radiofree.asia

Category: Opinion

  • CBS’s Bari Weiss spikes Trump-critical documentary, outraging journalists

    Earlier this year, professional Israel supporter Bari Weiss became the head of CBS News. We know this wasn’t because of her journalistic talent or experience, which means it must have been her willingness to grovel before power. Now, everyone’s suspicions have been confirmed:

    Bari Weiss

    Weiss used to be a columnist at the New York Times, where she was known for being annoying and bad. It’s widely theorised she spent several months trying to get fired, but the New York Times had no bottom. The theory goes that Weiss wanted to use the sacking as a jumping off point to launch a career as a maligned free-thinker, and when she didn’t get that, she simply quit and acted like she’d been hounded out.

    This is from her resignation letter, which actually has its own menu option at the top of her site:

    My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

    While it’s true colleagues shouldn’t mock one another’s opinions in most jobs, that obviously isn’t the case when you’re job is OPINIONIST. It’s especially not the case when you’re opinions are terrible:

    Weiss is the person who coined the term ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ by the way – a group which was inexplicably named after the part of the internet where all the child porn is:

    The Intellectual Dark Web incorporated some of the most laughable figures of the modern day, including Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Bret Weinstein, and Majid Nawaz.

    Summarising who Weiss is, Defector wrote:

    Weiss, an empty-suit nullity whose very raison d’être is to speak comfort to power, feels that her news organization cannot proceed with the story without the willing participation of its villains, even when those villains have ignored appeals for their perspective. As has been pointed out by Alfonsi—who was already reporting for CBS News when Weiss was an undergraduate, and who has been doing stories for 60 Minutes for a decade—this absurd position allows the most brazenly dishonest and media-hostile administration in living memory to dictate the boundaries of CBS News’s reporting.

    Spiked

    The documentary in question covers the plight of Venezuelan men that Trump deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi went straight for Weiss’s throat, as Yashar Ali reported:

    In the email — which was first reported on by the Wall Street Journal — Alfonsi compares the decision to spike the story to the Jeffrey Wigand scandal.

    Jeffrey Wigand was a tobacco industry whistleblower whose interview was initially withheld by CBS in the 1990s over legal concerns, a decision that severely damaged the network’s credibility and became one of the most infamous episodes in broadcast journalism.

    Alfonsi writes that Weiss declined to speak with her about the decision.

    She also says the move was political rather than editorial.

    “Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices,” Alfonsi wrote. “It is factually correct.”

    Bari Weiss attempted to justify her decision as follows:

    My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be. Holding stories that aren’t ready for whatever reason — that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices — happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready.

    Since then, Weiss – a career reject who was parachuted into her position by wealthy interests – has chided those who spoke out, accusing them of not being proper journalists:

    I want to say something about trust: our trust for each other and our trust with the public.

    The only newsroom I’m interested in running is one in which we are able to have contentious disagreements about the thorniest editorial matters with respect, and, crucially, where we assume the best intent of our colleagues. Anything else is absolutely unacceptable.

    Weiss is confused because she thinks it’s the journalist’s job to launder the dirty secrets of their bosses, not to – you know – do journalism.

    In the same call, Weiss said:

    I held a 60 Minutes story because it was not ready. While the story presented powerful testimony of torture at CECOT, it did not advance the ball—the Times and other outlets have previously done similar work. The public knows that Venezuelans have been subjected to horrific treatment at this prison. To run a story on this subject two months later, we need to do more. And this is 60 Minutes.

    We need to be able to get the principals on the record and on camera. Our viewers come first. Not the listing schedule or anything else. That’s my north star and I hope it’s yours, too.

    So far, it seems like no one is buying that she pulled it for reasons of professionalism:

    In another email, Weiss stated that the documentary doesn’t sufficiently both-sides the story. You know – the story of Trump deporting Venezuelans to what you could arguably describe as an ‘El Salvadorian torture fortress’:

     

    The Epstein Continuum

    At the same time that Bari Weiss has been spiking credible journalism, she’s also been organising town hall debates featuring prominent associates of the dead paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. First up was Alan Dershowitz:

    If you don’t know who Alan Dershowitz is, that must be nice!

    Now This summed him up in the following video, but the TLDR is that he’s a lawyer who enthusiastically specialises in defending rapists:

    The next Epstein associate up to bat is Steven Pinker:

    Here’s a video of Pinker which came out in the latest release of the Epstein Files:

     

    Unwise Bari Weiss

    It’s hard to work out precisely what Bari Weiss thinks she’s doing, but it’s an absolute mess, we can tell you that much.

    While rich people can parachute stooges like Weiss in, the companies still have to make money. Nobody is tuning in to watch the ‘Epstein Pals Tedium Hour’, and instigating weekly mutinies is going to turn away watchers in droves.

    Given that Weiss keeps failing upwards, we’ve no doubt this catastrophe will only lead to greater positions of influence in the long run. In the meantime, sitback and enjoy her latest and greatest downfall.

    Featured image via Guardian

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Jeffrey Epstein’s latest victim is the AI slop trend

    The latest AI trend had middle-aged men taking endless selfies with celebrities. But this trend might be dead now — as a result of this absolute atrocity of a video in which Jeffrey Epstein meets a series of perverts, freaks, and sex criminals:

    Slop

    The account el.cine is the primary perpetrator of this trend:

    The following video shows famous actors playing DragonBall characters in a live-action adaptation:

    el.cine also published the following video which they claim is an example of hose ‘useful’ AI is:

    Others have got in on the act too:

    In the video at the top, Jeffrey Epstein takes selfies with:

    • The cast of Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut (a film about sex cults).
    • Nikelodeon’s Dan Schneider (a producer who was accused by child actors of unsettling and potentially criminal behaviour).
    • The cast of The Wizard of Oz (presumably a reference to the mistreatment suffered by child actor Judy Garland).
    • Arthur Freed (a film producer accused of exposing himself to a child).
    • Bill Cosby (convicted of sex crimes which were later overturned, although there are other allegations outstanding).
    • Charlie Chaplin (married a teenager as a 54-year-old).
    • P Diddy (currently serving time for sexually related crimes).

    The video ends with Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Netanyahu holding Bill Gates on a dog lead.

    So yeah, either this video is going to kill the trend, or it’s a sign of much weirder content to come.

    While we don’t care at all that Epstein’s image is being abused, imagine if some goon created a video like this featuring one of your dead relatives.

    This technology is truly demonic…and I say that as a somewhat committed atheist.

    The problem with AI

    Slop like the above is created through generative AI tools which were trained on actual artists’ work — often without their consent. As if that wasn’t bad enough, it seems like this stuff is so expensive to run that no one is actually making any money off it:

    While companies profiting from art theft wouldn’t be good, it would at least be understandable.

    What’s happening instead is that hundreds of billions of dollars are being pumped into the bullshit machine to artificially inflate the stock market. AI technology is energy and water intensive too, at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to clean up the planet.

    And all to generate videos of Jeffrey Epstein smoking weed with Spongebob Squarepants in hell.

    Featured image via icantevenproduction

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Here’s why the right wing lost it over our House of Lords protest

    On Friday, 19 December, three people, with tickets for an audio tour, rushed the sovereign throne in the House of Lords. I was one of those people, and this is the first action I have taken part in. 

    I can hear the protestations already. ‘It’s immature, there are official and practical routes to take if you want to push for political change, stop attention seeking.’

    Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. And I call bullshit.

    It’s so easy to diminish others for taking an action that is, by design, clearly inconvenient, disruptive and often a bit confusing. But I would argue that, too, is by design courtesy of the establishment and the super-rich that lord over us in all their pompous superiority and privilege. 

    I have already tried and tested the official routes; I first stood as a Green Party candidate, followed by a swift change to being Independent. I did this with the firm belief that we need to root and embed politics back into our communities, and I saw first-hand the difference it can make.

    I’ve organised peoples assemblies and public meetings for Your Party. We have seen people talking to each other again, and actually listening to each other, rather than shutting each other down. Progress in our communities is being made; but now we need to go big or go home. 

    They stopped caring about us ages ago

    It’s no wonder society is neglected and crumbling into the abyss when ordinary people have become disenfranchised from the system that is there supposedly to work for them. Time and time again we see policy decisions made which target the vulnerable, and protect the profits of the richest. Profits made from our pockets and decreasing living standards. 

    This is proven by stagnating wages, costs ever-surging, whilst the wealthiest ‘coincidentally’ see a 1000% increase in the same period.

    Billionaire Britain 2025

    Eat the Rich (and the House of Lords)

    We have to face facts. Our democratic system, along with the client media and billionaire press, are not there to give us an equal chance. We don’t have an official, legitimate and recognised means of having a say in the way our country operates.

    Again, by design, because it is not built for us; it’s built for us to put privileged, connected, often parachuted, candidates into Parliament for a continuation of the strangle-hold on ordinary, hard working families across our country. 

    “They must be really good at what they do”, chime those whipped by the far-right. No, mate. We are all really good at what we each do. We are just massively exploited for the profits of the rich in every aspect of our lives. Whether its wages, greed-inflation, degradation of the health of our nation, our rivers, our communities – we have all had to tighten our belts and plough on.

    All except one small minority in the UK.

    That is why I chose to take part in the action. It wasn’t violent, it caused no damage and it disrupted nothing, other than a few tour groups. We simply planned to sit in the sovereign chair, hold a banner saying ‘Replace the Lords’ and ‘The Peoples Charter’, whilst announcing the demands set by the first delegates of the House of the People convened earlier this year. 

     

    View this post on Instagram

     

    A post shared by Assemble (@timetoassemble_)

    Horrific, right?

    Frankly, given they sell Suffragette themed souvenirs in their giftshop, surely seeing some non-violent direct action first-hand should have been quite an educational experience.

    Pomp and pageantry isn’t our tradition; its theirs.

    The true tradition of the people is to protest and disrupt the powers that be, demanding to be afforded the rights we deserve. It is also one of the strongest ways to make wider society start to think about other alternatives, whilst exposing the absolute ridiculousness of the obscene wealth inequality in the Lord’s chamber. 

    The fact that it is so offensive, and potentially criminal, for an ordinary person to step out of bounds in this chamber and dare to approach the sovereign chair should disgust us all.

    The time is now – and it starts with the House of Lords

    This is how progress begins, by changing the rules, not waiting for permission to speak. 

    By introducing new ideas and concepts, we can get the nation thinking about what could be, so we can actually achieve greater things together. The establishment doesn’t want cohesion, hence it is sowing division. So by getting our communities back together, we can defeat the real enemies we all face. Pretty win-win, if you ask me.

    As Rayal, one of the protesters, aptly put it:

    I acted today to ensure that I am able to show my peers that the people are the true power, and that its up to us to take action against the false powers that attempt to control us.

    Just like the protesters of today’s age, the angry and impassioned Suffragettes weren’t favourites  in the eyes of the majority of people in their time, who just wanted a quiet life and to get on with it.

    But imagine where would we be, today, if those brave women hadn’t bloody well just got on with it, regardless.

    Join the call with Assemble and the House of the People, and kick the lords out, to put the people in.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Maddison Wheeldon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New Green Party signing Jamie Driscoll discusses his political life

    In the wake of his move to the Green Party, Jamie Driscoll talks about the experiences that shaped his political life:

    I left school at 16, and got a job in a heating and plumbing factory. I used to get a lift home from one of the warehouse blokes who drove the delivery wagon, along with a warehouse hand named Sid. He was about the same age I am now, mid-50s.

    One evening Sid told us he’d been given his notice. This was the depths of the Thatcher recession.

    “Don’t worry about me,” he said, pride on the line:

    I’ve got irons in the fire. I’ll be in work soon.

    I bumped into him a couple of weeks later:

    Those irons never came to anything, Jamie.

    I saw a man deflated and drained of hope. Who didn’t think he’d work again. He’d lost not just his income but his self-belief and part of his identity. I was sixteen and not emotionally intelligent enough to know what to say. I haven’t seen Sid since, but I still remember him. We all have formative experiences that shape our worldview.

    The long shadow of Thatcherism

    Thatcherism continued without Thatcher. “setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism” – to quote Sir Keir Starmerw – was really just privatisation.

    Tony Blair put the private finance initiative on steroids – hobbling hospitals with debt for decades. And, he did nothing for the North East – our earnings fell relative to London and the South East. Our private utilities extract billions to tax havens and fail to build new reservoirs or transmission networks. Council house stock halved, a significant cause of today’s housing crisis.

    A generation later, my sixteen year old son Nelson spoke to me. He’d just come back from a banner drop to raise awareness of the climate emergency. He told me:

    Logically, we know we won’t keep global heating to 1.5 degrees. That’s gone. We’re on target for over 3 degrees. I know that’s the world I’ll have to live in. We won’t be worried about pensions. We’ll be worried about whether the shops have any food. Whether there’ll still be law and order.

    16 years old. And that’s the future he and his generation see. They still have to deal with all we did. Unlike us, they also have to fight against a climate catastrophe with imminent tipping points. However, he continued:

    But it’s also logical to have hope. Because if we despair, we’ll give up. And we need hope so we keep acting. Because everything we do gives us that little bit better chance of actually having a future.

    That’s why I’m in politics. To fight for the Nelsons and the Sids. To support and enable them to fight for themselves and for others.

    The British public want what we want. The polling shows it. 65% to 80% want utilities run for public good. A wealth tax. Rent controls – including 44% of landlords who expressed a rent cap!

    Tinkering around the edges is inadequate. We have to rejig our entire economy to work for workers and small businesses and future generations. And as any engineer will tell you, refitting a machine while it is running is a lot harder than starting from scratch.

    Don’t wait for someone else to do it

    We have to get beyond shoppinglistism. The erroneous belief that we hand over a list of demands to someone else who will deliver them. You can’t order an integrated public transport system from Amazon Prime on next day delivery. We need to train and develop a cohort of politicians capable of running arms of government. While under pressure and under scrutiny.

    Otherwise the British public won’t trust us to run the country. They’ll ask, is their pension safe?  Will we spend public money wisely? We don’t have long to overcome the perception that we’re well meaning, but not ready.

    It’s not surprising. The number of democratic socialists who’ve held state power in this country – as opposed to being backbenchers – is a tiny handful. I remember my own brutal learning curve, and I’d had decades of project management and organisational leadership experience.

    The right are no better, by the way. Not just Kwasi Kwarteng’s self-imploding budget. As a Metro Mayor I worked with many a Tory minister who had no clarity on how to deliver their objectives. Or sometimes even what their objectives were. In reality they delivered little, but outsourced both their thinking and the contracts to the well heeled private sector organisations, whose sole loyalty was to their bank accounts.

    That’s why centrists always end up doing the same as the right, despite the hand-wringing. If you intend to use the same mechanisms to implement public policy, you’ll get the same results.

    To the Green Party

    I left Labour in 2023. I’ve never looked back. Friends in the Green Party have been nudging me to join ever since. I’ve asked them are they serious about the challenge? Getting a handful of councillors in a city or MPs in Parliament doesn’t put you behind the steering wheel. Are you in this to win it? They’ve convinced me they’re up for the fight.

    Over two-thirds of Green Party members joined in the past few months. It is transformed. It’s always had more radical policies than Labour. Even in 2017 and 2019. Check out the manifestos if you don’t believe me.

    The media keep asking, “Will you run for office?” Yes, if they want me. But the more interesting question would be, how can you help the Green Party transform this country?

    I’ll be working with the think tanks on how to deliver policies. Campaigning with the Newcastle Greens to replace Labour in May. And being part of a team that wants to make hope normal again.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Marcia: life with severe ME is like screaming into the void

    Hope is tricky business. On the one hand it keeps me alive, it fuels my tenacity, it helps me take a deep breath and do my best to understand other people’s perspective so I can better build communication bridges.

    But begging for my life on the internet, staying alive month to month on donations from strangers, attempting to get a foothold of logic in policies and ways of thinking that are entrenched in illogical bias: these rob hope of its strength. And when you’re approved for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) on quality of life, despair is an easy thing to teeter into.

    Severe ME in Canada: a Herculean effort to survive

    That said, I’m grateful for MAiD on quality of life, because it helped me step away from one measure of terror: the terror of the brutal kind of death I face when I run out of money. But having to choose any kind of death is still terrifying.

    While it gave me the only empowerment I have right now, it’s not the empowerment I’ve been fighting for. And when I get a month away from running out of the GoFundMe money that’s been keeping me alive, I feel myself start to teeter into despair. That’s combined with the fury and frustration that I am facing an entirely avoidable death. This to me is the equivalent of dying by slipping on a banana peel.

    So in writing this, trying to pull my thoughts together through brain fog, which I liken to a drunken librarian wandering around a decrepit library trying to find things, so intense is that impairment, I’m realising you don’t know who the heck I am.

    The Canary has written some articles about me. In brief, I’m a 45-years long Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) patient fighting to survive in Canada. I live without even a medical services billing number. This means there’s no data for tests, medicine, or proper physician education to be created. It means the system fails to estimate the amount of money for the disability and disease supports I need. If a healthy person were to try and survive on my current supports they would become disabled, deteriorate, and die.

    How do I communicate the Herculean effort it takes day by day to simply survive?

