radiofree.asia

Category: Opinion

  • The Banana Benchmark: Can ‘Equivalency’ Carbon Labels Help Us Make Better Food Choices?

    carbon footprint labels
    6 Mins Read

    What’s the best way to relatably communicate the carbon footprint of food products on their packaging?

    What do a running man, a banana, and a footprint all have in common?

    No, it’s not the start of a bad joke, but each of these items has been used at one point or another to communicate risk to the public. 

    The ‘Banana Equivalent Dose’ was developed in the mid-90s as a way for scientists to explain radiation levels to a population concerned about nuclear exposure. Bananas contain potassium, a naturally radioactive substance, albeit in very small amounts – approximately 0.1 microsieverts per fruit.

    This fact led to the evolution of a banana rating scale to help explain nuclear exposure in units that were more easily understandable by you and me – going for a dental X-ray? That’s 50 bananas’ worth of radiation. Flying from New York to London? 400 bananas. Heading to your scheduled mammogram? 20,000 bananas. 

    What about living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant? Surprisingly, that’s the equivalent radiation dose to consuming just one extra banana per year. 

    Making climate risks relatable

    fork ranger
    Courtesy: Fork Ranger

    This idea of communicating risk using intuitive units rather than raw statistics has latterly also been trialled by the food industry. For example, brands have experimented with adding ‘exercise equivalent’ labels to products explaining how much time you’d need to spend running or walking to burn off the snack that you just ate. This time, one banana is equivalent to a 20-minute walk. A bar of chocolate, on the other hand, will double your walk length, while a large pizza will cost you an 80-minute hike. 

    And a similar approach has also been explored to explain the environmental risks associated with our diets. Here, research has looked into the benefits of communicating carbon emissions as a traffic light grading system, total values (an approach chosen by brands such as Oatly or Quorn), or simply designating items as ‘sustainable’ or ‘plant-based’.

    A little footprint icon or green leaf is often used on packaging and menus, while more recent research has looked into coloured food emojis as a more tangible alternative.

    Equivalently effective labeling

    The intention here is to communicate an otherwise complicated idea in more relatable terms, enabling consumers to make more mindful food choices. But, the big question is: do any of these approaches actually work? 

    When it comes to making healthier food choices, the research suggests that exercise equivalent labelling is indeed better than no labelling to help us cut the calories, but shows little benefit above standard numeric kcal information. For carbon footprints, fewer studies have looked into equivalent labels, although adding carbon information has been found to motivate more sustainable food choices in general. There is, however, no compelling evidence that one label format – i.e. colours, icons or numbers – is superior to any other.  It’s all equivalent, it seems.

    Clouds, coal or car trips?

    carbon footprint labels on food
    Courtesy: Royal Society for Public Health

    This leads us to the question: what is the most intuitive unit of carbon to communicate to the public? Should we be sticking with the numbers, or instead talking in terms of the size of a smoke cloud issuing from a factory chimney, the number of chunks of coal or even cans of carbonated drink that we have avoided when switching to more sustainable snacks? 

    Perhaps not, although using equivalent values that more naturally fit our own ‘saving the planet’ mental schemas may help. For example, talking in terms of the activities that we are already doing to cut our personal environmental footprints, such as making fewer car trips or fewer laundry loads, recycling bottles or cans, or avoiding plastic bags.

    Some quick calculations (with the help of ChatGPT) suggest that switching out one average burger meal may be equivalent to avoiding 3 typical car trips or 2 loads of laundry, recycling 10 aluminium cans, or foregoing 155 plastic bags. While these figures require more accurate calculation, they do help put our dietary choices into the context of our daily efforts to live more sustainably.  

    Climate costs in micro-lives

    Previous health research can also inspire other ideas to enhance the impact of carbon labels. Personalising risk estimates or visualising consequences (as in the case of cigarette pack images) have been used with some success to change risky health behaviours.

    Other studies have tried to make risk more concrete and salient by communicating the minutes of your life that you will lose as a direct consequence of small, but cumulative bad habits. Smoking one cigarette will cost you 20 minutes of life, for example, while switching out 10% of your daily calories from beef to plant-based foods will save you 48 minutes. 

    This concept of micro impacts might similarly prove valuable to describe the environmental impact of different items in more consequential terms. Relevant micro units here might be something like ‘days of extra AC you’ll need to pay for to combat extreme heat’ or ‘days that you’ll spend breathing in highly polluted air’ per steak consumed. 

    The promises and pitfalls of omni-labels

    carbon labels on food
    Courtesy: Nature Climate Change

    Environmental experts will add further critiques of carbon labels, with debates ongoing regarding which impacts we should talk about (e.g. carbon, methane, water, biodiversity etc), the accuracy of calculations, and how to describe trade-offs between these impacts and other factors relevant to our dietary decision-making.

    As the ultra-processed food debate has revealed, not all sustainable food choices are healthy, while not all low-carbon products are sustainable on all the environmental impact metrics we may care about. 

    It is here that the concept of ‘omni’ labels has been floated, as a way to communicate multiple health and environmental impacts wrapped into a single label or score. It remains to be seen whether cleverly designed versions of these labels will help consumers to make more value-aligned food choices, or whether they will just wash out the effect of a single compelling impact metric or lead to more overall confusion about what to eat.  

    While describing the environmental impact of our food is a valuable way for businesses to engage consumers and support better choices, carbon ‘literacy’ amongst the public remains low, and for those consumers who value convenience, taste or price to a greater extent than sustainability, omni-labels may be a case of just too much information. For these shoppers, a solid carbon equivalent label, in whatever format, might prove effective at landing the intended point of ‘eat this, not that’. 

    And if you’re thinking that reviving that banana benchmark might be a good way to go here, you may like to know you can eat almost 17 fruits to match the carbon footprint of one single beef burger.

    The post The Banana Benchmark: Can ‘Equivalency’ Carbon Labels Help Us Make Better Food Choices? appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Will Trump Keep His Promise to End the War in Ukraine?

    Ironically, it was the US under President Trump which has broken with the US national security establishment’s bi-partisan strategy of incremental encirclement and escalation against Russia. That break offered Europe the opportunity to escape the trap created by its past lack of policy vision. Instead, Europe has proved plus royaliste que le roi (more royal than the King) and has remained loyal to the US national security Deep State.

    — Thomas Palley

    In her recent “Threat Assessment” testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reasonably described Russia as a “formidable competitor.”  However, in keeping with Trump’s desire for improved diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow, she avoided the word “adversary.” And, in a thinly disguised reference to Biden’s “Ukraine Project,” Gabbard said that Russia has gained significant information about US intelligence and weapons from the Ukraine war. As for Biden’s plan to weaken or overthrow Putin, Gabbard concluded that the Russian leader “is presently less likely to be replaced than at any point in his quarter-century rule.” Gabbard’s assessment was considerably at odds with those under Biden, which referred to Russia’s “malign influence” and a threat to the United States and its allies. Most important is the conclusion that “This grinding war of attrition will lead to a steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempt to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.”  This is not an equivocal statement, and Trump surely knows it’s true.

    One encouraging consequence of the report is that it leaves Democrats and liberals in the awkward position of supporting not just a lost cause but one that’s increasingly becoming known as a war provoked by the United States. Those who’ve long asserted that Ukraine was used as a proxy have been provided further vindication — as if any was needed — by the “expose” in the New York Times, titled “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine.” The roughly 13,000-word piece is “secret” only if one relies on the Times as their only source of information. In any event, the article details how American military and intelligence officers shaped Ukraine’s strategy.  Planning began with the US and Ukraine at a clandestine meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany, in 2022, a gathering known “only to a small circle of American and allied officials.” As the war progressed, “One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback by how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in the Ukraine operation. They are part of the kill chain now.”

    One surely unintended takeaway for the reader from the Times’ investigation is US hubris. According to the authors, the Biden administration provided everything to Ukraine but boots on the ground, and the effort was succeeding until the Spring of 2023. At that point, Ukrainian generals went rogue, became disobedient, and denied their US overlords a devastating victory over Russian forces. The latter are barely stick figures waiting to be chopped down by Ukrainian forces, who the omniscient American advisors have been giving every advantage.  Zelensky also receives his share of the blame because he was too obsessed with good PR to be an effective wartime leader.

    Notably, none of the 300 (mostly anonymous) interviewees were Russian, so that perspective is absent. Not surprisingly, there’s neither a scintilla of remorse nor even a tacit admission of the price Ukrainians paid for allowing their country to be used by the United States in this manner.  Finally, one is forced to wonder whether this duplicitous account of the war will be the “blame game” narrative for the Democrats when the war is lost.

    Checkmate in Ukraine isn’t imminent, but nothing can be done to prevent the loss of this US-initiated war.  Putin has a strong hand to play, and all indications point toward the conclusion that the longer the fighting continues, the more territory will fall to Russian advances. Whether Trump will be able to end the war remains an open question. We know that Starmer, Macron, Mertz (once he assumes the German chancellorship), and Zelensky all seek to sabotage peace. And in Kyiv, the Azov Battalion has morphed into the Third Army Brigade, and its leader is Andriy Biletsky, today’s Stephan Bandera. He and his Hitler-worshipping Nazi followers oppose any negotiations with Russia and will continue some rearguard action until they are finally vanquished.

    Trump also faces strong opposition from neoliberal warhawks like Waltz and Rubio. I sense that if Trump wants an actual peace settlement—and I believe he does—he must instruct more capable and trustworthy negotiators that Moscow sees Ukraine as an existential threat and its demands are non-negotiable. Russia is clearly winning and continues to absorb more territory. Finally, I wouldn’t bet against Trump going back on his promise and walking away from the Ukraine Project, leaving the remaining parties to resolve matters.

    Because the billionaire sector of the US ruling class behind Trump has a different world order in mind, the present iteration of European oligarchs find themselves up that proverbial creek without paddles. Trump isn’t even bothering to say, “Thank you for your service in fighting Russia” because he knows these vassals enthusiastically cooperated with a doom-to-fail war that killed well over a million soldiers. In a final desperate attempt to save themselves, Europe’s soon-to-be politically extinct vassals want Trump to give them a “security guarantee” before inserting their own “peacekeepers” into Ukraine. That will never happen

    Some critics have employed words like delusional, crazy, and stupid to describe European leaders. However, it’s more accurate to say that these heads of state are so heavily invested in the fable, the fiction of the “Russian threat,” for over seventy years in order to maintain their junior accomplice role with Washington.  Thomas Palley argues they have become a “US foreign policy satrap, a condition which still endures.” These leaders are certainly not “stupid,” and they know that if the truth about the “Ukraine project” gains traction — and Trump seeks closer relations with Russia — suspicions will rise within the European public that Russophobia was manufactured and remains a hoax.

    Finally, as I have argued in the past, what makes Ukraine so difficult to grasp is the edifice of lies, the false narrative about the “Russian threat” that is so pervasive in the popular mindset and used to disguise the actual motives behind US imperialism. Political scientist Michael Parenti once characterized this as “suppression by omission,” in this case, the entire context of the war in Ukraine.  We must use every means to bring those omissions to light.

    The post Will Trump Keep His Promise to End the War in Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Why is the Met Police boss refusing to meet with Palestine march organisers – when he meets with the Zionist lobby?

    The following article is a comment piece from the Palestine Coalition, via Stop The War Coalition

    The six organisations coordinating the national Palestine demonstrations are concerned that despite numerous requests we have been refused a meeting with Sir Mark Rowley the Commissioner of the Met Police. This is despite the fact that Rowley regularly meets with lobby groups who support Israel’s pro-genocide policies and are deeply hostile to our protests and our cause.

    Palestine marches: peaceful – yet the Met will not engage

    We have organised one of the biggest cycles of mass demonstrations in British history in which millions of people have participated.

    As the police themselves have often said, they have been overwhelmingly peaceful. There are more arrests per person at Premier League football matches and the average Glastonbury Festival than on our demonstrations.

    Yet we have faced the most severe restrictions ever experienced on mass marches. This has included numerous bans and attempted bans, including most recently from the BBC, thousands of police mobilised from across the country, the arrest of numerous people for wearing tee-shirts or holding placards and police communications regularly implying that we are a threat to public order.

    In particular the police are acting on the false presumption that the protests are a threat to the Jewish community. This is despite the fact there are thousands of Jewish people on our demonstrations and that the police themselves have failed to come up with a single instance of a Jewish person being threatened by anyone on our marches.

    Admitting they are under pressure from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other pro-Israel lobby groups, the police are taking the extraordinary position that we shouldn’t be allowed to march or assemble anywhere near a synagogue, apparently in anticipation of proposed new legislation.

    Met Police: happily meeting with the Zionist lobby

    The day after the recent ban on a previously agreed march to the BBC in January, Rowley was congratulated at a Board of Deputies meeting after he told them the law had been used to restrict the right to protest ‘more than we have ever done before’.

    This argument is being used to try to exclude a movement calling for peace and the end of a genocide from large areas of central London, restricting the length of of our demonstrations and stopping us marching to and from important locations such as the BBC.

    This is a serious and worrying attack on the freedom of assembly in this country. It is completely unacceptable in itself.

    The overwhelming majority of people in this country support our calls for a permanent ceasefire in the Middle East. The fact that the Commissioner continues to avoid meeting us only confirms the sense of prejudiced, partisan and politicised policing in the capital.

    We call on the Commissioner once again to meet us to discuss these crucial issues.

    Featured image via Steve Eason

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Red Crescent Palestinians massacre: Global rule of law masquerade is over

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Joe Gill

    It is difficult to be shocked after 18 months of Israel‘s genocidal onslaught on Gaza.

    Brazen crimes against humanity have become the norm. World powers do nothing in response. At best, they put out weak statements of concern. Now, the US does not even bother with that.

    It is fully on board with genocide.

    Israel and the US are planning the violent ethnic cleansing of Gaza, knowing full well that no one will stop them.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are sitting on their hands, despite what appeared to be significant rulings last year on Israeli war crimes by the ICC and on the “plausible risk” of genocide by the ICJ.

    Israeli anti-Zionist commentator Alon Mizrahi posted on X this week:

    “As Israel and the US announce and begin to enact plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians, let’s remember that the International Court of Justice has not even convened to discuss the genocide since 24 May 2024, when it was using very blurry language about the planned Rafah action.

    “Tens of thousands have been exterminated since then, and hundreds of thousands have been injured. Babies starved and froze to death, and thousands of children lost limbs.

    “Not a word from the ICJ. Zionism and American imperialism have rendered international law null and void. Everyone is allowed to do as they please to anyone. The post-World War II masquerade is truly over.”

    Under the US Joe Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the smirking US spokesperson Matt Miller would make performative statements about “concern” over the killing of Palestinians with weapons they had supplied. (They would never use a word as clear as “killing”, always preferring the perpetrator-free “deaths”).

    Today, under the Donald Trump regime, even the mask of respect for the rituals of international diplomacy has been thrown aside.

    This is the law of the jungle, and the winner is the government that uses superior force to seize what it believes is theirs, and to silence and destroy those who stand in their way.

    Brutally targeted
    Last week, a group of Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), civil defence and UN staff rushed to the site of Israeli air strikes to rescue wounded Palestinians in southern Gaza.

    PRCS is the local branch of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which, like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa), provides essential health services to Palestinians in a devastated, besieged war zone.

    Alongside other international aid groups, they have been repeatedly and brutally targeted by Israel.

    That pattern continued on March 23, when Israeli forces committed a heinous, deliberate massacre that left eight PRCS members, six members of Gaza’s civil defence, and one UN agency employee dead.

    The bodies of 14 first responders were found in Rafah, southern Gaza, a week after they were killed. The vehicles were mangled, and the bodies dumped in a mass grave. Some were mutilated, one decapitated.

    The Palestinian Health Ministry said some of the bodies were found with their hands tied and with wounds to their heads and chests.

    “This grave was located just metres from their vehicles, indicating the [Israeli] occupation forces removed the victims from the vehicles, executed them, and then discarded their bodies in the pit,” civil defence spokesperson Mahmoud Basal said, describing it as “one of the most brutal massacres Gaza has witnessed in modern history”.


    Under fire: Israel’s war on medics.     Video: Middle East Eye

    ‘Killed on way to save lives’
    The head of the UN Humanitarian Affairs Office in Gaza, Jonathan Whittall, said: “Today, on the first day of Eid, we returned and recovered the buried bodies of eight PRCS, six civil defence and one UN staff.

    “They were killed in their uniforms. Driving their clearly marked vehicles. Wearing their gloves. On their way to save lives. This should never have happened.”

    Nothing happened following previous lethal attacks, such as the killing of seven World Central Kitchen staff on 1 April 2024, exactly one year ago, when the victims were British, Polish, Australian, Palestinian, and a dual US-Canadian citizen.

    Despite a certain uproar that was absent when dozens or hundreds of Palestinians were massacred, Israel was not sanctioned by Western powers or the UN. And so, it continued killing aid workers.

    Israel declared Unrwa a “terror” group last October and has killed more than 280 of its staff — accounting for the majority of the 408 aid workers killed in Gaza since October 2023.

    The international response to this latest massacre? Zilch.

    Official silence
    On Sunday, Save the Children, Medical Aid for Palestinians and Christian Aid took out ads in the UK Observer calling for the UK government to stop supplying arms to Israel in the wake of renewed Israeli attacks in Gaza: “David Lammy, Keir Starmer, your failure to act is costing lives.”

    The British prime minister is too busy touting his mass deportation of “illegal” migrants from the UK to comment on the atrocities of his close ally, Israel. He has said nothing in public.

    Lammy, UK Foreign Secretary, has found time to put out statements on the Myanmar earthquake, Nato, Russian attacks on Ukraine, and the need for de-escalation of renewed tensions in South Sudan.

    His last public comment on Israel and Gaza was on March 22, several days after Israel’s horrific massacre of more than 400 Palestinians at dawn on 18 March: “The resumption of Israeli strikes in Gaza marks a dramatic step backward. Alongside France and Germany, the UK urgently calls for a return to the ceasefire.”

    No condemnation of the slaughter of nearly 200 children.

    In response to a request for comment from Middle East Eye, a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office spokesperson said: “We are outraged by these deaths and we expect the incident to be investigated transparently and for those responsible held to account. Humanitarian workers must be protected, and medical and aid workers must be able to do their jobs safely.

    “We continue to call for a lift on the aid blockade in Gaza, and for all parties to re-engage in ceasefire negotiations to get the hostages out and to secure a permanent end to the conflict, leading to a two-state solution and a lasting peace.”

    As this article was being written, Lammy put out a statement on X that, as usual, avoided any direct mention of who was committing war crimes. “Gaza remains the deadliest place for humanitarians — with over 400 killed. Recent aid worker deaths are a stark reminder. Those responsible must be held accountable.”

    Age of lawlessness
    The new world order of 2025 is a lawless one.

    The big powers and their allies are committed to the violent reordering of the map: Palestine is to be forcibly absorbed into Israel, with US backing. Ukraine will lose its eastern regions to Vladimir Putin’s Russia with US support.

    Smaller nations can be attacked with impunity, from Yemen to Lebanon to Greenland (no US invasion plan as yet, but the mood music is growing louder with every statement from Trump and Vice-President JD Vance).

    This has always been the way to some extent. Still, previously in the post-war world, adherence to international law was the official position of great powers, including the US and the Soviet Union.

    Israel, however, never had time for international law. It was the pioneer of the force-is-right doctrine. That doctrine is now the dominant one.

    International law and international aid are out.

    In the UK last Thursday, a group of youth activists were meeting at the Quaker Friends House in central London to discuss peaceful resistance to the genocide in Gaza.

