radiofree.asia

Category: Opinion

  • D is for Disconnect


    I didn’t meet a Republican until I was 18 years old, my freshman year at university. I grew up in working class suburbs of Detroit. Everyone was union. Everyone was a Democrat. This was the party of the New Deal, FDR, JFK.

    That political party, that institution which understood and worked for everyday people – the blue collars of the lower class and the white collars of the middle class – that political force which invested its energy to foster an America for all, to serve the citizenry equally regardless of class status, the party which took seriously the constitutional mandate “to promote the general welfare”, no longer exists.

    The transition took place during the 90s under the saxophone president, Bill Clinton, and was complete by the turn of the century. No longer was the Democratic Party a party of the people. It ended up serving the same monied class as the Republicans. As Ralph Nader puts it, choice at the polls now was deciding between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    Democrats currently wonder why party loyalty has been diminishing, why Hillary Clinton lost to a glib reality show host/gambling casino magnate in 2016, a manifestly dishonest, terminally shallow, narcissistic, manipulative, self-serving, completely unqualified candidate in Donald Trump. It’s not difficult to explain: The new Democratic Party is the party which railroaded one of the most popular candidates in recent history, Bernie Sanders, out of the race, stranding the largest populous uprising in decades.

    As if that weren’t insulting enough, Hillary made no secret of her disdain for the “deplorables” of America, the unwashed masses who didn’t benefit from pedigree educations, bulging stock portfolios, and natty wardrobes from Prada and Armani. Her elitist predilection was then reinforced by the leak of a speech she gave to top banking executives, where she claimed she had “both a public and private position” on Wall Street reform. The execs got the real story and the voting public was served up the usual campaign blather. Is it any wonder that her bid for the presidency was crippled by plummeting trust?

    The feel-good campaign mounted by the Democrats for Kamala Harris is likewise revealing. It completely lacked substance, saturated with word salad and puerile rhetoric. Openly on display was how cynical Democratic Party leaders are and just how disconnected the party is from doing anything to improve the lives of everyday citizens living real lives in real time.

    To his credit in both 2016 and 2024, Trump said many of the right things which resonated with the masses of voters alienated by the new corporate trimmings of the DNC and its penchant for supporting centrist establishment-friendly candidates. To his discredit, in 2016 Trump apparently didn’t mean what he said and managed to avoid fulfilling most of the promises he made in his campaign. But it was too late. And it’s still too late. Huge numbers of frustrated and angry voters are so fed up with the tone-deaf Democratic Party, they seem to be willing to forgive Trump for just about anything. We shouldn’t do what the Dems did in 2016 and underestimate the Orange Oligarch. Because he is perhaps the most gifted smooth talker to come down the pike since ‘Slick Willy’. Fool me twice.

    Of course, the Democrats couldn’t leave it at just being disconnected from flesh-and-blood entities – the voting public, real life people. They made the existential leap of disconnecting from reality itself. I refer to Russiagate.

    I’m not going to get into the messy details of this scam. As there are still folks out there who believe the Earth is flat, there are a frightening number of individuals who believe that Russia, in collusion with KGB mole Drumpf – code name Agent Orange – stole the election from the universally-adored Hillary and dropped it off at the Mar-a-Lago clubhouse. Many of these folks also think that Saddam Hussein attacked the Twin Towers, Iraq had nuclear bombs ready to lob at the Lincoln Memorial and on Disney World, and the space shuttle tiles are oven-crisp taco shells.

    Suffice it to say, the ham-fisted subterfuge created to cover Hillary’s embarrassing electoral failure has, to put it mildly, created extensive collateral damage. Granted, the project to disappear Russia as a nation, dismember it, and parcel it into manageable chunks for maximum exploitation, already had legs, thanks to the PNAC neoconiacs. However, Russiagate went the extra mile in convincing most of the U.S. population that Vladimir Putin is a Hitlerian monster, and Russia a backward, malevolent, evil, ruthless, genocidal gas station masquerading as a country, bent on destroying America and forcing us all to listen to balalaika music 24 hours a day. Subsequent loathing lasting right up to the present for both Putin and everything Russian – now at warp speed with the Ukraine meatgrinder in full swing – has been meticulously built on the sludgerock foundation of the DNC/Hillary Russiagate propaganda. Even today, slanderous attacks, whole-cloth fabrications about the sinister Putin and revanchist Russian war machine continue to spew out 24/7. Questioning this baseless vitriol is equated with treason. Both sides of the congressional aisle scream for blood – Russian blood – and the prospects for WWIII are real and terrifying!

    Not that such mass psychosis is anything new. Manufactured crisis is one product line we haven’t offshored to China. It’s a nefarious web of deceptions at which our own Deep State excels. Which is why the U.S. never runs out of enemies and why it’s always at war. Our Nobel Peace Prize president was actively engaged in military conflict with seven countries. Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign soil, just his final year in office. A “peace time” record?

    Assuring the public that we’re not wasting tax dollars, that as global policeman, we’re killing people who really deserve it, that we’re eliminating serious threats to the security of America, that we’re “fighting them over there so we don’t end up fighting them here,” is a lot of work and not always as easy as it looks. Nothing reflecting favorably on the “enemy” can be allowed. America’s vile nemesis must be marginalized, dehumanized, demonized. Their leaders must be portrayed as devils, Hitlers, evil incarnate. The evil country, its citizens, its leadership, its democracy-hating government must be blamed for every mishap, no matter how unrelated. Experts must offer ever more outrageous prognostications about what nefarious plans said enemy is conjuring in order to inflict more horrors on the U.S. and its loyal allies.

    With a lot of practice, the U.S. propaganda machine has gotten very good at all of this. For example, the day after Russia started its special military operation to eliminate the growing military threat NATO was creating in Ukraine, we were instructed – and dutifully did our patriotic duty by enthusiastically complying – to hate Russian music, dance, art, literature, sports figures. Even Russian cats and dogs were barred from appearing in pet shows in the West. Western businesses based in Russia packed up and left, losing billions of dollars, rather than be around those despicable, foul, savage Russians. Air space was closed to any aircraft or carrier that had any affiliation with Russia. Offices of Russian media outlets in the West were shut down. It was truly the most viciously thorough campaign of cultural genocide in recent history. And yes, U.S. citizens have in hordes stepped up to the plate and carried their weight. Saying anything even moderately nice about Russia in America – especially Vladimir Putin – risks at minimum a barrage of expletives, a possible beating, even gunshot wounds. Order a White Russian from a bartender at your own risk.

    ‘Hate’ like ‘love’ is a four-letter word. But apparently the former is a much easier sell. Or perhaps, considering the frustrations and anger which seem to be mounting as chaos and dysfunction in everyday life become more the norm, people were and are uniquely primed for some heavy-duty animus.

    It’s a truly disheartening comment on human nature.

    One final point.

    Like Anthrax spores, hatred is almost impossible to put back in the bottle. It’s contagious and grows exponentially. We hate Russia, we hate North Korea, we hate Assad of Syria, we hate the Ayatollah of Iran, we hate Cuba, we hate Venezuela. We need to hate China much more. Yes, we’re lagging a little in that department. After all … Covid-19, communism, TikTok.

    The problem is, hate knows no borders. Inevitably, it comes back home. Now we see the acid-drip is corroding the vital fabric of American society. The Democrats hate Trump. Republicans hate Biden. MSNBC viewers hate Fox viewers. The vaccinated hate the unvaccinated. Of course, all enlightened people are derelict if they don’t hate haters. Haters would be anyone who is a transphobe, homophobe, racist, a racism denier, anti-Semite, an anti-Semitism denier, anyone who questions the positive impact of BLM and mRNA vaccines or the necessity of internet censorship, puberty blockers for children, 5G, 3-D printed meat, or 80+ genders. No reason to talk to any of these people. Just hate them.

    By the way, as haters of all that should be hated, we should be proud we live in the most democratic, wealthiest, most powerful, most just and free nation in history! We are exceptional and indispensable, God is on our side, and we are chosen by destiny to rule the entire known universe. Thus, everything we do is good and wonderful. That even includes hating!

    Yes, this is how disconnect works. It operates by its own rules, has no time for mind-muddling distractions like facts, logic, reason, objectivity, respectful debate, historical perspective, common sense, common decency, love of truth.

    D is for disconnect.

    D is for deception.

    D is for dystopia.

    [This is an excerpt from my book, Electing A Kennedy Congress, a thoroughly misunderstood and mindlessly maligned attempt at restoring our country to a recognizable version of itself, one which aligns with the grossly misleading, totally fabricated image it peddles to its citizens and the world. That would be an America I am proud of!]

    The post D is for Disconnect first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ‘How dare you’: an open letter over callous DWP PIP cuts to Stephen Timms

    The following is an open letter to Minister of State for Social Security and Disability Stephen Timms from reader Shane Brown about the Labour Party government’s DWP PIP and health-based benefit cuts.

    DWP PIP cuts: Labour’s war on disabled people

    As the Canary has previously reported, the Labour Party government has now laid down its plans for cuts to Personal Independence (PIP) and the health-based part of Universal Credit. Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Liz Kendall launched its Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working green paper on 18 March.

    The paper included a suite of regressive reforms to make it harder for people to claim disability benefits like PIP. As expected, the changes it’s proposing will target certain claimants in particular, namely young, neurodivergent, learning disabled, and those with mental health disorders. Moreover, disabled people who need help with things like cutting up food, supervision, prompting, or assistance to wash, dress, or monitor their health condition, will no longer be eligible.

    Specifically, it’s increasing the number of points a person will need to score in their DWP PIP assessment to access the daily living component of the benefit. This will now require people to score four points or more in a daily living category to claim it.

    Alongside this, there’ll be cuts to out-of-work benefits like the LCWRA health-related component of Universal Credit. Once again, Labour additionally want to make this harder to claim, and all as it ramps up reassessments and conditionality requirements for doing so.

    Now, Canary reader Shane Brown has penned a scathing letter. And notably, he has addressed it to the minister supposedly responsible for standing up for disabled people, East Ham MP Stephen Timms – who so far has done anything but.

    An open letter to Stephen Timms on PIP cuts

    Dear Mr. Timms,

    Following the furore over Darren Jones and Rachel Reeves’s comparison of the forthcoming disability benefit cuts to “pocket money”, it is with astonishment that I see that you have referred to being unable to cut up food, needing assistance to wash or shower, and needing supervision to use the toilet as “low level functional” problems that can be dealt with by “small interventions” on April 7 in your reply to a question by Richard Burgon MP. At the same time, you defended the decision to change the eligibility for the daily living element of DWP PIP to require four points in at least one category.

    The problem with the approach to disability benefits that you, your department, the chancellor, and the prime minister are taking, is that you appear to be wilfully using provocative language, misinformation, and downright lies in order to persuade the public at large that those of us with problems that are spread over a wide range of daily tasks, are somehow not disabled enough to be worthy of a benefit.

    With this in mind, I have to ask the question of why you have only come to this conclusion since you have been in the party of government. After all, on 8 June 2016, you voted against reductions in disability benefits when you were in opposition. Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us what has changed your mind?

    Those ‘low level’ inconveniences: essential to daily living

    But let us return to those “low level” problems, those tiny inconveniences, of not being able to wash, cut food, or go to the toilet. I am sure that I don’t have to remind you that the dozen questions on the DWP PIP form are there for the purpose of deciding whether we should get the benefit or not. Those questions, and the answers we give to them, are not the sum of the problems we have to deal with on a daily basis.

    If we need help with those basic things, it is highly likely that it is because of pain, discomfort, and restricted movement. That does not start and end with dressing and washing. It is there for every moment of every day, from the time we get up in the morning until the time we go to bed at night. What’s more, you appear to ignore the costs associated with these “low level” problems.

    Let us look at just one example. If we can only use a microwave to prepare meals, one would assume that means eating ready meals. Two ready meals a day is around £8-10. We know that cooking from scratch is considerably cheaper than that. So, yes, using the microwave is a “small intervention”, but it costs anyone who does that every day probably 50% more to eat than those who don’t have to.