    A former supervisor of mine said to me about 25 years ago:

    it must be nice to be a PWD (person with disability) on assistance; you get to sit around, eat bon bons, and watch TV.

    After I took the knife out of my chest, my reply was:

    No, it’s like being a very large tiger trapped in a very small cage chewing on the bars.

    A week in the life of a person with ME and no support

    On a week to week basis, this is just a tiny sample of what I deal with:

    • Advocacy: pulling together my long viral ME beleaguered brain. My dyslexia uses five times more energy to process reading and writing, and this collides, worsening this. In June for instance, I had to turn my journey through hell into a haiku for the British Columbia budget committee to advocate for ME patients in my province.
    • I put together a petition to the government of British Columbia. This calls for an end to the systemic neglect of people living with ME. I’m constantly pushing it to accrue enough signatures to have an impact.
    • Attempting fruitlessly to get a constituency appointment with my Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) David Eby, who’s now the premier of British Columbia.
    • Producing a podcast, managing a GoFundMe, and doing social media updates.
    • Speaking to and educating politicians, bureaucrats, advocates, journalists, lawyers or doctors with energy I don’t have, just to have a chance at survival. Each time I think if I can just say it ‘right’, use the ‘right’ words, be some kind of magically eloquent TED Talk, that maybe this helps me, maybe this saves my life, maybe this stops happening to people like me. The pressure is immense. But bias is a roadblock. In one alarming exchange with the Ministry of Health, the director emailed me with blatant misinformation that ME is diagnosed when you rule out everything else. I had to share the World Health Organization’s criterion.

    No medical care and limited disability support

    • Attempting to get physicians/specialists who keep playing ‘pass the potato’ to look at what research there is into my disease. This is so we can try what is available and covered within the system. Due only to lack of disease and disability supports, I have deteriorated from 9 health issues at the beginning of my disability journey to now over 30 health issues.
    • Medical trial and error outside of the system. This has involved reading countless medical papers. The process is brutal and problematic all on its own, but there is nothing else for people like me.
    • Obtaining critical support devices like braces, orthotics, shower supports, accessibility/mobility devices, a bed, etc. These are either not at all or only partially covered, and require impossible paperwork. I’m also experiencing prejudice from the government medical request division. People hired as medically trained bureaucrats are acting like they’re medical providers. For example, medical providers are disregarding assessments. Instead, they have asked for naked pictures of body parts to assess requests without having the in-person data, my full file, or liaising with other providers to be able to understand what they’re looking at.

    All on top of the day-to-day

    But then there’s day-to-day things like medical appointments, treatments, and picking up pharmacy and supplement items. Every day, I have to remember to take those numerous medications at different times of day and in the different ways they need to be taken (AKA with food, different times than other meds).

    That’s all without managing my baseline needs that my disability makes into a kind of Sisyphean nightmare. This includes things like:

    • Getting groceries.
    • Attempting to eat healthy – even though I’m no longer physically able to cook or wash dishes.
    • Dealing with the expense of not being able to wash dishes (AKA paper plates, disposable cutlery, etc).
    • Having to buy water to drink since the water in my apartment makes my digestive system radically worse.
    • Using the bathroom an unusually high amount because of my edema. Just having to get up to use the bathroom is a massive energy expenditure.
    • Trying to manage without housekeeping or laundry supports with no energy and no physical ability to do these things.

    Because of all this, I regularly end up at tenancy risk or I dangerously capsize myself.

    A constant battle

    As I deal with all this, I experience regular daily negative health impacts because of systemic ableism and disability bias. For example, in a 20 minute mobility scooter trip I will have at least a dozen encounters that live in the land of ableism or disability bias. Full on disability prejudice is a little overtly less common but when it happens it’s crushing.

    It’s even present in my home. The management in my government-run low-income older people and persons with disability housing have subjected me to this repeatedly.

    I have been engaged in a 14-month and counting battle to get management to fix the downstairs duct work when it started ventilating into my apartment, and precipitating multiple health impacts. This included the huge stress of being forced to take this to the residential tenancy board of BC.

    Eventually, they cleaned the building-wide duct work – for the first time in the 24 years I have lived there.

    A photograph of Marcia showing her eyelids and cheeks swollen and red.
    An example of the health impacts I experience due to the duct work ventilating into my unit.

    This is just the smallest taste of what I have been going through for decades.

    Let’s be clear, I do all this through excruciating pain levels. I haven’t seen pain below a 7 out of 10 for the better part of 5 years. The only part of my body that doesn’t hurt is the tip of my ears.

    And that doesn’t even touch on the crucial human need for social connection and some measure of something that resembles fun. If I didn’t have something to look forward to, how do I pull together the fortitude and courage to keep fighting?

    Social isolation of an ‘invisible’ illness like ME

    So, if in reading all of this you think ‘how in God’s name has she kept it together to keep fighting?’, know that the vast majority of people would have given up long ago. Both friends and medical providers have regularly said to me they wouldn’t know how to do even a quarter of what I’m doing.

    Then there is the difficulty of ‘invisible’ illness. Friends often tell me, ‘it’s hard to understand how sick you are because you pull yourself together when we see you. You don’t let us see you when you’re falling apart.’

    But my knee-jerk reaction is to hide how sick I am. This is because when I first became disabled by myalgic encephalomyelitis at my second round of Epstein-Barr virus at age 29, I lost every single solitary one of my friends. I can’t afford to become more isolated than my disease already has made me, because I would definitely fall into that chasm of despair. My disease already limits the amount of friends I have due to low energy.

    No support to live: I’m not okay

    But the invisibility of facets of my illness doesn’t mean I’m okay, and it sure as heck doesn’t mean I’m faking it. The invisibility is often a result of my propensity to mask symptoms. ME patients can sometimes short-term push outside our energy envelope, but as one physician said, if you do that it’s like borrowing money from the mob – you will pay and then some. This is most often how people with ME worsen and die. Maeve Boothby O’Neill is one of the most documented and horrific examples of this, but her story is not at all rare.

    And that doesn’t include the day-to-day disability and disease bias that I experience. Less than a month ago, I learned a friend of a friend (a retired nurse no less), thinks I’m faking my condition. This is systemic miseducation. It is what happens when there’s extremely limited research money for any disease that afflicts women at higher rates than men – as almost all long viral diseases do.

    The situation is no better in any other country. So you can see how this lack of correct medical provider education affects not just public policy or medical experience, but causes misinformation with friends and family, impacting connection.

    I can’t do this alone – here’s how you can help

    So I continue to fight, but I can’t continue to survive by myself.

    If you have the courage to see yourself in my story, in my fight, and you don’t want this to happen to you or your loved ones, then I ask you to stand with me. The petition is the easiest and quickest way no matter where you live, keeping in mind what happens in one part of the world affects us all. Disability is something that comes for everyone. And my particular disease – long viral myalgic encephalomyelitis – is coming for 36 to 37% of the whole world, so it will impact you.

    The simple act of signing a signature might seem small, but it has been my experience again and again that the little things can make a big difference if enough people act.

    Don’t let bias and prejudice steal your hope. While hope is indeed tricky business, know that when we hope together, that not only do we have the greatest possibility of change, we also have the lowest risk of slipping into despair.

    Featured image via author

    By Marcia Doherty

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Will Palestine Action be ‘terrorists’ for a record short amount of time?

    Many people and groups have been called terrorists, banned as terrorists and/or imprisoned as terrorists – only for the political tides to change and that all to end.

    Who has been a terrorist for the shortest amount of time? Could Palestine Action be the winner in this arbitrarily decided competition to see which victim of the politicisation of terrorism was most rapidly judged to be a valid part of society again? You won’t find this information in the Guinness Book of Records.

    The Stansted 15 – 781 days as terrorists – current shortest time as terrorists

    On 10 December 2018, a group of activists who locked themselves around a plane to stop a deportation flight in 2017 were sentenced after being found guilty of terror-related offences. The Stansted 15’s punishment for terrorist offences, which carried a maximum sentence of life in prison? Community service and suspended sentences make a mockery of the seriousness of a terrorism charge.

    Their appeal took over two years, but on 29 January 2021, the Lord Chief Justice found that they:

    should not have been prosecuted for the extremely serious offence.

    More importantly he also said:

    There was, in truth, no case to answer.

    This confirmed what many suspected all along, that pressure from Theresa May’s government had led the Crown Prosecution Service to wrongly charge the Stansted 15 with terrorism offences.

    Lyndsay Burtonshaw, one of the Stansted 15, incidentally also my partner, said:

    The Stansted 15 case shows that the government can use terrorism charges arbitrarily and wrongfully to persecute direct action that they don’t like, for instance those that inconveniently illuminate their racist policies at home and internationally.

    Palestine Action have been targeted harder than even we were: being held on remand in prison, more arbitrary restrictions on juries, a formal ban under the terrorism act, and now callously ignoring those on hunger strikes.

    Saint Nelson Mandela – 911 days as a terrorist

    Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) were condemned as terrorists by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in October 1987. Just months after his release from prison in 1990, Mandela visited the UK, and declined an invitation to meet with Thatcher (sick burn). So it is safe to assume he was no longer considered a terrorist then. At least in the UK that is – Mandela remained on the USA terrorist list until 2013!

    Just before the ban of Palestine Action came into force, I asked former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein what he thought. He told us:

    Nelson Mandela and all of us in the ANC were engaged in a liberation struggle against a brutal apartheid state. We were described as terrorists and the ANC was banned as a terrorist organisation.

    So, so many Irish people

    There are so many Irish people who were terrorists, and then were not, that it’s hard to pick. There are wrongful convictions like the Guildford Four (5,111 days as terrorists) who falsely confessed to bombings under police torture and the Maguire Seven (5,487 days) who were convicted of supplying the explosives for Guildford Four. Both groups famously had their trials rigged by prejudiced judges and police.

    Then there is Gerry Adams (7,976 days) and Martin McGuinness (7,305 days). Both were arrested repeatedly in the 70s for being terrorists. They were banned from travelling to Great Britain by the Prevention of Terrorism Acts as late as 1982.

    Bizarrely, their voices were censored in the UK until 1994. It’s hard to get a precise number of days for them, as they kept being released to negotiate with the government and getting elected to various positions. They both ended up as MPs, so being a terrorist can’t be all bad.

    The one pattern that Irish people deemed terrorists have in common, is that it took ages to clear their names.

    Various groups banned under the Terrorism Act 2000

    The government has been popping various groups (mainly from our former empire) on and off the banned list for years. Right now they are trying to work out which former enemies in Syria are now our pals, following the fall of Assad.

    The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (2,645 days), the International Sikh Youth Federation 5,507 days), the Afghan political party Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (7,383 days) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (5,136 days) show the range of international groups that like Palestine Action were proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Shifting geopolitics mean that yesterday’s terrorists are today’s legitimate groups, so all have been unbanned.

    So how long will Palestine Action be ‘terrorists’?

    If this shows one thing, it is that Palestine Action are not the first group to be designated terrorists to further the government’s own narratives and political ends.

    Huda Amori’s judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action could end Palestine Action’s proscription as terrorists early in the New Year. Unless the government tries to bury the news over the festive period, this could come as early as 5th January. That would mean that Palestine Action could be terrorists for only 181 days – which would be a record short amount of time.

    Unfortunately, whoever wins the judicial review, the other side will almost certainly appeal. There could even be further appeals after that. If we call that a year (optimistic after Tory and now Labour defunding of the courts) then at 546 days they would still be a dubious winner.

    Regardless of what the courts say, history has a tendency to vindicate nonviolent direct action. Let’s not forget that suffragette tactics included arson, bombing, vandalism, slashing paintings and cutting telegraph wires. On the very day that Palestine Action was banned, MPs cosplayed as them inside Parliament.

    Let’s give former terrorist and South African MP Andrew Feinstein the closing quote. I remind you it was given before the ban came into place:

    History has vindicated the ANC and the struggle against apartheid, just as history will vindicate Palestine Action and all of those struggling against apartheid, occupation and genocide.

    Featured image via Progressive International

    By Sam Walton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Extrajudicial killings from Barack Obama to Donald Trump

    Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Dec. 16, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    In May 2013, as President Barack Obama delivered a major foreign-policy speech in Washington, I managed to slip inside. As he was winding up, I stood and interrupted, condemning his use of lethal drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

    “How can you, a constitutional lawyer, authorize the extrajudicial killing of people—including a 16-year-old American boy in Yemen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki—without charge, without trial, without even an explanation?”

    As security dragged me out, Obama responded, “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.” Perhaps my questions touched a chord in his conscience, but the drone attacks did not stop.

    Just before that incident, I had returned from Yemen, where a small delegation of us met with Abdulrahman’s grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki—a dignified man with a PhD from an American university, someone who genuinely believed in the values this country claims to represent. He looked at us, grief etched into his face, and asked, “How can a nation that speaks of law and justice kill an American child without apology, without even a justification?”

    Under Obama, drone strikes killed thousands of people. Entire communities lived under the constant terror of buzzing drones—never knowing whether a flash in the sky meant death for them, their children, or the neighbors who ran to help.

    We heard these horrors firsthand in 2012, when CODEPINK traveled to Pakistan to meet with victims’ families. A tribal leader from Waziristan described attending a peaceful jirga—a gathering of elders—when a US missile obliterated the meeting. Dozens were instantly killed. As survivors rushed to help the wounded, a second missile struck.

    Forty-two people died, including elders and local officials. No one in Washington was held accountable. Not one person.

    Faced with mounting outrage, Obama eventually scaled back the drone program—not because the killings were illegal, immoral, or strategically disastrous, but because the political cost was rising. The truth is that Obama’s drone war normalized the idea that the United States can kill whoever it wants, wherever it wants, without due process or oversight.

    That normalization is the bridge to where we are today.

    The Trump administration is now carrying out extrajudicial assassinations at sea, including “double taps.” With the latest December 15 strikes, 95 people have been blown to bits in the bombing of 25 boats. Meanwhile, the administration is refusing to release the memo that supposedly explains the legal basis for these killings or to release the video showing the September bombing that killed two shipwrecked sailors who survived an initial strike.

    But let’s be clear: the actions of the Trump administration are not an aberration—they are the logical sequel to Obama’s drone killings. If Obama could kill a 16-year-old American boy without accountability, why wouldn’t Trump believe he has the same power to snuff out the lives of civilians with no due process?

    One of the victims of Trump’s maritime strikes was Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian fisherman killed on September 15 when a US missile tore apart his vessel. His family has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The family says he was working—fishing, not fighting—when the US government ended his life.

    And even in cases where drugs are on board, let’s say the obvious: Smuggling narcotics does not turn the open sea into a battlefield, and it does not strip civilians of their right to due process simply because the Trump administration says so. The US cannot declare people “enemy fighters” to disguise what are, in reality, unlawful killings.

    Civil liberties groups are suing the government to secure the release of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and other documents related to these strikes on civilian boats in international waters. The public deserves to see this information. The American people also deserve to see the full video of the September “double tap” that killed two survivors desperately clinging to their overturned boat, as a bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding. We deserve transparency, accountability, and answers—the same things we demanded under Obama and never received.

    For more than twenty years, human rights advocates have warned that unchecked drone warfare would shred the boundaries between war and peace, between combatants and civilians, between military force and basic law enforcement.

    Trump’s maritime killings are the predictable collapse of a system the Obama administration cemented into place: killing people far from any battlefield, without legal authority, without congressional approval, and without the slightest regard for human rights.

    Once an administration insists that due process in the use of lethal force is optional, every future president inherits a blank check for murder.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Home alone: disabled people facing social isolation at Christmas

    For people with serious disabilities, it’s very common to be alone at Christmas due to social isolation. This can be the result of estrangement, such as disputes in the family or drifting away from key connections due to being stuck at home.

    Social isolation

    For me, estrangement didn’t result from an argument or family rift but because my disabilities were at the point where they were isolating me at home. So, when my brother remarried and had an instant new family, I couldn’t be a part of it at all.

    At Christmas or other celebrations, it means I may spend a short time with my mum and brother before they go off and spend the day celebrating with the rest of the family.

    The feelings I have when I’m at home and my family are off celebrating together, are uncomfortable to say the least. I know my social isolation has prevented me from fulfilling my role as part of my extended family.

    This is something that can make estrangement even more difficult when a loss of contact with family members can also mean losing contact with their wider and perhaps growing families.

    Molly’s story

    This happened with Molly, when her sister complained about the care being provided to their mother by Molly and her family. This dispute ballooned into her sister cutting off all contact with Molly and her family as well as her brother.

    Molly said:

    My sister has decided that because there is no trust in our relationship and that she feels that I hate her and her family, (which is untrue) there is no future together.

    I have sent a few emails to try and reconnect, but they have been rejected or unanswered.

    Compounding the fall-out with her sister was the spinal-cord injuries (SCI) Molly had sustained at an earlier time.

    Molly said her sister viewed her as someone who just ‘sat around all day’. In doing so her sister failed to acknowledge the amount of care Molly and her family had given to their mother, as well as not appreciating the additional challenges Molly faced. One of the these was social isolation. So, losing the contact with her niece and nephew was devastating.