    Police stormed the building and arrested six young women.

    Such a police action would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but new laws introduced under the last government have made such raids against peaceful gatherings increasingly common.

    This is the age of lawlessness. And anyone standing up for human rights and peace is now the enemy of the state, whether in Palestine, London, or at Columbia University.

    Joe Gill has worked as a journalist in London, Oman, Venezuela and the US, for newspapers including Financial Times, Morning Star and Middle East Eye. His Masters was in Politics of the World Economy at the London School of Economics. Republished from Middle East Eye under Creative Commons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • It will take more than an Oscar to stop Israel’s West Bank plans

    By Leilani Farha of The New Arab

    “I started filming when we started to end.” With these haunting words, Basel Adra begins No Other Land, the Oscar-winning documentary that depicts life in Masafer Yatta, a collection of Palestinian villages in the southern West Bank that are under complete occupation – military and civil – by Israel.

    For Basel and his community, this land isn’t merely territory — it’s identity, livelihood, their past and future.

    No Other Land vividly captures the intensity of life in rural Palestinian villages and the everyday destruction perpetrated by both Israeli authorities and the nearby settler population: the repeated demolition of Palestinian homes and schools; destruction of water sources such as wells; uprooting of olive trees; and the constant threat of extreme violence.

    While this 95-minute slice of Palestinian life opened the world’s eyes, most are unaware that No Other Land takes place in an area of the West Bank that is ground zero for any viable future Palestinian state.

    Designated as “Area C” under the Oslo Peace Accords, it constitutes 60% of the occupied West Bank and is where the bulk of Israeli settlements and outposts are located. It is a beautiful and resource-rich area upon which a Palestinian state would need to rely for self-sufficiency.

    For decades now, Israel has been using military rule as well as its planning regime to take over huge swathes of Area C, land that is Palestinian — lived and worked on for generations.

    This has been achieved through Israel’s High Planning Council, an institution constituted solely of Israelis who oversee the use of the land through permits — a system that invariably benefits Israelis and subjugates Palestinians, so much so that Israel denies access to Palestinians of 99 percent of the land in Area C including their own agricultural lands and private property.

    ‘This is apartheid’
    Michael Lynk, when he was serving as UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, referred to Israel’s planning system as “de-development” and stated explicitly: “This is apartheid”.

    The International Court of Justice recently affirmed what Palestinians have long known: Israel’s planning policies in the West Bank are not only discriminatory but form part of a broader annexation agenda — a violation of international humanitarian law.

    To these ends, Israel deploys a variety of strategies: Israeli officials will deem certain areas as “state lands”, necessary for military use, or designate them as archaeologically significant, or will grant permission for the expansion of an existing settlement or the establishment of a new one.

    Meanwhile, less than 1 percent of Palestinian permit applications were granted at the best of times, a percentage which has dropped to zero since October 2023.

    As part of the annexation strategy, one of Israel’s goals with respect to Area C is demographic: to move Israelis in and drive Palestinians out — all in violation of international law which prohibits the forced relocation of occupied peoples and the transfer of the occupant’s population to occupied land.

    Regardless, Israel is achieving its goal with impunity: between 2023 and 2025 more than 7,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced from their homes in Area C due to Israeli settler violence and access restrictions.

    At least 16 Palestinian communities have been completely emptied, their residents scattered, and their ties to ancestral lands severed.

    Israel’s settler colonialism on steroids
    Under the cover of the international community’s focus on Gaza since October 2023, Israel has accelerated its land grab at an unprecedented pace.

    The government has increased funding for settlements by nearly 150 percent; more than 25,000 new Israeli housing units in settlements have been advanced or approved; and Israel has been carving out new roads through Palestinian lands in the West Bank, severing Palestinians from each other, their lands and other vital resources.

    Israeli authorities have also encouraged the establishment of new Israeli outposts in Area C, housing some of the most radical settlers who have been intensifying serious violence against Palestinians in the area, often with the support of Israeli soldiers.

    None of this is accidental. In December 2022, Israel appointed Bezalel Smotrich, founder of a settler organisation and a settler himself, to oversee civilian affairs in the West Bank.

    Since then, administrative changes have accelerated settlement expansion while tightening restrictions on Palestinians. New checkpoints and barriers throughout Area C have further isolated Palestinian communities, making daily life increasingly impossible.

    Humanitarian organisations and the international community provide much-needed emergency assistance to help Palestinians maintain a foothold, but Palestinians are quickly losing ground.

    As No Other Land hit screens in movie houses across the world, settlers were storming homes in Area C and since the Oscar win there has been a notable uptick in violence. Just this week reports emerged that co-director Hamdan Ballal was himself badly beaten by Israeli settlers and incarcerated overnight by the Israeli army.

    Israel’s annexation of Area C is imminent. To retain it as Palestinian will require both the Palestinian Authority and the international community to shift the paradigm, assert that Area C is Palestinian and take more robust actions to breathe life into this legal fact.

    The road map for doing so was laid by the International Court of Justice who found unequivocally that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is unlawful and must come to an end.

    They specified that the international community has obligations in this regard: they must not directly or indirectly aid Israel in maintaining the occupation and they must cooperate to end it.

    With respect to Area C, this includes tackling Israel’s settlement policy to cease, prevent and reverse settlement construction and expansion; preventing any further settler violence; and ending any engagement with Israel’s discriminatory High Planning Council, which must be dismantled.

    With no time to waste, and despite all the other urgencies in Gaza and the West Bank, if there is to be a Palestinian state, Palestinians in Area C must be provided with full support – political, financial, and legal — by local authorities and the international community, to rebuild their lives and livelihoods.

    After all, Area C is Palestine.

    Leilani Farha is a former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing and author of the report Area C is Everything. Republished under Creative Commons.

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: a deep, burning hatred of Starmer is stirring across the UK

    If Nye Bevan was turning in his grave during the Blair years, it won’t be very long before he goes full Lazarus and rises up from it to chase Keir Starmer through the streets of Whitehall. “No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for that red Tory, refugee-hating, DWP-cutting bastard, Starmer. So far as I am concerned, he is lower than a snail’s gonads”

    Or something like that.

    Starmer: another indefensible week

    This past week has been another brutal, self-inflicted car crash for Keir Starmer’s pretend Labour Party government.

    A £2.2 billion increase in defence spending — partially funded by cuts to international aid — is an abhorrent move by an abhorrent chancellor.

    Pretending to be an economist is one thing, but pretending an entire nation will benefit from an arms proliferation is just plain dishonest.

    “As defence spending rises, I want the whole country to feel its benefits”, said Rachel Reeves.

    What does she *really* mean by “benefit”? Perhaps we will see armed quadcopters and drones chasing disabled people around the streets to see if they’re fit for work? (More on the DWP later).

    They could live-stream it on the government’s social media feeds, and GBeebies News.

    ‘Can’t Work, Won’t Work, Get Shot’, presented by Jeremy Clarkson and Priti Patel, sponsored by Elbit Systems.

    Let’s spell this out in simple terms, free of media hyperbole, client journalism, and long fluffy words that mean less than fuck all to most of us.

    International aid is, in part, used to provide humanitarian relief for the victims of war and genocide. The vile monstrosity, Reeves, is slashing this money to create further victims of war and genocide.

    Will somebody please make this make some sort of fucking sense? Reeves is supposed to be a Labour chancellor, not Gideon Osborne in a fucking expensive frock.

    I cannot contain my disgust with this corrupted, bought-and-paid-for, arms lobbyists wet dream of a government

    How can any sensible individual take a glance at the scenes of utter devastation in Gaza and not be angered and horrified? Not Reeves. She wants in on the action

    Why do they call it the “defence” budget anyway? The only dangerous, malignant force attacking Britain is the Labour Party. We need defending from these murderous maniacs, first and foremost.

    Reeves: out of her depth, and out of her mind

    Chancellor Reeves would be out of her depth in a birdbath containing a drop of pigeon phlegm, and if you need solid proof of that you need look no further than her claim that Labour’s proposed cuts would slash £5 billion from the welfare budget.

    All it needed was someone that was able to use a calculator and this £5 billion suddenly became £3.4 billion, cementing Rachel Reeves’ place in history as the first Labour chancellor that couldn’t even kill off disabled people without screwing it up.

    This was the perfect opportunity for Reeves to step forward and say…

    “Comrades, I apologise, I have got this so very wrong. Disabled people do not deserve to bear the brunt of my growth-halving plans. Instead, we will be the Labour government that introduces the Musk and Zuckerberg Tax, ensuring those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest burden. Yes, I am the red Liz Truss, I am a nuclear-grade numpty, and I resign”.

    Back in the real world, the most evil government of my lifetime soon found another way of stamping on the faces of chronically ill and disabled people.

    One anonymous Labour MP said, “this assault on disabled people and those in need of support is nothing short of sadistically cruel”.

    Another, Kim Johnson, described the benefits barbarity as “Austerity 2.0”.

    This is their own fucking government they’re talking about.

    The stench still isn’t enough for the Labour Party brownnosers

    Kim Johnson might score a few brownie points with her constituents in Liverpool, but if she wants to be taken seriously she should resign from the Labour Party in horror and disgust.

    Is the lure of the money and the access to power really worth anything more than a permanently stained conscience and the blood of the disabled people of Britain, dripping from your grasping hands, Ms Johnson?

    Perhaps she can provoke the ridiculously named “Socialist Campaign Group” into listing a few names on a sheet of crisp A4 sheet of paper? That’s bound to bring Starmer’s pathetic excuse of a Labour government to its crooked knees, right?

    There are no socialists in the Labour Party. No true socialist could possibly sit in a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting, nodding along to discussions of state-administered death and denying pensioners of warmth.

    No true socialist can be a part of a government that attempts to profit from the currency of fear and hate so freely as this hideous bunch of ghouls.

    Whatever happened to political integrity? Did compassion and decency pack its own bags, back in 2019?

    Reeves claimed she is “proud” of what Labour has achieved in nine months. She should be ashamed, embarrassed and forced out of office. There is no pride to be found in wilfully killing off sick and disabled people, unless you really are an emotionless psychopath.

    The Joseph Rowntree Foundation had a look at Reeves’ master class in democide and concluded that the average family will now be £750 a year worse off by 2029.

    Starmer: business as usual

    Proud, you say?

    Labour doesn’t have to follow this reckless and cruel policy, austerity isn’t a necessity. A simple 2% levy on assets over £10 million — which would be paid by some 20,000 multi-millionaires — would raise up to £24 billion, every single year.

    If this 2% tax was in place now, UK billionaires would still have seen their personal wealth soar by an average of £141 million each — a total of nearly £7.5 billion combined — since this time last year.

    Isn’t this enough for anyone to ‘scrape by’?

    Tell me, Labour voters, how many of you actually voted to plunge 250,000 extremely impoverished and vulnerable people — including 50,000 children — into relative poverty? Or rather, official figures suggest the number is closer to 400,000.

    How many of you voted for the two-child benefit cap? What about the winter fuel allowance? That also hit disabled people the hardest, as it goes.

    Remember, Keir Starmer’s Labour came in under the mantra of ‘change for the better’, not ‘business as usual’.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Nemesis

    The convulsions wracking the American body politic inescapably impact the nation’s foreign relations. For the United States today is in a condition that defies all conventional categories. Its leader(s) are abnormal, its government is abnormal, its conduct is abnormal – and, perhaps, its society itself is abnormal. Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist compounded by extreme megalomania; Elon Musk, his Co-President, is also a megalomanic neo-Fascist with Nazi affinities – a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute.1 Together, they have launched a no-holds-barred campaign to impose on the country an autocratic yoke that aims to control and dictate in accordance with their primitive dogmas and destructive impulses. Already, the United States’ Constitutional republic is badly wounded, its hallowed public institutions assaulted, its democratic political culture corrupted. Their restoration is highly improbable. An immediate consequence is to mutilate further America’s moral standing buried in the rubble of Gaza, to dissolve the last shreds of its soft power, to transform its vaunted image as “The City on a Hill” into a model of what you don’t want to become. Instead, Trump’s I & II have emboldened neoliberals worldwide to act as their instincts tell them: Bolsonaro in Brazil, Milei in Argentina, Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkiye and a host of other minor power wielders. In contrast, what nation’s responsible leadership wants to emulate the United States circa 2025?

    Narcissist Praxis

    A narcissist’s behavior is more compulsive than calculated.  It affirms three overriding needs: The first is to gather the power to control others and one’s environs. That serves a dual purpose: feeding the desire for adulation, and for ensuring that those persons cannot do anything to you that undermines the exalted sense of self. The second is to create situations, and to surround oneself with courtiers, where that sacred self is celebrated – a hunger that never is satiated. Third, to destroy whatever or whomever is felt to threaten or obstruct fulfillment of those drives: rivals, critics, the recalcitrant. These traits make permanent relationships extremely difficult since anybody can become prey were an action of theirs to pierce the multiple mental barriers in place to protect what is in essence a fragile core self. The same applies to fixed commitments. Therefore, a full-blown narcissistic can never be counted on to honor a pledge, to keep a promise or to abide by a treaty. Trump’s entire career is marked by deceit, lies, cheating and a skirting of the law confirms that judgment. He is totally untrustworthy.

    The implication is that any party dealing with the Trump administration must be ultra cautious by insisting that any agreement is nailed down as concretely as possible. A large security deposit and valuable collateral are obligatory. Russian leaders are well aware of this given their experience of being deceived repeatedly by the U.S. and its partners since 1991. (Sergei Lavrov recently: “Words are not enough.”) Moreover, Putin himself gives every evidence of understanding the peculiar psychology of the man. The same can be said of China’s Xi. The governments most susceptible to falling victim to Trump’s ploys are those needy of external aide of one kind or another – thus, vulnerable to America’s pressure tactics. And, of course, any national leader who remains deluded about the man’s true nature. Trump’s predatory instincts are aroused by the weak and the craven – be it a Chuck Schumer at home or a Olaf Schulz abroad. The pleasure in debasing them is a fringe benefit of power. Moreover, he can be expected to apply his bullying to as many parties as catch his attention (the above noted apart).  There is no proportionality between the target’s intrinsic worth and how extreme the measure of coercion he is prepared to apply. A Chinese company at the Panama Canal – invasion. The potential riches of exploitable natural resources in Greenland – demand that long-time friend Denmark hand it over or risk economic sanctions. Canada’s insistence on maintaining its independence existence when turning its de facto interdependence with the U.S. into de jure integration would aggrandize America – tariffs and threat of outright import restrictions.  The criterion is not something objective; rather, it is whatever Trump feels will add to his grandiose visions or some irritating action that gets under his skin.

    To understand these flights of fancy, we should note the abundance of evidence that Trump’s grip on reality is fragile. His mind resides in a virtual reality that shutters perceptions of actual reality. As has been said in another context, “his own grip on truth or falsity is so fluid, so subservient to his desires, that it matters little to him what is true and what is false; so he is able to act as if something is true if that serves his purposes best. Belief has become a creature of his will: he will treat an unfounded suspicion as if it were a Cartesian certainty. He has contempt for people who are candid and trusting, who can respect the truth.”2

    What Trump craves are gratifications not constructive accomplishments that are tangible &/or enduring. It is a mistake to presume that Trump has thought out plans or strategies about anything. His behavior is dictated by the syncopation of his compulsions. Narcissists live their lives to the pulse of any inner beat: I need, I want, I need, I want. Empathy is foreign to narcissists. They have neither the capacity nor the inclination to relate to others except at a very superficial level.3

    Trump harbors no clear conception of the America that he is transforming in tumult and disarray, no mental model of how that disassembled America is to be recast. The same holds for foreign affairs. To pose the question: what is his goal? How does he view the global ‘system’? Where do individual actions fit into a broad, long-term strategy? is to misunderstand Trump and what makes him tick. There are no answers because he is incapable both psychologically and intellectually of thinking along those lines. A couple of things can be said about what sort of environment best suits him. First, the two fixed points of reference are further exhalation of self, and expanding the tangible benefits that the United States derives from all its external relations. The former is unlimited; the latter is thought of in narrow, short-term ways. Trump doesn’t give a fig about the well-being of other countries (with the glaring exception of Israel) nor does he concern himself with how the impact on them of his deeds and misdeeds could redound to the disadvantage of the United States. Equally, there is no regard to the overall ordering of international affairs. He is neither a liberal believer in promoting multilateral world institutions to create a measure of stability and to perform certain basic system maintenance functions nor imperial in his designs. The latter doesn’t appeal to him since he abhors the thought of taking any sort of responsibility for others. Both approaches entail commitments that are utterly alien to him. His mercurial, impulsive modus operandi demands absolute freedom to act how, where and when he wants. A world in flux doesn’t faze him; indeed, that is an environment rich in opportunities for buccaneering. In that respect, Trump has more in common with Captain Kidd or Clive of India than he does with Bismarck. Grab what you can – whatever the commodity, e.g. mineral rights.

     Russia and Ukraine

    How doesn’t Trump’s surprisingly warm embrace of Vladimir Putin along with expressions of support for Russia’s interpretation of the Ukraine crisis reconcile with the portrait of the man sketched above? Some suggest it reflects a statesmanlike side to him that otherwise is not visible. Others opine that Putin has found ways to beguile him. Are these conjectures credible? I think not. Let’s bear in mind that Trump has always been attracted to strong men who exercise power forcefully. Engaging with them mano y mano exalts his own sense of exceptional prowess.

    Deep down, Trump is an insecure person who requires a) adulation and b) constant demonstrations of his potency. The latter is expressed in his characteristic style of bullying, disparagement of others, and the relishing of contrived ‘wins.’ Putin, he instinctively realizes, is superior to him – in all respects: intelligence, range of knowledge, erudition, articulateness, political skills, diplomatic skills. Dealing on an equal basis with such a man massages Trump’s inflated ego. The content of the practical dealings is less important than the engagement. Trump need not emerge from these dealings as a ‘winner,’ but he could not tolerate being seen as the ‘loser.’ Hence, Putin faces the delicate challenge at once of avoiding concessions designed to flatter and protect Trump’s self-image while not conceding anything of consequence re. Russian interests. He seems aware of this; hence, his emollient manner in addressing Trump. The crunch will come on Ukraine.

    Trump has made a sudden commitment to the termination of the open-ended Ukraine project of exploiting that benighted country as a weapon for subordinating Russia. He recognizes – more by instinct than rigorous analysis – that it is a catastrophic failure, and that reversion from it is called for. Let us bear in mind, though, that the campaign that was launched by Barack Obama in 2014 was deepened by Trump I who generously armed the Ukrainian military, and built up the powerful army that was poised to invade the breakaway Russophile oblasts of the Donbass, following a plan drafted by the Pentagon. Only nine months after he left office it was activated by Joe Biden. At that time, Trump shared an overwhelming consensus by the country’s political class that taking on Russia in the Ukraine served major American national interests. Several of Trump’s appointees have been vocal promoters of the campaign.

    Trump is anything but a natural conciliator and humanitarian – as evinced by his mad design for extirpating the Palestinians, his bullying of every country friend or foe in sight, and his confrontational approach toward China. The expediency of calming relations with Russia has much to do with the girding of loins for the priority given aggressive campaigns in the Middle East and East Asia rather than earnest concern for European peace. Trump came to see Ukraine as a financial investment that went sour. So, you blame your agents for the failure and grab whatever tangible assets are lying around. He never will admit that our aid, in fact, was spent to make possible the spilling of Ukrainian blood for American purposes. Mea Culpa is not in his vocabulary

    The sobering truth is that Trump’s overriding desire is to be in the limelight, to be praised, to be seen as a winner. So, being hailed as the Great Peacemaker (Ukraine) would be as gratifying as being acclaimed as the Great War Leader (Iran). Fame is fungible for him.

