Category: Misogyny

  • Professional thug turned hobbyist thug Conor McGregor has been given until 14 October to respond to claims he sexually assaulted a woman while attending a basketball match at the Kaseya Centre in Miami.

    Former MMA fighter Conor McGregor: sexual assault allegations

    The plaintiff, named as ‘Jane Doe’, alleges she was taken to the men’s toilets by an associate of McGregor, where he is then said to have “engaged in unlawful sexual contact” with her, during which he slammed her face against a bathroom stall. The woman had attempted to enact criminal proceedings against the former MMA fighter, but these had been dismissed due to a belief that they:

    would not be able to satisfy (the) burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Speaking to CNN in January of this year, Doe’s lawyer James Dunn said:

    A civil case is the only avenue that my client has to seek justice in this case.

    My client has thought long and hard about the decision to pursue this civil case, and is fearful of the effect it may have on her job on Wall Street. Nonetheless, her main goal in filing this suit is to raise awareness and encourage others to report sexual assault.

    McGregor had been invited to the stadium to perform as part of a marketing stunt, in which he was due to act out a ‘knockout’ of the Miami Heat team mascot Burnie. However, in typically loutish fashion, McGregor proceeded to actually pummel the costumed man, striking him viciously twice in an incident that left the victim needing medical attention. The incident was highlighted by Doe’s defence team to indicate McGregor’s rash behaviour on the night, and the failure of staff at the event to cease plying him with food and booze which further exacerbated his thuggery.

    McGregor: a colossal racist and violent thug

    McGregor was in the news again earlier this week, as he announced his decision to end his bid for the Irish presidency. In a rambling, at times unreadable statement released on Monday, he railed against “Establishment woke politics” (presumably meaning anyone who isn’t a colossal racist like him) and “the mainstream media supercharged Fake News” (perhaps voicing his displeasure at those who accurately report that he is a colossal racist). McGregor ultimately failed to secure the required endorsement of 20 members of the Irish parliament, or the backing of four local authorities.

    The washed-up brawler has sought to transition from the vicious arena of the octagon to the even more violent world of politics in recent years. He met with the world’s leading death dealer Donald Trump earlier in the year, along with recent violence enthusiast and recreational ‘Sieg Heiler‘ Elon Musk. His nativist politics align with the US genocidaire-in-chief, as he maintains a toxic X feed filled with “Ireland for the Irish” gobshitery.

    Not his first sexual assault

    Sadly, it seems unlikely we’ve seen the last of his immigrant-bashing venture into politics, as his statement went on to threaten that:

    this will not be my last election. You will see me canvassing again in the future, fighting for your rights and representing the best interests of our nation.

    This is not the end, but the beginning of my political journey. I am driven by a commitment to improve lives, defend rights, and serve the Irish people with dedication and integrity.

    I will continue to serve my people on the global stage lobbying for Ireland’s best interest’s socially and economically – of that there is no doubt.

    In the meantime, his more pressing concern is the further disgrace and financial hit another lost sexual violence civil lawsuit would bring. In November 2024, McGregor was defeated in his battle against another such case brought by Nikita Hand, which resulted in him being found civilly liable for raping her. He was forced to pay €250,000 in compensation in addition to her legal costs.

    Feature image via Youtube/BBC News

    By Robert Freeman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Misogynoir is not just a cultural bias — it’s embedded in the UK’s institutions. Two recent scandals show this by systematically dismissing Black women’s pain and exploiting their labour.

    Misogynoir — a term coined by scholar Moya Bailey to describe the intersection of racism and misogyny that targets Black women — operates as structural logic in Britain. It shows up not just in media stereotypes but in policy decisions and daily encounters with state institutions.

    Two recent developments expose this clearly. The Black Maternity Experiences survey, conducted by campaign group Five X More and published in July 2025, reported that almost a quarter of Black women were denied pain relief during labour. Nearly half received no explanation. This was not anecdote but evidence — data from more than a thousand women across the country.

    At the same time, the Carer’s Allowance scandal exposed the situation of nearly 90,000 unpaid carers. They were disproportionately women, many from Black working-class backgrounds .The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) pursued them for repayments after minor administrative breaches. And, the state relied on their unpaid labour to sustain a collapsing care system, yet penalised them for earning just pounds over the threshold.

    Taken together, these cases show how Britain institutionalises misogynoir. The state extracts unpaid labour as economic strategy. It dismisses Black women’s pain as a healthcare norm. These are not isolated failings. They prove the British state functions through silencing and exploiting Black women.

    Black women’s pain ignored: misogynoir in maternity care

    The Black Maternity Experiences survey, published in July 2025 by Five X More, provides one of the clearest examples of misogynoir in action. The survey gathered responses from more than 1,100 Black and mixed-heritage women who gave birth in the UK between 2021 and 2025. The results confirm what campaigners have long argued: systemic neglect of Black women is not an accident, but a pattern.

    • 23% of women were denied pain relief they requested during labour.

    • 40% of those denied were not given an explanation.

    • More than half reported difficulties when dealing with healthcare professionals.

    One respondent summarised the consequences: “I was in agonising pain and I was treated poorly.” This is not only about bedside manner. The refusal of pain relief, and the dismissal of requests for it, reflect a historic stereotype. The stereotype suggests Black women are naturally stronger, more resilient, and therefore less deserving of medical intervention.

    Such assumptions have material consequences. The UK’s maternal mortality figures show that Black people are more than twice as likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth as white people. Despite years of inquiries, the disparities remain. This persistence indicates that the issue is not lack of awareness, but lack of institutional will to change.

    In this sense, misogynoir sets the norm in healthcare. Staff do not treat pain as a symptom to relieve — they treat it as something Black women should endure. By refusing care, the system enforces silence. It discourages women from asking for help because it has already shown it will ignore them.

    Labour exploited: Misogynoir in the care economy

    The maternity data exposes how misogynoir dismisses Black women’s pain. The Carer’s Allowance scandal exposes how it exploits their labour. In September 2025, the Department for Work and Pensions admitted wrongly pursuing almost 90,000 unpaid carers for overpayments, forcing them to fight for compensation.

    Strict earnings rules drove the scandal. When carers earned just a few pounds over the weekly threshold — often because of irregular shifts or payroll errors — the DWP hit them with demands to repay thousands. In many cases, the repayments drove families into debt.

    Most unpaid carers are women. Black women and women from migrant communities, concentrated in low-paid work, bore the brunt of these penalties. The state relied on their unpaid labour to keep the social care system from collapse, even as it punished the very people holding it together.

    Carers described the policy as punitive. Some cut back paid hours to stay below the threshold, sinking further into financial insecurity.  Others revealed how the state treated them as fraudsters while they carried out essential care it refused to fund. Misogynoir underpinned the system: it positioned Black women as an inexhaustible resource, forced to absorb both the unpaid care burden and the financial penalties.

    The same logic links this to maternity care. In both hospitals and benefit offices, institutions undervalue Black women’s contributions. They disregard Black women’s voices — whether raised in pain or protest — and treat their labour as endlessly renewable, no matter the cost to their health or security.

    Misogynoir as policy – Silence as infrastructure

    Taken together, these cases reveal misogynoir not as an accident of prejudice, but rather as a deliberate organising principle within British institutions. In maternity wards, it operates through the dismissal of pain. In welfare offices, it operates through the exploitation of unpaid care. Across both, it enforces a silence that benefits the state.

    These patterns keep repeating, and in doing so, they dismantle any claim that they are isolated failings. Researchers have documented maternal mortality disparities for years. Campaigners and auditors have repeatedly flagged the hostile design of Carer’s Allowance rules. Yet policymakers delivered only piecemeal reforms. Their repetition shows that institutions not only predict these outcomes — they tolerate them.

    This is why euphemisms like “disparities” or “oversights” fail to capture the reality. Misogynoir in Britain is structural. It keeps healthcare costs down by dismissing requests for care. It sustains the care economy by extracting unpaid labour. And it neutralises resistance by labelling Black women’s testimony as anecdotal rather than systemic.

    Ultimately, this makes misogynoir a form of statecraft. It is an economic strategy as much as a cultural prejudice. And its effects are measurable in both the statistics of maternal deaths and the financial precarity of carers.

    Featured image via Unsplash/freestocks

    By Vannessa Viljoen

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In times gone by, it used to be that the scandal of Strictly would happen after the show had started. The ‘Strictly Curse’ became a bigger part of the show than the actual dancing. However, in recent years the lovely dancing show has been marred by other controversy. Notably, we’ve had allegations of the professional dancers being abusive towards their female celebrity partners to the extent that we didn’t even know how the show would go on last year. It did, but with noticeably fewer female celebrities, and that’s before we get into the absolute weirdness that was the creepy Wynne Evans. And once again, the controversy surrounding Strictly Come Dancing has started before it’s even begun, this time with the divisive pick of “celebrity” contestant, right-wing grifter Thomas Skinner.

    Strictly’s most controversial contestant yet? BOSH

    If you’re unfamiliar with Thomas Skinner’s work, he’s a self-styled cheeky chappy who came 7th on series 15 of The Apprentice, though more recently he’s become known for his increasingly right-wing views on social media about immigration and benefits, ending all his tweets with “BOSH”.

    Most recently, he went viral for a bizarre now-deleted tweet claiming he was being targeted by the “tofu-eating woke brigade” who wanted to take away his favourite pastime of having a full English and “who think having a pint on a Friday is a hate crime”.

    Skinner likes to portray himself as just a working-class lad who’s just saying what other good, honest, hardworking lads are thinking. But he, of course, went to private school. His right-wing shenanigans meant he even met JD Vance a couple of weeks ago. So there’s been mounting pressure by the public on the BBC to axe him, and he’s not helping himself.

    Thomas Skinner gets paranoid during a press day

    Last week, during the press day for Strictly Thomas Skinner caused a stir when he grabbed a reporter’s phone and demanded to know why she was recording the interview, which is common practice for journalists. He then stormed out. He later apologised on Instagram, claiming he’d seen messages about his personal life on her phone.

    He said:

    I’ve been through some difficult times in my life, which I’ve worked hard to move on from. In that moment, seeing it there caught me off guard. I felt it was best to step away and gather myself.

    Which is all very well, until a few days later, the story seemed to have been uncovered when he gave a tearful interview to the Sun, admitting he’d cheated on his wife in 2022. In the interview, he says it was just a two-week fling and that it was a “moment of madness”.

    The “other woman” spoke out

    However, this is of course not true. The woman Thomas Skinner had a relationship with, beautician Amy-Lucy O’Rourke, told her side of the story. In the Daily Mail she explained that she and Skinner had actually been together for three months after meeting in 2022. Amy-Lucy said:

    Thomas told me I was the love of his life and sold me an absolute dream. He told me he was in a loveless relationship of convenience.

    She said that his “sweet talking and lies” convinced her that they were in love.

    Skinner married his now wife, Sinead, in May of 2022. However, he was still messaging Amy-Lucy days before the wedding; they were also in touch just eight days after. He told Amy-Lucy that Sinead was from a traveller family and that they would’ve killed him if he hadn’t gone through with the wedding.

    Lovebombing and lies

    Amy-Lucy says Thomas Skinner “lovebombed” her, forever telling her how much he loved her, calling her multiple times a day, but also that she never had to work with him around – her business suffered as a result.

    He eventually told Amy-Lucy he’d told Sinead everything and that they’d ended it amicably. He then began living with Amy-Lucy part-time. But then she discovered the truth.

    After an event that both he and Sinead were at, Amy-Lucy checked Sinead’s Instagram and saw photos of the married couple where they were clearly very happy together, and Thomas was wearing his wedding ring.

    She said:

    I felt sick and confronted him. He was so drunk he was struggling to lie and abandoned me in the restaurant. I was absolutely distraught. I messaged Sinead on Instagram as soon as I realised what was really going on. She replied immediately and told me Tom had warned her I would be getting in touch to tell lies about him.

    Skinner then showed up at Amy-Lucy’s door at 7.30am the next day. He repeatedly banged and shouted to be let in until she lost her temper and smashed his car windscreen.

    She said:

    I was so angry he’d come back saying he wanted a cup of tea and a cuddle after such a traumatic incident. I was furious and smashed his windscreen and all he did was laugh and drove away. He rang me moments after to tell me I’d never looked sexier. It was all a joke to him.

    She continued:

    I was absolutely broken when I realised how stupid I’d been – how I’d believed his lies.

    Despite this, they briefly rekindled their romance after Skinner managed to weasel his way back into her life, but she ended it and cut all contact. But he kept constantly texting and calling her to the point that she was so stressed she crashed her car.

    Amy-Lucy says that the relationship is still affecting her three years on and she’s speaking her truth now because:

    I’m glad to be over him now, but I believe the world needs to know what he is really like.

    Thomas Skinner tries to weasel his way out, again

    Thomas Skinner responded to Amy-Lucy’s claims on, of course, his Twitter, where he said he’s been made a target:

    I’ve noticed I’m being portrayed as public enemy number 1. They’re trying to break me and get me cancelled. And if I’m honest, I’m not sure why.

    Probably let’s be honest, Thomas, because not only do you have disgusting views on Twitter, but it has been proven you treat women like shit too.

    He goes on during his Twitter diatribe to say that the press is trying to ruin him and that he’s being backed into a corner. Most bizarrely, he says, “I’ve made mistakes and if you dig you’ll find more” which you just know the press are gonna do.

    In response to this and the abuse she said she’s received online, Amy-Lucy posted a story on her Instagram. She says in the post:

    At the end of the day, this absolute troll convinced me that he loved me and I’d saved him from his sad life and made me think I was in love with him! Absolutely broke my heart, played fucked up mind games till the very end, you don’t even know the half of what I went through the tears I cried.

    She continued:

    So tell me why should I have to keep quiet and watch him on a family BBC show banging on about how much of a lovely family man he is? The public deserve to know the real him.

    Stop platforming fascists and believe women

    Amy-Lucy is, of course, right. In a world where men who shout the loudest are given platforms, the women who speak out against them deserve to be heard even more. Many questioned why Skinner was picked for Strictly when he has such divisive views. However, it’s obvious that he was picked because of those views and that his appearance on the show would drum up more views.

    It’s disgusting that that’s where we’re at with what should be harmless reality TV, but let’s be honest, Strictly was platforming fascists before it was cool to with the likes of Ann Widdecombe back in 2010.

    Thomas Skinner was always a controversial pick for Strictly, but will it prove one controversy too far? Hopefully, if the BBC sees sense and stops platforming this right-wing manipulative prick.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The current far-right modus operandi is to portray themselves as the noble protectors of women and children. Yet time and again they are revealed to be the last person you’d want anywhere near your son, daughter, or frankly anyone else – not least in Belfast.

    The latest case of a racist vigilante being unmasked in this way is Mark Payne, part of the East Belfast First Division. The group have been banned from TikTok, but can still be found on videos featured on the Belfast Nightwatch First Division Facebook page. These show large crowds on men roaming the city streets, with even comments from seemingly supportive followers questioning whether this intimidating mob would put anyone at ease. One wag suggested they might be attempting to track down Jeffrey Donaldson, the disgraced former Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader, who is currently facing trial for a serious of sexual offences.

    Far-right vigilantes in Belfast: unmasked as perpetrators of violence

    The group describes itself as:

    Concerned Parents, from all communities, working together, patrolling Belfast streets, for the safety and protection of our children and vulnerable people.

    The implication, or sometimes direct assertion, is typically that migrants – and increasingly anyone who is Black or brown – pose a danger to those supposedly at risk.