    That’s an extra £28 a week for that “small intervention” alone. But you don’t want PIP to cover that? Why? THAT is what DWP PIP is there for – to pay for the things that cost us more because we are disabled.

    Benefit cuts will not make people ‘miraculously fit and able to go to work’

    I might have some respect for your position if I thought that it was one that you actually believe in, but your previous voting record suggest that it isn’t. I have psoriatic arthritis. I am in pain from the moment I get up in the morning until the moment I go to bed. I suffer from fatigue, as many do who have inflammatory conditions of this kind.

    Beyond that, I’m taking extra strong codeine three or four times a day that makes my brain foggy and makes me generally tired. And you want me – and others like me – to go to work. My biologic medication costs the NHS £650 every four weeks. Do you really think I would be given it if my condition wasn’t severe?

    I’ve been told I shouldn’t work. But you say I should and, either way, you’re going to take my DWP PIP away from me because I’m just not disabled enough. Oh, and when you take that, you’re also going to take my LCWRA element of Universal Credit (UC) when the Work Capability Assessment is scrapped, because it’s somehow going to cause a “behavioural change” (according to Keir Starmer), and I’ll be miraculously fit and able to go to work.

    What’s more, you are not even allowing those of us with mobility element of PIP to get that higher element of UC. Are you REALLY of the belief that those who can’t walk more than one metre are not disabled enough to get the health element of UC?

    Labour’s DWP PIP plans are downright ‘patronising, pathetic, and puerile’

    What you are suggesting is diabolical. These DWP PIP changes have no basis in reality. The disabled community knows this. The medical profession know this. And the worst of it all is that YOU know this. So does Liz Kendall, and Darren Jones, and Rachel Reeves, and Keir Starmer, and every member of your party who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for those of us that need their help right now.

    What you are suggesting isn’t just diabolical, it’s insulting. It is patronising, pathetic, and puerile, and it is trivialising what we, the disabled community, have to go through every day of our lives, and through no fault of our own.

    How dare you tell us that what we have are merely “multiple low-level functioning needs” that need a “small intervention”, just because your government has decided that we are collateral damage for your budgetary failures.

    Your position is no better than that of Boris Johnson who thought that Covid was “nature’s way of dealing with old people”. In the future, people will look back and view what you are doing as the Labour government’s way of ‘dealing with the disabled’. The results will be the same. People will die.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    S L Brown.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • From manipulative love letters, to rape, abuse, and control – the allegations Andrew Tate doesn’t want you to hear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    He was unlike anyone I’d ever met.

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

    Manipulated by Tate: a barrage of love-bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    was out to get him.

    He consistently told her:

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

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

    Fearing for her own safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Stern also alleges in her lawsuit that Tate said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tate only doubled-down on the abuse, responding:

    Do you belong to me or not

    In another, Tate wrote to her:

    Because I want to beat the fuck out of you

    He followed this with:

    you will give me a child this year bitch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tate’s sexual assault of Brianna Stern

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

    Tate began verbally degrading Stern as he routinely did.

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

    He also began to aggressively shout at her and state:

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

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

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

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

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

    Followed by:

    It’s relaxing don’t you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    VAWG normalised by the likes of Andrew Tate

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

    under his spell, just as I once was.

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Megan Miley

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New Zealand’s humanity – does it include all of us, or only for some?

    COMMENTARY: By Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab

    “Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow.

    During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the biggest threat to the Jewish community. More so than white supremacists.

    But the NZSIS has not identified Muslims as the greatest threat to national security.

    In the 2023 threat environment report, NZSIS stated that it: “Does not single out any community as a threat to our country, and to do so would be a misinterpretation of the analysis.

    “White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (W-IMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend.”

    Religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) did not come from the Muslim community, as Dr Rainbow has also misrepresented.

    The more recent 2024 NZSIS report stated: “White identity-motivated violent extremism (W-IMVE) remains the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Terrorist attack-related material and propaganda, including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and livestream footage, continue to be shared among IMVE adherents in New Zealand and abroad.”

    To implicate Muslims as being the greatest threat may highlight Dr Rainbow’s own biases, racist beliefs, and political agenda. These false narratives, that have recently been strongly pushed by the US and Israel, undermine social cohesion and lead to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.

    It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.

    The Christchurch Mosque attacks — the most horrific act of mass violence in New Zealand’s modern history — were perpetrated not by Muslims, but against them, by an individual radicalised by white supremacist ideology.

    Chief Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow
    Chief Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow . . . “It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.” Image: HRC

    Since that tragedy, there have been multiple threats made against mosques, Arab New Zealanders, and Palestinian communities, many of which have received insufficient public attention or institutional response.

    For a Human Rights Commissioner to overlook this context and effectively invert the victim-aggressor dynamic is not only factually inaccurate, but it also risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining the safety and dignity of communities who are already vulnerable.

    Such narratives are inconsistent with the Human Rights Commission’s mandate to protect all people in New Zealand from discrimination and hate.

    The dehumanisation of Muslims and Palestinians
    As part of Israel’s propaganda, anti-Muslim and Palestinian tropes are used to justify violence against Palestinians by framing us as barbaric, aggressive, and as a threat. We are dehumanised in order to normalise the harm they inflict on our communities which includes genocide, land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies, dispossession, and occupation.

    In October 2023, Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described Palestinians as “horrible, inhuman animals” and was perplexed with the growing global concern for us.

    That same month Yoav Gallant, then Israeli Defence Minister, referred to Palestinians as “human animals” when he announced Israel’s illegal and horrific siege on Gaza that included blocking water, food, medicine, and shelter to an entire population, the majority of which are children.

    In making his own remarks about the Muslim community being a “threat” in New Zealand as a collective group, and labelling Palestinians being “barbaric”, Dr Stephen Rainbow has shattered the credibility of the Human Rights Commission. He has made it very clear that he is not impartial nor is he representing and protecting all communities.

    Instead, Dr Rainbow is exacerbating divisions within society. This is a worrying trend that we are witnessing around the world; the de-humanising of groups to serve political agendas, retain power, or seek public support for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Dr Rainbow’s appointment also points a spotlight onto this government’s commitment to neutrality and inclusiveness in its human rights policies. Allowing a high-ranking official to make discriminatory remarks undermines New Zealand’s commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    A high-ranking official should not be allowed to engage in Islamic and Palestinian racist rhetoric without consequence. The public should be questioning the morals, principles, and inclusivity of those currently in power. Our trust is being eroded.

    Dr Stephen Rainbow’s comments can also be seen as a breach of human rights principles, as he is supposed to uphold equality and non-discrimination. Yet his beliefs seem to be peppered with racism, often falsely based on religion, ethnicity, and race.

    Foreign influence in New Zealand
    This incident also shines accountability and concerns for foreign influence and propaganda seeping into New Zealand. The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) has published articles that some perceive as dehumanising toward Palestinians.

    In one article written by Dr Rainbow titled “With every chant Israel’s case grows stronger”, he says:

    “The Left has found a new underdog to replace the Jews — the Palestinians — in spite of the fact that the treatment of gay people, women, and political opponents wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.”

    By publicising these comments, The Israel Institute of New Zealand signalled its support of these offensive and racist serotypes. Such statements risk reinforcing a narrative that portrays Palestinians as inherently violent, uncivilised, and unworthy of basic rights and dignity.

    This kind of rhetoric contributes to what many describe as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and it warrants public scrutiny, especially when shared by organisations involved in shaping public discourse.

    Importantly, the NZSIS 2024 threat report stated that “Inflammatory and violent language online can target anyone, although most appears directed towards those from already marginalised minority communities, or those affected by globally significant conflicts or events, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.”

    Other statements and reposts published online by the IINZ on their X account include:

    “Muslims are getting killed, is Israel involved? No. How many casualties? Under 100,00, who cares? Why is this even on the news? Over 100,000. Oh, that’s too bad, what’s for dinner?” (12 February 2024)

    “Fact. Gaza isn’t ‘ancestral Palestinian land’. We’ve been here long before them, and we’ll still be here long after the latest propaganda campaign.” (12 February 2024)

    Palestinian society was also described as being “a violent, terror-supporting, Jew-hating society with genocidal aspirations.” (16 February 2025)

    The “estimate of Hamas casualties, the civilian-to-combat death ratio could be as low as 1:1. This could be historically low for urban warfare.” (21 February 2025)

    “There has never been a country called Palestine.” (25 February 2025)

    Even showing a picture of Gaza before Israel’s bombing campaign with a caption saying, “Open air prison”. Next to it a picture of a completely destroyed Gaza with a caption that says “Victory.” (23 February 2025)

    “Palestinian society in Gaza is in my eyes little more than a death loving cult of murderers and criminals of the lowest kind.” (28 February 2025)

    Anti-Palestinian bias and racism
    Portraying Muslims and Palestinians as a threat and extremist reflects both Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and potential racism. These statements risk dehumanising Palestinians and are typical of the settler colonial narrative used to erase indigenous populations by denying our history, identity and legal claim.

    The IINZ has published content that many see as mocking the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, which is not only ethically questionable but can be seen as a complete lack of empathy.

    And posting the horrific images of a completely destroyed Gaza, appears to revel in the suffering of others and contradicts basic ethical norms, such as decency and compassion.

    There also appears to be a common theme among pro-Israeli organisations, not just the IINZ, that cast negative connotations on our national symbols including our Palestinian flag and keffiyeh.

    In an article on the IINZ webpage, titled “A justified war”, they write “chorus of protesters wearing keffiyehs, waving their Palestinian and terrorist flags, and shouting about Israel’s alleged war crimes.”

    It seemingly places the Palestinian flag — an internationally recognised national symbol– alongside so-called “terrorist flags,” suggesting an equivalence between Palestinian identity and terrorism. Many view this language as dehumanising and inflammatory, erasing the legitimate national and cultural characteristics of Palestinians and feeding into harmful stereotypes.

    The Palestinian flag represents a people, their identity, and national aspirations.

    There is nothing wrong with our keffiyeh, it is part of our national dress. The negative connotations of Palestinian cultural symbols have to stop, including vilifying other MPs or supporters who wear it in solidarity.

    This is happening all too often in New Zealand and must be called out and addressed. Our keffiyeh is not just a scarf — it is a symbol of our Palestinian identity, our resistance, and our rich, historic and deeply rooted cultural heritage.

    Pro-Israeli groups attack it because they aim to delegitimise Palestinian identity and resistance by associating it with violence, terrorism, or extremism.

    In 2024, ISESCO and UNESCO both recognised the keffiyeh as an essential part of their Intangible Cultural Heritage lists as a way of safeguarding Palestinian cultural heritage and reinforcing its historical and symbolic importance.

    As a safeguarded cultural artifact, much like indigenous dress and other traditional attire, attempts to ban or demonize it are acts of cultural erasure and need to be called out as such and dealt with accordingly.

    In the same IINZ article titled “A Justified War”, the authors present arguments that appear to defend Israel’s military actions in Gaza, including the targeting of civilians.

    Many within the community (most of us have been affected), including survivors and those with direct ties to the region, have found the article deeply distressing and feel that it lacks compassion for the victims of the ongoing violence, and the framing and tone of the piece have raised serious ethical concerns, especially as some statements are factually incorrect.

    The New Zealand Palestinian communities affected by this unimaginable genocide are suffering. Our family members are being killed and are at threat daily from Israel’s aggression and illegal war.

    Unfortunately, much rhetoric from this organisation aligns with Israeli state narratives and includes statements that some view as racist or immoral, warranting further scrutiny from the government.

    There is growing public concern over the association of Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow with the IINZ, which promotes itself as a research and advocacy body.

    A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.

    It is also important to remember that we are not a monolithic group. Christian Palestinians exist (I am one) as well as Muslim and historically Jewish Palestinians. Christian communities have lived in Palestine for two thousand years.

    This is also not a religious conflict, as many pro-Israeli groups wish the world to believe, and it is not complex. It is one of colonialism, dispossession, and human rights. A history that New Zealand is all too familiar with.