    Molly added:

    The lack of or non-existent contact has not just impacted on my disability but to my life. Kids bring something special and happiness to your life somehow. Just to chat with them about anything just brings a smile to your face. Trying to understand them is interesting and kind of makes you look at your own way of thinking.

    I miss my nephew and niece a lot especially when there are special occasions. I have lots of memories of them. Sometimes when I think about them, the pain in my heart feels so deep.

    In terms of the estrangement, overall, Molly says she hopes when her niece and nephew are older, they can decide for themselves about whether to make contact.

    These family connections are crucial because many younger disabled people find themselves estranged from friends, who ‘drop-off’ after they become disabled.

    The result can be social isolation, which can make it harder to make and maintain new friendships. This can mean celebrations, like Christmas, are particularly difficult for those home alone.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ruth Hunt

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Why the GOP healthcare plans won’t fill the prescription

    Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Dec. 16, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    During his first term, after repeatedly promising the country a terrific healthcare plan, Donald Trump famously commented, “Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” In fact, everyone who spent even a few minutes looking at the issue knew that healthcare was complicated. That is why Obamacare ended up being a hodgepodge that was pasted together to extend healthcare coverage as widely as possible. It is also the reason Trump and the Republicans never produced a healthcare plan in Trump’s first term.

    The basic problem is that healthcare costs are hugely skewed. Ten percent of the population accounts for more than 60% of total spending, and just 1% accounts for 20% of spending. Most people have relatively low healthcare costs. The trick with healthcare is paying for small number of people who do have high costs.

    Individual Choice, Cherry-Picking the Pool, and Screwing Cancer Survivors

    The Republicans in Congress, along with Trump on alternate days, are pushing plans that are supposed to give choice to individuals and somehow take it away from insurers. It’s not clear what they think they are saying. They seem to still envision that people will buy insurance, as they do now in the Obamacare exchanges, but somehow that they will have more control in the Republican option.

    There is one story they could envision, which would make it much easier for insurers to skew their pool. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) restricted what sort of plans could be offered in the exchanges in order to limit the ability for insurers to avoid high-cost individuals.

    It would be possible to relax these restrictions to allow insurers to cherry pick their enrollees. For example, they could offer high-deductible plans, say $15,000 in payments, before any coverage kicked in.

    The Republican healthcare plan is a rerun of the bluff and lie strategy they have been doing for more than 15 years.

    No person with a serious health condition would buy this sort of plan since they know they would be paying at least $15,000 a year in medical expenses, and then a substantial fraction of everything above this amount, in addition to the premium itself. On the other hand, a low-cost plan with $15,000 deductible might look pretty good to someone in good health, whose medical expenses usually don’t run beyond the cost of annual checkup.

    The Republicans can look like the great promoters of individual choice by allowing insurers to market these high-deductible plans. The problem is that healthy people will all gravitate to high-deductible plans, leaving only the people with serious health issues—the 10%—to buy plans with more modest deductibles.

    These plans will then be ridiculously expensive since insurers are not going to insure people at a loss. If they have a pool with four or five times the average per person healthcare costs, they will charge a premium that is four five times the average cost, plus a margin for administrative costs and profits. This means that cancer survivors, people with heart disease, and other serious health conditions will be screwed, given the option of ridiculously expensive insurance or none at all.

    Been There, Done That

    The most painful part of this story is that we have all been around the block many times on this story. Unless Trump and the Republicans are extremely ignorant, which can never be ruled out, they are simply lying and hope that the media will let them get away with it. They have no brilliant plan to lower healthcare costs. They are simply proposing a scheme that will lower premiums for healthy people by screwing the ones who need healthcare most.

    It amounts to lowering costs by not providing care. It’s like reducing the cost of food by not letting people eat. But if the point of a healthcare system is to provide people with the healthcare they need, the Republican proposals are nonstarters.

    As a practical matter, contrary to what the Republicans and the media say, healthcare cost growth did slow sharply after Obamacare passed. That may not have been entirely due to Obamacare, but that is the reality. Too bad the Democratic consultants tell Democratic politicians not to talk about it.

    The Real Source of High Costs

    We do pay way too much for healthcare in the United States, but it is not because of Obamacare. We pay twice as much for our drugs, medical equipment, and doctors as people in other wealthy countries. These high payments persist because they are supported by powerful lobbies.

    Some of us had hope that the Trump administration might take some steps to reduce these prices, especially in the case of drugs, since RFK, Jr. had railed against corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, his tirades were limited to an evidence-free crusade against long-proven vaccines, which are not even a major source of profit for the industry.

    Donald Trump talked about reducing drug prices 1,500% (really), but this mostly amounted to getting his name on a drug discount website for a small group of patients. We were spending 6.4% more on drugs in September of this year than in the same month in 2024. (September is the most recent month for which data are available.)

    Trump has shown no interest in doing anything to lower the cost of medical equipment. And he has said nothing about lowering doctors’ fees, although some reshuffling of the Medicare reimbursement schedules may reduce overpayments to specialists and better pay for family practitioners. His immigration policies are going the wrong way here, making it even more difficult for foreign-trained medical students and doctors to practice here.

    And there are the insurers themselves, which gobble up close to 25% of the money they pay out to providers in the form of administrative costs and profits. A recent study found that If we add in the cost imposed by insurers on hospitals, doctors’ offices, and other providers, they take up close to a third of healthcare expenses.

    Trump has shown no interest in reining in the insurance industry apart from his silly talking point about giving people money directly to… wait, wait, buy their own unregulated insurance. That will do nothing to reduce the money flowing into the industry’s pockets.

    The Republican healthcare plan is a rerun of the bluff and lie strategy they have been doing for more than 15 years. Given the right-wing control of much of the media, it could work for them politically. The tragic part of the story is that millions could end up without the healthcare they need.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Op-Ed: Food Tech is Creating A Clean Slate for the Processed Food Debate

    nourish ingredients tastilux
    3 Mins Read

    James Petrie, co-founder and CEO of Nourish Ingredients, argues why the processed food discourse lacks nuance, and how the food tech industry can provide winning solutions.

    The food industry is at a crossroads marked by confusion, corporate prioritisation of profits over health, and a lack of transparency that is troubling to consumers who are trying to understand how healthy their food is. 

    Processed foods have become a necessary cornerstone of feeding our growing global population (more on this later), but their complexity has reached undesirable levels. Today’s food labels often read like chemistry textbooks, leaving consumers increasingly wary of what they’re putting into their bodies.

    However, a change is coming. Rather than abandoning processed foods entirely, innovative companies are taking a clean slate approach to food processing. This transformation isn’t about elimination, it’s about simplification and transparency.

    Consider the current state of processed foods: manufacturers often rely on extensive combinations of artificial ingredients to achieve desired tastes, textures, and shelf stability. A single flavour component can contain more than 30 different synthetic chemicals, many of which are unrecognisable to the average consumer.

    This complexity isn’t just a marketing challenge; it represents a fundamental disconnect between our food system and the natural ingredients it should be built upon.

    ‘Minimal intervention processing’ will shape the future

    nourish ingredients
    Courtesy: Nourish Ingredients

    The future of processed foods lies in what we might call “minimal intervention processing”. This approach acknowledges that processing is necessary for efficient production but emphasises the integrity of natural ingredients while minimising artificial additions. It’s about finding the sweet spot between efficiency and authenticity. 

    New technologies are making this vision possible. At Nourish Ingredients, we are developing solutions that can replace dozens of synthetic ingredients with single, naturally-derived alternatives. This isn’t just about shorter ingredient lists — it’s about creating more honest, transparent relationships between food manufacturers and consumers.

    The implications of this shift extend far beyond the label. When food processing becomes simpler and more transparent, it benefits the entire food system. Manufacturers can streamline their supply chains (and costs) and reduce their reliance on synthetic additives. Consumers gain clarity about what they’re eating. And perhaps most importantly, we move closer to a food system that can sustainably feed our growing population without compromising on health or environmental impact.

    Ingredient innovation has always been a cornerstone of our food system. As we push for more sustainable alternatives, it’s time we move beyond synthetic flavour systems. Take insulin, for example. Not long ago, it was extracted from pig pancreases, a process with clear sustainable limitations. Then came a deep tech breakthrough: precision fermentation. The result? The exact same insulin molecule, but produced more efficiently and ethically.

    This sets a powerful precedent. We’ve proven that we can reimagine outdated ingredients and manufacturing methods, preserving authenticity while dramatically improving how they’re sourced and made.

    The problem with completely eliminating processed foods

    nourish ingredients tastilux
    Courtesy: Nourish Ingredients

    Critics might argue that processed foods should be eliminated entirely. There is some merit in this argument, but it does overlook the important role that highly efficient food production systems play in nutritional security, consumer convenience and choice.

    The real solution is to refocus our hugely efficient production systems on new ingredients that minimise processing while maximising nutritional value and transparency. Such a food system serves both human health and industry needs.
Looking ahead, we can expect to see a continued shift toward “clean label” foods. 

    This transformation will be driven by consumers demanding greater transparency and companies developing innovative solutions to meet these demands. The future of processed foods won’t be found in longer lists of artificial ingredients, but in simpler, more natural formulations that maintain the convenience and accessibility we need while honouring our connection to real food.

    The challenge ahead is significant, but the path forward is clear: processed foods must evolve to become simpler, more transparent, and more aligned with both human health and consumers’ rightful expectations.

    The post Op-Ed: Food Tech is Creating A Clean Slate for the Processed Food Debate appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Rachel Reeves: a genocide-denying, austerity-wielding, donor-hugging neoliberal butcher in socialist drag

    Rachel Reeves.

    When she’s not telling lies on a curriculum vitae, and wilfully squeezing the last few pennies out of disabled people, rather than hammering the living shit out of Britain’s 156 billionaires, she is showing up at a Labour Friends of Israel lunch to deliver an oath to empire, declaring herself an “unapologetic Zionist” and pledging eternal friendship to a parish state accused by the International Court of Justice of committing genocide in Gaza.

    What was Reeves thinking?

    I appreciate that the Israeli-lobbyist-funded chancellor isn’t quite Mensa material, and making gnats piss-strength tea in the accounts department doesn’t really make her a bona fide economist. She probably does think a “structural deficit” is something to do with a leaking roof at Number 11, but brazenly platforming herself in front of 400 pro-Israel donors and apologists — many of whom bankroll the bulldozers that bury Palestinian children alive — is an act of callous stupidity that further exposes the rot at the heart of Keir Starmer’s Labour government.

    Rachel Reeves: the rot at the heart of Labour

    Rachel Reeves stood in front of hundreds of champagne-swilling millionaires and thanked them for their friendship.

    “Friendship” is what she calls the river of cash that flows freely from Trevor Chinn’s hedge-fund pockets, through LFI slush funds, and straight into the campaign accounts of every spineless Starmerite loyalist who’s ever taken an all-inclusive junket to the embarrassment of the ‘developed’ West, Tel Aviv.

    Reeves went out of her way to thank Joan Ryan — the woman who chatted about a million-quid bribe offer from an Israeli embassy spy on camera — for services to Zionism, I would assume?

    Reeves also thanked Margaret Hodge — the witch-hunter general who branded Palestinian solidarity “antisemitic” — before having the gall to lecture *us*, the British left, about “hate and prejudice”, for daring to take to the streets and march against the live-streamed extermination of an entire people.

    Rachel Reeves isn’t trying to balance a complex situation, she is a fucking collaborator and history will remember her as the Labour chancellor who chose Zionist donor dinners over humanity, photo-ops with war criminals over justice, and the polite applause of the Park Plaza ballroom over the screams of Palestinian children under piles of rubble.

    Never forget, Reeves chose to stand with the oppressors and spit on their victims without a single shred of shame.

    The symptom of the illness

    This is another disgusting symptom of Labour’s rightward lurch under Keir Starmer, where economic cruelty at home mirrors moral cowardice abroad. Prioritising Zionist donors over the global south’s oppressed comes easy to Rachel Reeves, but true socialism stands with the dispossessed, not the imperialist lobbyists.

    A cynical individual may well describe this gathering of super-rich Zionist donors and their Labour lackies as a celebration of genocide in a five star hotel, and I’ve always been a cynical individual.

    Interestingly, another friend of Israel, Keir Starmer, also attended the lavish, ghoulish celebration, but it was Rachel Reeves that delivered the keynote speech.

    Friend of Israel? That’s code for accomplice to mass murder where I come from.

    Labour politicians are always quick to talk about the horrors of October 7, as if Israel’s 77-year Nakba of rape, theft, and slaughter never happened, but they’re never as quick when it comes to acknowledging the 100,000+ Palestinians that have been erased since, their bodies pulverised by F-35s armed with their government’s multi-million pound exports of death.

    A tiny bit of honest context makes a hell of a difference, don’t you think?

    Feigning balance really doesn’t cut it. Claiming Israel isn’t beyond criticism is the thinnest of veneers over unyielding support for Israel’s “right to self-defence” and the loaded imperialist lobbyists that conflate our support for the Palestinian people, falsely, with a hatred of Jewish people.

    The “two-state solution” rhetoric rings hollow when Labour has suspended only 30 of 350 arms licences to Israel, and someone, anyone, please point me towards just one single meaningful sanction on the settler thugs who burn olive groves and murder aid workers.

    Just one.

    Screw Rachel Reeves

    Rachel Reeves calls herself a feminist while backing a regime that bombs maternity wards and starves pregnant women to death in Gaza.

    She calls herself a “social democrat” while pocketing blood money from the very same mega-rich financiers who profit from apartheid walls and sniper drones.

    Let’s peel back the liberal varnish and say it how it is.

    Rachel Reeves is a genocide-denying, austerity-wielding, donor-hugging, neoliberal butcher in socialist drag.

    Reeves cruelly slashed benefits for British grannies freezing in their flats, wilfully forced yet more children into dire poverty, disproportionately targeted disabled people with austerity 2.0 and hikes taxes on British workers to fund… what?? More arms for Tel Aviv’s child slaying monsters?

    Torch the bridges to this Zionist-infested Labour. It is beyond redemption.

    And as for LFI, why the fuck does a political movement founded upon principles of solidarity with the globally oppressed want to be friends with the backers of a genocidal, colonialist outcast like Israel?

    Perhaps ask the aforementioned Joan Ryan. She can give you at least a million reasons why.

    A sensible Labour membership would deselect these LFI parasites, smash the donor networks, and boycott Israel until the occupation crumbles, and with any luck, they’ll take the Labour Party with them.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The fight for the soul of Your Party – and how the membership won

    The founding conference of Your Party was supposed to be the birth of the radical new left that we’ve all been screaming for for years. For months, this party has been billed as the movement that would tear up the old Labour rulebook, a new transformative force, member-led and ready to rip the heart out of the establishment and the elites.

    Instead, those of us who travelled to Liverpool (under very short notice, may I add) witnessed an undignified and embarrassing pantomime that felt less like a conference and more like a nasty wake where all the family argues. You know the ones, where your old racist uncle tries to batter his more open-minded son whilst they lower the corpse into the ground. It was an appalling display of factionalism that will haunt Your Party forever.

    The good news? The membership didn’t put up with the bullshit, and the grassroots of us fought back. They spat on the secretive plots of an unelected shadow, making decisions behind the scenes, and delivered a decisive verdict on the left in the UK. It is ours, not theirs.

    The undemocratic stain that spoiled the vibe at Your Party’s conference

    I need to be crystal clear about this sabotage that fucked the entire vibe of the Saturday of the conference: the expulsion of members, including those linked to the somewhat irritating Socialist Worker’s Party (SWP), took place the night before.

    That was a ball-to-the-wall wild move to make. Why, when the membership had yet to vote on the motion of dual membership, were people being expelled? The vote was literally scheduled for the next fucking day. Why the hell would someone okay this entirely undemocratic move?

    To us, on the outside looking in, this wasn’t enforcing a rule. It was setting a dangerous precedent. It was a message from a shadowy team behind the scenes that seemed to say: “Our unelected clique will decide who is allowed in, not you.”

    Many people may welcome the ban on the SWP. Let’s face it, their style can be annoying, but denying members affiliated with them access to the conference before a democratic vote is entirely indefensible. It’s authoritarian as shit and pulled straight from the pages of the Labour right’s playbook. A book that Your Party has promised to tear up and throw away since it was first announced, so needless to say, the membership didn’t appreciate this dangerous precedent.

    But whichever plank okayed the move only ensured that the first day was fucking chaos, consumed by anger and desperate calls from the floor for unity. It seemed clear: one side of the leadership chose purge over principle, and the members made their rage clear.

    A pathetic show of division when we’re desperate for unity

    It definitely wasn’t just the membership that was pissed off with the decision. Zarah Sultana was fucking fuming at the exclusions and the deplorable treatment she had endured in the lead-up to the conference, leading her to boycott the first day.

    It’s fucking infuriating that some people behind the scenes took it upon themselves to bully and ostracise a 32-year-old female, Muslim MP who carries the majority of the youth demographic of the vote.

    She is known for her warm nature and fierce retorts, spending her entire life fighting for our rights, and what did she get as a reward for this? A fucking ten-minute slot to speak all weekend.
    It was enough to make me want to fucking scream when I saw it printed in black and white on the conference timetable.