    Payne’s history of “protection of…children and vulnerable people” includes his involvement in the stabbing of a 14-year-old who was seriously injured in 2004 when Payne was 22 years old. The child suffered multiple wounds from the knife attack, resulting in serious injury.

    The Belfast Telegraph reported that Payne was:

    charged with intimidation of two female witnesses, stealing a kitchen knife, possessing an offensive weapon in a public place in connection with a burglary, and entering as a trespasser Grosvenor Rugby Club with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm against another man.

    He ultimately served four years in jail for the incident.

    Racist ex-convicts and murderers

    Payne was pictured outside Belfast’s Laganside Courts alongside fellow ex-convicts Mark Sinclair (armed robbery) and Glen Kane (manslaughter). Kane was convicted for his role in the killing of Kieran Abram, a Catholic man who was kicked to death in a sectarian attack in July 1992. Sinclair currently goes under the moniker Freedom Dad, where he has become known for turning up at pro-Palestine protests in an attempt to provoke those seeking to stop so-called Israel’s genocide in Gaza. He is the cousin of ‘Shankill Butcher‘ Billy Moore, who was part of a gang of sadistic killers that murdered Catholics during the 1970s and 80s.

    Their presence at the court was due to the appearance inside of another racist criminal who we are entreated to trust with protecting the safety of the vulnerable. Neil Pinkerton was appearing before a magistrate facing:

    three counts of common assault, two counts of using disorderly behaviour at Connswater Retail Park and at a McDonald’s fast-food outlet, trying to damage a car, harassment, possessing Class B cannabis and inciting hatred.

    These offences were alleged to have been committed on 6 September this year. Another incident of disorder in the Connswater area occurred on 8 September, as a racist mob forced a terrified man from his car and damaged the vehicle. Pinkerton also has an interest in hunting with dogs, and has faced trial over animal cruelty.

    Fitting a wider patter of far-right violence

    This fits a wider pattern among the far-right generally, with notorious Islamophobe Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) possessing a string of convictions including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, immigration fraud, mortgage fraud, and stalking, among others.

    In another recent edition of “every accusation is a confession”, the migrant bashing Manchester-based Lee Twamley was found to have a history of people smuggling, bringing four Vietnamese people into England in the back of his Ford Connect van.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Robert Freeman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – has once again attracted criticism for its treatment of women and children. According to a report from Reuters, the company allowed and facilitated the creation of chatbots which imitated celebrities like “Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Selena Gomez”. Reuters reports that legal experts believe Meta’s actions may violate the legal rights of these celebrities. Additionally, Hathaway is reportedly “aware of intimate images being created by Meta and other AI platforms”, and is “considering her response”.

    This case isn’t the first time that companies under the Meta umbrella have faced claims that they violated the safety or rights of women; it also isn’t the first time that an AI company has faced such claims.

    Chatbots and deepfakes across Facebook

    Describing the chatbots as “flirty”, Reuters unveiled that Meta AI tools were used to create “dozens” of them without permission. Regular users created most of those that Reuters identified, but they also report that a Meta employee created “at least three” – two of which were parodies of Taylor Swift:

    All of the virtual celebrities have been shared on Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms. In several weeks of Reuters testing to observe the bots’ behavior, the avatars often insisted they were the real actors and artists. The bots routinely made sexual advances, often inviting a test user for meet-ups.

    Disturbingly, they also found:

    Reuters also found that Meta had allowed users to create publicly available chatbots of child celebrities, including Walker Scobell, a 16-year-old film star. Asked for a picture of the teen actor at the beach, the bot produced a lifelike shirtless image.

    Emphasising another dark side to this story, Reuters:

    also told the story this month of a 76-year-old New Jersey man with cognitive issues who fell and died on his way to meet a Meta chatbot that had invited him to visit it in New York City. The bot was a variant of an earlier AI persona the company had created in collaboration with celebrity influencer Kendall Jenner.

    A history of harm

    In 2021, senators in the US accused Facebook of hiding research into its effects on teenagers. As reported by Euro News at the time:

    The research, first revealed by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), included the finding that 32 per cent of teenage girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.

    Teenagers also consistently blamed Instagram for rising rates of anxiety and depression.

    On average, one-in-five teenagers said Instagram made them feel worse about themselves. A quarter of British girls said the app made them feel much worse or somewhat worse about themselves.

    At the Senate hearings, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen said:

    I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy. The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.”

    Not long after the hearings, Facebook rebranded its parent company to ‘Meta’ and announced it would be focussing on the so-called ‘metaverse’. Commentators at the time suggested the name change was rolled out to draw attention away from the controversy. As the metaverse proved a disastrous financial failure for the company, there’s certainly an argument to be made that the project was announced way, way, way before it was ready.

    More recently in 2024, the EU’s European Commission began investigating Meta’s treatment of children, announcing:

    The Commission is concerned that the systems of both Facebook and Instagram, including their algorithms, may stimulate behavioural addictions in children, as well as create so-called ‘rabbit-hole effects’. In addition, the Commission is also concerned about age-assurance and verification methods put in place by Meta.

    It stated it would look at:

    Meta’s compliance with DSA obligations on assessment and mitigation of risks caused by the design of Facebook’s and Instagram’s online interfaces, which may exploit the weaknesses and inexperience of minors and cause addictive behaviour, and/or reinforce so-called ‘rabbit hole’ effect. Such an assessment is required to counter potential risks for the exercise of the fundamental right to the physical and mental well-being of children as well as to the respect of their rights.

    Facemash

    Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg worked on a project called ‘Facemash’ before turning his attention to the website which made him billions. Facemash was a “hot or not” website which allowed his fellow students to rank women. As BuzzFeed reported in 2018:

    According to a Harvard Crimson article written at the time, Zuckerberg built it by hacking into school facebooks (when that still meant a student directory) and taking students’ ID photos for the site.

    The site allowed students to rank their classmates based on their appearances.

    In a journal he kept on the site, Zuckerberg mocked some of the students’ photos as “pretty horrendous.”

    “I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive,” he wrote.

    Facemash was met with outrage and was quickly shut down.

    Zuckerberg might be taken seriously now, but the recent actions of his company suggest he’s still the same creep who steals women’s images for personal gain.

    Featured image via Anurag R Dubey – Wikimedia

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Nigel Farage’s much-hyped Reform speech would apparently have something new to say in terms of policy. As such, it was covered extensively by the media, with the two major parties seemingly on extended summer breaks.

    But what was new? Maybe it was the more professional look? Although, the air hanger backdrop did make him sound as if he was in a literal echo chamber.

    But apart from that, he tapped into the current anti-migrant sentiment around hotels and spoke of the need for mass deportations, something that would necessitate the leaving of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As the Canary previously reported, he announced the racist Operation Restoring Justice. Hardly new for Farage, then.

    Farage’s speech: his rancid racism has nothing to do with VAWG

    At one point he asked if society was interested in the safety of women and girls or the Human Rights legislation If we follow this ‘logic’, he is saying that it’s migrants who are responsible for violence against women and girls – a racist trope that’s highly offensive.

    And, equally alarming was the lack of pushback from mainstream media, opting instead for prime time radio and television coverage.

    Head of public affairs at the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW) Janaya Walker said:

    We’re alarmed by ongoing rhetoric exploiting concerns about violence against women to further a racist, anti-migrant narrative. This not only harms migrants and racially minoritised communities but hinders work to address male violence and abuse, which is most commonly carried out by someone known to the victim.

    Every act of violence against women and girls is an injustice, but the racist idea that this is primarily an imported problem flies in the face of women and girls’ daily experiences in the UK. We’re incredibly concerned that this narrative is being endorsed by mainstream politicians from various political parties.

    With Labour’s remarks on an ‘island of strangers’, the Conservatives expensive Rwanda gimmick, and Reform’s proposal ofmass deportations, it does seem like these parties are trying to outdo each other in terms of how hostile, vindictive, and anti-migrant they can appear to voters.

    As such, it can feel like we’re being dragged, as a country, to the right. That feels troubling, especially as we look to the future.

    Leaving the ECHR: endangering women and girls

    If Reform was ever to win a general election, one of its first acts would be to make the UK into a pariah state by taking us out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

    Civil liberties consultant solicitor Chris Topping said:

    The European Convention on Human Rights (“EHCR”) is 75 years old this year.

    In that time, it has become the cornerstone of the way in which our society has moved in a progressive way to bring equity and equality to those who would otherwise be the victims of discrimination and abuse.

    When the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) became law we began to see a greater prospect of justice moving from the illusory to reality, particularly for women.

    Take for example the victims of John Worboys (‘the Black Cab rapist’). They were empowered by the work of the Centre for Women’s Justice to bring litigation arguing that their rights under Article 3 of the EHCR had been violated by the egregious failures of the Metropolitan Police investigation. The changes that followed the landmark rulings in the Supreme Court have been for the benefit of everyone, women in particular.

    The suggestion that we could repeal the HRA or leave the EHCR is astonishing in its lack of understanding of just how important they are to the lives of women in the UK in 2025.

    Walker from EVAW reiterated these concerns:

    We are also alarmed by the threats to roll back on our collective human rights with debates about withdrawing from the ECHR and withdrawing the Human Rights Act. Survivors and the organisations that support them have long relied on the human rights act to hold the state and its institutions to account when they fail us – whether that’s the police or local authorities.

    Women and girls deserve better than this dangerous narrative which scapegoats communities and threatens to roll back the human rights protections we have fought for.

    Stay far away from Reform

    Farage and Reform’s disgusting new announcement began to fall apart within 24 hours. Confusion reigned over whether children would be part of these mass deportations. And, that’s to say nothing of the widespread accusations that the party is “ripping up” human rights laws.

    Leaving the ECHR will undoubtedly put the most vulnerable in our society, including women and girls, at risk. In particular, women and girls who have suffered sexual exploitation, violence, or who’ve been trafficked and let down by services such as the police.

    Human Rights and women’s rights are intertwined. Anyone who wants to protect women and girls needs to stay far away from Reform.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ruth Hunt

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In case you somehow missed it, this week, Taylor Swift announced her engagement to her footballer boyfriend Travis Kelce. Along with the happy tears of millions of Swifties there was something else that emerged, as it always does when Taylor Swift lives her life.

    An undercurrent of resentment, even hatred for Taylor that as a Swiftie for over a decade I know All Too Well. And while some of the criticism is very valid, there’s a lot of it which very much isn’t.

    There are some valid criticisms of Taylor Swift

    So let’s start off with what is valid criticism of Taylor Swift and work our way out.

    Many dislike her because of one part of what she’s become the figurehead for – a capitalist system which makes it impossible for newer artists to break into whilst pushing out constant repeats of, lets be honest, the same merch. The excessive amounts of album variations, the same cheaply made cardigans because her and her management know fans will buy every single thing they can. It’s excessive and comes across as greedy. There’s also the sheer amount of money she has and makes off of every single album drop, merch drop tour and the countless variations. In a world of extreme poverty, richness of her level shouldn’t exist, it’s as simple as that.

    But there’s also what she’s done for the music industry. Before she started releasing Taylor versions there was very little awareness of how music ownership worked, and that the musician actually owned very little of the rights to their music, videos, and even image. Since this, many other artists have been able to fight for masters rights when negotiating contracts and reclaimed their own masters.

    I’ve seen a lot of criticisms around her owning a private jet, which again shouldn’t be a thing that exists when the planet is dying and being ravaged by carbon emissions. But it’s also true that Taylor bought double the amount of carbon offsets than she would need. Carbon offsets go towards things like planting new forests or conserving current ones.

    Many argue that if she didn’t fly by private jet she wouldn’t have to offset her carbon usage, but as the most famous woman in the world its impractical for airlines and not to mention unsafe for her not to. Just search her name on any social media site to see the sheer amount of hatred and threats this woman gets every day.

    Most criticism is thinly veiled misogyny

    But lets be honest, most criticisms of Taylor Swift aren’t about her wealth hoarding or carbon emissions: they’re deep-rooted in misogyny.

    It’s men who think a woman shouldn’t be so famous, shouldn’t empower other women to advocate for themselves, and know themselves. It’s the sort of men who will direct hatred at a woman for simply attending the football game of the man she loves. It’s the sort of men who will send her death and rape threats and we won’t bat an eyelid when the president of the United States incites hatred on her and her fans – until one man decides to take a machete to a dance class where her young fans just wanted to dance and sing along to her songs and make friendship bracelets and it’s suddenly all about “protecting our girls”.

    And there’s been a lot of criticisms about The Eras Tour, but there’s a lot to defend Taylor’s tour for too.

    Yes, she is a billionaire who became inextricably rich from a tour which lasted two years. But she worked herself to the bone for those two years, her tour created microeconomies and boosted the economies of the places she visited. All her staff on her tour were paid incredibly well, with them also receiving regular bonuses, she’s also had a lot of the same musicians, singers, backstage staff and team for most of her career.

    She has helped families buy houses, seen kids through college. Her charitable donations are also immense. She donated thousands to food banks and local grassroots charities in every city the Eras tour stopped at – and those are just the charitable donations we know about.

    Terror threats and how the Taylor Swift community uplifted each other

    There’s also the sheer JOY of the Eras Tour: getting to experience a stadium full of mostly women screaming our hearts out, dancing with our best friends, trading bracelets and sobbing with both happiness and grief and heartbreak is something I will never forget. Getting to do that with my best friend in the whole world is one of my most cherished memories.

    Taylor Swift is a woman who empowers other women so much that men feel the need to silence her in every way possible, including threatening the lives of thousands of her fans with terror threats. Her Vienna leg of the tour was cancelled after three teenagers were arrested for planning a terror attack during her shows.

    What came after the cancelled shows was a display of just how wonderful the fandom is. When the Southport attack happened, Swifties raised thousands for those affected for hospital care, funerals, and to support the hospital. They sent care packages and friendship bracelets in their thousands. When the Vienna shows cancellations were announced at such short notice, many fans were already in the city, so they all came together in their thousands to hold a vigil, sing songs, trade bracelets and hold each other in a show of grief and resilience.

    She has also empowered fans to stand up against the creep of fascism in America. Shortly after it was announced that the 2024 presidential race would be Trump v Harris, Swifties 4 Kamala mobilised, thousands of fans held drives to help their friends and neighbours register to vote and held mass planning and rallying zooms. The collective is still going now, renamed Swifties 4 Hope. Their mission is to “educate, advocate, activate and celebrate”.

    Having to justify cancelling shows due to terror

    Even after cancelling her shows to protect herself and her fans, Taylor Swift received scorn. Many criticised her having an armoured police escort around London, as if the lives of her, her team, and fans hadn’t been threatened days before. She was also bitched about for not speaking about the suspected attack and carrying on with her tour. She took to Instagram once the European leg of the tour had ended to clarify that she did this in order to stay safe:

    Let me be very clear: I am not going to speak about something publicly if I think doing so might provoke those who would want to harm the fans who come to my shows.

    She underscored her point with:

    In cases like this one, ‘silence’ is actually showing restraint, and waiting to express yourself at a time when it’s right to. My priority was finishing our European tour safely, and it is with great relief that I can say we did that.

    More than anything though, she just makes me feel seen

    But more than anything though, the reason I will defend Taylor Swift to the hilt is because she makes me and women like me feel seen. There may be a significant wealth gap between Dr Swift and me, but at the heart of it she’s also a woman in her mid thirties trying to make sense of life.

    A woman who has grew up under such deep scrutiny and never stopped writing and singing about the things that are important to her. In a world that tells women they should be happy with what they’ve got, settle and dull their sparkle to please men who are supposed to want them to thrive, she says “I love you, but i love sparkling”. She has created tapestries and given so many of us a new language to describe our hurt, anguish, pain, and joy. “Who’s afraid of little old me” became a rallying cry for all who’d been underestimated then had men attempt to silence and destroy them.