    "A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination"
    “A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.” Image: HRC screenshot APR

    The need for accountability
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s inaction and disrespectful response, claiming that a staunchly pro-Israeli supporter can be impartial and will be “very careful” from now on, hints that he may also support some forms of racism, in this case against Muslims and Palestinians.

    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith . . . “There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately?” Image: NZ Parliament

    You cannot address only some groups who are discriminated against but then ignore others, or accept excuses for racist, intolerable actions or statements. This is not justice.

    This is the application of selective principles, enforced and underpinned by political agendas, foreign influence, and racism. Does Goldsmith understand that justice is as much about human rights, fairness and accountability as it is about laws?

    Without accountability, there is no justice at all, or perhaps he too is confused or uncertain about his role, as much as Dr Rainbow seems oblivious to his?

    There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately? If Dr Rainbow had said that Jews were the biggest threat to Muslims or that Israelis were the biggest threat to Palestinians, would this government and Goldsmith have sat back and said, “he didn’t mean it, it was a mistake, and he has apologised”?

    Questions New Zealanders should be asking are, what kind of Human Rights Commissioner speaks of entire peoples this way? What kind of minister, like Paul Goldsmith, looks at that and does very little?

    What kind of Government claims to champion justice, while turning a blind eye to genocide? This is betraying the very idea of human rights itself.

    Although we are a small country here in New Zealand, we have remained strong by upholding and standing by our principles. We said no to apartheid in South Africa. We said no to nuclear weapons in the Pacific. We said no to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    And we must now say no to dehumanisation — anywhere. Are we a nation that upholds justice or do we sit on the sidelines while the darkest times in modern history envelopes us all?

    The attacks against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop. We have already faced horrific acts of violence against us here in New Zealand and currently in Palestine. We need support and humanity, not dehumanisation, demonisation and cruelty. This is not what New Zealand is about, we must do better together.

    There needs to be a formal enquiry and policy review to see if structural biases exist in New Zealand’s Human Rights institutions. This should also be done across some government bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Immigration NZ, to determine if there has been discrimination or inequality in the handling of humanitarian visas and how the Education Ministry has handled the complaints of anti-Palestinian discrimination at schools.

    Communities have particular concern at how the curriculum in many schools deals with the creation of the state of Israel but is silent on Palestinian history.

    Public figures should be held to a higher standard, with consequences for spreading racially charged rhetoric.

    The Human Rights Commission needs to rebuild trust in our multicultural New Zealand society. The only way this can be done is through fair and just measures that include enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, true inclusivity and action when there is an absence of these.

    We are living in a moment where silence is complicity. Where apathy is betrayal.

    This is a test of whether New Zealand, Minister Goldsmith and this government truly uphold human rights for all, or only for some.

    Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab is a New Zealand Palestinian advocate and writer.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: the Labour cronyism scandal you may have missed

    Isn’t it incredible?

    The Labour Party goes apoplectic with rage when a couple of their MPs are refused entry in to Israel, but couldn’t care less when Israel is quite literally evaporating entire families in the blink of an eye.

    Thankfully, the remaining MPs did still happily pose for a photo opportunity AFTER their colleagues were refused entry. I’m living the solidarity.

    Labour and the corporate media: like flies around Israel’s shit

    The corporate media are way more offended by two Youth Demand supporters leaving a few fake children’s body bags in David Lammy’s garden than they are by the sight of grief-stricken parents carrying the few body parts that remain of their precious child, in a plastic carrier bag.

    A vast majority of British journalists and broadcasters — many on the payroll of tax-shy foreign billionaires and dodgy lobbyists — feed on the frenzy surrounding the fascistic flump Trump without a single mention of the systematic targeting of journalists working in Gaza.

    Note to UK media: Israel has murdered more than 200 of your colleagues, since October 2023, and instead of growing a fucking set and speaking up for humanity, you just carry on trying to flog the antisemitism dead horse. Why?

    Would I tiptoe into ludicrous Lammy’s front garden to decorate it with body bags? No. But in a situation as dire as Gaza, drastic non-violent means are entirely justified and I applaud anyone that is willing to put their own neck on the line for the greater good.

    Meanwhile, if you’re a disabled person…

    Like many of you, I have been keeping a close eye on the events surrounding Labour’s savage, callous and utter unnecessary attacks on the sick and disabled people of Britain.

    It was Keir Starmer’s turn to sit in front of the Work and Pensions Liaison Committee, this past week, and he decided the best line of defence was to criticise the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) for not agreeing with him.

    This daft approach might have made just a little bit more sense had Starmer’s own government not put through the Budget Responsibility Act in October, last year, requiring the government to actually listen to the OBR.

    Starmer spent much of his time in opposition lauding the OBR and their work in attempting to hold Conservative governments to account.

    But here we are, witnessing Keir Starmer wriggle like a gutless red Tory worm on a hook, dismissing the OBR findings because they do not support his and Rachel from accounts claim of Britain’s sick and disabled people finding sudden and miraculous cures to lifelong illnesses and conditions, and returning to the workplace, bright-eyed and bushy tailed.

    I’m no supporter of the OBR. It was set up by the coalition government in 2010, which should tell you pretty much everything that you need to know, and some may argue that it is an anti-democratic quango.

    But, and to their credit, they are correct to predict that Labour’s assault on sick and disabled people is likely to push at least 250,000 people into desperate poverty. I think we all know each other well enough to agree, the appalling quarter-of-a-million figure is likely to be a massive underestimation.

    Getting rid of the quangos. Well, the Tory ones, anyway…

    Talking of quangos, former PwC consultant, Oli de Botton has been appointed as Keir Starmer’s “expert adviser on education and skills”. His ‘job’ will be to “advise ministers and drive forward the government’s vision for education and skills”.

    What I did find quite remarkable about this appointment is the fact Oli’s wife, Amber de Botton, was director of communications at 10 Downing Street under the Tories in 2022 and 2023, when Rishi Sunak was screwing everything up.

    Amber is now the Chief Communications Officer for the Guardian.

    Surely the de Botton’s must be the first example of a married couple being appointed political advisers to governments of a different party, albeit with the same rancid, neoliberal ideology?

    I wonder what would happen if the government appointed a few ordinary people, rather than wedge open the revolving door between the Labour and Conservative parties?

    Perhaps a headmaster, a school teacher, or maybe even a fucking dinner lady could do a considerably better job advising the government on “education and skills”, instead of some private-schooled luvvy with a name that makes you think of de butt cheeks whenever you see it?

    Cronyism for them, cuts for us

    Keir Starmer was supposed to bring an end to cronyism. Indeed, the compulsive liar of a prime minister pledged to slash the number of regulators, cultural institutions and advisory bodies, which are funded by taxpayers but not directly controlled from Whitehall.

    But this is Keir Starmer, and his Labour government has already set up more than TWENTY new quangos since taking office, less than a year ago.

    So why does the government feel it is fair to cut disability money when the government of 2022/23 spent an eye-watering £353 BILLION on quangos?

    This awful government thinks it’s easier to rinse disabled people for everything they have than it is to find a few savings across more than three hundred unelected regulators and advisory bodies with an annual budget that could build six hundred brand new hospitals, every damn year.

    Doesn’t this tell you absolutely everything you need to know about this anti-poor, pro-cronyism shitheap of a fraudulent Labour administration?

    Cuts for chronically ill people, jobs for the boys for them.

    Anger when they can’t send a couple of Labour MPs to Israel for some brainwashing, but utterly acquiescent to the unimaginable suffering of a Palestinian child.

    A long, cold winter for Britain’s pensioners, free Coldplay tickets for Keir Starmer.

    A celebration of poverty wages for us, and £94,000 a year basic for them, which isn’t their fault, of course.

    Labour: betraying us week in, week out

    Didn’t we have enough of this flabbergasting hypocrisy under the Conservatives to last us an entire lifetime? How have we allowed ourselves to become so ridiculously resigned and obedient to their way of doing things?

    Starmer’s Labour are set to take one hell of a beating at the forthcoming local elections, and they can’t even use the midterm excuse. Hollow soundbites won’t save him this time around.

    The fear of seeing numerous hard-right, Farage Party councillors elected to council chambers across the country certainly won’t be allayed by the inevitable Labour bloodbath, as deserved as their rapid demise will be.

    When a politician routinely betrays not only the fools that voted for them, but also the people that thought that they couldn’t possibly be any worse than the last lot, they open the door to fascism.

    Cheers, Keir.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents

    ANALYSIS: By Jane McAdam, UNSW Sydney

    The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.

    The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.

    The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.

    Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.

    Why is this migration avenue important?
    The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.

    As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.

    As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”

    And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.

    As international development expert Professor Stephen Howes put it,

    Countries with greater migration opportunities in the Pacific generally do better.

    While Australia has a history of labour mobility schemes for Pacific peoples, this will not provide opportunities for everyone.

    Despite perennial calls for migration or relocation opportunities in the face of climate change, this is the first Australian visa to respond.

    How does the new visa work?
    The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.

    On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:

    • education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
    • Medicare
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
    • family tax benefit
    • childcare subsidy
    • youth allowance.

    They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.

    This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.

    According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.

    Reading the fine print
    The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).

    The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.

    First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.

    Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.

    But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa — a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia — this new visa is not employment-dependent.

    Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.

    This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.

    Who can apply, and how?

    To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.

    The primary applicant must:

    • be at least 18 years of age
    • hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
    • have been born in Tuvalu — or had a parent or a grandparent born there.

    People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.

    This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.

    Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.

    Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.

    And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.

    Settlement support is crucial
    With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.

    The Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:

    Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.

    That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.

    A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.

    For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.

    Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.

    Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.The Conversation

    Dr Jane McAdam is Scientia professor and ARC laureate fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

  • ‘BE COOL!’ says Trump as his billionaire mates make a killing off his corrupt trade war

    In yet another erratic pivot, Donald Trump hit the brakes on his cataclysmic tariffs, in a move that raised eyebrows as his billionaire buddies cashed in when the prices were low.

    But whilst many of the world’s poor people were fearing the catastrophic impact this might have on their finances and businesses, Trump instead took to his Truth Social platform to tell his followers to:

    BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before.

    This was all despite global markets tanking.

    Trump tariffs: a ‘GREAT TIME TO BUY’ for billionaire capitalists

    As the markets opened at the New York Stock Exchange, Trump practically hailed a golden era of corruption as he told his followers:

    THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT.

    Laughing and ridiculing the American public, a video hours later emerged of Trump talking to his wealthy pals, as he pointed to them and said:

    He made $2.5 billion today and he made $900 million. That’s not bad.

    Not even hiding the fact that this was never about tariffs but simply market manipulation, the oligarchy was yesterday in full view of the public, as its ugly head emerged from the shadows.

    Just four hours later, the president changed his mind, he paused and lowered tariffs on goods from most nations for 90 days.

    Suddenly, stocks and shares were soaring, and social media erupted into a frenzy, as journalists and members of the public questioned Trump’s “pump and dump” scheme.

    Republican US representative for Georgia, and close Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, had disclosed to her fans that she had made several purchases in stocks and shares on 3 and 4 April. These were two days that the markets were at a critically low point, due to Trump setting out his reciprocal tariff plan on 2 April. Conveniently shares in Amazon and Apple rose by 12% and 15% on 9 April, allowing Greene to cash in.

    The S&P 500 blue chip index had closed by more than 9% whilst stocks rose in Asia and Europe, with the FTSE 100 index rising by 4%.

    Insider trading: anything goes in Trump’s America

    In any other democracy, this would be classed as a criminal offence, or named “insider trading”, but for Donald Trump, who is treated like God incarnate, this appears completely acceptable.

    Democratic Senator, Adam Schiff, has called for an investigation into the alleged insider trading, as he raised grave concerns over people buying up the stocks when the prices were low before they rose again.

    Economically, diplomatically, and politically illiterate, Trump’s on-and-off-like-a-tap tariffs, create an environment where corruption is able to breed in the petri dish swamp that is the White House.