    At the more practical level, the White House notion as to what should be the basis for an agreement with Russia bears no relation to the realities on the ground or to the Kremlin’s oft-repeated statement of its unnegotiable core objectives. Trump will not be happy with terms, however dressed up, that constitute a clear humiliation of the U.S. Ignorance, and fantasy, attaches to the proposal of a ceasefire which makes zero sense from a Moscow perspective. Simply put, the White House has no viable plan to bring peace to Ukraine, much less a conception for a redesigned pan-European security system as viewed by Russia as the sine qua non for continental peace and stability. So, when the White House and the Kremlin get down to talking about concrete issues, and the wider question of reconstructing European security institutions, real comity will be illusory. At present, the two parties have conceptions of the outcome that are incompatible.  How will Trump react when his simplistic ideas for ending the war prove to be fanciful? Find a scapegoat – Biden, Zelensky, the Europeans? Concoct another fictional narrative eagerly spread by credulous mass media? (This second in combination with the first?) Create a noisy distraction (attack Iran, rename the Washington Monument the TRUMP MONUMENT)?

    [Trump’s publicly expressed views sympathetic to Russia on the Ukraine also may have something to do with electoral considerations. In 2016, Trump gained advantage from denouncing the Democrats’ forever wars, e.g. Afghanistan. Outflanking Hillary on that (and her alleged being soft on Wall St) may have made the difference. Perhaps, he or his advisers had the notion that they could siphon off some disaffected Democratic voters by substituting Ukraine for Afghanistan. Once having committed himself this way, Trump as President could not easily reverse course on a dime – and for the reasons cited above, was comfortable pursuing a deal with Putin.]

    In the total absence of any sort of superego or any firm convictions, the only constant in Trump’s makeup is respect for the raw power of another party who has the demonstrated will to use it. The odd coupling with Elon Musk is further indication of that disposition. Equally, there is a long record of Trump either keeping his distance from anybody who seriously can hurt him or treating them with circumspection. That is a partial explanation for his accommodating attitude toward Putin. Does the same hold for China and Xi? There, Trump equivocates. He sees in a China a rival to American paramountcy – as does the near entire American foreign policy community. He accuses its of mistreating the United States, especially on trade and commercial matters generally. He has taken several audacious steps against it – going back to the Trump I administration.  Yet, at the same time he occasionally conjures a vision of a modus vivendi grounded on a newly equilibriated relationship which is weighed in favor if the United States. In addition, he respects Xi as the type of strong, forceful leader he admires. So, we might expect a confrontational stance in the economic sphere, but a reluctance to raise further tensions over Taiwan. Trump is hyperaggressive; he also is a coward who deep down is afraid of getting bloodied. Consider his reaction when, in the debate with Kamala Harris, he had all of his sordid record and actions thrown in his face. Trump sulked and then immediately cancelled subsequent bouts.  Hence, this is not a man who hankers for a test of arms with a powerful opponent – nor a warmonger. Most likely, we will witness much pawing of the earth, but no charge.

    The same cowardness militates against his starting a war with Iran. Despite all the blustering threats of recent weeks, Trump suddenly tweets that an understanding with Tehran about its nuclear program just might be in the cards. A changeability that stems from a readiness to contradict himself as if turning on a dime as well as his deep fear of actually getting into a dangerous brawl with someone who hits back (as none of his domestic opponents/rivals/victims do).

    Trump’s penchant for treating directly with strong leaders of strong states – Putin, Xi, Modi – has led some analysts to wonder whether that could be the basis for a strategy of fostering a concert among them. That could be seen as encompassing an informal set of understandings on rules of the road and convergent interests in promoting stability through a collaborative superintending of world affairs. A version of the imagined concert that allows for hard bargaining and a good measure of rivalry for the arrangement to conform to Trump’s aberrant temperament and behavior. That, though, would reduce its effectiveness and jeopardize its stability.   So, an intriguing idea – but unrealistic on a number of counts.   One, the Trump national security team lack the diplomatic skills and aptitude to launch such a sophisticated, multifaceted project and to nurture it over the years required to bring it to fruition. Two, other leaders are unlikely to place the requisite trust in an erratic, obsessive and narcissistic a person as Trump. Three, in light of the United States’ commitment to keeping an outsized role in managing the world’s affairs, there are certain to arise points of friction that will erode the underlying consensus and goodwill critical for the concert to work.

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Nemesis first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    1    Last week, Musk’s daughter affirmed in a public statement that her father indeed was making the Nazi salute. Just a few weeks earlier, Steve Bannon – who did more than anybody else to get Trump elected in 2016 – too gave the Nazi salute from the dais of an international gathering of far-Right movements. Swastikas and other Nazi symbols are prevalent at MAGA rallies; Trump himself tacitly has given his benediction to neo-Nazi outfits like Proud Boys and Neo-Aryans.
    2    Shakespeare, Othello.
    3    A narcissist like Trump seeks to animate others with his demented energy, grandiose plans, and megalomaniacal projects. An adrenaline junkie, his world is a whirlwind of comings and goings, reunions and divorces. A narcissist is like a child in his frenetic restlessness. It is a form of ‘primitivization,’ as Eric Hoffer has called it. “By plunging into ceaseless action and hustling,” the person never matures. “People in a hurry can neither grow nor decay; they are preserved in a state of perpetual puerility.”
    The narcissist is the self-appointed gatekeeper to reality; deciding what is, what happened, what did not happen, how it happened, whether important or not, who is who. What counts most is how it is recorded. The tree that falls in the forest with no one around surely makes a sound, but that event has little meaning unless I; am there to register it. In fact, my being there is the main news.

  • Meatable CEO: Uniting Innovation with Tradition is the Way Forward for Sustainable Meat Production

    jeff tripician
    4 Mins Read

    Jeff Tripician is the CEO of Meatable, a Dutch food tech startup working on cultivated pork. A former meat industry exec, he argues that a collaborative approach is the only recipe for success.

    As global demand for meat rises, one thing is clear: the only sustainable path forward is collaboration – between the meat industry, farmers, ranchers, and all those who have long secured our protein supply.

    By combining existing knowledge and infrastructure with new technology, cultivated and conventional meat can work together to make sustainable protein widely available at scale. Cultivated meat isn’t here to replace the industry – it’s here to complement it. Rather than competing, innovation and tradition must join forces to drive the industry forward, benefiting ranchers, businesses, and the environment alike.

    This was the focus of Meatable’s recent global summit, where over 80 industry leaders, meat executives, investors, and policymakers gathered to discuss how cultivated and conventional meat can collaborate to really make a difference.

    The problem

    The problem is undeniable: our current food production system is unsustainable. It harms the climate and depletes vital resources like water and land, and is subject to supply disruptions due to livestock disease, weather conditions and global conflict. If we continue down this path, we won’t be able to feed our growing population without devastating the planet. It’s time to change course and give the Earth a break.

    Farmers, ranchers, and the meat industry face immense pressure to meet the surging global demand for protein with finite land, water, and resources – all while minimising their environmental footprint. By 2050, global protein demand is projected to rise by a staggering 70%, relating to two billion more people needing 2 trillion meals per year, putting even more strain on an industry that is already pushing the limits of efficiency and scale. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly clear that relying solely on conventional methods is neither practical nor sustainable.

    As the Rt Hon Chris Skidmore, former UK Minister of Energy, stated during the event: “Every human being deserves the right to better nutrition, and to protein-rich meals, just as everyone should have the ability to access energy, electricity, or the internet. These are the global goals that sustainability has to deliver: not to ration, nor to restrict the choices and lifestyles of those who have been denied choice or freedom for too long.”

    The solution

    lab grown meat event
    Courtesy: Meatable

    Instead of competing in a zero-sum game, the meat industry has an opportunity to evolve by embracing cultivated meat as part of the solution. By incorporating this technology we can alleviate the burden on farmers and ranchers to continuously increase production under volatile market conditions. Rather than forcing a binary choice between traditional and cultivated meat, cultivated meat will be able to provide additional supply, so the industry can use both to build a more resilient and adaptable food system.

    At the same time, cultivated meat’s reduced environmental footprint offers a path toward a more sustainable future. By requiring significantly less land and water while generating fewer emissions, it minimises deforestation, preserves natural ecosystems, and reduces pollution from livestock waste.

    With the right approach, the industry can strike a balance between meeting growing consumer demand and protecting the planet for future generations. The future of meat production isn’t about replacement – it’s about integration.

    The way forward

    Courtesy: Meatable

    There is growing interest to do so. As an example, a representative from the New Mexico Partnership (US) outlined during the event that the state of New Mexico, an agricultural hub, is actively exploring opportunities in food innovation, including cultivated meat, and promoting the state as a business hub in this regard.

    And we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. The meat industry is built on centuries of expertise, finely tuned supply chains, and an extensive infrastructure that already feeds billions. This foundation provides an enormous advantage – one that cultivated meat is set to integrate with rather than replace. By working together, we can scale up high-quality, sustainable protein production without starting from scratch, ensuring a more efficient and practical path forward.

    My charge? Give future generations a chance, and give consumers a choice. Innovation has always shaped the food industry, and the market will naturally adapt, as it always does. If we strike the right balance, ranchers will not only survive but thrive, the industry will expand rather than contract, and consumers will enjoy more choices than ever before. This is what the future of meat should look like – one driven by innovation and collaboration, not restriction and competition.

    By supporting local farmers and ranchers, continuing the responsible production of conventional meat, and integrating high-quality, great-tasting cultivated meat as a complementary innovation, we can create a more resilient and sustainable future. The path forward isn’t about division or trade-offs – it’s about working together to feed a growing world while protecting the planet.

    This is not a battle between old and new. It’s an opportunity to evolve, using the best of what we already have to build something even better. The only way forward is together.

    Want to discuss further? I’m always ready to pull up a chair. Contact me on LinkedIn.

    The post Meatable CEO: Uniting Innovation with Tradition is the Way Forward for Sustainable Meat Production appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • More evidence of Labour turning Tory: they’re now trying to crack down EVEN FURTHER on protests

    The following article is a comment piece from the Palestine Coalition

    The Labour Party government has indicated its intention to introduce an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to further restrict the right to protest. Numerous reports suggest that the national demonstrations for Palestine are the principal target of these proposals.

    Labour: regressing the right to protest

    Given the repressive manner in which existing police powers have already been used to curtail these marches in recent months, this should concern all those who believe in our fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

    According to reports published by the BBC, the Guardian, and elsewhere, home secretary Yvette Cooper has announced plans to make it easier for police to impose conditions on protests on the grounds that they might disrupt worshippers attending religious sites.

    Several of these reports have referred to our marches and the claim that they have impacted on nearby synagogues, alongside references to the deliberate targeting of mosques during the racist mobilisations and disorder last summer.

    It is utterly perverse to conflate far-right violence directed against a place of worship – which during the summer riots included setting fire to a mosque – with the large, peaceful, and diverse demonstrations, involving many Jewish people along with others, that we have organised to call for a ceasefire and an end to Britain’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    Crackdowns on protest already happening

    Not one of the 24 national marches that we have organised since 2023 has directly passed a synagogue along its route and there has never been a single reported incident of any threat towards a place of worship linked to any of our protests, as the Metropolitan Police themselves have acknowledged.

    Instead, we have witnessed the unprecedented use of repressive police powers to restrict our demonstrations. This includes banning us from assembling at the BBC headquarters at Portland Place on 18 January on the pretext of a synagogue located at several streets distance, and preventing us from assembling at Park Lane on 15 March due to two synagogues situated approximately twelve minutes’ walk away.

    On both occasions our intention was to march away from the synagogues in question. For context, the legal restriction on protests outside abortion clinics – the purpose of which is to directly harass those using the facility – extends to 150 metres, which is approximately a two-minute walk.

    Context

    Members of religious congregations have the right to freely worship. All citizens should have the right to protest. Both rights should be protected. This cannot mean handing any one group a political veto over whether others can effectively exercise their rights.

    Given the already extraordinary use of draconian police powers to circumscribe the right to protest with no democratic scrutiny, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government’s real aim is to suppress the movement in solidarity with Palestine.

    As Israel resumes its full-scale genocidal onslaught against the Palestinian people, the British government is seeking to silence those standing up for international law, rather than ending its complicity in Israel’s war crimes. We will not be silenced. We will continue to campaign and continue to march until a permanent ceasefire is secured, until Israeli apartheid is dismantled, and until Palestine is free.

    Incompatible with the right to protest

    Ben Jamal, director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, says:

    Members of religious congregations have the right to freely worship. All citizens should have the right to protest. Both rights should be protected. This cannot mean handing any one group a political veto over whether others can effectively exercise their rights.

    It is incompatible with the right to protest to permit anti-abortion members of a Church to prevent a pro-choice march from taking place on a Sunday or allow conservative evangelicals to block a Pride parade.

    Similarly, pro-Israel synagogue leaders should not be empowered to exclude demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights, to which they are politically opposed, from large swathes of a city on a Saturday.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trump silences Voice of America – end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    Staff member with sign protesting in front of Voice of America sign.
    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
    The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.The Conversation

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Trump silences Voice of America – end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill?

    ANALYSIS: By Valerie A. Cooper, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

    Critics have long accused the agency — and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia — of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

    But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of “anti-American ideas” and agendas — including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

    Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

    Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

    Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex — as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

    Public service or state propaganda?
    The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in Western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

    Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

    Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed — or even known — by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

    The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against covid-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

    On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

    Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

    Leaving a void
    Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

    Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

    The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

    In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement.

    CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

    Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

    Staff member with sign protesting in front of Voice of America sign.
    A Voice of America staffer protests outside the Washington DC offices on March 17, 2025, after employees were placed on administrative leave. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Other voices get louder
    The biggest concern for Western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind — including in the Pacific.

    Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

    And China has already filled media gaps left by Western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

    Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

    An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

    Switched off
    Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

    This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

    The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

    But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week, The New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.The Conversation

    Dr Valerie A. Cooper is lecturer in media and communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Spectator just committed the most disgusting hate crime against disabled people

    Disabled people are unfortunately pretty used to attacks by the British corporate media – trying to make us out to be fakers or using our fear for clicks. This has of course massively ramped up in the last few months in the run up to evil Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves announcing plans to kill us off with Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit cuts.

    But the Spectator may’ve just printed the most disgusting piece of disability hate speech yet.

    The Spectator: disgusting hate speech against neurodivergent people

    As pointed out by ADHD UK, the Spectator has jumped on the bandwagon of taking the piss out of people with ADHD, by claiming it’s not real and that those with it are only saying they have it to excuse bad behaviour. In the cartoon featured in this month’s issue, one man tells another, “so anyway, when I was diagnosed with ADHD it just explained everything”

    The man depicted in the cartoon? Adolf fucking Hitler:

    That’s right, the Spectator has taken the most evil man to ever live and shown him using having ADHD as an excuse for spreading hatred of marginalised people so he could imprison and murder millions of them.

    I can’t even explain how consumed with rage i was when I saw this. The fact that the week after the British government has just announced the harshest cuts to disabled people ever, one of the UK’s leading political magazines would publish a cartoon not only making fun of people who have ADHD because so many believe it’s not real, but to attribute it to fucking Hitler.

    I don’t need to remind you all of the opinion Hitler held of neurodivergent and disabled people, labelling them as “useless eaters” and turning the German public against those who require support to live, in order to gain support to sterilise, torture and eventually kill hundreds of thousands of us.

    In other news – Labour.

    In completely different, unrelated news, we have the “party of work” and its current campaign of saying those on disability benefits are “languishing” and “taking the mickey” whilst pushing the agenda of how good work is.

    I mean it could be worse, I suppose, they could’ve made a back-to-work campaign video showing a brick building with a black iron archway. Oh wait:

    All of this is of course happening whilst certain parts of Labour also push to legalise assisted dying, something they vehemently claim won’t affect disabled people. However, many in Labour want to open it up to those with “incurable illnesses” (disabilities). There’s also the fact that one of the many many amendments rejected was to not allow people to legally kill themselves if they feel like a burden, something Labour are actively doing with cuts and the rhetoric around disabled people.

    Make no mistake, it’s absolutely not a coincidence that this was published in the wake of Kendall’s budget cuts announcement, The media has for a long time been a government tool used to disparage disabled people and feed the hatred of “benefit’s scroungers” and fakers to the British public.

    If you look at the media’s ADHD hate campaign alongside the plans of successive governments, it’s clear that this has been a coordinated attack to ensure that the British public see those with ADHD as faking it for attention and benefits in order to scale back the support they can receive.

    A snowballing propaganda campaign

    Since 2023 outlets of all political affiliation regularly published articles claiming that there were too many people with ADHD, that people were only getting a diagnosis cos it was trendy, that people on TikTok were coaching others on how to say they had ADHD for benefits.

    The BBC even ran an episode of panorama where a man “proved” how easy it was to be diagnosed with ADHD, at a time when so many were struggling to get appointments and medication.

    This has snowballed throughout the past two years, building more distrust in the public about those who are faking it until they believed it enough that Kendall was able to announced her cuts. Whilst the link here might not be clear, when you look at how they want to make PIP harder to claim it is.

    Whilst those who cant feed themselves would still be able to claim, having to be reminded or using time-saving ways to feed yourself wont score enough points, Whilst not being able to wash or change your clothes will pass, again having to be reminded to change your clothes or that you haven’t showered in a while won’t.

    People with ADHD in particular struggle to remember to do basic tasks such as feeding or showering ourselves. These and many other things that won’t score enough points to claim show how much the PIP changes that will directly affect those with mental and neurodivergent conditions.

    The way the media has turned the public against disabled and neurodivergent people has more than paved the way for Labour to destroy their lives.

    The Spectator needs to be held accountable for its actions

    The thing that enrages me the most though, is that this was published THREE days ago, and not a single other media outlet or journalist has acknowledged that this cartoon exists, never mind the harm it causes.

    Not one single person from the left or right of the media has challenged the fact that a major political magazine depicted the most evil man in history using ADHD to excuse his crimes against humanity- and that says it all about the way the media views disabled people

    Despite what the government and media want us to think, we have a right to live our lives without these constant attacks and be respected.

    There is however something you can do about it.

    The corporate media’s own regulatory body IPSO might be (in my opinion) a two bit farce of an organisation built to protect the media over the public. However, we are within our rights to complain about this.

    I’ve had my battles with IPSO over the years who like to tell me that it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against a group of people and that inaccuracy is fine as long as it’s the writers opinion so here’s what I’ve reported them for.

    Accuracy: Hitler was never diagnosed with ADHD.

    Discrimination: the cartoon suggests people use their diagnosis to excuse bad behaviour.

    I more than expect that IPSO will find a way for the Spectator to wriggle out of this, but by using our voices to oppose this we show that disabled people will not allow the media to continue to portray us as liars or at worst evil to suit the governments agenda to kill us all.

    You can report the Spectator to IPSO here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Spectator just committed the most disgusting hate crime against disabled people

    Disabled people are unfortunately pretty used to attacks by the British corporate media – trying to make us out to be fakers or using our fear for clicks. This has of course massively ramped up in the last few months in the run up to evil Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves announcing plans to kill us off with Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit cuts.

    But the Spectator may’ve just printed the most disgusting piece of disability hate speech yet.