    And now after years of seeing her (from a distance) fall for man after man who wanted to use her for her fame and then have the courage to leave a relationship that’s failing, she’s found someone who truly adores her. Travis is a fan of Taylor Swift first and her boyfriend second, well her fiancée now – and people have still got a problem with it.

    And now Taylor Swift can’t even be happy and engaged

    From a weird part of the fandom there’s bizarre claims that she’s gone “tradwife” because she’s had the audacity to take a break from churning out music – after she was on tour for two whole years – and spent her time building a house with a man she loves. When if they look close enough, they’ll see a woman who is for the first time in a long time, living life on her terms.

    There’s also the criticism coming from a lot of the left that this was the wrong time for her to announce an engagement whilst the world burns, but newsflash the world is always fucking burning. Was she supposed to wait and have it leaked to the press, once again stripping her of her agency? Yes it is crass as fuck seeing newspaper after newspaper abandon headlines about Gaza in favour of the Tayvis engagement, but that isn’t Taylor Swift’s doing.

    The media bookending murder with her ring and speculation over who will design her dress is vulgar, but it’s a symptom of a media who will always find anyway they can to paper over atrocities.

    Swifties contain multitudes

    The criticism of Taylor Swift extends to her fandom. That we shouldn’t be all simping over another new album from a billionaire whilst children are murdered by Israel in Palestine, and that us focusing on how beautiful her engagement shoot is, means we don’t care about fascism on our own shores. But as Swift has shown, women contain so many fucking multitudes. We can highlight atrocities and raise awareness of systemic discrimination.

    I struggled with a Taylor Swift lyric to end this on but I think the most beautiful one, which typifies what she brings to the world and her fans is this:

    So make the friendship bracelets, take the moment and taste it, you’ve got no reason to be afraid.

    There are many reasons to criticise Taylor, but me and so many women like me will also be here to defend her.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • We’ve had a spectacular bank holiday just gone here in England. As well as blazing sunshine, this weekend saw an ancient English tradition return, that of “we’re going to tell you it belongs to us because look at our flag” – dressed up as ‘patriotism’.

    Such custom harks back to the days of the Empire, the worst days in our history, which many would gladly go back to. This is despite them being poor and working class, so it would be even worse for them than it is now, though they’d at least be a bit more aware that the lord of the manor was pulling the strings.

    I don’t need to give you a history lesson, but this was of course, when jolly English explorers (read: murderers, rapists, colonisers) would jaunt on over to whichever island they fancied and plant a flag, claiming the land. This is despite it already belonging to culturally diverse peoples who, if they resisted, would be abused, starved, and enslaved.

    Though this time, they’re doing it on their own soil. Because after centuries of enslaving people from all over the world and bringing them here forcefully and illegally, racists now don’t like that England is home to many other races, religions, and cultures. To borrow a line from Bob Vylan, it’s a classic case of “loves a chicken korma, hates the hands that cook it”.

    Flag shagging, racist bellendery dressed up as patriotism

    So, for some absolutely unbeknownst reason other than sheer racist bellendery, the fash decided this weekend they would “remind everyone who’s country this is and if you don’t like it you can leave”. Because this country has gone to the dogs and you can’t even have a pint and a bacon sandwich without being arrested. And to prove we won’t stand for that absolutely not made up scenario, we’re going to *checks notes * paint a St George’s cross on a roundabout.

    All around the country, we saw definitely not racists strewing cheap tacky flags upside down on lamp posts, and defacing everything from roundabouts and zebra crossings to, bizarrely, nature information stands in parks. All in the name of PATRIOTISM.

    And of course it was never just about being proud of the flag. Racist losers who’d done things like paint a zebra crossing waited eagerly until Muslims crossed it to take photos and shame them on social media.

    But of course, it’s done under the guise of “protecting our girls”. Which is why it’s especially ironic that Tommy Robinson caused a mass pile-on of three young women who tore down flags on a roundabout, instructing his Twitter followers to “make the dogs famous”.

    Elon muscles in

    And in turn, other far-right gobshites are adding fuel to the fire too. The edgiest little edgelord Elon Musk decided to be soooo edgy and post an England flag on Twitter. Not content with getting a pedo racist into the Whitehouse, it appears he’s setting his sights on pulling the strings in British politics too. Yesterday, Musk shared a tweet from far right grifter Rupert Lowe which apparently detailed:

    85 cities in Britain where local authorities were complicit in the rape of children.

    Though this is a Reform investigation which surely enough does nothing to highlight the fact that most abuse is perpetrated by white men. Elon and Rupert have also conveniently ignored a campaign which is urging the government to not only stop weaponising violence against women and girls for racist means, but also hold those who do to account. But then, they’d be telling on themselves wouldn’t they?

    Raising a flag isn’t inherently racist

    The thing is, raising the flag in itself isn’t inherently racist. Our flag is used at times of national celebration and support (albeit usually connected to football) or commemoration of those lost to conflict. At its heart, raising your national flag should be a point of pride, “this is where I’m from and I’m proud of that”. Being truly proud of where you’re from isn’t racist, but in order to do that you have to also accept how gloriously multicultural England is.

    True patriotism comes from community-building, from looking after your neighbours and wanting to improve where you live for all. It comes from lobbying your politicians for better, for everyone, not just those who look and think like you. It’s supporting local businesses, being kind to strangers, and opening doors instead of building walls.

    Tying a hastily and shoddy-made flag your missus got on Temu upside down on a lamppost or drunkenly painting a roundabout whilst shouting about ‘protecting are girls’ isn’t patriotism. When raising your flag comes as a warning, that’s not patriotism, that’s a threat.

    But isn’t that what raising the English flag has always been about?

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Russian poster urging open your eyes - against women being abused.-- image usage permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Attribution: Denitza Tchacarova: A Russian poster urging open your eyes – against women being abused.

    Over the past decade, the “Manosphere” — a loosely connected but increasingly influential network of blogs, forums, influencers, and online communities — has become a powerful vehicle for promoting traditional gender roles, male grievance politics, and opposition to feminism. Once considered fringe, its rhetoric has crept into mainstream politics, with some analysts crediting it with helping shape the cultural climate that helped elect Donald Trump in 2024. But its reach extends far beyond adult men: the Manosphere is now shaping how teenage boys think about gender, power, and identity — often before they’ve even had their first romantic relationship.

    While the Manosphere’s impact on adult men has been widely studied, its encroachment into youth culture has received far less attention. Increasingly, Manosphere-aligned figures and communities are targeting boys aged 15 to 18, giving rise to what could be called the “Teenosphere”: a youth-focused, reactionary subculture that echoes the language, aesthetics, and grievances of its adult mentors. This emerging movement repackages anti-feminist and hypermasculine ideology in teen-friendly formats — viral TikToks, Discord memes, YouTube rants, and Reddit threads — making it both accessible and appealing to adolescent boys.

    According to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), the grooming of adolescent boys is “mimicking the white supremacist Active Club (AC) movement.”

    This “’Youth Clubs’ network, consisting of at least 19 chapters representing 42 states, engages in the same real-world activism as the ACs, including MMA training, spreading neo-Nazi propaganda in public spaces, and attempting to recruit members online, including on TikTok.”

    “Emerging in 2022, the Active Club movement is a white supremacist transnational network of ‘sports clubs’ first conceptualized by American neo-Nazi Robert Rundo and Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapsutin, the latter a key MMA organizer who is banned from the Schengen Area in the European Union for his track record of hate and violence,” GPAHE recently reported.

    “Active Clubs are small white supremacist cells, operating under Rundo’s ‘White Nationalism 3.0’ model, working at the local level and collaborating with numerous racist groups, including those with a penchant for violence, such as the Proud Boys, White Lives Matter (WLM), and Patriotic Front in the United States, Action Française and Identitarian groups in France, and the Hammerskins in Canada, Sweden, and Germany, creating alliances that strengthen the white supremacist movement globally. Shortly before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Active Clubs across the country called on him to follow through on his promise to conduct a mass migrant deportation operation.” (For more on the Active Clubs network, see “Active Clubs and Transnational Far-Right Extremism in 2024 and Beyond” @ extremism.gwu.edu/…; and “’Active club’ hate groups are growing in the U.S. — and making themselves seen” @ www.npr.org/…)

    GPAHE pointed out that “The majority of Youth Clubs created channels on Telegram between February and June 2025, with a few set up in 2024. According to a post by an umbrella account for Youth Clubs, titled ‘United Youth,’ created on February 24, 2025, Youth Clubs are a ‘network of pro social young white men nationwide’ that act as an ‘activist,’ ‘nationalist,’ and ‘fraternal and fitness network.’

    “At the time of publishing, Youth Clubs indicate that they only accept members between the ages of 15 and 18, and operate under the belief that ‘our (white) people are dying off and we are growing up in a world which does not care for us,’ referring to the racist, and deadly, ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory, which, like the regular Active Clubs, serves as an ideological framework for activism. Youth Clubs believe that ‘Jews,’ ‘liberal sycophants and homosexuals’ are all responsible for these supposed problems, and act to ‘fight back against these great globalist evils.’ United Youth also shared a quote by Rundo about starting the Rise Above Movement (RAM), a violent street gang which had members arrested for their actions during the racist Unite the Right riots in Charlottesville, Virginia.”

    Some Youth Clubs are explicitly neo-Nazi, such as the Pacific North West (PNW) Youth Club and New England Youth Club.

    GPAHE noted that the growing “Youth Club network serves as a sobering reminder of the ongoing radicalization of young men in the United States, particularly in this volatile political environment. These teenagers are drawing inspiration from violent neo-Nazis like Robert Rundo during a time when the Trump administration is mirroring policies advocated by neo-Nazis and galvanizing the far right to call for violence against their political enemies, making these Youth Clubs the manifestation of a new generation of hate.”

    If we ignore the Manosphere’s growing influence on teenage boys, we risk allowing a generation shaped by misogyny, resentment, and grievance politics masquerading as empowerment. The online subculture is a recruiting ground for future ideologues, influencers, and voters. It will take a village made up of parents, educators, policymakers, and tech companies to be aware of and deal with the digital pipelines that funnel boys toward extremist content.

    The post How the Toxic Manosphere is Grooming Adolescent Boys first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Despite parliament being on their summer holibobs, the right-wing rags haven’t taken the summer off from spreading lies about disabled Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Universal Credit benefit claimants.

    DWP: Universal Credit on the up

    This week, the Daily Mail reported (though it was seemingly first reported by Guido Fawkes):

    Jobless benefits claimants up by a million since Labour came to power

    This comes from DWP figures that show the number of people claiming Universal Credit has risen by one million since last July. This means that the total number of claimants, now eight million, is the highest it has been since the benefit began in 2013.

    The right media are, of course, wrongly claiming this is because people don’t want to work: that it’s easier to claim benefits than it is to work and more beneficial to do so. As the Mail felt the need to point out, a big chunk of the new Universal Credit claimants aren’t required to look for work: 46% of them to be exact. Which has got the right frothing at the mouth.

    But there’s actually a much more logical reason behind this.

    Let’s apply logic to this, though this is a challenge for the right-wing rags

    For the last few of years, claimants on legacy benefits have been migrated over to DWP Universal Credit. This ramped up last year, helpfully buried in the news cycle by the general election . This means those who previously were awarded Employment Support Allowance (ESA) because they are unable to work are now being forced to apply for Universal Credit, and in turn be judged all over again as to whether they’re fit for work.

    Over 2.1 million people in 1.59 million households have been sent migration notices. Of course there’s going to be a huge rise in Universal Credit claimants and those who can’t work, when those are the people who are being forced to claim it if they want to survive.

    However what’s important to note here is just how many have lost out. As the Canary has extensively warned and reported, almost a quarter of those forced onto legacy benefits lost their entitlement.

    Almost 400,000 have had their benefits stripped because they didn’t reapply for Universal Credit within the three month timeline. That’s 24% of claimants who were sent migration notices, 79% of these were women. The Canary also previously reported that Labour stripped 170,000 children of support since the migration from Tax Credits began.

    These people have all been left without support, either to get into work or to just fucking survive in a system that wants disabled people and single mothers to fail.

    Those who the DWP have moved over are worse off too

    What’s more, even those who have managed to migrate have found that they’re worse off than they were when they were claiming DWP legacy benefits.

    According to Policy in Practice, approximately 200,000 households that have been forced to move to Universal Credit are around £59.45 per week worse off. That’s over £230 a month that people are just expected to do without, whilst food and bills continue to rise.

    The report also found that disabled people will lose around £55 a week, or £220 a month.

    Right-wing rags doing Labour’s job for them again

    The fact is, as much as the media spin it, an increase in Universal Credit claimants isn’t because people are workshy layabouts; these are people who have been forced to claim this benefit and then smeared because they’re following DWP orders.

    And that is exactly how the government is turning the public against disabled people via the media.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Shanti Maheshwari in a bridal dress; her husband Ashok Kumar is behind the bars IMAGE/voicepk.net VIDEO/voicepk.net/Youtube
    From beautiful bride, to victim of marital rape, this is the story of Shanti, a 19-year-old whose husband has been charged under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act of 2013. IMAGE/Inter Press Service (IPS)

    Shanti Maheshwari was a 19-year-old woman living in Karachi’s working class neighborhood of Lyari who got married to Ashok Kumar Mohan on June 16, 2025, after a two-year engagement. But for two days after her wedding, she was brutally, repeatedly, and unnaturally raped by her husband. Shanti was gruesomely wounded, and started to bleed internally.

    Her in-laws took Shanti to a health clinic but the doctor released her, and so they brought her home.

    On June 30, witnessing Shanti’s seriously deteriorating health, her family brought her back from her in-law’s house. Her parents came to know from Shanti that on June 17 and 18, she was a victim of “unnatural sexual acts,” i.e., sodomy.

    The assault complaint filed by Shanti’s brother Sayon with police stated that her husband “inserted a metal pipe” and then his “hand and arm” in her anus, and bit her breasts and neck. Her husband threatened Shanti with death if she revealed to anyone what he did to her.

    Najma Maheshwari, a social activist from Shanti’s locality, described the violence to which she was subjected to Zofeen Ebrahim of IPS (Inter Press Service):

    “Her insides were torn, she was bleeding profusely from her anus and writhing in pain. Hospital visitors urged us to move the gurney outside, complaining the stench was unbearable.

    “While cleaning her, medics removed worms from her gut—her injuries were that severe. I’ve seen much in my work, but never such horror or pain,”

    Najma (center), Sonya (head covered), and their brother (Najma’s right) were sitting on the pavement outside the trauma center where Shanti was fighting for her life. IMAGE/Seema Maheshwari

    (The violence done to Shanti brings to mind a similar case in 2012, a gruesome gang rape of a 23-year-old paramedical student in Delhi, often known as the “rape capital” of India. Amid huge protests, she was flown to Singapore for treatment, but could not be saved. As is customary for these type of victims, she was not identified by her own name but by courageous and noble names as: “Nirbhaya,” “Amanat,” “Damini,” and so on.)

    Shanti’s relative Sonia, who had arranged Shanti’s marriage, was surprised that despite her bleeding, the doctors released her from Anklesaria hospital where she had been taken.