    This was no accident.

    Deliberate

    This was a deliberate attempt to suppress a powerful political voice whose focus on transformative change geared towards wealth redistribution, lifting the voices of disabled people and downtrodden ones, is precisely what younger people are crying out for.

    By ostracising Sultana, Your Party has given the impression that anyone who isn’t an old, white dude will be shot down and ignored.

    This childishness was only further solidified by the conference’s closing statement. After Corbyn gave his closing call for unity, Sultana was not invited back on stage for the closing photo ops or to wave away the membership. The only fucking reason she ended up there in the pictures is that the floor was so disgusted at the snug that they shouted her name until she was ushered up. She fucking belongs there.

    We are supposed to be building a new, transformative political force that can take on the established order, which is systematically draining us financially. We have friends and family choosing between eating and heating, working ourselves to fucking death and yet here Your Party was, looking absolutely childish and pathetic to thousands of activists watching.

    The great betrayal came from the shadows of Your Party

    This mess raises one critical question: Who the fuck, exactly, is running Your Party? Because it sure as hell didn’t seem to be the members.

    The rumour mill is rolling, and word on the ground is that Jeremy Corbyn himself knew nothing about the members being excluded the night before. Pardon me, but how? He’s one of the co-leaders, is he not? How the fuck did he not know?

    But if this is true, then we have a massive crisis. Who is this unaccountable faction that is pulling the strings behind the scenes and making these terrible decisions? Exceptionally, when the party has neither appointed leadership nor an elected structure?

    The only logical answer is that certain people behind the scenes and surrounding Corbyn are doing it in his name. Their actions make them seem desperate to control both the party and its narrative, building Your Party into a kind of Labour 2.0. They want a centralised, leader-centric, command-and-control structure rather than the people-powered party we were promised. These shadowy people seem to be replicating the tried-and-toxic architecture of the party they supposedly broke away from, and I dread to think why.

    The membership was triumphant anyway

    And yet, despite all these backroom dealings, the membership rebelled.

    This is where the hope lies. The members stood up and fought back against these faceless forces and told them to effectively fuck off. Yes, the result was narrow, but collective leadership run by a member-led executive won the vote against a single, all-powerful leader. This was a middle finger and rejection of the old model that we know doesn’t fucking work.

    Crucially, members voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing dual membership with other political groups, despite the actions of Your Party’s shadowy ‘spokespeople’ the night before. This decision didn’t just reverse those expulsions; it absolutely decimated the entire premise of this shadowy cabal’s coup. Members sent a decisive statement with that particular vote: we value the broadest possible unity and democracy over the sectarian control being imposed.

    The conference floor showed that, despite what others may think, the membership is more radical, democratically principled and aligned with the promise of transformative change than the unelected few trying to sink the fucking ship. The membership saved the movement’s soul last weekend.

    The critical friend’s warning over Your Party

    Now I speak personally to Jeremy Corbyn. You’re a pillar of the left whose political career has inspired millions, including myself, and we need to talk. For decades, you have stood before thousands of podiums and preached unity. Now, it’s time to practice what you preach, not just in words but in the people you surround yourself with.

    It’s time to ensure that you’re not listening to them or their whispers but rather to the screaming pleas of the members Your Party has. You need to ensure you are listening to and empowering the younger, more radical activists who have joined, and you need Zarah Sultana to do so.

    If you are genuinely ignorant of the toxic purges happening in your name, it’s time to step up, find out who is responsible and stamp out this factionalism before it makes things worse.

    The majority of the left will follow you to the ends of the earth, but now you have a choice: will Your Party be a party of the many or of the very shadowy few?

    It’s done, it’s over and our party no longer has time for this self-sabotage. The left side of politics is currently fractured and bleeding. We are facing a fascist government led by Nigel Farage that is exploiting every single sign of weakness we display.

    Over to you

    The Your Party membership has done its job. They have shown you their fight and their democratic desire for an entirely new type of politics. Now it’s your turn. The internal figureheads must now get their shit together, drop the Labour-lite backstabbing and turn our minds towards fighting the real enemy.

    The members are ready, but are you? Will you stop the behaviour of a few, shadowy associates?

    The future of the left and the lives of so many depend on that answer.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Antifabot

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Your Party isn’t anybody’s party – not yet, at least

    Week in, week out, I keep my thoughts on Your Party firmly placed on the back burner.

    Not because of some unbreakable lifelong personal commitment to defend Jeremy Corbyn from the forces of elitist fuckwittery, and not because anyone is asking me to look the other way while the circus comes to town.

    I’ve said very little about Your Party because I want it to succeed, and when I look at the current political landscape on the left, we need it to grow. I’m afraid a bit of rehashed Corbynism-lite with a green tint probably has its limitations.

    In case you have forgotten, the enemy is the Labour government, Nigel Farage and Reform UK, and whoever it is that leads the Conservatives these days.

    Kenny someone?

    You see, it’s not easy to write about Your Party because what we see, hear and say on social media isn’t necessarily reflective of public opinion, away from agenda-based clickbait headlines, a few bizarre folk that pretend they’re in the know, and the fascistic hostility of Musk’s X platform.

    But I’ll have a crack, because I’m absolutely sick of the mistruths, the briefings, the incompetence, the egotism and the one-sided tribal bullshit I read online on an almost daily basis.

    If you’re hoping for a Corbyn/Sultana love-in, you’ve come to the wrong place.

    Your Party: WTF?

    When Your Party was first floated online, unexpectedly by Zarah Sultana, a wave of hope encapsulated the left. This was our moment and our movement, perfectly timed to challenge the neoliberal drivel that has forced millions into poverty, milked and destroyed our public services, and dragged us kicking and screaming into other people’s wars without our consent.

    It was just a shame that Jeremy wasn’t tagged into the memo.

    Months later, Your Party is up and running, albeit rather meekly, and the first ever party conference, hosted in Liverpool, came across, at least to me, as some Labour psychodrama where the only thing missing was a ‘police escort’ for Luciana Berger.

    The 51% squeaker for the somewhat messy looking “collective leadership” sidelining Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana (who clashed over solo vs. co-lead models), rightly or wrongly, bans on Socialist Workers’ Party members, Sultana boycotting Day 1 of her own party conference over “shadowy bureaucrats”, infighting over cash and ideology… I swear we have worn this particular t-shirt before.

    Seeing Team Corbyn and Team Sultana having bare-knuckle scraps over something like mailing lists isn’t particularly appealing, and even less helpful to poor people and working classes who are on the receiving end.

    Will the most fragile of egos and the narcissism of the very few become the biggest stumbling blocks to a fairer, greener and better future for the many?

    Your Party must not become a flawed, familiar, and fatally compromised mirror to Labour’s darkened soul. If it wants to evolve beyond Labour 2.0, it needs to ditch the parliamentary fetish and build from the shop floor before the infighting buries it alive.

    What is the pitch?

    Your Party’s pitch — wealth taxes, nationalisation of utilities and rail, massive social housing builds, and anti-austerity spending — will hoover up some disgruntled Labourites, but without challenging the system’s core.

    Sultana calls it a bulwark against “decades of neoliberalism”, which sounds great in theory. Still, I’m yet to see the revolutionary edge that’s needed to make it sound just a little bit more convincing than a social-democratic placebo that softly dulls the edge of fundamental transformation.

    It is easy to forget that the core of Your Party emerged as a desperate riposte to Starmer’s Labour, because the infighting effortlessly distracts us from the very reasons Your Party was formed in the first place.

    This has to end if Your Party wants to be taken seriously. Your Party’s own critical failures and Zack Polanski’s well-pitched eco-populism have already seen the Greens capitalise, and credit to them for doing so.

    I’m not here to rip into Jeremy or Zarah, at least not yet, because you will all have your own views on what has unfolded over the last few months, and your own support for the founders of Your Party will prejudice those views.

    But as with most political disputes and conflicts, nothing is as straightforward as it seems. Briefing isn’t exclusive to one faction, nor is it egotistical, self-serving, or dishonesty from bureaucrats running amok.

    Things must change

    If Your Party evolves beyond the drama, and I believe it can, don’t write them off just yet.

    Was there always likely to be teething pains for a brand new party built in just six months by people who’ve spent years being purged and slandered? Yes.

    But Your Party activists will tell you that the energy on the ground is electric, the policy platform is the furthest left of any party with a realistic chance of double-digit MPs, and for once, the left has the potential to be a battering ram instead of a circular firing squad.

    Has hope finally found a new home? No, not just yet, but at least the boxes have been packed up and labelled, and the removal firm is on standby.

    I think it’s worth remembering that one-in-five Brits are open to the possibility of voting for a Corbyn-Sultana left-wing party. But we all remember 2019, and there is absolutely no doubt that Your Party will need all the friends it can get.

    Your Party could well be the very best shot British socialism has had in decades, genuinely. Still, first we need to see the tolerance and decency that we wish to be commonplace in our society, spread around the upper echelons of the party itself, because without that, it isn’t really ‘your party’ at all.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Polanski responds to Starmer saying ‘the Greens are nuts’

    In an interview with the Observer, Keir Starmer has branded the Green Party ‘nuts’. As we’ll get into, this is clearly a sign that Starmer is worried about the Greens overtaking him. Or, to put it as Zack Polanski might, the guy is ‘rattled’.

    Polanski himself responded as follows:

    The gloves are off but Polanski doesn’t care

    The interview begins with the following quote from Starmer:

    Going for a walk on your own and clearing your head, being out there with nature, is something I really enjoy. The peace, quiet, taking in a wider world – I’ve always loved it

    He added:

    Theoretically, I can go for a walk but the police team would come with me. I don’t feel that when they’re walking just behind me I can ignore them and therefore I start talking to them. It’s not the same as going for a walk on your own.

    Mate, you’re the least popular prime minister since records began; you absolutely can go for a long walk by yourself (ideally into the sunset or off some sort of short pier).

    Suggesting he’s something of a Tory, Starmer also said:

    We’ve had Labour versus Tory at every election since the war. I’ve always wanted a Labour government but I’ve never worried about the future of our country under a Tory government.

    So is Starmer lying now, or was he lying when he said this?

    He literally tweeted this on the day of the 2024 election:

    This is what he said three days beforehand:

    He’s just a laughably dishonest man; a person who will say anything that benefits him in the moment.

    To continue with his quote, he was building to the following:

    With Reform, I worry about what will happen to our country in terms of tearing our communities apart. Once you say that diverse communities aren’t British, that reasonable, compassionate people aren’t part of who we are, and that we don’t want to look after each other, and that only points of division count, you’re going in a different direction.

    We don’t like Reform either, but let’s not pretend they aren’t Tories with a lick of turquoise paint. Let’s also not pretend you haven’t spent the past few months doing Reform-style divisive politics:

    And next we get to Starmer’s attack on the left.

    ‘Nuts’

    As reported by the Observer, Starmer was:

    almost as rude about the Greens. “They’re anti-Nato at a time when the world is more volatile than it has ever been.”

    Regardless of how you feel about NATO, the fact is it’s always been an American protection racket. This is a problem right now, because the Americans can’t be bothered maintaining it anymore:

    We can have security agreements with our European neighbours without NATO, and in future that may be forced on us whether we like it or not.

    The irony is it’s not even Polanski who’s pushing for us to leave NATO; it’s Your Party:

    Either Starmer is getting the two mixed up, or he’s being dishonest again. Oh, and speaking of the latter, this is what he said next:

    The Green party thinks it’s all right to sell drugs and there should be no restrictions. So somebody could sell drugs outside my children’s school but, if you’re a landlord, it should be unlawful.

    There is sooooo much to address here.

    Firstly, the Greens literally don’t think there should be no restrictions, and Polanski has said “we need to be having a public health approach”. On what that could look like, Transform wrote:

    Legal regulation means that access to drugs would be more restricted.

    • Although the legal regulation of drugs is sometimes characterised as a ‘liberalisation’ or ‘relaxation’ of the law, it is in fact the opposite: it is about bringing the drug trade within the law so that strict controls can be applied. Such controls are impossible to impose under prohibition
    • Legal regulation enables responsible governments to control which drugs can be sold, who has access to them, and where they can be sold. Under prohibition, it is organised crime groups and underegulated vendors who make these decisions
    • When governments have control of the market they can put age limits on products, whereas people selling drugs in the illegal market do not ask for ID

    Secondly, Starmer’s attack on Polanski is almost word-for-word the same as what what Reform’s Zia Yusuf said:

    He wants to legalise all drugs and outlaw landlords.

    Thirdly, at least when Yusuf made the case, he phrased it in a way which made sense. Look at this bit again:

    So somebody could sell drugs outside my children’s school but, if you’re a landlord, it should be unlawful.

    Mushmouth Starmer seems to be suggesting it will be legal for people to sell drugs outside schools unless they’re landlords. It’s almost as if he’s been smoking something himself, because no one is suggesting any of this.

    Fourthly, there are already people selling drugs outside your kids’ school; this is the problem with current policy, and it’s why Polanski and others want to take narcotics out of the influence of criminals.

    It’s the same logic which led the Americans to reverse the prohibition on alcohol — a policy which caused an absolute boom in organised crime which wasn’t seen again until the War on Drugs took off.

    Green surge

    While Starmer is attacking Polanski, his underlings are going green — seemingly in an effort to wash the stink of their boss off them:

    With his gloves on or off, Starmer is a liar, a fraud, and a national embarrassment. As such, it’s no wonder his own MPs don’t want anything to do with him.

    Featured image via Barold

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hunt sabs: Blood, bones and Britain’s hidden class war

    Meeting Simon Russell, the chair of The Hunt Saboteurs Association (hunt sabs) for the first time, was a proper laugh. Simon is a veteran activist and for over 40 years has been on the front lines fighting the UK’s cruel hunting lobby. His fight isn’t just for animal lives, it’s against the law, the police and entrenched class privilege. These are a few snippets from Simon’s life, stories of blood, bias and a new strategy to save animal lives.

    Hunt sabs — the awakening

    Simon’s fight started in the 1970s before he was even legally an adult. His father was a trade unionist, so he was already left-leaning but it was the visceral images of seal clubbing that really radicalised him. After attending his first protest in Trafalgar Square and the rest is history as his focus quickly turned to animal rights in the UK.

    At age 17, Simon was arrested for the first time. Outside of a London McDonald’s he was handing out ‘McLibel’ leaflets when a copper shot him a warning. ‘Block that fucking door and you’re nicked’ was the message. Simon handed a leaflet to a passer-by and was immediately arrested and held until 2am.

    It was this moment that changed his life. He had seen the police act with aggression and bias. He quickly realised:

    If we couldn’t leaflet, what could we do?

    This aggression pushed him towards more direct action. I mean, if you’re going to get arrested for leafletting, might as well get arrested for something a little more fun, right? So Simon joined the Tunbridge Wells sab group and his passion was born.

    The Hunt Sabs Association began in 1963 when other animal rights groups had stopped using direct action and to this day the HSA is still the longest-surviving direct action group in the UK. The Aggravated Trespass Law was even created partially because of their antics in the countryside.

    Blood, bone and institutional bias

    The fight against the hunt is physical, and more often than not, aggressive. Simon laughed when he told me that he had been hospitalised seven times, brushing off concussion as nothing at all. He even laughed when he talked about getting jumped by six hunters who left him with a broken knee. It didn’t fucking stop him going out sabbing though.

    Neither did the time he was assaulted with a knife and suffered a deep wound and a severed nerve, going on to speak about the absolute disdain coppers showed him when they turned up. They turned the ambulance away, demanding Simon made the choice between making a statement and getting much needed medical attention. Joke was on them though, before whisking himself away Simon made his statement and covered the paper in blood. And yet not a single charge was brought against the knife-wielding attacker, despite the hunt sabs offering police all the proof they needed. And let’s not even mention the time the hunt tried to drown him…

    Simon assured me that this bias is common, although it has lessened in recent years, yet the distrust of the police will always permeate the movement.

    I have never been through a court case where a copper hasn’t lied.

    The psychological toll on sabs is massive. Confronting the hunt is fucking scary — they’re big, they have crops and guns — and they don’t give a shit about peasants. Being out in public, in the country, can leave sabs worried.

    Then there’s times when sabs have paid the ultimate price for their activism. A young man named Tom was killed when he was hit by a speeding horse-box on a country lane. Another named Mike lost his life when he fell out of one of the hunt’s flatbed trailers.

    Sabbing takes serious steel.

    Class war and the countryside

    The fight to save animal lives is deeply rooted in classist ideology. It’s not the working class who are roaming the countryside on thoroughbred horses and wearing fucking ridiculous coats. It’s not us who need to take an innocent, scared life to satisfy some disgusting bloodlust. These hunters tend to be wealthy and privileged, and they look down their noses on the sabs. Frequently activists are called ‘peasants’ and ‘scum,’ whilst high-profile, elitist establishment shit-holes such as Eton still boast their own beagle packs.

    Simon said that even the legal system reflects this bias. Although it’s rare a sab is imprisoned, they do frequently incur legal costs and these can be fucking unfathomable. The hunters come from affluent families who can cover them easily. Sabs, on the other hand, can lose absolutely everything financially to fight for their freedom.

