percent supports the action by these brave Peace Action activists,” Minto said.
“We urge all New Zealanders to get behind this and stop this heinous company operating this death chain from our motu, our country.”
Saige England is a journalist and author, and member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
Placards at yesterday’s NIOA protest in Rolleston, Christchurch. Image: PAO/APR
The Palestinian-Israeli film No Other Land won an Oscar for best documentary feature at Sunday’s Academy Awards.
The film — recently screened in New Zealand at the Rialto and other cinemas — follows the struggles of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank community of Masafer Yatta to stay on their land amid home demolitions by the Israeli military and violent attacks by Jewish settlers aimed at expelling them.
The film was made by a team of Palestinian-Israeli filmmakers, including the Palestinian journalist Basel Adra, who lives in Masafer Yatta, and Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, both of whom are prominently featured in the film.
AMY GOODMAN:And the Oscars were held Sunday evening. History was made in the best documentary category.
SAMUEL L. JACKSON: And the Oscar goes to ‘No Other Land’.
AMY GOODMAN:The Palestinian-Israeli film No Other Land won for best documentary. The film follows the struggles of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank community of Masafer Yatta to stay on their land amidst violent attacks by Israeli settlers aimed at expelling them. The film was made by a team of Palestinian-Israeli filmmakers, including the Palestinian journalist Basel Adra, who lives in Masafer Yatta, and the Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham.
Both filmmakers — Palestinian activist and journalist Basel Adra, who lives in Masafer Yatta, and Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham — spoke at the ceremony. Adra became the first Palestinian filmmaker to win an Oscar.
BASEL ADRA: Thank you to the Academy for the award. It’s such a big honor for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary.
About two months ago, I became a father. And my hope to my daughter, that she will not have to live the same life I am living now, always fearing — always — always fearing settlers’ violence, home demolitions and forceful displacements that my community, Masafer Yatta, is living and facing every day under the Israeli occupation.
‘No Other Land’ reflects the harsh reality that we have been enduring for decades and still resist as we call on the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.
YUVAL ABRAHAM: We made this — we made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger.
We see each other — the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end; the Israeli hostages brutally taken in the crime of October 7th, which must be freed.
When I look at Basel, I see my brother. But we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control.
There is a different path: a political solution without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people. And I have to say, as I am here: The foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path.
And, you know, why? Can’t you see that we are intertwined, that my people can be truly safe if Basel’s people are truly free and safe? There is another way.
It’s not too late for life, for the living. There is no other way. Thank you.
Israeli and Palestinian documentary ‘No Other Land’ wins Oscar. Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the occupied West Bank, where Israel is reportedly planning to build nearly a thousand new settler homes in the Efrat settlement near Jerusalem. The Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.
The group Shalom Achshav, Peace Now, condemned the move, saying the Netanyahu government is trying “to establish facts on the ground that will destroy the chance for peace and compromise”.
This comes as Israel’s ongoing military operations in the West Bank have displaced at least 45,000 Palestinians — the most since the ’67 War.
Today, the Oscar-nominated Palestinian director Basel Adra shared video from the occupied West Bank of Israeli forces storming and demolishing four houses in Masafer Yatta.
Earlier this month, Basel Adra himself filmed armed and masked Israeli settlers attacking his community of Masafer Yatta. The settlers threw stones, smashed vehicles, slashed tires, punctured a water tank.
Israeli soldiers on the scene did not intervene to halt the crimes.
Palestinian film maker Basil Adra, co-director of No Other Land, speaking at the Oscars . . . “Stop the ethnic cleansing!” Image: AMPAS 2025/Democracy Now! screenshot APR
Basel Adra’s Oscar-nominated documentary No Other Land is about Israel’s mass expulsion of Palestinians living in Masafer Yatta.
In another post last week, Basel wrote: “Anyone who cared about No Other Land should care about what is actually happening on the ground: Today our water tanks, 9 homes and 3 ancient caves were destroyed. Masafer Yatta is disappearing in front of my eyes.
Only one name for these actions: ethnic cleansing,” he said.