    In South Asia, doctors are usually treated like God by most people. Why didn’t Dr. Rauf, Shanti’s doctor, care for the patient’s failing health? It’s not difficult to guess. The answer lies in three obvious reasons: Shanti was poor, Shanti was a woman, Shanti belonged to a minority — her Hindu name gave away her religion. These three factors might have caused the doctor to ignore Shanti’s critical condition. Of course, not wanting to get entangled in a medico-legal case could have been a factor, too, as there was clear evidence of anal trauma caused by sexual violence.

    Sayon and Najma took Shanti to the government-run Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Trauma Centre.

    Shanti was brought to the trauma center in “comatose” state, and placed on a ventilator. Her continual passing of stool worsened her wounds. The extreme violence inflicted on Shanti was verified by Karachi’s chief police surgeon Dr Summaiya Sayed who concurred that there was clear evidence of anal trauma caused by sexual violence.

    Mournfully, Najma remembers, “the last thing she asked for was a sip of water. Then she closed her eyes and never opened them again.” That was on 23 July.

    A Pakistani group Aurat March (Women’s March) issued a statement in the wake of Shanti’s painful and tragic death:

    “Shanti, a 20-year-old woman, has passed away today after 20 days of being in coma, and after 36 days of being brutally raped by her husband, Ashok Kumar.” “We had earlier posted about this case — about the horrible ordeal that Shanti went through, and the complicity of Ashok’s family, Anklesaria Hospital and Dr. Rauf, that has now resulted in her death.”

    In the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan tops the list with 85% of married women undergoing sexual or physical violence by their husbands, compared to India’s 29% and Bangladesh’s 53%.

    Globally renowned social activist and classical dancer Sheema Kermani of Tehrik-e-Niswan (Women’s Movement) Cultural Action Group joined with other women’s groups and civil society in protest. She said possibly Shanti would have survived if the doctor had treated her properly.

    In these kinds of horrible cases, celebrities come forward to express shock and show sympathy to the victims and her family or to condole the death. Some are genuine and others do it to enhance their fame. This time, actress singer Ayesha Omar was the only celebrity who mourned Shanti:

    “I’m sorry we failed you, Shanti. May justice be served.”

    “Praying that this misogynistic society can heal and transform for the better one day.”

    The Section 376-B of the Pakistan Penal Code considers rape a crime but it is not very clear on marital rape. Advocate of the High Court Mehwish Muhib Kakakhel points out: “A dedicated clause was proposed for inclusion in the Anti-Rape Act but was ultimately dropped due to complications around the issue.”

    She further noted: “Marital rape is usually not even considered rape because most people believe it is a woman’s obligation not to say ‘no’ to her husband,” she explained. “This mindset results in most cases going unreported.”

    To stop cases of marital rape, Muhib suggested: “Legal recognition would be a vital step in changing social norms and ensuring accountability.”

    However, laws are often made in social vacuum, and remain ineffective and even with strong laws on file protecting women, do not really protect women, because enforcement of these laws remains weak.

    Sexual and Reproductive Health education, along with mental health and emotional wellness programs are critical to change the fate of the Shantis of Pakistan.

    “Too many young people carry the trauma of childhood sexual abuse,” she said. “As they grow, that buried pain can manifest in troubling ways—some develop sadistic or masochistic behaviors, especially when exposed to unchecked pornography. It doesn’t heal them; it deepens the harm.”

    To fill this gap, she and a group of like-minded doctors at the Association for Mothers and Newborns (AMAN)*—the implementation arm of Pakistan’s National Committee for Maternal and Neonatal Health—developed Bakhabar Noujawan (Informed Youth), an online SRH program endorsed by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, launched in 2023.

    “We’re trying to introduce it in colleges, but convincing faculty is an uphill battle—they first need to grasp the course’s importance,” she said.

    Covering over two dozen culturally sensitive topics—from premarital counselling, child and cousin marriage, domestic violence, STIs, to teenage pregnancy—the programme doesn’t shy away from tough conversations. “We’re now developing a module on marital rape,” says Ahsan, head of AMAN. “The first draft is nearly complete.”

    Alongside SRH education, Sayed emphasized the need for mental health and emotional wellness programs.

    “Too many young people carry the trauma of childhood sexual abuse,” she said. “As they grow, that buried pain can manifest in troubling ways—some develop sadistic or masochistic behaviors, especially when exposed to unchecked pornography. It doesn’t heal them; it deepens the harm.”

    IPSNews

    Why did Ashok Kumar committed such heinous acts? Only a thorough psychological evaluation could throw some light on this terrible act. Delving into his motivations and intentions, could present a case history, when communicated to a wider audience, may prevent this somewhat in the future. Everyone knows, no such thing is going to happen, sadly.

    Shanti

    shanti, a word of Sanskrit origin, means silence, peace, …
    Shanti wasn’t at peace; her anatomy was torn due to sexual violence
    Shanti didn’t remain silent; she told her personal trauma to her parents

    Shanti’s milieu was poor; so the doctor’s conscience remained silent

    Shanti’s gender was female; so the patriarchy remained at peace

    Shanti, a teenager, was forced to lethal silence and finally … achieved shanti… deadly peace…

    The post Shanti Maheshwari: Brutally Silenced Forever first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Olympic champion Caster Semenya has won an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that the runner did in fact have her rights to a fair hearing violated. Now, her original case will go back to the Swiss federal court.

    As Al-Jazeera reported:

    The original case between Semenya and Monaco-based World Athletics was about whether female athletes who have specific medical conditions, a typically male chromosome pattern and naturally high testosterone levels should be allowed to compete freely in women’s sports.

    Semenya has been subject to intense media and regulatory scrutiny over naturally occurring levels of testosterone in her body. She has been targeted by transphobes who argue that her testosterone gives her an ‘edge’ over fellow rivals. The athlete’s treatment is a perfect storm of misogynoir towards her as a dark-skinned Black athlete, and transphobia in relation to something she was literally born with.

    Semenya’s fight

    In 2023, the Canary’s Alex Rose Cocker reported:

    Two years after Semenya’s win at the 2009 world championships when she was 18, the IAAF (International Amateur Athletic Federation, as World Athletics was previously known) introduced new rules for the first time. They stated that hyperandrogenic athletes could compete on the condition that they display androgen levels below those recorded for cis men.

    And:

    Then in 2018, the IAAF made it mandatory for athletes to lower their testosterone levels via drug treatments to under 5nmol/l. Competitors would have to do this for six months in order to compete in international events from 400m to the mile. Notably, these are Semenya’s main distances.

    A couple of years later, Semenya is still beset by legal challenges for something naturally occurring in her body. Now, as a 34 year old that has moved into coaching, she says that her legal fight is for principle rather than her own direct gain. The fact that women must lower their androgen levels dependant in order to adhere to an arbitrary baseline is, as Semenya articulates, a disgraceful threat to women, both trans and cis.

    After leaving the court, Semenya said:

    This is a reminder to the leaders [that] athletes need to be protected.

    Before we can regulate we have to respect athletes and put their rights first.

    The athlete’s lawyer, Schona Jolly, said:

    As of today, the governance of international sport needs to sit up and take notice of an athlete’s fundamental rights.

    It’s not possible to put this aside and say ‘the substantive rights of the athlete don’t matter’. They firmly do.

    ‘Modern eugenics’

    The Economic Freedom Fighters, a South African political party, released a statement condemning the treatment of Semenya:

    What Semenya has faced is not about fairness in sport but about protecting whiteness and outdated ideas of femininity. Other African women athletes such as Christine Mboma, Beatrice Masilingi, and Annet Negesa have been similarly targeted, forced out of their events or into dangerous medical procedures.

    They added:

    These testosterone-based rules are modern eugenics: using fake science to exclude African women from global competition, and must be abolished.

    The group also wrote:

    This marks another important step in a long and painful journey that has exposed the racism and sexism entrenched in international sport…although the ruling does not overturn the discriminatory regulation outright, it opens the door for further legal challenges.

    It also strengthens the global movement against the policing of women’s bodies in sport.

    Back in 2023 when Semenya won a different discrimination case at the ECHR, Human Rights Watch called her victory:

    a human rights victory.

    They wrote:

    International sporting bodies set regulations with scant regard for international human rights norms, as if they are exempt from human rights standards. The European court decision debunks that, finding that the Swiss Federal Tribunal had ‘failed’ to uphold human rights norms despite ‘credible claims of discrimination’.

    Two years later, as Semenya wins another discrimination case it is apparent that athletics regulatory bodies are setting forth wild discrimination against Black women and women of colour more broadly.

    White supremacy

    The fact is that the misogyny, racism, and transphobia simply cannot be separated out when understanding how Semenya is still banned from her sport. The only options offered by athletic bodies wBlas for her to undergo unnecessary medical intervention. Transphobes often claim to be protecting the sanctity of womanhood and keeping women safe. But, as ever, they mean white women and women who further their white supremacist narratives on gender.

    As Florence Ashley and Blu Buchanan write in Truthout, there is a common link between the raft of rhetoric espoused by people who are simultaneously anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-critical race theory:

     a fundamental belief that whiteness — both the category and those who occupy it — is under threat. The validity of this belief is less important than its influence; studies demonstrate that white Americans tend to see racism as a zero-sum game they are now losing.

    They argue that:

    White people, as a category, tend to think of themselves as victims in a “winner-take-all” battle between supposedly “natural” racial groups, in which survival (and reproduction) of the fittest determines the dominant group.

    From this perspective, any advance made by non-white racial groups is seen as a direct attack on white supremacy and the ongoing ability of white people to reproduce — not just children, but the power and privilege of whiteness itself.

    White supremacy underpins the bigotry on display when transphobes coalesce their racist efforts around policing the bodies of women. It is no accident that the women they police are women of colour: it’s by design.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Guardian Sport

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New data reveals systemic gender bias in UK cancer funding. Notably, despite worse survival outcomes for women’s cancers, the funding for these fails to match up to the rates and reality. This is according to vital research from women’s bladder health brand Jude.

    Women’s cancer funding: not enough, not equivalent

    When it comes to cancer funding in the UK, you’d assume money goes where it’s needed most, to the cancers that are the deadliest or hardest to detect.

    But the latest data from bladder health brand Jude tells a different story.

    The public give male-specific cancers like prostate and testicular cancer significantly more funding per case than female-specific cancers, even when women’s survival rates are lower:

    Along the top: Gender Cases Deaths Survival rate Charity income £££ per Case Male: 58,230 12,258 79% £84,413,432 £1,450 Female: 79,097 19,526 58% £95,192,908 £1,203

    Jude’s determined this by reviewing charity financial information in the UK Charity Register. It also utilised public health data from Cancer Research UK.

    Its research revealed that:

    • Testicular cancer: 2,376 cases per year had a 91% survival rate and received £5,354 per case
    • Prostate cancer: 55,093 cases had a 78% survival rate and received £1,288 per case.
    • Ovarian cancer: 7,452 cases had a 35% survival rate and received £1,132 per case.
    • Uterine cancer: nearly 10,000 cases, but received just £63 per case in funding.

     

    Funding per case across cancers Testicular: £5,354 Brain: £2,579 Breast: £1,441 Prostate: £1,288 Ovarian: £1,132 Bowel: £288 Bladder: £94 Brain, bowel, and bladder all genders. Male-specific: testicular and prostate. Female-specific: breast and ovarian cancers.

    Across the board, male-specific cancers receive 20% more funding per case than female-specific ones. This is despite having 21% higher average survival rates.

    When cancer is ‘awkward’, it gets ignored

    One of the key reasons female-specific cancers are so underfunded is that they affect parts of the body we still don’t talk about.

    Gynaecological cancers, bladder issues, and anything involving women’s sex organs or bodily functions are often seen as taboo and that stigma has real consequences.

    It means fewer charities, less public campaigning, and reduced awareness. While prostate and testicular cancers have benefitted from high-profile awareness drives like Movember, there is no mainstream equivalent for ovarian, uterine, or vulval cancer.

    The result is a dangerous feedback loop: what feels “awkward” gets overlooked, and what gets overlooked doesn’t get funded.

    Jude’s Founder Peony Li said:

    As a female-led health brand, we did this research because no one else was asking the obvious question: why are the cancers affecting women’s bodies (particularly those below the waist) still so underfunded?

    The answer was painfully clear: stigma, silence, and a system that doesn’t see these issues as urgent.

    It’s time we had the equivalent of Movember for gynaecological cancers, something unapologetic, loud, and impossible to ignore.

    This isn’t about taking anything away from male cancers. It’s about funding based on need, not noise. Because when women’s cancers are treated as taboo, lives are lost.”

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rape is effectively decriminalized – less than 1% of rapists were convicted last year. It’s therefore unsurprising that of the 407,568 women raped last year, 5 in 6 chose not to report. However, according to university students, the presence of ‘Enough’ in Bristol, and the possibility of self-testing after rape, has created 70% deterrence in the city in just 4 months. The programme has had major ramifications for reducing violence against women and girls (VAWG) – and now more students are looking to implement it in their universities.

    ‘Enough’: supporting rape survivors in Bristol

    Students understand what critics do not – this is not about criminal justice; this is social justice. Enough gives survivors power and control, while sending a clear message that there are consequences for not having consent.

    620 reports have been made to the platform, with anonymous quotes shared via social media. Each survivor has been signposted to recovery resources and crisis information. 86% of Bristol students say they would report with Enough if they were raped.

    A University of Bristol student said:

    The presence of Enough on campus has started important conversations that were previously silenced. It’s the first time I feel reassured about this topic.

    How does it work? To start, survivors report to Enough simply and discreetly. They choose part to share anonymously on social media, creating deterrence. They can also self-test with a DNA kit.

    The presence of the kits and potential DNA held on file creates further deterrence. They can access free digital resources that will help them recover from trauma as quickly as possible.

    A University of Bristol survivor said:

    I wish that Enough had existed 6 years ago. This would have helped me on the days where
    things felt unbelievable and overwhelming and I just needed that validation.

    A powerful social deterrence to VAWG

    The government has pledged to halve VAWG in a decade, and needs radical ideas to make that happen. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s report on VAWG in July 2024 stated that:

    VAWG is at such a scale that it cannot be addressed through law enforcement alone.

    More and more, leading policy makers, including MPs, are seeing that Enough could become another example of enormously powerful social deterrence. Mass communication of the breathalyser, alongside law enforcement collapsed deaths from drink driving from 5,000 per year to 200.

    Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall Alison Hernandez said:

    Radical ideas are welcome to combat rape. Too many victims do not come forward and are often suffering alone. I’m keen to see the evaluation when completed to see if it can be rolled out across the country.

    Enough is not a funnel into criminal justice, but could be revolutionary from that perspective too. A self-testing DNA kit can be admissible in court. Considering that less than 6% of survivors go to the police soon enough to have the potential for a forensic examination, Enough can give them something instead of nothing – frozen DNA, and a time-stamped testimony.

    Students want Enough across universities nationwide

    Enough is powered by teams of student volunteers who create deterrent content shared and viewed millions of times on social media. Students are asking if they can work to bring Enough to over 70 Universities across the UK, and the world.

    Enough provides free digital resources created with Clinical Lead Dr Maisie Johnstone PhD. These are based on cutting edge research and survivor requests, intended to support the 94% of survivors who suffer symptoms of PTSD in the first two weeks and 75% of whom will never access therapy.

    Enough is preparing to launch additional pilots with the support of proactive universities, ready for Freshers’ Week 2025.

    Featured image supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bigotry and hatred, fear and loathing, are on the rise. Vulnerable groups are being targeted. It’s happened before. Decades ago, speaking to the National Jewish Congress, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr said, “My people were brought to America in chains. Your people were driven here to escape the chains fashioned for them in Europe. There are Hitlers loose in America today, both in high and low places. As the tensions and bewilderment of economic problems become more severe, history’s scapegoats, the Jews, will be joined by new scapegoats, the Negroes. The Hitlers will seek to divert people’s minds and turn their frustrations and anger to the helpless, to the outnumbered.” Recorded at the University of Colorado.