    The Spectator: disgusting hate speech against neurodivergent people

    As pointed out by ADHD UK, the Spectator has jumped on the bandwagon of taking the piss out of people with ADHD, by claiming it’s not real and that those with it are only saying they have it to excuse bad behaviour. In the cartoon featured in this month’s issue, one man tells another, “so anyway, when I was diagnosed with ADHD it just explained everything”

    The man depicted in the cartoon? Adolf fucking Hitler:

    That’s right, the Spectator has taken the most evil man to ever live and shown him using having ADHD as an excuse for spreading hatred of marginalised people so he could imprison and murder millions of them.

    I can’t even explain how consumed with rage i was when I saw this. The fact that the week after the British government has just announced the harshest cuts to disabled people ever, one of the UK’s leading political magazines would publish a cartoon not only making fun of people who have ADHD because so many believe it’s not real, but to attribute it to fucking Hitler.

    I don’t need to remind you all of the opinion Hitler held of neurodivergent and disabled people, labelling them as “useless eaters” and turning the German public against those who require support to live, in order to gain support to sterilise, torture and eventually kill hundreds of thousands of us.

    In other news – Labour.

    In completely different, unrelated news, we have the “party of work” and its current campaign of saying those on disability benefits are “languishing” and “taking the mickey” whilst pushing the agenda of how good work is.

    I mean it could be worse, I suppose, they could’ve made a back-to-work campaign video showing a brick building with a black iron archway. Oh wait:

    All of this is of course happening whilst certain parts of Labour also push to legalise assisted dying, something they vehemently claim won’t affect disabled people. However, many in Labour want to open it up to those with “incurable illnesses” (disabilities). There’s also the fact that one of the many many amendments rejected was to not allow people to legally kill themselves if they feel like a burden, something Labour are actively doing with cuts and the rhetoric around disabled people.

    Make no mistake, it’s absolutely not a coincidence that this was published in the wake of Kendall’s budget cuts announcement, The media has for a long time been a government tool used to disparage disabled people and feed the hatred of “benefit’s scroungers” and fakers to the British public.

    If you look at the media’s ADHD hate campaign alongside the plans of successive governments, it’s clear that this has been a coordinated attack to ensure that the British public see those with ADHD as faking it for attention and benefits in order to scale back the support they can receive.

    A snowballing propaganda campaign

    Since 2023 outlets of all political affiliation regularly published articles claiming that there were too many people with ADHD, that people were only getting a diagnosis cos it was trendy, that people on TikTok were coaching others on how to say they had ADHD for benefits.

    The BBC even ran an episode of panorama where a man “proved” how easy it was to be diagnosed with ADHD, at a time when so many were struggling to get appointments and medication.

    This has snowballed throughout the past two years, building more distrust in the public about those who are faking it until they believed it enough that Kendall was able to announced her cuts. Whilst the link here might not be clear, when you look at how they want to make PIP harder to claim it is.

    Whilst those who cant feed themselves would still be able to claim, having to be reminded or using time-saving ways to feed yourself wont score enough points, Whilst not being able to wash or change your clothes will pass, again having to be reminded to change your clothes or that you haven’t showered in a while won’t.

    People with ADHD in particular struggle to remember to do basic tasks such as feeding or showering ourselves. These and many other things that won’t score enough points to claim show how much the PIP changes that will directly affect those with mental and neurodivergent conditions.

    The way the media has turned the public against disabled and neurodivergent people has more than paved the way for Labour to destroy their lives.

    The Spectator needs to be held accountable for its actions

    The thing that enrages me the most though, is that this was published THREE days ago, and not a single other media outlet or journalist has acknowledged that this cartoon exists, never mind the harm it causes.

    Not one single person from the left or right of the media has challenged the fact that a major political magazine depicted the most evil man in history using ADHD to excuse his crimes against humanity- and that says it all about the way the media views disabled people

    Despite what the government and media want us to think, we have a right to live our lives without these constant attacks and be respected.

    There is however something you can do about it.

    The corporate media’s own regulatory body IPSO might be (in my opinion) a two bit farce of an organisation built to protect the media over the public. However, we are within our rights to complain about this.

    I’ve had my battles with IPSO over the years who like to tell me that it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against a group of people and that inaccuracy is fine as long as it’s the writers opinion so here’s what I’ve reported them for.

    Accuracy: Hitler was never diagnosed with ADHD.

    Discrimination: the cartoon suggests people use their diagnosis to excuse bad behaviour.

    I more than expect that IPSO will find a way for the Spectator to wriggle out of this, but by using our voices to oppose this we show that disabled people will not allow the media to continue to portray us as liars or at worst evil to suit the governments agenda to kill us all.

    You can report the Spectator to IPSO here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • OPINION: Tibetans’ voices will be silenced if RFA, VOA are shut down

    BEIJING – The U.S. government’s announced plans to cut funding to international broadcasters Radio Free Asia and Voice of America have dealt a heavy blow to the hearts of countless Tibetans.

    For decades, the Tibetan language services of RFA and VOA have been lifelines for Tibetans behind China’s “Great Firewall” of censorship, connecting them to outside world.

    These two services have provided windows into the truth about Tibet for Tibetans in Tibet and in exile, while also offering critical resources to the international community.

    A studio clock is seen at RFA Tibetan service's production headquarters in Washington, March 24, 2025.
    A studio clock is seen at RFA Tibetan service’s production headquarters in Washington, March 24, 2025.
    (Charlie Dharapak/RFA)

    Over the years, their reporting has served as an indispensable source for the United Nations Human Rights Council, environmental organizations, human rights groups and Tibet experts around the world.

    Now, with the potential shutdown of these services, Tibet risks further marginalization in global conversations and the international community’s attention to the Tibetan people’s plight is likely to decline further.

    Suffocating restrictions

    Access to information in Tibetan regions has long been highly restricted.

    In 2000, the Chinese government launched the “Western Development Broadcasting Project” to saturate the region with official propaganda. It also constructed numerous high-powered jamming stations across the plateau to block international Tibetan-language broadcasts, including those from RFA and VOA — stations that are still in use today.

    By the 2020s, nationwide surveillance projects like “Skynet” and “Sharp Eyes” had deployed vast networks of cameras, facial recognition systems and AI-powered monitoring technologies to reinforce control over society — with Tibetan regions under particular scrutiny.

    By 2023, China had installed more than 500 million surveillance cameras nationwide. That same year, a Tibetan school in Lithang, Kham, was shut down after a teacher contacted relatives abroad via WeChat and used RFA Tibetan programming as classroom material.

    A surveillance camera is silhouetted behind a Chinese flag in Beijing, Nov. 3, 2022.
    A surveillance camera is silhouetted behind a Chinese flag in Beijing, Nov. 3, 2022.
    (Thomas Peter/Reuters)

    Even under this suffocating control, many Tibetans still risked everything to access forbidden broadcasts.

    Some climbed mountaintops in search of a clearer signal. Others listened alone, late at night, in monastery corners. Some were summoned, detained, or even sentenced — simply for trying to hear the truth about Tibet, or to receive rare updates from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

    And still, countless brave individuals find ways to get vital information out.

    In February 2024, China’s plan to build a hydropower dam in Dege, Kham, threatened to submerge six monasteries and surrounding villages. Local Tibetans protested and were met with arrests and beatings.

    It was RFA’s Tibetan service that first broke the news. The story drew international attention, and so far the project hasn’t proceeded.

    Tibetan monks and residents in Dege, Sichuan province, appeal to Chinese officials to stop a planned dam construction in these images from Feb. 20-22, 2024.
    Tibetan monks and residents in Dege, Sichuan province, appeal to Chinese officials to stop a planned dam construction in these images from Feb. 20-22, 2024.
    (Citizen video)

    Meanwhile, the Chinese government is rapidly expanding its global media influence.

    China Global Television Network, or CGTN, has established bureaus across North America, Europe and Africa to produce multilingual content and “tell China’s story well.”

    The China Daily collaborates with U.S. media outlets to publish full-page sponsored inserts. CGTN and Xinhua now release YouTube videos to counter international criticism of China’s record in Tibet and Xinjiang, where 12 million Uyghurs are being persecuted.

    In September 2024, China also launched a new “Tibet International Communication Center.” Its mission? To serve as “a global communication window for Tibet… in line with national strategic goals… building a more effective international media system related to Tibet,” and to “guide public opinion and conduct international public opinion struggles” on Tibet-related issues.

    This aggressive global information offensive — while Tibet remains sealed off domestically — shows a stark contrast between external expansion and internal suppression.

    Chinese media celebrates

    Yet at this critical moment, the United States has chosen to gut RFA and VOA, including their Tibetan-language services. This decision is deeply regrettable and will undermine the Tibetan cause.

    Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of China’s state-run Global Times, celebrated the news: “Voice of America is paralyzed! And the equally poisonous RFA is gone too. This is a great day… I hope this development is irreversible.”

    Hu’s reaction underscores how crucial these Tibetan voices are. While the United States claims to defend global information freedom, it has now ceded key ground in the contest of soft power and public diplomacy.

    The Tibetan services of RFA and VOA were among the most important elements of the United States’ global broadcasting system. Shutting them down has not only deprived Tibetans of a vital information source — it has weakened the U.S. presence on the global stage.

    Beijing-based Tibetan writer and poet Tsering Woeser poses for a photo in Beijing in 2010.
    Beijing-based Tibetan writer and poet Tsering Woeser poses for a photo in Beijing in 2010.
    (Tsering Woeser)

    Since 2006, I have written more than 900 articles for RFA’s Tibetan service. With the help of RFA’s senior broadcaster and translator Dolkar, whose accurate translations and eloquent Tibetan narration brought my words to life, my writing reached the ears and hearts of Tibetan listeners. Weekly broadcasts sustained not only my writing but also my reflections on Tibet’s fate.

    This commitment culminated in four books: “Hearing Tibet,” “These Years in Tibet” (co-authored with Wang Lixiong), “Behind the Blessed Land,” and “Tibet in the Year of the Pandemic.” These works trace Tibet’s past, present, and future — and they serve as a heartfelt response to the silence surrounding the people, their monasteries, their towns, and their history.

    Now, with fears of a potential closure of RFA’s Tibetan service, I feel a deep sorrow. I still believe that its voice will not vanish, and its influence will not disappear. It was once a bridge between Tibetans inside and outside the country, and it will continue to live on in memory.

    Tibetans need more access to the outside world. More truth. More diversity. More clarity.

    The Tibetan services of RFA and VOA were not just media — they were a cultural flame, a guardian of language, a lighthouse of thought.

    Even under the weight of surveillance, Tibetans inside Tibet still listen: To remember their past, to understand their present, and to imagine a future that’s their own.

    Shutting down these services is to sever the Tibetan people from their resonance, their reflection, and their hope.

    We must ask:

    When Tibetan children grow up hearing only a single narrative,

    When villagers and nomads can no longer receive truthful messages from afar,

    When monks are trapped in a web of data and ever-watching cameras—

    Who will tell them that their world is not only the one written by the Chinese government?

    Therefore, I appeal:

    Please do not silence Tibet.

    Please protect the last information channels for the Tibetan people.

    Let truth continue to reach the plateau.

    Let hope continue to cross borders.

    Tibetan voices must not be buried. Let all people of conscience stand together and keep the light of truth shining across the snowland.

    Tibetans have already lost too much — please, do not take away our last remaining voice.

    Tsering Woeser is a Tibetan writer and poet based in Beijing. The views expressed here are her own.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by commentator Tsering Woeser.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Fraud of Endless War

    There is not a single war or serious military confrontation since WWII involving the U.S. that needed to be fought. Every conflict where soldiers and civilians suffered death or injury was — and is in the case of the ongoing fighting — unnecessary. These battles for territory, control, resources, subjugation, spite, are the direct result of greed, hubris, racist arrogance, ideological fanaticism, sometimes just pure ego. Predictably, we hear high sounding rhetoric in every instance about spreading democracy, safeguarding freedom, responsibility to protect, defending our national interests, rules-based international order, yakkety yak blah blah blah. It’s all just spin to manufacture acquiescence and consent, to get us sheeple to stand down and let the warmongers and empire builders, the MIC and the war industry, have their way.

    Those in the peace movement know the specific details rendered with this next graphic well. People who are preoccupied with living life and overcoming its many obstacles might dismiss it as fake news. But very tragically, it’s entirely factual. The U.S. just can’t stop attacking others.

    There are three fundamental reasons why the U.S. is a belligerent, bullying aggressor, or as Martin Luther King, Jr. famously summed it up, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own government.”

    Thus there are three reasons we are perpetually at war. These are …

    Ideological Drivers of Endless War

    There has never been a shortage in recorded history of master race ideologies. We find them even enshrined in religious texts. The U.S. has its share of such doctrinal canons, each couched in marvelous language and noble-sounding rhetoric, promoted by a host of noted individuals and organizations, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council on Foreign Relations, Project for the New American Century, all anointing the U.S. as the indispensable nation, the world’s rightful heir as the master overlord. There is no ambiguity or nuance here. America has formally declared itself as the supreme authority over the entire planet. The latest buzz phrase is “rules-based order”, which effectively means the U.S. will make the rules to establish the order in the world, everyone else will obey or face the consequences. Those consequences take the form of economic or military terrorism, buttressed by the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and the awesome might of the largest military in the history of the world.

    Social and Political Control Drivers of Endless War

    Defending the homeland and war command our attention. They focus our energy, steel our resolve, unify us, add purpose and drama to otherwise mundane day-to-day life. They play on our most basic instincts for survival and protection of what’s dear to us. But on the flip side, they also shut down critical faculties, create a visceral bond with the worst aspects of human nature, and open the door for tyrannical control and elimination of basic freedoms and rights. War unites us alright — in fear, suffering, misery, deprivation, shame, anger, suspicion, hate, paranoia, dehumanization and death.

    Economic Drivers of Endless War

    There are huge fortunes to be made with war. Conquered nations can be plundered. At home, those who invest in war industries will see magnificent returns. The more war, the greater the profits. It’s no secret that military conflict is encouraged, in fact driven, by profiteers on Wall Street and from within the defense contractors themselves. There’s a rotating door between those who head up defense companies and those who sit at the seats of power shaping policy and making the decisions which countries will be demonized, intimidated and attacked. Our current economic/political model incentivizes an unruly, aggressive, confrontational foreign policy and generously rewards the creation of war zones and arenas of conflict.

    It is often said that the U.S. cannot be without an enemy. This is only partially accurate. More to the point, it is the military-industrial complex that can’t be without an enemy. NATO’s massive bureaucracy and whole reason for existing cannot be without an enemy. What’s the point of the enormously bloated U.S. military, with its 800+ overseas bases, its vast fleets of battle ships and submarines, its vast array of military satellites and surveillance centers, its psyops and special ops and secret ops, its carving up the entire world into combatant command zones if there isn’t an enemy? Here’s how the U.S. sees the world.

    Let’s bear in mind what all of this means by looking at the big picture.


    The entire Imperial Project — world rule by the U.S. as a self-declared hegemon — is at its core and at every layer anti-democratic. It replaces self-determination in the countries we dominate with our authoritarian control — a polite phrase for totalitarian subjugation — making it ironic and odiously cynical that the U.S. claims to spread democracy in the world, when it regularly overthrows democratically-elected governments, then replaces them with despots which do our bidding.

    Just as tragically, the decision to be an empire, the entire program of global domination, mocks the idea of democracy in America itself. It was conceived of and initiated by a tiny minority of power-drunk, monomaniacal, avaricious psychopaths, supported by a ruling elite which sees conquest and plunder as just another day at the office. Put simply and directly: We as citizens never voted for any of this. And if we understood the true nature and agenda of the Imperial Project, we would without hesitation or equivocation entirely reject it and the misery and impoverishment it ultimately entails, both domestically and overseas.

    Right here at home, the Imperial Project by forcing its agenda on U.S. citizens, obliging us to underwrite it every single day of our lives with in-kind and out-of-pocket cash payments of our hard-earned dollars, coupled with the loss of freedom and opportunity, a complete silencing of the voice and priorities of everyday citizens, is at its core and at every layer anti-democratic, despotic, and exploitative. We as citizens have become an ATM machine for the warmongering lunatics trouncing other countries across the globe. We are indentured slaves to a militarized economy which requires war to function, frightened subjects of a regime that creates enemies everywhere, pawns of a power game and calculated strategy to set us against one another, a social-political climate intentionally engineered to maintain “total spectrum domination”, meaning totalitarian control even within our own borders.

    Maybe the idea of a benevolent, enlightened, inspired and visionary U.S. leading the world into a new age of affluence and harmony, guided by the best principles of democracy and driven by shared humanitarian values seems appealing. But it’s an illusion. It’s an illusion fostered by massive deceptions, propaganda, brainwashing, engineered for our compliance and complicity in the madness that has overtaken our governing institutions. Read the speeches of the mentors for this type of hyper-nationalistic insanity, the architects of the Third Reich, and see how closely they align with the promises of our current batch of make-America-great-again demagogues. Creepily, ‘Aryan super race’ and ‘American exceptionalism’ are bedfellows, the spawn of the same lunatic delusions. ‘Indispensable’ is nothing but code for ‘1000 year Reich’.

    Yes, that avuncular icon at the top, embraced, lauded, and emulated by the patronizers of a naive, trusting and gullible citizenry, is pointing at us, you and I, entreating us to be a part of a sinister plan to take over the world.

    We better make the right choice … while we still can make a choice.

    Time is running out.

  • Official Peace Dividend Project Website.
    • The post The Fraud of Endless War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Chris Hedges: The last chapter of the Gaza Strip genocide

    Israel has begun the final stage of its genocide. The Palestinians will be forced to choose between death or deportation. There are no other options, writes Chris Hedges

    ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

    This is the last chapter of the genocide. It is the final, blood-soaked push to drive the Palestinians from Gaza. No food. No medicine. No shelter. No clean water. No electricity.

    Israel is swiftly turning Gaza into a Dantesque cauldron of human misery where Palestinians are being killed in their hundreds and soon, again, in their thousands and tens of thousands, or they will be forced out never to return.

    The final chapter marks the end of Israeli lies. The lie of the two-state solution. The lie that Israel respects the laws of war that protect civilians. The lie that Israel bombs hospitals and schools only because they are used as staging areas by Hamas.

    The lie that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, while Israel routinely forces captive Palestinians to enter potentially booby-trapped tunnels and buildings ahead of Israeli troops. The lie that Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) are responsible — the charge often being errant Palestinian rockets — for the destruction of hospitals, United Nations’ buildings or mass Palestinian casualties.

    The lie that humanitarian aid to Gaza is blocked because Hamas is hijacking the trucks or smuggling in weapons and war material. The lie that Israeli babies are beheaded or Palestinians carried out mass rape of Israeli women. The lie that 75 percent of the tens of thousands killed in Gaza were Hamas “terrorists.”

    The lie that Hamas, because it was allegedly rearming and recruiting new fighters, is responsible for the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

    Israel’s naked genocidal visage is exposed. It has ordered the evacuation of northern Gaza where desperate Palestinians are camped out amid the rubble of their homes. What comes now is mass starvation — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said on March 21 it has six days of flour supplies left — deaths from diseases caused by contaminated water and food, scores of killed and wounded each day under the relentless assault of bombs, missiles, shells and bullets.

    Nothing will function, bakeries, water treatment and sewage plants, hospitals — Israel blew up the damaged Turkish-Palestinian hospital on March 21 — schools, aid distribution centers or clinics. Less than half of the 53 emergency vehicles operated by the Palestine Red Crescent Society are functional due to fuel shortages. Soon there will be none.

    Israel’s message is unequivocal: Gaza will be uninhabitable. Leave or die.

    Since last Tuesday, when Israel broke the ceasefire with heavy bombing, over 700 Palestinians have been killed, including 200 children. In one 24 hour period 400 Palestinians were killed.