    Police bias can be blatant. Some coppers policing the countryside have even admitted to being part of the hunt themselves. A brave few have even told Simon:

    I don’t [like] protesters, they deserve what they get.

    Pricks. That statement explains why so many police have ignored violence against sabs and countless incidents where their vehicles have been attacked with projectiles and chains.

    A pivot to parliament

    Simon has now moved the fight from the field to the Houses of Parliament. Despite the lack of trust in the police and the system, he recognises that not everything can be changed with direct action.

    When Labour got in, Simon saw his chance and helped to push the hunting ban into their manifesto. He knew it would be safe to pass the House of Lords if he got it in there. Now building good relationships with MP’s, with the HSA holding a well-attended event in parliament to educate politicians and to push them to choose for institutional changes. Educating MP’s and, of course, giving them little freebies to tempt them through the doors appears to have had a massive impact.

    Simon now has a core group of politicians and police figures who are happy to support the HSA’s demands to end the hunt. As testimony to his hard work and very frequent trips to London to push for change, Simon has now been invited to be an active participant at the round table discussion to help shape this new legislation.

    But time is running out. If earthworm-human hybrid Nigel Farage seizes power in the next government, the ban could be reversed. He’s always been a vocal supporter of blood sports.

    The HSA’s top priority is saving lives and Simon knows that building a rapport with the police will help the organisation to achieve this faster. Nothing, he stated, is more important than that.

    They’re never going to stop. They’re legally savvy, but there’s always a risk — now after the ban on Palestine Action — of the HSA becoming branded a proscribed organisation.

    But as Simon puts it:

    Even if they did shut us down, we’d just open back up under another name!

    The Hunt sabs association needs your support still

    This decades long fight has taken its toll. It’s cost lives, it’s cost people’s peace of mind and countless vehicle costs.

    Simon Russel and the HSA need our help more than ever to fight back against this class-based cruelty and these pompous pricks on horseback. So here’s a few ways you can help:

    • Join: Want to save lives? Why not join your local group on the ground. If you can’t do that, you can help out in with admin.
    • Donate: You can support the HSA by becoming a one off, monthly or yearly supporter to help cover costs for groups.
    • Share the HSA’s story: Keep up the pressure on parliament and share the facts about illegal hunting in the UK.
    • Contact your MP: Yes, I know it’s fucking pointless, but no harm in applying local pressure.
    • Educate yourself: Download the HSA’s booklet ‘Witness the end of hunting’ here and educate yourself legally.

    Thanks for reading, and next time we hope to be on the ground with the hunt sabs to see how they’re confronting the hunt head-to-head.

    Featured image via HSA

    By Antifabot

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Polanski clarifies ‘bum’ deal for carers comment

    A clip is going around of Zack Polanski on Question Time which people have criticised. As I’ll get into, I actually agree with a lot of the criticisms. At the same time, the right-wingers who hate migrants are clearly being opportunistic:

    Polanski — a bum deal for migrants

    In the video above, Polanski said:

    1 in 5 care workers are foreign nationals. Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to wipe someone’s bum. And I’m very grateful for the people who do this work – this really important work – whether it’s in the care sector, or whether it’s in the NHS.

    So right now there are three broad stances on migration, which I’ll summarise as follows:

    • The Right-Wing Position: Reduce migration to as close to zero as possible.
    • The Centrist / Neoliberal Position: Maintain migration at whatever level is needed to ensure a steady supply of low wage workers and to act as a counterweight to falling birth rates.
    • The Left-Wing Position: Support people’s right to come here, but also support global equalisation measures so that people don’t feel like they need to come here to experience a tolerable life.

    The above positions don’t map neatly onto every individual, and stances have changed over time. Labour and the Tories, for example, followed the Neoliberal Position for the past few decades, but both have moved rightwards in recent years.

    The reason people are criticising Polanski from the left is because the above comment — in isolation — makes it sound like he holds the Neoliberal Position. This is why he’s getting criticism like this:

     

    It’s a problem for Polanski to come across like this, because he started off as a Liberal Democrat. If the broader left gets the sense that he’s still a Liberal Democrat — i.e. a neoliberal centrist — they will turn on him. It’s understandable too, given that the UK’s current prime minister presented himself as left-leaning only to pivot right as soon as he got power.

    Polanski himself clarified his stance in response to Wes Streeting:

    Ultimately, I think Polanski’s ‘bum’ comment was an example of poor framing rather than an indicator that he’s a true neoliberal. While Polanski does certainly make the case that the UK is reliant on migration for economic reasons, he also talks about ‘compassion’ and the ‘moral case’:

    As people have highlighted, he’s also been supporting migrant carers for some time:

    Politically, I understand why it makes sense to talk about the economic case for migration, as voters in post-Thatcher Britain are conditioned to consider their own interests first and foremost. There’s an art to doing that, though, and Polanski’s Question Time comments were applied with finger paint. At the same time, it’s not for nothing that people are focussing on the bum comment rather than everything else he said:

    Oh, and there’s also this observation:

    I don’t think Polanski was playing 4D chess, but some of his opponents have clearly forgotten what game they’re playing.

    Featured image via Barold

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • CNN partners with Kalshi, a gambling app that lets you wager on starvation in Gaza

    Consistent with the United States’ continued slide into an economy powered almost entirely by LLM slop, financialization, and ever-pervasive exploitative gambling, “prediction market app” Kalshi “entered into an official partnership” with CNN this week to bring their “data to CNN’s journalism across its television, digital and social channels.” Soon, CNN will run live odds on world events where its viewers can gamble on them in real time on their smart phones. The “data” (see: betting markets) will, according to Axios, “be featured on CNN’s air through a real-time data ticker and can be referenced across CNN’s platforms when journalists discuss news predictions. The partnership will include prediction market content related to politics, news, culture and weather. The integration will be championed by CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten, who will tap into real-time insights from Kalshi in his reporting on air, both via linear TV and CNN’s new streaming subscription service.”

    The day after this story broke, Wall Street news network CNBC announced a similar “exclusive partnership” with Kalshi, marking a grim turn for TV news. “Starting in 2026, CNBC will incorporate exclusive Kalshi predictions market data [see: betting props] into its programs,” the press release read. What are these events that viewers will be able to bet on? Some are seemingly harmless enough: who will win an upcoming election, the weather in Chicago, the federal government’s jobs numbers, or what will be said on Kroger’s next earnings call. But many offerings are on life and death issues that will, as a matter of course, reduce these issues to just another chip on a roulette table for Western audiences increasingly isolated from the violence and suffering their governments inflict on the global south. Take, for example, one recent Kalshi betting market that allowed people to bet on whether Palestinians in Gaza would suffer mass starvation. 

    “Will the IPC classify Gaza as experiencing famine this year?” read the wager from this past summer. The bet was eventually settled in the affirmative after the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) did indeed declare famine in Gaza on Aug. 22. The more overtly cynical Polymarket, a rival of Kalshi that’s backed by right-wing multibillionaire Peter Thiel, allows for even more obscene wagering, permitting users to bet on whether Palestinians will be ethnically cleansed. “Gaza mass population relocation in 2025?” reads one of its many Gaza-related betting markets. You can also bet on when Israel will bomb Gaza, bomb the West Bank, or annex either. 

    One cannot, of course, wager on when or if Hamas will attack Israel since, in polite circles, Israelis are considered fully human and Palestinians are not.  

    Obviously, reporters, pundits and anchors cannot determine world events, but they very much can determine the perception of world events, and can certainly do so enough to significantly move markets.

    Even setting aside the casual racism and dehumanization of betting on the various depravities of an ongoing genocide, the moral hazards inherent in a news media company getting into the gambling business on the events they are covering is clear and manifest. Obviously, reporters, pundits and anchors cannot determine world events, but they very much can determine the perception of world events, and can certainly do so enough to significantly move markets. Will CNN executives, producers, pundits, bookers, and journalists be banned from betting on the events they cover to avoid the temptation of market manipulation? Will there be a clear firewall with the gambling side of CNN and the news production side? Since CNN is presumably getting a cut of the gambling revenue Kalshi brings in, will this perversely impact news coverage priorities by, invariably, gravitating to topics that generate the most viewer speculation and wagering? 

    None of the CNN or Kalshi press releases addressed any of these glaring ethical issues. Nor, it’s worth highlighting, are those backing these betting markets separate from the human immiseration being wagered on. Kalshi’s two biggest investors, Andreessen Horowitz and Sequoia Capital, are also heavily invested in the very same Israeli military whose genocide is serving as a popular forum for gambling markets. The most visible partner at Sequoia Capital, Shaun Maguire, is an outspoken supporter of Israel’s genocide, an open racist, and frequently discusses the need for using tech to promote Israeli propaganda. “The future of information warfare is AI,” Maguire said at the International DefenseTech Summit in Tel Aviv earlier this week. “If Israel doesn’t build its own [information war] engines, defensive and offensive, it will be outmaneuvered in a war it can’t see but is already in.” 

    To what extent will these betting markets help fuel said “information warfare”? How much will betting market manipulation, once integrated into the news, become its own power-serving self-fulfilling prophecy? In February 2025, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani was given a 8% chance to win the election by Kalshi. If, at the time, CNN made this fact central in its coverage, how much would it have influenced voters’ perceptions of the race? How would it have impacted momentum? Polling has long served this conservative argument-by-tautology function, but the full embrace of betting markets—with their supposed air of predictive power—will now supercharge this already perverse, anti-democratic and anti-intellectual dynamic. 

    The Trump family—which has increased its fortune by $1.8 billion since his election, mostly through open corruption in crypto—is, of course, in on the action, with Donald Trump Jr being named a “strategic advisor” to Kalshi earlier this year, presumably for his brilliant mind and ability to gauge world events and not his access to insider information. 

    The whole enterprise is ripe with dehumanization, corruption, market manipulation, exploitation, and moral decay. What is the social utility of any of this? What value is being created? What disease is being cured? What air is being cleaned? What life is being improved by any of this? The moral pitch, when Kalshi and its backers bother to make one, is that it will somehow reveal underlying “truths” in our media and thus give news creators the ability to better focus on this supposed “truth.” 

    How much will betting market manipulation, once integrated into the news, become its own power-serving self-fulfilling prophecy?

    This justification is just another iteration of the age-old half assed moral pretext given by all professional speculators who produce nothing of value—“market liquidity,” “more efficient markets,” etc., etc.—but it’s even more spurious in this case since the “truths” being wagered on are so easily subject to insider trading and manipulation. There are no greater “truths” uncovered by news betting markets, just an endless series of rent seeking, dehumanized speculation, and gamification of war, poverty, and disease. “The long-term vision,” Klashi co-founder Tarek Mansour recently told a panel at Future of Global Markets 2025 Conference, “is to financialize everything and create a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion.” Politics and political opinions not as the raw matter of civic virtue, or social progress, or increasing human welfare, but just another facet of our lives—like sports, education, sexual intimacy—well on its way to being financialized, fleeced, and sold back to us at five times the price.

    Ultimately, CNN’s open embrace of institutional gambling on news events is an acknowledgment of something that’s been clear for a while: news is not something that’s to be uncovered, not a truth to be revealed in pursuit of justice or holding power to account, not something meant to edify or educate—but just more content, more slop, another entertainment product to pass the time and gawk at. But most important of all, it has to be devoid of moral or political content, it can never contain a clear call to action nor can it be part of any political project—unless, of course, it aligns with US geopolitical interests. The horrific things we are witnessing are not something we can do anything about beyond vaguely pulling a lever once every two years. It’s only something we can passively consume and witness—a dynamic that elements within news organizations like CNN have worked to push back against, but which this “partnership” has now effectively snuffed out. All that’s left will be aggregation and wagering, gawking and rubber-necking at images of suffering, death, and starvation. But don’t worry, you’re no longer just a passive consumer of the horror content, you’re a passive consumer with a new and exciting ersatz agency allowing you to wager and lose money on the world events for which—we are repeatedly told—you can do nothing to meaningfully influence.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Ousman Noor on trial: Zionist lobby seeks to silence free speech

    Anti-Zionist Barrister, Ousman Noor never imagined that speaking truth would place him at odds with his profession. The human rights lawyer is facing charges under the UK Terrorism Act (2000) for speaking out against Israeli occupation and genocidal violence.

    He will now stand trial before the Bar Standards Board, who will determine his future and ability to practice law and the extent to which UK lawyers can freely express themselves without fear of reprisal.

    Freedom of expression on trial

    Noor specialises in refugee and detention law, with a focus on armed conflict and civilian protection. In 2020, he became Government Relations Manager for Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (SKR), as he explains to the Canary:

    I was basically a lobbyist for disarmament, advocating for international law, and explaining its importance.

    Coincidently, on October 7, 2023, when he attended the UN General Assembly in New York witnessing what would eventually upend his career. His colleagues discussed autonomous weapons and disarmament protocols, while the Israeli Ambassador spoke about Palestinians in language Noor recognised as dehumanising. He says:

    The only thing to say in that room at the time was ‘I condemn Hamas.’ Israel was getting all of the global sympathy. Later, there was absolute passivity, or applause, for the announcement that they were going to, as Netanyahu said, turn Gaza into a wasteland.

    A genocide was looming, and the diplomatic space in which he had spent years advocating for international law was silent, so were his colleagues. The indiscriminate bombing had begun. Noor felt compelled to act and told the Canary:

    No one gave a fuck basically. In the end, after crying about the issue, I stood outside the UN and made a genuinely emotional appeal. I called for people to speak out against ethnic cleansing, occupation and apartheid.

    Noor has been fired from his job but refuses to be be intimidated into silence.

    Since these developments, he has been involved in activism on every front, advocating for the rights of Palestinians and even set-up Protect Palestine. The international movement campaigns for an end Israeli occupation through military action and calls for a one-state solution. Commenting on his motivations, he said:

    It became obvious that every judicial and diplomatic mechanism is futile in the face of an unhinged fascist messianic extermination process. The Israelis don’t care about international law. They don’t care about international public opinion. We need to recognise this is fascism, and this is how it works.

    Legal analysis is not a crime

    In the background, Noor is being investigated by the Bar Standards Board. In October 2024, UK Lawyers for Israel lodged a complaint centred on a Tweet he posted from Jordan arguing that it expresses support for a ‘terrorist organisation’.

    The tweet argued that Hezbollah had the legal and moral right to use military force against the Israeli occupation forces. On the same day, the lawyer published a 12-minute in which he qualified his argument with a legal analysis.

    The Bar Standards Board claim that the barrister has brought the profession into disrepute, while citing his alleged support of a terrorist organisation as the basis for this charge. of him. Noor argues that his critique was always directed at Israel’s army for committing human rights abuses. Commenting on the social media post in question, he told the Canary:

    Everyone in international law and in Jordan, where I was living at the time, knows Hezbollah has this right. Obviously the UK doesn’t see it this way. The Zionists started making my tweet go viral, and tagged the police.

    Noor’s legal team argues that the board cannot initiate civil proceedings under the Terrorism Act.

    There is also the question of whether he has brought the profession into disrepute as claimed. He sought the opinion of Dr Ralph Wilde, an international law specialist. He confirms that Noor’s post is compliant with international law and providing legal analysis is what the profession demands.

    UK board in defence of Israel’s army

    Speaking about the board’s response, Noor says:

    They’re just so used to defending Israel, to defending the IDF,  to this idea that a barrister, a Muslim who’s a bit radical needs to be punished. There’s a real psychological aspect to all this. I joined their club, I talk like them, I have the background, I’m in their fraternity. But I’ve now been kicked out, and I’m speaking out publicly. There’s a weird tribal need for them to now try and isolate me.

    The Terrorism Act 2000 grants the police sweeping powers and is being used to erode civil liberties and free speech in opposition to Zionism and Israel’s genocide.

    Political pressure, in Noor’s case, has led to the misuse of terrorism legislation to muzzle, intimidate, and punish a legal professional in the absence of a police investigation. The word ‘terrorist’ has no agreed upon international definition but it is powerful enough to silence a whole country. Noor is prevented from working as preparation for trial is underway. If the prosecution succeeds, he faces a severe financial penalty and the risk of being struck off.

    Noor will be represented by barrister, Franck Magennis, who has been instructed to defend the case in a way that challenges the “racist ideology of Zionism”. Noor wants Zionism to be the focus of the trial. Victory, he told the Canary, is raising awareness of Zionism.

    The root culprit here is Zionism, a political ideology which he says is based on supremacy and extermination.

    When we think of the Zionist lobby, people think of institutions like UK Lawyers for Israel, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, or Labour Friends of Israel. But we need to see it as an ideology that pervades the entire British culture, media, political system, and literature.

    There are heavy stakes at play in this trial. If Noor loses, the trial sets a new precedence — granting regulators the green light to silence professionals speaking out against genocide, even when police are not involved nor interested.

    The solice is very obvious. I have my health, I have my family, I have stability. The mental and spiritual stuff is just in my head ultimately, and that we’re winning on, as well!  What I see is that I have a good life. I’m a barrister. I’m fighting my trial for it, but still I’ve had that privilege. I have a British passport. I have contacts, so I don’t feel sorry for myself. It has been, overall, a very liberating process. But whatever happens, we must win!”