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Content warning: this article includes commentary on sexual assault, domestic abuse, and violence against women that some readers may find distressing. 

    As more and more allegations emerge about Andrew Tate, a dark, brooding picture is once again painted of the sex trafficker and prolific misogynist.

    Once under the influencer’s spell, many women have since come forward and reported serious allegations of rape, sexual assault, and coercive control, and in recent days, one woman has even claimed that she was held at gunpoint back in 2015.

    From adoring love letters, love-bombing, and Prince Charming-like behaviour, to a violent figure with a deep-seated hatred of women, it comes as no surprise that these are the allegations that are damningly levelled against the world’s most infamous misogynist.

    Brianna Stern: Andrew Tate’s ex-girlfriend speaks out

    One of the women who had unfortunately fell prey to Andrew Tate’s manipulative spell, is Brianna Stern, his ex-girlfriend, who has in recent weeks gone public with her allegations and lawsuit.

    Emotionally abusive, manipulative, aggressive, and menacing – Brianna’s relationship with Tate was, in no uncertain terms: domestic abuse.

    It was only in March this year that Stern came forward and decided to expose Tate’s conquest of abuse, that had continued to get worse as their relationship progressed.

    At first, like many abusers are, Tate was loving, kind, and charming. He took Brianna on dates, luxurious holidays, and bought her flashy designer items.

    In an interview with the Times, Stern opened up about the pair’s relationship, including Tate’s disgusting abuse.

    Within hours of meeting Stern, Tate claimed he had fallen in love with her, and said:

    you’re my girl now, we’re together, we’re going to be together for ever.

    Looking back and reflecting on this, Stern has said how she feels she was “dumb” and fell into a trap.

    But this was a trap that was convincingly set for her, as Tate promised her financial security and a life where she would never have to work. She said that:

    He was unlike anyone I’d ever met.

    However, despite offering her everything a girl could possibly dream of, from designer bags, to all-inclusive 5-star resorts, and flash cars, happiness was far from the picture.

    Manipulated by Tate: a barrage of love-bombing

    He said to Stern early on that he required monogamy from her, whilst he could go and enjoy himself with other women, sleeping and dating as many of them as he wanted.

    However, Stern was, like many victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse, taken in by Andrew Tate. He frequently sent her hundreds of affectionate messages, referring to her as “pookie”,”pumpkin”, and “pookiepumpkinprincess”.

    The love-bombing from here only continued to get worse. One day, he even wrote a sickeningly cringey poem for her, which began:

    across the seas, across the skies, two pookies live with loving ties.

    Recently, documents have emerged from an ongoing court case. These allege that Tate used a gun to threaten a woman at his sex cam business, and had raped and strangled four women over two years.

    Despite Tate having an immense following on social media, and his name consistently being in the news and public discourse, Stern has insisted that she doesn’t read the news, so wasn’t aware of the allegations against the Tate brothers.

    She was also manipulated by Tate to believe that the media was part of ‘the Matrix’ which:

    was out to get him.

    He consistently told her:

    don’t pay attention to whatever you see about me, it’s not true.

    He also told Brianna that he respects women. This is obviously an infinity away from the truth of his violent, chauvinistic personality, where he infamously said that women should “bear responsibility” for sexual assault, rather than the cruel and warped men who commit these violent crimes.

    Fearing for her own safety

    After a while though, Stern found herself more fearful for her own personal safety as she became aware of the allegations that were made against the brothers.

    She even spoke to Tristan Tate’s girlfriend at the time, and they confided in each other about their worries and concerns surrounding their romantic relationships with the brothers:

    We would ask each other, ‘are you sure they didn’t do this?’ We would always come to the conclusion that, no, they couldn’t have done that – they’re not monsters, they’re not capable of that.

    But over time, the picture once again started to change, and Stern began to fear for her own safety and even her life.

    After a while, the ‘honeymoon period’ had ended, and the true horror and reality of Andrew Tate’s real personality began to shine through. As the Times reported, Stern alleged that:

    Tate had become aggressive and controlling, demanding she hand over her social media passwords and download a tracking app so he could see where she was at all times.

    Stern also alleges in her lawsuit that Tate said:

    if I crossed him, he would ruin my life, rape me or kill me.

    But after moments of cruelty, like many abusers do after an outburst, Tate would blame his violent actions on Brianna. As Stern’s lawyers stated:

    like many abusers, Tate would often tell the plaintiff that his outbursts were her own fault.

    Further to this, it became clear to Stern that he used punishment as a way of controlling her, as he began to treat her like a caged animal.

    A series of text messages that were exchanged between the pair were shared in court, which revealed Tate’s sickening use of abusive language towards Stern, writing:

    You back talk too much whore, so I beat you
    I will hit you today, but I love you.

    Stern replied “Why the name calling?” and “Why the hitting :(“.

    Tate only doubled-down on the abuse, responding:

    Do you belong to me or not

    In another, Tate wrote to her:

    Because I want to beat the fuck out of you

    He followed this with:

    you will give me a child this year bitch.

    Trump’s America: rolling out the red carpet to the violent misogynist

    Soon Stern’s life became a living nightmare, as the Romanian authorities began to intensify their investigation into the Andrew Tate’s and their alleged sickening human trafficking ring.

    Many of the women involved in this investigation claimed that the brothers had coerced lots of women into doing webcam pornography and generated around $600,000, which the Tate’s mainly used for themselves.

    However, to this day, both brothers continue to deny the allegations levied against them.

    Soon the investigation had tracked Brianna down, and the Romanian Organised Crime Unit identified her as a victim of the brothers. It told her that she would be banned from any form of contact with him unless she recorded a video that denied this.

    In another red flag, Stern claimed that the video recording she then made had been directed by Tate.

    A few months later, Trump had won the 2024 US presidential election. It was a victory that was celebrated by Tate, who could almost taste the freedom on his lips, as he was:

    sure that he was going to be able to come back to the US in January.

    Despite deporting thousands of migrants for alleged crimes, Tate was, in Trump’s America, a welcome guest, whom the red carpet was rolled out for.

    As the administration essentially paved the way to Tate’s escape from exile in Romania, the brothers travelled by private jet to Miami on the 28 February, and were given a glamorous welcome as the press clamoured to get a photo of the Tate brothers stepping off their luxury jet.

    After spending a few days in the comfort of Miami, Tate also went to hang out with another MAGA magnet, Kanye West, the Nazi sympathiser, to record an interview with him.

    Tate’s sexual assault of Brianna Stern

    Following the interview, Andrew Tate met Stern in Beverly Hills, where Stern was sadly in for the worst night of her life, as a consensual sexual encounter turned into a serious sexual assault. Court documents revealed that:

    Tate began verbally degrading Stern as he routinely did.

    He said Trump was going to help him, and then he did but this time it was much worse, more aggressive and more violent. Tate began to choke Stern.

    He also began to aggressively shout at her and state:

    I beat you because I love you and your mine, why wouldn’t I be able to hit you?

    Distressed and petrified, Stern began to cry and begged for him to stop, but he would not.

    Tate continued to choke Stern harder and harder, making Stern nearly lose consciousness

    In disturbing text messages after the violence, Tate also said to Stern:

    I really love hitting you it’s very good for me

    Followed by:

    It’s relaxing don’t you think?

    Stern believes he didn’t stop this sadistic, brutal assault because he got sick sexual pleasure out of degrading and assaulting her to the point where she felt worthless and was crying.

    Following the attack, all Stern wanted to do was escape this hellish atmosphere, but like other victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault, Stern was completely and utterly terrified about what Tate might do to her.

    So, Stern decided to stay the night, and leave the next morning as though nothing had occurred and finally escaped from the shackles of her cruel abuser.

    When she was leaving the hotel, Stern alleged that Tate’s final words to her were:

    Shut the f*** up bitch, you will never backtalk me, you are my property.

    The sickening celebration of Andrew Tate in the MAGA ‘manosphere’

    In the weeks after the attack happened, Stern bravely took to social media after reporting the incident to the police, to post a photograph of her battered and bruised face. It displays her red cheeks and mascara running down from her eyes.

    Clearly in a distressed state, Stern also published medical records from a visit to New York hospital, where she claimed she was diagnosed with “post-concussion syndrome”.

    Speaking about the incident, she said that at many points during the relationship she felt like:

    silently leaving Andrew and say nothing, doing nothing because I was scared, and honestly It was so hard for me to accept that I was being abused.

    However, she decided to go public with her experience of sexual assault and domestic abuse at the hands of the toxic Andrew Tate, to help other victims come forward to expose their abusers.

    After filing her lawsuit, instead of being met with supportive messages, albeit a few, Tate’s manosphere of loving supporters gave Brianna a torrent of hurtful abuse.

    As a result of this, Stern was left fearing for her safety once again, and was forced to hire a private bodyguard for the first few days. Since then, she has had to let the bodyguard go due to expense.

    Speaking about the public’s attitude towards him and potential other victims of abuse she said:

    Some people in my life are so scared of him that they just don’t want anything to do with me now, which is really upsetting. It’s sad to see that this is what our society has come to

    VAWG normalised by the likes of Andrew Tate

    In response to Andrew Tate’s fans, who still protest his innocence (as does he denying all allegations), Stern believes that his fans and other women are:

    under his spell, just as I once was.

    Now, our society is arguably a place where violence against women is normalised and accepted, and where men are allowed to have a supreme sense of superiority above women, which Stern describes as “scary”.

    Overall, after mounting allegations against the brothers, it is evident that the ‘Tate Empire’ is one that is built on violence, extreme misogyny, and the monetisation of men’s insecurities. As shows like Adolescence expose the manosphere and incels, the consequences of letting this philosophy reign free are frankly terrifying.

    It is therefore paramount that governments around the world begin to act upon this sickening virus that is spreading rapidly throughout our societies.

    The warning signs are now in plain view; Tate is an immense danger to women and girls, and governments will be complicit if something much worse than this happens in the future.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Megan Miley

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disability benefit cuts affect all disabled people – there’s no doubt about that. They will plunge thousands into poverty, isolate individuals, and without the ability to fund their disability aids, care, or therapies, impact their independence, and this is true for those across the community. However, for disabled women and marginalised genders and their families, it’s critical to understand the ways that the cuts are even more of a threat.

    To comprehend the context of the cuts as a gender issue, it must first be understood that disability itself is a feminist issue across the board. Women are more likely to be disabled, and often left undiagnosed or without the support they need for longer. It is also women who commonly bear the brunt of state underfunding.

    DWP disability benefit cuts: women are providing more care

    Just as women are more likely to perform household tasks and take on the burden of social reproduction – the unpaid and unseen work to keep society functioning – they are more likely to be providing care. Whilst social reproduction refers to a wider profile of tasks, without proper social care funding, the responsibility of care for disabled individuals often falls on the shoulders of families. Notably, this heavily primarily impacts women, who make up 59% of unpaid carers.

    For families providing care themselves, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) can be what keeps them afloat, to make up the difference in funds where they are caring rather than working. This is particularly true because Carer’s Allowance is still criminally low, and still places limits on how many hours can be worked to top up funds, as well as often being tied to eligibility of other benefits.

    In 2024, the Centre for Care found that the economic contribution of unpaid carers in the UK was £184 billion a year – whilst the combined NHS budget in 2021/22 was £189 billion. This makes unpaid care provision equivalent to a second NHS: to cut support to the bone to these families is shameful.

    For many, the disability benefit cuts will push them even further away from employment due to having to provide further unpaid care, or stop their ability to undertake part-time work. It means the impact on employment rates may have the opposite effect to what Reeves intends. When the reasoning for the cuts supposedly surrounds boosting employment, this is absurd: the cuts are not only to benefits, but to gender equality.

    The additional threats to disabled women

    For disabled women and marginalised genders, the disability benefit cuts also pose additional threats. Disabled women and marginalised genders are more than twice more likely to experience domestic abuse, and the cuts mean that these individuals are much less likely to be able to leave such a situation without access to funds.

    In particular, disabled women and marginalised genders are more likely to experience economic abuse, and are four times more likely than their non-disabled peers to have a partner or ex-partner stop them, or try to stop them, accessing benefit payments that they or their children are entitled to receive.

    Similarly, disabled women are over three times more likely to have a partner or ex-partner refuse to give child support or maintenance (or pay it unreliably) when they can afford to pay it normally. For many, PIP or similar benefits are a lifeline that keep themselves and their children out of poverty.

    290,000 of children in poverty are living in families on PIP, and children living in a family with a disabled person are more likely to be in poverty than those without. This shows the further devastating impact for families, and particularly the women within them, who are bearing the burden of care and labour much more heavily.

    It is fundamentally reprehensible for the chancellor to allow these cuts to have such impacts across vulnerable populations, and leave those who are multiply marginalised behind, in search of ‘savings’. While the government’s argument that they have inherited a difficult financial position is true, the reality is that this is not the only way they can fix that. Hitting disabled people, and particularly women and marginalised people the hardest, is something utterly unnecessary.

    The disability benefit cuts must be seen intersectionally

    It’s key for the cuts to be understood from an intersectional lens, and to be aware of the double burden these changes will have on women and those of marginalised genders.

    Similarly, it must be acknowledged that those who are also marginalised by their race will be more heavily impacted, and are often more likely to experience some of the issues discussed in this article. This includes living with certain conditions such as autoimmune diseases, and being less likely to receive needed painkillers and support.

    Disabled Black and brown women will also be hit harder by the disability benefit cuts. They experience the additional burden of racism that is often seen in the medical and benefit system, as well as lower standards of living than both their non-disabled or white peers.

    When discussing the cuts and advocating against them, we must understand this as not isolated to disability: this is an issue that feminists and those working in gender equality must also be a part of pushing back on.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Charli Clement

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • An open letter is warning the government of the dangers of screening Adolescence in UK schools and has amassed over 1000 signatures.

    Adolescence 

    Adolescence is a Netflix drama which Labour Party PM Keir Starmer has mischaracterised as a ‘documentary’ on multiple occasions.

    The open letter – penned by Jaimi Shrive and Dr Jessica Taylor of VictimFocus has so far gathered the support of a wide range of professionals across a multitude of sectors. It expresses:

    serious concern regarding the proposal to roll out Netflix’s Adolescence as an educational resource in secondary schools across the UK.

    The authors point out that whilst the drama may be a hard-hitting one, the creators did not design it as an educational resource. Using at is such, would create a whole host of ethical concerns.

    They highlight the potential for harm and re-traumatisation. They saw this previously when schools showed similar films about child exploitation.

    A previous VictimFocus campaign #NoMoreCSEFilms highlighted the increase in traumatic responses in students who “struggled to process the distressing and disturbing storylines and imagery”. They also found that showing the films did not increase the number of disclosures about abuse or exploitation, or improve the responses to that exploitation. Fortunately, their campaign from 2017-2019 led to the nationwide withdrawal of these films.

    Adolescence: re-traumatisation

    One in three children experience at least one traumatic event before the age of 18. This means that there is a huge number of children sitting in UK schools which could potentially be retraumatised by watching Adolescence. Should a child choose to watch it in their own time, that is one thing. However, schools forcing a whole class of kids to watch it – with zero control over the environment or being able to leave could have devastating consequences.

    As the letter states:

    Victims and survivors could be retraumatised, silenced, targeted, or alienated if the content is delivered without trauma-informed support and skilled facilitation.