    This is only the start. No Western power, including the United States, which provides the weapons for the genocide, intends to stop it. The images from Gaza during the nearly 16 months of incessant attacks were awful.

    But what is coming now will be worse. It will rival the most atrocious war crimes of the 20th century, including the mass starvation, wholesale slaughter and leveling of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 by the Nazis.

    October 7 marked the dividing line between an Israeli policy that advocated the brutalisation and subjugation of the Palestinians and a policy that calls for their extermination and removal from historic Palestine. What we are witnessing is the historical equivalent of the moment triggered by the annihilation of some 200 soldiers led by George Armstrong Custer in June 1876 at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

    After that humiliating defeat, Native Americans were slated to be killed with the remnants forced into prisoner of war camps, later named reservations, where thousands died of disease, lived under the merciless gaze of their armed occupiers and fell into a life of immiseration and despair.

    Expect the same for the Palestinians in Gaza, dumped, I suspect, in one of the world’s hellholes and forgotten.

    “Gaza residents, this is your final warning,” Israeli Minister of Defense Israel Katz threatened:

    “The first Sinwar destroyed Gaza and the second Sinwar will completely destroy it. The Air Force strikes against Hamas terrorists were just the first step. It will become much more difficult and you will pay the full price. The evacuation of the population from the combat zones will soon begin again…Return the hostages and remove Hamas and other options will open for you, including leaving for other places in the world for those who want to. The alternative is absolute destruction.”

    The ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was designed to be implemented in three phases. The first phase, lasting 42 days, would see an end to hostilities. Hamas would release 33 Israeli hostages who were captured on Oct. 7, 2023 — including women, those aged above 50, and those with illnesses — in exchange for upwards of 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children imprisoned by Israel (around 1,900 Palestinian captives have been released by Israel as of March 18).

    Hamas has released a total of 147 hostages, of whom eight were dead. Israel says there are 59 Israelis still being held by Hamas, 35 of whom Israel believes are deceased.

    The Israeli army would pull back from populated areas of Gaza on the first day of the ceasefire. On the seventh day, displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return to northern Gaza. Israel would allow 600 aid trucks with food and medical supplies to enter Gaza daily.

    The second phase, which was expected to be negotiated on the 16th day of the ceasefire, would see the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Israel would complete its withdrawal from Gaza maintaining a presence in some parts of the Philadelphi corridor, which stretches along the 13 km border between Gaza and Egypt.

    It would surrender its control of the Rafah border crossing into Egypt.

    The third phase would see negotiations for a permanent end of the war and the reconstruction of Gaza.

    Israel habitually signs agreements, including the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Peace Agreement, with timetables and phases. It gets what it wants — in this case the release of the hostages — in the first phase and then violates subsequent phases. This pattern has never been broken.

    Israel refused to honour the second phase of the deal. It blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza two weeks ago, violating the agreement. It also killed at least 137 Palestinians during the first phase of the ceasefire, including nine people, — three of them journalists — when Israeli drones attacked a relief team on March 15 in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza

    Israel’s heavy bombing and shelling of Gaza resumed March 18 while most Palestinians were asleep or preparing their suhoor, the meal eaten before dawn during the holy month of Ramadan. Israel will not stop its attacks now, even if the remaining hostages are freed — Israel’s supposed reason for the resumption of the bombing and siege of Gaza.

    The Trump White House is cheering on the slaughter. They attack critics of the genocide as “antisemites” who should be silenced, criminalised or deported while funneling billions of dollars in weapons to Israel.

    Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is the inevitable denouement of its settler colonial project and apartheid state. The seizure of all of historic Palestine — with the West Bank soon, I expect, to be annexed by Israel — and displacement of all Palestinians has always been the Zionist goal.

    Israel’s worst excesses occurred during the wars of 1948 and 1967 when huge parts of historic Palestine were seized, thousands of Palestinians killed and hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed. Between these wars, the slow-motion theft of land, murderous assaults and steady ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, continued.

    That calibrated dance is over. This is the end. What we are witnessing dwarfs all the historical assaults on Palestinians. Israel’s demented genocidal dream — a Palestinian nightmare — is about to be achieved.

    It will forever shatter the myth that we, or any Western nation, respect the rule of law or are the protectors of human rights, democracy and the so-called “virtues” of Western civilisation. Israel’s barbarity is our own. We may not understand this, but the rest of the globe does.

    Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Republicans are celebrating democracy’s collapse—and it might cost America everything

    We’ve been reporting from the US Capital over the past several weeks, hoping to document how Congress is responding to the authoritarian impulses of the Trump administration.  

    It has been fruitful, albeit chaotic. There have been colorful press conferences and illuminating back-and-forths with Republican legislators, but not in the way we expected.  

    Republicans, it seems, are happy to dispense with democracy, provided liberals go with it into the dustbin of history. In person they seem practically giddy, almost ebullient, and dangerously overconfident that abolishing liberalism is an end unto itself, regardless of the consequences.

    And that might be their downfall—and ours.

    DOGE caucus co-chairman Rep. Aaron Bean answers questions during a press conference in Washington, D.C., Feb. 24, 2025. (Pictured L-R) DOGE co-chair Rep. Pete Sessions, Rep. Beth Van Duyne, Rep. Aaron Bean, and Rep. Ralph Norman. Photo by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham

    During the press conferences we’ve attended, Republicans have reveled in massive federal job cuts and a possible tariff-induced recession. They’ve deflected serious concerns about data privacy and the dislocation of veterans from the federal workforce with puzzling confidence.

    They have expressed few doubts about a feckless billionaire delving into Social Security data and IRS records with little apparent oversight.

    Congressman Pete Sessions, co-chair of the Republican-led DOGE caucus, gave an elliptical answer on this very topic. When we asked if he could guarantee the safety of Americans’ personal information in light of reports that the DOGE team was underskilled and over-empowered, he deflected.

    “The IRS failed that test, and has failed it for many, many years,” he responded obliquely. 

    Even on topics like economic growth, high-profile Republicans have acted confident about usually touchy subjects, like a possible recession. Congressman Tim Burchett embraced a tariff-induced downturn, proclaiming with confidence on the Capitol steps that there would be temporary pain from the fallout over Trump’s tariff ballet, but it would be limited to the wealthy. 

    “There is going to be some pain, but it’s going to be very, very short term,” he said with confidence.

    Normally, all of these political third rails—a dour economy and massive federal job cuts—would be anathema to a party working to remain in power. Yet these controversial topics have been met with a collective shrug by MAGA apostles. 

    You could write off this behavior as the natural hubris of a newly elected majority. But that would be an understatement. Conservatives seemed buoyed by a different sort of political calculus—the kind that shrinks politics to a binary conception of power, us versus them, that is downright dangerous.

    That’s because Republicans seem certain their sole enemy—and ongoing biggest political challenge—is excising liberalism from its traditional bastions, like the federal government and academia; not improving, not reforming, or even meeting the challenges of a changing world, but vanquishing their Democratic rivals. They’re giddy that Democrats and liberals have been silenced, obliterated, or otherwise marginalized.  

    That’s one of the reasons they seem unconcerned that the cuts have been indiscriminate and unlawful. Purging appears to be a priority. Chaos, the primary effect.

    But all of this gloating ignores the reality of a world that is not so easily cowed. Conservatism may consider itself to be locked in an epic battle of left versus right, but the world is more complicated and nasty, and that might be a fatal miscalculation. The defeat of liberalism could be a pyrrhic conservative victory.

    Consider that while the Trump administration has withdrawn aid and drastically cut funding for research at American universities, China has committed to even more funding for research.

    As Trump has been deleting references to climate change and green energy, China is on the precipice of world domination in renewable energy. Sure, Republicans may wipe out the “Green New Scam,” as they call it. But how do we compete with China when cheaper and cleaner solar power drives an economy already constructed to overwhelm ours?

    Trump has slowed immigration to a trickle, even as our falling birthrate indicates we need more people. The downturn occurs as the conservative Cato Institute touts that immigrants consume fewer welfare benefits than native-born Americans and have also been a key factor in America’s recent economic growth. 

    If the game were simply between these two teams, liberals and MAGA, the victory could be resounding. Universities will falter, the federal workforce will dissolve, and the power base of liberalism will wither.

    But the world does not abide by this calculus. This will not be the win MAGA expects. The upcoming fight will, more accurately, be one of democracy versus autocracy, scientific truth versus disinformation, and a free market versus a command economy. Battles we might not be able to fight if the chaotic deconstruction of the federal government continues.

    These are the spoils Republicans seek. The rest of the world awaits a weakened nation courtesy of the Republican obsession with liberalism.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The F-Word

    “Fascism” is the current malediction of the left media to evoke fear and loathing of Trump, Alternatives for Germany (AfD), and other right-wing movements. It’s a strongly charged term, but false and harmful.

    What we are witnessing now is not the rise of fascism but the fall of social democracy – very different. Social democracy arose in the late 19th Century as a defense against the growing socialist movement. It modified capitalism, softened it to ease mass poverty and improve the living conditions of the working class, not out of benevolence but to forestall uprisings. With the exception of the Russian Revolution, it was effective for over a century.

    But now the competition from new cheap-labor capitalist countries like China1and India is too intense. Our capitalists can’t afford to be generous anymore. So they are cracking down and cutting back on wages, benefits and social programs. The purpose of the current swing to the Right is to restore hardcore capitalism – the oppression and exploitation of workers.

    Social democracy still has supporters among capitalists whose businesses depend on consumer buying power. They control politicians in the Democratic Party and the moderate wing of the Republican Party. They are losing ground now.

    That doesn’t mean fascism is rising. Systemically seen, Trump and AfD are disruptors necessary to break the encrusted, self-serving rule of the “progressive” parties, which have shown themselves to be incapable of solving the social problems confronting us. These problems are created by capitalism and can’t be solved by any form of it. The duty of socialists is to present the Marxist solution, not to spread irrational fear. Our job now, as Lenin said, is to build the revolutionary party.

    Instead of fascism, we are entering the stage of dialectical swings between Right and Left, each increasing in momentum until they culminate in revolution. How long this current rightward phase will last will depend on how the material situation develops.

    Trump and AfD are strict conservatives who want to reduce taxes, keep poor immigrants out of the country, restore traditional values, and limit the role of government. That’s reason enough to oppose them. But they’re not fascists. Rather than limiting government, fascists impose an overwhelming government controlling every aspect of life through state violence.

    The checks and balances built into US Constitution prevent that kind of drastic, fundamental change. The Constitution would have to be annulled and the right to vote abolished. If either of these occur, the American people would arise in mass and restore democracy.

    The Constitution might be overthrown in the future by a military coup as a last-ditch effort to crush the working class and preserve capitalism, but we’re a long way from that. Using that term now will blur its meaning when we really need it. Fear-driven politics aren’t effective – they’re exhausting and paralyzing.

    This is not just a quibble over terminology. We have to recognize where we are now: the crumbling of social democracy and the reinstating of conservative capitalism. Labeling this fascism or claiming it might become fascism sometime in the future just creates fear and confusion when we need clear thinking instead of misleading exaggerations.

    ENDNOTE:

    The post The F-Word first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    China is indeed low wage, but consumer produce and products are also low cost. As to the assertion that China is capitalist read “China is Not Capitalist and it is Not Yet Communist” and “How Socialist Is the Communist Party of China?” — DV ed

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trump-Witkoff: “We can’t accept any democracy in Gaza.” #2

    This is a continuation of my article yesterday “Trump/Witkoff: ‘We can’t accept any democracy in Gaza.‘”

    In order to keep that article brief, I didn’t there go into the lies about history that Trump/Witkoff expressed, which they got from their Zionist (racist-fascist-imperialist-pro-Jewish, or “nazi”-Jewish for short) friends and acquaintances, which includes many of Trump’s political megadonors to whom Trump owes his 2014 electoral victory, and so Trump/Witkoff share those mega-billionaires’ values, which are Biblical values and therefore support Israel against the Palestinians and so make impossible any successful negotiation by them of the disagreements between Israel and Palestine. This continuation of the article will deal specifically with those historical lies, which Trump/Witkoff believe to be truths and show no interest whatsoever in re-examining the falsehoods that they believe from the Bible and from Israeli propaganda:

    Today (March 23rd) Larry C. Johnson addressed those historical falsehoods that Trump/Witkoff and other Zionists think to be true, and here is the opening of that article, which does such a good job of pointing them out so that there’s no need for me to do so, and I shall therefore merely comment here about it, after presenting its opening:

    *****

    Tucker Carlson’s Interview with Steve Witkoff Reveals Surprising Ignorance

    23 March 2025 by Larry C. Johnson

    I have recorded a video for Counter Currents on Tucker’s blockbuster interview with Trump’s “peace” emissary, Steve Witkoff. My editor is in a different time zone, so it may not go up until Monday. However, I do have some comments about what we have learned about Mr. Witkoff. For starters, he comes across as a descent, honorable guy. And, I am sure he is a smart lawyer who knows the real estate business in New York City and is a strong supporter of Donald Trump.

    However, he revealed a surprising depth of ignorance about the situation in Gaza and the war in Ukraine. I was shocked. One of the first bombshells to drop was his confession that he has not met with or talked to anyone from Hamas. All of his “diplomacy” with the Palestinians is via a Qatari cutout. If you are not talking to both sides and trying to establish your credibility, you cannot be an honest broker.

    Witkoff also admits that he was shown a Zionist propaganda film about October 7, which he claims shows evidence of multiple rapes of Israeli women by Hamas. We know, thanks to Max Blumenthal and the folks at the GreyZone, that there is no evidence to support this claim. [Actually, Wikipedia’s article “Hamas baby beheading hoax” is far better-documented and more informative about that “hoax” Trump/Witkoff still don’t even know is a hoax, though Alice Speri of “The Intercept” had first raised serious doubts as to its veracity on 12 October 2023, the day after the Israeli lie was asserted by Netanyahu and seconded by Biden; so, is Tulsi Gabbard actually failing at her job of writing and presenting the Daily Intelligence Brief to President Trump? How could Trump/Witkoff NOT know it was a hoax?] Witkoff makes no effort to hide his disdain for Hamas and accuses them falsely of using children as suicide bombers. Let me remind you of my earlier article, The Hard Facts About Palestinian Terrorism Debunk the Western Narrative. Here are some key highlights:

    While Israel and the West repeatedly and incessantly insist that Hamas is nothing more than one of the most deadly, formidable terrorist groups in the world, the data collected and published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs debunks that narrative. The claim against Hamas is false. You don’t have to take my word for it, I am going to show you the data. The following tables and spreadsheets contain data collected by Israel between 27 September 2000 and 26 April 2024. [Israel continues to update the figures at the website linked above.]

    As an aside, Israel does not include the casualties suffered as a result of the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas. Israel calls it, Swords of Iron. In contrast to the meticulous list of the name of every dead Israeli and foreign victim, who allegedly died at the hands of Palestinians, the Swords of Iron data does not name the victims, especially the 40 children that Israeli officials insist were killed by Hamas. I find that curious, to say the least.

    *****

    Larry Johnson’s closing paragraph opens with “Steve Witkoff is an intelligent man and is capable of learning new facts. But I fear that he is blinded by his own Zionist prejudices and will convince Trump to continue to support Israel’s campaign of genocide.” But how can “an intelligent man” believe the garbage he does? Especially if “he is blinded by his own Zionist prejudices” — which he so obviously IS? He CERTAINLY is NOT a person who ought to be negotiating between Israel (which he loves) and Hamas (which he hates). He is CLEARLY an ADVOCATE for Israel, AGAINST Hamas.

    Not only is Witkoff obviously stupid, but so too is Trump, for hiring such people in the first place. Their level of intelligence is scandalously low. That is dangerous for America, and for the entire world. The billionaires’ corruption of the U.S. Government has reached  such a nadir, so that everyone has good and sound reason to be afraid. America’s billionaire-ocracy (or aristocracy) have handed the White House off from one corrupt fool, Biden, to another corrupt fool, Trump.

    The post Trump-Witkoff: “We can’t accept any democracy in Gaza.” #2 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Crips Against Cuts mounted nationwide DWP protests – but they weren’t without incident

    Chronically ill and disabled activists and allies took to the streets on Saturday 22 March against the Labour Party’s planned brutal cuts to their benefits. Protesters mobilised across the country in 14 locations to call out the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disgraceful move to slash social security for sick and disabled people to meet chancellor Rachel Reeves’ arbitrary self-imposed fiscal savings.

    The demonstrations kicked off the start of chronically ill and disabled resistance to the government’s dangerous austerity-driven punch downs on the community. However, the protests weren’t without issue or incident.

    Most alarmingly, protesters were met with violent physical hate crimes at one protest – showing the unsafe and hostile climate Labour’s plans and rhetoric has stoked.

    Crips Against Cuts: protests against the Labour-led DWP’s plans

    As the Canary previously reported, local disabled activists from the new decentralised grassroots group Crips Against Cuts coordinated the protests across the country. They held these in:

      • London
      • Birmingham
      • Sheffield
      • Leeds
      • Bournemouth
      • Exeter
      • Brighton
      • Bristol
      • Portsmouth
      • Edinburgh

    Crips against cuts protests planned for this weekend. Please follow the QR for details and please please please repost on your accounts 💜

    @crips-against-cuts.bsky.social

    [image or embed]

    — Just Em x (@agirlcalleddave.bsky.social) March 20, 2025 at 9:57 AM

    In London, a small group of protesters gathered at Southbank along the River Thames holding placards and giving powerful speeches against the cuts:

     

    View this post on Instagram

     

    A post shared by Samantha Baines👑 (@samanthabaines)

    One disabled protester called the corporate media’s recent attacks on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants’ access to the Motability scheme out for what it is:

    Hands off my PIP, you traitorous arseholes. Great @crips-against-cuts.bsky.social rally. You’ve riled the disableds @teamlabouruk.bsky.social, we will fight your abominable cuts till we win, we will not vote for you again 🧑‍🦼👩🏽‍🦼‍➡🤬🤬🤬 #pip #disabilityrights #wheelchair

    [image or embed]

    — elbelbumble.bsky.social (@elbelbumble.bsky.social) March 22, 2025 at 9:28 PM

    Exeter activists held a die-in to represent the deaths of chronically ill and disabled people that Labour’s cuts will foment:

    #DisabledPeopleAgainstCuts #Exeter protest against cuts to disability benefit and personal independence payments today.

    I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the crowd’s reaction. I’ve been to a fair number of protests which are usually met with […]

    [Original post on social.coop]

    [image or embed]

    — Jules (@afewbugs.social.coop.ap.brid.gy) March 22, 2025 at 4:19 PM

    Sheffield drew a sizeable crowd with some poignant and on-point placards:

    This is what community looks like ✊🏻 Thanks for showing up Sheffield! Don’t forget to take action – write to your MP, and follow @crips-against-cuts.bsky.social on insta or bsky!