    Ousman Noor’s trial will run from 20 to 21 January 2026 at the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service, London. Donate here to support Noor.

    Featured image via Nour Ousman

    By Charlie Jaay

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cannabis is legal — so why are medical users still treated like criminals?

    “Weed will ruin your life,” or so I was told as a teenager.

    Twenty years later, I am now one of 50,000 legal medical cannabis patients in the UK. Although the times have changed, with public opinion shifting in favour of drug reform, ignorance and stigma loom large. Legal cannabis patients are never the focus or the main story for corporate media and are still vilified and stigmatised by the media establishment.

    Access at what cost?

    For those out of the loop, medical cannabis has been legal and available in the UK since November 2018. Access is limited to twenty private clinics and must meet strict conditions. And to be eligible, patients must have a qualifying condition and have failed at least two different GP-prescribed treatments.

    The quality, speaking from personal experience, is rarely consistent. It fluctuates between “meh” and “what the fuck is this?” Suboptimal is what you’ll get — that is, unless you’re willing to pay well over £100 for 10g. The black market, where top-of-the-line organic flowers are sold for less, is a popular destination attracting 1.8 million users. This is not helped by the fact that legal patients are advised to vape instead of smoke cannabis, even then you’re only allowed half a gram per day… um, okay then.

    To top it off, every repeat prescription and mandatory consultation may come with an extra charge. This is starting to feel like a for-profit industry masquerading as a medical system — a blatant scam to monetise the drug, and ring-fence access … the plant literally grows in the dirt, guys…

     

    Discrimination on the dance floor

    The Canary spoke to medical patient Chris who was denied entry and ejected from the Warehouse Project, a popular nightclub in Manchester. This, he contends, was in response to  him having his legal medication.

    Chris is a medical patient living with chronic pain for the past decade after a bad fall rock climbing. He used to rely on strong pharmaceutical opioids to manage his pain, but due to the side effects, he chose to explore cannabis as a safer alternative.

    I use medical cannabis for chronic pain due to having a fused ankle, as well as metal work in my other ankle. Medical cannabis is quite helpful for prolonged time on my feet

    He and his wife had booked tickets to the night club months earlier. Upon arriving, Chris was flagged by a police dog, and as result he was directed to a booth and searched. After producing his prescription, a nurse was brought in to inspect it.

    According to Chris, the nurse entered the room and dismissively asked without platitudes, “Is this the medical cannabis…? I’ve been waiting for this”.

    It seemed like the nurse had a preconceived notion about who I was before she even met me. I was fully compliant; I wasn’t rude. I didn’t swear; not even once. I thought I was being friendly and helpful.

    After intensive questioning and an inspection of his legal medicine and pain medication, Chris was denied entry. The venue alleged that he exhibited “bad attitude,” an allegation he strongly denies. Security physically escorted Chris from the venue and he contacted his wife, already inside.

    I’ve visited the venue before and was subjected to the same searches, and the staff were great! This time was completely different though.

    I was left devastated, not just by the embarrassment of being turned away in front of everyone. More than anything it was the sinking realisation that I was being judged… Discriminated against because of a medication I am legally prescribed. It felt deeply unfair, and deeply hurtful.

    I can totally understand the frustration, I was searched just yesterday!

    The couple were furious and nearly £340 out of pocket for travel and hotel expenses. They have lodged a complaint but have yet to receive a response from the Warehouse Project. This about much more than money for Chris. It’s the repeated stigmatisation and vilification he and others face. They deserve live lives free of pain and  embarrassment.

    We should not still be having this discussion in 2025

    The reality is that cannabis is legal.

    The government must educate the general public and publish clear-eyed guidelines leaving little room for misinterpretation, as well as offer extensive training.

    Private businesses and the patients they support, as well as NHS-prescribed users, are still at risk of inadvertent discrimination. Venues are ultimate target for legal reprisals. Most importantly, legitimate patients end up disenfranchised; embarrassed by the judgment of others.

    Patients like Chris, who just want to be able to live their lives, even if it’s just something little, like booking a hotel, hopping in the car, and going for a wee boogie.

    The ignorance extends to police officers. on three occasions in the past 6 months, officers have threatened me with arrest or have told me I cannot vaporise my medication in public. I’m not too proud to say I get some satisfaction explaining the law to them as I load my vape up. So far, it’s worked out for me, but not everyone has been so fortunate.

    Featured image via Getty Images/Unsplash, and additional images by @HeadyPots

    By Barold

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cannabis is legal — so why are medical users still treated like criminals?

    “Weed will ruin your life,” or so I was told as a teenager.

    Twenty years later, I am now one of 50,000 legal medical cannabis patients in the UK. Although the times have changed, with public opinion shifting in favour of drug reform, ignorance and stigma loom large. Legal cannabis patients are never the focus or the main story for corporate media and are still vilified and stigmatised by the media establishment.

    Access at what cost?

    For those out of the loop, medical cannabis has been legal and available in the UK since November 2018. Access is limited to twenty private clinics and must meet strict conditions. And to be eligible, patients must have a qualifying condition and have failed at least two different GP-prescribed treatments.

    The quality, speaking from personal experience, is rarely consistent. It fluctuates between “meh” and “what the fuck is this?” Suboptimal is what you’ll get — that is, unless you’re willing to pay well over £100 for 10g. The black market, where top-of-the-line organic flowers are sold for less, is a popular destination attracting 1.8 million users. This is not helped by the fact that legal patients are advised to vape instead of smoke cannabis, even then you’re only allowed half a gram per day… um, okay then.

    To top it off, every repeat prescription and mandatory consultation may come with an extra charge. This is starting to feel like a for-profit industry masquerading as a medical system — a blatant scam to monetise the drug, and ring-fence access … the plant literally grows in the dirt, guys…

     

    Discrimination on the dance floor

    The Canary spoke to medical patient Chris who was denied entry and ejected from the Warehouse Project, a popular nightclub in Manchester. This, he contends, was in response to  him having his legal medication.

    Chris is a medical patient living with chronic pain for the past decade after a bad fall rock climbing. He used to rely on strong pharmaceutical opioids to manage his pain, but due to the side effects, he chose to explore cannabis as a safer alternative.

    I use medical cannabis for chronic pain due to having a fused ankle, as well as metal work in my other ankle. Medical cannabis is quite helpful for prolonged time on my feet

    He and his wife had booked tickets to the night club months earlier. Upon arriving, Chris was flagged by a police dog, and as result he was directed to a booth and searched. After producing his prescription, a nurse was brought in to inspect it.

    According to Chris, the nurse entered the room and dismissively asked without platitudes, “Is this the medical cannabis…? I’ve been waiting for this”.

    It seemed like the nurse had a preconceived notion about who I was before she even met me. I was fully compliant; I wasn’t rude. I didn’t swear; not even once. I thought I was being friendly and helpful.

    After intensive questioning and an inspection of his legal medicine and pain medication, Chris was denied entry. The venue alleged that he exhibited “bad attitude,” an allegation he strongly denies. Security physically escorted Chris from the venue and he contacted his wife, already inside.

    I’ve visited the venue before and was subjected to the same searches, and the staff were great! This time was completely different though.

    I was left devastated, not just by the embarrassment of being turned away in front of everyone. More than anything it was the sinking realisation that I was being judged… Discriminated against because of a medication I am legally prescribed. It felt deeply unfair, and deeply hurtful.

    I can totally understand the frustration, I was searched just yesterday!

    The couple were furious and nearly £340 out of pocket for travel and hotel expenses. They have lodged a complaint but have yet to receive a response from the Warehouse Project. This about much more than money for Chris. It’s the repeated stigmatisation and vilification he and others face. They deserve live lives free of pain and  embarrassment.

    We should not still be having this discussion in 2025

    The reality is that cannabis is legal.

    The government must educate the general public and publish clear-eyed guidelines leaving little room for misinterpretation, as well as offer extensive training.

    Private businesses and the patients they support, as well as NHS-prescribed users, are still at risk of inadvertent discrimination. Venues are ultimate target for legal reprisals. Most importantly, legitimate patients end up disenfranchised; embarrassed by the judgment of others.

    Patients like Chris, who just want to be able to live their lives, even if it’s just something little, like booking a hotel, hopping in the car, and going for a wee boogie.

    The ignorance extends to police officers. on three occasions in the past 6 months, officers have threatened me with arrest or have told me I cannot vaporise my medication in public. I’m not too proud to say I get some satisfaction explaining the law to them as I load my vape up. So far, it’s worked out for me, but not everyone has been so fortunate.

    Featured image via Getty Images/Unsplash, and additional images by @HeadyPots

    By Barold

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In Defense of Comfort Food in an Era Terrified by Ultra-Processed Foods

    There’s a meme that circulates every now and again on social media that says something like, “Somewhere, someone has eaten the most amount of potato chips ever, and they don’t even know it.” Every time I see it, I send it to my family group chat, and we all have a good laugh about how it’s probably one of us. If we’re getting into specifics, it’s probably me.

    I’ll hold my hands up. I’ve been addicted to potato chips, or crisps, as we call them in my English homeland, for as long as I can remember. It’s a habit I almost certainly inherited. My mom grew up in a pub with giant boxes of them stored under the counter, so really, it was inevitable. It’s the crunch, the salt, the way half a bag designed for “sharing” can disappear in five minutes while I become blissfully unaware of anything else going on in my life. It’s just me and this rustling bag of heaven.

    eating crispsPexels

    I hear what you’re thinking: that doesn’t sound very healthy. I’m the first to admit that, of course, it’s not.

    What makes ultra-processed foods so addictive?

    Potato chips are a prime example of how ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been manufactured to make us ignore our fullness cues and keep eating (and eating). They’re usually loaded with sodium, saturated fat, and artificial flavors, all of which work together to achieve a sensation that Tim Spector calls the “bliss point.” In more technical terms, potato chips are hyper-palatable, which basically means they’re very easy to munch on nonstop. You can eat them at a rate that you probably wouldn’t manage with carrot sticks, let’s be honest.

    Most of us have never considered potato chips or other UPFs like gummy candy, chocolate bars, and soda to be healthy. But lately, we’ve all realized just how damaging they might be. Study after study has been urging us to cut out UPFs and eat more whole foods, or we risk everything from damaged heart health to cognitive decline. I can confirm that when I cut back, it did help me lose some weight, not as a moral triumph, but simply as a reflection of how much of my diet had quietly become convenience foods.

    French friesPexels

    Granted, these foods were vegan. Being animal-free is far from a health halo (French fries are a prime example), but research does suggest that plant-based UPFs may be slightly less damaging than animal-based ones. Still, the fact remains: we need to eat less of them. I, like many people, have got the message loud and clear. We need to favor plant-based whole foods like fruits, grains, vegetables, nuts, and seeds for the good of our health. That’s what the Blue Zoners do, and plenty of them are making it to their 80s, 90s, and even 100s without the many chronic diseases that plague the Western world.

    I know all of this, and yet I still eat potato chips, candy, plant-based meat, and many other convenience foods quite regularly—and I’m here to say I think it’s okay if you do, too.

    The emotional value of convenience foods

    When we boil food down to nutritional value and nothing else, we lose things. We lose pleasure, connection, creativity, and experiences. As humans, food has never just been about health. It’s about comfort, joy, and even stress relief.

    Crunching through a bag of potato chips got me through hours of relentless revision for my university degree, and so did looking forward to a late-night chocolate run with my housemates when our dissertations were finally submitted.

    woman eating pizzaYan Krukau | Pexels

    Friday pizza night was a firm favorite with my siblings and me when we were growing up. We would eat it while lounging on the couch in front of our favorite TV shows, and our parents would enjoy a microwaveable curry in the kitchen. We were all relieved that the week of schooling and work was over, and everyone could take a second to relax. Convenience foods allowed us to do that with ease. The stove didn’t need to be on, vegetables didn’t need to be chopped, and pizza and Sainsbury’s heat-and-eat curry satisfied our taste buds and warmed our bellies.

    Recently, when I lifted a slice of oven-cooked frozen pizza to my lips as I have always done, from childhood to now, I thought instantly of a new study outlining how UPFs might affect every organ in the body. I hesitated. Then I ate it anyway. Because I believe that fear shouldn’t have a place in our everyday relationship with food. We should be educated and aware of the risks, but there’s a difference between being mindful and being scared. Media reports can easily tip us into the latter, and nuance often gets lost in hard-hitting headlines.

    Finding a healthier balance

    The truth is, eating UPFs all day, every day, probably isn’t good for us. But not all UPFs are created equally. A can of baked beans is not the same as a bag of Doritos, and yet both fall into the UPF category. A can of beans has fiber, protein, slow-release carbohydrates, antioxidants, and B vitamins. Doritos, on the other hand, give you the bliss point. They’re not the same, but they both have their place.

    “It is not necessary to completely avoid ultra-processed foods; rather, their consumption should be limited, and preference should be given to fresh or minimally processed foods,” said WHO scientist Heinz Freisling.

    bag of pistachiosPexels

    The key is to find a balance, and Sapna Peruvemba, MS, RDN of Health by Sapna, agrees. “Believe it or not, some UPFs can actually play a role in a well-balanced diet. Sometimes we just want a treat. The key is to indulge mindfully,” she says.

    I’m still working on that. I regained some weight when I started up my potato chip habit again. Now, I try to prioritize making my favorite comfort foods with whole foods. Macaroni cheese with a sweet potato and cashew nut sauce, for example, is quicker and easier to whip up than it sounds. Pistachios truly can give me the satisfying crunch I’m after midweek, without the side of saturated fat and hyper-palatability. But that weekend bag of potato chips, and even that Monday night bag with a side of chocolate when the week is off to a rough start, is not going anywhere. Food is about balance, or striving towards it, anyway. Comfort food often brings relief and joy, and it deserves space in our lives. Fear and shame are off the table.

    This post was originally published on VegNews.com.

  • Can Your Party leapfrog the Greens and lead Britain’s left?

    Away from noxious social-media debates, there’s a grassroots buzz about what Your Party could become. And now the founding conference is over, that energy could potentially help Your Party to catch up with the surging Greens. But it won’t be easy.

    The challenge of doing things differently

    The conference opened with comments from Garston councillor Lucy Williams saying that the party shouldn’t be ‘Team Jeremy’ nor ‘Team Zarah’, but ‘Team Working Class’.

    She was absolutely right.

    If Your Party is going to become a major force for progress, the focus must be on the communities that sorely need it, not on personal differences. And it seems its members overwhelmingly wanted that, voting for a united socialist party with working-class people at its heart. They also voted for collective leadership – a mould-breaking shift for a political system where ‘main characters’ are the dominant players.

    There is some refreshing clarity at last. But in the challenging months leading up to conference, hundreds of thousands of potential members took a cautious step back. Just over 1% of the 800,000 who initially expressed interest became full members participating in the weekend’s votes. A combination of secrecy, public spats, poor communication, and leaks to the corporate media have seriously hurt Your Party’s image. Despite the positive developments at conference, the negatives have seen them trailing behind the Greens in popularity.

    While Your Party definitely offers a new approach that inspires hope, outdated practices linger and must change.

    Push past the Greens, while learning from them

    All of Your Party’s hiccups came just as the Green Party elected a media-savvy leader in Zack Polanski. He hit the ground running, visibly rattling the political establishment. The clarity of his messaging and member-centric approach stood in stark contrast to quibbles within Your Party, helping him to attract new support. The new party can absolutely learn from Polanski’s messaging strategy.

    The birth of Your Party is now official, so it can start learning to walk. And as humans historically raised children collectively, members must nurture the young party with dedication and patience in time to stop fascists from entering Number 10.

    The Greens, now over 50 years old, have a headstart in terms of organising and ironing out internal issues. And while they’re arguably the most democratic and left-wing of the old parties, the plan for Your Party is to go beyond that by empowering communities and rooting itself within working-class struggles. Regular assemblies promise to ensure Your Party is about grassroots power, and not party leaders. This, alongside a much better communication strategy, may well bring back a big chunk of the cautious initial supporters.

    Another issue that Your Party needs to deal with is how broad an alliance it wants to be. Because there’s some disagreement on that. And it needs to resolve that asap — clearly marking its red lines and ensuring united public positions.

    Focus anger at the system, not ordinary people

    Most left-wingers will find that, in most parts of the country, they’re unlikely to find people around them who agree with them on absolutely everything. And the more radical we are, the less favourably society will see us.

    But does that mean we refuse to work with everyone who disagrees with us? Or does it mean we accept our differences and align with people who agree on shared priorities? The answers Your Party members give to those questions will absolutely determine whether it will be a broad election-winning alliance or another minor left-wing party that gets little done.

    Particular personal social views are a clear challenge for Your Party. For example, its understandably strong support for trans rights has caused heated debate recently, with some people leaving as a result. Most British people are accepting of personal differences but, on trans rights, acceptance has been slower. However, some people have stayed in Your Party despite differences of opinion on this and other issues because they prioritise unity in the fight against fascism and neoliberalism. And members have overwhelmingly voted in favour of letting local members recall their party officers if they don’t act in line with member expectations.