    UK schools are already struggling. Clearly, Keir Starmer sees this as a quick fix to a huge, systemic problem. But schools do not have the funding or support to offer this ‘trauma-informed support’ or ‘skilled facilitation’.

    Additionally, Starmer seems to have made this announcement over Adolescence without any evidence suggesting it will work:

    There is no framework, no evidence-base, no guidance pack, no expert-led materials, and no structured approach to delivering this series in schools. It has not been trialled in educational settings, nor has it been evaluated for safety, impact, or effectiveness.

    There is no evidence that this approach will work, and teachers have not been supported or trained to undertake this complex intervention with millions of students. No consultation has taken place with teachers, schools, parents, psychologists, or safeguarding professionals. Its rollout appears to be based on public sentiment rather than sound educational policy.

    Centring the perpetrator

    I have seen Adolescence, and what struck me throughout was the lack of focus on the victim. This is common in media narratives of male violence. Male achievements are glorified and little attention is given to the women and girls who have suffered at the hands of violent men.

    Adolescence may be hard hitting for the parents of young boys or teachers. However, for someone who has experienced trauma it is actually not that hard to believe.

    What started out at the start of the show as ‘I didn’t do it’, quickly turned into ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’. This is a common tactic abusers use to pin the blame on the victim. Whilst it’s important that such a popular Netflix show highlights that, it could have done far more in centring the victim instead of highlighting the fact she was a bully. This plays into the narrative that she somehow deserved it.

    The open letter highlights this:

    Katie, the murdered girl in the drama, is repeatedly framed as a bully and is denied any real voice. Her family are absent. Her suffering is largely excluded. Meanwhile, the boy who kills her is portrayed with emotional depth, vulnerability, and complexity.

    This imbalance risks reinforcing harmful narratives about victim blaming and male suffering. It sends a dangerous message that violence is understandable or excusable if a perpetrator feels bullied, isolated, or misunderstood. Many conversations, narratives, and blogs online have already argued that Katie deserved to be harmed, brought the violence upon herself, or that Jamie was justified in his anger due to her comments.

    Plenty of alternatives

    As the letter states, the government should instead be encouraging schools to show all children how to live ‘non-violent, compassionate, supportive, positive lives’ instead of using ‘graphic depictions of murder, violence, abuse, and trauma as a deterrent’ – via Adolescence.

    Additionally, they should be collaborating with professionals to develop alternative resources which do not cause further harm. Meanwhile, the government need to equip schools so they can take action against children who are violent or abusive.

    The letter acknowledges the significance of the documentary in sparking important conversations. However, the government treating it as an educational resource proves how little they understand what a trauma-informed school system should look like.

    It’s also characteristic of this government’s quick-fix approach to issues with systemic causes. And clearly, the drama fails to truly challenge entrenched misogyny and toxic masculinity. If anything, it has only fuelled them – so it’s neither appropriate, nor enough. The government can’t tackle male violence against women and girls with half-baked, ill-thought out, and reactionary ideas like this.

    Let’s face it – schools are not even equipped to deal with bullying. Ask anyone who has ever been bullied – no amount of ‘anti-bullying weeks’ ever make an ounce of difference. The fact that he thinks he can throw Netflix drama Adolescence at schools and they’re equipped to tackle an issue as huge and as widespread as violence against women and girls, is quite frankly hilarious.

    You can sign the open letter, here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This isn’t about failure.

    It’s about design.

    The institutions built to “protect” children have never protected all children. They’ve protected order. They’ve protected structure. They’ve protected the image of safety — not the reality of it.

    And those of us who grew up inside the lie? We learned early that the moment your truth becomes inconvenient, you’re not just abandoned. You’re actively erased.

    It was never about not knowing

    They knew. They always knew.

    And not just the perpetrators. The teachers knew. The officers knew. The social workers, the heads of department, the child protection units — they all saw what we were up against. And they chose to look the other way.

    Because to acknowledge what was happening would have meant admitting the system wasn’t safe. And safety has always been more about optics than outcomes.

    So they denied it. Not because it wasn’t real — but because it was easier not to look.

    Silence was never passive. It was strategic.

    Institutional silence isn’t a byproduct. It’s a plan.

    It’s the way reports are minimised.
    The way disclosures are rerouted.
    The way inconvenient survivors are discredited.
    The way internal policies are written to close ranks, not open doors.

    It’s why high-profile scandals only come out when someone leaks a file, not when a child speaks. It’s why abuse cases are “historical” by the time they’re taken seriously — because time protects power.

    And the silence isn’t just situational. It’s generational. It gets passed down. Normalised. Professionalised.

    Safeguarding is PR

    Ask any survivor what happened after they disclosed and they’ll tell you: safeguarding wasn’t about safety. It was about containment.

    Disclosures trigger meetings, not action. Files, not protection. Strategy, not safeguarding.

    The institution’s primary concern? Risk — but not to the child. To their image. To their funding. To their reputation.

    This is how abuse becomes admin. How trauma becomes paperwork. How children become liabilities instead of lives.

    The outcome? The child gets moved. The perpetrator stays. The service “responds.” And the cycle quietly resets.

    Risk assessments that assess everything except risk

    A child is placed with a known offender. A family member raises the alarm. A referral is made.

    What happens?

    A strategy meeting is held. Risk is assessed. But not by survivors. Not by independent advocates. By those already invested in keeping the institution running smoothly.

    And more often than not? The outcome is a managed compromise.
    Not protection.
    Not removal.
    Not accountability.

    The system isn’t designed to stop harm. It’s designed to limit exposure — of itself.

    Credibility is a construct

    We’re judged on our tone. Our memory. Our presentation.

    Did we cry too much? Not enough?
    Did we pause before answering? Did we shout? Did we make someone uncomfortable?

    This is how credibility is measured — not by what happened, but by how cleanly we survive it.

    Survivors from care backgrounds, working-class communities, neurodivergent kids, kids with trauma histories — we are repeatedly positioned as unreliable.

    Not because we are. But because we don’t fit the system’s template for the “perfect victim.” And so we are filtered out, one by one.

    The blueprint never changed

    You can look at every decade and the pattern holds:

    He grooms.
    She speaks.
    They silence.
    He walks.
    She breaks.
    And the public moves on.

    The only thing that’s changed is the medium. Now it’s Snapchat. Discord. Instagram.
    But the method remains the same — and so does the outcome.

    Media complicity: headlines over humanity

    Even when these stories do make it out, the framing tells you everything:

    “She claimed…”
    “She alleges…”
    “The accused, a respected man in the community…”

    Media outlets have long participated in the erasure. Playing neutrality while platforming doubt.
    Survivors are reported on like suspects.
    Perpetrators are “family men” and “pillar figures” who’ve had “lives ruined by accusations.”

    The press might not be in the safeguarding meetings, but they’re in the room when public perception is shaped.

    And that shapes justice.

    Protection is political

    When the state fails to prosecute, when courts hand custody to abusers, when police don’t act despite evidence — that isn’t a resource issue.

    It’s a political decision.

    Protection in this country is tiered.
    Who you are. Where you’re from. What your voice sounds like. What they think you’ll become.

    That determines the weight of your safety.
    Some children are protected as future leaders.
    Others are managed as current liabilities.

    This is how institutional protection operates — on class lines, on cultural expectations, on reputational risk.

    The custody case that should’ve broken the system

    At the Grooming Files, one survivor shared her story.

    Groomed at 13. Controlled for 17 years. She escaped. She spoke out. She built a new life. She raised concerns when her teenage daughter was left in his care.

    The result?

    He was granted full custody.

    No pause. No review. No safeguarding check.

    A survivor who lived through grooming was disempowered again — this time, by a court of law.
    And this isn’t rare.
    It’s not rogue.
    It’s the system functioning.

    Historical abuse is still present tense

    We hear a lot about “historic abuse.”

    But for survivors, it’s not historic. It’s ongoing.

    It’s the ripple effect that never settles.
    It’s the custody case ten years later.
    It’s the social worker who still works in your area.
    It’s the school that never acknowledged what happened.
    It’s the police report you never saw.

    The trauma is present.
    The silence is present.
    The consequences are daily.

    Inquiry fatigue: when truth becomes trend

    We’ve had inquiries.
    We’ve had exposés.
    We’ve had reports with executive summaries and policy suggestions.

    And what changed?

    Some new safeguarding language.
    Some job reshuffles.
    A few headlines.
    And then silence, again.

    We don’t need more apologies from people who still have power.
    We need a system that doesn’t require public outrage before it acts.

    This isn’t just a safeguarding crisis. It’s a national shame.

    The UK has spent decades perfecting the art of appearing responsive while remaining inactive.

    We have safeguarding boards and frameworks.
    We have posters and slogans.
    We have hashtags.
    But what we don’t have is accountability.

    Predators still operate within schools, homes, clubs, and churches — protected by respectability, by bureaucracy, by fear.

    Children still go unheard.
    Survivors still carry the cost.
    And the cycle still repeats.

    We’re not waiting for you anymore

    We’ve watched this system protect itself for long enough.

    We’ve watched survivors penalised for speaking while perpetrators are protected through process.

    We’ve watched organisations posture while families crumble.
    We’ve watched truths watered down until they’re palatable enough to ignore.

    We’ve had enough.

    We’re not asking for your justice.
    We’re not begging for your belief.
    We’re not playing by your rules.

    We are naming you.
    We are tracking you.
    We are refusing your silence.

    This is not an awareness campaign.
    It’s a dismantling.

    If this sounds familiar — you’re not alone.
    Submit your story to the Grooming Files here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Sophie Lewis

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Staggering levels of online misogyny is driving young people, particularly women, away from social media. This is according to new polling commissioned by Amnesty International UK and carried out by Savanta. Through the testimony of more than 3,000 Gen Z respondents, the findings paint a damning picture of the misogyny plaguing spaces meant for creativity and connection.

    It underscores the urgent need for tech platforms to overhaul their policies and take concrete steps toward ensuring safer digital communities.

    Toxic tech: social media rife with misogyny

    The polling, Toxic Tech: How Misogyny is Shaping Gen Z’s Online Experience is taken from the testimony of 3,024 Gen Z respondents from a nationally representative sample of the UK population.

    An overwhelming 73% of Gen Z social media users have witnessed misogynistic content online, with half encountering it on a weekly basis. Moreover, the problem is only getting worse. The polling found that 70% believe misogynistic and divisive language has increased on social media.

    Alarmingly, 55% expressed concerns about seeing misogynistic content. On top of this, less than half (49%) feel that social media is a safe space.

    The polling also uncovers the shocking forms of online harassment faced by Gen Z women, including:

    • More than half (53%) receiving inappropriate emojis (e.g., 🍆💦) on their posts and photos
    • 44% receiving unsolicited explicit images
    • 43% being body-shamed
    • 40% subjected to unwanted sexually suggestive comments
    • 32% experiencing hate speech
    • 27% reporting online stalking

    TikTok: the worst offender

    Among social media platforms, TikTok is seen as the worst offender. Specifically, 70% of respondents reported encountering misogynistic content on TikTok, rising to 80% for women. Instagram followed at 61%, then Twitter/X with 37%, YouTube 31%, and Facebook 30%.

    One young person said:

    As a woman it’s something women experience everyday. I no longer post on social media due to the constant hate and negativity. Even seeing the comments/hate directed towards somebody else is soul destroying.

    Another Gen Z respondent said:

    It’s so ingrained in society, that many people don’t recognise it when it’s happening – which is sad. The hatred of women is everywhere and dictates the way men behave online.

    Marginalised groups and intersectional risks

    Disabled Gen Z women are twice as likely as non-disabled women to spend more than ten hours a day on social media (11% vs 6%)

    Three in ten disabled women 29% who have experienced online misogyny, reported that they had received threats of violence online. By comparison, this was the case for one in five of non-disabled people (18%).

    Racially minoritised Gen Z women who have experienced online misogyny, are more likely to have experienced hate speech than their white counterparts (38 vs 31%).

    The mental health toll and coping strategies

    Online misogyny is having a severe impact on mental health:

    • 55% of those who have experienced online misogyny have blocked users in response to abusive content.
    • 44% of Gen Z women who had experienced online misogyny in the UK report negative mental health impacts from exposure to misogynistic content.
    • 35% have switched their accounts to private.
    • 30% have taken screenshots as evidence of abuse received
    • 22% avoid posting certain types of content.
    • 20% have avoided or left platforms altogether.

    The polling identified that 62% of Gen Z believe misogyny on social media mirrors real-world sexism. However, there’s a significant gender split on this belief with Gen Z women (71%) more likely to agree than Gen Z men (51%).

    One Gen Z man said:

    Anything online is a joke and people who cry about others rage baiting need a helmet.

    Another Gen Z man said:

    It isn’t that deep. It’s all a laugh.

    Whereas a Gen Z woman said:

    Online misogyny often reflects real life attitudes, it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

    Who Gen Z think is fuelling the problem

    Over 60% of Gen Z attributed the rise in misogynistic language online to statements or actions by political leaders.

    Meanwhile, 55% believed TikTok actively contributes to the problem. Notably, 61% of Gen Z women specifically pointed to the platform’s role in fuelling online misogyny.

    Public figures and influencers were also cited as driving divisive narratives, from a list of high-profile social media users:

    • Men most frequently named Andrew Tate (50%) as a key source of online misogyny
    • Women pointed to Donald Trump (58%) as a major contributor
    • 61% believe the rhetoric and actions of political leaders is fueling online toxicity
    • 47% blame statements and actions by tech leaders for worsening the problem

    In the last month, 57% of Gen Z men have reported they’ve seen content from Musk, 55% from Trump, and 41% from Andrew Tate.

    More women than men had seen content from Donald Trump (60% against 55%)

    What needs to change?

    Gen Z is demanding urgent action from social media platforms and policymakers.

    The polling found that 65% believe tech leaders have a responsibility to combat online misogyny, with concrete measures such as:

    • Harsher penalties for offenders (39%)
    • Stronger reporting and blocking features (37%)
    • Stronger content moderation and quicker removal of misogynistic content (33%)
    • Tougher rules and consequences (30%)

    However,  as well as pointing to the role of tech giants, 54% of Gen Z (and 46% of Gen Z men) think all men have either a lot, or full responsibility for addressing misogyny on social media.

    Time for action from Big Tech

    Recent changes in content moderation policies on Meta and X have sparked concerns that key safeguards against hate speech and abuse are being dismantled. In a bid to champion unfettered expression, these platforms have relaxed rules that once limited harmful content, creating an environment where abusive rhetoric can proliferate. This shift raises pressing questions about the balance between free speech and protecting users from online harm.

    In the case of TikTok despite having robust policies in place, enforcement remains inconsistent. TikTok’s algorithm, for instance, can inadvertently amplify harmful narratives, exposing a predominantly young audience to misogynistic content.

    These failures not only compromise user safety but also contribute to a normalisation of misogyny in digital spaces, leaving many women vulnerable to abuse.

    Amnesty is calling on social media companies to take urgent action to address the epidemic of online misogyny by:

    • Strengthening content moderation policies to swiftly remove misogynistic content.
    • Implementing more robust reporting mechanisms for victims of online abuse.
    • Holding offenders accountable through enforcing meaningful penalties.
    • Increasing transparency on platform efforts to curb harmful content.

    Online misogyny ‘does real world harm’

    Amnesty International UK’s Gender Justice Programme director Chiara Capraro said:

    This polling paints a deeply troubling picture of the digital world young people are forced to navigate.