In a minute, Basel Adra will join us for an update. But first, we want to play the trailer from his Oscar-nominated documentary, No Other Land.
No Other Land trailer. Video: Watermelon Films
BASEL ADRA: [translated] You think they’ll come to our home?
MASAFER YATTA RESIDENT 1: [translated] Is the army down there?
NEWS ANCHOR: A thousand Palestinians face one of the single biggest expulsion decisions since the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories began.
YUVAL ABRAHAM: [translated] Basel, come here! Come fast!
BASEL ADRA: [translated] This is a story about power.
My name is Basel. I grew up in a small community called Masafer Yatta. I started to film when we started to end.
They have bulldozers?
I’m filming you.
MASAFER YATTA RESIDENT 2: [translated] I need air. Oh my God!
BASEL ADRA: [translated] We have to raise our voices, not being silent as if — as if no human beings live here.
YUVAL ABRAHAM: [translated] What? The army is here?
BASEL ADRA: This is what’s happening in my village now. Soldiers are everywhere.
IDF SOLDIER: [translated] Who do you think you’re filming, you son of a whore?
YUVAL ABRAHAM: [translated] It would be so nice with stability one day. Then you’ll come visit me, not always me visiting you. Right?
BASEL ADRA: [translated] Maybe. What do you think? If you were in my place, what would you do?
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the trailer for the Oscar-nominated documentary No Other Land, co-directed by the Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham and our next guest, Basel Adra, Palestinian activist and journalist who writes for +972 Magazine, his most recent piece headlined “Our film is going to the Oscars. But here in Masafer Yatta, we’re still being erased.”
Basel has spent years documenting Israeli efforts to evict Palestinians living in his community, Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron.
Basel, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can talk about your film and also what’s happening right now? This is not a film about history. It’s on the ground now. You recently were barricaded in your house filming what was going on, what the Israeli settlers were doing.
Palestinian film maker Basel Adra talks to Democracy Now! Video: Democracy Now!
BASEL ADRA: Thank you for having me.
Yeah, our movie, we worked on it for the last five years. We are four people — two Israelis and two Palestinians, me, myself, Yuval and Rachel and Hamdan, who’s my friend and living in Masafer Yatta. We’re just activists and journalists.
And me and my friend Hamdan spent years in the field, running after bulldozers, soldiers and settlers, and in our communities and communities around us, filming the destruction, the home destructions, the school destructions, the cutting of our water pipes and the bulldozing of our roads and our own schools, and trying to raise awareness from the international community on what’s going on, to get political impact to try to stop this from happening and to protect our community.
And five years ago, Yuval and Rachel joined, as Israeli journalists, to write about what’s happening. And then we decided together that we will start working on No Other Land as a documentary that showed the whole political story through personal, individual stories of people who lost their life and homes and school and properties on this, like in the last years and also in the decades of the occupation.
We released the movie in the Berlinale 2024, last year, at the festival. And so far, we’ve been, like, screening and showing, like, in many festivals around the world.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Basel, your film has received an Oscar nomination, but you haven’t been able to find a distributor in the US What do you know about this refusal of any company to pick up your film to distribute it? And also, can it be seen in the West Bank or in Israel itself?
BASEL ADRA: It’s sad that we haven’t found a US distributor. Our goal from making this documentary, it’s not the award. It’s not the awards itself, but the people and the audience and to get to the people’s hearts, because we want people to see the reality, to see what’s going on in my community, Masafer Yatta, but in all the West Bank, to the Palestinians and how the life, the daily life under this brutal occupation.
People should be aware of this, because they are — somehow, they have a responsibility. In the US, it’s the tax money that the people are paying there. It has something to do with the home destruction that we are facing, the settlers’ violence, the building of the settlements on our land that does not stop every day.
And we, as a collective, made this movie. We faced so many risks in the field, on the ground. Like, my home was invaded, and the cameras were confiscated from my home by Israeli soldiers.
I was physically attacked in the field when I’m going around and filming these crimes, I mean, to show to the people and to let the people know about what’s going on.