    All this suggests that, at its heart, Your Party has the ability to do politics differently. Its members want unity and community empowerment. And if they can focus their justifiable anger against the political and economic system that has hurt the country so much, rather than inwards, it can grow in coming months.

    A stronger left is key to stopping fascism

    We need a strong left. And we don’t have the luxury of time. Fascism is creeping further and further into the public domain, with rising intimidation and attacks against minoritised communities. Its electoral wing, meanwhile, is banging at the door of 10 Downing Street. Zack Polanski wasted no time in taking the fight to Reform UK after getting his mandate as Green leader. Your Party must do the same.

    The left as a whole will absolutely need to unite come election time. But if Your Party and the Green Party can learn from each other in the meantime, the country will be in a much better position to resist encroaching fascism.

    Featured image via Your Party

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rachel Reeves is a class enemy and Labour are fucking finished

    Just stop what you are doing for one moment. Can you hear a strange breaking sound?

    No? Listen harder, because I can hear the Labour Party snapping its own crumbling spine to crawl deeper into the filthy rectum of capital.

    Let’s be honest. Neither Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves particularly care about the longer term because they’re both fighting to save their jobs in the next weeks and months from a likely leadership challenge emanating from the Labour backbenches.

    Reeves’ survival budget

    This was a survival budget, crafted by a financial illiterate with a (dodgy) PhD in elitist appeasement, turning the fortunes of the public purse into the misfortunes of poor people and working classes.

    This wasn’t balancing the books, this was spinning the books like a fucking roulette wheel. Reeves — a strong contender for a financial Darwin Award — is a values atheist with the charm of a cold-eyed bailiff padlocking your dead nan’s house while lecturing you about “difficult decisions”.

    It takes some serious brass neck to claim this was a “cost of living” budget.

    The cost of living has continued to rise under this flailing Labour government and it’s going to take a whole lot more than a pitiful minimum wage increase to stop you from needing to apply for a payday loan to buy a block of Lurpak butter and a tin of baked beans.

    Giving and taking away

    Reeves dangled the abolition of the two-child benefit cap like a crumb to starving families. Yes, it is a very small win, but it’s drowned out by the sneering cuts elsewhere, such as slashing £300 million in subsidies for the Motability scheme.

    Pulling VAT exemptions and insurance relief from disabled people who rely on adapted vehicles to maintain a bit of independence isn’t compassion, it’s yet another dog whistle to the morally debased tabloid filth-peddlers, painting benefit recipients as scroungers while ignoring the real scandal — a welfare bill that’s ballooned not from “laziness” but from a rigged economy that leaves millions of low paid workers relying on benefits to put food on the table.

    And those other ‘reforms’ that force 18-21-year-olds into six-month work placements or face a benefit loss? That’s not opportunity, it’s forced labour with Labour, and a nod to the workfare fascists that Labour are supposed to vehemently despise.

    Forced labour with Labour? You can have that one for free, Mr Polanski.

    Talking of all things green, Reeves sounded the ecocide klaxon when she axed the Energy Company Obligation, condemning millions in fuel poverty to yet another winter of being forced to choose between heating and eating, only to be topped off with a new mileage tax on electric vehicles, punishing the precise green transition she claims to champion.

    Where was the massive public investment in renewables? What about a jobs guarantee for green transition workers? Reeves just churned out more hot air while the planet chokes on the fumes of capitalism.

    Not the “broad shoulders” again?

    Reeves wants you to believe she is all about making the “wealthiest pay their fair share”, but her utterly pathetic £2,500 surcharge on homes over £2 million starting in 2028, rising to £7,500 for the £5 million palaces isn’t going to leave much of a dent in the average oligarchs portfolio and is so laughably fucking feeble it wouldn’t even cover the coke bill for one weekend in a Knightsbridge townhouse.

    This is the same woman who spent the election campaign swearing she’d never raise taxes on “working people”, now openly pickpocketing them while the super-rich laugh themselves hoarse. History will remember Rachel Reeves as the Labour Chancellor who stood in the rubble of Tory Britain, looked at poor people, disabled people, homeless people, and deliberately chose to tighten the noose.

    Labour — still plunging in the polls like a lead-weighted turd that’s navigating its way around the u-bend — needs to ditch this failed neoliberal drivel for genuine redistribution which begins with taxing the billionaires properly, and nationalising our key industries.

    Nobody is fooled by this “most left-wing chancellor” nonsense, are they?

    “But what about Reeves freezing rail fares?”, the Starmerites cry. We’re talking about the most expensive rail fares in Europe, right? A one-year gimmick that does nothing for the chronic underfunding of transport as a public good is utterly worthless.

    Going down

    I remember the outrage when Corbyn’s Labour dipped below 20% in the polls. I remember them telling us how Labour would be 20% ahead under any other leader than Jeremy Corbyn, yet here we are, six years later, sleepwalking towards a fascist government and a Labour Party that will be lucky to cling on to just a dozen parliamentary seats following the next general election.

    Whether you back the Polanski horse, or the Your Party horse, we need to ride this one together so we can say we did everything within our power to fight these forces of abominable wickedness.

    Temu ‘economist’ Reeves and the traitor Starmer are not merely a disgrace. They are class enemies in red ties, and the fight against them begins now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The arts scene is harming marginalised communities – where do we go from here?

    It’s a tough time to be a marginalised person and in the arts: groups like disabled, racialised and working class artists are finding the sector bleaker and bleaker by the day. Between lack of funding, declining representation and shifts in politics, more and more writers, artists and other creatives are finding it increasingly impossible to work on their craft.

    Where is all the money?

    It feels at the moment that every time you open Instagram, another arts organisation, charity or group is telling us they have lost their funding or haven’t got the funds they should have met the criteria for.

    How do we keep working class, disabled and racialised creatives going, and how do we make sure that more of them can make a career from their craft? 

    Organisations like Queer Youth Art Collective, providing amazing opportunities, have announced losses of funding or failures to renew funding, whilst many arts organisations have been left in limbo due to this year’s Arts Council England portal crash, receiving less money or being left unpaid.

    For many of these organisations, their creation was out of necessity in an industry that feels that minority groups and marginalised people do not fit in the mainstream, seeing us as niche, unprofitable, or not seeing our worth. If we cannot fit in with them, but the industry refuses to fund our own endeavours, where does that leave us?

    Rebecca Kenny, from Written Off Publishing, posted on Instagram talking about these issues, sparking conversation on the platform amongst many creatives – but this conversation has been avoided in the mainstream media. Speaking to us about funding, she said:

    Funding is inaccessible for neurodivergent artists, dyslexic artists, parents / carers, mentally unwell artists and those in poverty. The forms are convoluted, lengthy and require time and space that is often not afforded to marginalised artists. For example, the Arts Council England form can take upwards of two complete days to fill out. It is intensive. For disabled artists, this can result in chronic flare-ups and burnout. For neurodivergent artists it can result in breakdown. No funding application should ever do that. 

    Wealthier artists work with bid writers, but again, this is privilege used to gain opportunity… Many marginalised artists work full-time and do their artistic endeavours alongside this. Many of them are parents. When are they able to give their focus to this?

    More barriers

    And it isn’t just about individual accessibility – there are clear patterns further disempowering working class creatives when it comes to funding, including that of Arts Council England, particularly visible in the north-south divide. Living in the Midlands or the North can make being a creative fundamentally harder, with less opportunities or networking chances, but a recent report by IPPR found that the north of England received £383.5 million through the core Arts Council England funding streams for 2022-26, compared to London, which received £458.6 million.

    Bectu’s Big Survey surveyed over 5,500 workers in creative industries in non-performing roles to look at where jobs are going, finding that three quarters of all workers said they got a job through a contact in the last year and a half, with only 37% saying their position was publicly advertised. 45% of disabled workers concealed information about things like their diagnosis or situation, showing the impact of bias in these industries. 

    Experiencing oppression in the arts is going hand in hand with lack of funding, lack of connections, and being ostracised. 

    Is representation getting worse?

    A decline in opportunities for marginalised artists and writers is not just about our careers or money, it’s about the impact on consumers and the state of representation overall. Everyone deserves to see themselves in media and the arts, and the unique experiences and barriers faced by marginalised individuals must be seen and discussed.

    In October, Inclusive Books for Children launched their newest Excluded Voices report, which found that only around 6% of books featured main characters from marginalised backgrounds, including an extreme decline in those with Black protagonists at 1.9% of books for those age 9 and under. Only thirteen included disabled and neurodivergent protagonists. In a society that somehow continues to perpetuate the idea that the arts have gone ‘too far’ when it comes to inclusion, reports like this one show us how desperately we need to go further. 

    Last month, pioneering children’s publisher Knights Of announced their closure after eight years of publishing revolutionary inclusive works like those of neurodivergent author Elle McNicoll. The fact the publishing industry let this happen without a sale seems unthinkable – but that is the current reality. The industry and those at its helm are allowing diversity and inclusivity to be pushed under a rug, and it must be argued this is in line with the shift to the right in politics in the UK. 

    Social media, AI, and all the ways tech is hurting artists

    It’s worth noting that there is, of course, a lot to say about the role of Big Tech and its impact on the arts sector. From generative AI which steals the work of artists, to the impact of changing algorithms on social media that deprioritise art or censor queer, disabled and racialised people.

    This is in complete misalignment with the way that many creative industries are asking for people to have a social media following and engagement rate: publishing wants their authors to have a platform, funding bodies ask for statistics, musicians need a viral TikTok sound. For anyone, this is unrealistic (and arguably unnecessary), but for marginalised creatives, it directly unevens the playing field.

    When discussing the impact of social media, Kenny said: 

    Many marginalised artists rely on social media because they can’t get out to physical events. The online space was, at one time, a crucial space that held value – we grew rapidly within it ourselves! But in the last year, it’s plummeted – and whilst the more privileged of us can get out and combat the lack of exposure by networking and performing in person, many of us don’t have that luxury… 

    I understand that when you’re able-bodied, neurotypical, cis, or simply hold privilege to be able to work around these issues, it’s hard to care about those people who are being shut out. I see it a lot – people say they care but do little to keep online spaces alive. Allyship is needed more than ever but is less prevalent than it’s ever been in the wider sphere.

    Where do we even go from here?

    It can be difficult to imagine a better arts scene at the moment: there is less money or engagement from politicians for everyone. But it is clear that marginalised artists are hit even harder for a variety of reasons.

    Governments and funding bodies must prioritise diversity and inclusion in these sectors: it is critical that artists can work on their craft without fear of not being able to cover their expenses, and we deserve to see ourselves represented across every type of creative practice.

    In a society that is prioritising speed and soulless generative working, pushback in the form of real creativity, accessible opportunity and genuine care is crucial. We have to prioritise new talent, talent with a variety of living and lived experiences, talent from every marginalised group. We have a wealth of ability, imagination, and innovation that is going untapped through the decimation of care for the arts and the people in it.

    As Kenny puts it:

    We need accessible opportunities for the most marginalised in society and we also need to actively refuse opportunities to those who are already in a position of privilege or power. Right now it’s skewed – the ones with the least are expected to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, whilst the ones with lots already are given even more. That can’t continue.

    Featured image via John Ranson for the Canary

    By Charli Clement

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Climate expect warns of energy catastrophe

    Kevin Anderson, a professor of energy, has said the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is no longer viable. Anderson made this “very depressing statement, as he described it, the central point of his keynote speech at the National Emergency Briefing on climate change in Westminster last week.

    The briefing drew political figures from across the political spectrum. MPs Barry Gardiner (Labour), Ellie Chowns (Green), Iqbal Mohamed (Independent) and Green Party leader Zack Polanski, were in attendance.

    Marshall plan-scale action

    Anderson stood firm, highlighting the scale of global warming and demanding urgent action of a scale: “like the Marshall Plan after WWII”. The culprits — the top 1 percent of global emitters, he said, are collectively producing twice the emissions levels as the poorest half of the world.

    He scolded high-income UK households consuming up to five times more energy than the lowest income households.

    He dismissed the UK’s cost-of-living crisis, speaking instead of a crisis of equity. The rich are getting richer he added, underlininmg the complacency of mainstream political parties to address the imbalance.

    He proposed measures including:

    • Retrofitting homes
    • Mandating zero-carbon new buildings
    • Rolling out public transport
    • Electric vehicles charging infrastructure
    • Transitioning to zero-carbon electricity
    • Electrifying energy systems.

    He also called for deep cuts in aviation and the energy use of the UK’s wealthiest households, in his powerful call to action:

    The discretionary emissions are locked into the lives of us high income emitters […] This is where we need urgent legislation to drive down energy use within that particular group.

    It is now too late for non-radical futures. We need revolutionary changes in how we live. The choice is between deep, rapid decarbonization through organized technical and social revolution, or facing chaotic and violent change as temperatures reach dangerous levels for everyone.

    Similar warnings were expressed by environmentalist and television presenter, Chris Packham. He called out ideological denialism as a factor standing in the way of the government’s policy responses.;

    Climate denialism has become mainstream again thanks to the well-oiled machines of the rich, powerful, and influential lobbyists from the fossil fuel and other industries. A dangerous wave of misinformation and lies fills our lives.

    Labour reneges on promises to resolve climate crisis

    The expectation of industrial action, as proposed by Anderson from the current Labour government, is another diminishing hope.

    Recent reporting by DeSmog shows that Labour has betrayed its climate change pledges.

    Influential Labour Peer Maurice Glasman spoke at a conference hosted by the Together Declaration, a group with ties to Reform which campaigns against net zero policies. The Labour government has also been signing massive technology deals with US tech giants. These deals will power UK data centers with fossil fuels, potentially jeopardising climate targets.

    The Labour party also maintains close relations with the oil and gas industry. This includes offering £22 billion in carbon capture subsidies, which many environmental experts consider a false solution to the climate crisis.

    As the climate crisis deepens, Anderson’s call for a Marshall Plan-scale energy initiative aims to target the wealthiest emitters — whom Labour  continues to indulge — while the window for preventing catastrophe closes.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Jon Tyson

    By Nandita Lal

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Palestine censorship on the rise in UK schools

    On 19 October, 250 people gathered for a Lantern Walk in solidarity with Palestine in Brockwell Park, South London.

    The fundraiser was organised by parents and children from a local school to support the Sameer Project, an aid project in North Gaza. In the lead-up, they were instructed by the school to refrain from using its name in communications and materials, and not to distribute leaflets outside the school gates. Concerned parents quizzed the school which spoke of complaints and legal threats.

    Despite these hostile censorship attempts, families showed up in force — defying the rain, waving flags, and playing music. In conversation with the Canary, a member of Parents for Palestine explains why they joined:

    For two years we have been witnessing the most horrific massacres being committed by Israel … they have not raised flags or fundraised as they did for Ukraine. This is unacceptable when children in Gaza are made to bury their loved ones … Our schools need to do better.

    Censoring Palestine: Hackney parents speak-up

    This is one of the milder instances of censorship. Parents and teachers who spoke to the Canary expressed fears of reprisals and the erasure of free expression. They spoke of children being reported over keffiyehs, pins, or football shirts …why…for making parents — yes adults — uncomfortable.

    One parent in Hackney shared another troubling experience:

    At a meeting about the school and federation management’s allegedly anti-racist practice and curriculum, Palestine solidarity was again shut down and a white Israeli mum was allowed to shout over people, saying she felt “unsafe” as a “Jew and Israeli”. When a mixed race mum shared that she felt the lack of solidarity with Palestine was also racist, the conversation was then shut down and she was told off, despite never raising her voice and actually trembling.

    Another Hackney parent organised a diversity week event where the title was forcibly sanitised — seeing Palestine replaced with “multicultural”. In another case, a school was threatening to refer an 8 year-old child to Prevent for having a Palestine flag stitched to their coat. 

    Rising Islamophobia and censorship over Palestine

    The unease attached to Palestinian solidarity in schools is not separate from the rising tide of Islamophobia. CAGE UK, an advocacy organisation, documented a 455 percent increase in acts of repression against Palestinian solidarity since 2021. Out of 214 cases, 209 involved Muslims, including referrals to Prevent and unfounded allegations of “terrorism”. 

    Not even teachers are being spared.

    A spokesperson for Maslaha, an anti-racism organisation, told the Canary: 

    We’ve been talking to teachers who have explicitly been told not to discuss Palestine in classrooms. They’re reminded to “stay neutral” or to “remember the Teachers’ Standards” […] frequently being told their schools “can’t do anything political”. This is despite assemblies and lessons on Ukraine being welcomed. Children raising Palestine in class are treated as a “safeguarding concern,” under the Prevent Duty.

    While there are no clear, top-down orders to muzzle Palestine solidarity, the murkiness of the government’s “impartiality” guidelines, the fear of dismissals, and the general stress headteachers face, result in self-censorship, one headteacher explains:

    Headteachers are managing exceptional pressures. As a result, leaders often do not have the capacity to engage in conflict with governing bodies over public positioning, even when our personal convictions are strong.

    Many [teachers] respond as individuals, rather than institutions. We focus on universal principles […] and make anti-war statements without explicitly naming the context.