    [image or embed]

    — Miranda Debenham (@mdebenham1.bsky.social) March 22, 2025 at 9:15 PM

    Labour MPs didn’t have the balls to face protesters

    Protesters in Cambridge pitched up outside a local Jobcentre with a big banner. They followed this up by draping the banner over a local bridge in defiance against Labour’s plans:

    In Edinburgh, campaigners took their protest right to the constituency office front door of Labour Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray MP:

    #WelfareNotWarfare

    Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty Kicked Off DPAC local actions across the UK in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a lively protest outside Ian Murray MP Sec of State for Scotland

    Write up Edinburgh Reporter theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2025/03/prot…
    Photos with Alt text 📢⬇

    [image or embed]

    — Disabled People Against Cuts (@dis-ppl-protest.bsky.social) March 22, 2025 at 6:36 AM

    Local media site the Edinburgh Reporter was on the ground interviewing protesters who spelled out what the cuts would mean for them and their loved ones:

    Protesters outside the constituency office of @ianmurraymp.bsky.social were keen to tell him what they think of the UK Government’s plans to wipe £5billion off the benefits bill. He wasn’t there but we had asked him about the proposed cuts earlier…

    [image or embed]

    — The Edinburgh Reporter (@edinreporter.bsky.social) March 21, 2025 at 5:02 PM

    However, as the outlet noted, while Murray was in Edinburgh, he clearly didn’t have the balls to look his constituents in the face outside his office.

    Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer on the ground, but…

    Meanwhile, activists gathered together on College Green in Bristol to host speeches:

    As the Canary highlighted ahead of the protests, Bristol Central MP and Green Party leader Carla Denyer came out in support of chronically ill and disabled people fighting the cuts:

    Choosing to cut support for disabled people, knowing that many already live in poverty, and that being disabled means that life almost always COSTS MORE – that’s a political choice

    Pleased to join @crips-against-cuts.bsky.social in Bristol today, angry that it had to happen

    (📸 by Clare Reddington)

    [image or embed]

    — Carla Denyer (@carladenyer.bsky.social) March 22, 2025 at 6:02 PM

    Though, a word of caution might be warranted here. This is the same Denyer who also voted for Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill at second reading, alongside her Green Party colleagues.

    All 350 Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) are against it due to the enormous risks it poses to chronically ill and disabled folks.

    So, while she may be an ally in opposing these cuts, protesters should be wary of thinking that she’s genuinely listening to the valid concerns and fears of our communities.

    Hate crimes: protesters attacked in Exeter

    The widespread protests show the depth of opposition to Labour’s callous plans from chronically ill and disabled people across the country.

    However, while these protests brought out the best of our communities, it also sadly drew in some of the worst. These were some of the very first protests chronically ill and disabled people have mounted against these cuts, but immediately they’ve exposed the disgusting ableist bigotry at the beating heart of Labour right Britain.

    In Exeter, this came to a head with some local residents committing violent hate crimes against the protesters. In one disturbing scene, a bigot threw a chair into the crowd:

    Another incident involved local people lobbing cap bombs at protesters:


    It’s clear who’s to blame for this despicable display of rancid ableist abuse: Labour and its client media cronies.

    That is, the vile rhetoric Labour ministers and the right-wing corporate media have been spouting, painting claimants as ‘scroungers’, ‘skivers’ and ‘fraudsters’ has already culminated in disgusting real-world consequences for chronically ill and disabled people.

    In short, it’s a shameful indictment that chronically ill and disabled people can’t go out and exercise their right to protest without threats to their person. Of course, this is one very visible,

    However, it’s characteristic of the types of discrimination and abuse chronically ill and disabled people experience every day. From outright verbal and physical bigotry, right through to ableist micro-aggressions, these all add up to a dangerous climate for chronically ill and disabled communities.

    Moreover, it’s the thin edge of the wedge of the state-sanctioned violence perpetrated against them through the systemically ableist DWP. Now, Labour is only amping up its war on chronically ill and disabled people with this fresh round of cuts. It will mean only more of this hostile environment.

    Where are our ‘allies’ on the Left?

    One thing that’s also immediately striking from the sparse photos and videos currently available is the scale of the protests.

    Unfortunately, this isn’t in an off-the-charts turnout kind of way. Instead, apart from the odd exception, the protests largely seem to have garnered modest crowds. Compare the numbers in these locations to nationwide demos in recent years – ongoing Palestine protests, workers’ strikes, climate emergency mobilisations, and for a nationwide call out, the protests on Saturday were pretty small.

    Of course, many chronically ill and disabled people couldn’t be there too (myself included thanks to a flare), so that’s another reason the turn out wasn’t huge. But that again begs the question – where were allies when we needed them?

    Non-disabled people, I’m looking at you. Come to the protests, de-centre yourself, and just listen, support, make noise alongside us.

    And chances are, many have a chronically ill or disabled family member or friend too – so where were they?

    Now, that’s not to take away from the brilliant people who did turn up, and the folks who poured their hearts into organising these demos in the short space of less than a week.

    However, what it is a reminder is how disability rights is still seen. That is, it’s the non-glamorous social justice sibling, way down the priority list. This isn’t anything new of course. And Crips Against Cuts managed to motivate more people at a local level than perhaps has been seen in some time over DWP welfare reforms.

    Historically, people just don’t turn up to support chronically ill and disabled protests. That should be a stain on the conscience of the left. Partly, this is a product of left-wing movements focusing on working people, as the Canary’s Steve Topple recently highlighted:

    When you centre working people as the priority (and let’s be real, based on the weighting of the line up, white people) and leave chronically ill, disabled, homeless, and non-working people – as well as minoritised women – as an after thought, you expose yourselves for the political games you are actually playing.

    People on the left regularly signal their intersectionality, but somehow chronic illness and disability are forgotten when it counts. Or worse still, tokenised as part of other campaigns, and deployed at and for their convenience.

    PCS union: handwringing DWP staff won’t strike for us

    And there is perhaps no clearer example of this than the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union.

    PCS national president Martin Cavanagh gave a speech at the Bristol demo:

    Throughout, he appealed to ‘class solidarity’ and argued that:

    Those who need support are somehow the problem. Those who need support are somehow the cause of all our ills in the UK. Well we all know that is a damn right lie. And every single one of us has a duty and responsibility to call it out.

    However, as always with the corporatist union handmaidens at the top, it has long been a case of “strike for me, but not for thee”. This was, after all, Cavanagh – the PCS’s DWP Group president – who despite all the platitudes over the years of solidarity with chronically ill and disabled benefit claimants, has mustered only hand-wringing defiance of his employer’s unconscionable welfare reforms and punitive sanction policies.

    Where was Cavanagh and his colleagues when DWP grim-reaper Iain Duncan Smith unleashed his devastating wave of welfare cuts?

    Where were they every IDS-reprising DWP boss since who’ve slashed benefits, and overseen the “systematic” and “grave” violation of disabled people’s human rights?

    Where were they when the Tory-led DWP presided over the deaths of tens of thousands of chronically ill and disabled claimants?

    The short answer is, the snivelling sell-out lot of them sure as hell weren’t striking. That’s reserved solely for their own work conditions. But then, it’s hard to imagine snobby middle class managers that populate the DWP and look down their noses all day at claimants sacrificing their job security. God forbid they’d be finding themselves signing onto the dole alongside us!

    Tokenised class solidarity

    Moreover, Cavanagh seemed to skip over the part where it’s DWP staff that he and his union represent who have enacted years of the department’s violence against chronically ill, disabled, and poor claimants. Instead, he sung the praises of the ‘good’ folks at the DWP, working day in, day out in public service:

    And comrades, what I find particularly disturbing, is that my background is DWP – clearly I’ve been evil in a previous life. But absolutely we understood and we knew back in the 1980s when I first started, that you absolutely on day one learned that anyone who came through that door, whether they were sick, had a disability, or just couldn’t find work, your job was to support them. Give them the financial leg up that they needed, when they needed it.

    And you were absolutely told that they shouldn’t leave that building until you’ve done everything you could to help them. And how quickly times changed.

    It’s almost chilling to see him convinced that the DWP is, or was ever anything other than the brutal arm of the state punching down on chronically ill, disabled, and poor people. His speech should be seen for what it is: a shallow effort to rehabilitate a department rife in ableism, classism, and rampant negligence.

    In short, Cavanagh and his union are the very epitome of tokenised class solidarity. Over a decade ago, his union abandoned claimants forced into ‘workfare’. This was the government’s policy forcing claimants into unpaid labour in order to claim benefits. Of course, little has changed today – Labour’s latest work requirements conditionality regime will usher in only more of the same.

    Now, does anyone really believe beyond Cavanagh’s warm words, that the PCS union isn’t going to throw chronically ill and disabled people under the bus once more?

    Working class solidarity is conditional when it comes to disability rights. And Cavanagh laundering the PCS union’s image at these protests should be ample evidence of that.

    Chronically ill people: an afterthought

    Moreover, the protests were also somewhat marred as much by who wasn’t included, as by who they did.

    Crucially, the precious few posts from these protests illustrated something important. This is how the lack of online live-stream, videos, and action left out a whole contingent of people the cuts will undoubtedly impact: chronically ill people.

    Many are bed-bound/house-bound or immuno-compromised and so unable to make it to in-person demos. So, making it so they can participate online – or view back speeches not in real-time is a key matter of accessibility.

    It speaks to a problematic persisting feature of the left’s protest spaces more generally. And notably, it unfortunately often extends to protests held by disabled groups. This is, the lack of inclusivity and accessibility for their chronically ill siblings-on-the sharp end of state violence.

    A movement that’s sorely needed all the same

    On the whole, the Crips Against Cuts protests were a welcome and vital show of chronically ill and disabled people’s collective resistance against the DWP. Its quick organisation and power to pull in activists nationwide is needed now more than ever. Credit where it’s due.

    However, the left more broadly need to take a good look in the mirror and reflect why so many failed to turn out to these protests. Moreover, the movement should be careful who it gets into bed with – because when push comes to shove, not everyone who proclaims to stand up for us really have our backs.

    Nonetheless, Crips is just getting started, and they’re sure to continue being a force for chronically ill and disabled people going forward.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Pro-Palestinian protesters challenge Peters at state of the nation speech

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Saige England in Christchurch

    Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.

    A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”

    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.

    Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.

    Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.

    Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.

    Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.

    Real death toll
    The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.

    One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.

    The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.

    At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.

    Pro=Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall
    Pro=Palestine protesters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday to picket Foreign Minister Winston Peters at his state of the nation speech.Image: Saige England/APR

    This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).

    Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.

    He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.

    Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before being thrown out
    Ben Vorderegger in keffiyeh was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of Palestinans before
    being thrown out of the Christchurch Town Hall meeting. Image: Saige England/APR

    Condemned movement
    Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.

    This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.

    Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.

    Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.

    After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.

    The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester)
    PSNA co-chair John Minto (in hat behind fellow protester) . . . the failure of Foreign Minister Winston Peters to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is “bloody disgraceful”. Image; Saige England/APR

    Protester released
    The protester was later released without any charges being laid.

    A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”

    I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..

    "The words Winston is terrified to say . . . " poster
    “The words Winston is terrified to say . . . ” poster at the Christchurch pro-Palestinian protest. Image: Saige England/APR

    It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.

    He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.

    From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.

    Populist threats
    The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.

    Yet he was on record for doing so.

    I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.

    Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.

    The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.

    He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.

    “He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”

    Refusal ‘unprecedented’
    “It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.

    “That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.

    “Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.

    “Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.

    “If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.

    “New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”

    New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall
    New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event, dismissing protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?” Image: Saige England/APR

    Only staged questions
    The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.

    He warms to journalists who warm to him.

    The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.

    Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

    Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall
    Part of the crowd at the state of the nation speech by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday. Image: Saige England/APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: how are the lesser of two evils getting on?

    The question that asks if the Labour Party is just as cruel, callous and inhumane as the Tories is no longer up for debate. Just look at the news from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

    Labour: the lesser of two evils?

    If the hand-job under the table for Trump didn’t convince you, nor the removal of the winter fuel allowance from some of Britain’s poorest and most vulnerable pensioners, the continuing privatisation of your National Health Service, the open support for Neo-Nazis and terrorist states, *and* this new, most vile assault on sick and disabled people has still left you somewhat unsure, you’re best to stick to making shit TikTok videos and leave any attempt at resistance to the socialists.

    It wasn’t that long ago that these betrayed and humiliated Labour supporters insisted that they would happily take the lesser of two evils in the shape of Keir Starmer.

    How’s that working out for them? The lesser of evils is still evil, and is the lesser evil *really* any less evil than the egregious, contemptible, degenerate Tories that they replaced, not even not even nine months ago?

    The answer is a resounding no.

    It wasn’t that long ago that these deluded and desperate Labour supporters laughed in our faces when we told them that they needed to get the Tories out of the Labour Party to have even the slightest chance of getting the Tories out of power.

    How’s that working out for them? Foreign lobbyists are deeply invested in our democracy. Keir Starmer — THEIR prime minister — is itching for a scrap with a nuclear-armed superpower whilst whispering sweet nothings into the ear of the satsuma-coloured Washington neofascist.

    If it looks like a Tory, talks like a Tory and walks like a Tory there’s a fucking good chance Keir Starmer is no less a Tory than David Cameron and Michael Heseltine.

    Not the first time we’ve seen social murder

    If Labour’s utterly senseless cuts don’t kill you, Labour’s Assisted Dying Bill most probably will.

    This is hardly the first time the ruling classes have dabbled in a bit of social murder.

    The horrific Grenfell Tower inferno and the imposition of austerity under the Conservatives are just two recent examples of democide in the UK.

    If you look across the pond and cast your minds back to Trump’s first presidential term it can be easily argued that Trump and other Republican Party leaders are guilty of democide and wilful cruelty and indifference in terms of their response to the Covid pandemic which resulted in the loss of at least one million American lives.

    You see, it takes a disturbing, fucked up mindset to think a person with Multiple Sclerosis deserves a state attack on their dignity and independence.

    Disabled people have just been through fourteen catastrophic, democidal years under the Tories.

    Degenerative conditions such as MS and Parkinson’s were deemed by the DWP as conditions that a person was likely to recover from and be fit for work in the future. Perhaps the renowned miracle worker, Ian Duncan Smith, really was Jesus fucking Christ?

    The clue is in the word “degenerative”. Satanic cunt.

    The Tories’ incredible healing powers didn’t just stop at MS and Parkinson’s, far from.

    Shameful

    Declan, who is 19, permanently confined to a wheelchair, lives with Down’s Syndrome, cerebral palsy, a hole in his heart, and scoliosis of the spine, was told to attend the DWP Jobcentre with a sick note from his GP.

    One can only assume they were hoping he had made a full recovery?

    The Tories’ — already convinced they can cure MS, Parkinson’s, Down’s Syndrome, and Cerebral Palsy — went one step further and sent a letter to a woman in a coma, Sheila Holt, demanding she make an effort to find work.

    Do you get where I’m coming from here, Mr Starmer and Ms Kendall? Disabled people have had enough of this state barbarism to last us five fucking lifetimes.

    Some people with particularly short memories may need reminding of the fact that it wasn’t just Conservative Party governments that engaged in targeted attacks against the disabled people of Britain.

    Back in 2010, in the dying days of New Labour, version one, then-secretary of state for work and pensions Yvette Cooper set out plans to make the degrading Work Capability Assessment much harder to pass.

    We shouldn’t be surprised by Labour

    The plans included, and I quote:

    Docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech, and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

    Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

    Carry things with their stumps? Imaginary fucking wheelchairs? This an insane level of vindictive hatred for sick and disabled people that ultimately paved the way for fourteen years of Conservative DWP misery.

    Cooper’s cruel and inhumane Work Capability Assessment was no better than what the Tories put me through.

    I remember when friends of New Labour, ATOS, did one of mine. The official health assessor was a literal chiropractor. He asked me to memorise four unique items, of which I did successfully, but what on earth has that got to do with osteoarthritis and the prospect of a double knee replacement?

    Cooper’s new way of doing things ended up with a terminally ill gentleman being classified as fit for work. The Citizens Advice Bureau found cases of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, severe mental illness and even a person awaiting open heart surgery all being told they were also well enough to get a job.

    So maybe we shouldn’t be quite so shocked by Labour’s gruesome and catastrophic assault on Britain’s sick and disabled people?

    ‘Responsible government’

    This is what they call “responsible government”. Targeting the most vulnerable with the least while offering concessions and favours to the elite with the most just isn’t the behaviour of a responsible government.

    We cannot allow the feckless scrounger narrative to rear its ugly head when there are 801 sitting parasites in the House of Lords and a further 600 plus servants of the dodgy and rich in the House of Commons that cost the public purse so much more than a person with no limbs or a single mum living with chronic pain and mental health struggles.

    Sick and disabled people aren’t an enemy of the British taxpayer. The unemployment rate for disabled people in the UK is just 5.6%. That’s lower than the overall unemployment rate in the EU.

    One report that I read indicated that a quarter of global tax dodging is enabled by the UK and British Overseas Territories. If you really want to track down your enemy you could do a whole lot worse than to start digging around here.

    Labour supporters should feel deeply ashamed by their government’s latest act of political violence against the sick and disabled people of Britain because this isn’t just a matter of government policy, but a whole new battle for survival.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Moldova Could Become a Powder Keg of the European Union

    In the last decade, there has been a growing concern about a democratic deficit in Europe, while the liberal mainstream has replaced all other forms of thinking from the socio-political landscape. Moldova — where pressure on the opposition and independent media increases every year, and the ruling party always has the last word on all political issues — is not an exception.

    Since Maia Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) came to power in 2021, political pluralism and freedom of speech in the country have essentially ceased to exist. Against the backdrop of rapidly rising prices and poverty levels, the Moldovans began to hold mass protests demanding the government resignation. The authorities responded by shutting down a number of television channels and electronic media outlets under the pretext that they allegedly were spreading pro-Russian propaganda and provoking contradictions within the state. Later, a “hunt” for undesirable politicians and a fight against opposition parties began in the republic. Thus, in 2023, at the request of the government, Moldova’s Constitutional Court declared the Șor Party unconstitutional, and in May 2024, the country’s Justice Ministry asked a Chisinau court to place restrictions on political activities by the Chance Political Party.

    After the constitutional referendum was held on the same day as the presidential election in 2024, tensions within the country grew even deeper. Sandu was accused of intending to use the plebiscite to save her declining popularity amid the economic crisis and protests. According to the results of the referendum on EU membership, 50.35% supported the amendments; however, some opposition parties did not recognize the results of the vote. The dissatisfaction of Sandu’s opponents was also facilitated by the results of the presidential elections, which Party of Socialists of Moldova(PSRM) called dishonest and undemocratic, pointing to the unreasonable reduction of polling stations, blocking voters’ access to ballot drop boxes, as well as cases of falsification.

    Moldova is currently positioning itself as a democratic and liberal country. However, is this actually true? Numerous arrests of activists, the suspension of broadcasting of television channels as well as blocking of dozens of information sources that have opinions different from those of the government – does not all this indicate a complete elimination of freedom of speech and pluralism in the country? Moreover, the presence of a single “correct” opinion within the divided Moldovan society could lead to a situation where part of the population begins to turn towards a more extreme and radical opposition, prepared to engage in conflict with the current authorities. Thus, with its actions, Sandu’s team is paving the way for the emergence of far-right political parties in the country, similar to Alternative for Germany and Freedom Party of Austria. Increase in the number of such parties could lead to instability not only at the local level, but could also completely undermine the already fragile political situation within the EU. In this scenario, the prospects for cooperation between Europe and the United States would become even more dim.

    The post Moldova Could Become a Powder Keg of the European Union first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • An open letter to Labour from the Autistic brother of a severely disabled woman

    The following article is a comment piece from an anonymous reader

    An open letter to Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting, Rachel Reeves, and the Labour Party, from the Autistic brother of a severely disabled woman living in the north.

    Last night, on my bus home from a self-enforced jaunt out for St. Patrick’s Day I heard the word “mong” used as a casual insult for the first time in years.

    I am sure that this shortening of “mongoloid”, an archaic, mean-spirited (and racist) way of referring to Down’s Syndrome people is still often used as a casual insult here in the northwest, but I haven’t heard it recently.