    Yet again shedding a light upon Trump’s parasitic administration Schiff stated, “these constant gyrations in policy provide dangerous opportunities for insider trading”.

    “Who in the administration knew about Trump’s latest tariff flip flop ahead of time? Did anyone buy or sell stocks and profit at the public’s expense?”.

    This was followed by democrat Steven Horsford’s remarks as he expressed his frustration at the Trump regime “WTF! WHO’s in charge”. “The empathy I have is for the American people, whose wellbeing and livelihoods are being affected. This is not a game. This is real life”.

    UK feeling the effects

    With the UK economy already in a grave state of health due to chancellor Rachel Reeve’s disastrous budget and callous cuts to benefits, one thing is clear, the poorest people in our society will bear the brunt of yet more economic instability whilst the rich take advantage of market turmoil.

    The Bank of England (BoE) has warned that higher government bond yields would “reduce their capacity to respond to future shocks”.

    British economic growth is therefore likely to be severely impacted by these on and off tariffs, as the trade war continues to haunt countries across the globe.

    Furthermore, the BoE’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) said that the shift in geopolitical relations from both an economic standpoint, and the vast rifts between traditional allies, has reduced the likelihood of trading partners wishing to co-operate.

    Hence:

    the probability of adverse events and the potential severity of the impact have also risen.

    It is therefore clear that Keir Starmer and Reeves must wake up and smell the coffee; the US is no longer an ally but rather a country that wishes to inflict peril and confusion, whenever it is given the opportunity.

    Trump: world leaders lining up to kiss ‘my a** to negotiate’

    At the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington, Trump appeared to be gushing over the leverage that he holds over the rest of the globe.

    Gleefully mocking the weakness of world leaders, who appear to be submissively bowing down to Trump in the hope that he might be merciful, he said:

    They are calling us up, kissing my a** to negotiate…Please, Sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything Sir.

    Despite this, world leaders will continue to attempt to appease Trump, but they must be reminded what happened when a certain dictator was appeased back in the 1930s; he soon became a genocidal war criminal.

    Import prices will inevitably rise, and domestic products will simply inflate in price, and even the rich billionaire tech bros are beginning to have serious doubts about Trump’s policies.

    This of course includes Elon Musk, the former big pal and bestie of Trump, who had until recently enjoyed tampering with the government’s finances.

    But as his Tesla sales plummeted, and the tariffs came into fruition, the tech bro saw his finances plummet by billions and it was announced that he would depart from DOGE in early May.

    He has recently had a very public spat with Peter Navarro, a member of Trump’s cabinet who is dubbed in political circles as the “architect“ of Trump’s catastrophic tariffs. Navarro called Musk a “car assembler” as he criticised his Tesla company with Musk then responding to this by calling him, “dumber than a sack of bricks”.

    Trump ‘abusive’ tariffs on China

    Aside from the rift between Trump and some members of his possie, tensions have also deepened with China.

    Despite pausing the tariffs for 90 days for other countries, he has kept them for China, as he set the rate to 125% earlier on Wednesday, accusing them of showing a “lack of respect”.

    This therefore means that every single country with existing tariffs, will receive the lowered rate of 10% except for China.

    In response, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian hit back and said that the US uses bullying practices and that it:

    continues to impose tariffs on China in an abusive manner.

    The spokesman also said that if America hopes to resolve any of these problems through negotiation, the US must show:

    an attitude of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity

    Speaking to journalists in the oval office about his trade war with Xi Jinping, he said he believed that a deal could be struck with China:

    we’ll end up making a very good deal.

    But whilst he dubbed the Chinese president “one of the smartest people in the world”, he warned the country of their extensive weaponry:

    we have weapons that nobody even knows.

    Of course, it shows that Trump is clearly enjoying the power struggle between the two world powers.

    The ‘art of the deal’ is only for the rich elite

    However, despite the reversal of this decision, this is inevitably a time of grave instability. The Bank of England has warned that the:

    Major shift in the nature and predictability of global trading arrangements could harm financial stability by depressing growth.

    Whilst Karoline Leavitt and MAGA die-hards continue to argue and portray this move as a success for Trump, calling it the “art of the deal”, the deal is only for the elite few who took advantage of the volatility of the stock market as a chance to get even richer.

    Meanwhile the poor people of the world are left to suffer under a capitalist system that benefits the few, not the many.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Megan Miley

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Opinion: The Circular Economy is A Competitive Advantage – Tech Brands Are Leading the Shift

    circular economy businesses
    5 Mins Read

    James Murdoch, founder of circular tech firm Alchemy, argues why circularity isn’t just good for the planet – it makes business sense too, and smart tech brands know it.

    The circular economy – the infrastructure by which we collect used products and give them a second life – is no longer a niche concept confined to environmental summits or corporate pledges. It’s already shaping how products are designed, manufactured, and brought to market. 

    Circularity means designing products that are durable, repairable, and reusable, and creating an infrastructure to keep them in the marketplace. At this point, it’s not just an environmental initiative -it’s good business. Consumers, brands, and industries are waking up to a simple truth: waste is expensive, and efficiency pays.

    The brands getting ahead are the ones embedding circular principles right from the start. This shift indicates more than a response to consumer or regulatory pressures – it’s a change in mindset.

    Leading the charge

    If any industry has made circularity a reality, it’s technology. Over the last decade, major tech manufacturers have normalised trade-in programmes, where you exchange old devices in return for credit toward new ones. These programmes succeed because they reduce waste and offer tangible benefits: consumers get value for money, and brands keep their customers’ loyalty.

    Secondary tech has grown into a thriving sector. The key to this success lies in product design: devices built with longevity in mind have better lifespans and hold their value for longer.

    Since founding Alchemy and refurbishing over ten million electronic devices, we’ve seen firsthand what makes products suitable for the circular economy. The best performers are those that have aspirational value, an ecosystem worth buying into, and a trade-in programme that is regulated and easy to access. Designing products that are reliable over several generations, with accessible parts and multi-year software updates, inadvertently prioritises circularity, too.

    circular economy technology
    Courtesy: Alchemy

    The role of regulation

    In the US, regulations supporting a circular economy are still in the early stages, with some measures laying the groundwork for broader circular practices. For example, parts of the Inflation Reduction Act provide incentives for domestic manufacturing of clean technologies, and new regulations limiting ‘forever chemicals’ (PFAS) reflect a growing need to design products with long-term environmental impact in mind. 

    In our experience though, change is mostly being driven by the private sector, which is responding to changing consumer behaviours, while also grasping the business case for offering a circular solution. 

    How business leaders can advance a circular economy

    Regulation will naturally play catch-up, but in the meantime, companies that want to build a circular economy will need to be proactive. For those looking to refurbish and remarket products, three key strategies that can be implemented quickly include:

    1. Move away from flash sales: Brands that have constant flash sales damage their trade-in programmes. There is less incentive to buy a refurbished, older model if the new one is only 10% more while a sale is on. By offering high-quality, certified refurbished goods at a discount, brands appeal to new customers who might otherwise opt for a lower-end competitor product. For example, instead of choosing a new, lower-cost, non-brand smartphone, many will choose a refurbished iPhone 11 at a similar price but with a longer warranty and a trusted brand. 
    2. Follow the secondary market closely: You must understand how the secondary market behaves so you can anticipate changes, rather than react to them. At Alchemy, we have an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of device prices over time – this is crucial.
    3. Identify policy and infrastructure gaps: Companies must prepare for potential legal complexities, particularly in regions where access to circular markets is restricted or where laws around product reuse are increasing.
    4. Work with experienced partners: Many manufacturers’ existing systems need to be designed for the second-hand market. It requires facilities for grading and refurbishing products, managing inventory, handling sales logistics, and much more. Outside experts have the infrastructure, systems, and know-how to manage, refurbish, and sell used products at scale. This allows companies to focus on their core business and ensures that their circular programmes are efficient, profitable, and aligned with brand standards.

    Circularity is going mainstream

    Circularity isn’t just happening in electronics or accessories. IKEA and Unilever have recently announced circular initiatives, including the ability to trade in and buy second-hand directly from them, and driving used packaging collection.

    Even the fashion industry – traditionally focused on churn – has begun experimenting with circularity through trade-in, repair and resale programmes. These efforts go beyond eco-friendly branding; they signify a long-term strategy where profitability aligns with sustainability.

    There is also a major commercial opportunity in circularity. According to the World Economic Forum, transitioning to a circular economy could generate up to $4.5T globally by 2030. Companies that engage in it have better brand equity, and they capture a growing segment of consumers – those who want newer functionality but are neutral about having the latest model. These buyers would have previously gone elsewhere, but now, they’ll join a top-tier brand’s ecosystem.

    alchemy circular tech
    Courtesy: Alchemy

    Designing for circularity from the start

    The foundation of a circular economy is laid in the design phase – products must be built with their second and third lifecycle in mind. This requires attention to several key factors. Firstly, and most obvious, is durability – manufacturers that place focus on quality products that last longer and benefit the most from circularity.

    Repairability is also very important, but a product that lasts twice as long as another will naturally have a much lower carbon footprint than its cheaper alternative. It often starts with design – I’ve seen time and time again that devices built with longevity in mind make all the difference.  

    In tech, consumers are now more interested in buying refurbished devices because we’ve got to the point where they trust the process. This behaviour is setting a template for other sectors, from fashion to furniture, where information about reusing or restoring items has become trendier and easily accessible.  

    Compliance or competitive advantage?

    Leading companies see circularity as a strategic opportunity to differentiate themselves. Trade-in programmes and secondary marketplaces help companies tap into the “quality over quantity” mindset among customers. But these initiatives only work if the process is seamless – consumers need simplicity and full transparency every step of the way.  

    Brands that embrace circularity today aren’t just future-proofing their operations – they’re setting themselves apart in a marketplace that puts affordability, loyalty and sustainability first. If tech’s circular journey shows anything, it’s that good design reduces waste, and keeps customers happy – everyone wins.

    The post Opinion: The Circular Economy is A Competitive Advantage – Tech Brands Are Leading the Shift appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Wes Streeting has been referencing someone who thinks Long Covid is ‘all in people’s heads’

    On 16 March, as Wes Streeting was being interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg, the neurologist Suzanne O’Sullivan was mentioned with her view that too many people are over-diagnosed in terms of mental health and learning disabilities. Streeting generally agreed, saying “too many people were being written off”. The dropping of O’Sullivan’s name was no accident, as her book on the subject of ‘overdiagnosis’ was published two days later. In The Age of Diagnosis: Sickness, health and why medicine has gone too far, O’Sullivan argues that a lot of the cases she encounters or has examined were psychosomatic – including long Covid.

    She suggests that we should be aware and wary of ‘diagnosis creep’: the gradual expansion of diagnostic criteria.

    Suzanne O’Sullivan: selling the overdiagnosis myth to lay the groundwork for benefit cuts

    For this book, long Covid is just one of the conditions O’Sullivan decided to examine. Other topics include Autism, ADHD, cancer, Huntington’s Disease, depression, mental health, and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS).

    As a neurologist, it’s clear she’s rummaging into other specialities, something ‘Darcie’ – a patient – pointed out to her, saying:

    You’re not an EDS doctor and you’re not a PoTS doctor, so you have no right to look into these.

    But O’Sullivan did feel she had the right to examine these topics for the book.

    This ‘psychosomatic’ mantra and talk of ‘overdiagnosis’ is a divisive issue. For certain politicians and sections of the media it can also be highly seductive.

    This was a concern expressed by readers. One said:

    It was clear this (book) isn’t about following the evidence, its ideological.

    For the government, it could give justification for its harsh cuts to Personal Independence Payment (PIP). These are cuts directed at learning disabled people and those living with mental health issues.

    It could also have an impact on NHS services for these groups with Baroness Claire Fox calling for a review of the ‘problems’ of overdiagnosis. She said this review should look at the impact on NHS resources of overdiagnosis of those with mental health problems, ADHD, and those on the Autistic spectrum.