    Small victories, big impact

    In response to these  repressive tactics, families and the communities have stood their ground. CAGE shared some examples of its clients fighting back in conversation with the Canary: 

    One London-based analyst at a major media outlet who was instructed to remove his T-shirt that stated ‘Free Gaza’ said: “I am leaving this company… I cannot stay somewhere where there is a double standard and I am treated like an outsider for a T-shirt”.

    There’s also Layla, banned from school grounds a parent filed a complaint against her child for donning a Palestine badge. 

    With our support, she challenged the school, demanding to know why standing for Palestine led to her being treated unfairly. We advised her throughout her meetings and communications with the school, which eventually led them to back down.

    On a more local level, grassroots campaigns in support of Palestine are flourishing. The Lewisham-based Apartheid Free Schools has been actively campaigning against the misconception across UK schools that Palestine is an isolated issue, different from other struggles against occupation and apartheid. In a statement to the Canary, one of the parents involved wrote:

    We envision a Lewisham whose schools are apartheid free. We do not want institutions to which we entrust our children to indirectly or unknowingly support apartheid and the human rights violations of other children.

    Some schools have started to back down as parents ramp up pressure. Some have even endorsed the boycott of public institutions that support Israel. Recently, a Cambridge school suspended trips to the Science Museum until it divests from companies complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Another school cancelled a visit by Damian Egan, the Bristol North East MP and Labour Friends of Israel Vice Chair. Bristol Palestine Solidarity Campaign at the time describe the cancellation as “a win safeguarding, solidarity, and for the power of trade unionists, parents, and campaigners”.

    The victories are incremental but they are a sign that pupils, parents and teachers are prepared to push back to voice their horror at the injustice and violence they’ve been witnessing for two years.

    Featured image via Unsplash

    By Abla Kandalaft

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Corbyn spoke of hope before the Your Party conference – where is it now?

    Note from ed: this article was written before the Your Party conference – after the chaos of conference weekend, its conclusion is even starker.

    It’s Tuesday evening in Manchester, and I’m attending a Your Party rally where Jeremy Corbyn is speaking, just before conference this weekend. Let me preface this by saying I never voted until I voted for Corbyn in 2017. For me, not voting is a statement in itself-a declaration that “I don’t find representation here.” I have always believed him to be a genuine, compassionate man and, in many ways, a brilliant MP. So, I was excited to hear what he had to say.

    Unity in the community?

    The buzzword of the evening was “unity.” In front of a packed hall, one of the speakers stressed the need to keep “the party” a broad church. “You can’t just kick people out because you disagree on small things,” they argued, before adding:

    If you think that Muslim communities are socially conservative, you’ve never met the Catholic Irish working class in this country.

    Yikes. That’s a very broad brush.

    The speech went on to extol the values of society’s most marginalised, but I couldn’t get past this not-so-subtle contradiction. How do we defend the most vulnerable while also platforming and enabling those with transphobic views – even accepting them as members and representatives? Locally, in Newcastle, activists are furious after Your Party booked a venue, twice, with a history of hosting anti-trans events. And it pains me to say that Jeremy Corbyn’s recent voting record leaves much to be desired in the eyes of many LGBT+ activists. This isn’t just a blind spot. Even from a cynical point of view – it’s just bad politics.

    Your Party playing catch up

    This was my first time seeing Jezza speak in person-and he’s definitely still got it – he had people on their feet applauding by the end. But let’s be honest: people are skeptical about Your Party, and everyone seems to be playing damage limitation at the moment. When the unpopular sortition process came up, Corbyn addressed it with cautious optimism: 

    I thought that if we used the sortition process, we’d get a very genuine cross-section of those who are coming… It’s novel, it’s different, let’s see how it goes.

    There was plenty of reassuring talk. Your Party is “utterly determined to provide a real political alternative,” we are told. Positive news about local and regional branches is shared:

    Every month without fail, they will organise an open public event where they can relate to the issues faced by that community.

    Yet all this unfolds against the backdrop a party lurching towards its first conference with no clear agenda. What is Your Party, really? It’s like buying a painting that hasn’t been painted yet. Corbyn claims he doesn’t want to replicate Labour’s bureaucracy, so why is the room full of ex-Labour furniture? It’s easy to attack Labour’s failures, but what, specifically, will Your Party do differently?

    Where the rubber meets the road

    The next day, I saw where real political energy meets the street. At a budget protest in St. Peter’s Square, I watched demonstrators shield themselves from a clutch of right-wing YouTubers hunting for confrontation. The contrast was stark: a cathedral had been full the night before, but where was that crowd now? Corbyn had rightly warned of the bold, active rise of the right wing. They aren’t just listening to speeches; they are on the ground, shaping the narrative.

    It’s all well and good to make speeches, but the disenfranchised people shouting for change in the rain are the very energy Your Party claims to represent. I know the appetite for this party is real; I’ve felt it for years. That’s why it’s so devastating to watch it fumbled so badly. “It’s a shambles,” the man next to me at the rally had sighed. “But I can be a member and still vote Green if they don’t sort it out.”

    The internal chaos is palpable. Contradictory briefings fly back and forth. Did Jeremy even want this? Accusations of poor communication… Rumours swirl of him disappearing to his allotment, phone-less, for hours… The horror. Corbyns team deny this, but either way; the man is 76 – let him grow some fucking potatoes! You can love Jeremy Corbyn, know the anti-semitism smears were bullshit, and still acknowledge he wasn’t a great Labour leader. By all accounts, he never really wanted the job. Does he truly want this one?

    A hope deficit

    The man is a wonderful human and a superb local MP – surely that is enough? The people behind the scenes must realise they aren’t just damaging their own reputations, or enabling others to tarnish their own. This fiasco will be weaponised for years to undermine left-wing politics, betraying everyone who works to give it credibility. They deserve better.

    As a longtime supporter, witnessing Your Party’s shambolic launch is a profoundly painful conflict. The rally’s rhetoric of ‘unity’ is starkly undercut by a central, unforgivable contradiction: the polite demand to tolerate intolerance. Corbyn can still command a room, but the chasm between nostalgic appeal and tangible substance is now undeniable. This is more than a communications failure; it’s a fundamental betrayal of principle that discredits the wider left and offers a gift to the very right it claims to oppose.

    Thank fuck figures like Zack Polanski are emerging to fill this vacuum. Because, as much as it pains me to say it, Your Party in its current state offers no hope at all. 

    Featured images via Barold

    By Barold

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • TalkTV dumps racist activist, GB News pressured to follow

    Talk TV has said it has “no plans” to invite back — self-described ‘public policy specialist’ — Lucy White. GB News still undecided. It comes after the following tweet which attracted widespread criticism:

    Now people are pressuring GB News to follow suit.

    Lucy White power

    In response to White’s statement, TalkTV said:

    The views she expresses are her own, and her recent social media post referring to Nus Ghani was reprehensible. We have no plans to invite Lucy White back on Talk in the foreseeable future.

    TalkTV recently sacked host Mike Graham after racist comments were posted to his Facebook page (Graham claimed he was ‘hacked’ then refused to engage with the investigation). Since his sacking, Graham has found himself free to make his true feelings known:

    Many people took issue with White’s comments:

    White, meanwhile, has doubled down on her initial comments in a long and confusing post in which her first argument is as follows:

    1. Did you know that a Bengali Tiger born in Siberia remains a Bengali Tiger?… It does not become a Siberian Tiger. The same logic applies to Boris Johnson being born in New York. Boris is ethnically White British (yes, we know he has a Turkish great-grandfather, cry me a river) and, regardless of where in the world Boris would have been born, he would always remain White British. Just as a Bengali Tiger remains a Bengali Tiger, despite being born in Siberia.

    Nusrat Ghani, being ethnically Pakistani, would always be ethnically Pakistani, whether born in Pakistan, the UK or anywhere else in the world. Just as a Bengali Tiger remains a Bengali Tiger, despite being born in Siberia.

    To conflate Boris Johnson being born in New York as being the same as Nusrat Ghani being born in Pakistan is beyond ludicrous.

    So in summary: Boris Johnson isn’t a Yank, Nusrat Ghani is Pakistani, and we’re all… tigers?

    I don’t know who needs to hear this, but you don’t have to agonise over stuff like this; you can simply judge people as individuals. I know I certainly wouldn’t want people to judge me based on how other whites (and indeed Whites) behave.

    White also said the following:


    I dunno, Lucy; I don’t think you get to make this point when your argument boils down to ‘all foreigners are rapists and/or tigers‘.

    Obviously people aren’t going to patiently walk you through it every time you make an argument that’s been discredited for decades. It would be like having to scientifically prove lead is poisonous every time we tell someone not to drink it. The work has been done, Lucy. They’re calling you a racist because that’s the established word for people like you.

    GB News can’t decide what the racist threshold is

    While White’s comments are obviously grim and backwards, they’re also the sort of thing you routinely see on Twitter these days. The problem that activists like White have is that they’re all trying to walk the line between gaining social media clout and not becoming too toxic for the telly.

    In this instance, White went further than Talk TV were willing to stomach. GB News, meanwhile, is seemingly deciding if it should:

    • Publicly state they won’t work with White and risk pissing off the fringe weirdos.
    • Continue working with White and risk losing their broader appeal.

    Whatever they decide right now, the shift on this is obviously mostly moving rightwards. In other words, whether they continue working with her now or not, it’s very possible they will broadcast identical opinions to hers in the next few years.

    For reference, this is where GB News and Lucy White were at 4 months ago:

    This state of affairs is why we need to support anti-racist parties who are standing in the 2026 local elections. Reform’s success is a big reason why these people are so emboldened, and the way to kick that into reverse is to push Reform back down the polls.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tucker Carlson ‘tuckered out’ with Donald Trump and Israel – insights for New Zealand rightwing politics

    COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell

    The origin of the expression “tuckered out” goes back to the east of the United States around the 1830s.

    After New Englanders began to compare the wrinkled and drawn appearance of overworked and undernourished horses and dogs to the appearance of tucked cloth, it became associated with people being exhausted.

    Expressions such as this can be adapted, sometimes with a little generosity, to apply to other circumstances.

    This adaptation includes when a prominent far right propagandist and activist who, in a level of frustration that resembles mental exhaustion, lashes out against far right leaders and governments that he has been strongly supportive of.

    Tariq Ali
    Tariq Ali . . . reposts revealing far right lament. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    This came to my attention when reading a frustrated far right lament reposted on Facebook (27 November) by British-Pakistani socialist Tariq Ali.

    If anything meets the threshold for a passionate expression of grief or sorrow, this one did.

    The lament was from Tucker Carlson, an American far right political commentator who hosted a nightly political talk show on Fox News from 2016 to 2023 when his contract was terminated.

    Since then he has hosted his own show under his name on fellow extremist Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). Arguably Carlson is the most influential far right host in the United States (perhaps also more influential than the mainstream rightwing).

    He is someone who the far right government of Israel considered to be an unshakable ally.

    Carlson’s lament

    The lament is brief but cuts to the chase:

    There is no such thing as “God’s chosen people”.

    God does not choose child-killers.

    This is heresy — these are criminals and thieves.

    350 million Americans are struggling to survive,

    and we send $26 billion to a country most Americans can’t even name the capital of.

    His lament doubled as a “declaration of war” on the entire narrative Israel uses to justify its genocide in Gaza. But Carlson didn’t stop there. He went on to expose the anger boiling inside the United States.

    Donald Trump
    President Donald Trump . . . also the target of Carlson’s lament. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    The clip hit the US media big time including 48 million views in the first nine hours. Subsequently a CNN poll showed that 62 percent of Americans agree with Carlson and that support for Israel among Americans is collapsing.

    But Carlson went much further directly focussing on fellow far right Donald Trump who he had “supported”.

    By focussing the US’s money, energy, and foreign policy on Israel, Trump was betraying his promises to Americans.

    This signifies a major falling out including a massive public shift against Israel (which is also losing its media shield), the far right breaking ranks, and panic within the political establishment.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene
    Marjorie Taylor Greene . . . another prominent far right leader who has fallen out with Trump. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    It should also be seen in the context of the extraordinary public falling out with President Trump of another leading far right extremist (and conspiracy theorist) Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. In addition to the issues raised by Carlson she also focussed on Trump’s handling of the Epstein files controversy.

    Far right in New Zealand politics

    The far right publicly fighting among itself over its core issues is very significant for the US given its powerful influence.

    This influence includes not just the presidency but also both Congress and the Senate, one of the two dominant political parties, and the Supreme Court (and a fair chunk of the rest of the judiciary).

    Does this development offer insights for politics in New Zealand? To begin with the far right here has nowhere near the same influence as in the United States.

    The parties that make up the coalition government are hard right rather than far right (that is, hardline but still largely respectful of the formal democratic institutions).

    It is arguably the most hard right government since the early 1950s at least. But this doesn’t make it far right. I discussed this difference in an earlier Political Bytes post (November 3): Distinguishing far right from hard right.

    Specifically:

    …”hard right” for me means being very firm (immoderate) near the extremity of rightwing politics but still respect the functional institutions that make formal democracy work.

    In contrast the “far right” are at the extremity of rightwing politics and don’t respect these functional institutions. There is an overlapping blur between the “hard right” and “far right”.

    Both the NZ First and ACT parties certainly have far right influences. The former’s deputy leader Shane Jones does a copy-cat imitation of Trumpian bravado.

    Brian Tamaki
    Far right Brian Tamaki has some influence but is a small bit player compared to Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Meanwhile, there is an uncomfortable rapport between ACT (particularly its leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour) and the far right Destiny Church (particularly its leader Brian Tamaki).

    But this doesn’t come close to meeting the far right threshold for both NZ First and ACT.

    The far right itself also has its internal conflicts. The most prominent group within this relatively small extremist group is the Destiny Church. However, its relationship with other sects can be adversarial.

    Insights for New Zealand politics nevertheless
    Nevertheless, the internal far right fallout in the United States does provide some insights for public fall-outs within the hard right in New Zealand.

    This is already becoming evident in the three rightwing parties making up the coalition government.

    NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon
    NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon . . . coalition arrangement starting to get tuckered out and heading towards lamenting? Image: politicalbytes.blog

    For example:

    • NZ First has said that it would support repealing ACT’s recent parliamentary success with the Regulatory Standards Act, which was part of the coalition agreement, should it be part of the next government following the 2026 election;
    • National subsequently suggested that they might do likewise;
    • ACT has lashed out against NZ First for its above-mentioned position;
    • NZ First leader Winston Peters has declined to express public confidence in Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s leadership;
    • NZ First has publicly criticised the Government’s economic management performance; and
    • while National and ACT support the sale of public assets, NZ First is publicly opposed.

    These tensions are well short of the magnitude of Tucker Carlson’s public attack on Israel over Gaza and President Trump’s leadership.

    However, there are signs with the hard right in New Zealand of at least starting to feel “tuckered out” of collaborating collegially in their coalition government arrangement and showing signs of pending laments.

    Too early to tell yet but we shall see.

    Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Your Party’s founding conference has already been tainted

    Well, kicking out the SWP the night before the conference was a fucking bad decision for ‘Your Party.’

    Your Party conference: it’s not going well

    I came to this conference this morning full of hope. Last night, I saw Zarah Sultana’s rally, and every single speaker was vibrant and full of hope. Our power, each of them implored, doesn’t come from the top, but it comes from the millions of people building the movement. Platforming Lewis Nielson, a proud member of the SWP, was a shot at Corbyn and the undemocratic way they had expelled a vast demographic of the left.

    On the eve of the fucking conference. Come on, guys, who could have thought this was a good idea?

    It’s tainted it all. There’s an air of defiance at this conference, and it’s being shown by every member and every speaker I have seen so far. Rebellion is in the air, with crowds of people milling around asking, ‘Who the fuck is making these decisions?’

    It was meant to be us.

    We have speakers on stage, screaming for unity. For this fucking party to drop the bullshit. We thought it was meant to be led by the members, that every single decision was going to be made by us? That this was meant to a truly, 100% democratic party?

    And members are fuming.

    From security dragging out young activists roughly purely for being a member of the SWP, we are absolutely at a cross-roads:

    When speakers are hushed for nothing more than calling out transphobia:

    When you have the majority of members here screaming for democracy, speakers on stage being hushed when they go off topic and plead for unity, there is something clearly wrong. Clearly broken.

    And now the question is, will those at the ‘top’ of this conference, and indeed Your Party, listen to us?

    Will anyone listen?

    And why the fuck do we have speakers telling us we should pull away from the word ‘socialist?’ We are fucking socialist, we are not socially conservative. This party is for everyone, it was built to stand with and protect minorities, wasn’t it? Or so we were told.

    It is breaking my heart that this conference has gone the way it has. This should have been a morning full of hope, planning a future where we can finally take on the far-right. But it’s been tarnished and the air is one of rebellion.

    But it’s been made very fucking clear by the vast majority of members here. We will not be quiet, you can drag us out, you can try to cut us out. But we will not be quiet and we will fight. This is our party, it does not belong to anyone but the membership. Please, top making decisions before we have been fucking consulted. When Your Party is claiming to be entirely inclusive, why are we kicking out members of the left? Yes, they are difficult. Yes, their past is dark. But these people are part of the movement.

    Please, fucking listen to the members.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Antifabot

    This post was originally published on Canary.