    In normal circumstances, I would grit my teeth and bear the use of such a word by uninformed young people. Or maybe ask if they knew the origins of the word that they so readily use as an insult.

    In this instance, in the context of your recent political attack and scapegoating of those who are unable to work, I could not sit on my hands.

    I lashed out (rhetorically, and uncharacteristically), and let the person who casually used the slur know that my sibling is what would (far too frequently) be called a “mong” or a “retard”, and that I love them to bits. I also made it plain that I would defend my sister from imminent threats to her person should they occur. Your government, in its rhetoric, has made it such that people are quick to forget that people love, cherish, and are more than willing to protect disabled people.

    (If not to let someone willing to use such words that disabled people are not yet completely socially isolated).

    An ableist slur on the eve before DWP benefit cuts announcement

    I was confronted by other bus-goers, accused (ironically) of bullying, and remained seated/physically non-confrontational through the whole ordeal.

    The young man who used the word was defiant throughout the process, and I felt very much that I was the only one on the bus who saw an issue in the use of the word.

    I may have been the only person on the bus aware of the extent of your scapegoating of disabled people within the last two weeks. I may have been the only person on the bus aware of the alarmingly rapid rise in overtly fascist policies coming out of the USA (nice kowtowing, Keir).

    I may have seemed, in a contextual bubble, to be inappropriately lashing out at a young man and “language-policing” a word. The fact remains, however, that I heard an ableist slur for the first time in years on the eve of your assault on the funding of the disability arm of the welfare state.

    I am not able to work myself due to health issues (yes, including but not limited to anxiety, Wes). Several of my diagnoses were made by an NHS panel (ADHD, Asperger’s) when I was a child, before such diagnoses were as commonplace as they are now.

    I spent the best part of the 2010s working low-level customer service jobs. I can’t work now. My health issues are not imagined or “over-diagnosed”. If my sibling was not part of my life, I may well have felt ostracised to the point where I would not be able to speak out for the rights of the neurodiverse or disabled. However, the stakes are greater than my own wellbeing.

    Labour Party scapegoating disabled people: for shame

    That said, my sibling can not speak for themself and the Labour Party’s scapegoating of the neurodiverse pales in comparison to the Labour Party’s scapegoating of those who will never be medically fit to work.

    You’ve chosen the wrong easy target guys. Plenty of disabled people have loved ones who are willing to pick up the slack as best as they can, and in targeting the most vulnerable, you are also targeting those surrounding the most vulnerable.

    People like myself don’t want to be angry, or confrontational, or desperate, or backed into a corner. We’d love the opportunity to thrive. Making a political football of us will not achieve this.

    Us and our loved ones have far less economic leeway than those who could contribute massively via a wealth tax and higher marginal income tax.

    If you’re too politically cowardly to consider said taxes, please at least have the common decency not to target the disabled. The people affected by your recent decisions are already so fatigued.

    The Nazis rounded up the disabled first for a reason.

    Maybe I over-reacted last night. Maybe I’d had too much Guinness. Or maybe I was the only one on the bus who read the political room. We are not your scapegoat. Why on earth would you choose to victimise the vulnerable?

    I don’t leave my home much, and on a rare occasion where I did, I contended with outright ableism. My beautiful sibling aside, do you want to force me to go and contribute to this society that you’re creating to the detriment of my own health? Every time I see a doctor I ask for specialist (Autism, ADHD) mental health treatment that doesn’t exist.

    The way to defeat the far right electorally is not to co-opt their rhetoric and policy.

    For shame.

    A concerned citizen.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Gareth Southgate’s speech was just the tonic young men need in today’s world

    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.

  • Diet Offsets: Why Going Vegan Isn’t the Only Way to Fight Factory Farming

    diet offsets
    8 Mins Read

    Thom Norman, co-founder of NGO FarmKind, believes people going vegan may not be the best way to fight factory farming. His solution? Diet offsetting.

    Here’s a radical proposition: the best way to fight factory farming isn’t to go vegan.

    Is this some Joe Rogan-inspired bunk about how, actually, vegans kill more animals than meat-eaters? No, sorry Joe, you’re still wrong.

    Factory farming – how we produce 99% of the animals we raise in the US – is unarguably wrong: it’s destroying the planet, inflicting industrial-scale cruelty on animals, and risking human health through antibiotic resistance and zoonotic diseases. But for those of us who want to do something about it, we’re invariably told that step one is to stop eating animal products.

    Listen, I’m a vegan. I’ll be the first one to say: I wholeheartedly agree. Reducing or eliminating your meat consumption is an important way to fight factory farming. Being vegan is an important part of who I am and how I try to live out my compassion for animals. However, as a former meat-eater and a current proponent of the animal welfare movement, I will say that promoting veganism as the only way forward is actually hurting our cause. 

    That’s because changing your diet isn’t the only way to fight factory farming – and it might not even be the best way.

    Instead of beating themselves up for not quite being able to give up cheese (and then doing nothing about it), what if any omnivore could do just as much good to fight the factory farming system for about the same cost as a streaming service subscription?

    This isn’t theoretical. It costs the average omnivore just $23 a month to do as much good for animals as going entirely vegan. How? Because the most effective charities fighting factory farming have figured out how to create massive change for pennies on the dollar. Think of it as carbon offsets, but for animal welfare (let’s call it ‘diet offsetting’) – which is far more impactful than most people realise.

    What is diet offsetting?

    compassion in world farming
    Courtesy: Compassion in World Farming

    Diet offsetting is less complicated than it sounds: anyone can make a rough inventory of the animal products they eat and which animals those products come from. Then find charities working to improve those specific animals’ lives by tackling factory farming. Animal Charity Evaluators can help you identify the most effective charities that won’t waste your donations. Or, for an even simpler approach, you can use FarmKind’s offset calculator that handles the math and charity selection automatically, and lets you make a direct donation (100% of which goes directly to the chosen charities).

    In fact, I’d go as far as to say that for most people (and animals), diet offsetting is a better option than going vegan. Despite decades of campaigns like Meatless Mondays and Veganuary, only about 5% of US adults identify as vegetarian or vegan – a number that hasn’t budged since 2012. Underneath that headline number lies a revealing pattern: 84% of people who’ve tried a plant-based diet report having given up, most commonly within the first year.

    It would be an exaggeration to say that it’s impossible to persuade people to make dietary changes. Interventions based on appeals to preventing animal suffering have, at least a self-reported, impact on how much people eat animal products. Despite the fact that most of the discourse around animal agriculture focuses on environmental issues, it seems that, at least in the UK, the most prominent reason people go and stay vegan is animal welfare.

    The big problem is that, overall, trends are definitely in the wrong direction. Per capita meat consumption in the US, with a few blips along the way, climbed from about 113 kgs per person in 1971 to about 126 kgs by 2021. While the global average is tiny by comparison, 43 kgs per person, it has risen much more sharply over the same 50-year period (from 27 kgs).

    While some climate consolation can be taken from the fact that beef is no longer the most commonly eaten meat in the US, this has been a welfare disaster.

    This is because cheaper poultry has replaced beef. Relatively speaking, beef cows have far fewer bad lives than chickens, which are almost exclusively farmed in highly concentrated operations. It also takes far more individual chickens to feed people the same amount as a cow. So, we’ve swapped raising a smaller number of cows with higher welfare for raising billions of chickens in some of the worst conditions experienced by land animals on the planet.

    The evidence is clear: individual diet change is not delivering the kind of transformation we need to end the moral atrocity that is factory farming. On the contrary, things are getting worse.

    Stressing individual action holds movements back

    eu caged farming ban
    Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva

    But here’s the good news: while the strategy of individual dietary change has failed to deliver, a different approach has been quietly revolutionising how animals are treated in our food system. Strategic advocacy organisations have made huge gains here.

    Take The Humane League’s cage-free campaign as an example of what strategic advocacy can achieve. In just 15 years, it has convinced more than 2,400 companies – including corporate giants like Walmart, KFC, and Taco Bell – to commit to cage-free eggs. The result? The percentage of US hens living cage-free has skyrocketed from 4% to around 40%.

    Let that sink in: billions of chickens will no longer spend their lives confined in wire cages so small they can’t even spread their wings – spaces literally smaller than a sheet of printer paper. And here’s the kicker: achieving this transformation costs just 85 cents per chicken. This is what effective systemic change looks like.

    This is where the real opportunity lies: instead of the uphill battle trying to get people to cut back on their meat or go plant-based, we could channel that energy into supporting the organisations that are already transforming the system.

    Of course, some animal advocates bristle at this suggestion. I’ll admit, when my co-founder and I first had this idea, I had a moment of pause. There’s something that feels wrong about being able to simply write a check to absolve ourselves of responsibility. Shouldn’t we be asking people to engage more deeply with the ethics of their food choices, not less? After all, many activists believe that changing individual diets is the gateway to deeper engagement with animal welfare.

    But, historically, emphasis on individual action has often held movements back, not helped them.

    Consider this revealing parallel: in the early 2000s, one of the biggest promoters of the ‘carbon footprint’ – the idea that we should all obsessively measure and reduce our personal impact on global warming – was none other than oil giant BP. By shifting the conversation from corporate responsibility to consumer choice, BP masterfully deflected attention from the real drivers of climate change.

    The meat industry is playing from the same playbook. While we debate the ethics of holiday dinners, they’re spending millions lobbying against basic animal welfare laws, pushing through “ag-gag” legislation to criminalise whistleblowers, and running sophisticated PR campaigns that paint factory farms as idyllic family operations. They’ve even tried to make it illegal to call plant-based products “milk” or “meat” – not because consumers are confused, but to maintain their monopoly on how we think about food itself.

    This is why we need to shift our focus to systemic change. Instead of letting the industry keep us arguing about personal food choices, we should be supporting the organisations that are pushing for better regulations, fighting harmful agricultural subsidies, and holding these companies accountable for their practices.

    The best part about offsetting? People will actually do it

    amazon deforestation cattle
    Courtesy: Paralaxis/Shutterstock

    Some critics argue that pushing for incremental welfare improvements, like cage-free eggs, actually entrenches factory farming by making it seem more acceptable. They say we need to push for complete abolition, not small changes that might make people feel better about eating meat.

    This strategy inevitably draws criticism from abolitionists within the animal rights movement. They argue that pushing for incremental welfare improvements – like cage-free eggs – actually entrenches factory farming by making it more palatable to consumers. Better conditions, they say, just ease people’s consciences while leaving the fundamental system intact. We should be pushing for complete abolition, not compromises that might make people feel better about eating meat.

    But this argument ignores how successful social movements actually work. Take child labour: it wasn’t eliminated in the US overnight. The path to abolition began with seemingly modest reforms – limiting working hours, requiring breaks, and restricting the most dangerous jobs. Each small victory built momentum for bigger changes.

    Moreover, while we work towards evolving the food system away from cruel and destructive practices like factory farming, incremental changes make an immediate and meaningful difference for animals suffering right now. A hen who can spread her wings, scratch in the dirt, and dust bathe isn’t living in ideal conditions – but she’s significantly better off than one confined in a tiny cage. To dismiss these improvements as mere window dressing is to ignore the very real suffering we can prevent today.

    But, the strongest argument for offsetting is also the most simple: people will actually do it.

    For most of us, writing a check is a much easier ask than changing your entire diet – which means more people will actually help. The numbers bear this out: about 14% of Americans already donate to animal causes each year – almost three times as many people as identify as vegetarian or vegan. Imagine what organizations like The Humane League could achieve if we channelled more of our energy into funding their successful campaigns instead of arguing about personal food choices.

    Right now, billions of animals are suffering in factory farms while we debate what’s on our plates. The fastest path to ending their suffering isn’t waiting for everyone to go vegan – it’s empowering everyone who cares about animals to make a difference, whether they eat meat or not. The system won’t change because we all become perfect ethical consumers. It will change because we organised, funded, and fought for that change.

    Whether you’re reading this as a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, omnivore, or total carnivore – remember, you don’t have to change your diet to make a difference in the systemic fight against factory farming (which hurts us all). Just make sure you’re putting your money where your mouth is.

    The post Diet Offsets: Why Going Vegan Isn’t the Only Way to Fight Factory Farming appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Diet Offsets: Why Going Vegan Isn’t the Only Way to Fight Factory Farming

    diet offsets
    8 Mins Read

    Thom Norman, co-founder of NGO FarmKind, believes people going vegan may not be the best way to fight factory farming. His solution? Diet offsetting.

    Here’s a radical proposition: the best way to fight factory farming isn’t to go vegan.

    Is this some Joe Rogan-inspired bunk about how, actually, vegans kill more animals than meat-eaters? No, sorry Joe, you’re still wrong.

    Factory farming – how we produce 99% of the animals we raise in the US – is unarguably wrong: it’s destroying the planet, inflicting industrial-scale cruelty on animals, and risking human health through antibiotic resistance and zoonotic diseases. But for those of us who want to do something about it, we’re invariably told that step one is to stop eating animal products.

    Listen, I’m a vegan. I’ll be the first one to say: I wholeheartedly agree. Reducing or eliminating your meat consumption is an important way to fight factory farming. Being vegan is an important part of who I am and how I try to live out my compassion for animals. However, as a former meat-eater and a current proponent of the animal welfare movement, I will say that promoting veganism as the only way forward is actually hurting our cause. 

    That’s because changing your diet isn’t the only way to fight factory farming – and it might not even be the best way.

    Instead of beating themselves up for not quite being able to give up cheese (and then doing nothing about it), what if any omnivore could do just as much good to fight the factory farming system for about the same cost as a streaming service subscription?

    This isn’t theoretical. It costs the average omnivore just $23 a month to do as much good for animals as going entirely vegan. How? Because the most effective charities fighting factory farming have figured out how to create massive change for pennies on the dollar. Think of it as carbon offsets, but for animal welfare (let’s call it ‘diet offsetting’) – which is far more impactful than most people realise.

    What is diet offsetting?

    compassion in world farming
    Courtesy: Compassion in World Farming

    Diet offsetting is less complicated than it sounds: anyone can make a rough inventory of the animal products they eat and which animals those products come from. Then find charities working to improve those specific animals’ lives by tackling factory farming. Animal Charity Evaluators can help you identify the most effective charities that won’t waste your donations. Or, for an even simpler approach, you can use FarmKind’s offset calculator that handles the math and charity selection automatically, and lets you make a direct donation (100% of which goes directly to the chosen charities).

    In fact, I’d go as far as to say that for most people (and animals), diet offsetting is a better option than going vegan. Despite decades of campaigns like Meatless Mondays and Veganuary, only about 5% of US adults identify as vegetarian or vegan – a number that hasn’t budged since 2012. Underneath that headline number lies a revealing pattern: 84% of people who’ve tried a plant-based diet report having given up, most commonly within the first year.

    It would be an exaggeration to say that it’s impossible to persuade people to make dietary changes. Interventions based on appeals to preventing animal suffering have, at least a self-reported, impact on how much people eat animal products. Despite the fact that most of the discourse around animal agriculture focuses on environmental issues, it seems that, at least in the UK, the most prominent reason people go and stay vegan is animal welfare.

    The big problem is that, overall, trends are definitely in the wrong direction. Per capita meat consumption in the US, with a few blips along the way, climbed from about 113 kgs per person in 1971 to about 126 kgs by 2021. While the global average is tiny by comparison, 43 kgs per person, it has risen much more sharply over the same 50-year period (from 27 kgs).

    While some climate consolation can be taken from the fact that beef is no longer the most commonly eaten meat in the US, this has been a welfare disaster.

    This is because cheaper poultry has replaced beef. Relatively speaking, beef cows have far fewer bad lives than chickens, which are almost exclusively farmed in highly concentrated operations. It also takes far more individual chickens to feed people the same amount as a cow. So, we’ve swapped raising a smaller number of cows with higher welfare for raising billions of chickens in some of the worst conditions experienced by land animals on the planet.

    The evidence is clear: individual diet change is not delivering the kind of transformation we need to end the moral atrocity that is factory farming. On the contrary, things are getting worse.

    Stressing individual action holds movements back

    eu caged farming ban
    Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva

    But here’s the good news: while the strategy of individual dietary change has failed to deliver, a different approach has been quietly revolutionising how animals are treated in our food system. Strategic advocacy organisations have made huge gains here.

    Take The Humane League’s cage-free campaign as an example of what strategic advocacy can achieve. In just 15 years, it has convinced more than 2,400 companies – including corporate giants like Walmart, KFC, and Taco Bell – to commit to cage-free eggs. The result? The percentage of US hens living cage-free has skyrocketed from 4% to around 40%.

    Let that sink in: billions of chickens will no longer spend their lives confined in wire cages so small they can’t even spread their wings – spaces literally smaller than a sheet of printer paper. And here’s the kicker: achieving this transformation costs just 85 cents per chicken. This is what effective systemic change looks like.

    This is where the real opportunity lies: instead of the uphill battle trying to get people to cut back on their meat or go plant-based, we could channel that energy into supporting the organisations that are already transforming the system.

    Of course, some animal advocates bristle at this suggestion. I’ll admit, when my co-founder and I first had this idea, I had a moment of pause. There’s something that feels wrong about being able to simply write a check to absolve ourselves of responsibility. Shouldn’t we be asking people to engage more deeply with the ethics of their food choices, not less? After all, many activists believe that changing individual diets is the gateway to deeper engagement with animal welfare.

    But, historically, emphasis on individual action has often held movements back, not helped them.

    Consider this revealing parallel: in the early 2000s, one of the biggest promoters of the ‘carbon footprint’ – the idea that we should all obsessively measure and reduce our personal impact on global warming – was none other than oil giant BP. By shifting the conversation from corporate responsibility to consumer choice, BP masterfully deflected attention from the real drivers of climate change.

    The meat industry is playing from the same playbook. While we debate the ethics of holiday dinners, they’re spending millions lobbying against basic animal welfare laws, pushing through “ag-gag” legislation to criminalise whistleblowers, and running sophisticated PR campaigns that paint factory farms as idyllic family operations. They’ve even tried to make it illegal to call plant-based products “milk” or “meat” – not because consumers are confused, but to maintain their monopoly on how we think about food itself.

    This is why we need to shift our focus to systemic change. Instead of letting the industry keep us arguing about personal food choices, we should be supporting the organisations that are pushing for better regulations, fighting harmful agricultural subsidies, and holding these companies accountable for their practices.

    The best part about offsetting? People will actually do it

    amazon deforestation cattle
    Courtesy: Paralaxis/Shutterstock

    Some critics argue that pushing for incremental welfare improvements, like cage-free eggs, actually entrenches factory farming by making it seem more acceptable. They say we need to push for complete abolition, not small changes that might make people feel better about eating meat.

    This strategy inevitably draws criticism from abolitionists within the animal rights movement. They argue that pushing for incremental welfare improvements – like cage-free eggs – actually entrenches factory farming by making it more palatable to consumers. Better conditions, they say, just ease people’s consciences while leaving the fundamental system intact. We should be pushing for complete abolition, not compromises that might make people feel better about eating meat.

    But this argument ignores how successful social movements actually work. Take child labour: it wasn’t eliminated in the US overnight. The path to abolition began with seemingly modest reforms – limiting working hours, requiring breaks, and restricting the most dangerous jobs. Each small victory built momentum for bigger changes.

    Moreover, while we work towards evolving the food system away from cruel and destructive practices like factory farming, incremental changes make an immediate and meaningful difference for animals suffering right now. A hen who can spread her wings, scratch in the dirt, and dust bathe isn’t living in ideal conditions – but she’s significantly better off than one confined in a tiny cage. To dismiss these improvements as mere window dressing is to ignore the very real suffering we can prevent today.