    A controversial medical circle of ‘overdiagnosis’ clinicians – notably over long Covid

    In medical circles, O’Sullivan is not alone in making such ‘overdiagnosis’ claims, but she’s not in the majority with her belief that so many of the conditions she covered in her book are potentially because of overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, or over-screening.

    But being somewhat of an ‘outsider’ doesn’t deter her, because along with others in her bubble of ‘free-speech, non-believers’, they promote and quote each other.

    So, in the chapter ‘The Age of Diagnosis’ on ADHD, Depression, and Neurodiversity O’Sullivan used the ‘trauma not illness’ arguments made by psychologist Lucy Johnstone.

    Likewise, in the chapter I am looking at here on long Covid, she used the comments of the highly controversial doctor Paul Garner, who has claimed he recovered from Covid through graded exercise activity.

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Covid-19 can lead to serious long-term effects, known as post Covid-19 condition (PCC). This is referred to by the patient-preferred term, long Covid.

    Long Covid is characterised by a range of symptoms which usually start within three months of the initial Covid-19 infection. It can affect a person’s ability to do day-to-day activities and hinder their ability to participate in society.

    With so many people affected by long Covid, there has been a controversial debate from some commentators like O’Sullivan, who in The Age of Diagnosis said:

    Long Covid behaves just as psychosomatic illnesses do.

    This claim has been rejected by those with long Covid. Exasperated, one person said:

    Has the author not read any of the thousands of research papers that identify microclots, lung damage, immune system malfunction? The psychosomatic take is beyond offensive.

    Long Covid: O’Sullivan’s dangerous misdiagnosis beliefs

    O’Sullivan is not new to being controversial. A previous book from 2015 entitled: It’s all in Your Head: stories from the frontline of psychosomatic illness caused much ire amongst those living with ME/CFS, another condition she believes is psychosomatic.

    With ME/CFS having many of the features of long Covid, it’s hardly a surprise she’s also repeating the message here for most patients.

    Why not all patients? That’s because O’Sullivan concedes some people do have persistent symptoms. She separates all long Covid patients into four groups.

    The first group are those who were hospitalised with Covid. She thinks this group could indeed have persistent symptoms following hospital treatment.

    The second group are those who have these symptoms after being infected with Covid. Some of these patients she believes could have some sort of post-viral infection.

    The third group, rather than long Covid, she believes their symptoms may be a misdiagnosis, not helped by the lack of face-to-face GP appointments.

    But it’s the fourth group, where she thinks the majority of long Covid patients are with long Covid having a psychosomatic cause.

    O’Sullivan’s reasons for this include it being a patient who first discovered the link between her symptoms and Covid. Also, she points to the number of symptoms now attributed to long Covid.

    But her main two arguments involve the demographic and mental health.

    O’Sullivan’s book is ideological opinion, not evidenced fact

    In terms of the demographic O’Sullivan suggests those with long Covid are different than those who were ventilated and/or died from Covid, who were more likely to be older, and men.

    In response, there are studies showing younger adults and adolescents suffer more neurological long Covid symptoms that adults over 65. So, the demographic is different, because long Covid is different, hitting a younger demographic.

    Her second argument is that studies showing factors like anxiety, depression, and even loneliness may play a role, and as such, O’Sullivan thinks this may make long Covid psychosomatic.

    But the question is: does living with a chronic condition such as long Covid cause the secondary problems with mental health or vice versa?

    Professor Carolyn Chew-Graham, who was the first in the UK to publish on long Covid said:

    I don’t think the authors opinions follow from the research. NICE is very clear that anxiety and depression are more likely to be consequences of long Covid than causes.

    And psychiatrist Dr Linda Gask says:

    When you have pre-existing anxiety or depression you always feel worse in your mood when you are physically unwell, especially with a viral illness. Post-viral depression is common. People who have long Covid may be more likely to be lonely, that doesn’t mean loneliness is the cause of it.

    With suggestions of overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and even a tendency to over-screen for conditions, this book not only undermines those who are suffering from long-term chronic illnesses, but could be used as justification to cut funding and benefits. It should be taken as how it reads, ideological rather than anything else.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ruth Hunt

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Open letter to NZME board – don’t allow alt-right Canadian billionaire to take over NZ’s Fourth Estate

    OPEN LETTER: By Martyn Bradbury, editor and publisher of The Daily Blog

    NZME directors ‘have concerns’ about businessman Jim Grenon taking editorial control

    NZME’s directors have fired their own shots in the war for control of the media company, saying they have concerns about a takeover bid including the risk of businessman Jim Grenon taking editorial control.

    In a statement to the NZX, the board said it was delaying its annual shareholders meeting until June and opening up nominations of other directors.

    NZME . . . RNZ report on NZME's directors "firing their own shots'
    NZME . . . RNZ report on NZME’s directors “firing their own shots in the war for control of the media company”.

    Grenon, a New Zealand resident since 2012, bought a 9.3 percent stake in NZME for just over $9 million early in March.

    NZME is publisher of a number of newspapers, including The New Zealand Herald, as well as operating radio stations and property platform OneRoof.

    Within days of taking the stake, Grenon had written to the company’s board proposing that most of its current directors be replaced with new ones, including himself, and said the performance of the company had been disappointing and he was wanted to improve the editorial content.

    NZME has now told the stockmarket it had concerns whether Grenon’s proposals were in the best interests of the company and shareholders. — RNZ News

    Dear NZME Board,

    I was once a columnist for The New Zealand Herald, but I’m too left wing for your stable of acceptable opinions and now just run award-winning political podcasts instead.

    The Daily Blog editor and publisher Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury
    The Daily Blog editor and publisher Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury. Image: TDB screenshot APR

    Normally as board members of a financialised media company in late stage capitalism with collapsing revenue thanks to social media, you don’t generally have to consider the actual well being of our democracy.

    Let me be as clear as I can to you all.

    You hold in your hands the fate of Fourth Estate journalism and ultimately the democracy of New Zealand itself.

    As the largest Fourth Estate platforms in the country, your obligations go well beyond just shareholder profit.

    Alt-right billionaire Jim Grenon has in my view been extremely disingenuous.

    The manner in which NZME has been sold as underperforming so that the promise of a quick buck from OneRoof seems the focus point is made more questionable because I suspect Grenon’s true desire here is editorial control of NZME.

    His relationship with a far-right culture war hate blog that promotes anti-Māori, anti-trans, anti-vaccine, climate denial editorial copy alongside his support for culture war influencers suggest a radicalised view of the world which he intends to implement if he gains control.

    Look.

    NZME is right wing enough, your first editorial in The New Zealand Herald was calling for white people to start war with Māori, Mike Hosking is the epitome of right wing commentary and the less said about Heather Du Plessis Allan, the better, but all of you acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4.

    Alt-Right billionaires don’t admit that.

    Alt-right billionaires tend to lean into divisive culture war rhetoric and are happy to promote 2 + 2 = whatever I say it is.

    You cannot allow alt-right billionaires with radicalised culture war beliefs take over the largest media platforms in the country.

    This moment demands more than dollars and cents, it requires a strong defence of independent editorial content, even when that editorial content is right wing.

    The NZ Herald, Heather and Mike are without doubt right wingers, but they are right wingers who pitch their argument within the realms of the real and factual.

    Alt-right billionaires do not do that.

    If NZME is taken over and the editorial direction takes a hard right culture war turn, you will be dooming NZ democracy and planing us on a highway to hell.

    You must, you must, you must stand against this attack on editorial independence.

    Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • DWP benefits being cut are the thin end of the wedge. It’s Labour’s ideology which is terrifying.

    I’ll be honest: I have voted Labour all my life. I grew up in a Northumbrian mining town and come from a family who worked in the pits. I’m old enough to remember the Thatcher years. I’m still in shock from the announcements about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits cuts to disabled welfare in the Spring Statement.

    I never thought that having a Labour government in power would equal a devastating attack on disabled people like me. People like me who have worked hard all their life, only to find themselves disabled with an incurable disease. It’s a disease that our NHS doesn’t even have a single bed in the entire country set aside for or any medical treatments available. That’s myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

    DWP benefits cuts: a deep-set discriminatory attitude to disabled people

    I believe that this deprivation of financial support for disabled people is in no way related to ‘supporting people into work’. MP Darren Jones has compared us to children having their pocket money taken away. What an absolutely degrading comparison. He may have apologised, but the damage is done. Millions watched those comments, and will have been influenced into believing disabled people are lazy children.

    It is telling that Jones thought that this was an acceptable comment to make on national television. It suggests that this attitude is accepted in Westminster. This is not about balancing the books. This goes deeper. This government’s actions display a deep-set, nasty, discriminatory attitude towards disabled people: an attitude that the world has seen before.

    The government’s own assessments show that 250,000 disabled people, 50,000 of them children, will be pushed into poverty by these DWP benefits cuts. The Labour Party appears happy with these statistics and is continuing with its devastating plan. Why?

    Why, knowing you are about to push 50,000 children into starvation, would you be unconcerned? I think the answers lie in your beliefs.

    The Labour government doesn’t see disabled people as human beings

    These are children of disabled people. Yes, disabled women have children too. We are, after all human beings. Although, you would be forgiven for thinking we aren’t, the way this government is attempting to convince the rest of society we aren’t worthy of basic human rights. Those 50,000 children come from families with a disabled parent. The overwhelming message being sent by our Labour government is that we are less.

    The belief that disabled people are somehow ‘less’ than abled people is, sadly, extremely common. I have experienced this frequently as a disabled mother of a disabled child. It is almost an accepted norm in our society. As disgusting as that is, that is the reality.

    The shocking thing is that, Labour appealed to disabled people to vote for them. Keir Starmer made a consistent point of saying that his government would listen to disabled people.

    On national television, Starmer stood there saying we needed to let him regain the public’s trust in politicians. Disabled people voted for the Labour party based on these promises. Yet, now, when disabled people are saying ‘you are going to starve us and these DWP benefits cuts will kill us, please do not go forward’, we’re being ignored.

    Perhaps if you truly can’t afford £5bn in DWP benefits support, scrap the new Thames crossing and save £8bn? The lives of disabled people clearly mean nothing to our government. A bridge, that may reduce their own commute time is more important to them, than my child having a meal on the table.

    We’ve been here before… in Nazi Germany

    Can you sink any lower?

    An election campaign that tricked disabled people into voting for a party that is, knowingly, with the facts right in front of them, pushing quarter of a million of us towards starvation. DWP benefits cuts kill.

    There are reams of evidence showing how disabled people have died in the most appalling conditions following inhumane treatment from the DWP. That evidence is about to increase in size. The horror of what is coming is unimaginable.

    On a final note, and I’m not going to apologise in advance if you are offended by this stark comparison. Go and Google Aktion T4.

    Starting in 1939 the German government killed between 275,000 and 300,000 disabled people because they were considered a financial burden to society. These killings were two years before the start of WWII. Why did they start with us, with disabled people? Because they knew it was an easy sell to the public.

    This attitude that disabled people are less is an attitude perpetuated by fascist governments throughout history.

    As the mother of a child with Down’s Syndrome, it is a physical pain I feel when I see photos from historical archives showing people with my daughter’s condition, who were deemed a financial burden to society, because they couldn’t work, and therefore either starved to death or murdered by another means.

    I wouldn’t have made it either.

    The chilling reality is though, that this perception of disabled people who can’t work as a ‘burden’ seems to be shared by our current UK government in 2025.

    Disabled lives matter: stand with us against DWP benefits cuts

    In this current climate, with our government pushing the narrative that disabled people don’t deserve DWP benefits if we can’t work, please question what information you are being fed by those in power. Please question what beliefs are driving our government to punish disabled people, for having the audacity to be alive, and require food and shelter.