But it’s sad that the distributors in the US so far do not want to take a little bit of risk, political risk, and to show this documentary to the audience. I am really sad about it, that there is no big distributors taking No Other Land and showing it to the American people.
It’s very important to reach to the Americans, I believe. And so far, we are doing it independently on the cinemas.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And your co-director is Israeli. Have you come under criticism for working with Israelis on the film?
BASEL ADRA: So far, I’m not receiving any criticism for working with Israelis. Like, working together is because we share somehow the same values, that we reject the injustice and the occupation and the apartheid and what’s going on, and we want to work pro-solution and pro-justice and to end these, like, settlements and for a better future.
AMY GOODMAN: Basel, the Oscars are soon, in a few weeks. Can you get a visa to come into the United States? Will you attend the Oscars?
BASEL ADRA: So, I have a visa because I’ve been in the US participating in festivals for our movie. But my family and the other Palestinian co-director doesn’t have one yet, and they will try to apply soon.
And hopefully, they will get it, and they will be able to join us at the Oscars.
AMY GOODMAN: So, since it’s so difficult to see your film here in the United States, I want to go to another clip of No Other Land. Again, this is our guest, Basel Adra, and his co-director, Yuval Abraham, filming the eviction of a Palestinian family.
BASEL ADRA: [translated] A lot of army is here.
YUVAL ABRAHAM: [translated] They plan a big demolition?
BASEL ADRA: [translated] We don’t know. They’re driving towards one of my neighbors.
Now the soldiers arrived here.
MASAFER YATTA RESIDENT 1: [translated] Aren’t you ashamed to do this? Aren’t you afraid of God?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: [translated] Go back! Move back now! Get back! I’ll push you all the way back!
YUVAL ABRAHAM: [translated] I speak Hebrew. Don’t shout.
MASAFER YATTA RESIDENT 2: [translated] I hope that bulldozer falls on your head. Why are you taking our homes?
MASAFER YATTA RESIDENT 3: [translated] Why destroy the bathroom?
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Israeli bulldozers destroying a bathroom. This is another clip from No Other Land, in which you, Basel, are attacked by Israeli forces even as you try to show them you have media credentials.
BASEL ADRA: [translated] I’m filming you. I’m filming you! You’re just like criminals.
ISRAELI SOLDIER: [translated] If he gets closer, arrest him.
BASEL ADRA: [translated] You’re expelling us. Arrest me! On what grounds?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: [translated] Grab him.
BASEL ADRA: [translated] On what grounds? I have a journalist card. I have a journalist card!
ISRAELI SOLDIER: [translated] Shut up!
BASEL’S FATHER: [translated] Don’t hit my son! Leave our village! Go away! Leave, you [bleep]! Shoot.
AMY GOODMAN: Basel, that is you. Your mother is hanging onto you as you’re being dragged, your father. What do you want the world to know about Masafer Yatta, about your community in this film?
BASEL ADRA: I want the world to really act seriously. The international community should take measures and act seriously to end this, like, demolitions and ethnic cleansing that is happening everywhere in Gaza, in the West Bank, through different policies and different, like, reasons that the Israelis try to separate out, which is all lies.
It’s all about land, that they want to steal more and more of our land. That’s very clear on the ground, because every Palestinian community being erased, there is settlements growing in the same place.
This is happening right there, in the South Hebron Hills, everywhere around the West Bank, in Area C. And now they are entering camps, since January until now, by demolishing, like, destroying the camps in Jenin, Tulkarm and Tubas, and forcing people to leave their homes, to go away.
And the world just keeps watching and not taking serious action. And the opposite, actually.
The Israelis keep receiving all. Like, this amount of violations of the international law, the human rights laws, it’s very clear that it’s violated every day by the Israelis. But nobody cares. The opposite, they keep receiving weapons and money and relationships and —
AMY GOODMAN: Basel —
BASEL ADRA: — and diplomatic cover. Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I thank you so much, look forward to interviewing you and Yuval in the United States. Basel Adra, co-director of the Oscar-nominated documentary No Other Land.