    But, the strongest argument for offsetting is also the most simple: people will actually do it.

    For most of us, writing a check is a much easier ask than changing your entire diet – which means more people will actually help. The numbers bear this out: about 14% of Americans already donate to animal causes each year – almost three times as many people as identify as vegetarian or vegan. Imagine what organizations like The Humane League could achieve if we channelled more of our energy into funding their successful campaigns instead of arguing about personal food choices.

    Right now, billions of animals are suffering in factory farms while we debate what’s on our plates. The fastest path to ending their suffering isn’t waiting for everyone to go vegan – it’s empowering everyone who cares about animals to make a difference, whether they eat meat or not. The system won’t change because we all become perfect ethical consumers. It will change because we organised, funded, and fought for that change.

    Whether you’re reading this as a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, omnivore, or total carnivore – remember, you don’t have to change your diet to make a difference in the systemic fight against factory farming (which hurts us all). Just make sure you’re putting your money where your mouth is.

    The post Diet Offsets: Why Going Vegan Isn’t the Only Way to Fight Factory Farming appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • It’s World Down’s Syndrome Day – but under Labour, there is nothing to celebrate for us and Betsy

    At the end of a week that saw our Labour Party government announce plans to strip some disabled people of Personal Independence Payment and entitlements under Universal Credit, we have World Down’s Syndrome Day on Friday 21 March. A day dedicated to celebrating the lives of people living with Down’s Syndrome; people like my daughter Betsy.

    As a disabled person myself I am scared about how I’m going to survive after the DWP reforms.

    But as the mother of a disabled child I am terrified. For her.

    What kind of world are disabled children growing up in?

    This is the world she is growing up into. In a country that punishes people for being disabled, forcing us into poverty. Any parent of a disabled child will tell you that their greatest fear is dying and leaving their vulnerable child without care and advocacy. That fear has never been so extreme as it is right now, because nobody else is going to advocate for her; write the letters; attend the meetings, and lodge the tribunals – alongside providing 24/7 care for her.

    Down’s Syndrome is a genetic condition caused by the body having an extra copy of chromosome 21. It expresses differently in every person, causing a wide range of health conditions and always comes with learning disability.

    My daughter is medically complex, with multiple serious health conditions that means she needs 1:1 care at all times. She frequently needs hospital treatment. Learning disability can be caused by many different factors, but in my daughter’s case, it is because she has Down’s Syndrome.

    She cannot advocate for herself. I am her voice.

    The UK is a country that does not have the infrastructure and funding in place to ensure that children with learning disabilities have access to the same rights as typical children. For my daughter’s entire life I have had to fight to get her the support she needs, in every arena. Education. Healthcare. Enrichment.

    Yet sometimes there is literally nothing in place to fight for, such is the black hole of support provided by our government.

    So to hear that, despite having education, health care, and social care systems that fail disabled children, they are expected to magically grow up to be able to work and support themselves is absurd. The government aren’t even giving children with SEND a fighting chance.

    The state is failing us at every turn

    To start at the beginning. Early intervention in nursery education for children with SEND is virtually non existent. Even for my daughter, who was born with a physically-evident disability, was denied extra help by our local government. So I fought. Wrote the complaint. Submitted an appeal.

    Then we reach school age. Hundreds of thousands of children with SEND cannot access mainstream education. It’s just not designed to meet the sensory and physical needs of many children. That would require huge investment from our government, which is clearly not forthcoming. To have the right to attend a specialist provision children need a Education Health and Care Plan. A legal document that gives a child the right to the support they need. Whether that be a member of staff with them at all times, Speech and Language Therapy, or anything else they need. Even getting an assessment for a child to have an EHCP is gold dust. Betsy was denied an assessment for her EHCP that she needed to access education. So I fought. Wrote the complaint. Submitted the appeal. Lodged the tribunal.

    Then, I think we all know how well the NHS is functioning right now.

    The NHS and social care

    For disabled children not having access to the healthcare they have a right to is another arena in which they are being failed. Children are stuck on two-year waiting lists for an assessment for Autism. My own daughter required urgent surgery, due to a breathing problem while she was sleeping. The waiting list was over six months. When I say ‘urgent’, I mean life-threatening. My daughter was denied referrals for Orthotics support with the excuse that it’s normal for children with Down’s Syndrome to have hypermobile ankles. Yes, so treat it with the correct insoles and support. I wrote the complaint. Made the phone calls. Got the appointment.

    If anyone has had to call 999 and have a trip to A&E you will know the trauma of that scenario under the current circumstances in the NHS. Which brings me on to social care.

    Families who have a disabled child face higher levels of poverty than those with typical children. More often than not, one parent has had to give up work to care for their child. Why? Because there is no social care service. Social care is broken. Even for the few children who qualify for a few hours, it’s virtually impossible to find a support worker. Another gift from Brexit. Carer’s Allowance for parents who have had to give up work, stands at £81.90 per week. Often for providing 24/7 care. That drop in income from parental loss of a salary affects disabled children drastically. There are no letters to write or complaints to lodge about this. This is the accepted normality for families like mine, from our government.

    Locked out even further by the Labour government

    So we have disabled children locked out of healthcare, education, and even opportunities to enrich their lives.

    I can count on one hand the amount of wheelchair swings there are in Northumberland. Changing Places facilities are few. Activities are often not inclusive. Community groups run by parent carers who volunteer their time, and what little energy we have, seek to create opportunities for children with SEND to experience childhood activities in an accessible format. The group I run is massively oversubscribed. Places on enrichment activities are in such demand. Children miss out on enrichment experiences due to their disability.

    Implementing the social model of disability is vital for children too.

    So yes, I am celebrating Betsy today on World Down’s Syndrome Day. I am celebrating her life, the amazing person she is: her resilience, her kindness, her creativity, and her very being.

    At the same time though, I am beyond angry at how this government have created a destructive narrative around her. That she won’t have worth if she can’t work. This, combined with the complete failure to have a working social model of disability support in place for children in the UK, paints a dark picture for her future.

    World Down’s Syndrome Day: give disabled children a chance

    On World Down’s Syndrome Day I call on our government to take a close look at the stark reality of life for disabled children in the UK and ask themselves, is this what you want to be your legacy? Exclusion. Sickness. Poverty.

    Give disabled children in the UK a fighting chance. After all, they have human rights. Don’t they?

    Featured image supplied

    By Rachel Curtis

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Want to support chronically ill and disabled people into work? Why not try listening to them.

    Peter had been an HGV driver for over 20 years. One day, Peter had a seizure. And – bang – just like that, Peter was medically unfit to drive a lorry. Imagine the shock.

    Like most people, Peter had financial commitments. There was no work he could get that paid anything like the same wages. The fact he’d paid his tax and paid his National Insurance all that time counted for nothing. He was skint.

    His debts built up. The stress of money worries, the health worries – he still really didn’t understand why he’d had a seizure – all overwhelmed him. Peter went into a desperate spiral of mental ill health. He started drinking heavily. His relationship broke up.

    Peter was referred to a mentoring course I funded as North of Tyne Mayor. He got one-to-one support from a counsellor. The first think they did was listen to him. Not fill in forms. Not assess him for ‘work capability’. Not tell him to buck his ideas up. Just listened to him, not as another client to be benignly steered to some work course, but as Peter. His worries. His regrets. How he saw his future. It gave him the head space to get his life back under control. We were patient. There was no deadline.

    ‘Disabled’ is not a one-size-fits-all category

    I met him a year later, and I’ve changed his name for this article. His confidence was rebuilt. He retrained in logistics. He’s got a new job and is back on his feet. He’s in a new relationship, and has a little baby. There was nothing about the person I sat and had a cup of coffee with that made me think he was different from anyone else. He was warm, thoughtful, and a good communicator. When life dealt him a blow, he stumbled. When he was offered a hand, he got back on his feet.

    I wonder if I hadn’t funded that course, whether Peter would now be another increment on the suicide statistics.

    We must see people as people. There’s nothing ideological about saying we should not leave people behind.

    By investing in Peter, he’s healthier, happier, in work, and paying taxes. It’s common sense to say that treating people with dignity produces better outcomes.

    We did it by listening to people. I’ve always believed that if you want good education policy, you should listen to teachers. If you want good health policy, listen to doctors. If you want to know how to speed up buses, listen to bus drivers.

    I did the same thing with our equalities assemblies. My remit was economic – how to grow the economy. I wasn’t in charge of running any public services. Still, we convened people from disabled groups, and listened to their actual problems. The real barriers they faced day-to-day. We improved the understanding of me and my team, that “disabled” is not a one-size-fits-all category.

    Labour now: no logic, nor morality

    All the talk of “savings” and “iron clad fiscal rules” is not just cruel, it’s illiterate. Seeing people as nothing more than economic work units assaults our common humanity and blinds us to common sense.

    The Film I, Daniel Blake sums it up perfectly. A skilled worker, with much to contribute, is crunched by the system and driven to an early grave. It’s set in Newcastle, and Dave Johns who played Daniel Blake was kind enough to do a fundraising gig for my election campaign.

    When that film came out, Labour MPs queued up to be seen with Ken Loach. When the Labour Party expelled him, they ran for cover.

    These people are now preparing to decimate the little remaining support that chronically ill and disabled people have. I was famously blocked from re-standing for Labour after talking to Ken Loach about his films at a cultural event about films. Neither logic nor morality seems to influence Labour policy any more.

    Treat people with dignity

    Hannah is a young woman I met. We worked directly with the charities and campaigning groups to co-design the courses I funded.

    The first thing Hannah told me was that she’s an autistic person. She did have a job, some years ago, but her line manager changed. Her new manager wasn’t sympathetic. In fact, she’d snapped at Hannah:

    Why can’t you be more like everybody else?

    Hannah lost her job there, and felt she would never be employed by anyone. Her confidence was rock bottom.

    Most work courses tell people how to put together a CV, and then make people apply for jobs for 35 hours a week. As someone who has employed a lot of people, I can tell you it just wastes everyone’s time.

    Employers don’t want to have to sift through applications where people are clearly not qualified. People looking for work can do without the constant rejection. Why make people jump through hoops just so angry people with no understanding of the subject can feel good that “lazy” people are getting punished. It’s straight out of a Dickens novel.

    Instead, Hannah got one-to-one support. Her coach found out what she liked and what she was good at. He got to see Hannah as a person. They worked together, and thought about what would be Hannah’s ideal job. It turned out that Hannah has an aptitude for images. So they actively approached companies that manage automatic number plate recognition systems, and got Hannah a job. When the computer can’t recognise the image, she corrects it.

    But it doesn’t end there. Her mentor still checks in on her. He got her employer to adjust the way they decide employee of the month so her work could be included. Hannah now has a permanent job, she’s earning decent money, paying tax, and feeling good about herself. I saw her again a few months later, and she’d won employee of the month.

    Treating people with dignity is economic common sense.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP just quietly released its most disgusting piece of ‘research’ yet

    The same day the Labour Party government launched its plans for a sweep of devastating welfare cuts, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published a piece of research quantifying the cost of chronically ill and disabled people to society. Or, in effect, the Labour-led DWP was putting a price-tag on chronically ill and disabled people’s lives – just as it readies to strip some of their benefits, and drastically cut them for others.

    All aboard for the disabled people-are-benefit-scroungers-and-burdens-to-society government gravy train to wherever the fuck ministers want to make their killer corporate salaries next.

    DWP cuts: Kendall on a welfare spend warpath

    On Tuesday 18 March, DWP boss Liz Kendall laid out the government’s broad catalogue of plans to ‘reform’ disability and health-related income-based benefits. Broadly, the green paper made for a callous cocktail of catastrophic cuts and changes that will harm chronically ill and disabled claimants.

    Notably, the paper included a suite of regressive reforms to make it harder for people to claim disability benefits like Personal Independence Payment (PIP). As expected, the changes it’s proposing will target certain claimants in particular, namely young, neurodivergent, learning disabled, and those with mental health disorders. Alongside this, there’ll be cuts to out-of-work benefits like the LCWRA health-related component of Universal Credit. Once again, it additionally wants to make this harder to claim, and all as it ramps up reassessments and conditions for doing so.

    The government is now consulting on the majority of these plans until 30 June. You can respond to this here.

    In tandem with its wide-scale assault on chronically ill and disabled benefit claimants, it published a separate statistical report. And the intent was obvious – to vilify sick/disabled people further and back Kendall’s case for this cruel new wave of cuts.

    Chronically ill and disabled people: an economic burden

    In particular, the DWP publication looked at what it considered the “cost to the economy” of “ill health or disabilities” that stop working age people from being able to engage with employment. In short, that is, it was quantifying the economic expense of chronically ill and disabled people unable to work.

    It looked at a number of areas in which it determined they would lose the economy money, including:

    • Their so-called long-term or temporary “economic inactivity” and sickness absence meaning “lost production” for employers.
    • Care-giving responsibilities resulting in “lost production”.
    • Costs to the NHS.
    • Lost tax and National Insurance returns.
    • Social security benefits.

    The basic thrust for all was: chronically ill and disabled people unable to work cost the Treasury, the DWP, the taxpayer, and employers. It estimated all this on revenue loss for 2022.

    Firstly, apparently, through lost “output per worker” the 2.7 million chronically ill and disabled people outside the workforce lose the economy anywhere between £132bn to £188bn.

    Meanwhile, for sickness absence, it’s purportedly between £38bn and £56bn.

    Then, informal care supposedly accounts for somewhere in the region of £37bn.

    On top of this, the analysis says they rack up a £2bn cost to the NHS, and an expense of £57bn to the exchequer in lost tax and National Insurance.

    More disability benefit-bashing

    And it wasn’t going to leave DWP benefits out either, naturally. It put this between £36bn and £47bn.

    To calculate that, it added together the cost of claims for a number of disability and ill health-related benefits. However, the already shoddy research doesn’t even solely focus on benefits like PIP and the UC LCWRA. What it actually does is take a picture of ALL the benefits chronically ill and disabled people out of work are claiming. So, this includes social security like the UC basic rate, the UC housing element, and housing benefit.

    Setting aside for a moment that the housing-based benefits go into the pockets of landlords anyway, including income-based benefits might almost imply that only people in work should be entitled to them… We hear you, subsidise poverty-paying employers, but no income for the “workless” that those same profiteering pricks can’t squeeze for capital generation, amiright?

    Additionally, it seemed to forget throughout the whole analysis of course that chronically ill and disabled people not working ALSO spend this money in the ECONOMY. What’s more, as other analyses have shown, these DWP benefits are actually also good for the economy in terms of the wellbeing returns they bring.

    Never mind in the first place that they deserve the financial support to live regardless.

    Overall then, it tallies these all up to say that chronically ill and disabled people out of work cost between £240-330bn in 2022. The bottom line then (because that’s all they seem to care about)? Chronically ill and disabled people are a burden to society.

    Expendable human capital is all we’ll ever be to the DWP

    As if all that weren’t utterly atrocious enough – the DWP only went and put a price on workers’ heads. For this, it introduced some nifty neolib chicanery titled ‘Gross Value Added (GVA)’ to work out each person’s “average (mean) value”. It described that this:

    can be thought of as the individual’s job contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    Yes, you read that right. We’re all just expendable ‘human capital’ to these neoliberal narcissists in Lord Alli white collar. Worse still, here’s the quiet part out loud:

    The GVA output per worker was £68,818 for the UK in 2022. This analysis also estimated a GVA figure for disabled people that may be more appropriate to apply to individuals with known ill-health. The GVA for a disabled worker is estimated for this analysis through multiplying mean GVA for all workers, by the ratio of median hourly pay of disabled workers to mean hourly pay for all workers (excluding overtime). Using this, the estimated median annual GVA for a disabled person was £46,513 in 2022.

    That is, on some completely bullshit metrics you can’t convince me it didn’t dream up on the back of a fag packet, my chronically ill and disabled ass is worth less to the economy than a non-disabled worker’s. Could have probably saved the DWP some effort and told it that one if it’d asked. Hellooo, ardent anti-capitalist trying to capsize the corporate-captured charlatans at Whitehall, working for the Canary here.

    If DWP timing is everything…

    Then there’s the timing of the publication – the very day of the DWP’s green paper. Coincidence? About as much as these political pigs in shit schmoozing it up at an ex-Labour staffer’s lobby firm gala. Throw in BlackRock, a smattering of bankers and City billionaires, and we have ourselves the new, new Labour Party – and an apt comparison for how hella unlikely it is this wasn’t entirely intentional.

    It was only too deliberate. Both in Parliament and in the green paper, Kendall was banging on about the claim rates. She opined in the foreword how:

    One in every 10 working-age people in Britain is now claiming at least one type of health or disability benefit.

    And this quickly led on to a tirade tying in the cost to the Treasury, and the NHS:

    Total spending on incapacity and disability benefits for working-age adults has soared by £20 billion since the pandemic, an increase of almost two-thirds. In 5 years’ time, we expect to spend over £70 billion. That is more than a third of our current NHS budget and more than 3 times what we currently spend on policing and keeping our communities safe.

    Now, I’d almost bet my DWP PIP bottom daily living allowance dollar that Kendall has never delivered a disgusting diatribe with as much unconcealed zeal as she did with her new pet punching down on disabled people project to Parliament this week.

    At the end of the day though, the clear issue here is that it sounds a lot like she’s leaning into the research above. And that wouldn’t be at all surprising. The green paper itself is filled with a veritable manufactured outrage-fest of ableist, demonising tropes. These especially scapegoat chronically ill and disabled people unable to work.

    Nothing new then from this “taking the mickey” IDS clone in blood red new Labour ministerial garb.

    Nothing new under a Labour in bed with the Sun

    So there you have it. Chronically ill and disabled people unable to work are a drain on the economy. We’re skivers, burdens, “useless eaters”, blah blah blah, take your pick. There’s really no shortage of stigmatising synonyms the shitrag press like shameless Labour’s favourite new soapbox the Sun, won’t continue to churn out with giddy, grotesque glee, and immoral abandon. At the same time however, the DWP has estimated that we also have less economic value in the workplace than our non-disabled peers.

    Incidentally, the analysis didn’t think to look at the costs of removing society’s disabling barriers, and tackling rampant institutional ableism. But then why would it? Chronically ill and disabled people are worth a third less to the economy by its own cold-hard capitalist calculations.

    Therefore, if you’re wondering why the Labour Party government is pushing to force us into work by slashing and stripping away our benefits, but won’t put its money where its mouth is and actually implement genuine support for us to do so, look no further.

    And that’s before you even consider the costs that are truly on the line here. Namely how coercing chronically ill and disabled people into low-wage, inaccessible, and toxic work environments will come at an expense alright – and it’s their very lives. Far from the DWP-manufactured propaganda about work being good for people’s mental health, for many it will be anything but. For still yet more, it will be actively harmful and dangerous to their physical health as well.

    Even more disgusting in the context of the assisted dying bill

    It’s truly appalling that it even needs spelling out, but people’s value should never be tied to their ability to work.

    However, that’s precisely what the DWP is doing here. It ascribes a value based on the government’s fucked up framing of dignity as something people have by means of their function inside the exploitative capitalist extortion racket. Where have we heard that one before? (Clue: a certain fascistic ideological stain on the conscience of 20th century Europe). Now, in 21st century Britain, your worth is contingent on your financial contribution to society. Nothing changes.

    Kendall’s cuts are one thing, but this is all against the backdrop of Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill that’s making its way through Parliament as well. In this climate, the concerted attempt to paint chronically ill and disabled people as a burden should be seen for what it is. In short: a gross and hostile attack on our right to even exist.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.