    Above all, please stand up for us, for those who cannot advocate for themselves. Learning disabled people, those with dementia, or any condition that creates a barrier to being able to speak out. We need you stand with us and say: “No. This is not right. Disabled lives matter”.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Curtis

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Make no mistake: disability benefit cuts are a feminist issue

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

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

    DWP disability benefit cuts: women are providing more care

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

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

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

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

    The additional threats to disabled women

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

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

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

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

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

    The disability benefit cuts must be seen intersectionally

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Charli Clement

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Will the RMT still be a powerhouse when Mick Lynch retires? Of course – Eddie Dempsey will make sure of it. 

    Outgoing RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, reinvigorated the trade union movement and gave marginalised citizens hope for a fairer society. Mick is a hard act to follow, but his successor Eddie Dempsey has already proven his mettle during the disputes – not just for his members, but for all other workers too.

    Mick Lynch passes the baton to Eddie Dempsey: from one champion of progressive change to another

    Eddie Dempsey, like Mick Lynch, eloquently presents his case without hyperbole and champions progressive change for working-class people. History has already proven that they are both on the right side of it, especially in their fight to oppose driver-only trains and the closure of the ticket offices. 

    Both men have accumulated a treasure chest of memorable moments in time. They debunked the neoliberal ideology that insidiously pervades our society. Eddie dismissed the excuse of a wage price spiral as a three-card trick to stop workers asking for a pay rise and designed to keep them skint.

    One of the most inspiring speeches Eddie delivered was in Glasgow, where he opined:

    they say the market must rule but the market can’t run society. It can’t feed the children and cannot keep our old people warm. We can do that and that is what they are frightened of. My trade union has got a motto – unity is strength.

    There is a plethora of Eddie’s erudite quotes; it’s hard to choose the top three but each and every one is always evidence-based and backed up by his diligent research – certainly no spreading of fake news or disinformation from this union man. Other classics which will go down in history amongst us who greatly admire him:

    There has been a transfer of wealth from working class people to people at the top. And that can’t carry on; that has got to change because the people at the top of the economy – they’re having a disco and everyone else is being told they’ve got to carry the can and tighten their belts.

    Really this is about who owns what. Are we going to have a country run for corporations with some people in it or are we going to have a country run for the people in it with some corporations?

    I think a lot of the politicians are aligned with the big corporations and they should be made to wear their sponsors on their suits and dresses.

    Eddie Dempsey has the press and billionaires running scared already

    I have been fortunate to meet Eddie Dempsey and Mick Lynch a few times now at rallies and recently had a chat with Eddie at a Strengthening the Employment Rights Bill rally. It is unequivocal that Eddie will continue Mick’s work with aplomb, and then some – he has, after all, got right on his side and the billionaire press is running scared.

    Eddie was quick to help and provide practical advice and empathy to every person at the rally, especially a group of domestic workers whose working conditions are beyond lamentable. At one point, a delegate raised concerns about a work place issue, and immediately, he was able to offer sound advice. 

    Eddie, like Mick, has an abundance of emotional intelligence, integrity, and empathy – attributes that simply cannot be taught – it’s in their DNA. Both men are always meticulous in their preparedness and are fully versed in the history of how workers’ struggles won our rights – rights that those who oppose unions take for granted today, such as holiday and sick pay. 

    Their demands? Pretty elementary – a fairer society for all. No fellow citizen should ever have to choose between heating and eating while billionaires do all they can to avoid paying taxes by becoming non-domiciles and hiring expensive lawyers to find tax loopholes. As Bernie Sanders said when he turned up to support the RMT during the strikes: 

    We fight for government of the people, by the people, for the people- not government of, by and for the billionaires.

    Another world is possible for all key workers on the frontline

    While on the subject of billionaires – the High Pay Centre continues to produce some eye watering facts:

    If you had earned £1,000 a day since Jesus died and kept it under the mattress, you still wouldn’t have accumulated £1bn.

    And:

    FTSE 100 bosses make more money in less than three days than the average worker does in a year. 

    The pandemic proved to us who the key workers are and the immense value they contribute to our society – not that it should have taken a pandemic to remind us –and it certainly wasn’t the FTSE 100 bosses who devour money from the top. It was the wealth creators who were on the frontline risking their lives to keep us safe, fed, and watered. Key workers are still paid a paltry salary with precarious employment and Eddie, is on a mission to address this in his own inimitable way. 

    Thatcher was wrong with her iniquitous TINA neoliberal doctrine – there is an alternative and another world is possible. One of the first steps is to replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a metric – as Robert Kennedy said:

    it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

    Even the economist, Simon Kuznets, who pioneered the modern concept of GDP, disowned it as a metric. 

    Following in the footsteps of union giants

    Union funding is the cleanest money in the UK – Eddie Dempsey and the union movement must now unite and continue to do all they can to enhance workers’ rights and pay. The ‘service-model approach’ should be put to rest and other unions must be bold and unapologetic like the RMT. Unions must continue to spread the message to all via feet on the ground outreach – especially to our young workers – that it is imperative to join a workplace union and to consider following in the footsteps of giants – become a union rep.

    The poet Keats wrote, “a thing of beauty is a joy forever” – Eddie and readers of the Canary know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a fairer society is possible and this, is indeed, a beautiful thing. 

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Sarah Gale

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The right-wing media’s strange obsession with war is doing serious damage to young people

    Some in our nation have our history wrong. In light of discussions regarding Ukraine and wider conflicts, the British political class have attempted to galvanise young people with ideas of service to the British state. To specify – the establishment newspaper outlets, elements of Keir Starmer’s cabinet, and the growing far-right Reform UK, have shown their willingness to compel young people to serve king and country.

    They’ve attempted to leverage notions of Britain’s Second World War triumph and National Service (discontinued in 1963) to admonish the young, 14% of whom, as we keep hearing, are not in work, education, or training. Their attempts at historical citation are often misused, sometimes just factually incorrect, and this narrative will continue to hurt a generation which has already been mistreated.

    War in British memory: fetishised to send the working class to the frontline

    “If it weren’t for them, you’d be speaking German … we’d all be speaking German” goes the line from schoolteachers to politicians. The generation whose responsibility it was to defend the British shores from Nazi encroachment hold a rightly venerated place in British political and social memory. Young men and women who held firm against Nazi tyranny which swept through France in little but six weeks, have mostly passed away. Anyone who came into contact with veterans of that generation will know their lives were immeasurably different to the ones that their children faced. But the legacy of other war-torn generations remains oversimplified in Britain’s memory.

    The most poignant example of this phenomenon which is not too much discussed, is the First World War, which litters the iconography of British military remembrance. The poppy is nominally a symbol of British appreciation to those who volunteered to give their lives. However, it’s utilised by British nationalists who fetishise historical crimes, and use it as an excuse to suggest sending the working class to the front line. One can observe that this symbol does not do justice to the true history of the First World War and other conflicts, as a series of futile tragedies which needlessly took the lives of generations.

    Not telling the whole truth on remembrance

    Ad infinitum, the poppy and the whole idea of remembrance leaves behind the rage that many (including veterans) feel about the truth of war and international conflict. One should feel grateful and appreciative at the lives given by men in the 6 years between 1939 and 1945, which halted fascist imperialism and its overtake of all Europe. But the purposeful waste and ruin of lives by decision-makers in the 318 year history of the British military is a nauseating disgrace. This is without even really discussing the genuinely countless millions who were murdered by British imperialist projects following the 1707 Act of Union and 1914, where the vast majority of Britain’s wars were offensive and not defensive.

    In recent decades, when young people join the military, they usually come from poor backgrounds, in neglected towns, and do so as a way of getting out, or having experiences they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. These working-class kids are brought into the system, which is more-often-than-not just a job for them, and are then taught to serve a set of institutions whose material intentions involve the killing of innocent people.

    ‘Unpatriotic’ young people

    If they survive, they are promptly spat out and frequently end up jobless and homeless, severed from state welfare. What’s more is that if we ignore this, they will continue to be ensnared by this country’s political right.

    In contemplating where our global situation is, and how this particular idea of remembrance disregards the politics of class in our society, where does it leave the young? In pure and simple terms, according to the top military spokespersons, if the country were to be invaded by a reasonably well equipped foreign state, it would be hopeless. We know this fact from the February 18th speech given by defence secretary John Healy, who seems increasingly anxious at the current capacity of the British state to field manpower and armaments. An intelligent follow-up question should be, then, why do the young feel so unwilling to join the military and serve the state?

    Ask any follower of the British right-wing this question and you get the answer that the generation currently undergoing late adolescence or early adulthood is simply too idle or “unpatriotic” to undertake the defence of their communities. What a flagrant load of bullshit.

    When your government breaks their promises

    The founding idea in modern liberal political theory is the idea of the social contract – in that if all members of a society give over some of their autonomy to the state and the government, they will be able to live in stability, and perhaps prosperity. This notion, widely understood in the pre and post-WW2 era, has completely vanished. If you listen to popular political commentators and economic analysts on the left, then you would know that this is because of neoliberalism.

    The way that movement for ultra-capitalism stripped working people of job security, and any hope of social welfare, has led many young working-class people to completely forgo the idea of a permanent home, a stable career, and a steady community. Socialists and anarchists know that the economy puts assets in the hands of a small number of people, and that the state will protect itself before its citizens. But not being surprised doesn’t help anyone when your society continues to crack.

    Autonomy for our communities who won’t stand for exploitation any longer

    What we should be demanding is autonomy for our communities, so they can make their own decisions on matters of welfare, community support, and self-reliance. Taking the current system as it is however, if you’re going to ask working people to potentially sign over their lives, you need to make and keep your promises. You need to give them something to fight for, rather than only something to fight against, however dangerous the adversary.

    The British Welfare State was not a generous offer of charity from the establishment to ‘the poor’ of 1950s Britain; it was a concession given to those who lived under systems of exploitation and likely wouldn’t stand for it any longer. With the probability of global conflict in our lifetimes, working people are yet to see anything of the sort.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Horton

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: from the DWP to the economy – who doesn’t hate Keir Starmer?

    Whoever would’ve thought that Labour’s malevolent assault on the sick and disabled people of Britain would plummet Keir Starmer’s widely detested Labour Party government to new depths of utterly deserved unpopularity?

    Anyone with an iota of common sense, possibly?

    Even before Starmer and Reeves chose to unleash a raft of cost-cutting measures across the welfare budget, poverty was on the rise. Child poverty has shamefully soared to a record 4.5 million – 100,000 up on the previous year.

    21st century capitalism has been an unmitigated disaster, so why is Starmer insisting on dragging us down this demonstrably ruinous and self-destructive path?

    Labour should be dismantling capitalism – not worsening it

    Britain’s capitalist state doesn’t need rebuilding, it needs dismantling, destroying, and burying in the bowel of Satan, somewhere between colonialism and Margaret Thatcher

    Apparently, we have the sixth largest economy in the world. Britain’s billionaires saw their wealth increase by £11 billion, last year.

    I need you to explain it to me as if I am five-years-old, please.

    I do not understand why this god awful Labour government thinks it is entirely necessary to hit children, sick and disabled people, their careers, and Britain’s pensioners with the brunt of austerity 2.0. Do you?

    I do not understand why this corrupted Labour government is hellbent on serving up one overt act of aggression after another against the sick and poor while giving bosses and bankers the green light to continue to make eye-watering profits out of the exploitation of the working classes. Do you?

    I dare you, Labour voter, I fucking dare you to come and tell me how your favourite Labour MP would manage to survive off £12.21 an hour. I’m all ears.

    Take away their energy bill handouts from the public purse. Take away the blatant corporate bribery that lavishes these £94,000-a-year careerist carpetbaggers with tickets to everything from sold-out Taylor Swift concerts to Premier League football matches – luxuries that are way beyond the means of ordinary people.

    Did you know, these MPs — that want to legislate for a legal right to kill a disabled person if they can’t manage to dispose of us through the traditional social murder method — can even claim back the cost of a fucking TV licence?

    But let’s all celebrate keeping poor people in their place, right?

    Turncoats

    Labour MPs, once vocally supportive of Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 ‘For The Many’ manifesto that won 12,877,918 votes (three million more than Starmer’s apparent landslide) seem to think it’s worth cheering about.