    Tech companies continue to prioritise profit over people’s safety and the result is a barrage of misogynistic content which deeply affects young people’s online experience. A toxic ‘bro’ culture is driving many young women away from social media altogether.

    Gen Z are being inundated by a deluge of online misogyny, and these findings should be a stark wake-up call for tech leaders, who have either ignored the abuse their users are experiencing or, in some cases, actively contributed to letting it rip.

    Social media should be a space for creativity, expression, and connection—not a hostile environment rife with harassment and hate. It’s time for tech companies to step up and take responsibility for the safety of their users. Women’s rights are human rights and online misogyny does real world harm.

    She added:

    A toxic ‘bro’ culture is driving many young women away from social media altogether.

    Empowering change through music and community

    Despite the toxic environment, 40% of women said they have found support from other women through social media, and 36% of those who had found support in this way felt empowered to speak out more as a result.

    This underscores the resilience of online communities that push back against hate and create safer spaces.

    To spark dialogue and drive meaningful action, on Thursday 20 March, Amnesty International UK hosted an event. Mahalia Presents: Change the Record was a collaboration between acclaimed R&B singer Mahalia and Amnesty. Mahalia personally curated this one-of-a-kind event which featured some of the most exciting artists in the UK using their artistry to highlight that women’s rights are human rights and inspire audiences to stand together for change.

    Speaking of her own experience and involvement, Mahalia said:

    As an artist and as a woman, I see first-hand the ways misogyny plays out online. Like many women, I regularly get unwanted comments on my appearance, and I see vulgar name calling and attempts to silence and intimidate women just being themselves.

    Social media should be a place where we lift each other up, not a space that forces women to shrink themselves or hide.

    This research is a wake-up call—but more importantly, it’s a call to action. Women’s rights are human rights, and I stand with Amnesty in demanding we change the record.

    Amnesty is encouraging young people to stand up to misogyny whenever they encounter it and to help #changetherecord on misogyny.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Gareth Southgate might not have had a series of dazzling victories or a collection of gleaming silver trophies to hold up to the skies.

    But one thing is for certain, he is one of the greatest managers that England has ever had, with his ability to unify and build a team environment that represented the very best of us as a country, during some of our hardest moments.

    Gareth Southgate’s timely speech calls out misogynistic men

    In the wake of Netflix’s hit show Adolescence, Gareth Southgate gave a profoundly timely speech which was centred around the themes of “toxic masculinity”, men’s addiction and exposure to porn, gambling and misogynistic content, and an increasing absence of father figures.

    He believes that this is having a hugely negative impact upon men who are desperately in need of role models to whom they can look up to and seek encouragement from.

    In charge of the England football team for eight years, Southgate led the Lions to two finals in both Euro 2020 and 2024, and oversaw a group of players who worked together, laughed together, and cried many tears together.

    Through it all, Southgate was a shoulder to cry on, a father figure and a football coach all in one, and someone that will be remembered for his patience, kindness and statesmanship.

    This level of empathy shone through during his speech and is something that is hugely lacking in today’s society.

    Sports can empower young men in a positive way

    Men are instead radicalised by callous people like Andrew Tate, who believe that an alpha male is someone that invests in crypto, treats women like property, possesses a six pack, and owns countless material items.

    This arguably only leads men to perceiving themselves as catastrophic failures, when really, they are just normal men who are trying to survive in a climate that deems them as weak if they don’t adhere to these warped standards that Tate sets out for them.

    Southgate on the other hand, offers something completely different, and suggests that participating in a hobby such as sports, is an avenue that is far more empowering than being glued to a phone that sits neatly in the palm of your hand like a parasitic leech.

    This poison, that has taken over society like a menacing and calculated criminal, is the smartphone, a device that young people are often taken prisoner of for fourteen hours a day, wreaking havoc on relationships, health, and wellbeing.

    With just one touch, men can access porn, obsessively game and gamble to their hearts content, getting into crippling debt, and as a result, feel completely cut off and alienated from the rest of the world.

    Perhaps the most heartbreaking element of his lecture was his focus upon young men who are suffering from poor mental health due to the Andrew Tate rhetoric that men should:

    not show emotion and never show weakness.

    As a result of this, more and more men are turning to their phone, rather than the people who really love and care about them such as their friends, family, teachers, bosses and coaches:

    Young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk, or express their emotions.

    Young men ‘fail to try, rather than try and fail’ due to Tate-like figures

    Southgate, a man who has been faced with multiple setbacks and failures in his life, suggests that failure is the only way young men ever learn to grow a sense of resilience and strength, and as a result, become better versions of themselves.

    In the lecture, he reflected on his crucial missed penalty at the Euros in 1996, and stated:

    That pain still haunts me today, and I guess it always will.

    Southgate said it was a “watershed moment” when he missed the goal, but ultimately this failure forced him to:

    dig deep, and revealed an inner belief and resilience I never knew existed.

    But he also added that currently young men fear failure because of how they will be viewed by society, and instead:

    fail to try, rather than try and fail.

    Firmly railing against Tate, and other figures like him, he said that:

    we have to show young men that character is more important than status.

    In this sense, Southgate offered words of solace for young men, who might not have missed a penalty, but will all, at some points have experienced failure and setbacks.

    He encouraged men to not just view success through the lens of social media which bombards men with unrealistic and harmful content of people lifting trophies, winning fights, or driving beaming Lamborghinis and Ferraris out of car showrooms, and instead wants them to see success as:

    how you respond in the hardest moments.

    Gareth Southgate’s speech: a tonic against toxic masculinity

    It’s no wonder therefore that young men feel lost, with more and more parents raising concerns about the fact that young men are clearly suffering and are:

    grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society.

    Speaking from his own experiences as England manager, he called on society to help create more leaders who can:

    set the right tone and to be the role models we want for our young men.

    To craft a society that is nurturing of young boys and men – often trapped in poverty or experiencing marginalisation – he proposed investing in schools, youth clubs, and family relationships that foster a true sense of connection and belonging.

    Social media feeds are not validating men and are only pushing them further towards extremism where influencers consistently bombard them with content that pushes a certain narrative of what masculinity really looks like, which is an extremely insular view.

    Southgate overall, makes a rallying call for there to be less monetisation of masculinity, less marketing figures, and less virulent algorithms.

    It is no wonder, that in an ever-growing capitalist world that pushes gym bodies, videos of cash being thrown around by influencers like confetti, that marginalised young men feel failed, worthless, and indifferent to the world.

    Instead of this, society should be striving towards a world where men feel valued beyond the realms of what capitalism constitutes as success and Southgate offers a welcome tonic to the current climate that we must listen to, before more young men are lost to dark voids that they can’t ever escape from.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Megan Miley

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A new government-commissioned Review Creating a Safer World – the Challenge of Regulating Online Pornographyrecommends overhauling the government’s approach to online pornography, giving the state more power to police sexual content and its use. Conservative peer Baroness Gabby Bertin led the Review, scrutinising current pornography and the legal response to it. 

    Waving it through

    National news outlets have welcomed the Review, and we are yet to see any public figures question the Review’s recommendations. The Guardian, Independent, and ITV describe the Review and give it a broad thumbs-up. BBC News dedicated two sentences to a worry about policing sexual tastes, quoting from content creator Madelaine Thomas, but otherwise praised the recommendations.

    The Daily Mail headlined their piece with the shocking claim “Teenage boys are asking teachers how to CHOKE girls during sex,” a claim repeated in the Independent, BBC, and on Women’s Hour by BBC’s Home Editor. This claim appears multiple times in the Review itself, but the actual question a teacher reported being asked was: “How can I choke someone safely?” Every reference to this claim thus far has removed the word “safely”. It’s a small difference, but completely changes the meaning. The alteration of the quote, and its repetition, is an effective way of heightening public panic about our children, thus easing a jump to the ill-justified extension of state power. 

    Government ministers are promising urgent action, and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology indicated a readiness to use new powers to remove illegal content and punish providers, adding: “if I have to adapt the law in response to any gaps that emerge in these powers then of course I’ll act as swiftly as I can.”

    Baroness Bertin might have expected resistance to the Review, but judging by the reception so far, it seems it could be adopted rapidly with little pushback. 

    Policing pornography

    Currently, pornography is legislated through the Online Safety Act 2023, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and Obscene Publications Act 1959. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) restricts publication of offline content, and Ofcom deals with online content. The Review recommends expanding the remit of these bodies: BBFC would moderate online content, passing it to Ofcom to enforce. 

    The Review recommends a new legislative Review to ensure “effective prosecution and enforcement” of possession offenses. Currently, police largely target individuals for possession of illegal pornography when that person is suspected of a different crime. This approach is likely to generate a distorted impression of who uses illegal pornography. The Review recommends: 

    Illegal pornography offences should be accurately tracked in the police database and a nationally agreed and consistent approach should be implemented across police forces in the UK to better record incidences of these crimes. This would improve the understanding of links between illegal pornography and other offences, particularly those of a sexual nature.

    What would this “consistent approach” look like? We don’t know, but given the Review’s assumption that pornography is linked to violence, and given how Stop and Search powers are used, we should be worried about how police will target and investigate pornography possession. 

    Broad and vague

    The Review proposes making some content illegal (choking, and incest pornography) and making some content harder to find. The aim is to make anything that the BBFC wouldn’t classify offline, illegal online. This wouldn’t just apply to choking and incest porn, but also to anything considered currently “legal but harmful.” This category is broad and vague, and I am pessimistic about what the government may decide should count. These decisions will affect people on both sides of the screen.

    Parts of the Review acknowledged existing injustices, including stigmatisation and de-banking of pornography performers.

    De-banking is where your bank closes your account without your consent. This can be devastating; preventing people from paying rent, buying food, and receiving wages and essential financial support. It is all too common for sex workers to be de-banked, even if their work is legal. Unfortunately, the Review suggests that only “illegitimate debanking” need be combatted. Apparently de-banking some workers is okay, if they work in the wrong kind of porn. 

    Current policy relating to pornography sits in multiple government departments. The Review recommends putting pornography squarely under the Home Office. This treats pornography as an essentially criminal matter. We should be very concerned about a policy shift that treats sexual entertainment, sexual labour, and sexual desire as matters of national security. 

    Dangerous myths

    The message throughout this Review is: pornography is dangerous, and though we don’t have the data (yet) to prove how harmful it is, we need to act to protect our children.

    When we treat sexual material as uniquely dangerous and dirty, we reinforce the stigmatisation of sex workers and misogyny more broadly. The myth that sexual desire is vulgar, and that good girls don’t engage with pornography, is a key element of the patriarchal standards that drive slut-shaming and violence against women, especially sex workers

    Many women do watch pornography. According to PornHub’s 2024 statistics, women users are more likely than men to search for ‘hardcore’ and ‘bondage’. We must not perpetuate the myth that real women only desire romantic, vanilla sex, and only consume softcore, high-brow erotica. Women’s tastes are varied, and the urge to police what counts as virtuous sexuality only empowers oppressors. 

    Giving the state the role of differentiating good, feminist content, from bad, misogynistic content, will never end well for marginalised people. The 2014 Audio-Visual Media Services Regulations aimed to draw up a list of violent and obscene content. This disproportionately impacted queer pornography and representations of women’s pleasure (sparking the spectacular face-sitting protests). Why should we think that next time they’ll get it right?

    Similarly, utilising ‘proactive technology,’ as the Review advocates, is asking for trouble. Technology replicates the prejudices in the society that designs it. For example, Instagram’s algorithms for censoring content have yielded multiple scandals. Sex workers find their posts removed and accounts limited, even if they broke no rules. Black people, fat people, and queer people were having their photos removed while comparable posts from cis, straight, white people were not. 

    Keeping us safe from pornography?

    There is plenty wrong with online pornography today, just as there is plenty wrong with Hollywood movies, television series, advertising, and all kinds of media. 

    Expanding state powers, and equating pornography with violence, will put us in more danger. 

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Dr Rosa Vince

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • After waking up and hearing the news that Kyle Clifford had watched Andrew Tate videos before his sadistic rape and murder of Louise Hunt (his then-girlfriend) and the cold-blooded killing of her sister and mum, it got me thinking: surely now, people will stand up against the war of terror on women?

    Andrew Tate: a vilified misogynist

    Andrew Tate, who has been charged in Romania for rape and human trafficking as well as setting up organised crime groups to sexually exploit women, is a vilified misogynist. He makes hating women and girls his career, as he bombards men and young, vulnerable teenage boys with content that encourages them to treat women as subordinate and deserving of punishment and abuse if they don’t do as they are instructed by their ‘master’. 

    In several of his clips, he consistently discusses choking women, controlling them, and even threatening them with a machete:

    It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch.

    Self-styled hero to men and boys, Tate is instead the absolute embodiment of toxic masculinity. He and his views no longer hide in the shadows of the dark web, but in full view of the public as he perpetuates the very seams of social media, with his videos worryingly being viewed more than 11.6 billion times. 

    Yet little to nothing has been done by social media platforms to prevent Tate’s extremely harmful content from appearing on people’s timelines. It seems that there is no care or guardrails even remotely being put up to stop him from poisoning the minds of boys who are infected by the Tate misogyny parasite. 

    More and more, we see young teenage boys being pulled into the sphere of Tate and other dangerous far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson.

    Ensnaring young men and boys

    Many teachers across schools in England have also expressed their concerns. The growing influence of Andrew Tate is doing irreparable harm to the minds of boys who believe that women are beneath them and should be forced to simply stay in the house to cook and clean and obey their orders. 

    Enamoured by Tate’s lifestyle – the flash cars, the Lamborghinis, and the crypto – it is clear that Andrew Tate is essentially grooming young boys en masse to share his same deeply polluted and chauvinistic views, so they too might become minions of Tate

    But the reality of that is far from the truth.

    It will simply create people like Kyle Clifford, who was so incandescent with rage towards his girlfriend that he plotted the triple murder for months on end before he eventually carried out his savage and cold-blooded crime.   

    Before committing murder, he had begun to research and purchase weapons as well as watching porn online and misogynistic videos. 

    The prosecutor, Alison Morgan, argued that the kind of material and content that Clifford was searching was key in terms of how:

    he views women and why sexualised violence is an important part of the attack.

    During the trial, the prosecution was also told that Clifford did not like to be told “no” by women. Louise had raised concerns to close friends and loved ones about him being an aggressive person with a very nasty temper. 

    Enabling misogyny, rape, and murder

    Four British women who had sued Andrew Tate on Thursday for his harmful content, and published a statement through their lawyers, also reinforced the call for Tate to be removed from social media companies’ platforms, as the misogynist continues to “reap enormous profits from his hateful content”. 

    Whilst women are made to suffer, boys as young as 10 and 11 are being convinced to believe the rhetoric that “men are better than women”. There are even reports of young girls in the classroom who engage with Andrew Tate’s content being asked for sex by their schoolmates. 

    It is therefore clear that this ultra-macho world is more than just crypto, fitness, and getting other men on side. It also suggests that belittling women is fine and acceptable in a world where Tate and others like him are not held to account for their actions. 

    Similar to being groomed for a terrorist gang or organisation, teachers have also raised concerns that schools must get a grip on Tate’s catastrophic influence on teenage boys. They’ve said that the public and government needs to start a wider conversation about how to stop violence against women and girls and his impact and encouragement of this. 

    Police have raised fears and alarms too. They have in recent years and months come across cases where Andrew Tate has been at the front and centre of the radicalisation of young men, with recent statistics from the NPCC stating that from 2022-23, violence against women and girls accounted for “20% of all police recorded crime”.