    These remorseless, entirely-owned freeloaders are more concerned with the cost and standard of food in the House of Commons restaurants than they will ever be with the cost and standard of the cheap processed shit that you are forced to serve up to your family.

    The Tories’ cost of living crisis hasn’t magically disappeared. It has simply been given a thin coat of red gloss paint and largely ignored by the corporate media in favour of the blundering tangerine tantrum and the rich dude that didn’t actually create Tesla, across the pond.

    If I have still got your attention, Labour voters, you might remember telling us something along the lines of, “Let’s get Starmer in first and then worry about what follows”. Ring any bells?

    Well, here we are. Starmer is in power and his government has had plenty of time to let us know what to expect over the duration of this parliament

    And they had the bloody nerve to call *us*, “Tory enablers”? Have you ever seen a Labour Party that is so reliably obedient to power and wealth?

    What follows is what’s important

    Now is the time to concern ourselves with what follows, because the British government has declared a vindictive and entirely unnecessary war on those with the least means to defend themselves.

    Now is the time to confront the rampant inequality that slices its way through our little-remaining social fabric. Middle manager Starmer doesn’t want to spook the ruling classes, the billionaire media and the wealth-hoarding elite because he doesn’t have a fucking backbone.

    Now is the time for Labour’s dogmatic obsession with debt reduction to end and Starmer’s useless government has to indicate how they are going to pay for the massive increase in public spending that is needed to produce economic growth.

    Rachel from accounts’ plan for growth would make sense if she had a fucking clue knew how to achieve it. Employing Tory policies to tackle a Tory-made crisis isn’t going to create growth, but it will create hardship, record food bank usage, poverty wages, and a continuing downward spiral for your standard of living.

    Are you a Labour supporter? Take a glance at the opinion polls and ask yourself if austerity 2.0 and trying to “out-racist the racists” in the upcoming Runcorn and Helsby by-election is working well for you and your party.

    Labour are likely to lose this safe red seat to Reform UK. They are likely to lose the next general election because Keir Starmer and his rancid Labour government are synonymous with deceit, betrayal, incompetence, humiliation and hypocrisy.

    Labour: letting in a Farage/Badenoch government

    How does a Farage/Badenoch government sound to you, Mr Starmer? Because that is exactly where you are leading us to.

    There is no trust in Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, they have no ethics and no moral etiquette. If Keir Starmer told you to close your eyes so he can pray for you, keep one eye open.

    By the time Keir Starmer has finished attacking sick and disabled people, privatising the NHS, killing off pensioners and reducing Britain to an insignificant, global laughing stock, you probably won’t see another Labour government in your lifetime.

    Bookmark this article, come back in four years time and read this final sentence.

    Labour will gift the next general election to the hard-right, marking the biggest defeat for an incumbent government since 1685, and hell on earth will be unleashed.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ian Powell: When apartheid met Zionism – the case for NZ recognising Palestine as a state

    COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell

    The 1981 Springbok Tour was one of the most controversial events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. For 56 days, between July and September, more than 150,000 people took part in more than 200 demonstrations in 28 centres.

    It was the largest protest in the country’s history.

    It caused social ruptures within communities and families across the country. With the National government backing the tour, protests against apartheid sport turned into confrontations with both police and pro-tour rugby fans — on marches and at matches.

    The success of these mass protests was that this was the last tour in either country between the two teams with the strongest rivalry among rugby playing nations.

    This deeply rooted antipathy towards the racism of apartheid helps provide context to today’s growing opposition by New Zealanders to the horrific actions of another apartheid state.

    A township protest against apartheid in South Africa in 1980
    A township protest against apartheid in South Africa in 1980. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Understanding apartheid
    Apartheid is a humiliating, repressive and brutal legislated segregation through separation of social groups. In South Africa, this segregation was based on racism (white supremacy over non-whites; predominantly Black Africans but also Asians).

    For nearly three centuries before 1948, Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by Dutch and British colonists. In 1948, this oppression was upgraded to an official legal policy of apartheid.

    Apartheid does not have to be necessarily by race. It could also be religious based. An earlier example was when Christians separated Jews into ghettos on the false claim of inferiority.

    In August 2024, Le Monde Diplomatic published article (paywalled) by German prize-winning journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann on apartheid in both Israel and South Africa under the heading “When Apartheid met Zionism”:

    She asked the pointed question of what did it mean to be Jewish in a country that saw Israel through the lens of its own experience of apartheid?

    It is a fascinating question making her article an excellent read. Le Monde Diplomatic is a quality progressive magazine, well worth the subscription to read many articles as interesting as this one.

    Relevant Wiedemann observations
    Wiedemann’s scope is wider than that of this blog but many of her observations are still pertinent to my analysis of the relationship between the two apartheid states.

    Most early Jewish immigrants to South Africa fled pogroms and poverty in tsarist Lithuania. This context encouraged many to believe that every human being deserved equal respect, regardless of skin colour or origin.

    Blatant widespread white-supremacist racism had been central to South Africa’s history of earlier Dutch and English colonialism. But this shifted to a further higher level in May 1948 when apartheid formally became central to South Africa’s legal and political system.

    Although many Jews were actively opposed to apartheid it was not until 1985, 37 years later, that Jewish community leaders condemned it outright. In the words of Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

    “The Jewish community benefited from apartheid and an apology must be given … We ask forgiveness.”

    On the one hand, Jewish lawyers defended Black activists, But, on the other hand, it was a Jewish prosecutor who pursued Nelson Mandela with “extraordinary zeal” in the case that led to his long imprisonment.

    Israel became one of apartheid South Africa’s strongest allies, including militarily, even when it had become internationally isolated, including through sporting and economic boycotts. Israel’s support for the increasingly isolated apartheid state was unfailing.

    Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.

    But it was Zionism that grew stronger under apartheid. Prior to 1948 it was a nationalist movement advocating for a homeland for Jewish people in the “biblical land of Israel”.

    Zionism provided the rationale for the ideas that actively sought and achieved the existence of the Israeli state. This, and consequential forced removal of so many Palestinians from their homeland, made Zionism a “natural fit” in apartheid South Africa.

    Nelson Mandela and post-apartheid South Africa
    Although strongly pro-Palestinian, post-apartheid South Africa has never engaged in Holocaust denial. In fact, Holocaust history is compulsory in its secondary schools.

    Its first president, Nelson Mandela, was very clear about the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust. As Charlotte Wiedemann observes:

    “Quite the reverse . . .  In 1994 Mandela symbolically marked the end of apartheid at an exhibition about Anne Frank. ‘By honouring her memory as we do today’ he said at its opening, ‘we are saying with one voice: never and never again!’”

    In a 1997 speech, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela also reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights:

    “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

    There is a useful account of Mandela’s relationship with and support for Palestinians published by Middle East Eye.

    Mandela’s identification with Palestine was recognised by Palestinians themselves. This included the construction of an impressive statue of him on what remains of their West Bank homeland.

    Palestinians stand next to a 6 metre high statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2016
    Palestinians stand next to a 6 metre high statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2016. It was donated by the South African city of Johannesburg, which is twinned with Ramallah. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Comparing apartheid in South Africa and Israel
    So how did apartheid in South Africa compare with apartheid in Israel. To begin with, while both coincidentally began in May 1948, in South Africa this horrendous system ended over 30 years ago. But in Israel it not only continues, it intensifies.

    Broadly speaking, this included Israel adapting the infamously cruel “Bantustan system” of South Africa which was designed to maintain white supremacy and strengthen the government’s apartheid policy. It involved an area set aside for Black Africans, purportedly for notional self-government.

    In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the early 1990s culminating in South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994.

    Tragically, for Palestinians in their homeland, apartheid not only continues but is intensified by ethnic cleansing delivered by genocide, both incrementally and in surges.

    Apartheid Plus: ethnic cleansing and genocide
    Israel has gone further than its former southern racist counterpart. Whereas South Africa’s economy depended on the labour exploitation of its much larger African workforce, this was relatively much less so for Israel.

    As much as possible Israel’s focus was, and still is, instead on the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homeland.

    This began in 1948 with what is known by Palestinians as the Nakba (“the catastrophe”) when many were physically displaced by the creation of the Israeli state. Genocide is the increasing means of delivering ethnic cleansing.

    Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas by deporting or forcibly displacing people belonging to particular ethnic groups.

    It can also include the removal of all physical vestiges of the victims of this cleansing through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

    This destructive removal has been the unfortunate Palestinian experience in much of today’s Israel and its occupied or controlled territories. It is continuing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

    Genocide involves actions intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

    In contrast with civil war, genocide usually involves deaths on a much larger scale with civilians invariably and deliberately the targets. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

    Today the Israeli slaughter and destruction in Gaza is a huge genocidal surge with the objective of being the “final solution” while incremental genocide of Palestinians speeds up in the occupied West Bank.

    Notwithstanding the benefits of the recent ceasefire, it freed up Israel to militarily focus on repressing West Bank Palestinians.

    Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the current vulnerable hiatus of the ceasefire has shifted from military action to starvation.

    The final word
    One of the encouraging features has been the massive protests against the genocide throughout the world. In a relative context, and while not on the same scale as the mass protests against the racist South African rugby tour in 1981, this includes New Zealand.

    Many Jews, including in New Zealand and in the international protests such as at American universities, have been among the strongest critics of the ethnic cleansing through genocide of the apartheid Israeli state.

    They have much in common with the above-mentioned Bundist focus on social justice in contrast to the dogmatic biblical extremism of Zionism.

    Amos Goldberg, professor of genocidal studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is one such Jew. Let’s leave the final word to him:

    “It’s so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained.”

    This is a compelling case for the New Zealand government to join the many other countries in formally recognising the state of Palestine.

    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.

  • I Love My Country but…

    This writer recalls back in the mid 80s when I took myself a vacation to Club Med in Martinique. It was discount time, June, so I could afford the week of fun. When I arrived at the facility, man it was a lot hotter than Elmont, Long Island. They placed me in a cottage with a roommate, nice guy from the Philly area, a bit younger than my 35 years. The first night we both were bushed from the trip and the heat. I lay in my bed with the bug net surrounding me. I suddenly realized that the place had no AC, just windows with slots… enough to let ALL the mosquitoes in. Having an enlarged prostate meant at least two or three trips to the john. My initial piss trip allowed me to see who my enemies were- mosquitoes, at least three or four humongous ones, awaited me by the toilet.

    The next morning, after breakfast, I was walking through the grounds when something stung me in my calf. I hobbled to the infirmary to be treated as the lump just grew seemingly like a red cherry. That afternoon I said, “Screw this,” and I checked out immediately. A Mercedes town car picked me up and off I went to the airport. Before that, I called my secretary and arranged to have a taxi pick me up at JFK upon my arrival. A few brief hours later I was hobbling out of the cab and up to my attic apartment. As I entered the hallway, I fell to my knees and literally kissed the carpeted floor. At that moment I vowed to never diss my country again.

    Sadly, my love affair with America only lasted until, 16 years later, the Bush-Cheney Cabal orchestrated their phony war on Iraq. From that point on I realized that I will always be in conflict between my love for what this nation should stand for, and the leaders who I cannot stand. Not enough bug nets to keep their evil away from me.

    The post I Love My Country but… first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • With Hasbara failing, Israel placed Hossam Shabat on a kill list

    While public opinion of Israel plummets, each day the genocide continues without significant repercussions only reinforces that they can ignore this opinion, writes Alex Foley.

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Alex Foley

    Israel announced that Hossam Shabat was a “terrorist” alongside six other Palestinian journalists. Hossam predicted they would assassinate him.

    He survived several attempts on his life. He wrote a brief obituary for himself at the age of 23, carried on reporting, and then on March 24, 2025, Israel killed him.

    For those of us outside of Gaza, helpless to stop the carnage but unable to look away, a begrudging numbness has set in, a psychic lidocaine to cope with the daily images of the shattered bodies of dead children.