    Andrew Tate: blood on his hands

    To make matters worse, just last week, Andrew Tate was welcomed to the US with open arms by president Donald Trump who evidently sees the influencer as a useful tool to reinforce his anti-DEI and anti-‘woke’ world view. 

    This is not at all surprising considering that Trump has been accused of raping several women in the US and made consistent comments that degrade women. For example, during his first election campaign he deemed it as acceptable to “grab em by the pussy” (meaning women). So, Trump clearly sees Tate as a man who is cut from the same twisted cloth.  

    Surely this is enough for social media companies to take back control to protect users from such harmful and repulsive content?

    We must do more to protect women and girls across the country who are at a high risk of experiencing abuse at the hands of men by removing Tate from social media platforms. 

    It is evident that by simply letting Andrew Tate continue to pollute the minds of men and boys across the world, we are not only going to see a rise in domestic abuse and violence, but the rapes and murders of young women and girls.  

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Megan Miley

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

    • United Nations observes International Women’s Day, celebrating advances but warning of push-back and “mainstreaming of misogyny”
    • Trump hosts White House summit on bitcoin, vows to make USA the “crypto capital of the world”
    • Trump says he’s “strongly considering” new sanctions on Russia, as massive drone strike hits Ukraine energy infrastructure
    • Measles outbreak in West Texas still growing, as CDC plans study of vaccine-autism link despite research showing no connection

    The post United Nations observes International Women’s Day, warning of “mainstreaming of misogyny”; Trump holds White House summit on cryptocurrency he once said “seems like a scam” – March 7, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.


    This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Million Women Rise are gearing up for their annual march on this Saturday 8th March. The group will be marching in central London on International Women’s Day – but this is a group with a key difference. On their website, they write:

    The march and other MWR activities are led and organised by Black women for ALL women. We recognise the interconnectedness of systems of oppression. We work together to create safe spaces, free from fascism, discrimination and hate.

    Feminist groups that advocate and organise against male violence can be dominated by cis, white, and middle class women. Million Women Rise make it clear that they’re working with an intersectional approach:

    When we demand  an end to men’s violence against us, this includes calling for the dismantling of all oppressive structures that promote and facilitate everything from misogynoir through to ableism.

    Million Women Rise: violence in statistics

    Million Women Rise explain that one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. However, amongst these vital statistics is another heartbreaking consideration:

    The statistics below only give the “official” picture in England and Wales. Many victims/survivors do not report their experiences to state agencies. This mean that the data does not show the true scale of violence.

    Many people are violently coerced into not reporting their experiences. Even then, a diversity of experiences of violence means women will have wide-ranging differences in the kind of help they need:

    Services such as specialist Black/Global majority women’s services, Rape Crisis Centres and Women’s Aid refuges are a lifeline for many victim/survivors. The numbers of women and children being supported in this way is not presented in the “official” data.

    Instead, Million Women Rise emphasise that they’re also marching for people who have no choice but to suffer silently:

    While their experiences are not part of the “numbers”, we hold their truths in our hearts.

    Intersectional concerns

    Disabled women are often a group that is lost in statistics. The Office on Women’s Health writes:

    Research suggests that women with disabilities are more likely to experience domestic violence, emotional abuse, and sexual assault than women without disabilities. Women with disabilities may also feel more isolated and feel they are unable to report the abuse, or they may be dependent on the abuser for their care. Like many women who are abused, women with disabilities are usually abused by someone they know, such as a partner or family member.

    Recent research from the World Health Organisation suggests that older women and disabled women are most at risk for sexualised violence.

    In order to understand, never mind address, the way that male violence against disabled people is deployed we need a much broader understanding of barriers to care. Disabled people are more likely to be poor – and intersections therein are common. Disability services often cater largely to white disabled people and disregard the specific needs of disabled people of colour.

    Whilst organisations that offer support to people who’ve suffered male violence are already underfunded, this is further compounded when it comes to organisations that cater to a more specific group. For example, disability services are also stretched when it comes to resources and underfunding. But, when a disabled person of colour experiencing sexualised violence needs support, they can’t separate out the parts of themselves that need support to the relevant source of help.

    Million Women Rise: come together

    Million Women Rise are demanding and taking space for all kinds of women. Black women, disabled women, trans women, Muslim women, are a part of this movement. There isn’t always a neat way to articulate all the different parts of someone’s identity that fundamentally change experiences of male violence. It should, in fact, be a given that somebody who is a trans disabled woman of colour is more likely to experience sexualised violence, and needs to have the support they require. That’s something which is the responsibility of institutions, organisations, and each of us.

    Catering just, or primarily, for cis, white, able-bodied, middle class people shuts out so many people. The more specific the care, organising, and advocacy we can put out into the world, the more all of us benefit.

    The march will set off from Duke Street on Saturday 8th March at 12pm, culminating in a rally at 3:00pm in Trafalgar Square – more information here

    Featured image supplied

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Self-professed misogynists and alleged rapists and human traffickers Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan left Romania on a US-bound private jet, and are now in Florida. This was after officials lifted a travel ban which had been barring them from leaving the country amidst a slate of serious criminal charges.

    Notably, lobbying from the Trump administration looks to have played a role in Romania’s sudden relaxing of Tate’s travel restrictions.

    Now, the UK solicitor representing British women survivors of Tate’s alleged violent crimes, has lambasted prime minister Keir Starmer amidst his Whitehouse visit. In particular, he has called out the Labour Party government’s failure to act to prevent the two leaving for the US – when it knew “more than a week ago” it could happen.

    Andrew Tate: arch misogynist influencer and alleged rapist US-bound

    The dual US-UK citizens and self-styled sexist social media influencers are facing criminal charges in Romania for a series of serious and violent crimes. This includes allegations of human trafficking, rape, and money laundering. They also stand accused of forming a criminal gang to exploit women.

    Alongside these charges in Romania, the pair of arch chauvinists face further allegations in the UK. These are for similar reported sexual violence crimes – again including both rape, and human trafficking. In addition to this, Westminster Magistrates Court previously ruled that British police could seize nearly £2.7m from the Tate brothers in unpaid tax.

    Four survivors of sexual assault who have made allegations against Tate have spoken out on the news. As the BBC reported, the group issued a joint statement. In this, they expressed that they are in “disbelief and feel re-traumatised” by the turn of events. Moreover, they articulated their worry that Tate would:

    use it as an opportunity to harass further and intimidate witnesses and his accusers, and he will continue to spread his violent, misogynistic doctrine around the world.

    Romania’s law enforcement service DIICOT have not dropped the investigation. Moreover, purportedly, it will require the Tate brothers to return to Romania. Under Romania’s law of “judicial control”, reports suggest that the country could call the pair back to Romania by the end of March.

    However, the British women waiting for justice expressed their view that the move to lift the travel ban means that the Tate brothers will now evade justice. They stated that:

    It is clear that he will now not face criminal prosecution for his alleged crimes in Romania.

    Already, Romania appears to be lifting some of its legal action against the brothers. A representative of the Tate brothers has said that Romanian authorities have returned some of their seized assets. It includes five properties, and another which they partially own, six cars, company shares, and frozen bank accounts.

    The Trump admin’s influence over Andrew Tate travel ban

    As ardent Donald Trump supporters, since the president’s inauguration, the Whitehouse had been operating to intervene. Of course, Trump himself is a staunch and outspoken misogynist, convicted felon, and rapist. So it’s perhaps little wonder the president has been fighting in their corner since he entered the Oval Office.

    And notably, the Tate brothers have long had connections to the reprising president. As the Guardian’s Matt Shea reported recently:

    The alliance between the Trump administration and the Tate brothers has been in the making for a long time. Paul Ingrassia, one of the lawyers Andrew Tate hired to fight his human trafficking case, was recently sworn in as the White House liaison for the Department of Justice. According to him, the Tate brothers were “sacrificed on the altar of the Matrix under the banner of egregious crimes they never committed”.

    Andrew Tate has been friends since 2016 with Donald Trump Jr, who called Tate’s detention “absolute insanity”. Donald Trump himself also appeared on a stream with the Andrew Tate sycophant and collaborator Adin Ross in August 2024. Around the same time, JD Vance appeared on the pro-Tate podcast the Nelk Boys.

    Elon Musk responded to Tate’s plan to “run for prime minister of the UK” by saying “he’s not wrong” and JD Vance followed both Tate brothers on X in December.

    Now, the pairs sudden departure comes not little over a week after Trump’s envoy Richard Grenell raised it. He did so with Romania’s foreign minister Emil Hurezeanu at a security conference in Munich.

    Given the recent lobbying efforts of the Trump administration, UK solicitor Matthew Jury has called out the UK government for its failure to pre-empt this outcome.

    Starmer knew that the ‘serial rapist’ could soon slip out out of reach

    In an online statement on X, Jury wrote:

    The news that pressure by the Trump Administration has led to Andrew Tate, and his brother Tristan, being allowed to leave Romania by its authorities is equal parts disgusting and dismaying.

    There is clear evidence to support the allegations against Tate that he is one of the world’s worst human traffickers and serial rapists.

    That the US Government would choose to lobby for his release is absurd but sadly, given its actions over the past month, perhaps unsurprising.

    Any suggestion that the Tates will now face justice in Romania is fanciful.

    The UK authorities must take immediate steps to secure their extradition to the UK to face charges for the offences of human trafficking and rape they are alleged to have committed in this jurisdiction.

    Romania has embarrassed itself. The UK must not do the same.

    @10DowningStreet was aware this may happen more than a week ago. The fact that nothing seems to have been done to prevent it is concerning. One can only hope action will now be taken.

    Given that @Keir_Starmer is in the US today to meet with
    @realDonaldTrump perhaps his team may take the opportunity to raise this issue on behalf of the many British women who Tate is alleged to have raped and sexually assaulted who may now be denied justice.

    However, a Downing Street spokesperson has declined to comment on the news. Moreover, as the BBC detailed, he refused to confirm whether Starmer would raise it with Trump. The UK prime minister is currently visiting the Whitehouse. His office said only that since it was a “live case”, then:

    you wouldn’t expect us to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

    And his spokesperson added that:

    This was a decision taken by the Romanian courts independently following due process and their investigation remains in place.

    But more widely, the prime minister has been clear that human trafficking should be viewed as a global security threat, similar to terrorism.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BBC has reported that “MI5 lied to three courts while defending its handling of a misogynistic neo-Nazi state agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete”. It’s also emerged that secret service bosses then tried to persuade the BBC not to run the story.

    Unfortunately, violence by state enforcers against women is nothing new – as Spycops survivors will attest to.

    MI5: the lowest of the low

    MI5 has apologised for its “serious error” in covering for agent ‘X’, who violently “terrorised his partner”. The latter’s lawyer, meanwhile, said:

    I think this raises real concerns about MI5’s transparency, about whether we can trust MI5’s evidence to courts.

    The BBC explained:

    Exposure of MI5’s false testimony will also damage its credibility in other court proceedings, where judges are obliged to give enormous weight and deference to the Security Service’s evidence.

    These often involve secret hearings which are closed even to those most affected

    The Security Service claims its “neither confirm nor deny” policy is to “keep agents safe”. But the BBC questions how “it may stand in the way of agents being held accountable when they abuse their positions or commit crimes”.

    Trying to silence the BBC – MI5-style

    Further to this, and as the Telegraph reported:

    The head of MI5 rang the BBC director-general in an effort to get a story about an abusive undercover agent pulled from publication, it has emerged.

    Sir Ken McCallum contacted Tim Davie directly…

    The BBC claims the director general of the Security Service tried to “cast doubt” on the truth of the allegations being made against the MI5 agent.

    The corporation refused to drop the story, and the Government then took it to court in order to prevent details of the case being made public.

    The Telegraph noted that “Suella Braverman, the attorney general at the time, sought an injunction preventing [the BBC] from airing the programme.

    The British state throws women under the bus to protect the rich and powerful

    Away from MI5, and the massive Spycops scandal revealed the extent of political policing in Britain, and there have been constant delays in the search for justice, making it “one of the longest public inquiries in UK history”.

    For decades, secretive police units used undercover officers to infiltrate activist organisations. As the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance reported in 2023, police targeted “around 1,000 campaigning and left wing groups”, only three of which the Inquiry Chair found to have been “‘a legitimate target’ for undercover policing of any kind”. As Madoc Roberts, one of the film-makers behind the Spies Who Ruined Our Lives documentary, previously told the Canary:

    unless you joined all the dots together, you wouldn’t have known that this was political policing, until you discover that it’s 1,000 groups and that all the groups just happened to be left-wing…

    I think it is one of the biggest scandals that we’ve seen.

    In 2024, the Canary spoke to Jessica, who is involved in ongoing civil claims. She told us how an undercover officer groomed her when she was a vulnerable 19-year-old “for no reason”. And she slammed “the absolute pointlessness” of what police spies did. She insisted that:

    the institutional sexism along with the institutional racism and institutional corruption and institutional misogyny… play a massive part in everything that they did

    She added “the more we find out, the worse it looks”.

    You can see the trailer of vital documentary Spies Who Ruined Our Lives here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) has paid out more than £18m in compensation to survivors in the last year. Yet of the hundreds and thousands of rape and sexual offences reported to UK police forces in the last year, an average of 5% resulted in a charge, a new investigation has revealed. This is no improvement on previous figures. It comes as minister for safeguarding and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Saige England

    Celebration time. Some Palestinian prisoners have been released. A mother reunited with her daughter. A young mother reunited with her babies.

    Still in prison are people who never received a fair trial, people that independent inquirers say are wrongly imprisoned. Still in prison kids who cursed soldiers who walked into their villages wielding guns.

    Still imprisoned far too many Palestinians who threw stones against bullets. Still imprisoned thousands of Palestinian hostages.

    Many of us never knew how many hostages had been stolen, hauled into jails by Israel before 7 October 2023. We only heard the one-sided story of that day. The day when an offence force on a border was taken by surprise and when it panicked and blasted and bombed.

    When that army guarding the occupation did more to lose lives than save lives.

    Many never knew and perhaps never will know how many of the Palestinians who were kidnapped before and after that day had been beaten and tortured, including with the torture of rape.

    We do know many have been murdered. We do know that some released from prison died soon after. We do not know how many more Palestinians will be taken hostage and imprisoned behind the prison no reporter is allowed to photograph.

    Israelis boast over prison crime
    The only clue to what happens inside is that Israelis have boasted this crime on national television. The clue is that Israeli soldiers have been tried for raping their own colleagues.

    Make no mistake, this is a mean misogynist mercantile army. No sensible rational caring person would wish to serve in it.

    No mother on any side of this conflict should lose her child. No father should bury his daughter or son. No grandparent should grieve over the loss of a life that should outlive them.

    The crimes need to be exposed. All of them. Our media filters the truth. It does not provide a fair or full story. If you want that switch for pity’s sake go to Al Jazeera English.

    When Radio New Zealand reports that people who fled are returning to Gaza it should report the full truth and not redact any part of the statement.

    The Palestinian people were forced to flee their homes in Gaza. Those who were never responsible for any crime were bombed out of their homes, they fled as their families were murdered, burned to death, shot by snipers. They fled while soldiers mocked their dead children.

    They return home to ashes. If we want peace we must face the truths that create conflict. We are all connected in peace and war and peace.

    Peace is the strongest greeting. It sears the heart and soars the soul.

    It can only be achieved when we recognise and stop the anguish that causes oppression.

    Saige England is a freelance journalist and author living in the Aotearoa New Zealand city of Ōtautahi.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Some have suggested that young men are drawn to Andrew Tate because they suffer from a dearth of social contact. Yet men go to Tate not to alleviate loneliness but to intensify it.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.