    The other pro-Palestinian advocates and activists I speak with all mention familiar brain fogs and free-floating agitations.

    By this point, I am accustomed to opening my phone and steeling myself for the horrors. But learning of Hossam’s death cut through me like a warm knife.

    Through whatever fluke of the internet, many of the friends I have made over the course of the genocide are from the city of Beit Hanoun, like Hossam Shabat.

    One was his classmate. Another walked with him through the bombed-out ruins of the North. Looking upon his upturned face, splattered with three stripes of crimson blood, I could not help but imagine each of them lying there in his place.

    To quote my dear friend Ibrahim Al-Masri:

    “Hossam Shabat wasn’t alone. He carried the grief of Beit Hanoun, the cries of children trapped under rubble, the aching voices of mothers queuing for bread, and the gasps of the wounded in hospitals that no longer functioned as hospitals.”

    Many will remember the video of 14-year-old aspiring journalist Maisam Al-Masri greeting Hossam Shabat in his car, elated that he had not been killed when the occupation first took the North.

    Separated from family
    Hossam remained in Northern Gaza throughout the genocide, separated from his family, in full knowledge that staying and working was a death sentence. His reports were an invaluable insight into the occupation’s crimes, and for that they killed him.

    In death, his eyes remained open, bearing witness one last time.

    The Israeli account is, of course, very different. The Israeli army has claimed that Hossam Shabat was a “Hamas sniper” with the Beit Hanoun Battalion.

    It is the kind of paper-thin lie we have grown accustomed to, dutifully repeated by the Western press. I am no military tactician, but I find it hard to believe that a young man with a high profile who reported his location frequently, including in live broadcasts, would be an effective sniper.

    In the weeks before he was assassinated, Hossam Shabat was tweeting up to a dozen times a day.

    Hasbara killed Hossam Shabat because it’s losing the PR war
    A qualitative shift has occurred over the course of the genocide; Israel no longer seems interested in or capable of convincing the rest of the world that its actions are just. Rather, they are preoccupied with producing increasingly flimsy justifications with the sole aim of quelling internal dissent.

    The Hasbara machine is foundering.

    How could it not? For 17 months we have experienced a daily split screen between the endless stream of atrocities committed against the Palestinians and the screeching histrionics of Zionist influencers. While the people of Gaza endure blockade and bombing, Noa Tishby and Michael Rapaport moan about campus demonstrations.

    The campus encampments are also the subject of a new documentary, October 8, currently in theatres throughout the US. Originally titled October H8te, the film claims to be a “searing look at the eruption of antisemitism in America that started the day after Hamas’ attack on Israel”.

    The trailer is a series of to-camera interviews of the usual suspects, all decrying the lack of support Zionists discovered in the wake of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. They cite social media censorship and foreign interference as reasons for Zionism’s wild unpopularity among college students.

    It never seems to occur to them that it might be Israel’s actions doing the damage.

    In a recently shared clip, former Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg, leans into the victim role, fighting through tears that do not come while relaying a story of asking a close friend if she would hide her while the pair were on a walk. Sandberg attributes her friend’s confusion at the question to the woman not being Jewish and not to the fact that it is a frankly absurd thing for a woman worth over $2 billion to ask.

    ‘Disappearing’ student protesters
    The reality is, while Sandberg talks about how unsafe she feels in the US because of the university encampments, the government itself has begun “disappearing” student protesters on her behalf.

    Plainclothes ICE agents are continuing to abduct student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk at the behest of Betar USA, a far-right militant movement founded by Jabotinsky that has been providing the Trump administration with deportation lists.

    The violent fantasies that Sandberg argues warrant a global outpouring of sympathy for Zionists are being enacted on an almost daily basis against the very students she claims are a threat.

    The hysteria around the encampments has reached a new ludicrous pitch with a lawsuit filed by a group including the families of hostages taken on October 7 against students at Columbia, among them Khalil, whom they allege have been coordinating with Hamas.

    The “bombshell” filing includes such evidence as an Instagram post by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine published three minutes before Hamas’ attack that stated, “We are back!!” after the account was dormant for several months.

    The reasonable person might note that the inactivity on the account coincided with the Summer holidays. They might point out that it seems unlikely Hamas was coordinating with student groups in the US about an operation that required the element of surprise.

    They might even question what the American students could provide that would make such a risk worth it.

    Securing flow of weapons
    But Hasbara is no longer concerned with the reasonable person; its sole purpose is securing the flow of weapons. Despite the government announcing earlier this year that they are spending an additional $150 million on “international PR,” Israel seems increasingly uninterested in convincing anyone other than the Western governments that still back them.

    While public opinion of Israel plummets, each day the genocide continues without significant repercussions only reinforces that they can ignore this opinion.

    This is reflected in the degree to which the goalposts have shifted. First, we were told Israel would never bomb a hospital, then we were shown elaborate schematics of nonexistent subterranean command centres, and now they execute and bury first responders without so much as a shrug.

    The perverse result of Hasbara falling apart is more brazen, ruthless killing.

    While legacy media may still run interference for Israel and universities continue to roll over for the Trump administration, Israel is facing a real threat. It can kill and kill — the number of journalists they have slain far outstrips other major conflicts — but for every Hossam Shabat they kill, there is a Maisam waiting in the wings, ready to shed light on their crimes.

    Alex Foley is a researcher and painter living in Brighton, UK. They have a background in molecular biology of health and disease. They are the co-founder of the Accountability Archive, a web tool preserving fragile digital evidence of pro-genocidal rhetoric from power holders. Follow them on X:@foleywoley Republished from The New Arab under Creative Commons.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NZ’s refreshingly candid ex-envoy Phil Goff – why I spoke out on Trump

    Now that Phil Goff has ended his term as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, he is officially free to speak his mind on the damage he believes the Trump Administration is doing to the world. He has started with these comments he made on the betrayal of Ukraine by the new Administration.

    By Phil Goff

    Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

    As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

    I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

    Phil Goff speaking as Auckland's mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on
    Phil Goff speaking as Auckland’s mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on . . . on the right side of history. Image: Pacific Media Centre

    Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

    Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

    That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

    It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

    Withdrew satellite imaging
    It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

    Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
    What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

    Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

    Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

    As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

    They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

    The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

    Silence condoning Trump
    By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

    It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

    The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

    Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

    Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

    As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

    The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

    A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

    Question central to validity, ethics
    “The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

    The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

    The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

    Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

    They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

    In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

    We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

    Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • NATO is Breaking apart

    On April 2, Reuters headlined “US officials object to European push to buy weapons locally,” which means that Trump’s demand for Europe to increase greatly its ‘defense’ spending is, indeed, part of his plan to keep the boom in the U.S. stock markets going. This needs to be understood in the relevant context:

    Though none of the mainstream press reported the fact in 2017, Trump started his Presidency in 2017 by making the biggest armaments-sale in history: $400 billion in U.S.-made weapons to Saudi Arabia over the next ten years, which would keep the by-far-most profitable segment of the U.S. stock markets — the ‘defense’ sector — booming, and therefore keep American billionaires (whom those corporations benefit enormously in every possible way) continuing to grow their personal fortunes at a much faster clip than the U.S. economy itself grows (which has been quite sluggish — below the global average for all countries); and, this way, the fortunes of billionaires will continue to thrive even if the U.S. economy doesn’t (as has been the case now for at least the past 25 years).

    Right now, Trump is promising to stop America’s apparently ceaseless creation of, and participation (such as in Ukraine) in, foreign wars, but he isn’t reducing — and is instead actually increasing — America’s ‘defense’ (aggression) expenditures while cutting virtually everything else (the federal expenditures that don’t help billionaires); and, in order to do this beyond the 2027 end-date of his $400 billion weapons-sale to the Sauds, he is trying to get America’s colonies (‘allies’), such as Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc., to increase their armaments-purchases from American firms such as Lockheed Martin — the firms whose sales-volumes are especially important to America’s billionaires, the people who control the U.S. Government. This is why he doesn’t want Europeans to grow their own ‘defense’ industries.

    If a European nation will allow foreign (especially American) billionaires to benefit from its sharp increase in armaments-purchases, this won’t hurt ONLY their own domestic billionaires, but it will ALSO be sending those manufacturing jobs to America and thereby boost America’s economy at the expense of the local economy. For Trump to be requesting them to do that is to insult not only that country’s billionaires but also its residents.

    This is not the only reason why NATO might soon break apart. For example: Trump is determined to take Greenland for the U.S. Government — to expand the U.S. to include Greenland. However, polls show that around 85% of Greenlanders are opposed to that, and Trump is also saying that if they won’t willingly comply, then he will do it militarily. Greenland is a Danish colony, and Denmark is a part of NATO. If the U.S. invades Greenland, then how will other countries in NATO feel about that? It would present the U.S. blatantly as aggressor against a NATO member-nation — the very nation that had previously been supposedly their chief protector. What would this do to NATO?

    The U.S. Congress is, according to the U.S. Constitution, supposed to be the ultimate determinant of whether or not U.S. military forces invade another country; but, so far, there has been prevailing silence from Congress about Trump’s threat against Greenlanders and even Danes — not the outrage that would prevail if America were still governed under its Constitution.

    We are entering the twilight zone. Will it turn out to be the end of the U.S. empire — the end of the largest empire in all of world history? It could — especially if Congress remains silent about what has been happening. The longer this silence continues, the deeper into it we are getting.

    This is certainly a weird moment in world history. Of course, ultimately, NATO will end, but the question is when and how. NATO had started on 25 July 1945 as a sentiment and resulting decision by Truman, and was then born in 1949, but is probably near its end now, and the public don’t know it because lots of ‘history’ that has been told in The West is false.

    The post NATO is Breaking apart first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with US hit hardest

    ANALYSIS: By Niven Winchester, Auckland University of Technology

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10 percent. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46 percent), Thailand (36 percent), China (34 percent), Indonesia (32 percent), Taiwan (32 percent) and Switzerland (31 percent).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20 percent tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54 percent. Countries assigned 10 percent tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25 percent tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation
    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools — known as “computable general equilibrium models” — are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45 percent). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24 percent) and Canada (1.65 percent) as these nations ship more than 75 percent of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99 percent) and Switzerland (0.32 percent).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29 percent) and Brazil (0.28 percent) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43 percent). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation
    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49 percent) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.The Conversation

    Dr Niven Winchester is professor of economics, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

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

    carbon footprint labels
    6 Mins Read

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Making climate risks relatable

    fork ranger
    Courtesy: Fork Ranger

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

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

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

    Equivalently effective labeling

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

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

    Clouds, coal or car trips?

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

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

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

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

    Climate costs in micro-lives

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

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

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

    The promises and pitfalls of omni-labels

    carbon labels on food
    Courtesy: Nature Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

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

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

    — Thomas Palley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

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

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

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

    Palestine marches: peaceful – yet the Met will not engage

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

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

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

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

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

    Met Police: happily meeting with the Zionist lobby

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via Steve Eason

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Joe Gill

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

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

    It is fully on board with genocide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    The international response to this latest massacre? Zilch.

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

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

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

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

    No condemnation of the slaughter of nearly 200 children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    International law and international aid are out.

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

    Police stormed the building and arrested six young women.

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

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

    By Leilani Farha of The New Arab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    After all, Area C is Palestine.

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

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

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

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

    Or something like that.

    Starmer: another indefensible week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Starmer: business as usual

    Proud, you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Nemesis

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

    Narcissist Praxis

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

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

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

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

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

     Russia and Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Nemesis first appeared on Dissident Voice.

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

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

    jeff tripician
    4 Mins Read

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

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

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

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

    The problem

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

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

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

    The solution

    lab grown meat event
    Courtesy: Meatable

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

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

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

    The way forward

    Courtesy: Meatable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

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

    The following article is a comment piece from the Palestine Coalition

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

    Labour: regressing the right to protest

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

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

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

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

    Crackdowns on protest already happening

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

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

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

    Context

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

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

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

    Incompatible with the right to protest

    Ben Jamal, director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, says:

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.